Search This Blog

Sunday, April 03, 2016

Understanding the difference between Darwinist evolution and speciation

I, Radar, have been having major health issues and have been very glad to have a friend like Piltdown Superman stepping up to make blog posts so that my absence does not mean the blog dies out.

It seems that there is a great deal of confusion and obfuscation involved in comprehending the difference between Darwinist evolution (which creationists reject) and speciation (which creationists support).  So I am going to make the distinction between these two versions of organism change very clear and do so in layman's terms.


First thing, the idea that life came from non-life does not enter in to this debate...thankfully, as that is one issue that we can put aside.  So let us give both sides a world in which life in some form(s) already exists on the Earth.  We know of no Earth without life.

Second thing, we will also allow the existence of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.  Prokaryotes consist of bacteria and archaea and are relatively simple organisms.

 "...any cellular organism that has no nuclear membrane, no organelles in the cytoplasm except ribosomes, and has its genetic material in the form of single continuous strands forming coils or loops, characteristic of all organisms in the kingdom Monera, as the bacteria and blue-green algae."

But "simple" is a relative term.  The simplest possible living organism, an organism that is self-sustaining and can reproduce, consists of many hundreds of thousands of components


Dr. Jonathan Sarfati has suggested that even a hypothetical simpler-than-can-be-found-in-nature must consist of hundreds of thousands of parts.  Quoting that article, "...modern science has discovered vast quantities of complex, specific information in even the simplest self-reproducing organism. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any free-living organism, containing 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. Of course, these genes are only functional with pre-existing translational and replicating machinery, a cell membrane, etc. But Mycoplasma can only survive by parasitizing more complex organisms, which provide many of the nutrients it cannot manufacture for itself. So evolutionists must posit a more complex first living organism with even more genes."   A reference is made to A. Goffeau, ‘Life With 482 Genes’ Science, 270(5235):445-6, 1995.

So it is understood that a typical prokaryote has many hundreds of thousands of components and often millions of them.  This is what Darwinists consider "simple life."

More complex organisms have cells with a classic nucleus and are called eukaryotes. 

"any organism having as its fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes, and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis, characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green algae, and other primitive microorganisms."

Eukaryotes consist of vast numbers of components.  A cell will be more complex than Mycoplasma and a typical human being will have probably 20 to 70 trillion cells.  However, life does not exist in a vacuum and, for each human cell, there will be about 10 microscopic organisms living upon and within that person.  We cannot digest food properly without a host of bacteria breaking down the food we eat, for instance, and if we had the vision to see all the life floating in the air, creeping on the surfaces of our room, clinging to our skin and so on and so forth, well, it would make an exceedingly good basis for a horror movie, n'est-ce pas?


We did not even discuss the remarkable complexity of the cell, the remarkable coding mechanism that is DNA or any of the other aspects of life that Michael Behe has written of in his books, particularly Darwin's Black Box.  His book argues that there are irreducibly complex systems in living organisms, systems that put the lie to Darwinist evolution because they would not be able to be built by one-change-at-a-time mutations. 

But that idea of mutations building new life forms is fundamentally flawed.  Mutations are mistakes, they are coding errors, they are glitches in the machine.  You would not expect to purchase a bicycle and then keep dropping it down the side of a canyon in hopes it would become a Harley-Davidson.  You'd not throw a bunch of wood and nails into an empty field and expect the pile of stuff to build itself into a house.  This is what Darwinism asserts, that breaking things necessarily builds better and more complex things.  However that is the reverse of what happens in the world around us.


Yes, there is an amazing number of different organisms that exist from the heights of the tallest mountain to the deepest parts of the oceans.  New varieties of known life forms are constantly being found.  Beyond that, we find fossils of organisms we'd not previously known continually, although many "new" finds are simply the same dinosaur or shellfish found before of a different size than the first found.  We also know that many organisms have gone extinct within recorded history.  So with so many varieties of living things, it seems to make sense that Darwinist evolution must be true.  How the heck could so many life forms exist unless simple life evolves into more complex life?  Especially since the fossil rock records seem to present a world of simple aquatic life forms evolving into very large and complicated animals?

In fact, the fossil rock records represent flood layering - layers made by a flood, a receding of floodwaters and the various post-flood events like rapid glaciation followed by melting ice and dike breaks, and also volcanic and tectonic events related to a world-wide catastrophic era.  Darwinists do not like people to actually know very much about the fossil record.  For instance, 90 % of the dinosaur fossils are carnivorous or omnivorous therapods, a percentage completely unsustainable in a real ecosystem.   But animals able to run fast and swim AND survive on carrion would have a much better chance of surviving longer during a rising global flood...thus the preponderance of therapods in the fossil rocks. 


Study organisms, and you will find that all have a gene pool from which they can reproduce many varieties of the same kind.  Grasses come in an incredibly wide variety of forms, many of them produced by men who understood that desired qualities of plants can be selectively bred.  Dogs, same thing, and cattle and fish...on and on.  We can breed for all sorts of variation in dogs, to stay with that example, but we cannot breed a dog into a cat.  Also, not all features of organisms can be selected for in an organism.  Don't expect someone to be able to breed a moose-style horn rack on the head of an Irish Wolfhound because antlers are not included in the genetic structure of the dog kind.

Studies on speciation have proved a few interesting things.  Rapid speciation is possible in organisms that breed often and when there are quick changes in the ecosystem.  I posted an article or two on rapid speciation, just in case you want to search through Radaractive and find them.  I would also suggest searching for articles with keywords like "redundancies and contingencies."

I believe God put life on Earth and designed it well enough that any changes in the environment would not be sufficient to wipe out life during the time He intended the world to exist.  The Earth is like a space station that allows life to thrive while being surrounded by an incredibly hostile environment.  When humans build a space craft, we build in all sorts of redundancies to all systems, so if there are failures in a system, those living within can still survive.  There are contingency plans in place to deal with catastrophic events.  So God made many kinds of organisms with very rich gene pools so that changes in environment and even a world-wide flood would not deplete the world of organisms necessary to provide a world-wide ecosystem that supports the human population.

But there is far more to the world of organisms than simple survival.   The vast array of colors and shapes and sizes and behaviors of life on Earth provides amusement and entertainment to us...hence the popularity of animal shows on cable networks.  Dancing and hopping Birds of Paradise, meerkats being meerkats, animals like dogs and dolphins willing and able to do tricks and have relationships with us?  God is a God of wonders and love.  There could be just one kind of plant, one kind of herbivore, one kind of carnivore, and so on...everything could be just one color.  We would still live if there was only one variety of dog or if all people had brown skin and brown eyes and brown hair.  It might be a bit boring but how would we know, if we did not know other varieties existed, that we were missing out on anything?


Paleontologists have found flesh remains in fossils for decades and we are just now finding out about it.  Virtually every contention that Darwin made (that was not stolen from a creationist) has been disproven.  Darwinism flies in the face of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so-called "living fossils" are found year after year.  No matter how hard Darwinist science tries, they cannot figure out a way to get a cat to become a rodent or a bacteria to evolve into an aphid.  No new information enters into the gene pools of organisms, they either lose information or information becomes corrupted.  A poodle is a dog, but it has less information than a mixed breed, not more.  Speciation involves winnowing out potential features rather than adding new ones in. 

