If he quotes me, it will be blued. His comments in black. Mine in this color.
As usual, quantity rather than quality, the usual refuge of the YEC.
One quick question: In what way is Genesis supposed to be an eyewitness account?
God created and was there. He gave the story of creation to Adam and Eve. The direct lineage of Adam to Noah is listed in the Bible. A very few remnants of human civilization found in coal tell us that man before the Flood was sophisticated and manufactured various things. It is silly to think that they could not write. In fact, while the earliest writing that is still found was by Semitic people (the lineage of Shem and also of course the Jews) it is hard to imagine that Noah and his family did not both read and write and that mankind was in possession of sophisticated knowledge but was stranded in a new world with no machines or factories or much of anything but drying muck and a mixture of rotting dead organisms left over from the Flood and new vegetation springing up all around. The probability of a written record that was passed down by the line of Noah through his descendants is rather large. If it was an oral history, it is remarkably coherent compared to the other global flood and creation stories from other cultures.
In any event, God ordered Moses to write down the family history of his lineage and the history of Creation from the beginning, as well as the order to record the activities of the lineage of Abraham down to the time of the life of Moses. At the time God called Moses to write down history from the past, he was also told to record the history of the Exodus events and the consequent history of the Children of Israel in the wilderness and eventually to the point of finally being ready to take back their Promised Land. Because God ordered Moses to write this down, even if the family history had been mistaken at any point, God Himself directed Moses to write Genesis and therefore it is the eyewitness account of the Creator Himself.
What I don't get - given the notion of an omnipotent and benevolent supernatural being - is why God would have chosen such a destructive mechanism as a global flood, causing tremendous pain and suffering and cruelty and death to so many innocent beings.
If his problem was with human beings, he could just as easily have had them all drop dead, except for the "starter kit" of Noah's offspring and their wives.
Entire courses in philosophy classes deal with the problem of evil. This is not a question to be dealt with easily, so I will give an overview.
There was no evil in the world until Adam and Eve sinned. God had put man in charge of the entire world and man brought evil to the world, and therefore also suffering and death. Evil is not a positive thing, like a rock found on the ground, tangible and visible. It is the absence of Good. In every situation, every choice, every action there is the perfect thing to do and then there is everything else. If we do not do the right thing, we have missed the mark of perfection and thereby propagated evil.
Why did God allow man to sin? Well, do you wish to be a robot? Free will must include the ability to make choices. Every choice man had to make was allowed but for one - to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man was not perfect, but Eve was innocent (as was Adam) until she was convinced by Satan (a fallen angel who had also decided to disobey God) that God was withholding a great thing from her and she ate of the fruit. So God created innocent man and woman and they only had one choice to make that would be disobedient to God. One.
Adam knew better but he also ate. Perhaps he feared losing his wife? Did he fear being alone in the Garden if Eve was to die? We know what he did but we do not know every thought in his mind. What we know is that he had that same choice and he chose incorrectly.
The Fall of mankind involves both deception and rebellion. Mankind chose to rebel and the kingdom man had over Earth and his dominion over all creatures was ruined. Satan aka Lucifer, formerly an obedient angel aka spirit being was part of a rebellion against God among the angels and he determined to drag mankind down with him. Did Satan believe that God would allow him to go without punishment by subjecting man to the same potential punishment? One of Satan's hallmarks has been to overplay his hand. He actually pursued the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ and thought this would be a victory for his side...only to find that Jesus overcame both sin and death and had taken dominion over all aspects of creation, including anything previously ceded by mankind. Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Satan is going to hell. Man does not have to join him.
Did God know what man would do? As God transcends time and space and has all wisdom and knowledge, He had to know and in fact did know. Had he started it all over it would have been the same thing. By giving mankind a choice, God made mankind free. But with a choice, mankind would eventually test the boundaries and once that happened, evil enters in and it all goes to pieces yet again. It would be nonsensical for God to keep making a Universe over and over again. Even knowing mankind would fall, God also made a plan for the salvation of all mankind through faith. The Bible asserts that Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God from the beginning. The Son of God breathed life into Adam and He would die on a cross in Jerusalem thousands of years later...but God knew this. Revelation 13:8- "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Incidentally, the notion of the Noah's Ark myth is also falsified by the fossil record and current wildlife populations, in that these support organisms having evolved in place in different continents instead of having migrated from one central point about 4300 years ago.
