Search This Blog

Monday, March 25, 2013

Fun with YouTubes!!! Mr. Ministry Man addresses Atheism, Logic and Philosophy.

Tomorrow we discuss Darwinist dictatorships that have the word chained to the Naturalist wall.  Tear down this wall, Mr. Darwinist!!!   

credit

But that is tomorrow...

For a change of pace, an introduction to a video blogger - Mr. Ministry Man.   He is a young man who is a logical guy and his intention to interact with people via YouTube is similar to mine in a way.  I thought perhaps his way of presenting evidence would interest some people so it behooves me to post some older videos of his and let you navigate to his channel to see his newer offerings.

Unfortunately in my world commenters habitually make unsupported claims and also accusations rather than actually having an engagement of minds.   For instance, no Darwinist has actually tried to discuss transitional forms and why we have trouble finding them, rather, they list fully formed organisms and try to pass them off as transitional forms and then call me a liar!   This is not a particularly intelligent way to respond.  There is no evidence that shows a continuum of organisms changing from an amphibian to a dinosaur or a fish to an amphibian seen in the fossil record.  We do not see any evolutionary steps of systems or features in the middle of evolving at all!   In fact we do see all basic forms of organisms in the "Cambrian" layers.  That they are almost entirely sea creatures is consistent with a global flood, as the bottom layer would be mostly organisms buried in sediments produced at the beginning of the Noahic Flood.  None of them point out a creature with half of a sex organ beginning to evolve or an ancestral Bombardier Beetle with partially evolved chemical chambers.

My commenters also fail to address all the massive problems with the sedimentary rocks themselves and their features.   They do not address the evidence that the Solar System is young.  They do not accept the logical explanations given for carbon-14 dating methods as adjusted by Creationists.  I gave answers even a child could understand and they still pretend they were not offered to them!

Darwinists wrongly use "logical fallacies" to dodge questions and derision in place of arguments.   I thought it would be interesting to introduce a YouTube blogger to you and then tomorrow the topic of the tyrannical bullying of the Darwinist dictators...then back to the fossil record!

credit for book cover

Couldn't resist someone who posts on Flatland!!!   Brilliantly written so long ago and still applicable today...

















And just for fun, one NOT done by MMM just because sometimes a humorous look at a serious subject is necessary to keep balance in one's life.


8 comments:

Anonymous said...

"They do not accept the logical explanations given for carbon-14 dating methods as adjusted by Creationists."

There have been some hand-waving attempts to suggest ways in which one might go about adjusting radiometric data to nudge their interpretation closer to the creationists' desired result, but there is no coherent interpretation of radiometric data that simultaneously (a) is internally coherent and (b) yields an age of the Earth of 6,000 years.

Jon W said...

And again we see Radar repeating his lies and evading the question. Demanding an organism with "half an evolved sex organ?" Please! Evolutionary theory never predicted any such thing.

Cambrian organisms are all sea creatures, true. But (key fact) never anywhere in Cambrian rocks do we find any of the specific types of organisms that rose to dominate the seas in later times. No bony fishes. No seagoing tetrapods (mosasaurs, ichthyosaurs, cetaceans, pinnipeds). No hexacorals. No ammonites. Trilobites and flatfishes are both bottom-dwelling creatures that grub in the mud for food; Cambrian seas contain many of the former, all over the world, and none of the latter. And so on and so forth. I don't expect any of this to change your mind, Radar; you've long since proven immune to reason. I simply mention it lest any readers get the mistaken impression you know what you're talking about.

What is the YEC explanation for intertrappean fossils, Radar?

Chuck said...

And again we see you clowns proving Radar right! You change the subject to distract, erect straw men, attack the person, attempt to prove a point that is not being discussed.

'Evolutionary theory never predicted any such thing'. Perhaps you should read up on what your high priests are preaching.

'There have been some hand-waving attempts to suggest ways in which one might go about adjusting radiometric data to nudge their interpretation closer to the creationists' desired result, but there is no coherent interpretation of radiometric data that simultaneously (a) is internally coherent and (b) yields an age of the Earth of 6,000 years.'

This is relevant? Radiometric dating is ruined. It gives results with a wide range of years, and they cherrypick the dates that fit what they already want to see. Intelligent people know this. Propagandists do not.

Keep up the sneakiness and lies, it's very entertaining.

Anonymous said...

