Search This Blog

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Sex is the philosophical battleground, Darwinism is the attacking army. On sex, marriage and rape and the opposite positions of Christianity and Darwinism


Sex is the battleground as civilized society is under attack by Naturalists.   People who believe we evolved from primitive organisms are promoting uncivilized behavior.  At the bottom of the destruction of Western Civilization is the belief in evolution.   It is the excuse for racism, for baby-murdering, for tyrants murdering millions of "inferior" people (in their eyes) and of course murdering their political enemies.   Mao, Hitler, Stalin...all the natural result of Darwinism and the Naturalist philosophies associated with it - Malthusian thought, Socialism, Communism, Eugenics.  Presenting three articles for your perusal along the way.   The case to be made is that evolution was popularized for non-scientific reasons.   Evolution has become an excuse to reject God and therefore Godly morality.   The result is a society that gets less civilized every day.  The three articles, in order, make the following assertions:


1) Where did sex come from?  Evolution cannot explain it.
2) What is sex supposed to be in human society?   Darwinists promote deviation from the norm.
3) What is the natural result of an evolutionary view of sex?   Rape.

1)Refuting Evolution 2

Argument: Evolution of sex

Evolutionists say, ‘One of the so-called “problems” of evolution—sexuality—can easily be explained.’
First published in Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 11

PBS 5 was one of the most revealing about the conflicts between evolution and Christianity. The title is ‘Why Sex?’ The usual propaganda is that ‘science’ (stipulatively defined as evolution) is about facts/evidence or ‘how’ questions, while religion deals with values/faith/morals or ‘why’ questions. As explained in chapter 2, this is a faulty distinction, and this episode demonstrates this. Here, evolutionary psychology directly affects questions of sexual morality.
The program also spends much time discussing the advantages of a fully functional sexual reproductive system, but misleadingly implies that this is sufficient to explain its origin.
Sex is said to be more important than life itself, since it enables genes to be passed on to succeeding generations. PBS quotes extensively from Rutgers University evolutionary geneticist Robert Vrijenhoek, who said about sexual reproduction:
That’s our immortality. That’s what connects us to humans on into the future. That’s what’s connected us to all our ancestors in the past. That’s what connects us to the ancestors that were fish, the ancestors that were protozoans, and the ancestors that were bacteria. [PBS 5]
Of course the series merely asserted this connection, apart from dubious implications from some common features (see chapter 6). It’s also important to note how evolution directly impinges on ‘religion’ despite the claims that they are compatible (see chapter 2). Vrijenhoek implies that immortality has nothing to do with survival of the individual.

Asexual v. sexual reproduction

The PBS 5 takes its cameras to Texas, where scientists investigated lizards that were entirely female. They laid eggs that hatched into lizards that were clones of the mother. This is called parthenogenesis, from Greek parthenos (virgin) and Latin genesis (from Greek gignesthai [to be born]). They seemed to do very well, so what’s the point of sex?

Disadvantages of sexual reproduction

Indeed, the program acknowledges that sex has many disadvantages, e.g., only 50 percent of the genes are passed on to an offspring. This means that there is a 50 percent chance of losing a beneficial mutation. And in a stable population (i.e., not changing the number of individuals), there is on average one surviving offspring per parent, so asexual reproduction is twice as efficient at passing on genes to the next generation. Sex also means that an optimal gene configuration can never be passed on in its entirety.
It is also biologically costly to maintain the sex organs, and to maintain mechanisms to stop the male’s immune system destroying his own (genetically different) sperm, and stop the female’s immune system destroying incoming sperm or the offspring she carries (in viviparous organisms). And as will be seen in the sexual selection section below, sometimes sexual displays can be cumbersome and make the organism more vulnerable. Females obviously expend a lot of time and energy if they must bear live young. It takes energy to find a mate, otherwise the organism will die without passing on its genes, and if one sex is eliminated, the species will become extinct. It’s a lot of trouble, considering that asexual organisms such as bacteria reproduce very quickly.
Because of these lizards, the narrator posed the question, ‘Are males really necessary?’ Males eat about half the food, and it means that only half the members of the population (females) are involved directly in bearing young. In an asexual population, all its members bear offspring directly.

Advantages of sexual reproduction

Since sexually reproducing species do well, males must have their uses. PBS 5 then shifts to a pool in Sonora, Mexico, inhabited by a species of minnows, both asexually and sexually reproducing ones. But they are infested with a parasite that causes black spot disease. PBS again quotes geneticist Vrijenhoek, who says that the sexually reproducing minnows are more resistant than the asexual ones.
The researchers invoked the ‘Red Queen Hypothesis,’ invented by Lee van Valen; Alice (in Wonderland) raced the Red Queen, and exclaimed that they had to keep running just to stay in the same relative position. Evolution is supposed to be a race, and the asexual minnows produced clones, then stopped evolving, so are easy targets. But the sexually reproducing minnows produced lots of variation, so presented a moving target. But other evolutionists say, ‘The Red Queen idea is simply a cute name for a zoological myth.’1
This neat hypothesis seemed to be questioned when a drought eliminated the minnows. When the pool was naturally recolonized, the parasites killed the sexually reproducing ones faster. But it turned out that human-introduced sexually reproducing minnows were still the most resistant of all. The natural colonizers turned out to be inbred, so lost the advantage of variability.
So it seems that the variability is a major advantage, and well worth paying the price of transmitting only 50 percent of the genes, and the other disadvantages of males. Sexual reproduction also has a 50 percent chance of losing a harmful mutation without cost to the population (death of an individual).

Advantage doesn’t explain origin!

Creationists can explain the origin of fully functioning sexual reproduction, from the start, in an optimal and genetically diverse population. Once the mechanisms are already in place, they have these advantages. But simply having advantages doesn’t remotely explain how they could be built from scratch. The hypothetical transitional forms would be highly disadvantageous, so natural selection would work against them. In many cases, the male and female genitalia are precisely tuned so one could fit the other, meaning that they could not have evolved independently.

Evolution of sex?

PBS 5 features a cute cartoon of two single-celled creatures with eyes, kissing and exchanging genes. Then the narrator intones:
Random change produced a creature that was small and fast, which turned out to be an evolutionary advantage. Organisms with reproductive cells like that are called males. Their goal is to find organisms with a different speciality—providing the nutrients life requires. They’re called females. These early pioneers evolved into sperm and eggs. [PBS 5]
Hang on—not only is slick animation no substitute for evidence, but somewhere along the line this program jumped from alleged male and female single-celled creatures to multicellular organisms containing cells like them. The narrator continued:
Males produce sperm by the millions—with so many potential offspring, it doesn’t pay to be fussy about eggs. A better strategy is to try to fertilize as many eggs as you can. Eggs are more complex than sperm and take a larger investment of energy. Females make a limited number of them. Fewer eggs mean fewer chances to pass on genes, and that means that females—unlike males—do better if they’re choosy. At a deep biological level, males and females want different things, regardless of how things appear on the surface … . Small sperm versus large eggs … . Quantity versus quality. [PBS 5]
At about the same time, the program showed a man and woman under a sheet, probably naked but not showing too much of that, indulging in sexual foreplay, then lots of sequences of animals having sex. Is this program really meant for young schoolchildren?
Then the program explains male competition for mates and ornate sexual displays, while females exercise choice. Supposedly the concept of female choice was often discounted in Victorian England (with a female head of state who ruled for more than 60 years).
But the program shifts to a role-reversing bird in Panama. Supposedly, the crocodiles eat so many chicks that females leave the males in charge of the eggs while they try to reproduce again. The females are the ones that keep harems, and kill chicks and break eggs of other females. The narrator says:
So now it’s the females who care more about quality than quantity. Now it’s the females who fight over mates. Over time, they take on traditionally male characteristics … . So here is an evolutionary revelation about gender. Male and female roles are not set in stone. They’re largely determined by which sex competes for mates, and which invests in the young. [PBS 5]
But before, it was the relative size and speed of sperm and egg that caused males to compete and females to invest more time with their offspring, and other behavioral differences. Now, competition and investment in young are no longer effects but are themselves causes that overturn the roles expected from the differences in gametes. What this really means is that evolution as an explanatory framework is so plastic that its proponents can explain mutually contradictory states of affairs, if they have enough imagination to create plausible just-so stories.
In line with the rest of the series, PBS 5 aims to indoctrinate viewers to think that the origin of sex is well explained by evolution. A decent documentary would not have censored evidence against this view. In reality, evolutionists really have no idea how sex could have evolved. Even the atheist Richard Dawkins says:
To say, as I have, that good genes can benefit from the existence of sex whereas bad genes can benefit from its absence, is not the same thing as explaining why sex is there at all. There are many theories of why sex exists, and none of them is knock-down convincing … . Maybe one day I’ll summon up the courage to tackle it in full and write a whole book on the origin of sex.2
The smug assurances of the PBS program are also contradicted by the evolutionist journal Science: ‘How sex began and why it thrived remain a mystery.’3

Sexual selection

Darwin is most famous for the idea that natural selection is a driving force behind evolution. But he realized that this would not explain a number of features that seem to be a hindrance, e.g., the peacock tail. So Darwin invoked the idea of sexual selection, where choice by the opposite sex played a huge part in determining which individuals were able to pass on their genes. Later on, sexual selection is invoked to explain the human brain.
Creationists deny neither natural nor sexual selection. For example, we think it’s likely that sexual selection augmented natural selection in producing the different people groups (‘races’) from a single population of humans that were isolated after Babel.4
The difference is that creationists recognize that selection can work only on existing genetic information. Evolutionists believe that mutation provides new information for selection. But no known mutation has ever increased genetic information, although there should be many examples observable today if mutation/selection were truly adequate to explain the goo-to-you theory.5