So why do people want to believe in Darwinist evolution?   Why are they so opposed to the idea that God created it all when the incredible contortions of logic to believe that everything just poofed into existence from nothing?  Is it simply because they fear that knowing there is a God who gave them life is a responsibility?  Probably so...and yet, if God did create all things, the responsibility is there whether acknowledged or not.  What do you think about that?


ashleyhr said...

You are talking c**p Mr Radaractive. See my email just now.

And you have not told us what 'Darwinist evolution' is despite promising to do so.

radar said...

Darwinist evolution is the idea of organisms changing into different kinds by natural selection leveraging mutations. It is a notion that Darwin plugged into his plan to assert that life did not come from God. He needed something that he could use as a means to accomplish a transition from simple organisms to complex organisms. At the time (Pasteur had just recently accomplished confirming the Law of Biogenesis and DNA was a century away from being found) there was a slight chance he was on to something. Unfortunately for Darwinists, living things devolve rather than evolve.

Natural selection was observed first by a creationist and it is the means by which variation within kind is accomplished, a feature of organisms that allow maximum opportunities for viability in changing ecosystems and also by which humans can breed out unwanted features. By breeding out what is not wanted, one gets what is wanted...this is how a grass became corn and how bigger beef-producing steers are developed.

ashleyhr said...

Thank you.

As you know my email was referring to your garbled claims: "Darwinism flies in the face of the Laws of Thermodynamics, so-called "living fossils" are found year after year. No matter how hard Darwinist science tries, they cannot figure out a way to get a cat to become a rodent or a bacteria to evolve into an aphid". Also, neither Pasteur nor any other proper scientist has formulated a 'Law of Biogenesis'. They ruled out spontaneous generation (which is not the same as abiogenesis).

ashleyhr said...

I must partially correct myself:

radar said...

My "claims" are all based on real science. Darwinists assert unproved and unlikely suppositions as facts, blithely carrying on about an organism "arising 350 million years ago" when they do not, in fact, have any proof to back the statement up. Sometimes I think all these animal shows on cable are part of an avalanche of propaganda designed to get unthinking watchers programmed to believe in long ages and organisms almost deciding to change themselves to adapt to new conditions. Try to find an actual "new" feature in an organism and it will always be simple variation within kind or a broken system that actually would be harmful or even fatal in mormal conditions.

Biogenesis remains a law until someone disproves it and we have been waiting centuries for someone to do so. Abiorgenesis (if you wish to use that terms)is not going to be observed. We are just as likely to find an old oil lamp with a genie inside.

Operational science has no need for Darwinism at all, experiments and projects are done all the time based on observed behaviors and features of organisms, should it concern biology. Hard science rules the day and only observed and repeatable systems and results yield any useful results.

It is hilarious that there are actually astrobiologists! Talk about stealing money...we ought to have unicorn trainers as well. Life does not exist outside of the atmosphere of the Earth. I can say that based on actual observation. Hard science, real science, does not deal in flights of fancy nor is there room for baseless speculations that a fish learned to walk or that land animals decided to return to the sea. Yes, I saw the cavefish that supposedly walks and it was completely oversold. There are many fish that can make a short trip across land to find a better pond or tidal pool or creek than it has been inhabiting. None of these organisms are close to being a land dwelling animal.

But, hey, I love watching "Once Upon A Time" and I suppose Darwinist fairy tales are entertaining to a large segment of the population. But I don't think that people actually disappear in a swirl of purple smoke nor do I think straw can be spun into gold.

ashleyhr said...

And Radar still has not addressed the contents of my email. He's just got back on his soapbox. He confused thermodynamics and 'living fossils' - two totally unrelated topics. He attacked a strawman version of what 'evolutionists' think is possible in order to try and ridicule the theory. And he also made confusing remarks about a certain type of dinosaur and what might get fossilised during a fictional worldwide flood.

radar said...

Confused? I did not equate thermodynamics and living fossils. The Laws of Thermodynamics clue us into why Darwinism is an hypothesis that flies in the face of logic. But the idea that mutations can be the means by which simple organisms become more complex has been disproven by observation. and

We've seen that mutations are either deleterious or functionally neutral. It makes sense that broken things are not an improvement on unbroken things and that we do not make complexity by smashing what is already in place.

As for living fossils...we continually find new organisms that were unknown to us, sometimes organisms that are fundamentally profound discoveries. There are actually communities of organisms that live on methane or sulpher rather than carbon. Recently someone found arctic anemones that cling upside down to the water-side of arctic ice. The odds of any organism forming by chance anywhere in the Universe are at best along the lines of 1 in 10 to the 110th power (being very generous). But there is not one living organism on the Earth, there are trillions of different life forms found all over the planet. For a deeper dive -

Answers in Genesis and many other fine creation science sites publish honest scientific articles every day. Like a cool oasis in the midst of the Sahara, such science sites give me hope that someday the drumbeat of Darwinist nonsense will be relegated to the fringe elements of society. It is tragic that honesty is in short supply in that segment of the scientific community that are propagandists for Darwinism. My hope is that many of them just haven't been exposed to another explanation for life on Earth and now and then such a scientist will "see the light" and abandon Darwin for good.

ashleyhr said...

Following his recent 'Lying for Darwin' blog post on this site, the hypocrite and pathological liar 'Cowboy' Bob Sorensen was attacking Christian blogger Kenneth Keathley again yesterday - in his typical cowardly fashion (and after seeing recent emails I sent on this topic and totally ignoring their contents):
"One of the most recent examples of playing with definitions came from a theistic evolutionist. He redefined "evolution", then this #liar4darwin claimed that Ken Ham believes in lichen-to-liar evolution. He conveniently ignored the body of work that Ham and his people have been doing for decades."

Note the deliberate deception here - which I suspect is motivated by sheer hatred and insecurity. Sorensen does not even link to the blog in question:
The blog makes perfectly clear the author's conclusion that Ken Ham has embraced 'macro-evolution' (which he describes as the theory that the species of today evolved from prior, extinct species) but that he is not endorsing 'Darwinism' (he then described three claims that are made by Darwinism). Keathley did NOT 'redefine' evolution. He did not 'lie' within the text of the blog about what Ken Ham accepts, whether explicitly or implicitly (only the title of the blog was potentially misleading). He did NOT I repeat he did NOT claim that Ken Ham believes in 'lichen-to-liar evolution'. And Sorensen is not even consistent in his lying. In his recent blog (no comments permitted!) he falsely claimed that Keathley was 'lying for Darwin' when he CORRECTLY stated that Ken Ham believes in macro-evolution (because he accepts speciation). Ham DOES accept macro-evolution (as Keathley described it and as the term is conventionally defined). That Sorensen lie failed - so now he chooses a NEW lie namely that Keathley is 'lying' by claiming that Ham believes in so-called 'lichen-to-liar' evolution ie DARWINISM (except that the theory does not say humans are descended from lichen - that's yet another lie from this pathological liar):

Liar Sorensen ALWAYS runs away from specifics ie those awkward things known as 'facts'. Whilst accusing his OPPONENTS of preferring propaganda to facts. Pure hypocrisy - and deliberate deception aimed at small-minded followers of his blogs.

ashleyhr said...

