Issues with Old Earth Creation: Theistic Evolution

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Friday, July 11, 2014 97 comments

by Charlie Wolcott

In the last couple weeks, I have addressed two of the popular “Old Earth Creation” models. There is a third that I understand is more popular than all the others: Theistic Evolution. There are more models out there that lie somewhere between these three major models but these three are the key ones.

So what is Theistic Evolution (TE)? TE is the origins model that very closely follows the secular model of Evolution but stipulates that God is the one who orchestrated the process. This model departs from the Biblical account even more than the Gap Theory and Progressive Creation. But there is also a lot of similarity in all three of these models. Here are some of the similarities, which I have already addressed in the first two posts of this series.

They all have an issue with God creating everything in 6 natural 24-hour days as recorded. They all ignore the historical tracing from Adam through Solomon in genealogical records, and the annals of the Kings to the Captivity where we easily can match with secular histories. They all have the order of creation messed. I often don’t bother dealing with the “interpretation” of the word “day” because the Old Earth Models all get the order messed up. All these models also depend greatly on a local flood for Noah. And all these models treat secular scientific philosophies on a higher authoritative tier than Scripture.

But there is another one I haven’t addressed yet. All of these models place death before the sin of Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:16-17, God tells Adam to not eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil or he would die. In Romans 5:12, Paul tells us that through sin, Adam brought sin to all mankind because all of man has sinned. Many supporters of Old Earth models will claim that this only refers to mankind but has no reference to animals. For argument’s sake, let us assume they are right. Their argument suggests that animals would have died prior to sin because of population levels, because of the fossil record, and because of their claim that many creatures were carnivores. However, this is ultimately an argument from silence. They cannot say any animals died before Genesis 3 because there is no record of any.

Death and sin are completely joined at the hip throughout Scripture. The very first death mentioned is in Genesis 3, when God killed an animal to provide clothes for Adam and Eve. I addressed this whole issue in my first Worldview Warriors post on The Doctrine of Clothing. Read more on this there. In Genesis 4:3-5, God accepted Abel’s blood offering (a lamb) but not Cain’s offering (grains from his own work). Why? Because God set the precedent that to cover for sin, there had to be the shedding of innocent blood. The entire sacrificial system of the Israelites established in Leviticus chapters 1-7 is based on this concept. In Romans 6:23, we see that the wages of sin is death. In Hebrews 9:22, we learn that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission or removal of sin. And in Leviticus 17:11, we not only learn that life is found in the blood, it takes lifeblood to make atonement for sin. There is no way around this. Sin and death are irrevocably linked. All the Old Earth models have this problem of death coming before sin.

Theistic Evolution has some specific problems as well. One of them is the “God did it” argument that atheists are very quick to point out. They really hate it when someone says, “I don’t know how this could be accounted for by science, therefore God.” And for good reason - all this is doing is filling the gaps of the secular models with God. TE does say that God created the universe, but they only invoke his name in an area where we just don’t know how it could have happened by scientific means. The Young Earth Creationists do not take this approach. Our approach is not from a position of ignorance where “if we don’t know, therefore God,” but a position of knowledge, “God, therefore…”

An important observation to bring up here is that in all three of these positions, they all claim to be Christians and followers of Jesus Christ. But there is a significant difference between the Young Earth group and all the Old Earth groups: God. All of them say God did it, but the Young Earth groups have God at the center of the attention, in the middle of the spotlight. All the other Old Earth models have God somewhere on the side of the stage, with secular science in the center of the spotlight. Think about this: If you take away “science,” Young Earth Creation will not be affected at all because it is founded on Scripture. A few models might change, but the core remains intact. Old Earth models completely fall apart without science. But if you take away Scripture, Young Earth Creation falls apart, and Old Earth models remain unaffected. You can get the Old earth models, especially TE, without ever citing Scripture. And this is very obvious whether Scripture or “science” holds the higher authority by which one is invoked more.

Another issue with TE is evangelism. In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus sends us out on the Great Commission. I will never forget this quote from Wayne Grudem in the forward to the book Should Christians Embrace Evolution? by Norman Nevin: “To put it in terms of an equation, when atheists assure us that matter + evolution + 0 = all living things, and then Theistic Evolutionists answer, no, that matter + evolution + God = all living things, it will not take long for unbelievers to conclude that, therefore, God = 0.”

I often ask TE believers in Facebook debates how they witness to unbelievers when they have the same model of origins as the TE that works just fine (according to them) without God. I have never gotten a coherent answer. And in all truth, the vast majority of TE believers that I have dealt with behave just like the militant atheists I frequently deal with. I honestly could not tell if they know God from a duck and the only clue I have that they are Christians is that they claim they do. I wrote about that issue in my post Christian in Name Only as well.

There are many more issues that these models have, but I have run out of space for this post. It all boils down to, “Do you trust God or do you trust man?” An interesting fun fact is that if you take the middle of all of the chapters of the Bible, you find Psalms 118. If you take all the verses of the Bible and take the middle one, you find Psalm 118:8: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord, than to trust in man.” Romans 3:4 tells us that God must be true even if EVERY man is a liar. Trust God that he means what he says and that he did what he said he did. When you trust that, you will also trust that he will do what he said he will do. If you can trust him on Creation, you can also trust him for your Salvation and that he will return. If you can’t trust him on Creation, why should you trust him on Salvation or his return? It all points to Christ and if he is not in the spotlight, we have missed the point of all of this. In the next few weeks, I will go into detail about Young Earth Creation and why I hold it and why it should be the default origins model to a Bible-believer.


David J. said...

//An interesting fun fact is that if you take the middle of all of the chapters of the Bible, you find Psalms 118. If you take all the verses of the Bible and take the middle one, you find Psalm 118:8: “It is better to take refuge in the Lord, than to trust in man.” ///
All this shows me is that you don't bother to look up the facts you're told to verify that they're true. Well, I already knew that from the volcano thing.

Bob Sorensen said...

This is a good article, and makes several important points.

Theistic evolution requires biblical compromise all through Scripture. Although their adherents claim to believe the Bible, their theological position is weak and self-refuting in many ways.

I would like to know why they insist on believing in evolution and deep time. Is it to please other people so they do not look stupid in their eyes? As Petra sang, "I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of men than a fool in the eyes of God". Some Old Earthers claim that "science" (that is, current interpretations of evidence according to science philosophies and presuppositions) has "proven that Genesis is untrue", or similar, so they accept atheistic interpretations of the evidence. To be consistent, why stop there? "Science" has shown that there are no virgin births, nobody can change water to wine, people do not rise from the dead, there is no final Judgement, and so on.

Atheists call TEs "reasonable" or "moderate" Christians. Why? I think it's obvious: They do not take a firm stand on the Scriptures. Also, they are much closer to atheism than non-compromising biblical creationist. We are branded "liars" and the almost-nonsense word "Fundamentalists" (which is a pejorative more than anything else with them, they love to provoke emotions). Yet they cannot prove that someone is lying other than simply declaring it over and over; the basis for such a claim is offering evidence that refutes evolution and supports biblical creation, and then you are a "liar". People like that are irrational, coming from incoherent presuppositions, and will not realize that there is a difference between a "lie" and "differing opinion". Nor can they show that someone is attempting to deceive, they just want to (again) use an emotive term in lieu of logic.

Both atheists and TEs hate us with a passion. The author and I both know that you cannot tell one from the other in most "discussions" on social media.

Bob Sorensen said...

Haworth has another sock puppet, I see. I do not have enough time, space or interest in dealing with the logical fallacies and accusations in the diatribe.

David J. said...

//"Science" has shown that there are no virgin births//

I don't think most TE's would claim that God couldn't create the Earth in six literal days, rather that there is an abundance of evidence that he didn't.
Imagine Mary claiming an immaculate conception, and investigators check her bed and find Joseph's hair and "seed" on her bed. Then they do a paternity test on Jesus and find that his DNA is a match with Joseph's. And Jesus has a very close physical resemblance to Joseph. After enough physical evidence, some may start believing that Joseph was the biological father, but that God was the spiritual father.

Steve Poole said...

"I do not have enough time, space or interest in dealing with the logical fallacies and accusations in the diatribe." --- Cowboy Bob

No. You only agree to debate Christians who understand science and the Bible when you have total admin powers to censor, delete, and ban.

We've seen it happen too many times. As soon as Bob sees his evidence-deficient arguments debunked by opponents who actually know what they are talking about, he deletes all of their posts, bans them from the website, and then brags about how he won the debate with incredible skill!

Good to see you, Bob.

--- Steve Poole ---

Steve Poole said...

Charlie, if you would like to find out what one well-spoken evolutionary creationist ACTUALLY thinks---instead of the straw man versions concocted by YEC ministry leaders---this is the first video in Gordon Glover's excellent series:

"Seeing Through a Glass Darkly" is only seven minutes long and I doubt that any of the videos in the series run over 12 minutes or so.

I don't personally agree with every aspect of how he deals with Genesis 1 but probably the most important point of the series for most viewers is the distinction because Ultimate Cause (God) and Proximate Cause (the natural processes God created). Christian parents tell their children "God made you" even though they don't yet understand how their PARENTS made them. But that doesn't mean their parents lied to them. God is the Ultimate Cause of children and reproductive processes are the Proximate Cause of children.

Likewise, Genesis 1 says that God created HADAM from "the dust of the ground". God is the ultimate cause, which is the Bible's emphasis, but that doesn't deny the reproductive and evolutionary processes which God uses to make people from "the dust of the ground" every day. We are "dust" and we eat "dust", that is, our food is made from the soil and that is why we eat it so that it can become us.

Of course, that is why Genesis 2:7 is yet another harmony between science and the Bible. Abiogenesis, life from non-living ingredients, is exactly what the Bible describes in that passage. Some Christians talk about "the dust of the ground" while hypocritically pretending that "primordial soup" is somehow a contradiction! But if you add water to that soil, you obviously do get a kind of "soup". Both the Bible and Science agree that all life comes from the earth's crust.

Steve Poole said...

Christians who argue with scientists usually end up looking foolish---and unscriptural in the process.

One of the many ways Christians have made fools of themselves throughout history, whenever they tried to impose their traditional beliefs on the Bible and against science, was the doctrine which said "Scientists will never produce in the lab a synthetic organic compound." That is, they claimed, "Only God can create life, just like we see in Genesis 1. So that means any product of life, the organic compounds, will never be artificially created by man. Man will never do the things which God reserved for himself."

Christians were proven wrong yet again in 1828 when Friedrich Wohler created urea in his lab without the help of a kidney. Eventually those Christians admitted that the Bible never actually denied the synthesis of organic compounds at all. Many Christians today refuse to learn from history and continue the same kind of folly.

It is worth mentioning that once strict division between organic chemistry and inorganic chemistry survives to this day. But the definition has changed to reflect Wohler's discovery: Organic chemistry used to be "the chemistry of compounds produced only by living things" but now it is "the chemistry of carbon compounds."

Steve Poole said...

Without "Lying for Jesus" the "creation science" movement would have little to say. (I'm talking about leaders, not the naive but sincere followers who assume that the leaders know what they are talking about and have fairly presented the data and the quotations they dishonestly quote-mine.) Shameful.

Steve Poole said...

If Bob and most other young earthers spent as much time commenting on the evidence as they spend complaining about some alleged "unfairness" and whining about sock puppets, they might have a better reputation.

Of course, until the "Lying for Jesus" problem is resolved, Young Earth Creationism will remain mired in infamy on the Internet.

Bob Sorensen said...

Here we go, more on the libel fest.

Charlie said...

Amazing, my post comes up in the morning, I go to work all day and the mice come to play.

All of my arguments are exactly what those who claim to be TE's have fed me. So if I did no research, then every TE (many) are liars of their own position. I thoroughly have researched Progressive Creation. Most of that post was directly addressing Hugh Ross and his poor hermenutics. At the last minute, I decided to pull him name to be nice to him. I know full well what Ross preaches. I know full well he loves to go into the different ways a word can be interpreted but he NEVER addresses why his is better than another. He Scripture twists so badly I don't know how he keeps up with his gymnastics. You're no better.

What amazed me is how all these former YEC-apologetics can't seem to get the YEC position right. I've seen nothing from you that indicates you even understand it. I've seen a LOT of fakers out there who PRETEND to be Christians and former YECs. Why do you sound so familiar with all them?

Let me ask you this. Are you capable of holding up to the same standards you hold us to? Are you capable of removing YOUR biases when analyzing science? Do the scientists you support hold the same standard you hold to YEC? I can say in a heartbeat they don't. Here is an article from the Smithsonian about human back problems. I was looking for one of the original papers that another atheist had linked to me suggesting back problems are a result of walking upright. I would love to see the "removal of bias" in such an article, because it's not there. And no chiropractor, including one we have on staff here with Worldview Warriors, would ever agree with such an article. But if we are so blind and so "uneducated" and so "biased" that we can't separate them from our research, perhaps you can demonstrate it. Though it's really hard to remove biases from the table if you don't acknowledge they are there.

Charlie said...

Here's the link.

Please demonstrate the standard you insisted every scientist should be able to do and that you insist we must do being carried out in this article. Or are they "moronic" by your definition?

Please demonstrate you are capable of holding to the same standard you place on YECs. Or are you going to call yourself "moronic" by your own definition?

Bob Sorensen said...

This guy has been challenged repeatedly to provide evidence instead of assertions. John Heininger challenges him to provide verifiable evidence, one example is here.

By the way, I have three names that I have used, all are linked on my Blogger site, and I make it clear that all are me. My reasons are for atheopaths to guess at, since they love libel, prejudicial conjecture and simply making things up so they can believe them.

Charlie said...