Chimps and bonobos

The common chimpanzee Pan troglodytes and the bonobo (or pygmy chimp) Pan paniscus hybridize, so are the same biblical kind. Sometimes they are classified as the subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes and P.t. paniscus, respectively, within the same species. Although they look similar, live in similar environments, and eat similar food, their behavior is different.
Chimps are violent, and bonobos are peaceful. PBS 5 program shows the San Diego Wild Animal Park, and displays bonobos having ‘every imaginable’ type of recreational copulation, both heterosexual and homosexual, with a running commentary worthy of a hyper-testosteronic adolescent schoolboy.
So how is their behavior explained? Supposedly by female solidarity: they ‘can form alliances and cooperatively dominate males’ whereas the chimp males abuse females. So how to explain female solidarity? ‘A relatively simple change in feeding ecology was responsible for this dramatic difference in social behavior.’ Female bonobos forage on the ground, so have opportunities for social interaction. Female chimps can’t do this because gorillas eat the food on the ground, so females must forage on fruit trees alone. Supposedly a drought two million years ago killed the gorillas, and enabled a population of chimps to forage on the ground and evolve into bonobos. What a pity, says the program, that we didn’t have a similar history and evolve ‘to be a totally different, more peaceful, less violent, and more sexual species.’
As usual, we shouldn’t expect actual evidence for this story. From the available evidence, it’s impossible to prove cause-effect. In other words, how can we disprove that it was the other way round, i.e., that female solidarity didn’t generate ground foraging behavior, or even that a gorilla invasion didn’t cause bonobos to devolve into chimps?

Sexual morality v. evolutionary psychology

A female may well want the male with the best genes to ensure that her offspring are the ‘fittest.’ But her best strategy for offspring survival could be finding a male who will stick around and help her care for the young. The male’s best strategy is to make sure the offspring are his, so monogamy would have a selective advantage.
But other evolutionary forces threaten monogamy. For example, songbirds are monogamous, but sometimes a female will lust after a male with stronger genes. But this is risky—if the ‘husband’ finds out, he could kill the offspring.
Concepts from animals are applied to humans in the new field of evolutionary psychology. In the PBS program, Geoffrey Miller claimed that our brain is too extravagant to have evolved by natural selection. He claimed, ‘It wasn’t God, it was our ancestors,’ via sexual selection, that shaped our brain ‘by choosing their sexual partners for their brains, for their behavior, during courtship.’ Art, music, and humor played the part of the peacock tail.
Supposedly this is borne out by tests of human attraction. Men prefer women’s faces with full lips, indicating high estrogen; and other facial features, indicating low testosterone. Both are indicators of fertility. So now males do make choices despite having fast and small sperm? Once more, evolution explains any state of affairs, so really explains nothing.
Women looking for a short-term fling, or who are ovulating, prefer more masculine faces, indicating ‘good’ genes. But they prefer more feminine ‘gentler’ men for a long-term relationship, because they will be more likely to help care for her children. But appearances can be deceptive. We also wonder whether a face of a person from a different people group would be picked as often, although there is no disadvantage to the offspring’s genes from so-called interracial marriages.6
While there’s a fleeting disclaimer that evolutionary psychology is controversial even among evolutionists, this program presents Miller’s ideas uncritically and unchallenged. But a review of his book, The Mating Mind, in New Scientist said:
How does one actually test these ideas? Without a concerted effort to do this, evolutionary psychology will remain in the realms of armchair entertainment rather than real science.7
A leading evolutionary paleoanthropologist, Ian Tattersall, was equally scathing of Miller’s book:
In the end we are looking here at the product of a storyteller’s art, not of science.8

Why an episode on sex?

In searching for explanations as to why evolutionists would feel passionately enough about their belief system to spend so many millions foisting it upon the public as in the PBS Evolution series, one may not have to look much further than this segment. It is as if those looking for justification of an ‘anything goes’ approach to sexual morality have had a major hand in this segment. With humans already portrayed as just an advanced species of ape, and sex as a mere tool for propagation of genes, the way the program dwelt on the random hetero/homo ‘flings’ of our alleged bonobo ‘cousins,’ and the association with an allegedly superior, more peaceful lifestyle, was telling.

Related Articles

References and notes

  1. L. Margulis and D. Sagan, What Is Sex? (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1997), p. 121.
  2. R. Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1997), p. 75.
  3. B. Wuethrich, Why Sex? Putting the Theory to the Test, Science 281:1980–1982, 1998.
  4. The human ‘races’ issue is covered more fully in C. Wieland, One Human Family: The Bible, science, race and culture (Creation Book Publishers, 2011).
  5. Note that even if such a mutation were ever discovered, evolutionists would still need to find hundreds more to give their theory the observational boost it desperately needs. See L. Spetner, Not by Chance (New York, NY: Judaica Press, 1999); also see Carl Wieland, CMI’s views on the intelligent design movement, 30 August 2002.
  6. K. Ham, Inter-racial marriage: is it biblical? Creation 21(3):22–25, June–August 1999.
  7. T. Birkhead, Strictly for the Birds, review of The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, New Scientist, p. 48–49, 13 May 2000.
  8. I. Tattersall, Whatever Turns You On. Review of The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, New York Times Book Review, 11 June 2000.

Note about citations: Quotations from the Scientific American article by John Rennie will be labeled ‘SA,’ followed by the page number. Quotations from, and other mentions of, the PBS-TV series ‘Evolution,’ will be labeled ‘PBS,’ followed by the episode number, e.g. ‘PBS 6’ refers to Episode 6. Return to article.

One of the assaults on civilized society is the attack on marriage.  There are civil unions that have been provided for those who are not man/woman relationships.   The very definition of marriage is a man and a woman.   Why do homosexuals and pedophiles work so hard to change what marriage is and destroy the franchise?   Easy.  Once you allow homosexuals to "marry" then next comes the adult and child marriage relationship.   Do you really think the close relationship between NAMBLA and LGBT is all about?  Sexual deviants know that as one deviancy becomes accepted, the next one is in line for consideration.   Homosexuals are not satisfied with being allowed to maintain relationships, they are militantly seeking to recruit children to become homosexuals as well.   Children are being brainwashed in public schools to not only accept homosexuals but to try out the practice for themselves, in many cases this is happening in grade schools, where being taught to be sexually active should be a criminal offense rather than a curriculum requirement.   


Once homosexuality is allowed to steal marriage, then the next goal for the deviants is to normalize adult-child marriages.   NAMBLA is focused on adult men having sex with children, and they are tilted towards homosexual relationships.   Men in the NAMBLA want to normalize a sexual relationship between a 50 year old man and a 7 year old boy and hoping for a marriage law that includes this scenario.   They want "Gay Marriage" to become law, then they will go after the ages so that it will become legal for people to marry young teenagers and then children.   You don't think so?

Adults, what do you think your grandparents would think about "Gay Marriage?"   Men who put their lives on the line to defeat Hitler would be angered to see the elements of Fascism that have invaded our society.   The vast majority of the generation that stepped up to defeat tyranny and the holocaust would see elements of Hitler's Germany becoming accepted in the USA in the 21st Century and they'd be angry.   I am angry.  You should be angry! 
  
As a society we decided to allow sexual deviancy to exist and not be criminal activity, at least homosexuality.   But now it has become celebrated and is being promoted.   How many television dramas and comedies are bringing in happy homosexuals to the fore?  Quite often they are a caricature, effeminate males and aggressive females as homosexuals in sitcoms, often "artsy" and so often being portrayed as bullied.  Yet it is the homosexual community and their allies who are being belligerent    It is propaganda and it is everywhere in the media.   Movies,  television shows, most newspapers and major news media all in it together, promoting a "new morality" which is nothing more than the old immorality.

If you are a Christian or simply a patriotic American who believes in traditional values, the values our nation has stood for since the late 18th Century, you should be concerned and angry at the attack on our morality.

There is no comparison to civil rights here.   No one should be prejudiced against people of different religions or different nationalities.   You are born with the racial heritage that you inherit from your parents.   You are guaranteed freedom of (not from) religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution.  But there is no comparison between the kind of sex you wish to have and the genetic makeup you were born with, as there is no "gay gene" and people are NOT born homosexuals.   Homosexuals may be "made" primarily through the events of childhood and possibly their personality may tend towards that particular deviancy.  But this is not a reason to normalize it.

You may like to steal things from others.   You may get a thrill from killing living beings.   Perhaps you would like to kill people because it thrills you.  Maybe you like beating people up for the kicks?   Those things you desire to do will get you put in jail IF YOU DO THEM.   But people who take control over their ungodly desires and do not follow through do not commit crimes and do not go to jail.   I've certainly been angry enough at someone to want to beat them, haven't you?   Anger is a common human emotion.  But civilized people control their urges and do not follow up on them.   Let's face it, if you could walk into a bank and demand 50,000 dollars with impunity, you would likely do it.  Why not?  Law based on an absolute moral code made the society of the United States relatively civil for over 200 years.   But it was around the 200 year mark where we began to see the wheels coming off.   School prayer banned, then legalized murder of babies, now sexual deviancy not only being accepted but lionized.

I lived close to San Francisco at one time.   Even in the 1970's, going into the "gay districts" was close to dangerous and it was not unlikely that you might meet a man wearing a dress when you hopped on a trolley car.   Now all you have to do is go to Zombietime to see how San Francisco resembles Sodom and Gomorrah. (Not safe for children or work).   Hey, USA?   San Francisco is your future!    Indianapolis, San Antonio, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago...is this really what you want the country to become? 

So what if you want to be a homosexual?   Keep it to yourself.   Your urges have been legalized.   It doesn't mean they are right.   It is part of the degradation of society.  Right now you can murder your baby.   Baby murdering is far worse than homosexual activity.   Homosexuals have more STDs, more partner abuse, they have been shown to (if they raise children) to be less effective parents and no surprise there.  They are also invading churches!  But up to now being a homosexual does not give you the right to murder heterosexuals...unless they are in the womb.

