Search This Blog

Saturday, May 04, 2013

Faith versus Evidence. Darwinism versus Creationism. Part Two is WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????

Let us make this as clear cut as possible.   I will present the polar opposites in the Evolution versus Creation debate.   I will present the Young Earth Creationist position, which includes accepting the Bible as being true when it speaks to science and history.  In opposition, I will present the Darwinist position as the Naturalistic Materialistic Atheistic Humanistic Evolutionist side.   These are the North and South poles of the world of Origins as well as many facets of operational science.   I will consider the relative positions of both sides and show the reader which side depends more on Faith and which side relies more on science.   We should probably start with a few introductory remarks to be very clear about the post.  

1)  We will rely on Francis Bacon's version of the Scientific Method.   Bacon's method was a clarification of the method of Roger Bacon, who was the student of the great Robert Grossteste, who proposed using the investigative way of studying the Universe rather than the axiomatic method that was popular during the Middle Ages.   Rather than starting with the thoughts of great philosophers of the past and, with their thoughts as guides, opining applications and corrolaries to such thoughts.   So the inductive method was accepted as superior to the deductive method of investigation.   BUT naturalism was NOT part of the Scientific Method.   Those who devised it were Creationists who saw that it made sense that a Universe created by a Logical God and originally to be ruled by man must be able to be understood and manipulated by mankind.  NO NATURALISM WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE IMPOSED ARTIFICIALLY.   You see, while we can only investigate in the present and within a natural world, both sides want to make predictions and declare their beliefs about what has happened in the unobservable past.  Since neither side has a time machine, both sides have to leave this time-space continuum to make faith statements about past events.   Therefore both Naturalists and Supernaturalists must needs leave the natural world with their thoughts and assertions to travel within their minds back to past.

2) Any Scientific Law that has never been disproved will remain law.  I will not accept any arguments that claim that the Laws of Thermodynamics have ever been demonstrably broken or that the Law of Biogenesis has ever been broken.   There is no evidence that would support removing the "Law" from these laws.   

3) I will be willing to argue evidence.   But commenters have to bring evidence to the table.  Simply either saying "nyuh-uh" will not be acceptable.   Also, the evidence-free appeal to some opinion held by some Darwinist somewhere is not acceptable.   Simply saying that "Joe Blow has an interesting hypothesis" is not evidence. Sure, the check is in the mail!  Your wishful thinking is not evidence.  Bring evidence or be ignored and actually spotlighted.   Trust me, commenter spotlighting has happened in the past and it is going to be done again in the very near future.   So if you do not want empty arguments on page one and torn to shreds, do not make empty arguments.  Are we clear?

So we will start with the first fundamental question, which is, WHERE DID EVERYTHING COME FROM?????

DARWINISTS argue from faith and Creationists argue from evidence when considering the origin of the Universe.

Creationists - We have strong evidence for the Creator God having created the Universe. 
1) God left us an eyewitness account in the Bible.   God not only tells us in what order He created, He even tells us why.   So the historical document known as the Bible gives us evidence for God as Creator.

2) The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us God or another Supernatural Creator had to be the First Cause.  Since no matter is being created or destroyed in the natural world, the natural world could not make itself.   If the natural world cannot create itself, then by definition the Supernatural had to create the natural.  A naturalist who must depend on a long series of unexplained miracles with no source for the miracles is not depending upon evidence, is he?  But we can stand on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

3) Real life observation.   We see that we have a creative side.  We write songs and poems,  create paintings, carvings and other works of art.  We invent various mechanisms to accomplish things more efficiently than simply using our arms and legs.   We see that created things have a creator.  Da Vinci was very creative and designed many devices as well as numerous works of art.  Mozart was a wonderful writer of music.   George Washington Carver not only made the peanut a versatile and useful source of many tasty edible things, he was simply an inventive guy who came up with all sorts of ideas.  Edison and Tesla were certainly inventors, as were the Wright Brothers.  We do not see symphonies or automobiles *poof* mysteriously into existence.   We should not expect the Universe to have *poofed* into existence, either.  Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself.

Darwinists - They have only faith positions for the existence of the Universe.
1) The Laws of Thermodynamics?  They ignore them and claim that some "singularity" with no known caused exploded by no known means and said explosion had to be controlled by no one to produce elements that should not have formed.   That is faith!

2) The equations that purport to represent the Big Bang do not add up.   You remember Algebra class?   Remember that an equation has two sides of the = sign that are equal?   Well, the Big Bang equations are 96% unobserved matter and energy.  In my high school Algebra class, should one of us had turned in an equation with missing stuff and just invented new words to hide our ignorance and represent things we could not figure out?  Well, that would be an "F!"  Big Bang equations do not add up.

3) Logic is not on the Big Bang side, either.  The Big Bang is a desperate attempt at explaining the creation of the Universe without a Creator.  Occam's Razor be darned!   You see, when Darwinism was proposed by Darwin, the Universe was thought to be very likely eternal and largely unchanging.   A steady state always there Universe gave the statistically impossible concept of evolution endless time to happen.   But the great joy with which Darwinists greeted the apparent deep age of the Universe based on the idea of light years was tempered by the problem of a Universe that had a beginning and was stretched out and possibly still being stretched (as the Bible says, by the way).  How could they explain a created Universe, which would be  actually evidence for a Creator?   Well, they decided to pretend that nothing exploded and became everything.  IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE "SINGULARITY" AND THE POWER BY WHICH THE CONTROLLED EXPLOSION WAS ACCOMPLISHED, PLEASE STEP UP AND EXPLAIN!

Otherwise I assert that Creationists stand on evidence.  We also say that the entire Big Bang hypothesis is so full of holes and canards and problems that it would be laughed out of existence if it was not the only thing that Darwinism can cling to in order to avoid the Creator God.   I hereby assert that the laws of nature show us that nature does not create itself.   We have changes happening everywhere but creation and destruction?  Nope.   Sorry, naturalist, your insistence on natural solutions leaves you with no Universe at all!!!

Several major problems with the Big Bang are presented in this article, below, from CreationWiki:


Big bang

NASA cosmic chronology diagram tracing the 13.7 billion year history of the Universe from the Big Bang to the formation of stars,galaxies, and planets.
The Big Bang is the preeminent theory which attempts to explain the origin of the universe through purely natural processes. The theory posits that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. It is believed that approximately 13.7 billion years ago this singularity experienced a rapid inflation of matter, energy, space, and time that eventually evolved and self-organized into starsgalaxies, and planets. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space and time. However, like an explosion, it was highly energetic and chaotic.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy the big bang theory is the;
...most widely accepted theory of the origin and evolution of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe originated from an initial state of high temperature and density and has been expanding ever since.[1]

Contents

 [hide]

Evolutionary Assumptions

Illustration shows the expansion of space and time from an infinitely dense singularity. The diagram is simplified to show abstracted "slices" of space at different points in time in only two of three spatial dimensions. Note that as space is expanding, galaxies (and other structures) are moving apart, but they are not expanding themselves since they are held together locally by gravity.
The big bang theory has two basic assumptions.
  1. The Copernican Principle.
  2. An unbounded universe.