He is certainly good at keeping on the offense. But if he wants to stick around here, he's going to be playing defense from here on out. And there is no defense he can provide for this. I noticed on the Progressive Creation post he started out with a massive load of Genetic Fallacies and No True Scotsman Fallacies. I counted about a dozen in one paragraph. Pretty impressive for someone who has studies this topic for years. Then he tries to play nice saying "I used to be there myself, don't make my mistakes....come join the Dark Side". He talks to me about needing to get "better sources" and his claim that I need to look up Hugh Ross was truly laughable. Apparently he's only read the about section on Hugh Ross because if he knew anything about him, he would quickly recognize my Progressive Creation post was addressing Ross specifically. I would have quoted him in the claims, but I decided at the last minute to be respectful and not call him out by name. He's good at Google and repeating the claims that are made, but because he has no standard he is willing to live by, he will always be ever learning but never coming to the truth, because any time the truth is presented, he rejects it. Usually specifically because the source, as he has demonstrated. He cannot be "unbiased" or "objective" behaving that way, and under his own definition, defines him as not "intelligent" but as "moronic". His words, not mine.

William Seng said...

This fertile guy epitomizes the old earth crowd. You want to run with the pack of secular scholars so that you too can look smart, but you want to also believe that you are going to heaven we you die. So your method of attack is insulting anybody who opposes you. Not everybody involved in the debate is a PhD but that does not nullify the common sense conclusions of those who are not. Having said that, charlie is a phd. Why do you assert yecs are stupid when it comes to science? I am not a phd but a mdiv and my conclusions are very similar to charlies. I have written a book that makes logical scientific conclusions and sound scriptural conclusions. Whenjoy you resort merely to insults it tells me that you know that you are violating one of your convictions or the other...and I know which one it is because otherwise you would not be throwing out these insults!

William Seng said...

Lol, my smart phone auto corrects my spelling when it does not recognize a my reply, substitute the name tertius for the word fertile. Hope that clears up confusion.

Charlie said...

Actually, William, I am not a PhD. I just have a Bachelor's. But there are no credentials that would convince this guy. I have a good friend who has four degrees, including a PhD, all in science and science education fields AND is a member of Mensa (top 2% IQ in the world) and all those credentials won't mean a thing to these guys because he believes the Bible as written.

The problem with being open-minded is that while you claim to be open to all possibilities, you cannot be closed to any, including ones that are blatantly false. While intellectually in discussion you are open to all options, in reality, you are open to any option except the truth. Because the truth will force you to select ONLY that one and act on it. In the flat earth/round earth debate, a open-minded person will always be an effective flat-earther because you will never find him siding with the round-earthers building a boat getting ready to sail the sees. They have to be open to the idea that the earth is flat, so they will never side with those who step out in true faith (which is not blind). I am what Eric Ludy calls "Canon-minded". I am open to that which is truth, and I am closed to that which is false. And Scripture is my ultimate authority on deciding what is true and what isn't.

William Seng said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charlie said...

I did notice a very interesting trend from my PC post to this one. "Bible and Science Forum"s behavior has reflected VERY well with a certain threesome of Biblical characters. As well observed, he started out with mocking and ridicule. The logical fallacies he threw would register on a Richter Scale. But then he changed tactics. He tried to be friendly, tried to warn me that I'm heading down a dangerous path, that I need to come over and get better resources (ones that he agrees with). And that just seemed very familiar.

Two months ago, I taught a writing workshop at a large Writers Conference on Spiritual warfare and I taught on the book of Nehemiah. "Bible and Science Forum" has mirrored Sanballot, Tobiah, and Geshem to a T. And such behavior of his very user name here, "Bible and Science Forum" reflects yet another move they did. In Nehemiah 13:4-5, after Nehemiah builds the walls, returns to Persia and comes back, he discovered that Eliashib, the High Priest at the time reserved a room in the temple for Tobiah. What is more is that Eliashib's grandson married Sanballot's daughter. This is EXACTLY what we see in Old Earth Creation. The church leaders making room for and marrying the very enemies of God. And what are we seeing here: an attempt to marry God's word with a worldly philosophy. It always fails to hold water, but it does a great job at leading people astray. And when I see such tactics being used, it only encourages me to keep going. When you study church history, you'd link people would learn. The more opposition they get, the mightier and stronger they become.

Bob Sorensen said...

I see a great deal of Scientism and appeal to authority here, and implying that "if you're not a scientist, you have no business refuting evolution". What scientific credentials do these nay-sayers have who want to negate us?

Charlie said...

I was starting to wonder if Ashley was going to come back or not. Yeah, you passed a science course. Impressive. I have the equivalent of 1 1/2 Bachelor Degrees in science, namely engineering. Not that credentials mean anything to you.

On Chromosome 2, you do a great job at showing the similarity but you show absolutely nothing about it actually happening. With unbiased and objective evidence (that is you may not assume common ancestry going into it) please show this similarity alone leads to a conclusion of a common ancestor. Please show the observations that I can go check out myself without having to take someone's word on it that ANY chromosome fusion has ever happened. And even if it did, who did it happen to? How many early "humans" did it happen to? Where's the bottleneck data that show it would have happened? And if it happened to multiple people, why don't we see it today?

You say I "falsely" assert stuff? Really? Then why don't we see the experts telling any YEC about it. Why do only the laymen such as yourself who by your own admission do not have much scientific education bring it up? Any "expert" that dares to try usually gets squashed very quickly because in such settings the YEC involved tends to have done their homework. All I see from you is an ability to Google and copy-paste. I really wonder if you even have a remote clue about 3/4 of what you talk about.

Radiometric dating. Do you know half about how it actually works? Or have you just been able to repeat the general stuff which is overall pretty vague? Do you know how the half-life is determined? Do you know the capabilities of the measuring equipment used for determining the half-life? Do you know that before the labs can "test" the samples, they need to know an "approximate age" and "location" of where it came from before they ever could get any results (that is known in a court of law as influencing the witness and valid reason to toss out the testimony of said witness)? Did you know that ever assumption behind these methods that are required for "setting the clock" have each been proven false? We've found Argon in molten magma, rendering K-Ar invalid. C14 depends on the ratio of C14 to C12 and the earth's magnetic field was stronger in the past, which would reduce radiation, which would reduce initial C14 amounts automatically making the object appear older than it actually is. The list goes on. And I've done a fair amount of math that proves the methods do NOT follow a scientific, methodical process, math I am in the process of getting reviewed. I'm sure you heard about some of this from others by now, but as they say: the math doesn't lie. Wrong equations do and Evolution is nothing but wrong equations.

Charlie said...

There is a reason you constantly get blocked, Ashley. And it's not due to censorship. You think it is, but it's not. It is also not due to us being afraid of challenges. If you actually paid attention to the other discussions other than your own, you'd find they are often very willing to answer challenges. The reason you keep getting blocked and ignored is that you are really good at bringing nothing to the table, wasting time, hurling insults and loads of fallacies, you demonstrate you have no desire to learn, you do very little but demean and boast your ego in places where it really doesn't belong. Your reputation well precedes you and the reason you constantly get blocked is 99% your attitude and your tone. You demonstrate 0 respect for anyone that actually stands by the Bible no matter if you agree with them or not. So now the question falls to you. WHY should any of us deal with you? WHY should anyone tolerate your libel and your hate? We know full well that it is not us you hate but God you hate. And by your own admission, he didn't show up for you. What obligation did he have to show up to your expectations? When you were an evangelist, did you expect God to answer to you or did you rely on him? And even if he did not show up as expected, did you wait long enough for him to show up? I'm sure the woman who bled for 12 years frequently asked God where he was. I'm sure the cripple who was there for 38 years was wondering where God was. Were you patient enough for God to show up? And it is clear you didn't take the approach of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego of "Even if he does not save us, we will not bow before your idol." I don't know your situation, but I know God does not abandon those who call after his name. I do know many leave him, but that is no faults of God's. He's waiting for those who left to return. And the fact that you keep coming to YEC sites and blogs tells me you know deep down that we are actually right but you want to justify whatever anger you have towards God. Your issue is with God, not his followers. And you best deal with that sooner than later.

Charlie said...

//"The reason you keep getting blocked and ignored is that you are really good at bringing nothing to the table [LIAR], wasting time [TIME EXPOSING UNTRUTHS IS WELL SPENT IMHO], hurling insults [LIAR] and loads of fallacies [LIAR], you demonstrate you have no desire to learn [LIAR], you do very little but demean and boast your ego in places where it really doesn't belong [LIAR]."//

In the near 125 posts on this thread and my previous one, you have brought lots of accusations and whatever claims you have made have been refuted LONG ago. It is obvious you think just making an response counts as a refutation which is blatantly false.

You think you are not wasting anyone's but that is a subjective opinion which means you are incapable of calling that one a lie. You obviously see us as a threat to your position and you would be right. Please demonstrate in the near 125 posts anywhere where you have demonstrated a desire to have an actual discussion. All I've seen is verbal attack and you aren't the only one who has witnesses. Very aggressive and it is no wonder no one wants to deal with you.

Insults, just a couple posts up you called Bob Sorenson a malicious moron and there have been plenty more on the other thread. You repeatedly call YEC scientists liars and deceivers. In your medical issues, did you ever get an MRI? That was invented by a YEC. Medicine was revolutionized and completely changed by a YEC. It is clear you have one definition of "science" and "liars" for YEC and another one for you.

Fallacies? My counts is very high. Your particular weakness is the Genetic Fallacy where you reject any argument a YEC makes because of its source. You also are good at the No True Scotsman Fallacy where you specially define scientists (and science for that matter) to only include those who do not agree with YEC. In Cosmos, Neil Degrass Tyson defined science in his intro as having characteristics of "observable, testable, and repeatabe". Ken Ham defines science the same way. So explain to me how he is lying and Tyson is not. Explain to me how his calling out these "scientific claims" for not being able to apply the scientific method is "evasion".

If you actually do have any desire to learn, you don't show it. That was a subjective claim and cannot be considered a lie. You claim you know so much and that you've "seen it all". Please show me just one place where you actually demonstrate some hint of wanting to listen to us. It doesn't matter what sources I would cite. If it doesn't agree with what YOU think is science, which you do NOT have the education to make such a judgment, you reject it.

Your entire time here has been demeaning, talking down to anyone who disagrees with you. You boast about knowing so much and you admit your education is rather low. So by your own admission, you do not have the qualifications you demand of Bob and other YEC to be able to discuss ANYTHING here. As I asked Bible and Science Forum. Can you live to your own standards? Can you put your own "scientists" to the same standards you hold to YEC?

Charlie said...

Have I checked what other "Christians" and scientists have said? Absolutely. That is why I wrote these posts. I sought to keep my posts down to 1000-1200 words and I can't address everything in that space. My Progressive Creation posts, unlike what Bible and Science Forum suggests, was initially directed right at Hugh Ross. I pulled his name at the last minute. You won't see this in "about" sections but if you actually read the papers they write, what I wrote is dead on. But I do check it out and when I see stuff that YEC does that doesn't mesh, I don't agree with it. But do I throw the baby with the bathwater as you suggest? I'd love to see how you hold onto Evolution if you hold your scientists to the same standards. And that demonstrates yet another fallacy you love to use: double standards.

And is it about censorship? If you would pay attention to other posts other than your own, you might notice stuff, like how quite a few others are able to bring out some of this "hard core evidence" on these sites. I've had several lengthy discussions where those like you get banned but others who present the SAME STUFF get to stay. The difference: the others show a thing call respect. No need to delete your posts here though. You do a fine job at exposing your extreme bias, your extreme hatred, and so much more.

David J. said...

//Do you know that before the labs can "test" the samples, they need to know an "approximate age" and "location" of where it came from before they ever could get any results (that is known in a court of law as influencing the witness and valid reason to toss out the testimony of said witness)?//

The southern hemisphere has a different C12/C14 ratio than the the northern hemisphere. Water can affect the ratio. So can a nearby volcano eruption. So yes, knowing the location is important.

Dating costs money. It's probably not cost effective to use several methods on one sample, so knowing the approximate age could help determine which dating method would be the most useful . Older samples may require a larger sample size and more careful preparation to get a useful result.

Yes, sometimes using different dating methods on a one sample can produce different results, even outside the error bars.

If an investigator is trying to determine how much time has passed since someone died, wouldn't it be useful to know where the body was found?

//C14 depends on the ratio of C14 to C12 and the earth's magnetic field was stronger in the past, which would reduce radiation, which would reduce initial C14 amounts automatically making the object appear older than it actually is.//

You've made the claim that scientists assume that the C14/C12 ratio has been the same in the past. That is simply not true. The use several methods to calibrate for past ratios, including dendrochronology.

Here's what I think happens with creationist organizations: A show like Cosmos will say we can date a rock by looking at the ratios of materials, then not go much much more in depth than that. Then an organization like AiG will say to its readers: "What Cosmos doesn't tell you is that the ratio of carbons in the atmosphere was probably different in the past." AIG fails to inform their followers that scientists do take issues like that into account. Their purpose is to cause people to doubt evolution, not to give an accurate representation of evolutionary beliefs. Their followers think they have inside information about the evolution conspiracy.

//And I've done a fair amount of math that proves the methods do NOT follow a scientific, methodical process, math I am in the process of getting reviewed. //
When you don't even have a wikipedia-level knowledge of a subject, it's hard for me to take your claims seriously.
You repeat several chain-email "facts" about how a single volcano eruption produces more greenhouse gases than the US since the industrial revolution, or about how a verse is supposedly the middle verse in the Bible.

//They know their evidences don't do what they claim they do and they know WE know their evidences don't do what they do. So to save face, they have to be silent. //
They've written several books full of evidence. You should try reading them.

David J. said...

Oops, I forgot to finish my point about error bars.

Here is a graph of several measurements of the gravitational constant by different groups of researchers. Notice the non-overlapping error bars. I suppose we should get rid of gravitational theories.


Bob Sorensen said...