A Christian church is supposed to be a place where Biblical values are taught and respected.   Homosexuals are welcome in church but homosexuality should be identified as a sin problem, just like lying and stealing and murdering and adultery.  Women who have had abortions are welcome in churches as well.   In fact there are many former drug addicts, homosexuals, women who are depressed over aborting children, alcoholics, all seeking counseling and help to build a better life going forward.   Church is in part a hospital for hurting people who have seen sin problems ruin their lives.  Normal Christian churches recognize Biblical truth and are there to help sinners overcome problems rather than condemn them.   The normal church is there to help people have a better life, not beat them up for doing something wrong.

But some churches have lost their way.  Some churches believe they should accept what secular society accepts.  Some churches actually teach that evolution is true!!!  The idea that evolution is true is the key to destroying society.  Maybe Charles Darwin had no intention of destroying common decency and morality in society.  But the promoters of Darwinism certainly did!  For a church to support the very forces that seek to destroy Christianity is to cast doubt on the idea that it is even a church.  For an organization like BioLogos to abandon the Bible to accept the ever-changing opinions of fallible men means they should simply abandon any link to Christianity and admit they have compromised their beliefs and kowtowed to Darwinism.

Make no mistake.  Sex was meant to be a blessing, a wonderful part of marriage between a man and a woman.   Anything else is a deviation from the original purpose and leads to problems between people, disease, arguments and sometimes death.   A good number of Darwinists are hoping for a society that is as depraved as the worst areas of Thailand (an international "vacation spot" for pedophiles) and San Francisco. They were quite clear about this from the start:

 “[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Sir Julian Huxley quotes

2)One man, one woman

Does the Bible really teach monogamy?

iStockphoto
one man one woman

Origin of marriage

The clearest evidence that monogamy is God’s ideal is from Christ’s teaching on marriage in Matthew 19:3–6. In this passage, He cited the Genesis creation account, in particular Genesis 1:27and 2:24, saying “the two will become one flesh”, not more than two.
Another important biblical teaching is the parallel of husband and wife with Christ and the Church in Ephesians 5:22–33, which makes sense only with monogamy—Jesus will not have multiple brides.
The 10th Commandment “You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife [singular] … ” (Exodus 20:17) also presupposes the ideal that there is only one wife. Polygamy is expressly forbidden for church elders (1 Timothy 3:2). And this is not just for elders, because Paul also wrote: “each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Paul goes on to explain marital responsibilities in terms that make sense only with one husband to one wife.
The example of godly people is also important. Isaac and Rebekah were monogamous—they are often used as a model in Jewish weddings today. Other examples were Joseph and Asenath, and Moses and Zipporah. And the only survivors of the Flood were four monogamous couples.

Polygamy’s origins and consequences

It is very important to remember that not everything recorded in the Bible is approved in the Bible. Consider where polygamy originated—first in the line of the murderer Cain, not the line of Seth. The first recorded polygamist was the murderer Lamech (Genesis 4:23–24). Then Esau, who despised his birthright, also caused much grief to his parents by marrying two pagan wives (Genesis 26:34).
Skeptics often try to discredit this teaching by pointing to examples of multiple wives in the Bible. But what does the Bible really teach?
God also forbade the kings of Israel to have “many wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). Look at the trouble when Israel’s kings disobeyed, including deadly sibling rivalry between David’s sons from his different wives (2 Samuel 13, 1 Kings 2); and Solomon’s hundreds of wives helped lead Solomon to idolatry (1 Kings 11:1–3).

What about godly men who were polygamous?

Abraham and Sarah would have been monogamous apart from a low point in their faith when Hagar became a second wife—note how much strife this caused later with Ishmael and Isaac and their descendants to this day (Genesis 16, 21). Jacob wanted only Rachel, but was tricked into marrying her older sister Leah, and later he took their slave girls at the sisters’ urging, due to the rivalry between the sisters. Jacob was hardly at a spiritual high point at those times, and neither was David when he added Abigail and Ahinoam (1 Samuel 25:42–43). Also, Hannah, Samuel’s mother, was humiliated by her husband Elkanah’s other wife Peninnah because of Hannah’s previous barrenness (1 Samuel 1:1–7).

Why did God seem to allow it, then?

God’s permitting of polygamy seems more like the case of divorce, which God tolerated for a while under certain conditions because of the hardness of their hearts. But it was not the way it was intended from the beginning (Matthew 19:8). Whenever the Mosaic law had provisions for polygamy, it was always the conditional: “If he takes another wife to himself … ” (Exodus 21:10), never an encouragement. God put a number of obligations on the husband towards the additional wives, which would discourage polygamy. In view of the problems it causes, it is no wonder that polygamy was unknown among the Jews after the Babylonian exile, and monogamy was the rule even among the Greeks and Romans by New Testament times.

Related Articles


While Christianity is the foundation of civilized society, Darwinism actually encourages or at least explains rape as part of the mechanism of evolution!



Evolution shows its true colours

Summary

It's not often that we ask to reproduce an article that has already appeared elsewhere, but this one is exceptional. John Lofton, a Christian, here interviews Craig Palmer, who, along with Randy Thornhill, is one of two evolutionist academic authors of the book, A Natural History Of Rape: Biological Bases Of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press). The book argues that rape is to be expected on the basis of our alleged evolutionary heritage. Many other evolutionists have attacked the book's thesis; this interview brilliantly spotlights the inconsistency between evolution and the idea of moral values in a society. We do not know the interviewer, but we commend him for his unashamed willingness to confront an unbeliever with the truth, yet in a way that is full of wisdom and insight.

[Ed. note: This article may not be appropriate for younger readers.]
John Lofton [JL]: So, how would you sum up what your book is saying?
Craig Palmer [CP]: That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things. In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females. Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.
[JL]: What do you mean when you say evolutionary reasons?
[CP]: An evolutionary reason is also known as the ultimate level of explanation. It's really the question of why are we the way we are?
And the evolutionary answer is what selective forces favoured those traits in hundreds or thousands of past generations that we eventually end up with today.
[JL]: So, if men rape for evolutionary reasons then they are not responsible for their rape?
[CP]: Oh, absolutely not. That's not—
[JL]: How could they be responsible? To what?
[CP]: Excuse me?
[JL]: Evolutionary man would be responsible to what? To whom?
[CP]: The question of causation is a different question from responsibility. Let me turn it around and say the typical explanation is that culture, your culture, causes you to rape. Why aren't people saying then, 'Oh, then the person can't be responsible because it's their culture, something else that caused them [to rape].'
[JL]: I assume you think rape is wrong and should be a crime.
[CP]: Absolutely. Yes.
[JL]: But, if we just evolved, how can there be any right and wrong?
[CP]: That's a very good point. But you need to avoid the naturalistic fallacy. What was favoured by natural selection is no more likely to be considered good or bad. You can't just make the assumption that if something is natural, favoured by evolution, that therefore it is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy.