The Copernican Principle

The Copernican Principle is inappropriately named for Nicolas Copernicus as he had no part in propounding this principle. Copernicus put forward the model that the Sun, not the Earth is the center of the Solar System. He first published his heliocentric model in 1512, but his work neither proved nor implied anything about our position on a cosmic scale. The so-called Copernican Principle is the assumption that there is nothing special about the Earth's location in the universe. In other words the overall structure of the universe would look the same from any point in the universe as it does from Earth.
However it may seem there is no scientific evidence for this since we have never seen the universe from any distance from Earth that would allow it to be tested. What is known is that this type of thinking pertains to origins science rather than operational science. Such an assumption is necessary to an evolutionary cosmology since the odds of the universe, let alone any type of life being at a special location by chance would be astronomically small. The Earth being in a special place would suggest special creation and intelligent design to facilitate life.
While there is no scientific evidence for the so called Copernican Principle, there is scientific evidence against it. The direct observation of galactic red shift is so uniform around us that it naturally suggests that we are very near the center of the universe. This is not only a special location but the most special location possible.
To save the so called Copernican Principle it became necessary to postulate an unbounded expanding universe with matter evenly distributed on a large scale so that there is no center. The best illustration of this is with the expansion of a balloon as seen from its surface. Based on this model any place in the universe would seem to be in the center of the expansion. Like the Copernican Principle, there is no scientific evidence for the assumption of an unbounded universe, so it, too, is a purely unseen assumption.

An Unbounded Universe

In the unbounded universe of the big bang there is no edge and as such no center. In a bounded universe there is an edge and there is a definite center. As it turns out, there is evidence for such a center and that the Earth is near it.
There is a quantization of galactic redshift. Based on this phenomenon, galaxies form concentric shells with an average spacing of about 2 million light years. Furthermore, if we were more than 2 million light years from the center we would not see the pattern. In fact observations show us to be within 100,000 light years from the center and when compared to the context of the entire universe that is astronomically precise.

Evidence

Cosmic Background Radiation

High-resolution sky map of cosmic microwave background radiation from NASA's orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP).
Main Article: Cosmic background radiation
Cosmic Background Radiation is a steady microwave radiation from space. It is found in every direction and is roughly equal to 2.73K black body radiation. It is claimed to be residual radiation from the Big Bang. This background radiation was predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and finding it was hailed as proof of the theory.
If the Big Bang happened as described, background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe. Then, following that logic, the X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way should all cast shadows. However recent observations have been done concluding that there is a lack of shadows in places where there should be.[2]

Redshift

Main Article: Redshift
Spectral lines come in two types, emission lines that are light on dark, and absorption lines that are dark on light. When the frequencies do not line up right the spectrum is shifted, with red towards the longer end and blue towards the shorter end. When Edwin Hubble discovered galactic redshift he interpreted it as a Doppler shift. This change in frequency is caused by motion. A redshift indicates that the source is moving away from the observer and a blue shift indicates that the source is moving towards the observer. George Lemaitre's idea, that it is caused by the wavelength of light's being stretched in transit by a continual expansion of space, has become the prominent interpretation of galactic redshift. Galactic red shift does suggest expanding space-time which fits the theory of the Big Bang. It was once thought to fit the white hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys also, but John Hartnett and others have pointed out that the white-hole model would predict a blueshift, because it states that our galaxy is at the bottom of a cosmic gravity well. Hartnett's cosmological relativity predicts redshift as a consequence of the expansion of space itself.

Evidence Against

Age

Proponents of the Big Bang measure an age of 13.7 Gyrs by tracing back the expansion of the universe to an initial point. However, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. The evidence shows that only with a young universe can this problem be resolved which flatly contradicts the Big Bang.

Alternative redshift mechanisms

Dr. Halton Arp and other astronomers have discovered evidence that the universe isn't expanding at all. Instead, their observations indicate that redshifts are likely due to other mechanisms such as atoms having variable mass. If the universe is not expanding then the Big Bang is completely falsified. The variation of mass also disproves radiometric dating since decay rates would change as the mass of protons and electrons changed. These exciting discoveries lead us to conclude that the naturalist assumptions about the age of the universe and its dynamical state are incorrect. In an effort to suppress this inevitability, the astronomical community has denied Dr. Arp telescope time.

Not enough antimatter

According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.[3]
These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model.[4]

No magnetic monopoles

Scientists trying to find models that would explain why there is more matter than antimatter have shown that magnetic monopoles should be created in the early universe. Yet, no magnetic monopoles have ever been observed in nature or in particle accelerators.

No plausible inflationary mechanism

Main Article: Cosmic inflation
The Big Bang hinges on a brief period of time called "inflation" during which the universe expanded exponentially. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laboratory.

No gravitational wave background observed

Scientists supporting the inflationary model of the Big Bang universe predict that a gravitational wave background originating from inflation should exist similar to the cosmic microwave radiation. Currently, several multi-billion dollar projects around the world are attempting to find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves, but no evidence has been forthcoming. Without gravitational waves, it is unclear whether the theory of general relativity can apply to the regimes where inflation is invoked and this casts a pall on the possibility for any sort of Big Bang inflationary model.

Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"

In order to account for the differences in the density field of the universe, atheistic cosmologists utilize the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to provide "variations" in their conception of an inflationary universe. Aside from this assumption relying on theories of quantum gravity which have not been developed, there is no way in which an "uncertainty" which is a statistical measure can account for a real physical over-density or under-density. These over-densities and underdensities are fundamentally required in order to explain the filaments, walls, and voids in the universe we see today, but the best that the Big Bang proponents can do is claim that there were "quantum fluctuations" without explaining the mechanism for their formation beyond a simple hand-waving appeal to "randomness".

Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity

For nearly 100 years, scientists and mathematicians have been trying without success to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics together into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. This is a requirement for explaining how a Big Bang could have occurred. They have been unable to do so, despite the supposedly smartest minds in the world working on the problem. Instead, proponents of the Big Bang believe that a physically impossible "singularity" with infinite density, pressure, and temperature was the primal state of the universe: an impossibility that defies modeling. Instead of acknowledging this limitation of their theories, atheistic cosmologists prefer to use the paradox as the fundamental feature of the Big Bang: a universe in a single point that has no size or temporality. Rather than admit their inability to create a model that has any kind of physical meaning whatsoever, the atheistic cosmologists insist that their ideas that are not based on any coherent or consistent theory are correct.

The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction

Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect.

Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for

Naturalist astronomers assume that gravity is the dominant force in the universe driving the dynamics of the cosmos. However, the universe is mostly plasma which reacts strongly with electromagnetism. The Big Bang does not take this additional force into consideration.

Too complex, too early

The universe has too many large structures such as interspersed walls and voids, to be created in 10-20 billion years. We know the rate of expansion, thus we can get a rough estimate on how long it would take for them to form. Some have proposed that the speeds of galaxies were much faster in the past by means of some sort of viscosity of space, but this is nothing more then wishful thinking. Also, in order for these to form, it would take about 100 billion years.

Not enough helium or lithium

Newer observations have found that there is only 10 per cent of the deuterium present than was previously believed. This would mean that there should be much more helium and lithium around than we actually see. But many Big Bang enthusiasts claim that the amount of helium is a proof.

Too many heavy elements

The Big bang only allows for the production of the lightest elements on the periodic table. However, our very existence is predicated on a concentration of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The oldest stars observed in the cosmos contain these heavier elements as well meaning that they had to be around since the very beginning of our universe. The Big Bang provides no explanation for where these elements originate.

The universe isn’t homogeneous enough

In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity.

Galaxy disk formation

Big Bang believers have been trying for decades to simulate the conditions under which galaxies such as our Milky Way form. However, whenever they have tried to do so, they have found that the thin disks seen in many galaxies either do not form at all in a Big Bang universe, or are disrupted as other galaxies collide into the disks. It has become clear that gravitational interactions alone cannot account for galaxy disks, but even when computer simulators add gas dynamics and pressure into their simulations the problem persists. People who study these problems acknowledge the "mystery" but refuse to accept a supernatural creation of galactic disk.

Too much energy

The conservation of energy demands that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In a naturalistic universe there would therefore be no source for the energy seen in our universe. The Big Bang is just a placeholder for an extreme violation of this fundamental physical principle.

