Hyperactive Enlightenment

Posted by Worldview Warriors On Thursday, December 29, 2016 25 comments

by Steve Risner

Atheist statement #4 in this series (go here for the previous post): “The Enlightenment was a time when people started to question the translated tales and discovered how the natural world actually worked.”

Oh, boy. This is a loaded statement full of inaccuracies and poorly choses word usage. Let's make sure we all understand that the “Dark Ages” were nothing of the sort so the “Enlightenment” didn't wake up humanity from the slumber of intellect that the Church put over it (which is what people like this atheist want to believe). The fact is, Christianity birthed science and the scientific method, and it was because of Christianity that it was birthed. The Dark Ages were anything but dark. It was a great time of innovation and advancement. It's true the Catholic Church and other religious institutions of the day were tyrannical in their dealings with the people, but this didn't stop the people from making great discoveries. The printing press, heavy plough, eye glasses, the quarantine, the spinning wheel, the mechanical clock and so many more things came out of the “Dark Ages.” Buttons, wind mills, water mills, chimneys, the steel crossbow, and the canon and therefore gunpowder were all feats of engineering and innovation during the time commonly called the Middle Ages or Dark Ages.

This period was initially called the Dark Ages to discredit Christianity, of course. Then the term Enlightenment was coined to note a departure from the stunted intellectual growth of this time to the time when intelligent human beings woke up and decided to throw off the shackles of religion. Except most of the great advancements of the time and science itself were founded by Christians because of their faith. Atheists frequently like to claim credit for the establishment of science and higher reasoning, but that's a farce. I wrote on this topic a few years ago with “Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron.” Many if not most of the greatest minds we've ever known were Christians and, of the 10 highest IQ's in the world right now, at least 6 are Christians and at least 2 more are at least theists (meaning they believe in God). It seems that atheists don't have the market cornered on smarts. In fact, it seems like maybe there are some intelligent atheists that are an exception to the rule rather than the norm. I don't know about that, but it seems like we can surmise that from the facts.

So what's the deal with the Enlightenment? A large feature of the Enlightenment was rationalism—a belief that puts reason over experience in regards to how we can know something. This was actually a good thing, to a point. It freed people to think for themselves. It allowed for reason and logic to win over the iron fist of authorities. As a result, many philosophers of the day (and this is true for a great number of people today) had a faith in Christianity that decayed into deism. Deism is the belief that God exists, but after creating the universe and setting it in motion, He has stepped back and is no longer involved. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which tells of the story of God interacting with man, longing to reconcile man back to God. Deism is a cold religion that has only one truth: the obviousness of the created universe and creation of life.

There are a great number of people today who cannot lie to themselves and force themselves to say that there is no evidence for a Creator. The evidence is astounding and it's all around us, clearly visible. Many people wrongly profess to be “Christians,” when in reality they are deists. They know, as Scripture tells us, that God must exist. There's no logical way to account for life and the universe in general without Him. But they don't serve the Almighty. They've not accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and have no relationship with the Creator. They view Him from far off, believing He has no desire to be involved. This is far from the truth we find in Scripture. God is a God of love and relationship. The Bible is a story of man rebelling against God and waving a fist at Him, while He is constantly saying, “I love you. I love you. I love you. Come back to Me.” He demonstrated that love for us perfectly in Jesus Christ. I would encourage you, if you believe more like the deist than the Christian, to consider that God is all powerful and all knowing. He's terrifyingly glorious and majestic. He hates sin and is, therefore, unapproachable in our fallen state. But He also loves His creation and loves you with a love so unbelievably huge that He became a man to die for your imperfections. He left the indescribable glory of heaven to live a sinless life on the earth and die in your place for your sins. He paid your debt. What a wonderful expression of love! He wants you to know Him and His grace, and He's crazy enough about you that He did all that! He has a calling on your life and longs for you to approach Him humbly.