Boilerplate propaganda. The fossil record makes no sense unless there was a global flood, and this is one point I have driven home in dozens of blog posts. There is really no evidence of any organism ever evolving at all at any time. All organisms reproduce after their kind. Pre-existing genetic information allows for speciation, so that we can have all sorts of different dogs or sturgeons. Observational science has studied this and Darwinists have worked so hard to get bacteria and fruit flies to evolve into ANYTHING else without success. Also scientists in labs have tried for many decades to come up with a scenario in which life would form from non-life or even to get the building blocks of life to be produced but these efforts have been epic failures.
"Speciation is not evolution."
What is your definition of evolution?
Evolution is the word used by those who claim a Big Bang created the Universe and they assert that the elements and stars and planets all evolved from this one event. This is in violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Evolution is the word that Darwinists use as they seek to disprove a scientific law we call Biogenesis. But if you wish to simply use the standard definition of evolution supposedly at work in organisms having ceded that life and all of the Universe is taken out of the equation? There is a full treatment of the subject here.
The general theory of evolution? Here is a simple description: That organisms survive by acquiring mutations that give them a reproductive advantage and that these mutations become part of the genetic code of the organism. As mutations provide new features for natural selection to act upon, less complex organisms become more complex and evolve into new kinds of organisms. There are huge holes in this idea. First, natural selection was first described by a creationist and it does exist. Natural selection is the description of the process by which the most fit versions of a kind of organism passes on genetic information to offspring, depending on the environment. But we observe that usually only pre-existing information is involved in the process of natural selection.
When a mutation occurs in an organism the DNA strand has miniature machines designed to repair and eliminate the mutation. Mutations break things rather than build them. On occasion an mutation will confer an advantage in a very specific situation but the overall fitness of the organism is harmed thereby. Blind cavefish do not seek to use eyesight to navigate their environment and injuries to the unseeing eyes are not consequential. But should they be released into a normal pond or stream they would be extinct quickly. There is not one recorded instance of a mutation actually conferring an overall fitness advantage to an organism. Furthermore the irreducibly complex systems of organisms cannot be built one change at a time, so gradual evolution (even if it could happen) could never build the neck of the giraffe or the DNA strand or the ATP Synthase motor or the bombardier beetle's fascinating defense mechanism. Furthermore, there is the weighty problem of information. There is no natural source for information and organisms are full of it.
"The Big Bang is the idea that nothing made everything."
A singularity is not "nothing", and the theory doesn't state that the singularity "made" anything - or that "nothing made everything".
But a singularity does not come from nothing, does it? If you are a naturalist, tell me who or what made the singularity? Hawking claims that gravity gets credit, but before there is a temporal existence there is no mass, no energy, no laws of nature...he is simply assuming that all existence appears magically with no source for it at all. Quantum Mechanics is not helpful here. No matter whether matter or anti-matter would exist, they need a source of origin. Claiming that a singularity can be created without a Creator is logically absurd.
"The equation for that is nonsense and the makeup of the Universe also cannot fit into that scenario."
Since you lack most of the knowledge of the people who came up with these equations, I've got a hunch that you don't have a very educated refutation of the equation to hand.
You do not know what I do or do not know. Ad hominem arguments already? As it happens, the equations for the Big Bang include about 96% of nothing, less than nothing! Big Bangers claim there is a tremendous amount of Dark Matter and Dark Energy because they need these fudge factors to make their equations, based on suppositions that cannot be defended, come out as actual equations. If I made a proposal to a client that included only 4% of what he needed, I would certainly not be taken seriously! Yet Darwinists give us a singularity that has no cause, Planck Time with no scientific support and an equation that is 96% nothing. That is merely the beginning of their problems. The Universe does not appear to be what the Big Bang would be expected to be produced. Everything about the Universe other than the speed of light and the vastness of the expanse of it seems to be very young. Since God tells us that He both stretched and is continuing to stretch out the Universe, the idea of the whole of existence being merely around 7,000 years old becomes more and more viable through observation and the advance of human knowledge.