Too much angular momentum

Everything in the universe is spinning with angular momentum. However, the conservation of angular momentum demands that angular momentum cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, similar to the energy problem above there must be a source for the angular momentum in our universe that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic theories.

Mathematical discrepancies

DarkMatterNASA1.jpg
In 1933, and again in 1998, the Big Bang model was shown to have serious mathematical discrepancies between observation and expectation. In response, Big Bang cosmologists have invented two concepts that violate Occam's razor and the current understanding of physics, in order to keep their calculations consistent.

Dark matter

Main Article: Dark matter
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky observed that the Coma supercluster was rotating too fast for its own self-gravity to hold it together. A few years later, Jan Oort made a similar deduction about our own galaxy. Astronomers have invented the concept of dark matter to explain this and similar discrepancies in the observations of galaxies and galactic groups, clusters, and superclusters throughout the universe.
However, astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa in a review article to be published in a major astrophysical journal[5] noted that dark matteras a new particle has been falsified by the observation that dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are aligned in a plane and consistent with having no dark matter at all. The fact that dark matter particles do not exist (in spite of decades of searching, none have been discovered) and the fact that the Big Bang is dependent on the existence of such "dark matter particles" means that Dr. Kroupa has been able to convincingly falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. Kroupa's falsification of the Big Bang has been receiving growing attention from an astronomical community that is beginning to realize that there is no support for the fairy tales of an old, naturalistic universe.[6]

Dark energy

Main Article: Dark energy
In 1998, two separate teams of observers developed incontrovertible evidence that the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing down, is in fact accelerating. Astronomers and cosmologists, lacking any other explanation, have invented the concept of dark energy to explain this acceleration.

Summary

Astronomers and cosmologists now estimate that the total mass-energy content of the universe is about 75% dark energy, 21% dark matter, and only 4% baryonic matter. Attempts to identify the source of either concept have thus far failed.
In 1996, two years before conventional cosmologists observed the apparent acceleration of the universe, Dr. Moshe Carmeli predicted that appearance of acceleration, using a new cosmological model (cosmological relativity) that assumes a space-velocity continuum, not Albert Einstein's space-time continuum. John Hartnett developed the concept further and now claims to have solved the problem of the spin curves of galaxies (and their groups, clusters and superclusters) and of the apparent acceleration of the universe without the need for dark matter or dark energy. This solution also requires discarding the Big Bang model and assuming instead that God created the cosmos exactly as the Bible says He did. Hartnett also claims a bounded universe having our galaxy at its center and a solution to the light-time problem.

Quotes

Paul Davies wrote in The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161:
...represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.

Conclusion

The big bang is based on two purely philosophical assumptions, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong as the evidence indicates, so is every conclusion about the universe based on the big bang.
Furthermore, the Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological relativity solution solves two problems (dark matter and dark energy) that continue to embarrass proponents of the Big Bang model, while also solving a problem that has been one of the greatest challenges to creationists.

News

News.JPG

References

  1.  Edited by Ian Ridpath, Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford University Press 1997) pg. 57
  2.  "Big Bang Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test." Moon Daily, September 3, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  3.  Oard, Michael. "Missing antimatter challenges the 'big bang' theory." TJ 12(3):256, December 1998. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  4.  Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
  5.  http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546v1
  6.  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21732-nearby-darkmatterfree-zone-poses-cosmic-conundrum.html

External links

Creationist links

Secular links

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

"You see, while we can only investigate in the present and within a natural world, both sides want to make predictions and declare their beliefs about what has happened in the unobservable past. Since neither side has a time machine, both sides have to leave this time-space continuum to make faith statements about past events. Therefore both Naturalists and Supernaturalists must needs leave the natural world with their thoughts and assertions to travel within their minds back to past."

How is drawing conclusions from natural things found in the present-day leaving the natural world?

Adding a hypothetical supernatural being, yes, that is leaving the natural world.

Drawing conclusions from available natural data, making predictions based on those conclusions, testing if future finds confirm them and either finding conclusions confirmed or altering them accordingly, that is within the confines of the scientific method and does not require "leaving the natural world".

Anonymous said...

"I will not accept any arguments that claim that the Laws of Thermodynamics have ever been demonstrably broken or that the Law of Biogenesis has ever been broken. There is no evidence that would support removing the "Law" from these laws."

You're engaging in a strawman argument here, something you only quite recently denounced IIRC.

Your opponents do not claim that the LOT or the LOB can be broken or that they need to be broken for that which you disagree with to be true. This is truly a "canard" that you keep trying over and over.

Anonymous said...

"DARWINISTS argue from faith and Creationists argue from evidence when considering the origin of the Universe."

False, and one of the biggest strawman arguments of them all. Mainstream science (what you refer to as "Darwinists" here) argues from evidence and only evidence, which is why there are still unexplained parts to our knowledge.

Creationists fill in the blanks according to faith, with no scientific basis. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, nor for God creating the universe or anything at all for that matter, let alone doing it all in six days 6,000 years ago. What there is is a whole lot of faith.

Anonymous said...

"God left us an eyewitness account in the Bible."

Who was the eyewitness?

Can you give a non-faith-based answer to this question?

Anonymous said...

"The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us God or another Supernatural Creator had to be the First Cause. Since no matter is being created or destroyed in the natural world, the natural world could not make itself. If the natural world cannot create itself, then by definition the Supernatural had to create the natural. A naturalist who must depend on a long series of unexplained miracles with no source for the miracles is not depending upon evidence, is he? But we can stand on the Laws of Thermodynamics."

We know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply without question today, from our current perspective.

Yet the LOT also lead us to deduce that at some point in the past, they either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently. I think we can agree on that up to that point.

At this point, a scientific approach - based only on natural observations - can lead us to hypothesize, but without certainty or comprehensiveness. We simply don't know what happened, and from a scientific standpoint, can not say anything much more certain than that. There are hypotheses, but at present we can not confirm or falsify them.

Acting on faith - but not science - one can plug in mythology, as many human societies have done. A creator figure or figures of some kind. Which is fine and understandable, but don't go pretending that that is science and lie about mainstream science saying stuff it categorically doesn't say - your ongoing strawman argument about "poof".

Anonymous said...

"Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself."

We don't see "creative beings" creating matter or violating laws of physics, so your analogy falls a little short here.

However, given man's ability to invent characters and narratives and even divine figures (unless you want to claim that the Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons etc. all actually existed), your logic and observation should tell you that man is capable of inventing/creating gods and actually believing in them.

Anonymous said...

"The Laws of Thermodynamics? They ignore them and claim that some "singularity" with no known caused exploded by no known means and said explosion had to be controlled by no one to produce elements that should not have formed. That is faith!"

No, it is a natural law possibly applying in unexpected ways under extreme circumstances. The law of gravity, for example, was deemed rock-solid until it needed to be amended in the 20th century.

This has nothing to do with "faith". It is simply science drawing conclusions from observable phenomena - the big bang theory is of course exactly that. And if a law is seen not to apply in extreme circumstances, it is not the law that defeats actual observation, it's actual observation that may lead to the law being amended - which is what happened with the law of gravity.

Someone Else said...

Sounds like these anonymous posts are from the same guy. Seems like he's the smartest guy on the planet and Radar is a lying, stupid scumbag. But since anonymous is twisting words, making assertions and being manipulative, I say that HE is the lying, stupid scumbag. After all, saying to Radar "No it isn't!" and making statements is not refutation of Radar's position. Man up and give us something to work with besides your huge ego. Since you don't sign your name, I won't either.

Anonymous said...

"Sounds like these anonymous posts are from the same guy."