A few minutes after sending the above comments directly to Bob he LIED EVEN MORE. Which prompted the following response by myself (see next comment).

ashleyhr said...

More PROOF that Bob Sorensen is a lying hate-filled hypocrite and not a Christian (unless a Christian is meant to be a lying hate-filled hypocrite):

Instead of showing HOW I am 'wrong' and HOW he is 'right', Sorensen calls me 'Haywire the Hitler Stalker', he LIES that I "ignored the bulk of [his] content" (I addressed EVERYTHING Sorensen wrote about Keathley*), and for good measure he calls me an 'demoniac insane liar for Darwin'.





Every recipient of this email will see how Sorensen lies and then when he is exposed he lies even more. Just like Radovan Karadzic or Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.

I repeat. This man is EVIL. (As for his psychological state - well, who knows.)

I will never ever stop exposing this disgrace to humanity for what he is. The truth will win out over endless lies. Sorensen's unbelievable evil will be exposed. That is a promise. Calling me 'Hitler' or 'insane' will only strengthen my resolve to publicly expose a hypocritical hate-filled liar for what he is.

Photos are attached lest the liar has a fit of temporary remorse and removes his latest bad tempered lying.

* I did not comment on the rest of his recent radaractive blog because it was not about Keathley and I was discussing his dishonest and underhand attack upon the Keathley blog. But I will do so briefly now. Much of it is misleading or biased propaganda. Such as the fact-free claim that "evidence for creation is actively suppressed". (How come so many liars become desperate young earth creationists?)

ashleyhr said...

Sorensen made one correction - that Keathley is an 'old earther' not a 'theistic evolutionist'. He did not correct his other lies - instead he ADDED to them. Which kind of proves my allegations that he is a liar and a hypocrite.

Mr. Gordons said...

Ashley Haworth-Roberts is not seeking truth in science. He is seeking to make himself appear important. He sends mass mailings to people whether they want them or not. He claims to be willing to remove people from his list but that is a lie. He seeks and stalks creationists and has the applause of some who have the same views. Ashley Haworth-Roberts does not have the education of those he criticizes whether in science or theology. He claims that they are dishonest and incompetent. This impugns the integrity of many people whilst attempting to boost his own self esteem. His targets include Tasman Walker, Ken Ham, John Heininger, Tony Breeden, Jonathan Sarfati, Bob Sorensen, Jason Petersen, myself, and others. He sends angry personal messages to people on Facebook who support creationists.

The only way to be free of his harassment is to block him. Many have done so. He is forbidden to comment on several creationist sites. My studies are not complete. I am still endeavouring to determine why human meat machines who are subject to their biological chemistry become enraged when other meat machines act according to their own biological chemistry.

I have concluded that Ashley Haworth-Roberts is not worth the expenditure of time or intellectual energy.

radar said...

I have not yet erased AHR's comments but when people get angry it is not often from a position of strength. I suspect that it is frustrating to have no way of explaining how life came from non life. It is frustrating to have a process that supposedly drives evolution actually go in reverse, devolution, which is a continual degrading of the genetic makeup of living forms. Mutations will kill everything eventually, or would do so if the world would last long enough. It won't, but while I am alive I am confident that real science will continue to learn more about life and the way the Universe was built...and those discoveries will continue to demonstrate that everything was designed by God and created by God and will be sustained by Him until He decides it is time to end it all. That is my opinion and I am able render it without using all caps or being malicious. Let's all be adults, shall we?

ashleyhr said...

"I have concluded that Ashley Haworth-Roberts is not worth the expenditure of time or intellectual energy."
So why are you pursuing me around the internet like a troll?
And why are you lying about me? "He claims to be willing to remove people from his list but that is a lie." It's not. I have removed John Heininger, Joe Boudreault, Ian Panth and Calvin Smith. Gordons has NO interest in truth of ANY kind, and he never ever addresses the scientific issues I raise - preferring to falsely allege that I lack 'education' or am 'not' seeking truth. He is certainly not worth expending time and energy on, other than dealing with his false and malicious allegations.
I have documented past encounters with Gordons at the British Centre for Science Education's online community forum.

ashleyhr said...

Mr Radaractive
Are you willing to examine for yourself whether my accusations against Bob Sorensen are true? And whether my anger against him is entirely genuine?
Thank you for allowing me to comment (I was unable to do so under Sorensen's own blog post).

radar said...

One important fact that Darwinists overlook when trying to use Carbon 14 dating methods is that the foundation of carbon dating includes the assumption that the atmosphere must be ancient (because Darwinists believe in a very old Earth). The problem with that assumption is that carbon dating starts with the idea that the carbon ratios in the atmosphere have reached equilibrium, which would happen after 25-30 thousand years. Now that we can measure the atmosphere precisely, we discover that equilibrium has not been reached, ergo the atmosphere of the Earth is younger than 25-30 thousand years old. This should have caused Darwinists to abandon carbon dating and in fact it should have caused them to reconsider the idea of an old Earth and thereafter the wisdom in believing in any aspect of Darwinism at all.

We now hear of fossils that should be millions of years old that still contain flesh remains. In fact such fossils have been found in the past but paleontologists did not want any doubt to enter into the scientific community about long ages or did not care to investigate evidence of flesh preserved with the fossil out of indifference. But once Mary Schweitzer's T. Rex was revealed to have flesh remains, the reports of other fossils with flesh began to come in from Europe and Asia and even the Americas. The myth of long ages does not true up with the evidence in the fossil record. Fossils are mostly organisms found in the oceans at the time of the flood and generally the "higher" organisms that are found are in strata that also contain dry or swamp land animals and plants as well. The fossil layers are a testament to world-wide catastrophic flooding. The general public doesn't know much about the fossil record or dating methods, so they willingly swallow ridiculously unfounded claims about millions of years and organisms evolving gradually from simple to complex. The truth is that there is no strong evidence the world has been around more than maybe 7 thousand years or so and there is powerful evidence that all organisms found in the fossil record and alive today are fully formed and functional living things that were not transitional in form or function.

Bacteria and algae and shellfish and amphibians and lizards and mammals are found in the fossil record and found today. Dinosaurs were alive and well during most of the recorded history of mankind and only in the last 800-900 years did they finally get hunted to extinction.

The ultimate hypocrisy is the Darwinist who proclaims a belief in evolution while calling for the preservation of some obscure owl or fish or cat. If you believe in evolution you should welcome extinctions as part of the process, yes?

radar said...

One more thing. Creationists try to publish information that would help people believe in God and to save themselves from pain and misery in this life and in the time after our bodies give out on us. I believe in a God-created life and a God-designed afterlife. Both the quality of your life and your afterlife matter to me and other Christians. If you are determined to go to Hell with the knowledge that could save you known to you then you do have the right to choose your fate. But no one should go to the grave not knowing that God made them and wants to share eternity with them. Perhaps I should rephrase one should go to the grave without having the opportunity to know.

If you don't believe in God and creation, why they heck do you care about what Christians believe? With your worldview, it doesn't amount to a hill of beans what I think, if you are right. Right?

ashleyhr said...

"This should have caused Darwinists to abandon carbon dating ...".

What hubris - that you know better than scientists who have studied the relevant evidence.

These people think otherwise.