As I understand it, the entire Big Bang theory is based on drawing conclusions about the origin of the universe as we see it based on what we can observe. So how exactly does it fail to do that? How do you reckon that "the makeup of the Universe cannot fit into that scenario"?
The Big Bang is nonsense from the start. It is simply *poof* with no proof. It is creation without a Creator. It is a humbug.
"Evolution must also account for the formation of life itself (which it cannot)."
The theory of evolution doesn't have to account for the origin of life any more than the theory of gravity has to account for the origin of planets. It is valid as it stands, based on confirmed falsifiable statements and observed evidence. If you want to claim that some god-like supernatural being created life at the beginning of it, go right ahead. It wouldn't change the theory of evolution one bit.
There is no observed evolution at all. It is not based on confirmed falsifiable statements at all. We never observe it happening and the tree of life and the idea of transitional forms is dead in the water. The more we learn about the fossil record, the more evidence FOR creation rather than evolution.
Creationists like to harp on the question of origins because they can't falsify the actual theory of evolution (not the silly cartoon versions that Young-Earth Creationists have constructed over time).
What is there left to falsify? Real science has shown that life is designed, not evolved.
"Then after life is here, the claim is that mutations build organisms into the various kinds of organisms we have today. But mutations are mistakes."
Mutations are mistakes, correct. No controversy there.
"Darwin had it backwards. Life is devolving,"
A claim for which no creationist has ever managed to present any scientific evidence whatsoever.
Oh, you need to study genetics for awhile. Mutations are a big problem for higher organisms. As the human genome collects mutations it becomes less robust. We now have more diseases and maladies and allergies than ever. Bacteria are so simple (compared to higher animals) that mutations are not a big problem. They reproduce in large quantities and the unfit bacteria just die and are not missed. But with higher animals with a far more complex set of genetic instructions, the mutations will manage to be passed on now and then, enough to eventually kill us off entirely.
Must post one article here to put an end to your line of unreasoning:
Mutations rapidly destroy
All multicellular life suffers
How long to extinction?
Human ageing and cancer
Do germ-line cells really suffer less damage?
Quantitative estimates of time to extinction
Synergistic epistasis and population size
If you like real science and actual evidence, the true effect of mutations shows us that Darwinism cannot account for life on Earth at all. Organisms are devolving, not evolving.
"just as the Laws of Thermodynamics show us that the entire Universe is running downhill from order to disorder or, if you will, from heat to cold."
If your argument is that the LOT tell us that entropy must always increase uniformly everywhere, then you're barking up the wrong tree. There are plenty of local decreases of entropy. It is only the overall entropy that never decreases.
My argument is that entropy increases and energy decreases. Natural processes reflect this regularly. The only way to fend off this process is to bring in work and intelligence to the table, which only comes from an intelligent mind.
"Not one example of evolution has ever been observed"
I suspect you have to stick to some meaning of the term "evolution" that differs significantly from the actual theory of evolution to make such a claim.
I have made it abundantly clear what I mean and will not have to say more. The article on mutations falsifies the concept of mutations being organism-builders. Without mutations to be the engines for evolution, evolution is dead in the water.
"since Darwin regurgitated the old Pantheistic myth of the Universe making itself and all within it. Mother Nature, in other words. That is a silly and unscientific idea."
Your cartoonish rendition certainly is a silly and unscientific "idea". More accurately, it is a strawman argument, which is - guess what - a logical fallacy.
You do not intend to discuss things reasonably, that is your choice. But evolution requires mutations as a method of building organisms when we have shown that in fact they break them down. I did not erect a strawman, I simply revealed a key fallacy of Darwinism - that mutations are a mechanism for building new systems while they are, in fact, destructive. There is really nothing else to say about this. Your worldview is fatally flawed in many ways and this is just one of them.
The observation that the distribution of species among the continent is explained by mainstream science but unexplainable in the YEC/Noah's Ark narrative seems obvious to me. I don't recall reading it anywhere, though I'm sure I'm not the first to have thought of it.