Yes, obviously. They're reactions to the post one step at a time, instead of writing one 20-page comment. Which blogger sometimes doesn't allow anyway.

"Seems like he's the smartest guy on the planet and Radar is a lying, stupid scumbag."

Thank you for the compliment, and no, I didn't call Radar that. Perhaps you're not familiar with the spirit of civilized discourse and simple disagreement.

"But since anonymous is twisting words, making assertions and being manipulative,"

When I called Radar out on his logical fallacies which, yes, are dishonest in nature, I was very specific about when and how he did so. If he's inclined and able to show me that he did not engage in such a fallacy (say, a particular strawman argument for example), I'll be happy to retract my claim. Until then, it stands.

You are now making accusations without being specific about where I was being manipulative or twisting words. Care to expand on that?

As for making assertions, well yes, I did. So what? You've got a problem with "assertions" for some reason?

"I say that HE is the lying, stupid scumbag."

Well I'm just shocked. An unfounded insult from a commenter who can't bring a single argument to the table.

"After all, saying to Radar "No it isn't!" and making statements is not refutation of Radar's position."

Well... refutations do tend to include "statements", so I don't really see your point here. And if you'd care to read and understand my arguments above, you'd easily see that they weren't just "No it isn't!".

"Man up and give us something to work with besides your huge ego. Since you don't sign your name, I won't either."

No need to take it personally, and no need to sink to playground trash talk.

You want something to "work with"? Pick any one of the comments above. Here's an easy one to get you started: Who was the eyewitness to creation?

Anonymous said...

"Otherwise I assert that Creationists stand on evidence."

Whoa, "Someone Else", look out: Radar made an assertion! Bad, bad Radar!

But maybe, SE, maybe your problem isn't with "assertions", but with "unfounded assertions" or, more troubling, "unsupportable assertions".

And this assertion by Radar happens to be one such unsupportable assertion. If you proceed from the evidence that science has examined to date, it's actually impossible to reach a conclusion of a 6,000-year-old Universe. To come to that conclusion, you have to start with the Bible, claim that that is true and sufficient evidence (another unfounded assertion), and then see what scientific evidence stands in its way and try to find ways to discredit that. Look back through Radar's blog, and that's exactly what you'll find, in great abundance.

There is no coherent interpretation of all the dating-related data that gets you to a Universe that young.

radar said...

A DOS attack is an attempt to take down a server (talking internet technology here) by the sheer number of messages directed to the server, thus bogging it down to the point it cannot handle the load and begins to fail. Apparently the new idea here is to inundate me with a bunch of comments at once so I it is hard to deal with all of them. But I anticipated the play so am taking one main point at once so you cannot throw a million things against the wall hoping a couple will stick.

Remember I said evidence needs to be used in an argument? The first comment is the commenter failing to understand the concept. Scientists leave this time/space continuum WITH THEIR MINDS. Both sides MUST do this to make any hypothesis at all. So you are wrong in your first comment. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and give you a moment of non-coherence in that you did not understand the assertion. You did not successfully challenge the evidence with comment number one and did not quite get what was being said.

radar said...

Comment two is a "nyuh-uh" comment. My "opponents" do actually claim that the LOB and LOT MUST be broken in order to support their hypothesis.

Anonymous said...

"Apparently the new idea here is to inundate me with a bunch of comments at once so I it is hard to deal with all of them."

Truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Your entire blog - especially over the last month or so, but in previous periods as well - relies on quantity over quality, and a large number of points made in a short period of time, so that there is little opportunity to respond to it all, and hoping some of it will stick.

When your points are responded to one by one, suddenly it's unfair and analogous to a DOS attack? Really?

If you'd like, we can take one point at a time. I don't have a problem with that.

Anonymous said...

"Comment two is a "nyuh-uh" comment. My "opponents" do actually claim that the LOB and LOT MUST be broken in order to support their hypothesis."

Evidence please.

radar said...

Comment number three is bereft of evidence at all. All empty arguments.

A previous commenter claimed that "Quotations from Chairman Mao" was the most published and read book in the world. Not even close. The Bible is far and away the most published and read book in human history. Unlike the Mao book, it is not printed in vast numbers in order to meet demand, but it is instead printed for mass distribution at the command of the Chinese Communist leadership.

Yet the Chinese currently print more Bibles than any other nation. You see, in some parts of China the Christians are not persecuted, they are valued for their superior work ethic. I did a blog post on the subject if you wish to research. One factory was only hiring Christians.

But if you have taken any philosophy courses, then you know the logical arguments for God. You can ignore them as they are logical arguments but have no real proof. However they do count as evidence.

But when it comes to the Bible, it has proven to be reliably true about history and science. The Bible reveals foreknowledge that could not come from wandering desert nomads waxing poetic.

In the Bible is a coherent eyewitness account of creation and man's history from Adam and Eve forward. Most of the great scientists who created modern science depended upon the Bible as the reason they could devote large parts of their lives to science.

All cultures have evidence within their mythology that actually lead us to believe that their little g "gods" were ancestors who were turned into mythology. We find evidence that all these cultures have Japheth (Europeans and East Asians), Ham (most Africans and some island dwellers, Australians and South Americans) or Shem (Middle Eastern dwellers primarily) as ancestors and/or primal gods in their mythology.

Mangled versions of Bible accounts are found all over the world. This actually supports the Bible itself as the source material for Chinese-telephoned versions of creation, flood and Tower or Babel. The Miao (Miatso or Miaso in some references) people have a genealogy that begins with Adam and includes Noah, his wife and the three sons by name. In fact they include the name of Noah's wife, which is not in the Bible.

So the Old Testament or written documentation of the history of mankind that predates Genesis and was carried by Noah on the Ark and passed down to Moses echoes through the history of cultures around the world. This actually supports the Bible as being genuine evidence that must be considered as a Message from God.

By the way, we keep finding pieces of the Old Testament in pottery found in digs or inscribed on clay tablets even now, in the 21st Century. The Bible stands as evidence and belongs in the discussion as historical evidence which is supported by a vast amount of external evidence. You cannot dismiss it as "faith" when it is in fact evidence.

radar said...

Comment four. See above. Evidence tells me that the Bible is genuine history. You want to call it faith, then I will call your adherence to the writings and thoughts of Darwin as faith. You believe Darwin wrote his books but you did not see him write them. We know that he took the work of Hutton and Blyth and Wallace and used them, sometimes out of context. Right? Were you there, did you see him write the books? How do you know for sure he wrote them and why do you believe his assertions?

Faith is the answer. We have not seen one kind of organism become another kind as Darwin asserts. You did not see him write it and you do not see his assertions played out in real time. But the assertions of God are observed. Kinds do not change, they are built to vary (speciation) by selecting from pre-existing information. My Bible predicts what happens in real time. Not so the assertions of Darwin.

radar said...

We know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply without question today, from our current perspective.

You being a naturalist, isn't current perspective a fastball down the middle of your contentions? Are you about to abandon ship?

Yet the LOT also lead us to deduce that at some point in the past, they either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently. I think we can agree on that up to that point.

Nope. You are engaging in wishful thinking and not science. You are abandoning evidence and beginning to make up a story. What will it be? Hope it is better than "Lady in the Water!"

At this point, a scientific approach - based only on natural observations - can lead us to hypothesize, but without certainty or comprehensiveness. We simply don't know what happened, and from a scientific standpoint, can not say anything much more certain than that. There are hypotheses, but at present we can not confirm or falsify them.

So why did you abandon the LOT then? You gave us no evidential reason to do it, did you?

Acting on faith - but not science - one can plug in mythology, as many human societies have done. A creator figure or figures of some kind. Which is fine and understandable, but don't go pretending that that is science and lie about mainstream science saying stuff it categorically doesn't say - your ongoing strawman argument about "poof".