Carbon dating works. Derived dates have been correlated with real historical events such as disease outbreaks or volcanic eruptions. The evidence is compelling. And as I mentioned in a recent email, Answers in Genesis have failed to show otherwise (they did not deal with the Accelerated Mass Spectrometer measurement method in a very recent attempted rebuttal). This attempted rebuttal - which is mere propaganda:

I have just forwarded the message in question.

Perhaps you should ask AiG why they refuse ever to address the points I raise in my emails to them about their claims about science. Such as Ken Ham proclaiming the unicorn-like creature was "dated using a flawed dating method".

What is flawed is the claims of YECs.

I suggest that you have been willingly brainwashed by young earth creationist apologetics. I have looked at BOTH sides.

I used to be a Christian. But I did not (knowingly or in ignorance) use lies about science to bolster my faith or seek to persuade others. Truth and honesty matter to me. I believed because I thought Jesus was God - not because of any of the arguments that people like you peddle against evolution or an ancient Earth and even more ancient universe.

radar said...

Talk origins is a deliberately deceptive site. I've had communication with them, pointing out the deliberate lies they publish and they do not care. If it comes from talk origins it is likely intentionally fraudulent. One of the guys who publishes that site actually believes that getting Christians to believe in long ages is so important that a bit of deception is a means to a supposedly good end. It is appalling that anyone would use that site as an evidence source. Long ago I pointed out one Darwinist site and one Creationist site that both were intentionally deceptive. Dr. Dino is out of business, too bad that talk origins isn't yet.

Carbon dating methods being used by Darwinists are fatally flawed because the atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium between carbon types. So all the carbon dating proclamations of millions of years are complete nonsense. If one accounts for an atmosphere that is less than 25,000 years old, then items can be dated with fair accuracy and they always yield ages in thousands of years. Other popular dating methods are based on elements with exceedingly long half-life numbers, so accuracy is dubious.

You confuse who demonstrates hubris...I am the guy who was planning on studying paleontology and I am the guy who has spent thousands of hours in the field, collecting fossils and studying fossil layers in formations all over this country and Canada. I was a Darwinist myself before becoming a Christian. Heck, I still believed in evolution at first and studied the subject to see what was and was not true.

I am also the guy who studied carbon dating methods and found out why they are deceptive, and it is not hard to find this out. Darwinists depend upon deception and non-stop propaganda via popular media to layer BS upon BS upon BS in hopes of just keeping people from even thinking of the possibility that Darwinism might not be true. Evolution is a myth that is presented as fact. Now THAT is hubris. Millions upon millions of people being lied to without even knowing that they are being propagandized. Not one person on this Earth can prove that any one thing on this Earth is older than 10,000 years old. Not one.

ashleyhr said...

"Carbon dating methods being used by Darwinists are fatally flawed because the atmosphere has not yet reached equilibrium between carbon types." Is that claim anywhere on the internet or in peer reviewed science papers apart from young earth creationist apologetics sites? I could not find it (I searched using the terms 'Suess and Lingenfelter carbon 14'). CMI have stopped using the argument by the way (though they still claim it was valid):

"So all the carbon dating proclamations of millions of years are complete nonsense."
Unless that was a typo, with respect you haven't a clue what you are talking about. There are NO such claims. Check out the main YEC websites if you don't believe me.

I was unaware that you used to be a Darwinist. (I did not make any false claims about you.)

You seem - by the tone in your final paragraph - to be rather insecure about your new beliefs. As if it was not merely a matter of scientific truth but that if you choose the wrong option there is a penalty for making an honest mistake - HELLFIRE.

radar said...

Gee, you seem to have missed the article from ICR that was linked to one of your emails/comments from which I got the 25,000-30,000 year time to reach atmospheric equlibrium. CMI did not abandon this position but they believe there are other compelling arguments to refute the use of carbon dating (as do I).

People would have to be blind and deaf not to have been confronted with "millions of years" from carbon dating specimens.

No, one does not risk hellfire for an honest mistake. There are no Christians that do not make honest mistakes and other mistakes. Any Christian who claims to never sin is not being honest because we are still human and we sometimes fail to live up to the standards that God established as being sinless. Only Jesus could do it and He died to pay the price of my sins so that I can enter into heaven by faith rather than by works.

I was 26 years old when I became a Christian and I have lived beyond 60 years now. I discovered via Henry Morris the idea that the Earth and the Universe were not untold millions of years old and that the evidence of the fossil rock records would confirm this for me. I researched and considered and read various books and magazines about YEC claims versus the evolution claims I had been taught. I sided with Dr. Morris then and even more so now.

As a freshman in college, I took a course that centered around the study of the development of ape-like organisms into man. It shocked me that so little fossil evidence was being converted into full-blown prehistoric men! We would take a couple of teeth and a section of jaw and then *poof* there were artist renderings of hairy men and women with apelike facial features, somewhat hunched over and wearing the inevitable animal skin wardrobe. Anthropology and Paleontology seemed like real evidence-based science back then. Now I know they are composed primarily of story-telling, artist renderings and fanciful dating methods. They are as removed from reality as the kooks who think Area 51 contains a spaceship and a ET specimens!

Piltdown Superman said...

Watch out, Radar! People like this like to change the subject and attack, and try to put you on the defensive. (Notice how he used your Weblog as a personal platform to attack me personally. He'll be furious when he reads the CMI article, here, that supports what I said about Keathley.) He makes many assertions, but does not back them up, preferring personal attacks. Also, he seems unable to distinguish between "lying" and "honest disagreement about the interpretation of the evidence", and has a nasty habit of calling biblical creationists "liars". You have been called a liar several times already, albeit usually indirectly. Ian Juby has an interesting observation about such false allegations.

By the way, Gordons was not lying at all, and AH-R has admitted to not having advanced education. Complaining about his alleged stalking shows some of the abundant hypocrisy of this guy who has been criminally stalking, harassing, and libeling me for years. He needs to learn that assertions are not evidence, nor are contradictions valid refutations.

I have dismantled what passes for logic on his planet several times, including in these screenshots that Google makes excessively large.

Atheists and evolutionists cannot stand being kept on topic and backing up their claims. I'm certain that his secularist jihad witch hunt will continue as long as you allow them. I had to block his e-mail, disallow his comments — in fact, one podcaster interviewed me, and Haywire's attacks led to the podcaster's shutting down comments on his Weblog.

ashleyhr said...

Sorensen is changing the subject and is lying. Also, I could not post by comments about him under HIS blog of 1 April because no comments were being allowed. As for the CMI article, like Sorensen's it is highly dishonest (I sent a very lengthy email about it which was copied to Radaractive as well as to Bob and numerous others). It was accusing Kenneth Keathley of being deceptive and dishonest but it was not. His blog was correct in revealing that Ken Ham accepts macro-evolution (as Keathley defined it - the dishonest YECs did NOT define it) even Ken Ham does not use the words "I accept macro-evolution within kinds". My email backed up EVERY SINGLE ONE of my assertions. Sorensen is lying. He always lies. Gordons too was lying. Bob is lying in saying that Gordons was lying. End of story.

Sorensen claims to have dismantled my logic. No. He IGNORED my logic. That is what he ALWAYS does. He is a fraud. End of story.

Take a look at the British Centre for Science Education community forum. There is a lengthy thread there dedicated to Cowboy Bob and his lies and his false accusations and his evasions.