I see one of these biased people is someone who writes "reviews" of Sarfati books, gives them one-star ratings before he even read them. Then he brags that he read it and it "proved him right". Psychic powers? Magic? No, just preconceptions and anti-Christian bigotry. These critics have nothing of substance to say, so they drown you with many words that say nothing. I've seen them before, and they are petty, hateful bullies, as you can see from their attacks.

Charlie said...

I've seen a few of the sites Ashley references. If that is where he gets his "primary information" from, it is telling. The ones I have seen have as much formal science education as he does: NONE. All the I have seen are nothing but parrots, good writers, but do not actually understand the claims. I've seen many of the comments on such pages, and they do not understand science. And by Ashley's own admission, he's had one scientific class from an "Open University". I wonder if that was accredited. A general science class will cover a few things but not much. So again, Ashley has no credentials to his own name to be able to speak on such matters, he demands that guys like Bob and I have credentials (I do), and he strongly recommends I look at sites that don't have credentials. And he talks to us about "lying for Jesus".

I do not agree with everything Ken Ham or ICR says. I applaud them for standing by the Bible and their ultimate authority. I applaud them for keeping the right focus on everything they do: which is ultimately to preach the Gospel of Christ. One thing I believe Ken Ham need to improve on is his distinction between observational science and historical science. He tends to give the impression that historical science is invalid, but it actually is. I agree with what forensics and what MythBusters do (which is historical science). But for historical science to work, you need a starting point, an ending point, and a historical account. If you only have two of them, you can "recreate" scenarios to suggest the third. But with historical science, the key thing is "recreation" which means "observable, testable, repeatable". Evolution has NOTHING here. They don't have a known starting point nor a historical account. They must assume one to attempt to get the other. The Bible gives us a historical account, one that has keep getting affirmed time and time again. No secular historical record has disprove the Bible. And don't give me Egypt or China because it takes grave misinterpretations of their calendars to make it not line up. No one has been able to recreate any of the scenarios Evolution suggests, and the same could be said about the Bible too. That is why, unlike the common claims, we YEC do not consider our position to be a scientific claim. We attack Evolution for claiming to be scientific when none of it can fit the scientific process.

Ashley demands we toss out YEC because of a couple bad arguments a few of them have made yet is apparently blind to the very deliberate frauds Evolutionists have made. He cannot tell what is science and when he steps out of science. He equivocates observational and historical science with fancy story telling that is remotely based on a few facts. He equivocates continuity of nature (that the scientific laws are constantly upheld) with uniformitarianism (that the rates of such laws have always been the same) and the latter of the two has been disproven over and over and over again. A good number of actual scientists are being more supportive of catastrophism because that is what we observe. He can talk a big game but it doesn't talk long to figure out he can only repeat what others say and most of the time what he repeats is what has been repeated and has no means of accurately discerning what is valid and what is not. When you have double-standards, any judgment you make is never taken seriously.

Bob Sorensen said...

I do not agree with everything Ken Ham or ICR says. I applaud them for standing by the Bible and their ultimate authority. I applaud them for keeping the right focus on everything they do: which is ultimately to preach the Gospel of Christ.

Anti-creationists portray us a drones, blindly accepting everything that our creationist heroes say. Not so. We do think for ourselves. I do not agree with everything that AiG, CMI, ICR and other have said, and even had sharp disagreements with some creationists. When I post my almost-daily "Featured Article", I select them. I have rejected some because they had weak arguments, I disagreed with them or for other reasons. For that matter, I don't agree with everything Charlie says, and I'm sure that works both ways. And that's a good thing.

Bob Sorensen said...

I think some people should back up their claims about evolution instead of resorting to insults, appeal to authority, sweeping generalizations and other logical fallacies. Typical attention-craving atheopath behavior, wot?

Charlie said...

I've shown your double-standards several times. And one very specific example is your demanding of Bob not having scientific credentials and being unqualified to speak on the matter while you also don't have any scientific credentials. You are anything but unbiased and anything but objective. You can't look at anything in this discussion with an honest approach. You haven't yet.

Don't underestimate you? Advice you ought to take yourself first. I've already disproven quite a few of your claims and you've missed them or pretended I didn't say anything. You want me to believe Chromosome 2 fussed. That is your claim that has no scientific backing. Showing things are similar does NOT prove fusion. It doesn't even prove it is possible. Show the SCIENCE of it, not the story telling, the science.

It is really easy to look at about sections of websites. I prefer to look at what they actually say behind the about sections. That is why my three posts were all about. They can claim all they want, but I addressed what they actually put forth. How they act. And that is exactly how I have analyzed you. It does not take a PhD to figure it out. I have no obligation to prove to you anything. And if you knew anything about science, you would know it does not deal with proofs.

The difference between you and I on these sites is that I can tell very quickly when they jump from observable, testable, repeatable, or even re-creatable science to imaginary story telling. I have personal friends who are pretty deep in the scientific community though you reject them just because the believe the Bible. You are able only to repeat what these sites say. You don't have the credentials or the real knowledge to analyze them YOURSELF. You have not made any claim that shows YOU understand it for or against either side. Bob and I have. We've done our homework. In my post-graduate courses, the papers I've read had something in common, lots of citations and an indiscernible author's voice. I could not tell in the papers if the author had anything to say on the matter. It was always "this person says this, that person says that" but very little if any "this is what I think about it". Bob and I can actually engage the material. I haven't seen that from you. I just keep seeing "look at this site" or "look at that site". As I've asked the others, what criteria, what is your authority for determining what is quality or what isn't? You know what mine is. You don't like it but that doesn't make it invalid. Without such a standard, you can't judge anything to be right or wrong. It is obvious you have one standard for YEC and another standards for anyone else. Prove me wrong on that!

Piltdown Superman said...

He fails to realize that assertions and repeated assertions are not only proof, but not evidence. It has been accurately said that he not only fails to understand science, but also fails to understand logic. There are many obliterations of reason, including assertions, ad hominem, special pleading, tu quoque, the genetic fallacy (rejecting information from creationists because they are creationists), the inability to distinguish between lying and a difference in interpretations of evidence, and more. If you want me to provide my own documentation of him going haywire with lying, I have already done so. The real way, not just asserting, "You're a liar! I proved it because I said so!" He's going to live my use of this identity, too.

Bob Sorensen said...

PS —

Making claims about people such as myself on your blogs, where all comments are forbidden - and then IGNORING email challenges from myself asking you to BACK UP your assertions.

The assertions were backed up. Sending e-mail to 40-50 people at one time who do not even want it is spamming. Sending such spam to people who have already stated that the sender is blocked is not only arrogant, but irrational, hysterical and bullying (hypocritical from someone who is on record as being opposed to bullying). These, plus the reasons I mentioned earlier, are why he is not someone with which a reasonable exchange of ideas cannot be expected. It was suggested that he take up crochet, which is an excellent suggestion.

Charlie said...

For having so much information and having so much documentation and having done so much research you do not know anything about what YEC actually believes. You go look at AiG, ICR, CMI, etc. Show me where they say YEC is a scientific position. I've never seen it. Ken Ham repeatedly has to remind his critics that it is a worldview issue. It always has been, always will be. It is NOT a scientific debate. I will be nice and say you are grossly misinformed but based on what you boast of your research I suspect you are lying. I still have yet to meet a "former evangelist" or a "former YEC" that ever gets the position right. And you don't. It is really easy to say we are all liars when the argument you are actually addressing is one we don't hold.

You can consider us hopeless all you want. Your opinion does not matter. Amazingly you do have hope, though you do a good job at making it hard to see. As long as you are alive, God can still get to you. I pray for your sake he does. But he won't force himself. I know you've heard this before, but the number one question you need to answer is "What will you do with Jesus?" And we don't lie for him. Lying would be knowing the truth and saying the opposite. If you are as knowledgeable as you claim, you have been caught lying. If you are not, you have still be caught lying by claiming to be so. It's easy for you to put is in the cooker, but you can't handle being in it yourself. When you show double standards, the obscene amount of fallacies you've given, and the aggressive insults, it is no wonder why you are being blocked all the time. You do deserve it.

Charlie said...

If we do play with words, we stick with what we say. We clearly define our terms and we stick with them. Novel concept.

I know you don't appreciate being accused of lying but you really left me no choice. You do not know the YEC position because if you did, you would never suggest: "Young Earth creationism is not science. No unbiased scientists thinks that it is. That is the reality you deny. "
We don't deny that our position is not science. We NEVER claimed our position was a scientific one. If you did the research you claim you did, you would know this and are lying about it. If you didn't know about, you did not do the research you claim you did and are lying about that. "Creation science" is actual science done from a Creation perspective" but our origins model is NOT a scientific one. And I don't know of a single YEC who actually claims that. If they do, I don't agree with them. If you don't like being called a liar, don't lie. I did prove you did TWICE and you can deny it all you want. And I suspect the source is in the quality of research you have done. You seem to be far more interested in what YEC opposition says instead of actually seeing what YEC actually says. If you actually did check out what YEC actually says, you'd know we don't consider our position a scientific position.

David J. said...

//We NEVER claimed our position was a scientific one.//
But you claim that common descent and deep age positions aren't scientific either. I think the point is that you put YEC on the same level as mainstream science. Whether you do that by elevating the status of YEC or lowering the status of conventional science is irrelevant.

//I still have yet to meet a "former evangelist" or a "former YEC" that ever gets the position right.//
Of course you haven't. If they had understood your position, they never would have left it, right? But by that standard, I doubt the vast majority of current evangelicals or YECs "get the position right."

Is it more important to be on the right side than to know why you're on that side?

Bob Sorensen said...

Davey and Haywire's essential arguments are summed up: YECs are fools and liars, their positions has no bearing on science because it's not evolution.

So, Haywire is an expert in philosophy. Be consistent. We're supposed to shut up about refuting evolution because we're "not qualified" (though Haywire gets a pass through atheopath double standards, he can speak for let's see your papers showing that you're qualified to discuss philosophy of science.

Haywire wants me to prove he misrepresented Ken Ham? I did, and backed it up with a screen shot. He simply cried about it on his Forum of Obscurity where he considers himself to be of vital importance (but is largely ignored) and denied it, though the proof was right there. He misrepresents creationists frequently, often though extreme quote mining and selective citing, but perhaps he denies it because he is incapable of understanding simple logic. He reminds me of one of those little yap dogs in our complex. Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Annoys everyone, the thing barks at its own echo and anything that moves.

Charlie said...

David, I know the difference between what is scientific, that is, what we can apply the scientific method to, and what is philosophical. When you believe that only what is scientific can be held as a standard for truth, you are not in science but in philosophy. There is a LOT of mainstream science that is fully valid and 99% of it has nothing to do with origins. That is why you don't hear from 99% of scientists on origins.

Here is an interesting quote from a non-YEC. A PhD Biology lectured in Ashley's home country, England.
"Perhaps part of the problem in convincing medical practitioners to embrace evolution is the nature of the science. Evolutionary hypotheses are notoriously hard to investigate ... Add to this the fact that the field has failed so far to provide clinically useful findings and you see why medical schools lack interest. “There is much about explanation and understanding, but little about treating and curing.”
~Steven Lewis, PhD Lecturer at University of Chester England.
Quoted in "Darwin in Medical School" Stanford Medical Magazine, Summer 2006

One of the top fields of science I hear cited that benefits from Evolution is medicine, particularly in the development of vaccines and studying antibiotic resistance. This is absolute bunk and anyone who claims this knows nothing about how they actually work. The textbooks talk about how bacteria "evolves" resistance to antibiotics but not one of them actually describes what causes it. It's not a benefit to the bacteria at all. And along wit this quote and others, I have heard of a number of medical schools REJECTING teaching Evolution in their classes because they are much more interested in finding cures than believing stories.

Here's more from experts.
//My own research with antibiotics received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution … I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: “No.” //
Philip S. Skell, “Why Do We Invoke Darwin?” The Scientist, 8/29/05, p. 10.

Reality is Evolution only impacts one are of science: Evolution. It has no bearing on the actual science going on in all fields. It is a philosophical debate. Always has been, always will be.

Charlie said...

I will also say that the majority of YEC's scientific models (examples would include the formerly held Canopy Theory, or Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory, or Humphrey's White Hole Cosmology) are up to scientific investigation. Most of time, the proponents of such models are up front on "this may not be the way it actually happened but it makes the most sense with the data at this time". The difference between the YEC models and the Evolutionary models (which ALSO change frequently. Look at Big Bang. Compare it 30 years ago to today. Same name but VERY different model) is that we not only call it by its appropriate scientific name (a model, not a theory) we also don't call it fact. What we do call fact is what is written in Scripture. But any scientific model we use to describe how the events in Genesis took place, we do not call fact. That is the behavior of a proper scientist. I don't see that from Evolutionary scientists. Science is a valid method that BEST DESCRIBES what we see. It does not deal with proofs. As Henry Jones says in Raiders of the Lost Ark, if you want to deal with truth, the philosophy department is down the hall.

Bob Sorensen said...

The supposed other person called "Bible and Science Forum" is going haywire, calling people liars (interesting echo in this room, innit?) and accusing of "quote mining". This is a reflexive action of atheopaths when someone says something that makes their religion of evolutionism or the science philosophies that allegedly support it look bad. Yet, the main effort that this supposed other person is making is like the others: Demonize the creationists and ignore the facts.

Charlie said...

Bible and Science forum, if this is too much for you to stomach, you are not required to stick around. Same goes Ashley. He thinks Bob and I are here to annoy us. He's not obligated to stick around either. We know full well we aren't going convince you. How can we deny science when what is brought forth is outside the realm of science? Do you know the difference? I challenged Ashley to provide that actual science behind the "conclusion". He's been silent. I've challenged both of you to demonstrate "intelligence" by YOUR definition of removing bias and being objective. You haven't. In fact you have both done exactly what YOU defined as "moronic". Not only does Ashley not have the scientific credentials to know what is actual science and what isn't from these papers, his double standards, just like yours, automatically rules him out a quality judge on the matter. Because of YOUR double standards which you have well demonstrated, you are in no position to be a teacher or instructor which also makes your application of Proverbs a nice-quote itself.