[JL]: But, you're a naturalistic evolutionist, right?
[CP]: I've never heard that term.
[JL]: I mean, you either think that God caused evolution, and that's the way people were created. Or it all just happened naturally.
[CP]: Oh, oh. Then given those two options, I guess I'd be a naturalist evolutionist.
[JL]: Then I repeat my question: Where would right and wrong come from in a completely natural world where things just happen?
[CP]: It doesn't come from what was selected for. I suggest that where it comes from is that you look at the consequences; not the causes of a behaviour, whether it's evolved or not, but what are the consequences. And then you are free to choose which consequences you find desirable and good and which should be encouraged, and which consequences you find bad and should be prevented.
[JL]: But let's take this conversation out of the realm of the abstract. I'm talking to you, Dr Palmer. You say rape is wrong and should be illegal, right?
[CP]: Absolutely.
[JL]: But, if there was no law against rape, why would you be for making it illegal? Why do you think it is wrong? By what standard is rape wrong?
[CP]: Because it causes so much human suffering.
[JL]: But this begs the question. Why is it wrong to cause human suffering? In naturalistic, evolutionary terms, what is a human that it is wrong to make one suffer? I mean, you believe that humans are accidents, they just happened.
[CP]: I would go with that.
[JL]: So, why would it be wrong then to make humans suffer if they just happened?
[CP]: We're free to deem those things we consider wrong. Let me ask you: Are you a creationist?
[JL]: I'm a Christian who believes the Bible.
[CP]: Ahhhh, I see.
[JL]: Are you a Christian?
[CP]: No. I was raised Christian, a Congregationalist. I'm now an agnostic. I don't have any evidence that God doesn't exist.
[JL]: The reason men rape is because of Original Sin. This very easily explains rape. But because you're an unbeliever, you have no real answer as to why rape is wrong.
[CP]: You don't like my human suffering answer?
[JL]: As I've said, this begs the question because you don't say why causing human suffering is wrong. I say, because I'm a Christian who believes the Bible, that rape is wrong and human beings ought not to be made to suffer, because God says this is wrong. God says rape is a capital crime. And making humans suffer is wrong because we are made in God's image. But, you can't say any of this.
[CP]: That's true. I do not give that ultimate reason. You're right, absolutely right.
[JL]: You still say rape is wrong, however. But, where would right and wrong come from in an evolutionary world where things just happen? Isn't there a problem here, from your perspective?
[CP]: I actually think that what you say is basically true. I kinda like the view that we have free will to decide what's right and wrong and that we don't have to follow some scriptures.
[JL]: But, if we have this free will that means that each one of us can decide for ourselves if rape is right or wrong. A rapist can decide that rape is OK for him. And a rape victim can decide that rape is not OK for this victim. If all this is true, then there is no right or wrong regarding rape. There are just different opinions.
[CP]: But you have democracies and laws—
[JL]: But you say individuals decide about rape being right or wrong according to their free will.
[CP]: An individual can decide if cannibalism is fine or whatever. But others have the right to disagree and to enact laws and vote so that persons can't act on that.
[JL]: But your free will, everybody-decide-for-himself-what's-right-or-wrong view, by definition, means that there is no transcendent, absolute argument against rape or anything else.
[CP]: You also have the rule of the majority in law and that does figure into it.
[JL]: Not at all. This doesn't, necessarily, bind individuals. In fact, what you just said is just one more opinion that I can accept or reject according to my free will, as you see it. Do you really think rapists respect majority rule?
[CP]: Well, they might if they know the majority has passed laws that will lock them away for the rest of their life.
[JL]: But see, the problem you have is that the way you reason—and the only way you can reason as a naturalistic evolutionist—is that everyone decides for himself, according to his own free will—which he does not have but thinks he does—what's right and wrong. And this means there is no right and wrong, that everybody just makes up his own religion, his own right and wrong. And this is exactly the situation we have in our society today, which is why we have moral chaos! In fact, this is what God talks about in the book of Judges in the Old Testament—a time in Israel's history when they, too, were in chaos because 'every man did that which was right in his own eyes' (Judges 21:25).
[CP]: Very interesting.
[JL]: It is. But, tell me this, please. For generations now, in our public, government-run schools, your view has been taught. Kids have been taught evolution, that they are animals who evolved from lower forms of animal life. How do you think this is working? I don't think it is working.
[CP]: I would agree with you on that one. Absolutely.
[JL]: So, why doesn't this shake your belief then? If you can honestly say that the teaching of your view is not working, why doesn't this shake your viewpoint?
[CP]: This may surprise you, but I actually think religion has a good effect on people because it has been the way that generation after generation has passed down moral codes.
[JL]: But, I'm not talking about just 'religion'. I'm not a religionist. I don't believe 'religion' saves anybody. 'Religion' is something people babble about and praise when they don't know what they are talking about. 'Religion' isn't, necessarily, good or bad. It depends on whether you're talking about a true or false religion.
[CP]: Ahh.
[JL]: But, again, why do you cling to a view that you admit has not worked when taught to our kids in the public, government-run schools? Do you care if reality refutes what you believe?
[CP]: Could it be possible that my view of how living things came to be, would it be logically consistent—possible—that what I believe is true and yet the teaching of that truth has social consequences that we might consider bad? I think that is possible. And that your view—though not accurate—might have better consequences if taught? I think that's possible.
[JL]: (Laughing) Oh, boy. One of the things I have on my resume is that I thank God I never went to college—which is why I am so smart.
But, no, your view is not possible because it contradicts the Word of God. Your view is an interesting evasion to try and get you out of the corner you are in. But, it is not possible.
The consequences of teaching your view are bad because what you believe is bad, is false! But, if you really believe that your view when taught has bad consequences, where does this leave you? And what should be taught in the schools?
[CP]: I think there are aspects of religious teaching that have wonderful social consequences and particularly the encouragement of morality and self-restraint that does come with religion and—
[JL]: Again, please, forget 'religion'. I'm not a religionist. I'm defending Christianity.
[CP]: Sure. OK, this all comes certainly with Christianity. I've written a paper but never published it arguing that all types of sexual crimes increase when religion and moral traditions in general deteriorate.
[JL]: You mean Christianity since there are no 'moral traditions in general'. The reason I'm so touchy on this matter is because God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is to be given the glory for all good things that happen. And He is robbed of this glory when one speaks of 'moral traditions in general'.
[CP]: OK. I would agree that there is a correlation between powerful Christian traditions and the lowering of all kinds of crimes, maybe particularly sexual crimes. And I would agree that in our society we have seen Christian traditions weakened.
[JL]: You're a master of the under-statement.
[CP]: And that (the weakening of Christianity) is a factor responsible for the increase in rape and sexual crimes and violence, murder in our schools, which you've mentioned. So, there is maybe a small point of agreement here.
[JL]: But, where does this leave you and what you believe? If the secular humanist order is collapsing all over the world—and it is—where does this leave you when you admit this view has bad consequences when taught? And what are these bad consequences of teaching naturalistic evolution?
[CP]: The question is whether the benefit of teaching this outweighs the cost. My view can increase knowledge, generate predictions which can be tested and you discard the ones that aren't met and keep the ones that can increase knowledge. The downside is that my view tends to—you would say it has to—is that it diminishes the role of religion. And I think that religion does make people more co-operative, more self-restrained, nicer, altruistic . . .
[JL]: But, we're back to 'religion'.
[CP]: OK, Christianity, sorry. I'm an anthropologist and am used to talking in those terms. I'll try to stick to Christianity. [My view] turns people away from Christianity. Christians are nicer, more altruistic, more willing to sacrifice for someone else, more willing to restrain themselves for someone else than from someone who does not practise—I would say any religion—than in evolution. So, you have to choose and I've had to choose. What are the benefits of increased knowledge versus the cost of this loss of say Christian behaviour?
It's interesting that I actually started a dissertation in graduate school on religion. And what I found was that it was too close of a call for me to make. Yes, I thought I could increase knowledge about religious behaviour, its causes, etc. But in doing so it tended to have the effect on people I convinced of [this that they] would no longer practice their Christianity. I was not at all sure that was a good thing. In fact, I sensed that it was making them more selfish and less cooperative.
[JL]: But, when you—as an unbeliever—worry about people falling away from their Christianity, when you are not a Christian, [it] makes you a hypocrite! Seriously, how can you do this when you, too, reject Christianity?
[CP]: I understand perfectly. I would try to behave in a nice, caring, non-selfish, restrained way . . .
[JL]: A Christ-like way, you mean. The Christ in whom you do not believe!
[CP]: Yes. Exactly. Perfectly put.
[JL]: Your problem is that you want Christianity without Christ.
[CP]: Yes, the behaviour without having to. . .
[JL]: But, you're not going to get it! You will not get Christianity without Christ! You will not get the fruit without the tree! See?
[CP]: Uh-huh.
[JL]: You remind me of a story that was told about the French atheist Voltaire (1694-1778). It is said that when he had atheist friends over for dinner they spoke openly, while being served, of their atheism. But, Voltaire told them to shut up, that he didn't want such godless talk in front of the hired help because if they believed this they might murder him in his sleep and rob him.
[CP]: (Laughing) That's very good.
[JL]: And it's very true, too, and applicable to you! What you need to do is repent of your sin of unbelief and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. You need to admit that your godless philosophy has been a dismal failure. But, you're not there yet.
[CP]: No, not quite. But, I have enjoyed this.

Reprinted with kind permission of the internet newspaper WorldNetDaily.com
John Lofton is a US journalist, syndicated columnist and TV commentator on political and cultural/religious issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Both Creation.com and Answers in Genesis are two of the many great organizations formed by scientists who, in the tradition of Newton, Bacon and the other great Theistic scientists of the past, advance the cause of science with the understanding that God created a logical Universe which mankind can comprehend in order to utilize the resources available to them.   You will find many more great organizations in my links list, but I have only a fraction of the many great groups of scientists and philosophers listed there.   More and more scientists are realizing the utter paucity of evidence to support evolution and are looking for real answers and people who, like them, are willing to consider all possibilities and not simply the ones that Atheists and Naturalists prefer.
Philosophy is the foundation of science.   You cannot separate science and worldview.  When anyone tells you science is, by default, a Naturalistic discipline, they are lying to you or they are themselves living a lie.   Before anyone ever makes a scientific statement, it was formed on the foundation of a worldview.
I am absolutely a Christian, a Young Earth Creationist and absolutely certain that supernatural formed the natural.   My science can explain the Universe and the Solar System and the surface features of Earth as well as the existence of organisms and the life that is in them.    Darwinism fails to do any of these things.   I am also asserting that Darwinism is hazardous to the health of a society and therefore all of mankind.  

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

That report brought to you by Kimbal Binder, reporting from the wrong side of history.

Anonymous said...

Radar,
Please clarify, what's LGBT?

Chaos Engineer said...

I agree that "Evolutionary Psychology" is a ridiculous pseudo-science that's mostly used as a tool to justify racism and misogyny. It lacks scientific rigor, and if anyone is interested, I can dig up some links from PZ Myers' "Pharyngula" blog that show how real Evolutionary Biologists reject it.

But I thought that the "polygamy" article was a lot more interesting. Of course there's nothing in a literal reading of the Bible that condemns polygamy as inherently sinful, so Safarti has to try to read between the lines to find something to support his view. Some of his arguments are just hilarious - like "wife is singular in Exodus 20:13". He helpfully gives a link so that we can click through and see that "house", "ox", "manservant" and even "neighbor" are also singular. Is it a sin to have more than one ox? By the end, he's reduced to sputtering, "Well, it says 'if'! Men weren't required to take more than one wife."

The bit about Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar is especially interesting because it has some history to it. Hagar was of course not a "wife" as we understand the word; she was a concubine, a foreign slave kept for sexual purposes.

As late as the 1800s, some American Christians used passages like this as an excuse to keep their own concubines; a literal reading of the Bible provided plenty of support for their beliefs. (Of course, other Christians ignored those verses, and argued against the practice based on a less literal reading of the Bible. There were a lot of bitter arguments about which interpretation of the Bible was correct.)

The lesson to be learned is that morality doesn't come from the Bible...instead, interpretations of the Bible come from current morality.

In a hundred years, the Jack Safartis of the world will be saying, "How dare you compare me to the racists and homophobes of the 19th and 20th centuries! Real Christians have always been opposed to racism and homophobia! I'm just saying, it's perfectly clear that God hates it when androids manufactured by different corporations marry each other. It's right here in the Bible in verse mumblety-mumble. If we recognize those marriages, then we'll be making it legal to molest children next!

radar said...