"And again we see you clowns proving Radar right! You change the subject to distract, erect straw men, attack the person, attempt to prove a point that is not being discussed."

Both the commenters above reacted directly to Radar's actual quotes. How is that "changing the subject" or "distracting". What particular strawman are you referring to?

"'Evolutionary theory never predicted any such thing'. Perhaps you should read up on what your high priests are preaching."

Perhaps you could show us the scientific text where the theory of evolution makes such a prediction. (Not a creationist propaganda website.)

"This is relevant? Radiometric dating is ruined. It gives results with a wide range of years, and they cherrypick the dates that fit what they already want to see. Intelligent people know this. Propagandists do not."

Kindly back this up with actual data. Otherwise a retraction would be the honorable thing to do.

"Keep up the sneakiness and lies, it's very entertaining."

That's the only reason commenters still keep coming to Radar's blog. He has nothing left but lies at this point.

radar said...

Chuck, thanks!

Jon simply repeats the standard Darwinist boilerplate. Boilerplate is a journalistic term (I was a journalist for a time) for a standard explanation/description applied automatically as a common practice. Jon's assertions about the Cambrian rocks are just boilerplate and he ignores anything about Cambrian findings that do not fit his programmed verbiage.

Of course things like sexual organs and the Monarch Butterfly life cycel are among the many that Darwinism cannot begin to explain.

I will remind you of another term, the black box. A black box is a plot device of sorts. A ray gun used in old Sci-fi movies and novels. "Beam me up, Scottie!", Dr. Frankenstein's array of gizmos. It can also be an unexplained concept or power rather than a machine. As Michael Behe rightly pointed out, the cell and many other systems and organs and functions in organisms are a black box to Darwinists. I am talking about very basic problems, like:

Origin of sex
Origin of the cell
Origin of life
Origin of DNA
Origin of countless systems that are not just complex, but very exacting in (shall we say) tolerances in order to operate at all. The neck of the giraffe, the chemical warfare system used by the Bombardier Beetle, the flagellum of the e.coli and myriad more.

Also I have presented Jon and his clan challenges to explain information, sentience, the flood characteristics of the sedimentary rocks, the many artifacts and written records of dinosaurs and humans living together...a very very long list unanswered.

Over the history of this blog it has been primarily me providing evidence and commenters saying "nyuh-uh!" Well, denial does not equate with logic and neither does changing the subject or derision.

The explanations provided for using C-14 dating were not hand-waving, they were valid means by which Creationists try to interpret C-14 ages and the methods described are far more accurate than what Darwinists provide. Creationists have identified longest possible ages for the Earth that usually require it to be less than 100,000 years old.

How do you think C-14 manages to be in fossils and even diamonds in all rock layers? Even if you did not calibrate the data, it makes all life on Earth younger than 100,000 years old.

Chuck said...

They're noisy bullies, aren't they? Snidely even cherrypicked which of my comments he was going to respond to.

The origin of sex. I don't think about it, I'm just glad it happened.

Jon W said...

"Jon's assertions about the Cambrian rocks are just boilerplate and he ignores anything about Cambrian findings that do not fit his programmed verbiage."

Radar, you haven't given any findings to ignore! You keep jabbering about modern fossils in Cambrian strata, but it's all just glittering generalities. Give us some specifics. If you ever really were a journalist, you should remember the Five W's: Who, What, Where, When, Why. The last one doesn't apply so much here, but the first four certainly do.

WHO has reported finding modern-type organisms in Cambrian strata?

WHAT "modern-type organisms" did they find? Were they in fact modern organisms, or were they very primitive organisms that fit in with the rest of those Cambrian fauna and with the conventional view of the geologic record?

WHERE did they find these fossils -- the exact geological context? Are geologists certain that it was Cambrian strata? Is there any chance that reworking was going on?

WHEN did they find these fossils?

Jon W said...

"Of course things like sexual organs and the Monarch Butterfly life cycel are among the many that Darwinism cannot begin to explain."

Genetic analysis of monarch butterflies has begun to give us information about their life cycle and how they do what they do.

As for the evolution of sex organs, that's no mystery at all if you know some actual biology. There's an entire spectrum of reproductive methods among both plants and animals, from purely asexual budding all the way to fully sexual reproduction -- and there's a lot of variety in sexual reproductive methods and sexual organs, too.