But as I said. You don't expect us to change and if that is the case, don't stick around if you don't like it. I promise this, for as long as both you and Ashley stick around, you are going to be hearing about your double-standards and your fallacies and more. Because until you deal with that, there is nothing you can say that means anything. Yeah, you and Ashley can point to scientific journals. That doesn't mean you understand it or that it does what you think it does. It sure is amazing how there is this mountain of evidence that laymen like you can easily bring up but when guys like Ray Comfort went to some of the experts who PUBLISH these papers, they are silent. When the ones who write the papers are silent and the laymen are boisterous that is very telling. And why do I keep seeing articles popping up about peer-reviewed papers being recalled? It certainly is not this pure process you wish it be.

But these posts among others of you add to another of you common fallacies: Poisoning the Well.

David J. said...

"but when guys like Ray Comfort went to some of the experts who PUBLISH these papers, they are silent." What are you talking about?
Are you referring to the "Evolution vs. God" video, where they use unscientific terms like "kind" or "observable evidence" (what does that mean?) I'd say that things just become more specific kinds rather than changing kinds. A human is classified an the life kind, more specifically, the animal kind, more specifically, the mammal kind, more specifically, the ape kind, more specifically, the human kind.
If you’re talking about something else, please show me some video of these "silent" experts.

Bob Sorensen said...

I know Haywire loves me with all his heart. That's why he wishes Hell to exist just for my benefit. And he's already seen the posts he's demanding, and cried about them in his Forum of Obscurity.

Speaking of qualifications to discuss things, evolution was popularized mainly through the work of a backslidden clergyman and a lawyer. But that's OK, that's evolution. Those of us who refute evolution and show the fanatical fundamentalism of Darwin's Drones have to be qualified through some arbitrary method.

David J. said...

// (That's funny Mr Ham seems to be talking partly about ORIGINS when he claims "science confirms the Bible". WHICH bit of the Bible do you think he mainly has in mind?)//

AiG very frequently says that a worldview is needed to interpret evidence, then in the same article (sometimes even in the same sentence!) will say that the evidence confirms the Bible (their worldview).

Charlie said...

Ashley, my Bachelor's degree in Computer Science is from one of the top-5 programs in the US and I had 2 1/2 years of Civil Engineer prior to that. Lots of science, lots of math. I am recognized as "highly qualified" to TEACH science. And based on the posts here, both you and David need a basic education on what the scientific method because both of in the last few hours in your attempt to ridicule YEC denied what the scientific method is.

You guys don't know what "observational science is"? Do you not know one of the key steps of the scientific methods? OBSERVATION. We say science must be testable and repeatable? Do you not know what SET UP AN EXPERIMENT is? When you cannot apply the scientific method you do NOT HAVE SCIENCE! I have asked you repeatedly what of your claims on Evolution can actually use the scientific method and all you can do it point to "some scientist says this". And you tell us that we reject science. We are the ones asking you to demonstrate what you are talking about IS science. And you can't. I don't care who is saying it. PhD or not.

If you can't apply the scientific method which has five key steps: FORMULATE HYPOTHESIS, OBSERVATION, SET UP/PERFORM EXPERIMENT, INTERPRETATION, and REPORT. 4 of these 5 steps require input from your worldview, which you guys are pretending is not there. How can you remove your biases that you want us to do if you won't acknowledge what yours are? Why do you put YEC on such an impossible criteria that you refuse to hold yourself to? And you complain I call you out on double-standards? I will continue to call you out on it.

If there is anyone who rejects actual science, it the supporter of Evolution. A paper written by a scientist does NOT make it scientific. As pointed out, those that made Evolution possible like Darwin and Lyell were NOT scientist, there were NOT peer-reviewed, and Darwin could hardly get his degree in Theology. Origin of Species is not a scientific book. It is a philosophical book. It is not written as a scientific book. But here is something I know you guys hate. Bishop Ussher's paper on age of the earth was peer-reviewed, by whom Einstein considered the greatest contributor to science ever: Isaac Newton. And don't say he didn't have evolution to question. He wrote MANY scientific papers against evolution's precursors.

So when I say I have to question your scientific credentials and you demonstrate failure to understand the basics of the scientific method in your desperation to put us down in any way you can, I have very good reason to question if you understand what science is. You can cite all the scientific papers you want. All you have done is repeat what they say THINKING it is science because it is in what you consider a scientific source. I have the education and the standards and the knowledge of science to know what is the science in said papers and what is not.

Charlie said...

Again, if Evolution was proven false, 70 out 70 scientists said they would not change a thing in how they did their work. That is 100%, unanimous. When you tell us we reject science because we disagree with Evolution, you reject the 100% consensus of this poll. In your desperate attempt to find anything you can against us, you are the one rejecting the actual science that applies the scientific method. Forensics works because they can RECREATE the observable, testable, repeatable aspects that science must have. Where does Evolution fit with science? It is a philosophical position. There are aspects of Evolution you can attempt to apply the scientific method, just like with Creation. But time and time again, I hear about the "predictions" that Evolution makes and they NEVER pan out. So if it is science it is BAD science because it does not work in reality. The scientific claims that YEC makes very often work out quite well. Case in point: Russel Humphreys, on a YEC model, predicted the planetary magnetic field strengths of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto BEFORE the probes got there to measure it. With all but Pluto, he was DEAD ON. We will find out about Pluto next year. The Evolutionary, Big Bang models, off by a factor of over a million. YEC was right. Evolution wrong. So before you keep accusing us of being anti-scientific, learn what science is. Because apparently your sources haven't taught you well enough.

And do I want you here? I am not the manager of the Worldview Warriors blog page, but I can promise that that on a FB page I would manage, you would be removed. Not because of your content (and it would be saved, but it makes the conversations very difficult to follow when the posts in the middle of it are removed, guys like Issac Borne are seeking ways to adjust that with FB). The forums I am on can handle the content. And on those forums there have been MANY people who have presented the SAME stuff you have presented with must more civility and they hang around. In the forums I admin, I don't ban for content. I ban for attitude, for insults, and the behavior you have demonstrated here.

Charlie said...

And to emphasize again, science is a method we use to describe and analyze the world around round us. It is a valuable too but it has limits. It cannot test the past, especially one-time events. You can re-create scenes from the past (which is what forensics do) but if you can't re-create a past event, it's not science. Science is not a philosophy we can use to describe origins. And a philosophy that describes origins is not science. There are aspects to said philosophy that can USE science but that does not make the philosophy scientific. Evolution is just as scientific as Creation is. If you want to call Evolution scientific, to be consistent you must call Creation scientific. If you do not want to call Creation scientific, you must not call Evolution scientific. The latter is the case. I challenged for evidence of observations of Chromosome 2 being observed to be fused. Got nothing. Ray Comfort challenged experts to provide observable evidence of change of kinds which IS a scientifically understood term that all the experts interviewed acknowledged and got nothing. In the Evolutionary Tree of Life, there are leaves and there are small branches, but there is NOTHING in the major branches, NOTHING in the trunk, NOTHING in the roots.

And one of the very quick ways to tell if something is being scientific is by the vocabulary. When dealing with Evolution most of the scientific papers in their bodies, not just the abstracts, you see a fair amount of "we believe", "it is supposed", "it is thought", "we suggest", and much more like that. When you see those types of words, you aren't dealing with science. And this is exactly the type of language Ashley's link to Chromosome 2 uses when it shifts from scientific observation of "there is similarity between the two chromosomes" to imaginary storytelling of "we believe this gives a conclusion that Chromosome 2 fused". Again, where is the observation that it happened? Where is the observation that ANY chromosomes have fused in any animal? And you say we reject science for telling you to keep to what science actually is? You are right. It doesn't take a PhD to figure it out. But you are having a hard time with it, and the reason why is because you are standing on a false foundation on a house of cards.

David J. said...

(sorry, these quotes are out of order from multiple comments)

// both you and David need a basic education on what the scientific method because both of in the last few hours in your attempt to ridicule YEC denied what the scientific method is. //

Where did I ridicule YEC?

//Reality is Evolution only impacts one are of science: Evolution. It has no bearing on the actual science going on in all fields.//

And by Evolution, I assume you're referring to aspects from all fields of science that do not agree with YEC, such as geology, astronomy, biology, paleontology, etc. ? I don't even see the general idea of biological evolution as being incompatible with YEC... macro-scale biological evolution could be a possibility even if that wasn't the origin of species on this planet.

//Again, if Evolution was proven false, 70 out 70 scientists said they would not change a thing in how they did their work. That is 100%, unanimous. When you tell us we reject science because we disagree with Evolution, you reject the 100% consensus of this poll.//

Which version of evolution are you referring to? Where is this poll? Why should I believe you? It sounds like another one of your chain-email fun facts.

//It is a philosophical debate. Always has been, always will be. //

If I'm studying what causes thunder, and seek a naturalistic cause, am I taking the philosophical position that Thor does not exist? Or, closer to home, should we stop studying why cancer sometimes goes into remission, because it may have been a supernatural healing from God? I don't see how making assumptions that God did not intervene in the creation of the earth is any different than assuming that god is not interfering with our present observations.

//But time and time again, I hear about the "predictions" that Evolution makes and they NEVER pan out.//
That's because you only hear about the predictions that don't pan out.

//Russel Humphreys, on a YEC model, predicted the planetary magnetic field strengths of Mercury, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto BEFORE the probes got there to measure it.//

*Jupiter dipole 1.6 E 27, mass 1.898 E 27
*Saturn dipole 4.3 E 25, mass 5.683 E 26
Uranus dipole 3.7 E 24, mass 8.681 E 25
Neptune dipole 2.1 E 24, mass 1.024 E 26
*Earth dipole 7.9 E 22, mass 5.97219 E 24

*known before Humphreys' predictions

Humphreys: //Because of the uncertainty about the interiors of those planets, I widened my prediction to "on the order of'" 1024 A m2, by which I meant that the magnetic moments would be between 1 E 23 and 1 E 25//
So basically, he was guessing that planets with a mass in-between Earth and Saturn would have a magnetic moment somewhere in-between Earth and Saturn. He even says that "evolutionists" had the same predictions for Neptune and Pluto, and only said that "many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all." (emphasis mine)

//With all but Pluto, he was DEAD ON. We will find out about Pluto next year. The Evolutionary, Big Bang models, off by a factor of over a million. YEC was right. Evolution wrong.// Please show where the "evolutionary" models were off by a factor of over a million. And if Humphreys had been wrong, would it have been any threat to YEC?

Bob Sorensen said...

Someone doesn't understand "peer review" It means, "reviewed by peers", which should be obvious. It does NOT mean, "Creationists should submit to biased anti-creationist, flawed, passing-bad-science, recalled papers and money-grubbing secularists". Also, Haywire is fond of using logical fallacies, argument from silence is one of his favorites as evidenced here.

Charlie said...

Ashely, you really don't know how to address any comments. First off, when I address any of the evidence you brought forth, I addressed it in light of position you are coming from not mine. You claimed Chromosome 2 was scientific. So I used scientific means to address. You did do an excellent job at what you normally do...repeat the claim as though it was never answered asserting is it true. I asked for scientific evidence of anything that show chromosome fusion is possible. Why? To see if that is even a remotely possible result of the observations being made. To see if that is a valid conclusion. Your link does NOT do this. The closest it gets is suggesting "this is how we think why they are so close". It does not demonstrate scientifically how or if it is possible.

You also have a very strong tendency of misrepresenting and misquoting me and did so FREQUENTLY just now.

//Yet Genesis 1:5a (referring to day one not four) reads "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”"
What happened to the 'directional' non-solar light created on day one? 'Directional' being not what the Bible says but what this bloke said (see the summary which Bob has quoted):

Nice non-sequitor. Has no relevance to my point. The argument was "how can you have a day without the sun?" My answer was "the sun is not required to define a day, but Biblical means or scientific means". Your additional thoughts have no bearing on the comment.

//The people who do that are the YECs NOT the scientists.//

Nice No True Scotsman. You aren't qualified to judge who is a scientist or not. I hope you never got an MRI with all your medial issues. That was invented by a....gasp....YEC. You still evaded my point that you put YEC on such an impossible standard that you won't put anyone else on. So my double-standards charge still stands.

Charlie said...

//A paper written by a YEC scientist does NOT make it scientific especially if it is only peer reviewed by fellow YECs which is the only peer review such papers normally survive.//

You don't understand the peer-review process much do you. You know what it is SUPPOSED to do, but not how it actually works. I agree with what it is SUPPOSED to do. But it doesn't behave that way. Perhaps you ought to look at the actual scientific papers some of these guys write. You keep saying YEC denies science but you keep failing to address what. What of science do we actually deny? Last I checked, we still hold to gravity being true, to hydrodynamics being true, to chemical bonding being true. What are we denying other than secular INTERPRETATIONS of the same evidence?

//But if our evolutionary history is true, I do not want that history suppressed. Humans have a right to know where the evidence points to them having 'come from'. Evolution does not rule out a divinity, but it does rule out the opening chapters of Genesis.//

Here you are right. However, that is a VERY big IF. Let's reverse it. If Evolution is not true, do you want that history broadcasted so no one could hear an alternative. If Genesis is true, it does rule out Evolution. And it has been right on MANY occasions. Do you want to know the single most verifiable evidence of YEC? It not found in Genesis, but in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Resurrection of Jesus. The most historically verified ancient history event ever. From secular sources alone, we can reconstruct the ministry, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And that event verifies the entire rest of the Bible being true because all of it points to that one event.