There is nothing in the Biblical account that does not fit the scenario. Studies of speciation show that very rapid speciation can and will occur and I mean by the various combinations of pre-existing genetic information available to the kinds that were preserved on the Ark. It also applies to all the organisms that were expected to withstand the Flood and did in fact survive. All creatures big and small are easily demonstrated to have been designed. All creatures have the ability to speciate rapidly. Therefore organisms spread rapidly throughout the world, at first able to cross from continent to continent via land bridges that were available until the snow-created glaciation on the Northern portions of the great continents began to melt and raise the sea levels around the world.
No doubt you will evade and obfuscate about this issue as you have evaded phenomena that are equally unexplainable by YECs, for example the sorting of fossils in the fossil record and the alleged recalibration of radiometric dating data that would make existing data line up with YEC predictions - all of which falsify YEC and for which YECs like yourself have no coherent reply.
Oh, not only me but lots of YECs have plenty to say...cue Ian Juby:
So much for the sequential order of fossil rocks and fossils...
I have presented real science as evidence for my assertions already on this blog. The fossil record is full of organisms amazingly preserved by rapid and anaerobic burial, supporting the Flood model. We now find flesh and blood remains in all sorts of fossils, including dinosaurs, which greatly undercuts the myth of long ages. The so-called standard geological column is also mythical, being found in less that 0.5% of the world's exposed sedimentary layers and even then never in uniform layers as depicted in textbooks.
The fossil rocks include megabreccias, unconformities, paraconformities, polystrate fossils, fossils sorted by flow, fossils buried in situ, mixed fossil environments in which both land and sea creatures and plants are all jumbled in together. Some fossil layers only contain animals without plants. How could entire ages exist without plant life? Some fossil layers have lots of tracks but few fossils. What kind of age was that, the age of invisible but heavy feet? All the lower rock layers are sedimentary and show signs of being formed by massive floodwaters. The sheer magnitude of some rock formations that span continents and contain millions of tons of rock falsifies any local flood myth. The stark flat borders usually found between layers show no signs of age. I have been to many places where the rock layers look like layer cake. Flow patterns of floods can produce these things but long ages of life would not.
Sequential fossils is another myth. The general overview of the rock layers is that organisms are sorted first by habitat, second by specific gravity, third by the ability of higher organisms to evade the initial onslaught of water (organisms not living in the areas where the Flood waters were started by many possible means). The post-Flood rocks reflect a different ecosystem entirely, the world after the Flood in which an ice age was formed and then as the planet began to stabilize and the ocean waters cooled, the glaciers began to melt and then dike breaks further changed the face of the Earth. Some fossils in these layers resulted from vast loess storms, some from mudslides and volcanic activity and there were other dynamic forces at work that factor in, such as tar pits that bubbled up from below the surface of the new Earth after the waters abated.
Lazarus taxa have helped put the kibosh on evolution as well. If the organisms appear in the rock records and then disappear, Darwinists called them ancestors of other organisms. But we keep finding organisms that disappear from the rock records for sometimes hundreds of millions of supposed years only to be found alive and well now. So much for the sequential rock records. We actually have been able to reproduce the sedimentary layers of fossil rocks as they are observed today using flume technology. Furthermore, miniature laboratories have occurred in nature, such as Mt. St. Helens, which helped us understand the formation of the Grand Canyon and similar structures, demonstrated the means by which trees are mineralized and preserved as multi-level false forests and also showed us that so-called varves could be formed in minutes rather than years.
Honestly, we see that in the real world a fossil is not likely to form. It takes special circumstances to preserve soft-bodied jellies, flesh and bone remains in dinosaurs and living organisms found in formations supposedly tens and hundreds of millions of years old. On top of all that is the tendency of Darwinists to give different scientific names to the same organisms found in different rock layers. Even worse, the careless or deliberately fraudulent naming of dinosaurs. With the ability to study the physiology of dinosaurs we now see that many dinosaurs with different names were simply specimens of varied age of the exact same kind of dinosaur. With so many deliberate deceptions that Darwinists have tried to use to fool the public over time, from Huxley to Haeckel to Gingerich and many others, it is hard to trust what Darwinist scientists present to the public as evidence. LUCY aka Australopithecus afarensis has been extensively promoted as a hominid ancestor, but those who present this fossil as evidence have added to the actual fossil remains with human-like features not found and even deliberately altered the evidence to make an ape look somewhat human. Like other so-called ancestors of humankind, they always turn out to be apes.