The great thing about rational thought is that it is perfectly in line with the Bible. God is a God of order. He has placed laws in the universe that govern how things function. He has stepped in to His creation and done what we would call miracles as recorded in the Bible—things that are outside the natural laws He's put in place. These are exceptions to those natural laws. I believe firmly that He still does them today. That's not to say rationalism is the same thing. Rationalism says that's all there is. You cannot have miracles; you cannot have a God that cares for you; you cannot have faith in something you can't see, etc. This is similar to the difference between science (a Christian invention for discovery and investigation) and scientism (which is part of the humanist worldview that says there is no way to know anything other than through science). Unfortunately, science has been hijacked and has, in some branches, turned into a religion rather than a method for discovery and investigation. Most notably would be those branches of science that make claims about origins and deep time—cosmology, evolution, etc. These things are completely unknowable in the sense of observation and testing, yet they're held up as facts of science.

Reason is one of the many tools we have been given by God to understand His creation and Him. However, like so many other things, reason has been distorted by our sin. The human mind, apart from being reborn by our Father in heaven, is warped and sick.

View reason and enlightenment through a Biblical worldview, remembering that God created everything in the first place. Tune in next week for another idea that came out of the Enlightenment period.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.


ashleyhr said...

"These things are completely unknowable in the sense of observation and testing, yet they're held up as facts of science."
Not true. We know mathematically how far away objects in outer space are. And we know the speed of light. Thus the time the light has been travelling can reliably be calculated.

Steve said...

Good day, Ashley. Thank you for reading my work and for commenting.
Your comment is an interesting one. I would disagree that we can "know" mathematically how far away an object is in deep space. There's no way to confirm the numbers. It's true that we are probably pretty close in our guesses, but they are, really just educated guesses. And that's okay. But something you've said here reveals the major issue with most of the cosmology of atheists--major assumptions that cannot be verified even slightly. In fact, have you recently read the report by Margot Brouwer of Leiden University that suggests a way to eliminate dark matter. That's a huge issue for the Big Bang. Dark matter is an enormous rescuing device. Anyway, you're assuming a great deal. You may also be falling victim to the idea that a light year is a measurement of time. It is, in fact, a measurement of distance--the distance light will travel in a year in a vacuum.
You're aware, I'm sure, that the distant starlight "problem" for Biblical creationists has been dealt with numerous times and numerous ways. It's only something for you to bring up in hopes that a reader may be unaware that this "problem" is not a problem at all. Humphreys, Hartnett, Lisle and a host of others have adequately provided potential solutions for this issue. Or you brought it up because you're unfamiliar with your opponent's actual claims. Either way, it's not an issue.
Are you familiar with any Big Bang cosmologists who have adequately explained the light-time problem for the Big Bang? It's a serious issue and, to my knowledge, has essentially been ignored by proponents of the Big Bang.
You see, what you think we "know" is really what some surmise based on assumptions--some of which are decades or even over a century old. Your beliefs are heaped in assumptions and you tout them like they are verified facts. Look, I understand that we're talking about faith based things here--deep time, origins, history no human was around for in conditions no human understands--and that we both have assumptions we're making. You, however, fail to understand this. You feel that your beliefs are based on science and logic when, in reality, science doesn't help you and logic disqualifies your belief as a contender for reality because it's preposterous. It's illogical, nonsensical an defies observation (see Dark Matter).
I have no issue with the alleged size of the universe. In fact, I believe it's likely that it's much larger than we've estimated at this point. I also believe it's expanding which is one of the awesome things the Bible told us millennia ago. One day, perhaps humanists will catch up to the writings of Scripture.

Thanks, again, Ashley and thank you for being civil.

ashleyhr said...

Mainstream YECs accept the calculated (current) distances to remote objects.

I had not seen this:

There's also this:

Science is not infallible but it is evidence-based. YEC beliefs are 'Bible-based' rather than evidence based.

Steve said...