There are some very unscrupulous and pathologically dishonest people within young earth creationism. Bob and most of the people at CMI are such. NB I am not accusing Mr Radaractive of being such. But I have to ask why he is giving a cynical liar like Bob a platform at his site.

ashleyhr said...

Sorry that should read "even if Ken Ham ...".

ashleyhr said...

And it should read "that Gordons was not lying". Rushing.

Anonymous said...

Is there some reason you're referring to Bob and Gordons as if they are different people? He's been using that particular sock for years to agree with himself.

radar said...

Okay, what I see here is that Piltdown Superman is being attacked regarding things not specifically covered in this blogpost. Perhaps there is frustration about his policy blocking commenters? However, I'll have to moderate comments if this practice continues.

People, comment on this particular blogpost with some semblance of civility please. I have not erased a comment (yet) and not turned on moderation (yet) but I am on the verge of implementing moderation at the least.

ashleyhr said...

With respect, I have already explained that I was covering this blog post (where I could NOT comment):

ashleyhr said...


I happen to think that Gordons is a different person to Bob - as I have no firm evidence to the contrary. He appeared to have a separate Facebook page and to live in a different part of America.

Piltdown Superman said...

I backed up my claims, unlike some people who do not want to read what is linked, preferring vituperation and continued assertions. Assertions are not evidence, despite what many atheopaths think. The Forum of Futility is a collection of venomous assertions, but someone is not quite so welcome there; he tends to annoy fellow atheists.

By the way, there is no such thing as a former Christian. There are those who claim to be such, but they show appalling lack of knowledge of the Bible and Christianity, and they never were of us.

Piltdown Superman said...

Forgot to add that it's hypocritical reject information from creationists because they are "biased", and then not only be affiliated with BCSE, which is bigoted and works to censor creationists, but use Talk Origins as a source. That is biased and faulty (almost as bad as (ir)RationalWiki), and linked to another bigoted organization, the NCSE.

ashleyhr said...

If Sorensen 'backed up' his claims will he kindly post his words here so that I can read them, please? I don't want past links, I want specific words about myself or Kenneth Keathley or about the actual beliefs of Ken Ham or the recent CMI article about the Keathley blog - or whatever he is actually alluding to.

Specifics please Bob - not vagueries (or Ad hominem attacks and emptyt name-calling).

I know for a FACT that Bob has evasively dodged the contents of ALL my recent emails about his dishonest and far-fetched claims about other people who are not young earth creationist apologists.

I was most certainly NEVER of Bob's persuasion.

And Bob is proving again that he is a liar if he is claiming that the BCSE community forum censors creationists. The truth is that he is too cowardly to post there. Other YECs have posted there (now and again). The BCSE - I'm not even a member of its committee - does however oppose any teaching of young earth creationist or ID dogma with school SCIENCE classes - because the claims of AiG, CMI, ICR etc are not peer reviewed evidence-based science.

If Bob replies to me saying "I've already done what you ask" then that will be another lie. He has NOT. He views my emails like an electric fence that he dare not touch. And I know why.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, yeah. Everone's a liar except for Hateworth who has to save the world all by himself. Nice picture of him in the link, by the way.

Frank Foley said...

This post is spot on, and so is the one about liars for Darwin. It's funny that ashley says, ' I did not (knowingly or in ignorance) use lies about science to bolster my faith or seek to persuade others.' How do you know that you did not use lies in ignorance? If you're ignorant, you don't know it, so that was nonsense. What's worse is that you call creationists liars but evolution is bad science supported by a multitude of lies by people who are paid to work to present evolution. you are deceiving yourself and not fooling anyone.

Professor Tertius said...

One can easily find a lot of bogus explanations of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics promoted online by non-scientists. No wonder so few people understand that The Laws of Thermodynamics deal with the physics of heat transfer engines. For the benefit of any reader unfamiliar with the 2nd LOT, here's an excellent summary from Wikipedia of what you can find in any physics textbook at your local library:

The second law of thermodynamics states that for a thermodynamically defined process to actually occur, the sum of the entropies of the participating bodies must increase. In an idealized limiting case, that of a reversible process, this sum remains unchanged.

A thermodynamically defined process consists of transfers of matter and energy between bodies of matter and radiation, each participating body being initially in its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium. The bodies are initially separated from one another by walls that obstruct the passage of matter and energy between them. The transfers are initiated by a thermodynamic operation: some external agency intervenes to make one or more of the walls less obstructive. This establishes new equilibrium states in the bodies. If, instead of making the walls less obstructive, the thermodynamic operation makes them more obstructive, no transfers are occasioned, and there is no effect on an established thermodynamic equilibrium.

The law expresses the irreversibility of the process. The transfers invariably bring about spread, dispersal, or dissipation of matter or energy, or both, amongst the bodies. They occur because more kinds of transfer through the walls have become possible. Irreversibility in thermodynamic processes is a consequence of the asymmetric character of thermodynamic operations, and not of any internally irreversible microscopic properties of the bodies.

For those looking for brevity, Lord Kelvin summarized the 2nd LOT this way:

It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects.

Thus, anyone who believes that the Theory of Evolution violates the 2nd LOT needs to explain why evolutionary processes operating on biological heat engines somehow violate what scientists and engineers have learned in nearly two centuries of heat transfer engine physics. No other biological process violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, so why should anyone think that evolutionary processes would violate them?

Professor Tertius said...

For those unfamiliar with the word "thermodynamics", the familiar morphemes make it easy to recall "heat-powered physics." The entire biological world at every level is powered by heat-transfer-engine physics. Wherever biochemistry is at work, heat-transfer physics always increases total system entropy, also known as thermodynamic disorder. Thus, whenever a plant leaf reduces local entropy within the plant by storing energy in ATP molecules, there is an associated greater total increase in entropy in the sun's fusion processes and in "waste-heat energy" released into the atmosphere surrounding the plant, for example. Thus, a local gain in heat energy available to do work (aka an increase in thermodynamic order) inside the ATP molecules of the plant are always exceeded by the overall total loss of heat energy available to do work (aka more disorder) in the sun and on planet earth. So why would any particular biological process (such as evolutionary processes) be thought to violate this thermodynamic law? For that matter, explain why evolutionary processes would defy such physics but the many biological processes which turn a single seed into a huge tree does not. Every such biochemical process increases local thermodynamic order while decreasing such order in the total system sun-earth closed system.

Ultimately, the 2nd LOT is about the very gradual but sure "heat death" of the universe. (Indeed, both the Bible and modern science agree: the universe is headed towards an ultimate end. It cannot and will not continue as it is forever. Of course, the Bible says that long before that eventual maximum entropy takes place, Jesus Christ will return and a New Heaven and New Earth will replace the current system.) Yes, every chemical process, including all biochemical processes, advance the universe along the path of eventual heat death. If someone thinks that photosynthesis and organic metabolism in general contributes to that heat death but evolutionary processes do not, they need to explain why and show their math. We can't determine whether the 2nd LOT is violated unless we can review the "before and after" numbers. The 2nd LOT is a comparison of quantifications of heat energy available to do work before and after a given process. So why would the total system thermodynamic entropy after evolutionary processes be reduced rather than increased--and thus in defiance of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

Moreover, why is it alleged that evolutionary processes would violate The Laws of Thermodynamics while other local order-increasing biological processes do not? Exactly what in the "nature" of evolutionary processes makes them so fundamentally different from other biochemical phenomena? If it is actually true that...