Pretense aside, you have taken the Pagan myth of nature creating itself and built a false front for it and called it "science." But this argument lacks evidence. You admit you have run away from the LOT to propose a preposterous Big Bang that is 96% wishful thinking and you want to say THAT is science? Nope.

Anonymous said...

1. The claim in a previous post was that the book of Mao quotes was the second most published book, not the most published book, and that appears to be true. Can we agree that number of copies of a book printed are not an indicator of the truthfulness of the content of the book? Yes or no? If you disagree, please state your argument.

2. "But when it comes to the Bible, it has proven to be reliably true about history and science."

Some parts of the Bible do reflect historical events that are corroborated by other sources. There is no controversy in that. The Bible is a reflection of historical events and beliefs and tales passed down by word of mouth. You're surely also aware that they were edited after the fact, since the collection of documents that later became the Bible originally included some less credible elements.

Where this issue currently becomes problematic, however, is when you attempt to cloak the creation myth at the beginning of the Bible with the same historical credibility as the later parts. Since the Bible is an anthology of works by different authors and edited by other persons down the line, it would be a logical fallacy to suggest that because one part of the Bible (by one author) lines up with an actual historical event, person or location, that completely different parts of the Bible (by other authors) are therefore also corroborated.

This is where the evidence requirement falls short for the Bible.

3. "The Bible reveals foreknowledge that could not come from wandering desert nomads waxing poetic."

On the contrary, the Bible only reflects knowledge available at the time. Christianity would be the only religion remaining in the world and we wouldn't be having this discussion if God had actually provided information discovered millennia later that was useful to the survival of his creation.

4. "In the Bible is a coherent eyewitness account of creation and man's history from Adam and Eve forward."

Leaving aside some other issues with this statement (the account may not be as coherent as you claim), who was this alleged eyewitness of creation?

5. "Most of the great scientists who created modern science depended upon the Bible as the reason they could devote large parts of their lives to science."

A somewhat irrelevant side issue. Are you just throwing it in here to see if it sticks?

radar said...

Anonymous said...
"Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself."

We don't see "creative beings" creating matter or violating laws of physics, so your analogy falls a little short here.

However, given man's ability to invent characters and narratives and even divine figures (unless you want to claim that the Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons etc. all actually existed), your logic and observation should tell you that man is capable of inventing/creating gods and actually believing in them.


Your logic is broken badly, you need a worldview doctor. You resort to *poof* in the place of God. Your special pleading is an epic fail. You can't throw away the LOT to convince us some miraculous "singularity" without a cause exploded without a power to accomplish it and then somehow creates everything and call it science and logic!

I pointed out that we know that created things have a creator in today's observable world. I am standing on observable evidence, you are the one being fanciful.

Anonymous said...

"Comment four. See above. Evidence tells me that the Bible is genuine history. You want to call it faith,"

When it comes to the creation myth, yes. It is a logical fallacy to cloak the creation myth with the same historical credibility as, say, parts of the New Testament.

"then I will call your adherence to the writings and thoughts of Darwin as faith."

Darwin's book is a scientific text of the time. It describes what he saw at the time and what he thought about it, similar in that sense to, say, the writings of Julius Caesar. You may say that I am engaging in an article of faith when I say that I think Julius Caesar wrote what he wrote and Darwin wrote what he wrote, but it isn't much of a leap of faith, since it doesn't require having to go against observable evidence.

"You believe Darwin wrote his books but you did not see him write them. We know that he took the work of Hutton and Blyth and Wallace and used them, sometimes out of context. Right?"

Without getting into specifics, but sure, Darwin built on the work of his predecessors etc. I'm not particularly interested in whether Darwin or Wallace first came up with the respective ideas. For all I care, we could be sitting here discussing "Wallacism" instead of "Darwinism". Doesn't matter one bit. What matters is the theory itself.

You seem to think that "Darwinists" - perhaps analogous to "Christians" in that regard - somehow worship Charles Darwin as a person. You're barking up the wrong tree.

"Were you there, did you see him write the books? How do you know for sure he wrote them and why do you believe his assertions?"

I like Shakespeare's plays, too, but I don't really care if he himself wrote them or if somebody else did.

"Faith is the answer."

To what exactly?

"We have not seen one kind of organism become another kind as Darwin asserts."

Au contraire, we have seen changing organisms in the fossil record and we have seen speciation in laboratory conditions, as we would expect according to the theory of evolution.

"You did not see him write it"

Why would that be important? The text can be examined and tested regardless. If it turned out tomorrow that Wallace wrote the whole thing, it wouldn't change the meaning of the content one bit.

"and you do not see his assertions played out in real time."

Many of the claims of the theory of evolution do not refer to "real time", i.e. what we would experience in a human lifetime - they take considerably longer than that. And to the extent that they do, they are confirmed by the fossil record. For you to make a point of these assertions not being played out in real time betrays either an ignorance of the claims of the theory of evolution or a deliberate attempt to mislead.

To the extent that they can be expected to be observed in real time, they have in fact been confirmed, e.g. speciation of fruit flies.

"But the assertions of God are observed."

The assertion that God himself made any assertion at all is itself unfounded and controversial.

"Kinds do not change, they are built to vary (speciation) by selecting from pre-existing information."

This particular aspect of this discussion isn't going to go very far unless you specify a practical definition of "kind" and "species". Because as it stands, these two concepts seem to be very similar.

You've previously claimed that baraminology was an actual scientific discipline. Such a discipline wouldn't get very far without a clear definition of a "kind/baramin". So how do baraminologists define a baramin i.e. kind?

"My Bible predicts what happens in real time. Not so the assertions of Darwin."

Darwin's assertions have been refined due to later discoveries, but by and large they hold true.

What falsifiable prediction does your Bible make?

radar said...

My final response for the day. I may not return to this thread because I believe I have exposed the inanity of the Darwinist position on the beginning of the Universe. But this comment will allow me to sum it all up:

Anonymous said...
"The Laws of Thermodynamics? They ignore them and claim that some "singularity" with no known caused exploded by no known means and said explosion had to be controlled by no one to produce elements that should not have formed. That is faith!"

No, it is a natural law possibly applying in unexpected ways under extreme circumstances. The law of gravity, for example, was deemed rock-solid until it needed to be amended in the 20th century.


We are still waiting for one shred of evidence to support your position. All you do is make unsupported assertions.

This has nothing to do with "faith". It is simply science drawing conclusions from observable phenomena - the big bang theory is of course exactly that.

No, actually the Big Bang is a desperate unscientific last resort by Darwinists to explain the Universe. I did give you an article that presents all sorts of reasons that the Bang is a fizzle as a hypothesis. It is fantasy. presented as fact.


And if a law is seen not to apply in extreme circumstances, it is not the law that defeats actual observation, it's actual observation that may lead to the law being amended - which is what happened with the law of gravity.

Complete BS. You have revealed the total lack of evidence for the Big Bang. You claim that you have observed things you have not observed. You appeal to some nebulous argument concerning the law of gravity? What is it and what does that have to do with the LOT?

Thank you for exposing the incoherent and unscientific arguments for the Bang of Bigness. It is unscientific. It is not based on evidence. It is simply the Darwinist bedtime story they tell themselves to make the Big God go away. Thank you for admitting you abandon the LOT and thank you for revealing your complete lack of evidence and reasoning.

Creation by God is logical. I have historical evidence and I have the LOT that says nothing is being created or destoyed. You have NO EVIDENCE that refutes this, you simply give us a bunch of gobbledegook and hope nobody notices as you then assert things that are not only NOT observed but do not represent what we Do observe.