The Bible does condemn polygamy. That it contains actual history means it represents people with warts included, and that includes the sexual misdeeds of both David and Solomon. Chaos Engineer is trying to be misleading and that is fine, he is not familiar with the Bible and when he comments on it, he reveals that to the other readers. God did not make Adam and three wives, He made Adam and Eve. That was the model from the beginning.

In the New Testament, the requirement to be an elder/pastor includes "the husband of one wife" as a requirement. Notice that Moses, the leader of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, had one wife.

Noah, the man who God chose to save a remnant of the evil world that He wiped out by water, had one wife.

The unbelievers that surrounded the Israelites commonly practiced polygamy and therefore many of the people in the Bible followed the practice. You will note that such people that God sees fit to mention in the Bible had difficulties when they had more than one wife.

Nobody who knows him calls Dr. Sarfati "Jack."

Calling the sin of homosexuality a sin is not being a homophobe, it is being moral. I am not going to let common society dictate right or wrong to me. Racism is a sin and in fact it was Christians who fought to end slavery and also Jim Crow laws. YOU are the one who does not know history or prefer to twist it.

The vast majority of Christians know quite well that homosexuality is wrong, but the Bible tells us to love them anyway and help them if they want help. You see, you are not born a adulterer. You are not born a needle user shooting yourself up with meth. You are not born a thief or a murderer. You are not born a homosexual.

You ARE born with the skin color and heritage you acquire from your parents and it was Darwinists who made racism "respectable" along with Atheism. It is a fact, I have the quotes and the record of actions that are simply history and history points to Darwin and those who used his words and concepts to murder millions. You can pretend it is not so, but I know better. Hopefully the vast majority of readers look into the history for themselves and will see for themselves that it is indeed true. Darwinism is anti-Christian, anti-science and pro-perversion.

Chaos Engineer said...

My apologies for mangling John Sarfati's name. I got him mixed up with physicist Jack Sarfatti and then didn't think to double-check.

I notice that you're not able to find any verse where the Bible comes out and says, "Thou shalt not commit polygamy." 1 Timothy 3:2 only applies to bishops and deacons; not to laymen. Saying that Adam, Moses and Noah were monogamous just shows that monogamy is permitted. Solomon practiced polygamy but wasn't criticized for it...he was criticized only for marrying non-Israelites. (That's kind of racist, now that I think about it.)

If polygamy is inherently sinful, then why doesn't the Bible come out and say that instead of hinting around the margins?

radar said...

You actually expected me to find you a verse in a book you reject? Weird.

Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

How can a man be one with multiple women? Marriage was invented by God to be a man and a woman. In Genesis the voice of God confirmed marriage.

Jesus Christ did the same. Matthew 19:3-5 - "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"

Or when Jesus said, in Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’"

I didn't look up passages to give you because any Bible student already knows that marriage was established with Adam and Eve and polygamy was never supported. When anyone took additional wives, they had problems because of them. Oh, and the problem with Solomon taking foreign wives was not that it was okay to take extra Jewish wives, but that the foreign wives would bring their foreign gods and practices with them, which they did.

Chaos, there is plenty in the Bible that condemns polygamy. Don't tell me you have read through the Bible several times and know it, please! Also, no PZ Myers please, I like to keep the vulgarity away from this blog. People who want foul language and arrogance at full throttle probably like his blog but no thanks!

Not only did God in the beginning and Jesus near the end of the scriptures define marriage as a man and a woman as I have shown you with some verses (and we could keep going but the point is made) but the history of mankind in the Bible is also one that paints polygamy with a dark brush. What disasters struck David because he did not stay faithful to one woman? He wound up with son raping daughter, son killing son, son rebelling against him and willing to kill his own father...Solomon's sexual excesses are a practice he paid dearly for, as his kingdom was soon divided and a shadow of the former glory of Israel. His various offspring caused him and Israel grief and the influence of foreign wives doubtless helped Israel stray from greatness as well.

radar said...

Also, one of the Ten Commandments is "You shall not commit adultery."

A bit farther down He says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."

So God established marriage as one man and one woman becoming one flesh. In the Ten Commandments He forbid adultery (which is sex outside of that marriage of man and woman). Jesus is recorded as condemning adultery 9-10 times in the Gospels as well. In fact, I will expand on the Matthew reference with Matthew 19:3-9-

"And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Because of sin and hardness of heart, Bible characters broke vows, took extra wives and/or concubines, got drunk, murdered and lied and stole from others. Since the Bible is in part a history book, men and women are depicted doing and saying what they actually did and said. So again we are seeing failures and successes.

This is another reason the Bible is to be accepted and believed. It is real and pretty much all of the people depicted in detail are shown making wrong choices. Moses, David, Peter, Abraham, Paul... fallible men of God who God used to do great things. What you will not find in the Bible is God promoting polygamy, you will find Him saying that marriage is a man and a woman and that they should become one flesh and no adultery allowed!

I am thankful to know and live with a wife and understand the one flesh concept to a great extent. We belong together and we support each other and are a unit. My kids and friends understand I can keep a secret, but I share everything with my wife. She knows me very well and I know her. No way do I mess that up!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"You actually expected me to find you a verse in a book you reject? Weird."

Well you don't reject it, and you allegedly base your entire morality on it, so you should be able to find the appropriate verse.

"How can a man be one with multiple women?"

A man being one with one other person (which is also kind of odd if you think about it) only means that they form a unit of some kind, a family unit. Why shouldn't he be able to be one, i.e. form a family unit, with a third person?

"In Genesis the voice of God confirmed marriage.

Jesus Christ did the same. Matthew 19:3-5 - "And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?"

Or when Jesus said, in Mark 10:6 - "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’""

Not one of these arguments and quotes dictates the exclusiveness of monogamy. Polygamy can just as easily apply in each case.

"Chaos, there is plenty in the Bible that condemns polygamy."

It seems odd then that you haven't found any of this "plenty". It's safe to assume at this point that it isn't there.

Be all that as it may, the takeaway here is Chaos Engineer's quote:

The lesson to be learned is that morality doesn't come from the Bible...instead, interpretations of the Bible come from current morality.

radar said...

The lesson is that you cannot understand plain English and comprehend what is clearly a Biblical command for one man to marry one woman. I gave you some of the verses. Not all of them. If you cannot see that, then you are willfully ignorant and that is my suspicion because you do not want to concede being wrong.

Anonymous said...

If you cannot see that, then you are willfully ignorant and that is my suspicion because you do not want to concede being wrong.

Behold: seven years of this blog summed up in a single sentence. Very impressive.

radar said...

Exactly. Seven years of providing evidence that should have made every Darwinist at least review his position. If indeed any would be willing to audit themselves.

Darwinists do not have evidence to stand upon, so they simply say what they want, call it factual and go on about their business. As usual I present evidence and it has no effect. Some people would say they tend to be "Sheeple" because they just fall in with the herd and go where they go.

Anonymous said...

"The lesson is that you cannot understand plain English and comprehend what is clearly a Biblical command for one man to marry one woman. I gave you some of the verses. Not all of them."

Look at the actual verses you provided. You didn't provide a single verse that actually said what you claim here. Chaos Engineer has a pretty good point that it seems odd that no actual prohibition of polygamy is found in the Bible. It makes his interpretation (that the text of the Bible was shaped by mores of the time) more coherent than yours (that the text of the Bible is unchanging and dictates never-changing mores across all time).

"If you cannot see that, then you are willfully ignorant and that is my suspicion because you do not want to concede being wrong."

Derision: still not an argument.

"Also, one of the Ten Commandments is "You shall not commit adultery.""

If you have sex with someone you're married to, it's not adultery. That doesn't mean you can't marry more than one person.

"As usual I present evidence and it has no effect."

Because the so-called evidence inevitably turns out to be skin-deep rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and the moment one digs deeper, it turns out there's no substance to it. For example, when your recent claim that creationists had managed to calibrate radiometric data in a way that confirmed a young Earth was exposed to be entirely baseless.

Anonymous said...

"Some people would say they tend to be "Sheeple" because they just fall in with the herd and go where they go."

An odd statement for an adherent to a religion of revealed knowledge.

Anonymous said...

"Seven years of providing evidence that should have made every Darwinist at least review his position."

I can't recall a single piece of "evidence" on your blog that wasn't utterly debunked.

Incidentally, did you ever come up with any sign of creationists calibrating radiometric data that leads to a YEC conclsuion and lines up with observable evidence?

You know, that thing you couldn't come up with right before you unleashed another torrent of pasted articles?

radar said...

First, I did give an article going over how Carbon-14 was calibrated by normal YEC scientists. If you cannot grok it, sorry for you.

Second, the idea that commenters have "debunked" anything is hilarious. What do you think you have debunked?

Darwinism is in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Organisms actually devolve (lose information, go extinct, collect mutations that bring on diseases or syndromes) downhill.

Big Bang hypotheses are 96% nothing and have no first cause. The background radiation is all wrong, the expansion of the Universe appears to be accelerating and events thought to be millions of years old are turning out to have happened recently.

The Law of Biogenesis remains unbroken despite thousands if not millions of attempts by Darwinists to find SOME way to get the building blocks of life to form naturally. They cannot, but even if they could that cannot produce whatever the spark of life might be.

DNA, thanks to ENCODE, has been revealed to be far more complex than previously thought and the idea of "junk DNA" has been, well, junked.

Fossils are being found with flesh not stone. Mammals are found with dinosaur remains in their stomachs and dinosaurs are found with birds in theirs, upsetting the Darwin applecart. Complex organisms are being found in the lowest Cambrian layers while more organisms thought extinct are found pretty much every week.

Knowing the strength of the magnetic field has limited the age of the Earth to thousands, not millions of years.