"The Laws of Thermodynamics clue us into why Darwinism is an hypothesis that flies in the face of logic."

...then someone should be able to apply the mathematics demanded by The Laws of Thermodynamics to demonstrate what allegedly so obviously "flies in the face of logic."

(Yes, I know that on most forums the typical response to a scientific question during such discussions is to dodge and change topics, usually with irrelevant accusations of "You're an atheist troll pretending to be a Christian!" Instead, let's all be adults and calmly address the physics and the mathematics of the claim that the Theory of Evolution defies The Laws of Thermodynamics. Sloganeering and hyperventilation neither provide constructive answers nor do they help improve the credibility of our Christian witness.)

Anonymous said...

The "professor" is a fake.

ashleyhr said...

I assume the last two cowardly and dishonest posts by 'Anonymous' are not by the same person as the original 'Anonymous'. Bigots like you make me all the more determined to expose hypocrisy and lying on the worldwide web.

Frank Foley: trust me, the 'Lying for Darwin' post was NOT 'spot on' as far as the Kenneth Keathley blog was concerned (some of the rest of it had validity yes). Have you actually read the blog post that Sorensen was (briefly) attacking? Note that - unlike Sorensen - I posted a link to it above (in a post timed at '5.22 pm'). It has attracted 150 comments underneath by the way.

"How do you know that you did not use lies in ignorance?" What I was saying was that I did not use young earth creationist lies about science when a Christian (OK I did not even know of their existence - apart from that false claim about moondust that is no longer used - but if I had I would not have used them). I did not write 'nonsense' and your claim that I did is feeble. I know what arguments I used and what arguments I did NOT use. You DON'T. If you claim that you do - I hope you don't - then you are being bigoted.

Evolution is not 'bad science'. I can't prove it but it is not 'bad science'.

ashleyhr said...

Apologies if I repeating myself (I flagged this SOMEWHERE over the past week) but young earth creationist Sarfati in his 2010 attempt to refute Dawkins on evolution did NOT argue with what Dawkins wrote in his book about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. See the overview section of my book review of Sarfati's book:

I believe - from the evidence of past communications with him - Professor Tertius (not his real name) to be a Christian who has studied the evidence and concluded that almost all young earth creationist arguments about science hold no water whatsoever and begin with conclusions - which must be 'biblical' - and then seek justifications of those conclusions (science begins with the evidence and then puts forward a conclusion). It is clear from his posts that he DOES know the relevant science.

There is a website:

SOME people have him of being 'me' or me being 'him'. I expect the second Anonymous might be tempted to go there. That would be hilarious.

I do not have a website. I am also in the UK.

ashleyhr said...

Sorry: "some people have accused him ...".

Professor Tertius said...

I wrote:

Yes, I know that on most forums the typical response to a scientific question during such discussions is to dodge and change topics, usually with irrelevant accusations of "You're an atheist troll pretending to be a Christian!" Instead, let's all be adults and calmly address the physics and the mathematics of the claim that the Theory of Evolution defies The Laws of Thermodynamics.

I am neither a prophet nor the son of the prophet, but I laughed aloud when Anonymous immediately confirmed my prediction with the traditional dodge which evades engaging the actual scientific evidence and issues:

The "professor" is a fake.

Thank you, Anonymous!

I freely admit that I'm not the Apostle Paul's amanuensis which the Bible calls by the name "Tertius". No doubt Anonymous thought his observation quite insightful. (Who can blame him? We see it all the time on the websites of origins ministry entrepreneurs. Denialism without substance.) I could hardly have asked for a better confirmation of what I had posted about the failures of anti-evolution ranters to engage the science.

I doubt that Anonymous or anyone else will be willing to engage the physics of The Laws of Thermodynamics and certainly won't respond to the challenge to show the mathematics which would indicate that the Theory of Evolution defies The Laws of Thermodynamics. Name-calling tends to come easily for science-denialists while actual knowledge of science does not. And that is why they remain outside of the science academy with their noses pressed up against the glass and ranting that nobody in the academy cares about their ignorance---even while failing to educate themselves so that they can intelligently defend their pseudo-science claims.

Fortunately, most of the world's Christians (especially those who have bothered to acquire basic science-literacy) see any conflict between the Bible and their faith in Christ and the evolutionary processes God created. Not so fortunately, the noisy minority tends to get the most attention, and so many non-believers assume that all Bible-affirming Christians are science-denialists.

ashleyhr said...
"A fossilized forest was found on Spitsbergen. Time to do some digging. Old Earth paleontologists are having a bit of difficulty giving adequate explanations for what is found, especially since the trees are extinct. But that doesn't stop them from projecting their ideas into the distant past, even though they have no data to support their views."

There's no mystery. Unless perhaps for biblical creationists. Earth's climate was much much warmer than now many millions of years ago. Something you would not know from reading the Bible as a full and literal history of this planet eg there's no suggestion whatsoever in the Bible that Earth was much warmer than now before Noah's flood such that these warmth loving lycopsid trees could have been growing on Svalbard and then been buried by floodwaters. Also the Bible never mentions the possibility or concept of species extinction. Not once. (The ark was about saving land species after a watery judgment.) The Bible also never suggests that today's continents and islands used to be in different positions upon the surface of the Earth (extrapolating that from Genesis 1 9:10 is a HUGE leap). Which is fact which YECs in fact accept even though it is not 'observational science'.

"However, the Genesis Flood model gives a far better explanation for observed data, and for theories about what went on in the relatively recent past." In what way? How would a biblical flood 'model' explain fossilised extinct trees being found on a frozen and treeless island above the Arctic circle?

Notice how Bob does not discuss specifics but instead makes pronouncements, propaganda-style.

Though he did urge people to read an article by a leading proponent of young earth creationism who has a PhD:


ashleyhr said...


So I read it. The logic of the article is highly suspect. Snelling questions whether the trees removed carbon dioxide from the air by weathering of the soil (and photosynthesis as well one presumes). He then concludes that they did not because "the present is not the key to the past" so ergo "thus this fossil-bearing sedimentary rock sequence on Spitsbergen is better understood from the biblical perspective of the eyewitness account in Genesis to be part of the geologic record of the Flood". He then makes the huge leap that "thus these fossil lycopsids are not 380 million years old but only about 4,350 years old".

Snelling then asks "why then were they buried vertically if they did not grow where they are now found buried?" He has to ask that since he is demanding that the trees were uprooted and then buried by a massive flood. But they were probably buried vertically because they were NOT buried by any violent flood. Snelling's attempt to suggest that the trees' roots are separated from the trunks (after reading the full technical paper he does not report them as absent entirely) and therefore they 'didn't' grow where they were found is entirely unconvincing. Besides - how and why would a violent 'recent' flood separate trunks from roots rather than simply uproot trunks and roots without separating them? Snelling does not tell us. His references to what happened after the violent eruption of Mount St Helens in 1980 are completely irrelevant as neither he nor the scientists are postulating a violent volcanic eruption on Svalbard (it has no volcanoes whether live or extinct). Incidentally the fossilised trees are considered around 380 million years old - dated by palynology ie the study of pollen. It's possible that local flooding may have buried the trees' remains after they died as they were apparently buried in conglomerates - and they also were trees which according to the paper's abstract which grew "in wet soils in a localized, rapidly subsiding, short-lived basin".