It is true, Ashely, that many if not almost all Biblical creationists would accept the distances that are currently believed to be between us and distance objects in space. However, as you even indicate yourself, we have no idea if these distances are correct or not. They may very well be 100 X's off either direction and, frankly, it makes no difference to me either way. These are measurements of distance, not time. There are numerous models that are built on concepts well established and/or accepted by the scientific community at large that explain distant starlight. There is no issue here whatsoever. I appreciate you bringing it up, though.
How do you account for seeing stars 46 billion light years away if the universe is 14.5 billion years old? How do you account for stars nearly 14 billion years old? How do you account for no--literally not a single one--pop III stars in the universe (not even the 14 billion year old star mentioned above is pop III)?
You claim that science is not infallible. You are correct. We agree. Science is actually not in the business of making statements that would be considered fallible or infallible, really. It's in the business of describing observation. Making truth claims is for philosophy and religion. Anyway...
"Science" is evidence based if by science you mean the hard sciences--chemistry, physics, etc etc. However, even in the hard sciences there is human interpretation. With human interpretation comes bias. That's just the way it is. Not matter how hard we don't want to be biased, we are. That doesn't mean we will reject anything that goes against our bias. It simply means we may be skewed to see something a particular way. It's when we reject anything that is contrary to our bias that we are no longer on safe ground. Rejecting evidence and rejecting the basis for the interpretation for that evidence are two completely different things. Science cannot tell us about one time past events no one was around for. It can't tell us about things that happened under conditions we have no real idea about. It cannot tell us something that may have happened on a scale completely unknown to us--like the size of the universe. The Big Bang is a completely unknowable thing unless you can time travel. It's conditions, time frame, scale, and implications are completely unknown. The evolution of the universe and, in particular, our solar system and our planet are completely unknown. The evolution of non-living matter into living organisms is completely unknown. Such things are not science but are faith based. My worldview is also faith based, but I'm okay with admitting it. I understand how it works. Do you see how this works?
Science is observable. Did you observe the first life form developing? Since is testable? Can we test how a singularity allegedly containing all the matter/energy of the universe expanded rapidly into this amazing universe? Science is repeatable. Can we repeat an amphibian like organism turning into a reptilian type organism over eons of time? Can we test that? Can we even observe it? None of these things are science. They are, in fact, philosophy and are based exclusively on one's worldview.

Steve said...

From your link: "a galaxy that big couldn't possibly hold itself together with so few stars. There wouldn't be enough gravity, and the stars would drift apart."--you don't realize, perhaps, that the need for dark matter here is almost entirely built on the fact that we don't understand a great deal. Is dark matter real? I don't know. Neither do you. No one but God knows this because, as your link says, we've never seen it and can't account for it beyond the fact that we are so dumb concerning how the universe works that we have to assume it fills 80% of the universe. This is only true if the Big Bang happened, of course. If not, and there are a few very good ideas that support this, then there is literally no need to invoke hocus pocus like dark matter. You have no business invoking such a thing because, as you've demonstrated, you are bound to naturalism/materialism. Inventing things that fill in 80% of the errors in our math and acting like that's okay is absolutely hysterical! At least call it what it is: a way to fill in a gap soooo large in our understanding that this fudge factor is necessary.
It is also of note that this problem of the stars drifting apart if there is no dark matter here is only applicable if the universe is as old as you NEED it to be. If it's 6000 years old, give or take, there is absolutely no need whatsoever. You've actually found evidence for a young universe, presented it here as evidence for your belief system, and didn't realize you were supporting my worldview the whole time. If the universe is not 14.5 billion years old (which creates its own set of problems for you) do you understand how dark matter is not necessary here? If the Big Bang didn't happen, do you see how your whole question as to what dark matter is doesn't even matter?
Another quote from your link: Ultimately what we really want to learn is what dark matter is.--this! This is it. We have no idea what it is or even if it exists. Your model requires something we cannot see or measure to be real to fill in 80% or more of our universe, but I'm not supposed to accept the idea that God built the universe with His awesome power? Can you at least see how your worldview is not any more "scientific" than mine? Can you see that you're invoking "evidence" based ideas simply because you cannot account for the numbers otherwise? The evidence says your math is wrong, so you invent totally unknowable things like dark matter/energy to fill in nearly ALL of the universe! Can you at least acknowledge this? Can you see where you BELIEVE in something you cannot possibly know is real but need it to be and I BELIEVE in something it seems only logical to believe in because there is literally no way to account for a great deal of the universe and life itself without it? Can you see that the only way Christianity was born was because Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead? There is literally no way to explain Christianity without it.
Biblical creation is evidence based. The faith of a believer is not blind. On the contrary, as I have shown you only a small glimpse of your belief system's inadequacy, humanism/atheism is heaped in blind faith. It defies logic and reason. It goes against known scientific laws--which it is absolutely bound by. Do you see how this is true? Can you see from my perspective what I'm talking about?