"I do object to the fake fallacy of argument from incredulity. It is a complete farce, an attempt to evade both logic and evidence by simply running away with a fallacious fallacy."
You object to it, I understand that, but you have no logic to oppose it. Saying something is too complex for you to imagine at this point that there could not possibly be a scientific answer to it is an actual logical fallacy that has been exposed time and time again. Pointing out a logical fallacy is not "running away", committing one is.
Well, now you are deceptive or deceived, one. Darwinists hide behind this so-called fallacy as modern real science has demonstrated conclusively that organisms are designed, that information in abundance is found in organisms and information does not arise from nature. Furthermore the information is complex and specified. Within organisms are algorithms and systems mankind is copying to make life better for man. How is it that organisms have a far superior coding system than man has devised? How is it that they are packed with information, and information is not material in form or substance? If you study the cell, you find myriad well-designed machines and processes more complex and efficient than any factory mankind has ever built. Information is not produced naturally. Furthermore life is not found naturally and the Law of Biogenesis has never been violated.
The so-called fallacy of argument from incredulity is a liar's resort. We do not claim that organisms are simply too complex to imagine them having arisen by chance, we assert that all the hallmarks of intentional design are reflected in organisms, including built-in processes to provide redundancy and processes and information to allow for many contingencies. Just as a space capsule has redundancies and has tools and parts and spare systems to contend with various contingencies that can be imagined in order to preserve the lives of the astronauts, God made organisms with sophisticated systems and rich genetic libraries from which to choose so that by natural selection the various kinds of organisms could be preserved.
Beyond that, more than one kind of organism was designed that could fill the same space in an ecosystem so that if one kind of organism would go extinct, another kind could fit into the overall ecosystem. There are many varieties of grazing animals that can provide food and often milk and cheese for people. There are varieties of organisms for any niche you can name. We have found organisms that depend on minerals that are extruded from beneath the sea bottoms, smokers/seeps in both hot and cold water that dispense methane or sulfur in forms that support entire small ecosystems that are entirely independent of the Sun-plant-carbon ecosystem we are used to observing on the planet. Not only does this compound the problems of common descent (which had been blown to smithereens anyway) but it again provides a signature of a Designer capable of being remarkably creative.
We may find dinosaurs in the Congo. We may find trilobites alive somewhere on the ocean floor. We have explored very little of the ocean and there are still large portions of deep jungles that, as we inspect them, reveal more new organisms as well as revealing more Lazarus organisms. Someone stumbles upon a stand of Wollemi Pines. A fisherman catches a coelecanth. A naturalist finds a Lazarus rat at a food vendor's table. Meanwhile real science detects design in organisms.
Last and enough for today, the massive problems of Darwinist dating methods have been covered thoroughly on this blog. For now, it is enough to say that our measurements of the Earth's magnetic field (which is decaying) dating back to the 17th Century (with knowledge of its degradation going back 1,000 years before then) limits the age of the Earth to around 10,000 years and the fact that C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere has not reached equilibrium yet limits the Earth to less than 25,000 years. Helium extant in granitic zircons limit the Earth to an age of 6-8,000 years old. Finally, the presence of C-14 in all fossils in all rock layers precludes long age dating. Lyell deliberately fudged his data when he first wrote on the age of the Earth. I fear there are too many Lyells and too many uncritical thinkers swallowing nonsense whole.
Mr. Anonymous, you have not researched ID and Creation science to any extent and have accepted all sorts of Darwinist myths without question. If you do not allow yourself to consider that your so-called facts are unsupported by evidence, then you will keep the same opinion and presumably be happy with it. Hoping to have at least led you to reconsider some of your assumptions and moving forward from here. Happy Sunday!