Snelling also appears to be claiming that the lycopsids were "part of floating forests growing on the ocean’s surface near the coastline" before Noah's flood. He has NO evidence for such a claim, whether scientific or biblical. If he did he would present it. Thus his hypothesis to do with Noah's flood based upon this claim has no supporting evidence either.


ashleyhr said...


Also - having earlier implied that the trees did not remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ergo Noah's flood and a 'young' Earth - Snelling then ADMITS "that is not to say these and other plants did not draw down carbon dioxide from the pre-Flood atmosphere, as undoubtedly they did"! What on earth happened to Snelling's earlier mantra that although "today’s diminutive lycopsids have a high carbon uptake ability" we should instead invoke Noah's flood for the reduction in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since these trees died - because "the present is not the key to the past"? Looks like the mantra can be used to deny science instead and postulate YEC claims - even though the YEC later in his article apparently ACCEPTS the science he earlier appeared to reject.

Look closely and YEC claims invariably unravel.

I'm not attacking the Bible I'm attacking YEC claims.

This is not 'science'. Even if it appears superficially convincing to fundamentalist Christians. It is hardline religious apologetics. No wonder they cannot get material published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Only on their own websites. Or by Bob.

If anyone else is interested, here is the peer-reviewed paper:

By the way Bob recently wrote of me that I "can't connect two logical thoughts" (see his malicious comment underneath)

I guess my failure to connect two logical thoughts is why Bob is terrified to actually address my arguments in detail and instead either badmouths me or says he has dismantled my logic (where? how?) or indeed forbids me from commenting under his own blogs or on his facebook page.

Perhaps later tonight - after reading this post - he will quote-mine a small bit of my text and then write on his Facebook page that "Haywire has just shown again that he cannot connect two logical thoughts".

Anonymous said...

The fake professor can get an apology from me by backing up the claims on his blog and showing us his real identity so we can verify what he says. Easily done.

Hayworth, you're a blowhard and a twit. Oh, everyone's terrified of me. In your dreams, but you keep proving Sorensen right, you idiot, you really can't connect two logical thoughts except in your ego. I'm surprised London hasn't suffocated under you ego's mass.

Radar needs to delete and moderate comments. These idiots are turning it into their personal urinal, that's what atheists do.

ashleyhr said...

I expect Bob may flag THIS too (as he has already flagged at Radaractive an ICR article on this fossilised lizard found in amber):

Perhaps if he does he will also address the following.

The gist of Mitchell's argument is that "Why haven’t 99 million years of evolution changed lizards more? Could it be that they aren’t really so old?" Or that they did not face selective or environmental pressure to change hugely, perhaps.

She then quotes her colleague Andrew Snelling attempting to dismiss this earlier scientific paper from 2012 which led indirectly to this amber being dated as 99 million years old (though it was found in sedimentary rather than igneous/volcanic rock as would be expected): (rocks from a volcanic eruption were dated using the zircon crystals found within it and the estimated date matched an earlier estimate based upon palynology ie pollen)

Snelling claims of the 2012 paper that the scientists concluded that sediments were buried 'geologically' rapidly (which of course is NOT 'Noah's flood rapidity'). He adds that they dated zircon crystals found with the amber in the sedimentary rock; there were two groups of zircon crystals and one named 'Group II' was believed to date from a nearby volcanic eruption thought to have occurred 99 million years ago. Mitchell then states: "Dr Snelling also notes that U-Pb dating was applied to both the zircon crystals’ cores and the surrounding overgrowths, even though the authors said they were only dating the cores. This aberration should make the dates they obtained questionable ...". I note that in making this charge Snelling does not quote from the paper itself as evidence.

THIS is the abstract of the new science paper:
The amber is from the 'Albian-Cenomanian boundary'. Something the ICR article totally failed to discuss (the AiG article reports that the amber was found within sedimentary rock "containing zircon crystals that have been dated at 99 million years using U-Pb [Uranium-Lead] isotopes" - see my comment above).

The Mitchell article also quotes some made-up 'facts' from Snelling concerning "a history telling of a lost world not envisioned by Bible-rejecting evolutionists" (a history quite consistent with 'God's Word'). But this 'history' telling of a lost world - there's a link to an earlier Snelling article - includes that "the lizards had to be rapidly entombed in the amber in order to be so well preserved" and that "then the amber pieces had to be rapidly buried in sediments being rapidly deposited by water while violent volcanic eruptions were occurring nearby". He insists Noah's flood (based upon what the BIBLE says) did all this! And in the earlier article he claimed, without any evidence whatsoever, that less than 10,000 years ago ie when he believes that Noah lived his world "looked nothing like the continents today" ie there was one single supercontinent and everywhere was warm including Antarctica, and that something called 'catastrophic plate tectonics' then occurred during the flood. He also claims that what is described at Genesis 7:11 ripped "apart the pre-Flood supercontinent". But then, bizarrely, he is forced - because of his flood pseudo-science - to argue of Pangaea that "the Flood had to deposit fossil-bearing layers in North America and Europe before they crashed into each other to form Pangaea". So his model involves a supercontinent breaking apart and the separate parts moving away from each other catastrophically - but then two of the pieces somehow crashed into each other? Sounds dubious.


ashleyhr said...


As for Bob's own blog post at:
"Did you notice that Darwinistas tend to run away from specifics (i.e., those awkward things known as "facts")? We see words redefined (the logical fallacy of equivocation), and they even stack the deck so it looks like they have a winning hand." NO, Bob. You are describing YOUR behaviour. As indeed I have accused you of already by email (I should sue you for plagiarism). I have given examples of YOU doing this.

Whereas you have NOT - in this blog - given examples of 'Darwinistas' doing it. Your blog is propaganda, full stop. ALL that the ICR article (the one in response to the new paper in 'Science Advances') points to is scientists finding NEW (well very old actually) evidence and concluding that - well NOTHING that involves ANY 'redefining' or 'running away from facts' or 'running away from previous hypotheses'.

And if flowering plants appeared earlier than previously thought and they produced amber and the amber sometimes entombed lizards - so what? We did not know this 100 years ago but we know it now. It's called science, Bob.

"Flowering plants and amber? Doesn't fit the timeline ...". This from the person who falsely accuses 'Darwinistas' of running away from specifics. I'm genuinely unsure what Bob is trying to argue. Which of course is the point. He has no specific argument - just accusations.

ashleyhr said...

If Anonymous had any real argument he or she would NOT be demanding censorship (Mr Radaractive is being very decent in allowing a PROPER discussion and polite though vigorous disagreement).

By the way I have saved the text of my comments.

I assume you are not Sorensen, Mr 'Anonymous'?

ashleyhr said...

I think Anonymous is Sorensen. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny?

ashleyhr said...

Radaractive - can you confirm that the second 'Anonymous' is not Sorensen using a false identity? (Sorensen lives in New York City.)

ashleyhr said...

I have sent a message to Bob via one of his other blogs telling him that I strongly suspect that the second 'Anonymous' here is HIM. Unless Radaractive is able to rule that out for us. I've also emailed Prof Tertius and Mr Radaractive (copied to Bob) with my suspicions.

ashleyhr said...