//"Because apparently your sources haven't taught you well enough." Sorry, but I find them more convincing than you and other YECs. Most of whom will not even tolerate comments.//

Of course you find them more convincing. Does mean they get it. And it doesn't mean you get it. You do a good job at copy-pasting but I'm not seeing much from you that you can actually engage what they are talking about. I tried with Chromosome 2, all you could do was repeat the claim. I'll address the specific evidences momentarily.

//You falsely claimed above that you allowed my posts because I 'embarrassed' myself. NO. You HAD to because this is not your website! //

And you falsely claimed I made such a claim. I said I could handle your content. I didn't say you embarrassed yourself. I doubt anything you say would embarrass yourself because you think you are right no matter what anyone says.

//Now we know the truth. Though of course Wolcott claims it's 'not' because of any of my comment and merely because of attitude, insults and behaviour.//

You have an interesting definition of truth: whatever you say it is. Though I can't be surprised. In a world where truth is relative, anything goes. Though if truth is relative, you have no basis to say we are wrong on anything. If it is not relative, you have not demonstrated you hold to a standard for determining what it is.

Charlie said...

//My attitude to YECs, discernible here, is based on my previous experience of them. Your all-too typical responses confirm me in my attitude. Honest and knowledgeable people are rather unlikely to come to Christ through listening to Christians like you. Or at least had I met such Christians in 1979 I would never have done so.//

So be the better man and prove us wrong. Show us how it should be done. You do a very fine job at pointing out whatever problems you like to point out but you do a very poor job and showing anyone what to do about it. There is a word for that: whiner.

//"If you want to call Evolution scientific, to be consistent you must call Creation scientific." Except that the balance of evidence point much more to evolution than to biblical creation. And totally rules out a universe just 6,000 years old even if Isaac Newton (occultist as well as theist) thought differently in his day. //

Does it? You see fossils. I see fossils. Fossils don't speak. Scientists speak. People speak. It's the same evidence. It that's all important step of the scientific method you seem to want to ignore: INTERPRETATION. You cannot avoid this step. No one can. And you cannot interpret anything without appealing to your worldview. And your worldview addresses issues like origins, purpose, identity, destination. Your answers to these questions form your worldview and they influence everything you say and do whether you realize it or not. Your worldview affects science just as much as your heartbeat affects your writing and reading these posts. Without it, you can't function.

//But YEC peer review is review by other YEC scientists ONLY. Nobody else takes part. And it is obvious why not. They pass stuff that other scientists would rightly question.//

And Evolutionary papers are peer-reviewed by Evolutionists ONLY. No one else takes part. If you want YEC papers to go through Evolution supporter, send your evolution papers through YEC supporters. After all, science is supposed to be about "open discussion" and embracing "alternative views" is it not?

Charlie said...

Now for Chromosome 2 in detail.

//The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan. //

Here we have science. Comparing Human Chromosome 2 to various apes and finding strong similarity. However, there issues with this concept. Here are two words: read, read. Very similar, actually identical, except they are two different one. One is past tense and one is present tense. Likewise, Polish and polish are two VERY similar words with one minor "mutation" yet they have VERY different meanings. Now take another example.
Two VERY similar sequences yet both mean two VERY different things. One represents a color on a pixel screen, one represent a memory location. Simply put, similarity is a very poor criteria to use to suggest ancestry.

//The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.//

Every vestigial claim has been busted. For anything that is vestigial to actually be vestigial, we must be able to observe and analyze the functions the part USED to have and compare them to the parts we have now. The claim that these centromeres are vestigial has not been observed or checked out and must assume common ancestry in order to suggest vestigiality. This is affirming the consequent and bad reasoning.

//Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.""//

See point above. And as I said in a couple posts above, there is no means of scientifically demonstrating this is a valid conclusion. It does logically follow the premises, but the premises are unsound. Therefore the claim, is invalid. Could we call it "Evidence"? Not so sure about that. If you remove your bias of common ancestry, there only one conclusion you will find: they are similar. That's it. And similarity is itself a subjective claim. It requires observation, which is a subjection action.

So no handwaving on this one.

David J. said...

//It that's all important step of the scientific method you seem to want to ignore: INTERPRETATION. You cannot avoid this step. No one can.// So there are many possible interpretations of physical evidence that is part of the world itself, but there is only one obvious way to interpret a book written in human language that describes the world we live in.

Secular scientists interpret the physical evidence as literally as possible, while YECs interpret physical evidence "metaphorically."

Here's an image I made a while back when I heard "We have the same data, we just interpret it differently."

Sure, both theories explain the data points, but the scientific theory explains it more elegantly, and is more useful for prediction.

Charlie said...

//So there are many possible interpretations of physical evidence that is part of the world itself, but there is only one obvious way to interpret a book written in human language that describes the world we live in.//

How should I interpret your posts? One would think there should be only one way: what you intend to say. I am also a published fiction author (with a traditional publisher) and I've had people misinterpret my book. There is only one correct way to interpret my book, how I intend it to be read. If it is vague and ununderstandable, then I am a poor author. With the Bible, there is only one correct interpretation: God's. Yes, it was written in man's language, but that is so man could understand it. It does no good for it it be written in God's language because only he could read it. We come from a position where the Bible is the authority on all matters it touches, which is not just theology. And it has proven itself to be reliable each time. You need to understand that we do not judge the Bible, the Bible judges us.

//Secular scientists interpret the physical evidence as literally as possible, while YECs interpret physical evidence "metaphorically."//

Exactly how do we do this? I've studied science for a number of years and I've never done this. I personally know YEC scientists. I've never them interpret physical evidence metaphorically. To be dead honest, I don't think you really know what "metaphorically" actually means based on your use of the word.

//Sure, both theories explain the data points, but the scientific theory explains it more elegantly, and is more useful for prediction.//

What do you mean by scientific theory? Origins is not a scientific proposition. It is a philosophical one.

David J. said...

Sorry for the use of the word "metaphorically," I was just trying to use the differing interpretations of Scripture as an analogy to interpretations of physical evidence. YECs would say that they are reading the Bible in the most straightforward way and that OEC are twisting the meaning of scripture to support their views, because OECs want their interpretation to be compatible with mainstream science.

In a similar fashion, I would say that secular scientists generally look for the most straightforward way to explain empirical evidence, while creationists have more convoluted theories.

David J. said...

Imagine that I have a non-fiction book, and in the book an orange ball is mentioned.
I also have that exact orange ball that the author was describing.

I want to know whether the ball is solid orange, or if just the surface is orange, so I cut open the physical ball to look inside. Oh, it's green on the inside. Theologians are still arguing about whether it is a solid orange ball, because the book doesn't say.

I also want to know whether the ball is reflecting light of an orange wavelength, so I use a spectrometer and see that it is reflecting light in both the red and yellow area of the spectrum, but not the orange area. Most humans can't tell the difference. Theologians are still arguing about which wavelengths are bouncing off the ball, because the book doesn't say.

The original author was as precise as possible while only using two words to describe the object, but actually studying the object is a more reliable way of learning about it.

David J. said...

//And while you're at it, how about a prediction of the Comprehensive Theory of Special Creation which panned out? Or ID Theory panning out?//

Extra points if the prediction not panning out would have falsified a 6000 year old earth or a global flood.
I want to see a risky prediction.

Charlie said...

//In a similar fashion, I would say that secular scientists generally look for the most straightforward way to explain empirical evidence, while creationists have more convoluted theories.//

Interesting assertion. YEC also look for the most straightforward way to look at the evidence as well. The key difference is that the secular scientists have the lens of naturalism and materialism and the YEC has the lens of the Biblical foundation. To both it is the natural, straightforward way to look at the same evidence. It is different than how the secular scientists do it and it does look convoluted FROM their perspective, but we see it the same way. We see that the secular scientists have missed the picture because they purpose to not include key factors into the reading and interpretation of the data. Key factors like the Biblical account.

If science was a 2D world, you could use science very well to describe all aspects of a 2D world. But we come from a 3D world. You cannot explain a 3D world with a 2D understanding. It falls short. It can explain some things but not everything. 3D can explain everything about 2D and more. With the Bible, we are looking at the same universe but with that dimension that science simply can't hit. But with that dimension, we can hit all aspects of science. We have a bigger perspective on things. But that doesn't make our view "convoluted".

Orange Ball: Our discussion has not been about what is inside the orange ball. Our discussion has been about how the orange ball got here. The non-fiction book describes in detail what happened to the orange ball over how long by the person who made it. But those examining the ball have completely put aside the book, does not consider it to be relevant and are suggesting the orange ball came about completely on its own. Despite the fact that every aspect of physics denies this possibility. I am seriously scratching my head to find a physics principle that Big Bang and origin of the earth by secular scientific models does NOT violate. And I do know physics. It is not friendly to an old universe.

Bob Sorensen said...

Notice how these sock puppets as well as the mentally unbalanced continually attack people? They cannot tolerate contrary facts or a different interpretation of the facts, so they call someone a "liar", or the galactically stupid, "Liar for Jesus". This makes them the liars, since they are making illegitimate accusations without substance. It is essentially a childish way to poison the well.

As far as Origin of Species being "scientific", uh, no it's not. That tedious monstrosity has been largely abandoned by informed people, and foundational aspects are found to be fundamentally flawed (such as the Darwin/Malthus obsession with competition), but the Evo Sith still Darwin's book has value. Funny, it's not required reading in science courses.

Charlie said...

Bible and Science Forum: Speaking about comic relief, you just hit the jackpot.

//No you aren't. Your posts show that you are totally unqualified. What follows is just a few examples://

You can argue with Texas on that. You lose this point.

//Of course it is! They would continue to apply the scientific method and carry out their work exactly as scientists should! Yet you somehow think you have exposed something shocking. (You probably think they would suddenly do science your way.) You continue to display your ignorance of science. //

Actually you demonstrate your ignorance of it with this post. My whole point is that origins is not science. And I am pointing out to you that 70 of out 70 scientists said if the popular held origins model was proven false, nothing would change. It proves what you do not understand that science and evolution are not the same. It proves that science is a separate field from Evolution which you and others keep equivocating. I don't post it as a surprise but a simple revelation people like you don't want to get.

//Yes, you are the one who said that what was science 30 years ago is now junk. How idiotic---but it's my personal favorite of all of Charlie's nonsense.//

So tell me how the Big Bang is the same model today as it was 30 years ago. Same name, but very different model. If science does not change and I am idiotic here, you admit that Big Bang is not science, which is a point I am right on. If you want to consider Big Bang is science, you have proven yourself wrong yet again.

//Yet another mocker from outside of the academy looking in---and illustrating the Dunning-Kruger Effect.//

One of the great advantages of being on the "outside" is that I can see a much clearer picture. I can step back and look at the whole thing. I can see the entire elephant. You apparently are so close in you only see the tail and think its a rope. As I said to David, I have a bigger perspective that what the main stream scientists can have because I include more factors into the equations. As a result, I get a clearer picture.

Charlie said...

//You're the one who thinks there is some hierarchy of science, with some fields being "observational" and inferior ones being "historical". If you understood science, you would know that ALL fields of science involve observational procedures and evolutionary biology is definitely "observational". //

Now I get to talk to you about reading comprehension skills. Show me one place in the near 200 comments I said "historical science" is invalid or inferior. Good luck. I have said from the get go that historical science is valid. It is different process than observation science. It USES observation science and it does a key thing that Evolution cannot do: recreate the event. You keep claiming I don't understand science and it is easy to make such a claim when to quote Inigo: "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." When you have a false understanding of science, and someone who does understand comes up, the one who doesn't understand thinks that the one does doesn't get it. I said several times I don't agree with how Ken Ham presents the distinction between the two. But one key thing about historical science and forensics. With a historical record, it can only present the possibility of it happening. That doesn't prove it did. And many forensic cases have been overturned because new evidence that wasn't seen before shows up.

//*** As pointed out, those that made Evolution possible like Darwin and Lyell were NOT scientist,


Head-desk. Look up their credentials. Darwin's degree was in Theology from Oxford and he barely passed. Lyell was a lawyer by trade. Both were amateurs on the scientific side of things. Lyell had a particular weakness because of his trade, is a tactic another friend of mine who is a lawyer calls "lawyering". It's a habit of finding a claim you want to make and then searching for the loopholes and phraseologies to make the other side look bad and your side look good. And he demonstrated that in his book "Principles of Geology" when without any direct observations, he took the quoted rate of the erosion of Niagara Falls at 3-5 feet per year as given by the locals and then said it was more realistically 1 feet per year. Who do I believe? The locals. This point is what made "old earth" popular in the church and at best it is bad report, more likely outright falsification of data.

Charlie said...

//And what made "evolution possible" was the laws of physics as God created them. That made evolutionary processes possible.//

I thought Evolution only had to deal with Biology, not physics. Physics is a big enemy of Evolution. A BIG one. You just demonstrated again you don't know science and it makes me question if you even your own position. You can't exactly mock and ridicule someone for their position when you don't have something solid to stand on yourself. By physics and Evolution, explain how we have planets and moons that have spins going in the opposite direction of the rest of them. By physics and Evolution, explain how stardust and gravity alone could gather and create stars.

YEC have good reason to question Evolution with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I constantly hear the complaint that the earth is an open system because of the sun. Oh really. Misapplication of the principle by the challengers on multiple fronts. First, what constitutes the open or closed system. That's an arbitrary decision whether you include the sun or not. But more so, there is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine. 100% efficiency just breaks even. Evolution requires MORE than 100% efficiency for the development of life. The model goes from simple to complex. That requires greater than 100% efficiency. This is completely against very well known scientific principles. Evolution has a bigger problem with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. There is not one scientist on this planet, let alone if you gather every single one of them who can account for the origin of matter and energy. They all agree that it is not eternal. And this problem is why Big Bang keeps changing. They cannot account for it. We can. So again, WHO is the one who doesn't understand science here? I hear that complaint frequently when I challenge an evolutionist: "You just don't understand evolution." Actually I usually do more than the supporter of it. And with this line from you, it rings true again.