We do observe the LOT today and it never is broken so you have no reason to think a natural causation can break these laws. We do observe only creative agents being able to create - man can take things and make them into something different. God created the Universe. We create art, song, machine or story. My point of view reflects observable events and actions in this time-space continuum and depends on evidence to explain creation.

Thanks for proving my point. The Big Bang is a canard that is very unscientific and is just mythology in 21st Century clothes. FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

radar said...

We are not discussing the fossil record, but it is a record of a past event. In the approximately 150 years since Darwin first published there have been Darwinists doing their best to get fruit flies and bacteria to evolve without success. But that is not the subject of this post and I will not argue it on this post. We will get to that topic later.

Give me evidence that tells us to throw away the LOT to allow for the Big Bang. Where did the singularity come from? How can Planck Time be explained? Where is the source of the matter and energy that MUST be there to begin things.

Quit evading. Tell us where the singularity came from and how a controlled explosion was accomplished in order to make all this stuff with all the logical laws of nature. I am waiting for you to end the evasions and bring evidence. See you later, I know you cannot do it.

All you who do not comprehend the Darwinist scenario have hopefully seen that they have NOTHING to support the supposed Big Bang. It is a fairy tale.

Anonymous said...

Anon: "We know that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply without question today, from our current perspective."

Radar: "You being a naturalist, isn't current perspective a fastball down the middle of your contentions? Are you about to abandon ship?"

If you're now indicating an actual understanding of uniformitarianism, congratulations!

But no, what I was getting at was a recognition of the fact that natural laws that may seem obvious and clear to us from our current perspective turn out not to be valid at extreme boundaries or when examined in much closer detail - such as the law of gravity and Newton's laws of motion.

Anon: "Yet the LOT also lead us to deduce that at some point in the past, they either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently. I think we can agree on that up to that point".

Radar: "Nope."

Really. Wasn't that the whole point of your line of argument? That the LOT tell us that with the Universe running downhill, there must have been SOMETHING way at the beginning, a FIRST CAUSE that was - and this is the important bit - that was not subject to the LOT.

If you no longer believe that, then fine.

But if you do, then you are in agreement that at some point in the past, the LOT either somehow didn't apply or they applied differently.

"You are engaging in wishful thinking and not science. You are abandoning evidence and beginning to make up a story. What will it be? Hope it is better than "Lady in the Water!""

Wrong. My point is that science only goes as far as the evidence leads and draws conclusions based on that. That is what the BB theory is.

Anon: "At this point, a scientific approach - based only on natural observations - can lead us to hypothesize, but without certainty or comprehensiveness. We simply don't know what happened, and from a scientific standpoint, can not say anything much more certain than that. There are hypotheses, but at present we can not confirm or falsify them."

Radar: "So why did you abandon the LOT then? You gave us no evidential reason to do it, did you?"

Where and how did I abandon the LOT?

Anon: "Acting on faith - but not science - one can plug in mythology, as many human societies have done. A creator figure or figures of some kind. Which is fine and understandable, but don't go pretending that that is science and lie about mainstream science saying stuff it categorically doesn't say - your ongoing strawman argument about "poof"."

Radar: "Pretense aside, you have taken the Pagan myth of nature creating itself and built a false front for it and called it "science." But this argument lacks evidence."

You've resorted to your strawman argument again. Please tell me where you think I resorted to claiming that nature created itself.

"You admit you have run away from the LOT to propose a preposterous Big Bang that is 96% wishful thinking and you want to say THAT is science? Nope."

Where do you think I did that?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Logic and observation tell us that creative beings create and nothing creates itself."

We don't see "creative beings" creating matter or violating laws of physics, so your analogy falls a little short here.

However, given man's ability to invent characters and narratives and even divine figures (unless you want to claim that the Greek, Roman and Norse pantheons etc. all actually existed), your logic and observation should tell you that man is capable of inventing/creating gods and actually believing in them.

Radar said....
"Your logic is broken badly, you need a worldview doctor. You resort to *poof* in the place of God. Your special pleading is an epic fail. You can't throw away the LOT to convince us some miraculous "singularity" without a cause exploded without a power to accomplish it and then somehow creates everything and call it science and logic!

I pointed out that we know that created things have a creator in today's observable world. I am standing on observable evidence, you are the one being fanciful."

1. Again the strawman argument of *poof* instead of God. "Don't know yet" and "yet to be investigated" are not synonymous with *poof*.

2. I have not thrown away the LOT at any point. I have pointed out that both the BB theory and the creationist account are in agreement that at some point they did not apply or behaved differently. In light of the fact that other natural laws have been amended or found not to apply under certain conditions (e.g. law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion), this isn't all that remarkable.

It is worth pointing out, though, that Radar has thrown away the LOT but simply given his God the credit for it.

3. "some miraculous "singularity" without a cause exploded without a power to accomplish it and then somehow creates everything and call it science and logic"

This is either a naive or willfully misleading misrepresentation of the BB theory - particularly "miraculous", "without a cause", "exploded", "without a power" and "somehow creates everything". What the BB theory has going for it is that it lines up with observable evidence and proceeds from there - which is science and logic.

Where you are being dishonest is by pretending that science makes positive and ridiculous assertion where science does no such thing. By pretending that science says *poof* when in fact it says "we don't know yet".

That is where you're being dishonest.

Anonymous said...

"My final response for the day."

It wasn't.

"I may not return to this thread because I believe I have exposed the inanity of the Darwinist position on the beginning of the Universe."

You haven't.

"But this comment will allow me to sum it all up:"

Anon: "No, it is a natural law possibly applying in unexpected ways under extreme circumstances. The law of gravity, for example, was deemed rock-solid until it needed to be amended in the 20th century."

Radar: "We are still waiting for one shred of evidence to support your position. All you do is make unsupported assertions."

About the law of gravity being amended you mean? Surely not that hard to google. Want me to look it up for you?

Or about the LOT as we go back in time? See my previous comments. If we take the 2LOT at face value, at some point they must have been different. Simple logic that leads us to either the BB theory or other notions, such as God as a First Cause.

"actually the Big Bang is a desperate unscientific last resort by Darwinists to explain the Universe. I did give you an article that presents all sorts of reasons that the Bang is a fizzle as a hypothesis. It is fantasy. presented as fact."

It is the logical conclusion of the data that we have. A YEC scenario doesn't line up with the data. So this "fantasy. presented as fact" is actually a step ahead of your Genesis account.

Anon: "And if a law is seen not to apply in extreme circumstances, it is not the law that defeats actual observation, it's actual observation that may lead to the law being amended - which is what happened with the law of gravity."

Radar: "Complete BS."

You're presenting an "argument" without evidence.

"You have revealed the total lack of evidence for the Big Bang."

Me, a lowly commenter on some second-rate blog have somehow revealed this? Surely you can find better sources for your science know-how.

"You claim that you have observed things you have not observed."

Where do you think I did that?

"You appeal to some nebulous argument concerning the law of gravity? What is it and what does that have to do with the LOT?"

Newton's law of gravity was superseded and refined by Einstein's theory of general relativity. It's related to the present argument since you seem to think that natural laws are carved in stone and are somehow immune to later scientific discoveries.

"Thank you for exposing the incoherent and unscientific arguments for the Bang of Bigness. It is unscientific. It is not based on evidence."

I didn't really go into detail on this, and I apologize for not presenting this in sufficiently simplistic detail for you to comprehend it. Seriously, there's plenty of information available, but you choose to reject it on ideological/religious grounds.

Anonymous said...

"It is simply the Darwinist bedtime story they tell themselves to make the Big God go away."