The space missions to the planets and moons of the Solar System are a nightmare for Darwinists. All the planets and moons reveal surprises that are not surprises if God created them 6-7,000 years ago but are unthinkable otherwise.

The Sun would not be friendly to life hundreds of millions of years ago and the Moon would have been so close it would crash into the Earth.

The nebular hypothesis does not work. Dust will not accumulate and become planets. Stars only form from the dead remains of stars.

There is probably not one single main point used by Darwinists that has not been shown to be just speculation, with no evidence backing it up.

Anonymous said...

"First, I did give an article going over how Carbon-14 was calibrated by normal YEC scientists. If you cannot grok it, sorry for you."

This is simply not true. You have NOT given an article that shows how creationists have calibrated C-14 data so it lines up with other data AND the conclusion of an Earth no older than approx. 6,000 years.

Here is the article in question: http://radaractive.blogspot.ie/2013/02/how-do-creation-scientists-calibrate.html

In the entire article and the 20-page PDF that accompanies it, no explanation is given of how YECs calibrate the data. There are attempts to cast doubt on mainstream science. There is mention of an age of the Earth of 50,000 years (which of course falsifies YEC).

But what you claim is there is simply not there.

If you disagree, show us where, specifically.

"Second, the idea that commenters have "debunked" anything is hilarious. What do you think you have debunked?"

At a cursory glance, pretty much the entire laundry list that you blurted out below that sentence. We don't need to do your homework for you. It's all right there, on your own blog.

radar said...

Typical anonymous commenter. As usual you have no "evidence" to debunk anything!

The last article was only one of several about radiometric dating. Since the atmospheric ratio of C-14 to C-12 has not reached equilibrium, then that gives an outer limit to C-14 dating. That was not end of the article or the assertion. The assertion is that YEC have evidence that shows that ALL the sedimentary rock layers contain fossils that have C-14 and therefore all the rock layers were laid within the last 50,000 years or earlier.

Second, I said that C-14 is calibrated using known dates. YEC scientists know the Flood took place around 4300 years ago, so the fossils in the sedimentary rocks were deposited 4300 years ago. Then we have artifacts from human cultures and approximate dates for them that are used to help us further calibrate C-14. Even with all that, the method is still tricky because the magnitude of the Flood itself apparently had an effect on the decay rates of many elements. Therefore YEC use C-14 dating primarily for items that reason tells us are from after the Flood.

Third, I said the pdf was required reading to understand the various problems inherent in C-14 dating, I did not say it established precisely how YEC science calibrates C-14 dating.

The various methods used by Darwinists are so out-of-whack they sometimes give dates into the FUTURE! Furthermore, they have given dates of millions of years of age to things we KNOW are only thousands or hundreds of years old or in some cases only a few years old.

The rate of helium escape from granitic zircons does give us an age for granitic rocks of around 6-7,000 years old, which lines up nicely with the probable age of the Earth. So YEC dating methods are giving us dates that fit the scenario.

In closing, YEC science has shown that the Darwinist dating methods used and publicized are unreliable and ridiculous. C-14 primarily establishes that the entire sedimentary rock layering of Earth is less than 50,000 years old. Helium trapped in granitic zircons brings us down to around 7,000 years. With those things in mind, YEC science uses C-14 cautiously and not authoritatively, still looking for a more reliable clock and certainly not using it to make utterly ridiculous claims like Darwinists do.

You did not follow the links listed in the article or you would know these things.

Anonymous said...

First Radar asked, "What do you think you have debunked?"

And then Radar answers his own question with a pretty good list of some of the "thoroughly debunked" arguments he's unsuccessfully tried to pedal over the years. Thanks for doing the leg work for us on this one, Kimbal. And you didn't even whine about it like you usually do.

Oh AND Yet another hateful blog post from Radar. Further to the first comment above, your family is going to be so ashamed that this record of bigoted ignorance is posted on the web for all to see.

-Canucklehead.

radar said...

Canucklehead calling someone ignorant is like a compliment. Thank you, I guess? I would be ashamed if I stood around and did nothing while people are being fooled and hurt. It would be really easy for me to ignore it all. But I know God expects me to do more than stand on the sidelines.

Nothing I am saying is bigoted at all. This country is going downhill because people are abandoning the moral code that we built our society upon and it is going to get ugly. I am agreeing with the moral code of the Bible. There are organizations designed to corrupt and ruin your children and I am warning you of what they are doing and what they intend to do. It isn't bad enough that we murder millions of babies before they are even born, now we try to warp our little children while they are in grade school.

It makes me angry that innocent children are being indoctrinated, urged to try sex outside of marriage and experiment with homosexuality as well. There are organizations with acronyms like LGBT and NAMBLA that want to get to the children before they even reach their teens, warping them with sexually deviant teaching.

That there is a giant herd of Darwinus Ignoramusi roaming our universities and schools is one problem. It makes me angry that so-called scientists are spreading ludicrous fairy tales and calling it science. They depend on a giant wall of propaganda. Evidence? They don't need any stinkin' evidence!

All of you who have a working knowledge of biology should be ashamed of yourselves, telling and living lies. People who believe that the Universe and life and everything just magically *poofed* into existence and call it science? People who believe in Darwinism are without excuses. At least Darwin was ignorant of DNA and the makeup of the cell, so he could believe in his hypothesis...and even then he had doubts and expressed them.

If Charles Darwin could come back now and see the evidence against his hypothesis he very likely would wash his hands of the whole thing and, like Anthony Flew, denounce Darwinism and assert that any sensible human being would agree God created. The lack of transitional forms is still a problem, the massive amount of fossils is a problem, the fact that sedimentary layers are produced by water action, the actual flesh and blood found in "fossils" is a problem, in fact most new discoveries about organisms and the Solar System are debunking Darwinism without any rhetoric attached.

radar said...

Let me clue you in to the newspeak of the Atheists:

"Hate" is what they call it when we talk about normal morality or God. "Bigoted" is what they call it when we support Godly morality. When they were calling George Bush every name under the sun, that wasn't hate then, was it? When they were vilifying Condi Rice for not being a rubber-stamp whiner like Jesse Jackson, when they attack Walter Williams for being a black Republican, that isn't hate then?

But when we point out that teaching children to learn sexual techniques in fifth grade it is? When we call sex with children wrong, then that is hate? When we defend marriage as a union between man and woman as it has been from the beginning, that is hate? But when naked idiots parade around town in San Francisco demanding legalized nudity or "respect for sluts" that is okay?

Atheists and Atheopaths would like to rid the USA of the First and Second Amendments. Those first two sections of the Bill of Rights were intended to protect the right to worship, the right to express yourself and the right to protect yourself. Those two amendments help keep the USA from becoming a dictatorship. That is why Atheists and liberals attack these two amendments.

America as a socialist dictatorship? We are heading in that direction. The herd of sheeple watch their sitcoms and liberal canned news and walk around connected to their handhelds yakking away about trivialities while the rights their forefathers won with blood and protected with more blood are being pulled out from under them. I bet there are more people playing Angry Birds that there are people paying attention to what is actually happening in Washington, DC right now. Benghazi happens and Americans are slaughtered, the Administration sends drones to watch it all without helping them and then the cover-up makes Watergate look trivial but who cares? The doctor who helped us find Bin Laden is in jail and our idiots in Washington revealed his identity so they are at fault. Iran is making the bomb, but the news media are worried about ordinary citizens having guns?! Islamic nations imprison Americans for the crime of having a school and shelter for orphans and people yawn?

Poor America, you were great once. My generation is the primary culprit. I am ashamed of my generation. We got stoned at Woodstock, we rioted in Chicago, we challenged the morality of our fathers and now we are ruining what was the greatest nation the Earth has ever known.

Funny thing, Canada has a news organization called the Canadian Free Press and they see what America is doing. They are worried for Canada of course, but they see America going downhill and are rightly alarmed. Canada is much like America, more socialist than we are but pretty similar. If we go downhill it is bad for them, too.

My generation will have much to answer for. But I will not be silent. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Darwinism is stupidity wearing science-y clothes.

Anonymous said...

So, Radar, you're unable to show us where you think that you posted an article going over how Carbon-14 was calibrated by YECs. That's because you never posted such an article. Because YECs are unable to do this.

All you presented here was the claim that YECs match the data to their foregone conclusion of a flood 4300 years ago. So you say the oldest data must simply be assumed to be the flood, or perhaps the origin of the universe 6,000 years ago. But that's pretty much when a YEC has to stop asking questions or thinking about the data. Because none of the rest of the data will line up with anything any more.

For example, dendrochronological records can be tracked back for 11,000 rings, with no sign of a global flood during that time. How can YECs account for that data? How do they adjust 11,000 tree rings to fit into 4300 years, on what basis, and how does that then tie into other events that can be used to calibrate tree rings?

That is why the question about the calibration of the dating methods for YECs is so telling and crucial. It falsifies the notion of a young Earth completely.

And despite all your bluster, YECs simply have nothing here. Nothing.

Anonymous said...

Could you tell us more about how, when and where innocent children are urged to try sex outside of marriage and experiment with homosexuality?

radar said...

I have already written about tree rings and frankly your statement is untrue. You might check my recent article on Ages posted on Friday. No tree ring analysis has found trees nearly as old as your claim, sorry.

The many examples of deviancy being taught in public schools will be included in my post on the subject. It will be sometime within the next week. I space out non-science articles to keep the tenor of the blog going. It is all worldview oriented, but I do more posting to present evidence falsifying Darwinism.

The way you guys use "debunked" makes me wonder if it means "confirmed?" You haven't debunked the evidence I present. Actually, you cannot debunk it, because I do present evidence. Evidence can be analyzed and you may disagree with the conclusion made. But you cannot "debunk" the workings of the cell, DNA, the individually presented facts about the Solar System, the various statements concerning fossils and certainly you do not want to pretend to support the Haeckel Embryo chart, Pakicetus, Java Man, Nebraska Man and other such fakes and hoaxes, right?

radar said...