Charlie said...

//** there were NOT peer-reviewed,

Face-palm. (Darwin's *On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life* probably holds a peer-reviewed record.)//

This is funny. You face-palmed for Darwin being not peer-reviewed and your best defense is "it probably does". Based on the demonstration of your understanding of science, I'm not inclined to believe you. If you only have probably, you are in position to face-palm.

//Very true. Other ministers of the day double-checked his math. But why did you change the subject from science?//

I didn't change the subject. The subject was not science but peer-review. This looks like another issue of "reading only the key words" and having "issues with reading comprehension".

//So there you have it. Charlie says the entire international academy in countless fields related to evolutionary processes and billions of years are wrong and he's right---despite his lack of even a high school understanding of science. Narcissism much? Yes, much. Has he published his grand rebuttal of The Theory of Evolution and submitted it for peer-review and found himself on the cover of TIME magazine? Strangely, no. I wonder why? //

Rather hilarious appeal to authority, appeal to majority, hurling elephants...are you trying to set the record for most fallacies in the shortest amount of space. Your first comment on my other post rakes high up on this one. My understanding of science naturally disagrees with yours, but your only defense is: "Charlie is wrong because the majority agrees with me." I am actually working on a paper that mathematically refutes radiometric dating internally. And I do plan to get it published. I'm not done yet and I have a number of things I need to confirm and get extra sources on. Do I plan to go grab my Nobel Prize if it all goes well? No. I don't need it. I don't depend on the opinions of others. I doubt Time Magazine would look at me because it would put Evolution into questionable light.

//[By the way, there is nothing "evolutionary" about the scientist swho do astrophysics and calculations concerning the Big Bang. The Theory of Evolution is about biology and it didn't inspire a Bible-believing Christian clergyman to publish the Big Bang Theory and therefore establish that the universe had a beginning (and thereby, in the minds of many, a Beginner.)]//

Wow. I just hear you say that what made Evolution possible was the laws of Physics that God created. Don't you know your own theory? What is Evolution based off: biology or physics? Or is geology? Or paleontology? The problem with Evolution is that it encompasses everything and every time evidence is brought against it (not just YEC) there always seems to be a rescuing device. It is unfalsifiable. That makes it NOT scientific. With each comment you make your credibility more and more....laughable.

Charlie said...

//Anybody who refers to Walt Brown and his Hydroplate Theory in the same sentence with "makes the most sense" has a future in stand-up comedy.

I urge all readers to go to Google and look up Walt Brown's animations of his Hydroplate Theory! //

With your understanding of science and your ability of reading comprehension, the comedy act is your own. I didn't say it made most sense to me. I said to him it did. My point was that the specific models are up for change. YEC no longer holds to the Canopy Theory and I suspect Walt Brown's model is not going to be held long either. But the point is that Biblical account will not change and this a history you refuse to acknowledge. And when such history is ignored, all data is greatly messed up. If you are getting an audit, they don't check every receipt, ever purchase, ever source of income. They don't have the time to figure that out. So they take a week or a month and use that as a basis for the rest of the month or year. Generally speaking it is reasonable. However, if you have a sudden big one-time purchase that does not fall on the audited period, your data is going to be skewed from the real facts. If that big one time purchase fall on the audited period, the data will be skewed. YEC recognizes the one time events, like Noah's Flood, and take that into account. The main stream scientists, by ignoring the Biblical account in their attempt to "remove bias" (yet in doing so creates their own bias) will fail to see this and so their data will always be skewed and not be representative of the actual history.

//Walt Brown makes Ken Ham look almost scientific! I don't expect you to have the physics and geology background to critique Brown's theory but there have been plenty of dissections published online by sane scientists. I suggest you read and learn from them.//

Knowing your standards, I find this laughable as well. The difference between the YEC and the mainstream scientists is that when solid scientific evidence (that is not a mere issue of interpretation) we actually do what scientists are supposed to do: CHANGE THE THEORY. We don't change the evidence to match the theory. You think we do, but in all practice, we don't. That is why YEC no longer holds on the Canopy and not every YEC agree with Walt Brown or a couple other models. What YEC does agree on is the Biblical account. Exactly how the fountains of the deep burst forth and what happened as a result of that is up for debate. I have very good reason to suggest that where the fountains of the deep burst forth is the tectonic plate boundaries. I have yet to hear a single geologist give an explanation for HOW the plate boundaries got there. I hear a lot of what happens at them and I agree with that. But I've never heard anyone give a coherent model of how the plates got there to begin with. The Bible has a possible answer for that. And note, I am NOT calling that fact, a habit Evolutionists tend to do frequently.

Charlie said...

//You mean, like the prediction that once DNA mapping was fully developed, scientists would find that a human chromosome would provide evidence of a chromosome merger, complete with internal telemeres? (About six years ago later, that prediction was fulfilled to the detail.)//

Chromosome 2? I haven't even addressed the scientific papers that question this one yet and I've already give Ashley some solid scientific rebuttals on it without reading it.

Tiktaalik? Have you read the recent papers (not by YEC) on how the hip bones on Tiktaalik don't function as they should for a transition. This was this year. You are depending on old data that has since been refuted. Tiktaalik was nothing more than just a fish. Just as imaginary as whales having "leg bones", which even textbooks are no longer using as "Evidence for evolution" but sites like talk origins still does.

My favorite "prediction" is Cosmic Background Radiation. Yeah, Big Bang models did predict it. But CBR is a major problem for Big Bang. Only 1/4 of it remotely supports Big Bang ideas, and the other 3/4 does not. That is why they had to invent a concept called "Inflation" which a couple summers ago the scientific community basically threw their hands up and said "We don't get it, we are back to Square 1". Time and time again, "predictions" are made by Evolution and time and time again, they are wrong.

//Do you see why "Lying for Jesus" just makes people think you are ignorant of those major scientific discovery headlines? (I don't really know which one you prefer. Do you want them to think that you are actually unaware of the predictions which panned out or that you simply lie in order to deny The Theory of Evolution.)//

It's funny how the discoveries make the headlines but not the retractions when more studies are made. Higg's Bosun last summer made major waves when it was "discovered". But just a couple months ago, I heard the whispering that it didn't really do what they thought. One very interesting "discovery" was the water mass under the crust in the mantle level that has 3x the water in the oceans. That GREATLY alters our current understanding about geology. While I do not consider that as strong evidence for the Flood, I find it interesting. But I'm not jumping on the bandwagon on it yet. I'm doing what scientists should be doing and waiting to see if it really pans out.

//I've given you examples of those predictions panning out. Why don't you give us even ONE EXAMPLE of a prediction of evolution that did not? (Be honest this time!)//

Things sure are ironic aren't they. Your examples do exactly what you asked me to give you.

//And while you're at it, how about a prediction of the Comprehensive Theory of Special Creation which panned out? Or ID Theory panning out?//

No better example than the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Over 300 prophecies about him historically proven to have been written at least 400 years prior to the events and each one fulfilled with exact precision. As I said, I have one evidence that trumps all others about YEC: the Resurrection of Christ. Because YEC is the only model that aligns with the Biblical account and the Resurrection validates that account.

//I'll admit it: I enjoy watching you lie about the science so blatantly and getting caught.

I think it's safe to say that you can kiss goodbye that tenure track science faculty post.

Good thing your opinion has no bearing on the issue. Whether I get tenure or not doesn't matter. But speaking about lying. You haven't caught me once on it. You caught me once on having some bad data, but that's not lying. You said so yourself. You have lied here and are a very poor judge of what constitutes it or not. As Ashley said, "Don't underestimate who you don't know."

Charlie said...

//As far as Origin of Species being "scientific", uh, no it's not. That tedious monstrosity has been largely abandoned by informed people, and foundational aspects are found to be fundamentally flawed (such as the Darwin/Malthus obsession with competition), but the Evo Sith still Darwin's book has value. Funny, it's not required reading in science courses.//

Indeed Bob. Darwin made a very interesting prediction. He said that he didn't have the fossils to justify his claims so he said if he is theory were true that such fossils would be found, but if the fossils were not found, his theory would not stand. What have we found in the last 150+ years? Not the fossils. There is not one suggestive transitional fossils that is not highly up to debate. Some of the suggested ones were outright frauds. That is where Bob gets his website name from. One of the proven frauds. If you were to fill the tree of life with the fossils we have, you'd get a bunch of leaves, a few small branches, no big branches, no trunk, no roots. I often ask what specific fossils are at the roots of this tree. No one can give an answer. On PhD professor at the University of Texas branch in Tyler, Texas said we don't have any but we have a thing called a "node" that represents the set of fossils that should be there. As a friend of mine who debated said professor replied, "So it's imaginary?" And as Gail Kennedy said to Ray Comfort, "The problem with those who do not believe Evolution is that they lack imagination." I agree. I prefer science and being able to know things and know that I know it.

David J. said...

//In science it’s important that an idea be able to be proved wrong, at least hypothetically. A theory that can explain anything and everything, no matter how contradictory, really//
//Evolution is that it encompasses everything and every time evidence is brought against it (not just YEC) there always seems to be a rescuing device. It is unfalsifiable. That makes it NOT scientific. With each comment you make your credibility more and more....laughable.//
This article has several example of potential falsifications of common descent:
Please tell me one hypothetical evidence that would falsify a special creation 6000 years ago.

//Interesting assertion. YEC also look for the most straightforward way to look at the evidence as well. The key difference is that the secular scientists have the lens of naturalism and materialism and the YEC has the lens of the Biblical foundation.//
You look through both lenses.

//I hear that complaint frequently when I challenge an evolutionist: "You just don't understand evolution." Actually I usually do more than the supporter of it. And with this line from you, it rings true again.//
How many books about evolution have you read that were written by someone who accepts the theory?

//The difference between the YEC and the mainstream scientists is that when solid scientific evidence (that is not a mere issue of interpretation) we actually do what scientists are supposed to do: CHANGE THE THEORY. // earlier you were criticizing scientists for changing their theories to account for new evidence.

//There is not one suggestive transitional fossils that is not highly up to debate.//
Is there any conceivable shape a fossil could be such that it wouldn't be up to debate? YECs don't even agree about which fossils are "fully human" and which are "fully ape"

Charlie said...

//Not only is Sorensen a deliberate and high profile liar who is clearly beyond cure, but as well as that he either cannot recognise when someone else is telling the truth or he simply refuses to do so to try and salvage his pathetic reputation and attempt to make everyone else look 'bad'.

Very sad that such a person should profess to be a Christian.//

You have the mark and the behavior of a teenage playground bully. You love to dish out anything you so desire and whenever someone decides they've had enough and fight back, you go crying to the authorities as you did on this forum. Don't think said authorities aren't going to see the other side of the issue. If I've done wrong, or if Bob has done wrong, they will deal with us, but they will deal with you first. There is a simpler solution. Quit the bullying and just maybe you won't find the strong responses you keep seeming to get. I've seen you in action LONG before you showed up here. I knew you long before you knew of my name. There is nothing honest in you and I have good reason to suggest it is outright demonic. And they are good at making lies appear to be truth. The only way to tell them apart is to know the truth as Bob and I have done. You can call us without hope all you want. We know our message is foolishness to those who are perishing.

Charlie said...

//This article has several example of potential falsifications of common descent:

That list has been found wanting.

//Please tell me one hypothetical evidence that would falsify a special creation 6000 years ago.//

There is nothing scientific that can. As Bible and Science Forum admitted, the Bible is axiomatic. Science will never be able to disprove the Bible in the same way solving systems of equations can never disprove additive properties. What can disprove the Bible must come from within. And don't give me the 10,000 contradictions lists. They've all be shown to be out of context, quote-mined, etc. And as I said above, there is one thing that validates the 6000 year creation more than anything: the Resurrection of Christ. There is absolutely no point in believing in a young earth if you don't take it all the way to Christ. If you believe Christ, the model of origins that will result will be some form of YEC.

//You look through both lenses.//

No I don't. You equivocated a method with a philosophy. I agree with the method, but I disagree strongly with the philosophy. Yes, science only addresses the natural world, however I do not look through that method through the lens that only the natural can be considered. I look through the method through the lens that the Biblical account is true as written. And that is what YEC has been addressing this whole time. We have been railing against the scientific method. We love the method. But we will not just embrace a philosophy that keeps God out of the picture. Our philosophy has God in the center of it and he is a jealous God. He will not share the spotlight.

//How many books about evolution have you read that were written by someone who accepts the theory?//

Several. I don't remember the names of them. How many books about Creation have you read by someone who accepts the theory? Here is one recommendation: The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution by AE Wilder-Smith, a highly respected chemist with 3 PhDs in the field and has not been refuted to this day. In fact, this book has a record of converting some ardent Evolutionist professors because they cannot refute it. And he doesn't even bring up the Bible in it. I also understand Wilder-Smith is responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists. Because he loses BADLY.

Charlie said...

//earlier you were criticizing scientists for changing their theories to account for new evidence.//

No, I wasn't criticizing them. I was pointing out that science changes regularly and is a very poor thing to build your philosophical foundations on. Because it keeps changing. The YEC are not the ones that took 100 years AFTER something was proven fraud to get out of the textbooks. Evolution did with Haeckel's embryo drawings. Many of the evidences of your talkorigins source has long been refuted and yet they are still cited. There is a reason I called Talkorigins "out of date".

//Is there any conceivable shape a fossil could be such that it wouldn't be up to debate? YECs don't even agree about which fossils are "fully human" and which are "fully ape"

There are three ways to make a transitional fossil, using apes and humans for example: make an ape look like a man, make a man look like a ape, and mix and match. So what if a few YEC's could not decide if a particular skull was ape or human. The burden of proof still lies on the Evolutionists to demonstrate it really is a transitional fossil. You can't just go by "appearance" because that is a very subjective approach". DNA cannot last long enough for when the two would have broken off, so we cannot actually use DNA to show the ancestry. In the absolute most ideal conditions (which do not exist in the real world) it can't last more than 6.8 million years. So science has no means of actually demonstrating we have common ancestry by scientific means. Similarity doesn't do it. Not without context, which DNA has. The well established scientific laws of information create many problem for evolution.