You keep telling yourself that. I'm not trying to make the Big God go away, any more than you're actively trying to make the Big Zeus go away. I just don't think he exists, and I don't particularly care.

"Thank you for admitting you abandon the LOT"

A brazen lie... and another argument without evidence, in violation of your own principles.

"Creation by God is logical."

Being in violation of observable evidence is not logical.

"I have historical evidence"

Not for creation, just for some parts of the Bible much later on.

"and I have the LOT that says nothing is being created or destroyed."

Except when you get to the part when you say that everything is created. So you don't have that. You're actually admitting that you abandon the LOT.

"You have NO EVIDENCE that refutes this, you simply give us a bunch of gobbledegook and hope nobody notices as you then assert things that are not only NOT observed but do not represent what we Do observe."

There is no shortage of dating evidence that falsifies a Universe no more than 6,000 years old and that thus blows a strictly literal interpretation of the Genesis account out of the water.

The fossil record blows all organisms only devolving from 4300 years ago out of the water.

"We do observe the LOT today and it never is broken so you have no reason to think a natural causation can break these laws."

Except for the fact that natural laws are amended under extreme circumstances, which shows they are not as immutable as you seem to think.

"We do observe only creative agents being able to create - man can take things and make them into something different."

Yep, and man doesn't create rocks or mountains or planets or molecules. We observe those things existing all the time. So what's your point? Other than perhaps a very questionable analogy.

"God created the Universe."

As speculative as the BB theory, though - as many question marks as the BB theory may have - it is less contradicted by observable evidence than Genesis.

"We create art, song, machine or story."

Did you notice we also create gods? And we believe in gods that the majority of us don't think exist?

"Thanks for proving my point. The Big Bang is a canard that is very unscientific and is just mythology in 21st Century clothes. FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not sure what point you think I proved. But the BB theory is in line with observable evidence, and you've violated your own principle of not providing arguments without evidence. So as far as that goes, you haven't falsified the BB theory.

Anonymous said...

"We are not discussing the fossil record, but it is a record of a past event."

... that is observable in the present.

"In the approximately 150 years since Darwin first published there have been Darwinists doing their best to get fruit flies and bacteria to evolve without success."

An outright lie.

"Give me evidence that tells us to throw away the LOT to allow for the Big Bang. Where did the singularity come from? How can Planck Time be explained? Where is the source of the matter and energy that MUST be there to begin things.

Quit evading. Tell us where the singularity came from and how a controlled explosion was accomplished in order to make all this stuff with all the logical laws of nature. I am waiting for you to end the evasions and bring evidence. See you later, I know you cannot do it.

All you who do not comprehend the Darwinist scenario have hopefully seen that they have NOTHING to support the supposed Big Bang. It is a fairy tale."


There is a huge difference between saying "we don't know yet, and perhaps from our current perspective we can never know, but this position actually fits ALL the observable evidence" (which is the current position in mainstream science as I understand it) and "I know the answer but first let me try and dazzle you with something else" (which is what an evasion would look like and what you're accusing me of, without basis).

And then there's "God did it, so now we have a plugged-in answer of an actual agent that somehow violated the LOT, but this account also happens to be falsified by all kinds of observable evidence", which is what I understand your position to be. Feel free to tell me where I misinterpreted that.

Anonymous said...

A while upthread you expressed distaste for a barrage of arguments heading your way. And you're right to feel that way, because it's not an effective way to debate. It's also hypocritical, because you do this constantly.

But let's say that you were being sincere. Let's take your wishes at face value. You want to focus on one thing at a time, and you want arguments to be made with evidence, or they don't count.

So:

"My "opponents" do actually claim that the LOB and LOT MUST be broken in order to support their hypothesis."

Evidence please.

highboy said...

"Adding a hypothetical supernatural being, yes, that is leaving the natural world."

Well sure. Any discussion of our origins has to leave the natural world. Whether you believe in God or not, whatever formed the natural order as we observe it by definition is supernatural. That's just a fact. You can slice physical reality down to its most minute form and the explanation for that minute form's origins can never be found within itself. The only counter to this would be to suggest that the singularity from which the universe began was simply always there with no beginning. Of course the idea of an effect without a cause isn't very scientific.

"False, and one of the biggest strawman arguments of them all. Mainstream science (what you refer to as "Darwinists" here) argues from evidence and only evidence, which is why there are still unexplained parts to our knowledge."

Like the part where humans and apes supposedly had an ape like ancestor that isn't observed anywhere in the fossil record or anywhere else in science.

"Who was the eyewitness?

Can you give a non-faith-based answer to this question?"

Sure. The Bible withstands pretty much every scrutiny. Of course its fashionable to whip out the internet laundry list of supposed "contradictions" and "fallacies" found in the Bible but so far not one person I've engaged in that discussion with has found one that is actually a contradiction or error. When the Bible is judged by the same standards as all other forms of ancient literature, its very reliable. Text criticism, source criticism, corroborative evidence, all key ingredients when secular scholars examine any other ancient literature, so I'm sure its fine for the Bible yes?

"We don't see "creative beings" creating matter or violating laws of physics, so your analogy falls a little short here. "

Science can't prove that scientific "laws" can never be broken though, so I fail to see the point here.

And in regards to the breaking of scientific laws, this is where atheism shows its true nature in regards to its intellectual dishonesty. The atheist demands scientific, natural evidence to prove a miracle but if such evidence would be produced, the phenomenon in question ceases to be a miracle. So the atheist/naturalist has a nice cozy niche for themselves where its impossible to be wrong. The problem is though that the naturalist asserts nothing outside the natural order exists and the naturalist has no way of knowing that.

"Au contraire, we have seen changing organisms in the fossil record and we have seen speciation in laboratory conditions, as we would expect according to the theory of evolution."

The fossil record has gaping holes, and the theory of evolution doesn't state organisms change to other organisms in laboratory conditions, but in nature itself with no controller.

"Being in violation of observable evidence is not logical."

How is the idea of a Creator/God in violation of observable evidence? Are you now going to be the first person ever to successfully prove a negative? Because there isn't one aspect of evolution or science that would contradict a Creator/God. It simply can't.

radar said...

I have no respect for this new tactic of barfing out comments in huge quantities. I have less respect for commenters that call me a liar and have no evidence at all.

I will not address stupidity. I gave you a chance to defend your unscientific faith and you have failed miserably. Pathetic. Either man up and give us a reason to abandon the LOT or admit that you depend on fairy tales. The Big Bang is an absurd hypothesis. It is basically evidence-free.

radar said...

One comment I will address, the rest are mostly lies and I do not respect them and they do not deserve an answer.

1. The claim in a previous post was that the book of Mao quotes was the second most published book, not the most published book, and that appears to be true. Can we agree that number of copies of a book printed are not an indicator of the truthfulness of the content of the book? Yes or no? If you disagree, please state your argument.

I said that the Mao book is published in large numbers at the behest of a government. There is no comparison between a book that has given Western Civilization a population that is literate and led to the greatest intellectual and philosophical revolution of modern history, AKA the Reformation AND a book printed to promote a tyrannical ideology, a book of so-called wisdom from a guy responsible for the murder of tens of millions of innocents. Jesus Christ came to save the world. Mao came to attain power at the price of 30-50 million lives.

2. "But when it comes to the Bible, it has proven to be reliably true about history and science."

Some parts of the Bible do reflect historical events that are corroborated by other sources. There is no controversy in that. The Bible is a reflection of historical events and beliefs and tales passed down by word of mouth. You're surely also aware that they were edited after the fact, since the collection of documents that later became the Bible originally included some less credible elements.