Don't miss my post about ages of the Earth and Universe.

http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=21317674#editor/target=post;postID=7420657950168430307

I will not listen to any more blah about not posting on the age of the Earth...or Solar System...or Universe.

Back to the Darwinists - account for existence, information and life and we'll talk. (hint - you cannot do it)!

Anonymous said...

Again, you evade the question of exactly how YECs have managed to calibrate radiometric data in a way that lines up with the evidence AND yields a 6,000-year-old Earth.

YECs have not been able to do this. And the evidence clearly falsifies YEC. There's really not much more to say.

"No tree ring analysis has found trees nearly as old as your claim, sorry."

You should read a little more carefully, and frankly, it isn't that hard to google this stuff. Here is the relevant PDF:

http://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/1560/1564-ei%3DOqDWT4qFO6-fiAfGromdAw-usg%3DAFQjCNGIhbceZ4y_sHOpcSmvdAA3yheTFg&ei=nuAyUYXRKMSphAeLloH4Ag&usg=AFQjCNEd8DAAXFqUAZhA_RLVbQp87FRJTQ&bvm=bv.43148975,d.ZG4&cad=rja

The debunking of your various claims can be based on, for example, you ignoring obvious evidence to the contrary (such as almost all radiometric, tree ring and ice core data, focusing instead on a small subset of outliers) or applying faulty logic and logical fallacies (e.g. argument from incredulity). Ignoring such objections isn't going to make them go away, and it isn't going to make your position more credible.

"I will not listen to any more blah about not posting on the age of the Earth...or Solar System...or Universe."

Nor would you have to, because no commenter here posted such blah in the first place.

Piltdown Superman said...

I would like to suggest that you disallow anonymous comments. People are big and brave keyboard soldiers behind their anonymity, so they're more prone to mouth off. Just a thought.

radar said...

Piltdown, I allow anonymous commenters because I am unafraid of them or their so-called information. I present strong evidence for my assertions that they give back weak rebuttals. In fact, their fear of identifying themselves gives away the weakness of their positions.

I find it hilarious that someone continues to discuss dating on THIS article when I have a complete treatment of the overview of dating methods and why they favor Creationism that I posted on Saturday.

This last commenter generalizes my posts rather than addressing the evidence. It is hilarious that he gave us a paper from 1993 that asserts things later dismissed as untrue. In fact the expert on population genetics who specializes in trees has long ago pointed out errors in the paper. 1993 is 20 years ago, we know a LOT more know about radiocarbon dating and we know more about tree rings as well.

For example, go ask Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), Dr. Giertych passed his final exams and graduated high school in 1954. He entered Oxford University and received a B.A. (Bachelor of Arts) and a M.A. (Master of Arts) in forestry. From 1958 to 1962, he studied at the University of Toronto where he received his Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) for studies on tree philosophy. In 1962 he returned to Poland and completed his qualifications for an assistant professorship at the Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Kórnik. In 1970, he received his habilitation degree in forest genetics at the Ponznań Agricultural Academy. [3] In 1981, he received the grade of associate professor; and in 1989, became a tenured professor in forestry. Since 1976, he has lectured as a visiting professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University of Toruń. He has also lectured on occasion at the Faculty of Forestry in Ponznań, Warsaw, and Kraków. [4]

This expert on trees disagrees with simplistic methods of counting tree rings and has confirmed that evolution is not supported by evidence in his field of study. He is outspoken against the hypothesis on scientific grounds and he lectures on the subject regularly. He and I would both agree that the poorly-researched and supported paper from 20 years ago is meaningless today.

Oh, and he has over 150 published papers despite his creationist stance. Yes, he is that good. My king takes your pawn. Next move.

Anonymous said...

"I would like to suggest that you disallow anonymous comments. People are big and brave keyboard soldiers behind their anonymity, so they're more prone to mouth off. Just a thought."

Perhaps the irony of your comment eluded you, Piltdown Superman. Unless that happens to be your real name.

Anonymous said...

"This expert on trees disagrees with simplistic methods of counting tree rings and has confirmed that evolution is not supported by evidence in his field of study. He is outspoken against the hypothesis on scientific grounds and he lectures on the subject regularly. He and I would both agree that the poorly-researched and supported paper from 20 years ago is meaningless today"

Where is Prof. Giertych's paper? I'd be most interested to see how he accounts for the data and what problems he sees with the other study I posted. Also, why he (or you) would allege that the paper is poorly researched and supported would be of some interest.

The biography you've pasted here (and which apparently you pass off as your own writing) appears to be copied from the creationwiki.

"Oh, and he has over 150 published papers despite his creationist stance. Yes, he is that good. My king takes your pawn. Next move."

An obvious and embarrassing logical fallacy: the good old appeal to authority. You wouldn't accept such an argument from others, so why attempt it yourself? You lose. Come up with a real argument and real data.

You've already conceded that YECs have so far not been able to calibrate existing radiometric data to be consistent with observable evidence AND yield an age of the earth of 6,000 years.

Can you show that YECs have falsified the 11,000-year timeline of dendrochronological records? I suspect not, but feel free to surprise us.

Anonymous said...

"This expert on trees disagrees with simplistic methods of counting tree rings and has confirmed that evolution is not supported by evidence in his field of study. He is outspoken against the hypothesis on scientific grounds and he lectures on the subject regularly. He and I would both agree that the poorly-researched and supported paper from 20 years ago is meaningless today"

Where is Prof. Giertych's paper? I'd be most interested to see how he accounts for the data and what problems he sees with the other study I posted. Also, why he (or you) would allege that the paper is poorly researched and supported would be of some interest.

The biography you've pasted here (and which apparently you pass off as your own writing) appears to be copied from the creationwiki.

"Oh, and he has over 150 published papers despite his creationist stance. Yes, he is that good. My king takes your pawn. Next move."

An obvious and embarrassing logical fallacy: the good old appeal to authority. You wouldn't accept such an argument from others, so why attempt it yourself? You lose. Come up with a real argument and real data.

You've already conceded that YECs have so far not been able to calibrate existing radiometric data to be consistent with observable evidence AND yield an age of the earth of 6,000 years.

Can you show that YECs have falsified the 11,000-year timeline of dendrochronological records? I suspect not, but feel free to surprise us.

Anonymous said...

Sorry about the double post, it asked for the captcha again after I hit post the first time.

radar said...

Hey, anonymous, what did your last slave die from?

I have posted on the findings of Dr. Giertych on this blog.

As usual, the study of tree rings necessarily involves presumptions. When someone presumes to try to compare different trees and calibrate rings from them while assuming deep ages, one can stretch the conclusions out to 11,000 years, but it is opinion and not solid science.

radar said...

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/02/transgendered-toddlers-and-their-unfortunate-classmates/

Anonymous said...

"Hey, anonymous, what did your last slave die from?"

Old age. Yours?

"I have posted on the findings of Dr. Giertych on this blog."

Why oh why is deception and evasion your first instinct when it comes to uncomfortable questions? Yes you've posted on Dr. Giertych's studies in the past, just not when it comes to tree rings. So this is an entirely irrelevant statement on your part.

"As usual, the study of tree rings necessarily involves presumptions. When someone presumes to try to compare different trees and calibrate rings from them while assuming deep ages, one can stretch the conclusions out to 11,000 years, but it is opinion and not solid science."

Again, more evasion without dealing with the substance of the matter.

Has Dr. Giertych falsified the 11,000-year timeline of dendrochronological records? Has anybody?

What faulty presumption do you think the scientists have made? Be specific if you can. It's easy to wave your hand and claim there are "presumptions" and "opinions", but that hardly amounts to a serious argument.

So far, you've conceded that YECs can't calibrate radiometric data to line up with observable evidence and indicate a 6,000-year-old Earth.

Now you're conceding that you can't falsify the 11,000-year timeline of tree ring records.

And still you refuse to ponder the consequences of this.

Anonymous said...

Was there any point to that silly link you just posted?

radar said...

Since I have already falsified the ridiculous assertion of 11,000 years of tree rings AND posted the doctor's opinions more than once, you can go and fetch.

On Saturday I posted two videos and 101 reasons why the Earth and Universe are young. You know what you do not have? You do not have an 11,000 year old tree, you have people who have linked together multiple tree ring samples and made ASSUMPTIONS with the longest possible age listed. The oldest known tree is found in a mountainous region and may well have lived through the Flood and settled in a new home and even THAT tree is nowhere near 11,000 years old. Perhaps 5-6,000 maybe.

The problem, Mr. Anonymous, is that the evidence of things we can test NOW shows us design and young ages. Your side makes up fairy tales to come to a conclusion, but you have NOTHING substantial to support you.

We have HUNDREDS of "Lazarus Taxa" that have been found, debunking the whole idea that the organisms found in the lower layers evolved into something else. No, they either remained the same kind or went extinct. Coelecanth? Still here. Tyrannosaurus Rex? Extinct (but no more than thousands of years ago because we have remains of their carcasses, not just fossis). Wollemi Pine? Still here. Dodo? Extinct.

I will begin a new series with a set of problems with the sedimentary layers (if you are a Darwinist) but solid evidence that supports a global Flood event. Common sense says that millions (billions?) of tons of rock layer that cuts across state lines, countries and even continents was not laid down by a local flood. Common sense notes that bioturbation is not found between layers and that out-of-order strata are commonplace. That wet mudrock was laid down by the Flood and then formed by the runoff, the continental freight-train movements and hydraulics is evidenced by rock shaped as if taffy and even by the Coriolis effect! Hard rock cannot bend like taffy. If it was submerged to be made plastic, it would have lost its fossils and had evidence of great heating. But that is not what we see.

radar said...