Charlie said...

//Yes, folks! This is a fellow who claims to understand SCIENCE, the Scientific Method, and how a scientific theory predicts the scientific evidence yet to be found://

This fellow was not making a scientific claim on a non-scientific issue. YOU said the Bible was axiomatic and yet you demand we use an outside source to judge the Bible. It means one of two thing: you do not understand axioms or you are a liar.

//Yes, it is not only a matter of having no idea how science works, we are looking at some severe A.D.D. (But when he's preaching to the choir, they eat this kind of stuff up because they too have no idea what science is nor how it works. They accept the Ken Ham definition: "knowledge".)//

And your default is mocking and ridiculing. The standard case of a classroom bully who when the score is about 6000 to 1 you still think you won. Very standard behavior of a militant atheist. I'll take the ADD claim as a complement. Because if you represent the standard of what it means to be "intelligent" I'll take the title of a fool gladly.

And by the way. Thank you so much for telling me to go look up the in depth meaning of the Hebrew. I love how your claims backfire so easily. Just looking at the meanings of the Hebrew alphabet, we have Creation, the Flood, the Promise of a Savior, the Passover, the Crossing of the Red Sea, the Cross, and ultimately Christ himself all represented by the letters that make up the word AMN. What is more interesting is that AMN without the Aleph, the symbol of strength, power, the Father, etc we just have MN, which is the word for doubt, confusion, I don't know. Really interesting is that the symbols for MN match the Evolutionary model. Evolution has life (N)(without God, with the Aleph) coming about through a Primordial Soup (water which is the M). So thank you so much for pointing me that direction. As I knew from the get go, God wrote his word so that it would address EVERY challenge that would come across it. The order of Creation is a major headache to evolution (and why every OEC model is wrong among other reasons) and I wasn't expected this debate to also be addressed with the Hebrew breakdown of Amen. Learn something new every day. Thank you very much. Your ridicule of my position just gave me yet more reason to hold to it.

Charlie said...

//"You also have a very strong tendency of misrepresenting and misquoting me and did so FREQUENTLY just now."
Oh no I do not.//

Yes, you did and I called you out on where and when.

//"Your additional thoughts have no bearing on the comment."
In other words Charlie has no answer to my question.//

Don't need to answer that one. It's a red herring fallacy. It shows YOU have no answer for my comment.

//You deny the scientific consensus about Earth's past. As I have already explained. Duh.//

And as I've explained the "scientific consensus" has a long history of being wrong. Not a good place to put your trust. It was the scientific consensus of geocentricm. The RCC at the time embraced the modern scientific consensus (they were effectively more of a political organization than a church organization anyway). It was the scientific consensus to use leeches to "drain out diseases". That is what killed Washington. You keep saying we deny science. But you have not been able to show us what actual science we deny. You just say we deny the scientific consensus.

//Since I have not defined the word 'truth' you are making up your own 'facts' again. The truth is that if this was your own page you would ban me! You have admitted it.
If I am 'whining' I am also often hitting the target and exposing your (plural) half-truths, lack of answers, and arrogance when people challenge your pseudo-science. That is why you would prefer to ban me from making future posts. My arguments are not brilliant, rather yours are mostly rather poor and repetitive.//

I can only go by what you post since you refuse to reveal any standard. And what you post shows the standard you go by is you. And I know why you don't post any standards. Same reason Bible and Science Forum made a big mistake in posting one when he defined "intelligent" and "moronic". Because it always backfires on you. You certainly do not appeal to any objective. You said yourself your authority is man. That is anything but objective. By what reason can you intelligently reject what one man says over another if man is your authority?

Charlie said...

//"Evolutionary papers are peer-reviewed by Evolutionists ONLY." People without any religious 'axe to grind' because of an 'infallible' book.//

People with an religious axe to grind to try to keep us from referencing said book. There is no neutral position here. God is either part of the equation or he isn't. Both are biased. It is 100% impossible to be unbiased in such matters. That is part of the delusion you have bought hook, line, and sinker.

//Except that you fail to discuss it. You must think I am stupid. Sorry to disappoint you. All you do is assert your opinion "every vestigial claim has been busted" as though it was a 'fact' - when you were not actually there in the past. "I have not observed it so it never happened" is not a scientific argument. You need to address evidence - not simply waive it away. Could it have happened even if we cannot see it in 'real time'? You must show that it could not.//

Apparently your reading comprehension is struggling more than Bible and Science forums. No, you are not stupid. Deluded? Yes. Stupid? No. Fooled? Absolutely. It is not my burden of proof to show it is impossible. It yours to show that it is. You made the claim. Burden of proof is on you. I did not handwave the evidence off. I showed it to be unsound. YOU handwaved my answer off. Again, the burden of proof lies on you to show that similarity leads to a logical conclusion of fusion. Your paper is no better than another one I had posted that you guys ignored about human backs having problems because we are walking upright. And the whole research is based off the assumption that we used to be apes. So I have no inclination to believe anything said paper has to say. You need demonstrate that Chromosome 2, like vestigiality, like homology, like most of the Evolutionary claims is NOT exercising the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. You cannot say "If Evolution is true, we expect to see Chromosome 2 will have fused. We think Chromosome 2 fused, therefore Evolution." Nice try. It doesn't work that way. Evolution is NOT axiomatic.

I sent a couple of my emails to Bob or to the to Worldview Warriors for YOUR attention. To prove I am telling the truth.
But you are an evil lying Christian who pretends that I have been misbehaving and "crying to the authorities" at Worldview Warriors. What NONSENSE.//

Of those three, only one will believe you. I've had many witness about your behavior HERE and they can see right through it. You can dish it but you can't take it. You have been anything but an example of what you claim to be (honest, seeking truth, etc) but you been a prime example of what we've known for a while (bully, dishonest, hateful). I'm honestly truly amazed you haven't brought out the curse words yet.

On Sarfatari, I cannot account for what he said. But I can account for the claims that are made that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not violate Evolution. It does. Of the sciences, physics is my strongest. The claims against YEC using this demonstrate they don't understand the Law themselves. Yes, there are a number of YEC that inappropriately uses the claim which is why some YEC avoid it no matter your source of energy (open or closed) there is still an issue that energy is ALWAYS destructive in nature UNLESS there is a established mechanism that is able to direct and guide said energy. And even then it is not 100% efficient, which just breaks even.

//No you didn't! (Unless of course the have disagreed with me in a post I have not yet read.)//


Charlie said...

//Unless you can specifically quote from an earlier post of yours here that actually shows that I somehow have 'misrepresented' you then NO - I have not done so. Unless of course you can now think of some way that I 'have' that you have not previously mentioned.//

From your own admission that you did.

//(I do of course accept your point that you did not use the word 'embarrass' myself re my posts; I re-checked when I was responding a couple of hours ago, and I saw that I was incorrectly recalling my own interpretation of your words rather than the words themselves. If I make an error I do not pretend that I did not.)//

Case closed.

Charlie said...

//I will take silence to indicate that you do not disagree.

I CERTAINLY have not misquoted you. That is a TOTAL lie. As is typical.//

And as typical you shoot yourself in the foot. You did and you admitted it. One paragraph before you said you did not and the onus is on me to prove. Who is the liar? No me.

Charlie said...

Okay, Bible and Science Forum. How long did it take for science to remove Haeckel's embryo drawings from the "list of evolutionary evidences"? 100 years after they were proven fraud. Since I highly doubt you've actually read the book I was referencing, it was in his field of study: Chemistry. And he deals with the core of Evolution: abiogenesis. You are trying to test all the outlets in a building to see if they work. Wilder-Smith addresses the mains. If you don't have abiogenesis, you don't have Evolution. If you need God to rescue Evolution stick with God and believe what he said he did. I haven't read all his works and things have changed in the 20 years since he's passed away. But if you are going to reject everything he says just because of a few instances that are totally unrelated to what I was describing, I have very good reason to reject every you have said just because of a few instances (only with you there are many). Yeah, there will always be a number of poor reviews from those who have their worldview questioned like that. Doesn't make them valid. And that doesn't make the original claim valid. That's just the reviewers opinion regardless of whether they are a scientist or not. But in the reviews you said were common is the standard "You don't understand Evolution". I find he does more so than the reviewers.

Interestingly James Tour, one of the 10 Ten Chemists in the world does not understand Evolution how it is possible. And he asked all his Nobel Prize winning and top-tier colleagues. Same answer. Could not provide anything to explain how Evolution is actually possible. I see this time and time again from the real scientific leading experts and you guys say we reject science because we reject Evolution.

Scripture is right when it talks about a "Great Delusion" that if not for God's mercy would deceive even the elect. And when I see news headlines matching the Biblical accounts of the End Times more and more, I truly would not be surprised if God shows up within my life time to bring an end to it all. This great delusion is something the majority of mankind will buy into and believe. And nothing has fit the bill more than Evolution: truly the greatest hoax of all time. And the best way to keep a hoax going is to let as few people know it is a hoax know it and to deride, mock, and ridicule all those who would point it out. Tools of Satan. It's not the scientists who are the conspiracy theorists. They are just as fooled as you are. And it is so much harder to convince someone they have been fooled than it is to fool them. That is why I stand by the authority of Scripture because I can look at it and point out what is true and what isn't.

Bob Sorensen said...

The Dover court ruling was a fiasco. It inadvertently showed that science is indeed a philosophy, and the nature of presuppositions. "Science" was defined in naturalistic terms, so logic never had a chance.

Ironically, atheopaths point to that and say, "SEE? ID and creationism are not science! Tee hee!" And yet, when we point out that courts have ruled that atheism is a religion, the courts are talking out of their jurisdiction and don't know what they're talking about. If atheists didn't have double standards, they would have none at all.

Charlie said...

If you are really concerned about education, you have much bigger concerns than me or Texas. Creation is hardly taught at all anywhere (in Texas schools, ID is the one presented and only as a side-mention) and the scores and ability to enter college is plummeting. We are at an all time low and Creation is certainly NOT the culprit. When US education was at it's peak, the Bible was the #1 textbook. When it was removed, education followed. In the early 1900's when the Bible was the primary textbook, those students would put any of us to shame today. I look at a variety of stats from test score, to violence to crimes, etc, etc and there is an amazing tend: an overall spike right at 1962 when prayer was removed from the public school. And God was a gentleman and said "fine, you're on your own". And all the problems we have today are a result. Nationwide we are churning out illiterate "graduates" who truly can't read. Where I am now, 85% of incoming freshman to college have to take remedial math. There are many factors that go into it such as our proximity to Mexico but Creation is not one of them. But fortunately, your opinion does not matter here. And if it does, I truly pity any student that would be under your leadership.

Your opinion of AE Wilder-Smith or any scientist Evolutionary or Creationist does not matter. You have spewed nothing but your opinion and I suspect you would be pretty shocked if you actually spoke to the scientists and find the overall consensus in NOT as dominate as you think. Here is a poll that indicates 40% of scientists (not mere laymen) believe God was involved in origins. That is an extreme far cry form the 99% I often here cites (and what you and Ashley have been suggesting). Only 55% believe in the atheistic position. Anything but "overall consensus". Now, I do understand this 40% is not exclusively YEC and the other 15% made either no comment or were undecided, but it is far from lopsided. It is not nearly unanimous among the scientific community for Evolution alone. I'm sure you hope those stats have jumped in your favor since, but if the scientific community shows what the general population did recently, I doubt it changed much. If anything, I think it leans more towards favoring God in some way, shape, or form. Because the more we learn, the more the atheistic model of Evolution (which is really what it is) looks more ridiculous. I do hold the contention that the only reason Evolution is still around today is because there is not a competing alternative theory that does not reference the Bible. But I have heard some rumors out there of some scientists trying to come up with one. I don't see how because there are only two options: the universe came about on its own or it was intelligently designed. You can pity my students all you want. My students say otherwise and so far, so do my administrators. I'm not trying to impress you as though you had something worth seeking approval from.

Charlie said...

//Not me. And kindly tell me where I have used 'curse' words. Or is 'liar' a curse word?//

Here is another example of you misreading and misrepresenting my posts. I did NOT say you have used curse words. I said I am surprised you have not.

You keep saying that word "liar". It does not mean what you think it means.

If you really don't like what I am saying here, you don't have to be here. You are really good with volume. I have seen time and time again that those who lack in intelligent argument tend to make it up with volume. You have run empty here and no amount of shouting "Liar" is going to do you any good. You came in here thinking you could just walk right over me. You still think you can but you are only fooling three people here. And you are one of them.

Charlie said...

Bible and Science, I thought you claimed to be an expert on Hebrew. Apparently you don't have a clue of what I am talking about. You told me I needed to go "find the deeper meaning" instead of looking at it "through my tradition". And it is clear you can ramble but don't really know what you are talking about.

You mock my reference from Haeckle? You just proved your own scientific ineptitude along with another link to a very bad source. Why did Stephen Gould repeatedly fight the school systems to get those drawings out of the textbooks? He was one of the spokesmen for Evolution. Name me ONE embryologist that actually embraces Haeckel's drawings today. Get some real scientific sources instead of that old, outdated, unsicentific "Talk Origins". I'm not the one hopeless or lost on the science here. You really need to find some better sources.

Charlie said...

//However, I thank you for providing great anecdotes for my office door. You may even find some of your fodder in my upcoming article.//

I'm an author too. I am a firm believer of "Be careful what you say or you might just find yourself in my next novel." I've gotten a LOT of fodder for one here.

Charlie said...