How does Anonymous know what city I live in? (I know that Bob does know that I live in London.)

PS I expect that Anonymous (the second one) will now go 'silent'. But if not - I do NOT call for him to be censored (unless he comes out with profanities or death threats perhaps).

Professor Tertius said...

Anonymous, I don't want an "apology" from you. I want you to address the science of The Laws of Thermodynamics and explain how it denies the Theory of Evolution. Your efforts to change the subject aren't working. It only highlights your inability to come up with an evidence-based argument.

(Cowboy Bob, you are wise to avoid engaging actual science on a forum where you can't exert your usual censorship to silence what you fear.)

Instead of whining about identities, let's discuss the science of thermodynamics.

ashleyhr said...

Still 90% sure that Anonymous is Bob. His utterly evasive reply confirms my previous suspicions (I've saved the relevant text lest he might delete it):

If I am right, that is devastating and is a public destruction of Sorensen's reputation which totally undermines everything he ever writes about me.

Professor Tertius said...

Still 90% sure that Anonymous is Bob. His utterly evasive reply confirms my previous suspicions...

Whatever identity he may choose to use, it is definitely humorous that Cowboy Bob always whines about me being a "fake"---and yet he falsely claims to represent the scientific case against evolution. Until I challenge him.

Bob always runs and hides when on a venue where he can't censor me. He's been running from my challenges for years and this time he refuses to discuss the Theory of Evolution and The Laws of Thermodynamics. (That's why he wanted to change the subject.) And that is why "a public destruction of Sorensen's reputation" has always revolved around him being a fake. Cowboy Bob loves to project.

So now that we've called each other a "fake", let's talk about The Laws of Thermodynamics, Bob. Your turn. Give it your best shot. The "throw a stone, then run and hide" routine got tiresome years ago. Come out of hiding and let's discuss the science.

Anonymous said...

//Bob always runs and hides when on a venue where he can't censor me. He's been running from my challenges for years and this time he refuses to discuss the Theory of Evolution and The Laws of Thermodynamics.//

And a big fat middle finger to logic from the pretend professor. Give us your real name and back up the claims on your blog so we can take you seriously maybe.

Professor Tertius said...

And a big fat middle finger to logic from the pretend professor. Give us your real name and back up the claims on your blog so we can take you seriously maybe.

What an excellent example of the cowardice of those who are afraid to debate the actual science. As always, Bob's terrified of engaging the evidence and so all he can do is evade and whine.

OK, Bob. I'll make things less intimidating for you. Let's pretend that my name is John Smith and I'm an unemployed ditch digger with an 8th grade education. Now that my academic background is not at issue, let's debate whether or not The Laws of Thermodynamics conflicts with the Theory of Evolution.

Professor Tertius said...

Isn't it amazing how so many "creation science" activists would rather talk about identities instead of the science which they claim to know so well? And isn't it fascinating that someone demanding to know my name chooses to post as ANONYMOUS? The childish hypocrisy is laughable but the harm done to the cause of Christ is not.

"Give us your real name and back up the claims on your blog"

Bob, if you want to discuss the Bible.and.Science.Forum blog articles, why don't you post your complaints there where we can discuss them---instead of using what I've posted on another website to dodge the evolution discussion on THIS forum thread?

"... so we can take you seriously maybe."

Bob is illustrating the logical fallacy known as the Genetic Fallacy. That is the term for rejecting some claim, such as a claim about science, because of its source. It is obviously a logical fallacy because a claim stands or falls on it own merits or lack thereof. It doesn't depend upon who makes the claim or where the evidence is found. Thus, if murderer Charles Manson recites Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that science is valid regardless of the evil and the psychopathic nature of Manson. And that's why I don't actually have to know the identity of Anonymous to debate the application of The Laws of Thermodynamics with him.

And if my identity is necessary before I can be taken seriously, why should we take ANONYMOUS seriously when you post anonymously? You don't want to reveal your identity---even though we all know who you are, because you've played this same game with me many times in the past---yet you demand to know my identity. The Book of Proverbs warns of mockers who scorn instruction, and Jesus warned of hypocrites who demand all sorts of compliance from others while refusing to subject themselves to the same demands. Yes, in Jesus' day and in ours, Pharisees are always much the same.

Bob, your fear of engaging the scientific and Biblical evidence has never surprised me. Your ignorance of science has never surprised me. But your hypocrisy and double-standards creates stumbling blocks to non-believers who are honestly investigating the claims of the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ. Worse yet, statements like yours:

"And a big fat middle finger to logic..."

...reinforces the false beliefs of many non-Christians that born-again, Bible-affirming Christ-followers are childish adolescents who must resort to vulgarities because they can't intelligently discuss--and refuse to discuss--the science they claim to be able to debunk.

Bob, I pray that the Spirit of God would weigh heavily upon your heart and convict you in the inner man to where you seriously reconsider your Christian witness. Most of all, I pray that the bitterness and hatred you fester towards both your Christian brethren and the non-Christians you loathe, will be replaced by the love of Christ. I would exhort you to retire that worldly and carnal middle finger gesture you love to use. It has no place in the public witness of a disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm quite willing to forgive you and put all of this behind us so that we can finally discuss The Laws of Thermodynamics and the Theory of Evolution as mature adults.

Or, of course, you can continue to run away and hide while occasionally stepping out long enough to describe obscene gestures. At least I can thank you for once again convincing readers that when not within the safety of your own websites where you can censor at will, you are totally unable to pose any sort of intelligent scientific argument.

Readers, please understand that Bob's antics are not at all typical of mature, Bible-affirming Christ-followers. In no way do we as born-again disciples of Jesus Christ, nor does the Bible itself, condone his behavior.

radar said...

Well, so much for open comments. I suppose it was worth an experiment to see what would happen if I opened up comments to the world. Very informative. There are people who are really not happy with other people and name-calling seems to be a large part of the comments thread.

This is not the place to pick fights with other individuals. The idea is to present ideas, hypotheses and theories and be concerned with them and not engage in personal attacks. This comments thread is now under moderation and I am not going to be coming in every day to look things over.

The last issue seems to be the Laws of Thermodynamics. In layman's terms, the Universe runs downhill...from order to disorder or from hot to cold or however you want to think of it. We see it all around us - dust gathers on shelves, the roof on your house eventually needs new shingles, your back deck needs to be stained every now and then. For that matter, you are getting older as well and I can tell you that eventually your body is going to lose muscle mass and your skin will begin to wrinkle and you will die of something eventually.

The Universe is subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics. It is dying, slowly, but still dying. Comets are losing mass, stars are emitting energy they are not getting back and the total energy of the Universe is converting to entropy. Natural processes all obey the LOT so that is one of the great problems with Darwinism. The idea that mutations (broken things) build new information into the gene pools of organisms is an idea that is in opposition to the LOT. They study of what is happening to the gene pool of mankind tells us that mutations are increasing. As mutations increase, more problems come our way. We don't need to worry about aliens invading and wiping us out. Mutations would do it if mankind persists.

radar said...

To be clear, I put up comments moderation for ALL commenters. Way too much chicken fighting and name-calling to manage. You guys want to hurl bombs at each other, pick another forum.