Piltdown Superman lists his link and his site, so you know who he is and how to communicate with him, unlike the anonymous commenters. Like Piltdown said, you do not have the courage of your convictions to leave a name, other than someone like Jon Woolf. I have more respect for Jon, because he is identified. I think he is utterly wrong and misled but I would not take away his ability to post.

You see, I was a Jon Woolf once. I had crawled into caves, walked up and down fossil country following creeks or the sides of rock faces. I have chipped out fossils and noted the layers from whence they came. I have found fossils on mountain tops (or very nearby) and in valleys. Before I knew anything else, I just accepted Darwinism. It was what I was taught and EVERYONE believed it!

Now modern science has caught up to and passed the Darwinist stake in the ground. The planets are young. The magnetic field of Earth and the Sun would have precluded life existing millions of years ago. In fact from what we know now NOTHING could have lived on an Earth in orbit around this Sun 100,000 years ago! Think about that...the magnetic field is the longest-measured such force we study and we can tell it would have been too strong for us that long ago. Thousands, not millions.

Study the makeup of organisms and you find they are designed and coded, filled with information and interdependent. We find organisms that are not just symbiotic with another one, but it is often multiples of organisms all requiring each other.

Did you know you have ten organisms living in and on you for every cell you have? If you have 100 trillion cells, how many organisms depend on you for life, how many of them do you need to do things like digest food and how many are waiting for you to die so they can begin to recycle the body?

Study the life-cycle of the Monarch Butterfly and then come back, grasshopper!

Anonymous said...

"Since I have already falsified the ridiculous assertion of 11,000 years of tree rings"

???

Where on Earth do you think you've accomplished this? Look forward to your retraction or clarification.

"You do not have an 11,000 year old tree, you have people who have linked together multiple tree ring samples and made ASSUMPTIONS with the longest possible age listed"

Again, please state which assumption of theirs you think is faulty. Their method is sound and their reasoning explained in detail. If you disagree, please explain on what basis. It's clear to us that you won't be able to do this, even if you won't admit it to yourself.

"the evidence of things we can test NOW shows us design and young ages"

Showing design = argument from incredulity. "I don't believe this could have evolved, therefore it was designed."

Showing young ages = false. All known dating methods indicate an Earth older than 6,000 years, and YECs are consistently incapable of calibrating existing data to line up with their desired conclusion of a young Earth and have to focus on a few outliers. The vast body of data remains inexplicable to YECs, but is easily explained by mainstream science.

"Piltdown Superman lists his link and his site, so you know who he is and how to communicate with him, unlike the anonymous commenters."

I've been to his site and I must have missed something, because it doesn't tell me who he is. He appears to be hiding behind his alias. Unless his name is actually Piltdown Superman, I suppose.

As for communicating with anonymous commenters, you're communicating with us on a pretty regular basis, aren't you?

radar said...

The communicating is askew. This post was not about tree ring dating.

If you want to grump about tree ring dating, wait until my next post on the fossil records that includes tree rings.

Feel free to look through the blog until you find my previous posts on tree rings or wait until I get to them again, I am not arguing this in a comments thread about sex and worldviews. Let your new slave do the grunt work, sorry about your old one.

Anonymous said...

"The communicating is askew. This post was not about tree ring dating."

No, but the discussion in the comments moved to that subject after a while, namely after you claimed that you presented evidence and it had no effect. Your inability to back up the calibration claim was used as an example of a lack of evidence to counter the falsification of a young Earth.

"If you want to grump about tree ring dating, wait until my next post on the fossil records that includes tree rings.
Feel free to look through the blog until you find my previous posts on tree rings or wait until I get to them again, I am not arguing this in a comments thread about sex and worldviews."

There's really no need. I've read your past posts on tree-ring dating and I have no doubt that your new posts will not add anything substantive to that. Obviously you've never answered the question about re-calibrating the data to allow for a flood 4300 years ago.

And as for trees CONSISTENTLY producing multiple rings per year, this has of course not been demonstrated for the trees actually used for dendrochronology. You've been down that path before as well.

"Let your new slave do the grunt work, sorry about your old one."

?

radar said...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/03/volcanoes-in-space-toads-alive-for-400.html

That is a ages of Earth and Universe overview.

I have answered the carbon dating question thoroughly if you have read my blog regularly. Why you folks cannot understand plain English is beyond me?

I also dealt with tree rings probably three years ago. In case you have not noticed, I have produced a large number of blogposts. In the case of tree rings and ice core samples, one needs to have markers to help date the entire set of layers or rings. Ice tends to flatten and mingle materials under pressure and you can get multiple layers from just on storm, let alone a season. Note the various posts I made on ice cores?

Tree rings. You do not have a tree that you claim is 11,000 years old, do you? Kindly share with the class? Otherwise you must admit that the assumptions of Darwinism stack tree rings from different samples to obtain an old age. As a matter of fact, trees can make multiple rings in a year and they can also skip a year. There is not a definite year-to-ring ratio.

Anonymous said...

"I have answered the carbon dating question thoroughly if you have read my blog regularly. Why you folks cannot understand plain English is beyond me?"

Apparently you haven't understood the plain English of the question. YECs have not been able to calibrate radiometric data in a way that lines up with the evidence AND gets them to a 6,000-year-old Earth. If you think that isn't true, then kindly show us where they have done this. So far you haven't been able to do this.

"I also dealt with tree rings probably three years ago. In case you have not noticed, I have produced a large number of blogposts. In the case of tree rings and ice core samples, one needs to have markers to help date the entire set of layers or rings."

Yes, which is how we know the tree rings used for tree ring dating correlate to annual layers closely, within a narrow margin of error. The same applies to ice core data, which falsify a 6,000-year-old Earth by hundreds of thousands of years.

"Ice tends to flatten and mingle materials under pressure"

Sure. Any idea at what depth that happens? Several hundred thousand layers below where a young Earth is utterly falsified. Sorry, that limp argument doesn't get you out of this YEC falsification.

"and you can get multiple layers from just on storm, let alone a season."

And what kind of layers would they be? The layers actually used for annual dating? No.

Radar, this clumsy statement of yours was exposed as a naive falsehood (that would be the most charitable way of describing it) several years ago. Did you forget? Are you purposely repeating an untruth? What would Jesus say?

"Note the various posts I made on ice cores?"

Yes, seen them. Not one of them comes close to a plausible YEC explanation for the hundreds of thousands of ice core layers.

"Tree rings. You do not have a tree that you claim is 11,000 years old, do you?"

Did you not understand the plain English of the paper that was posted? It's a tree ring record in which different fragments were pieced together based on significant matches in climate patterns.

Your only counter-argument to this has been the vague claim that this was based on "assumptions" that you refuse to specify. Not much of an argument. What are the faulty assumptions, and why are they faulty?

And have you considered the consequences of your argument? What if the fragments are not tied together? That wouldn't buy you less time, it would mean the tree ring record would cover a longer time span than 11,000 years, not less.

"Kindly share with the class? Otherwise you must admit that the assumptions of Darwinism stack tree rings from different samples to obtain an old age. As a matter of fact, trees can make multiple rings in a year and they can also skip a year. There is not a definite year-to-ring ratio."

For the trees used for three ring dating, according to calibration the year-to-ring ratio is definite within a rather narrow margin of error. And the margin of error is so narrow that it doesn't buy you a young Earth.

radar said...

This last comment takes the cake!!! A case of standing on suppositions from a commenter who apparently has not read posts I have made on the subjects. If he had, then he is being deceptive. If he hasn't, then he is being lazy.

I am now doing a series on the fossil rock layers based on Sean Pittman's research but including far more information as well, interspersing with some posts on other creation-v-evolution issues. These questions on the wrong blog post comments thread are out of place and for the life of me I cannot see why you Darwinists are continuing to park here when your answers are elsewhere? Anyway, in the immortal words of the Allman Brothers Band, "I ain't wastin' time no more, 'cause time goes by like hurricanes and much faster things"

The search engine in this blog tends to pick things from the last three-four years and often misses posts from early on. Since I made a number of foundational posts on evolution versus creation in 2006 and 2007 there is material out there some do not find without looking specifically. That is fine. Let's be clear, the statement that I have not shown how Creation science calibrates C-14 data is wrong, period. I have done this more than once.

I thoroughly and completely falsified the Darwinist concepts of dating ice cores. Also, you are making your comments on the wrong post. I have made multiple posts on ice cores, carbon dating, tree rings and dating methods in general.

You want to discuss carbon dating?

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/03/carbon14-dating-is-for-young-sorry.html - that was the last one. You will see a link to a technical paper in that post if you want to drill down.

You want to discuss overall age-of-Earth issues?

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2013/03/volcanoes-in-space-toads-alive-for-400.html - that was the last one.

You want to discuss ice cores?

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2008/12/ice-cores-and-dating-part-one-being.html - but there are several.

How about tree rings?

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/11/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology-yet.html - in which the Darwinist method used to try to stre-e-e-e-e-e-e-tch ages of trees is revealed to be based on unfounded assumptions, while actual evidence from actual living trees does not support the claims.

Anonymous said...

1. Google works just fine and digs up your posts all the way back.

2. I've read the relevant posts on your blog on these subjects. You, however, appear not to have read the links you posted, because then you would know they don't answer the questions asked above.

3. If you're seriously puzzled why the discussion on this blog appears to be on all kinds of subjects other than sex, perhaps you should look back at some of your comments as well. You routinely draw everything but the kitchen sink into a discussion.

4. "I thoroughly and completely falsified the Darwinist concepts of dating ice cores."

Nonsense. Link please. Or save us all the time and just retract this ridiculous comment.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that you're afraid of anything. But trolls love being anonymous like I'm doing