You are lying. We have found a few ancient documents that lead us to accept the Biblical dates. Atheists have claimed that the Old Testament was written later than it was because they hate the fact that the prophecies were fulfilled. Too bad for you that some OT prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Christ, long after the books were written. Some Atheist Germans who came up with "Higher Textual" criticism decided by fiat to declare new dates for some books and claim multiple authors for Genesis. Their arguments were unschooled and ignorant. I am glad to say in the last 30 years we have found more scripture from long ago that agrees with the OT we had in the first place.

Where this issue currently becomes problematic, however, is when you attempt to cloak the creation myth at the beginning of the Bible with the same historical credibility as the later parts. Since the Bible is an anthology of works by different authors and edited by other persons down the line, it would be a logical fallacy to suggest that because one part of the Bible (by one author) lines up with an actual historical event, person or location, that completely different parts of the Bible (by other authors) are therefore also corroborated.

This is where the evidence requirement falls short for the Bible.


Your mastery of English leaves much to be desired. That was somewhat incoherent. Where is your evidence?

radar said...

3. "The Bible reveals foreknowledge that could not come from wandering desert nomads waxing poetic."

On the contrary, the Bible only reflects knowledge available at the time. Christianity would be the only religion remaining in the world and we wouldn't be having this discussion if God had actually provided information discovered millennia later that was useful to the survival of his creation.

More outright lies. Job and the five books of Moses are the oldest books in scripture. We get the creation narrative and also discover the fact that the Earth is hung in space rather than on the back of a turtle and other mythological ideas. Also God says he stretched and is stretching the Universe. Man has now found the Universe is being stretched and we are thousands of years between God's revelation of a stretching space and our ability to detect it.

4. "In the Bible is a coherent eyewitness account of creation and man's history from Adam and Eve forward."

Leaving aside some other issues with this statement (the account may not be as coherent as you claim), who was this alleged eyewitness of creation?

God created the Universe then told Adam why and when and where and what was created. The only thing God could not tell Adam was how other than to explain that God spoke things into existence. Obviously the ability to design and create a Universe is above the human pay grade. Adam and his descendents kept a record of their history and Noah took it with him on the Ark. It was passed down to his sons but only Shem and his descendents kept it carefully. When God told Moses to write the five books, Moses had the family genealogy/history to reference and was guided by God in terms of what to write for posterity and what to leave out.

5. "Most of the great scientists who created modern science depended upon the Bible as the reason they could devote large parts of their lives to science."

A somewhat irrelevant side issue. Are you just throwing it in here to see if it sticks?

Nope, just because Darwinists are pagans and pagans didn't bother with scientific study. Christians did because they didn't believe that nature made herself and therefore the makeup of things would be mysterious and random.

You Darwinists have just taken Pantheism and given it the veneer of science. You make false claims and then cannot back them up.

Not one of you can tell me where the so-called singularity came from, since nothing in the material world is created or destroyed. You cannot identify the power that supposedly caused a controlled explosion that made everything. Worse yet, you think a bunch of mistakes and explosions and collisions made everything, including obviously designed organisms. I find it an astoundingly stupid idea and am astonished and your ability to swallow such a ludicrous concept.

Anonymous said...

"I have no respect for this new tactic of barfing out comments in huge quantities."

That's puzzling, since they are simply responses to your own argument, and it has for some time now been your own tactic to blast out a large number of different points. Why do you now think this response is somehow less than respectable? What's wrong with responding to the points one by one? But like I said, nothing wrong with addressing your points one by one. Of course as long as you keep making half a dozen points at a time, you shouldn't be surprised if they're addressed one by one on occasion.

"I have less respect for commenters that call me a liar and have no evidence at all."

Since I didn't do that, I take it you weren't addressing me.

So, one point at at time. You responded to the question of who the alleged eyewitness to creation was. (Highboy also wrote a paragraph below that question, but for some reason chose not to try to answer it.)

"God created the Universe then told Adam why and when and where and what was created."

There is no mention of this in scripture, right? It's speculation, right?

"The only thing God could not tell Adam was how other than to explain that God spoke things into existence. Obviously the ability to design and create a Universe is above the human pay grade."

Also speculation, right? There is no mention in Genesis of God did and didn't tell Adam, right?

"Adam and his descendents kept a record of their history and Noah took it with him on the Ark. It was passed down to his sons but only Shem and his descendents kept it carefully. When God told Moses to write the five books, Moses had the family genealogy/history to reference and was guided by God in terms of what to write for posterity and what to leave out."

If any part of this passing on of the records isn't complete speculation, please identify it and provide evidence.

highboy said...

"So, one point at at time. You responded to the question of who the alleged eyewitness to creation was. (Highboy also wrote a paragraph below that question, but for some reason chose not to try to answer it.)"

I misunderstood the question you were asking. If you're asking who the eyewitness to the actual Creation in Genesis was I never said there was one.

radar said...

I have provided the evidence for documentation of the genealogy and history of mankind in the past. Using Cooper's very valuable research and other sources, I have shown that the Biblical account is found, usually kind of warped or mythologized, but still found in virtually all cultures. Ham, Shem and Japheth and often Noah is found in the genealogies of cultures around the world.

The Miao tribe in China was not in the vicinity of Judea as the Old Testament was being compiled. They had to leave the area of Babel after the confusion of the languages. Yet they have the same basic genealogical information for the Adam-to-Noah line, shortened, but they did name Noah and his wife and the three sons as well. How did they have this information if they were far from the Jews and far from the Bible Lands? The logical answer is that all peoples had the historical documentation available to them when the Tower of Babel event took place. The Jews kept the records carefully and the Miao kept them in shortened form but still accurately.

As we compile and record the historical documents of cultures around the world, we find more references to Bible people, more evidence of dinosaurs existing with man and also that virtually all cultures understood that Deity created the world, flooded it, then separated the people. Cultures around the world seemed interested in building smaller versions of the Tower of Babel...ziggurats, pyramids and mounds.

The peoples who did not respect and worship God then Chinese-telephoned the history of their kind and usually turned to ancestor worship and often stylized dinosaurs into fantastic animals. But quite accurate descriptions of various kinds of dragons are found commonly in the BC era and the first thousand years AD as well. From 1000 AD to about 1400 AD a few sightings are recorded. From 1400 AD to 1800 AD just a handful are found.

All the dinosaurs/dragons may now be extinct. But there are lots of rumors of dinosaur-like animals from the Congo and Papau New Guinea and Suriname to name just three areas. If in fact someone finds a living dinosaur that will be the Lazarus Taxa find of the century!!!

I think this is unlikely because there is no urge by the ruling Darwinists to find a dinosaur, it would be another nail in the Darwinist coffin. This is why we spend millions trying to find an intelligent message being sent to us from E.T. and nobody is offering much of anything to find Mokele-mbembe.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Highboy, for acknowledging that you didn't answer the question (and weren't even attempting to, so no problem there). You're being completely honest, for which you deserve and have my respect.

Radar, thank you for the extensive evasion. Were you also not trying to answer the question?

I'll repeat it for you. Is there any part of these following claims of yours that is based on evidence, or is it all speculation? If there is any part of it that is not speculation, please identify those parts and provide the evidence:

"God created the Universe then told Adam why and when and where and what was created. The only thing God could not tell Adam was how other than to explain that God spoke things into existence. Obviously the ability to design and create a Universe is above the human pay grade. Adam and his descendents kept a record of their history and Noah took it with him on the Ark. It was passed down to his sons but only Shem and his descendents kept it carefully. When God told Moses to write the five books, Moses had the family genealogy/history to reference and was guided by God in terms of what to write for posterity and what to leave out."

Anonymous said...

And if you can't present any such evidence (which I presume you can't), then your claim that you have an eyewitness account of creation is moot, and we can move on to the next question.