Steve said...

Ashley, I will emphasize that your beliefs in this matter are based on a number of assumptions, some of which are assumed if other assumptions are correct. This is a dangerous place to hang your hat. You can believe it. You can accept it. But be aware that it's nothing more than a might be, could be, is possible, I believe sort of thing. This, of course, means it's not science but faith and is solely based on your worldview.
Thanks again for the great comments and civil discussion.

ashleyhr said...

Nobody 'needs' dark matter purely to prop up a 'worldview' if you are suggesting that. But aspects of the universe make little sense without it:
Also from my link about that strange galaxy: "using Keck Observatory, we found many times more mass indicated by the motions of the stars, than there is mass in the stars themselves.”"
"It is also of note that this problem of the stars drifting apart if there is no dark matter here is only applicable if the universe is as old as you NEED it to be. If it's 6000 years old, give or take, there is absolutely no need whatsoever." I don't really follow. Are you saying that in a 6,000 year old universe there would have been almost no time for those stars to have drifted apart so the existence or non-existence of dark matter would be academic/irrelevant?
"You've actually found evidence for a young universe, presented it here as evidence for your belief system, and didn't realize you were supporting my worldview the whole time." You might somehow believe that but it's complete rubbish. Sorry. Such arguments never convince when they hold no water. They just make the person making them sound bigoted or deluded.
When I believed Christianity I was ignorant of science (the scientific consensus) Now I am no longer ignorant. I see how biblical Christians are antithetical to science. They are forced into that position. Other Christians do what Ken Ham condemns here (though only on secondary issues relating to origins not the gospel message; not every Christian who is a non young earth creationist is the wishy washy sort of liberal that people like Ham detest):

ashleyhr said...



Steve said...

Thanks again for engaging. I will address your last comment first: please don't be silly. You have never been censored for any information you present. I encourage good discussion and am always appreciative of difficult questions or material I'm unfamiliar with. You've been censored in the past simply because you like to become irate and juvenile--calling names and making nonsensical accusations.
I didn't get back to you right away because, quite frankly, I have other things I'm doing. I've been putting in 60-80 hours weekly at work and on a project related to work for nearly 6 months. I'm a bit preoccupied and distracted. Finding time to write blog posts is tough. Finding time to figure out how to respond to some of the crazy things you're saying is tougher. I want to be civil and kind, but you make it very difficult when you say such odd, nonsensical, insulting things.

Moving on: "Are you saying that in a 6,000 year old universe there would have been almost no time for those stars to have drifted apart so the existence or non-existence of dark matter would be academic/irrelevant?"--I am saying that if the galaxy is 100's of millions or billions of years old, the stars shouldn't be this close according to the figures they have. If the galaxy was created about 6000 years ago, I don't think they would have traveled apart near as much. Do you agree? In other words: if the stars were traveling at a rate of speed for 500,000,000 years they would likely be further apart than they would be if they were only traveling away from each other at the same rate for 6,000 years. Make sense? And the only reason we need dark matter (which is really only a necessary invention of the Big Bang, really) is to uphold the cosmology of the Big Bang and billions of years. Rather than invent something out of thin air simply because we don't understand what's happening (which is what creationists are accused of btw) why not simply state the facts? The facts are striking. The facts are--we don't know much about anything, we occupy a space equivalent to an hydrogen atom in the ocean in this universe and haven't been off our planet save for orbiting it in space craft or on the moon ever, we don't "know" near as much as we'd like to act like but we do like to assume a great deal, etc etc. The list of thing we know is very tiny when compared to what we don't know. We're so ignorant we don't know what we don't know and probably don't even know what questions to ask.

"You might somehow believe that but it's complete rubbish. " It's actually completely in line with the facts. Show me I'm wrong rather than just blowing hot air.

I don't need your wikipedia link. If dark matter is such a sound proposition, why are there so many out there that mathematically have no need for it? Why are there many different positions that find no use for it? We can't see it, observe it or sense it under any circumstance. Some thing it's there because they can't make sense out of their ignorance without it...and even then they can't make sense out of their ignorance.

"They just make the person making them sound bigoted or deluded. "--These types of statements are so foolish and so completely void of intelligence. I'm sorry, Ashley, but how is it bigoted to say there is evidence for a young universe? What is going on in your mind that this is bigotry? Seriously? Can you please handle yourself like an adult?

Steve said...

Then you go around acting like you've been "censored" because you've said some deeply profound and troubling thing that makes it impossible for someone to respond. Your argument is so strong and impenetrable that I simply chose to ignore you. Come on, man. I want discussion. I want to see the best you've got so I can study it and come up with answers for you (and for me). I want to find the truth. If you prove me wrong, I'll change my position so as to find the truth. I don't want to believe I'm right when I'm wrong. I want to find the truth regardless. The truth is something I believe quite strongly I've found. In fact, there's a huge amount of evidence for the truth I've found. Your worldview is weak and feeble and cannot stand up to scrutiny. It's based on illogical assumptions and defies the laws of science. It's proven false by many experiments and observations. So let's try to stop insulting persons and making such strange accusations like it's bigotry to think a bit of information supports my claim. What in the world, man?

Would you like to move on to the next thing?

Steve said...

Verlinde has ideas on why we don't need dark matter. MOND explains why we don't need dark matter. There are many qualified and competent scientists who loathe the idea of dark matter and find no reason to accept it. That, sir, is really my only point in this. Dark matter might be there, but it most certainly has no reason to be according to a large number of people. Again, we don't "know" much at all about the cosmos.

ashleyhr said...

Sorry, with two typos now corrected.

Finding time to figure out how to respond to some of the crazy things you're saying is tougher. I want to be civil and kind, but you make it very difficult when you say such odd, nonsensical, insulting things."

False accusations.

"It's actually completely in line with the facts. Show me I'm wrong rather than just blowing hot air." I was referring to the fact that you claimed I had supported your 'young universe' worldview when I know for a fact that I had not and know that nothing persuades me otherwise. As I wrote: "Such arguments never convince when they hold no water."

Creationists usually loathe Wikipedia. I wonder why? Perhaps it's too factual for their liking, too informative.

""They just make the person making them sound bigoted or deluded. "--These types of statements are so foolish and so completely void of intelligence. I'm sorry, Ashley, but how is it bigoted to say there is evidence for a young universe?" NO. I never wrote that. I said - and still say - that it is utterly bigoted to write: "You've actually found evidence for a young universe, presented it here as evidence for your belief system, and didn't realize you were supporting my worldview the whole time."

You confuse being combative with being 'childish'. Typical creationist behaviour.

How do I know I am not being censored when I have been censored here in the past (not only by you)? I am not a mind-reader. How do I know that if I had said nothing my last post would not have appeared?

You say: "I want to find the truth." But then you say: "Your worldview is weak and feeble and cannot stand up to scrutiny." You said what you really think the second time.

(Best I can do right now as I am listening to Obama before he hands over to the fascistic successor.)

Steve said...

I hope you enjoyed Obama's farewell pat on the back. It's been a terrible and long 8 years, but we're finally moving on. Now, I'll move on...

I made no false accusations. I simply told you what I'm seeing from you.

You did give me evidence for my worldview. You don't accept my interpretation of the evidence you presented. My interpretation is no less valid than yours AND it doesn't require copious amounts of stuff no one has ever detected on any scale. You see, I enjoy being able to use the facts rather than trying to make stuff up to fill in the gaps. In this case, we're talking about a gap of over 80% of the universe! This has nothing to do with bigotry. What in the world! It has to do with me seeing differently than you. Your response is name calling and mild hostility.

I use wikipedia links in my writings all the time. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm a little suspicious of it on occasion since it can be written by anyone--no qualifications necessary and no facts are required. It's false to say "creationists usually loathe wikipedia." I may not accept everything from it as absolute truth, but "loathe?" I don't think so. Certainly not "too factual" since it may or may not be factual at all. But, whatever...

I wrote what I wrote concerning your unknowingly giving me cause to believe more firmly in my worldview because that is what you did. You gave me an article to read. I read it and found support for my beliefs. I am a bigot for this? Name calling is generally an act of desperation.

I'm not confusing being childish with being combative. I am fine with being combative. I am here to engage you in this conversation. However, calling names, insulting, and making the sort of statements you commonly make is childish. You can probably conduct yourself more respectfully.

You must know you're not being censored because nearly everything you've said was published. If it wasn't, I actually asked you to submit the comment again without the insults and name calling. Whether you did or not is up to you. You have not been censored for any substance or argument. You've simply been asked to be civil. When you're not, you're not published.
Interesting you ask "How do I know" when you seem to "know" for a fact that you've been censored. You likely don't see the irony of such a thing, but it's entertaining to me.

"You say: "I want to find the truth." But then you say: "Your worldview is weak and feeble and cannot stand up to scrutiny." You said what you really think the second time. "---this is a peach. I want to find the truth. This is absolutely the case. I also know when I examine your worldview--your beliefs and how you interpret the data--it fails miserably. The two statements are exactly what I think--both of them. They are not exclusive or a dichotomy. They simply are what they are.

Good day. I'm not super excited about a Trump presidency yet. In fact, I never supported him and am reluctant to now. I feel he has potential to do a lot of great things. I also feel he has the potential to do a great deal of harm. We'll see where he goes. Your opinion of him is likely skewed by the dishonest media that hates him with a passion. You likely would have been happy with a Clinton presidency which is a sickening proposition. No, I'm not happy about a Trump presidency but I'm ecstatic about a no more Obama presidency!

Steve said...

I apologize. If you have something more you'd like to say on American politics, I'll let you have the last word. This really isn't the right place or the right blog post for that. Thanks!

ashleyhr said...

You now say that my link to the article about Galaxy Dragonfly 44 gave you "cause to believe more firmly in my worldview". Now I understand your point - though I am certainly not similarly persuaded. Your previous wording implied that I had 'proven' you correct and that I was being a fool or a liar for not accepting that I had 'found evidence for a young universe' and 'supported your worldview'.

I'm emailing (in the next 30 minutes) about several matters (ICR claims re 'fast evolution', more about this blog discussion, P Z Myers and a non-Christian Russian thug who hates the BBC). I am attempting to send a copy to Worldview Warriors if you are interested.

ashleyhr said...

PS To my email.
Stars within galaxies are NOT moving away from each other (despite the expansion of the universe)! If this Galaxy Dragonfly 44 is indeed a galaxy then its stars, however few, are holding together."
New comment here (again the focus is not just this series of exchanges):

Steve said...

Thank you, Ashley. I am very excited that you understand my point/comment. You don't have to agree to get it and it seems like you've taken that step. Thank you.

I will hopefully get to look at the email you're talking about. I'm not high enough on the food chain to have access :) But hopefully someone higher on the ladder will pass it on to me.

In terms of "fast evolution," (and I don't know what this email will be specifically in regards to but...) it's quite remarkable to see how quickly an organism can adapt to a change in environment. It appears, as with the case of the Italian wall lizard, that epigenetic changes can actually come about very quickly and be passed on to future generations. I believe I've heard (not seen) studies that confirm that such changes readily regress when the environment is returned to "normal" for a particular organism. I don't know how else such extremely fast changes could occur other than epigenetics. We know from studies that conditions/stressors during fertilization and during gestation can actually influence which genes are turned on and off in the embryo! It's really fascinating and, much to the dislike of the non-creationist crowd, has been a suspicion of Biblical creationists for quite some time.
I first had the thought personally when I was looking at an article on epigenetics about 7 years ago or so. It was in regards to stressors during fertilization/gestation that brought about small epigenetic changes in human children, I believe. It was a while ago. Anyway, that got me to thinking about the "evolutionary" ramifications and how epigenetic change (not new, novel, never before existing in the genetic code changes from mutation) may be the mechanism by which the "kinds" walked off of the ark and became the biodiverse landscape we see today. Creationists were suggesting things like this long before, I discovered. Terms were different but the ideas were the same. It makes sense and is totally fascinating to me. Thanks for bringing it up. I look forward to the email.

ashleyhr said...

... But Guliuzza claims that (because another creationist has in November 2016 declared this to be the case with respect to epigenetics) that "it seems that the Royal Society and ScienceDaily nimbly absorbed findings against evolutionary theory as if they were evidence for their theory".
(And if the findings are 'against' evolutionary theory then they must instead be supporting the - latest manifestation of - the young earth creationism of the ICR and AiG!)

But remember that YECs are going from believing in 'no' evolution (they protested in 2016 against a blog by Kenneth Keathley suggesting that Ken Ham had embraced evolution) to 'fast' evolution (but only within 'biblical kinds' so therefore it's not really evolution but 'rapid trait expression')."

(Another YEC queried some of my email. My reply to him is now also being forwarded to Worldview Warriors.)

ashleyhr said...

Some (the first part) of my recent email appears to be missing above:

'Creationist theory' as alluded to here has NOTHING to do with evidence-based science, known history, physical reality or even the Bible. It's just something made up in recent decades by rather right wing religious fanatics and fundamentalists who happen to be Christian by religious observance. Who invent 'facts' ie do religious/anti-secular apologetics - such as claiming publicly that real scientists, and/or people who are pro the scientific consensus (which they of course are not even if they sometimes claim to 'love science'), simply are managing to 'bolster' creationist 'theory':

"A tenet of creationist theory maintains that creatures are designed for robust speciation. Although they cannot change into fundamentally different kinds, creatures can rapidly express a wide diversity of traits to fit changing environments... ".

Remember that whilst some young earth creationists claim there is 'no' evidence for evolution (and there's no hint of evolution or even speciation in Genesis) others like Guliuzza and Nathaniel Jeanson are now speaking of alleged 'robust speciation' or 'rapid speciation' but based upon the claimed (short) biblical timeline of Earth history rather than real (very long) geological timescales. Though in reality the latter are alleging a sort of, previous, post Noah's flood 'hyper-evolution'/'hyper-speciation' that is not in fact being observed today and was not caused by human activities such as commercial fishing, introducing alien species or urbanisation: "If the Flood decimated air-breathing organisms only about 4600 years ago and the Ark had limited kinds of animals, then creationists are challenged to explain the huge diversity of life we see today".

Guliuzza also claims (see footnote 8) that Christian evolutionist blogger Joel Duff argued (but in January 2015 not after the McGill University fast evolution research paper was published in December 2016) that the findings are hard to reconcile with Darwinian mechanisms. I CANNOT find the text "requires... changes" within the Naturalis Historia blog post that Guliuzza references at his footnote 6. (And the ICR REFUSE all debate about their online claims.)

ashleyhr said...

New post includes link to John Hartnett on dark matter (or not):

Anonymous said...

In the link this phrase appears //Incidentally, just one month on and CMI's Hartnett is acknowledging that the Oort Cloud might in fact really exist after all://

If he had actually read the article instead of just the beginning he would have seen that the Oort Cloud is necessary for secular cosmology but does not acknowledge that it might exist. Hartnett rejects the Oort Cloud fiction.

//The alleged structure of the unseen Oort cloud is described, but that has been based on the believed evolutionary theory of the formation of the solar system.17,18 Since there still does not exist any observational evidence for the Oort cloud it remains as evolutionary storytelling.

As of 2016 no Oort cloud has been detected yet 2,504 TNOs, Centaurs and Scattered Disk Objects (SDOs) are now identified.19 Centaurs are fairly large icy bodies that orbit the sun but are not classed as comets, though some say they may become short-period comets, if they are knocked out of their current orbits.//

Steve said...

Ashley said: "Remember that whilst some young earth creationists claim there is 'no' evidence for evolution (and there's no hint of evolution or even speciation in Genesis) others like Guliuzza and Nathaniel Jeanson are now speaking of alleged 'robust speciation' or 'rapid speciation' but based upon the claimed (short) biblical timeline of Earth history rather than real (very long) geological timescales. "

Problem for you: "evolution" in this context would clearly mean single common ancestry or "molecules to man" evolution. There is no evidence for this--none. Show me if I'm wrong, please. I would love to see something of substance.

Another problem for you: "'robust speciation' or 'rapid speciation'"--this is very possibly due to epigenetics and has a great deal of observational evidence and that evidence continues to grow all the time. Rapid cichlid "evolution" and the Itallian Wall lizard are excellent examples of rapid changes taking place that couldn't possibly be from random, unguided mutations. Let's be real here. The likelihood that a lizard would accidentally develop a fully functioning cecal valve that it just so happened to need to survive is nil. But since the Italian wall lizard has close cousins with a cecal valve, it only makes sense that the genes for such a structure would have been turned off in the organism that didn't need such a structure. That's why epigenetics is so awesome!

Another problem for you: the "real" timeline of earth? I'm sorry, Ashley, but you have no way to support such a naive statement. In fact, the timeline for the geologic column was fabricated--literally just made up--by a lawyer that chose geology as a hobby in the 1830's when he published his Principles of Geology books--admittedly an attack on the Bible. His faith was based on uniformitarianism which I have documented as completely untenable as a means of explaining the world around us--ESPECIALLY the geologic column.

I enjoy fiction as much as the next guy, but when we're supposed to be talking about observational, scientific information, I prefer the facts over the made up nonsense.

Steve said...

What a whopper of a tale you've given us, Ashley! Thanks!
From the first link in your linked post:

"[A]bout 66 million years ago, gravitational perturbations caused by a thin pancake-shaped disc of dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy dislodged icy comets in the Oort cloud at the very edge of the known solar system, resulting in the fiery meteoroid that eventually crash-landed in the Yucatan, leading to the mass extinction of more than 75 per cent of life on the planet in the process."---not a bit of factual info here. Literally not a single piece of this is verifiable as true or false. It's a story.

“I am fully aware that it is speculative,” Dr. Randall says. NO KIDDING!

From the link you specifically mentioned on the Oort cloud and Hartnett: The text-book argument is now being made that long period comets and Kuiper Belt objects originate from the Oort cloud. See Fig. 5, which includes Kuiper Belt objects. Hence the KB’s existence is being linked to an unobserved spherical halo of trillions of icy cometary nuclei, which was only proposed because of the observed existence of comets, both short and long period, in an alleged 4.6-billion-year-old solar system.

and.... Since there still does not exist any observational evidence for the Oort cloud it remains as evolutionary storytelling.

Storytelling is all the atheist has in terms of supporting his beliefs--his religious beliefs. His religion has an origins myth with no actual supportive data--only just so stories. All of the actual data--meaning real data we actually have observed and not just inferred--confirms or, at the very least, does no harm to the idea of a 6000 year old universe created by Almighty God.

My apologies for the delay in my responses. I hope I'm all caught up.

Steve said...

If I didn't look at the appropriate links in the forum you linked to, perhaps you could share specifically what you want me to see. I looked into the first 2, I think. There were so many links, I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be looking for.

I appreciate the conversation and your civil tone.

ashleyhr said...

I am not going to bother responding in any detail to the four new posts since it is now nearly three weeks since my post of 19 January. Just to say that YECs sometimes borrow from real science (eg knowledge of speciation or of ice age glaciations), twist it to suit their agenda, and then either imply that what they teach is 'biblical' or else suggest that "it's obvious why this is not spelt out in the Bible but it is fully based upon biblical teaching").

I do not plan to return to this thread unless Steve asks me to look at something specific in the other discussion under one of his more recent blog posts.