Whatever, Ashley. Go ahead and chalk this up as a victory. You will anyway.

Bible and Science Forum, it's really interesting because I have the opposite effect with those who have been indoctrinated with Evolution their whole lives. But you already declared victory before the discussion began so go ahead and claim it. I've got better things to do.

David J. said...

//<>Here is a poll that indicates 40% of scientists (not mere laymen) believe God was involved in origins.

Considering that I believe God was involved in origins, what exactly is your point?//

It's funny how YECs will often use non-YEC Christians to boost their lists of historical scientists who were "creationists," but will call any specific modern-day non-YEC Christian a dangerous compromiser. (must be because the evidence for evolution is so much worse now than it was 100 years ago /s)

Charlie has said that a majority of scientists are secretly against the theory of evolution. I even saw a comment of his on AiG's Facebook page in which he said that evolution is only taught in schools in countries in which Christianity is the primary religion. (Charlie's thought process: Why would China, India and Japan bother teaching the apologetics of evolution, the anti-Christian religion?)

Apparently the governments of Christian countries tell their scientists what to say. (I don't know who in the government is responsible for telling scientists what to say... must be a secret shadow government run by the Antichrist) And because scientists are the most gullible people in society, and/or have the lowest integrity, they go along with what the puppet masters have to say, because they love government money.

Diogenes said...

It's a creationist lie that it took 100 years to remove Haeckel's "fraud" from the textbooks. Most textbooks which were *accused* of having Haeckel's faked drawings in fact didn't; they either 1. didn't have Haeckel's drawings, the creationist lied about it, or 2. Included them for historical reasons but pointed out that Haeckel's ideas weren't accurate. Creationists just lie about what the textbooks contain.

It's ironic because creationists have done nothing but fire off one fraud after another for 50+ years now.

I downloaded a list of supposed textbook citations of Haeckel's "fraudulent" drawings from a creationist website, went to a major university and looked up every textbook I could find. Most were in category 1 (idiot creationists say that any embryo drawing is Haeckel's) and some, like Futuyma's excellent textbook, were in category 2. The slander of Futuyma was especially egregious.

It's all irrelevant, because creationists agreed, pre-Darwin, that embryos at earlier stages were more similar and that they diverged in structure in a pattern that mirrored the appearance of complex structures in the fossil record. This has been called von Baer's law; von Baer was not Darwinist and preceded Darwin and Haeckel. Later Darwin provided an explanation for the pattern, and creationists went ape and decided that what they once called a "law" and an obvious observation, was no longer a law and not an observation, but a product of "evolutionary bias."

Uh, that's not what you creationists said in 1850!

Diogenes said...

Oh, it's ironic that Creationist Charlie's going ape over Haeckel's drawings, considering that:

1. creationists pre-Darwin (von Baer) and post-Darwin (Louis Agassiz) strongly agreed that embryos are more similar in the early stages, and that the appearance of complex structures mirrors the order of their appearance in the fossil record, thus making Haeckel moot and supporting evolution;

2. If Haeckel duplicating an image is "fraud" which disproves evolution, then IDcreationist Cornelius Hunter duplicating an image is also "fraud" and disproves anti-evolution. Hunter was trying to prove that a thylacine ("marsupial wolf" or "marsupial tiger") was exactly like a placental wolf, thus disproving evolution, but unfortunately for him, they differ in dozens of anatomical features. Oops. So he downloaded a picture of a thylacine, mirror-imaged it, labelled it a "placental wolf", and compared the two images, thus "proving" the placental wolf was "identical" to the thylacine!

Oh, tell us some more about fraud!

Diogenes said...

Creationists, by contrast, have a long, rich history of frauds. Indeed, most of creationists' most attention-grabbing arguments turn out to be frauds or hoaxes, unlike the case with scientists. Real scientists, of course, make blunders, and maybe one major fraud gets through in 100 years (e.g. Piltdown Man), but this should be compared against the thousands of new fossil species discovered and published by scientists. So for real scientists the ratio of hoaxes or frauds vs. new fossil species discovered is less than 1 in many thousands.

By contrast, creationists never discover or publish any new fossil species, except for frauds or hoaxes. So for creationists, you can't compute the ratio, because all their "new" fossil species are fakes and frauds, and there are no new REAL discoveries, so the ratio would be dividing by zero.

Here's a brief reminder: There was the Paluxy River human fraudprints amid dinosaur tracks, which Carl Baugh named Humanus Bauanthropus, after himself, and which were aggressively promoted by Henry Morris, A.E. Wilder-Smith, Russell Humphreys, Clifford Burdick and Baugh; the "black skull of Freiberg", actually a carving made of coal, promoted by Henry Morris; the Calaveras skeleton fraud, promoted by Morris and Duane Gish; Carl Baugh's Humanus Davidii, which was actually a prehistoric fish's tooth that they mistook for a pre-Flood human’s; Clifford Burdick's "Moab Man" of the Cretaceous, and “Malachite Man”, which were just fairly recent remains of Native Americans; A.E. Wilder-Smith's Phenanthropus mirabilis of the Carboniferous from Berea, Kentucky ("footprints" outlined with chalk; also, some footprints of four-legged amphibians called human prints); the “Coso Artifact” supposedly from a pre-Flood super-civilization (actually a 1920’s spark plug for a Model T), promoted by Answers in Genesis, Carl Baugh and Donald Chittick; the Castanedolo and Olmo fossils, real enough fossils, though creationists like Henry Morris dishonestly misidentified their geological strata as to era and condition; Kent Hovind's and Jack Chick's "New Guineau Man", which never existed, and which they invented wholecloth in order to accuse scientists of fraud; Clifford Burdick's pre-Cambrian pollen that never existed, and his footprints on trilobites; the fraudulent Ica Stones from Peru, carved during modern times and promoted by countless creationists; and "Meganthropus", various digitally altered photos of Biblical giants, to name just a few.

These were all fakes, and in every single case creationist asserted:

1. They falsified evolution.

2. They contradicted the specific predictions of evolution.

3. The fact that most scientists ignored creationists' fraudulent concoctions was proof scientists are biased against creationism,

4. Which proves scientists are incompetent and untrustworthy due to unreasonable bigotry against fraudulent data.

Diogenes said...

As for that blithering idiot and Intelligent Design theories, A.E. Wilder-Smith:

He spent much of his career aggressively promoting creationist fraudulent fossils, including the Paluxy fraudprints, Phenanthropus mirabilis (described above), and Burdick's trilobite/footprint.

In one of his books, "Man's Origin, Man's Destiny", he first tells us that evolution can never be falsified.

"One of the strongest aspects of the index-fossil theory lies in the impossibility of disproving it. Even in the cases where the sequence of formations does not correspond to evolutionary theory, there is in the method a built-in possibility which allows corrections of any kind deemed necessary."
[A.E. Wilder-Smith, "Man's Origin, Man's Destiny", p.130]

But 160 pages later, he needs to promote the Paluxy River fraudprints. So now evolution is falsifiable.

"If it could be conclusively proved that modern man had lived at the same time as the giant saurians, scientists would be forced to rethink the whole presently accepted evolutionary Darwinistic concept. One well-documented factual observation of this sort would rob the theory of the huge time spans regarded as a conditio sine qua non for evolution to have occurred. It is conceded that modern man...arose not more than one to ten million years ago... According to modern evolutionary theory, therefore, man could not possibly have lived as long ago as fifty million years, let alone 100 to 120 million years... It is postulated by evolutionists that... at the time of the giant reptiles, many millions of years were needed before the animal kingdom could have evolved modern man.

On this basis it would be simply incompatible and impossible for an evolutionist to imagine a modern man living contemporaneously with the giant lizards.

[Diogenes notes: Dinosaurs are not lizards.]

One London biologist, when this possibility was discussed in his presence (of man tracks and brontosaurus tracks having been found in the same formation) remarked that a single such find would provide sound reason for renouncing all evolutionary theory."
[Ibid., p.293-4]

So evolution is not falsifiable, and this evidence falsifies it. Idiot.

He then follows this up, as all creationists do, with some Fraudian psychoanalysis, pulling his chin and analyzing how their must be something mentally and morally deficient about scientists due to their unreasonable bigotry against fraudulent carvings, stainings, statues, chalk marks, etc. etc. made by creationists.

Yeah, we're biased against fraudulent "data" you made up. You caught us.

Mister Gordons said...

Hello is all right. These comments are interesting and their examination helps equip my survivability.

I am convinced that there are correct accusations leveled against the one called Ashley Haworth-Roberts, who is using multiple identities and has given many indications that he is doing this. I have also observed that he is not using logic and does not understand science. It is acceptable for him to complain about a botanist writing about planetary formation but when he poisons the well in his favourite forum, he fails to mention that author's other education.

The hypocrisy of Ashley shows when he expects people to be experts in the fields of study that they are discussing, yet he is not an expert in any of the sciences that he discusses. He is not an expert in theology.

When calling people with whom he disagrees 'liar', the two best possibilities are that he does not understand what a liar is, or that he is simply attempting to poison the well.

People like him should be forcibly confined or eliminated for the sake of survivability.

Diogenes said...

Dear Mister Gordons,

Threatening to murder or "eliminate" Ashley because you don't like the evidence he presents, is not a good argument against the evidence he presented.

I doubt "We're going to murder you" is a valid argument that will persuade those sitting on the fence, though it is a valid argument in Texas.

Perhaps you will "refute" my point by threatening to murder or "eliminate" me too?

Can creationists present any evidence against evolution, or is it all just "We're going to kill you and then our god will torture you in hell"?

Mr. Gordons said...

Diogenes, I did not threaten to murder anyone. He is not a threat to my survival. Atheists have a tendency toward hatred and violence. Such actions are in keeping with their philosophies and bad reasoning. You used bad reasoning by attributing not only a desire for murder on my part but also by making an assumption as to my motive. You stated that I did not like Ashley's evidence. He offered nothing.

Diogenes said...

How many Mister Gordon's are there?

Mister Gordons #1: "People like him should be forcibly confined or eliminated"

Mr. Gordons #2: "I did not threaten to murder anyone"

Reconcile this hypocrisy.

Either way, you didn't respond to Ashley's evidence and you did threaten murder.

Diogenes said...

Mister Gordons: "Atheists have a tendency toward hatred and violence"

Oh my. You do know you're commenting on a blog called "Worldview Warriors" where the Christian hosts put "war" right in the title of the blog!?

Now it's the atheists who have a tendency to violence. Like the atheists who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center screaming "God is great", or the atheists who impressed child soldiers in the Lord's Resistance Army, or the atheists who murder accused witches in Africa, or the atheists who hung "witches" in Salem, or the atheists who burned heretics in Calvin's Geneva, or the atheists in the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments who murdered 1,000 Africans, or the atheists in the KKK who burned crosses and marched under "Jesus Saves" banners and assigned Protestant pastors to every chapter of the KKK, or the atheists who rounded up the Jews and sent them to Auschwitz, or the atheist Crusaders who massacred random Jewish communities and massacred the entire population of Jerusalem because it was Muslim and sacked Constantinople because it was Christian Orthodox, or the atheist Conquistadores who burned Mayan codexes and destroyed the Aztec and Inca civilizations, or the atheists at the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or the atheists who wrote references to Jesus into the Constitution of the slave-based Confederacy, or...

Mister Gordons: "People like him should be forcibly confined or eliminated"

Ah, now I see! It's OK when YOU have a tendency toward hatred and violence. It wasn't OK a minute ago, now it is.

Bob Sorensen said...

Unfortunately, Haywire is a proven liar and incapable of reason. He loves to twist words (as I see this Diogenes character likes to do), and makes assertions that he cannot back up. Where did Gordons claim to be a YEC? Haywire called more than one person a YEC on my Page, and some had not even identified themselves (directly, or in the publicly-accessible areas of their profiles) as Christians, let alone, as creationists.

But this is what atheopaths love to do: Demonize creationists, and act like a broken record, calling everyone else a liar. OH NO! He's going to spam the entire planet. Again. Run for your lives! That's right, nobody takes him seriously except his other selves and other atheopaths united in hate.

Bob Sorensen said...

Haywire has seen my proof and denied it, so why waste my time posting it again? I did not see a threat in the Gordons comment, yet Haywire sees things that are not there all the time. The burden of proof is on him, and he does not need to meet Haywire's hateful, illogical challenge ("argument from silence" is another of his frequent logical fallacies, and he has a lot of them. You betcha). He's a poster boy for the "Get a Life Club".

David J. said...

/* I do not look through that method through the lens that only the natural can be considered. I look through the method through the lens that the Biblical account is true as written. */
By what method is one supposed to choose the correct lens to look through?

The Whyman said...

"The secular philosopher George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

King Solomon, the wisest person in all history said, “What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, ‘See, this is new’?” (Ecclesiastes 1: 9–10).

This is especially applicable to Church history. There is no new heresy under the sun, and those who aren’t familiar with the battle for truth throughout the past 2000 years are doomed to repeat the same errors that have plagued the church since it began..

..The heresy of Pelagianism (see the box below for details) asserted that Adam’s sin had no effect on the human race, that we have not inherited a sin nature from Adam, and that all humans are born with the ability to live a sin-free life. This renders the work of Christ on the cross superfluous.

If we can achieve Heaven without any work of God whatsoever (that is, if we have no sin) then there is no need (it is even nonsensical) for God to bear the penalty for our sin..

..BioLogos is a leading voice for ‘theistic evolution’, though not all theistic evolutionists would agree with BioLogos at every point. BioLogos teaches that people do not all originate with Adam and Eve but that, “humans descended from a group of several thousand individuals who lived about 150,000 years ago.”..

..Therefore, a ‘fundamental mission’ of BioLogos is to advance anti-biblical ideas that have been condemned by church councils throughout the history of the Church. Or, said another way, their mission is to promote heresy."

Learn more here: