My response to Mike – part 1

creationism-31Sigh.

I suspect that if, indeed, your wife has a PhD in Biology and believes in the evolutionary model (which means she agrees with 99.9% of other scientists — this is a higher percentage of scientists, incidentally, then those who against the flat earth model), and if you have indeed spent 17 years researching both sides of the debate, and if you still manage to come down against the fact of evolution, then there is little I will be able to say to change your mind.

Nevertheless…

In your Darwin post, you stated that there were NO transitional fossils in the fossil record. This is blatantly false. Please watch the following videos:

Transitional Fossils I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puoduvfBxA&feature=related
Transitional Fossils II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM&feature=related
Transitional Fossil Redux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTVgmjlXLo0&feature=related
Creationists and Transitional Fossils: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY&feature=related

Now, let’s look at some other things about the creationist model.

You told me, in one of my responses to you, that the fossil layer is more easily explained by the flood than millions of years of animals dying. I don’t understand why you think this.

If massive death were explained by the flood, we would expect to see a tremendous amount of intermixed deaths. That is, if dinosaurs were around at the same time as, say, elephants, we would expect to see dinosaurs and elephants in the same layer of fossilization.

This is not at all what we see. What we see is primitive creatures in the oldest layers, and more evolved creatures in the more recent layers. We see NO poodles and velociraptors in the same layer. The fossil record is consistent everywhere, and shows evidence in exact accordance to how evolution would predict it to be.

Now, there have been some who have suggested that during the flood the animals all tried to climb to higher ground, and it is natural to assume that the smaller, less advanced creatures naturally couldn’t crawl as fast.  I sincerely hope that you are not one who believes this.

As for your two other questions in that post:

*   first, give a factual account of how any element, molecule, atom, chemical or particle of any kind came into being out of nothing.

*   second, give a factual account of how life came into being from non-life.

Neither of these questions have a single thing to do with evolution.  As to the first, I explained that matter and anti-matter are being created all of the time in the emptiness of space. You did not give me points on this answer, but instead brought up the question of where all the anti-matter that should have been created in the Big Bang has gone. There are theories about this, but the answer is a big, “I don’t know.”  This does nothing, however, to prove creationism.

As to the second, the question is one of abiogenisus, which is not related to evolution in the slightest. I refer you to the following video.  There are many, many more, but I haven’t had time to review them.  I am perfectly happy to accept the answer as “I don’t know” at the moment:

The Origin of Life – Abiogenesis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

As to your other assertions in your main paragraph:

* i say evolution as a theory is a total failure. it has no empirical evidence whatsoever, and it amounts to nothing more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis which should be discarded. not only that, but the geological, historical, anthropological, chemical, and genetic information falls in support of the creation model over the evolutionist.

Well, virtually every geologist, historian, anthropologist, chemist, and geneticist in the world disputes your claim. There are ample videos and websites explaining this.

And you state that to prove evolution, we must answer questions that meet your criteria. No sir. You are wrong. I have 150 years of research and 99.9% of scientists on my side. My claims are therefore by no means extraordinary. You, on the other hand, are saying that all of these fields support creation. The burden of proof falls to you, my friend. And as your claim is extraordinary, your proofs must be likewise. Show me the evidence that has survived the accepted truth evaluation methodology.

I will make it very easy for you. Show me one, single, peer reviewed, scientific paper from ANY reasonably reputable journal that has not been invalidated by later evidence that concludes that creationism or intelligent design (which are basically the same thing with a different name) provides better evidence for ANY even reasonably significant aspect of ANY of these sciences. I would truly love to see it.

Thank you,

Alphonsus

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “My response to Mike – part 1

  1. don´t be discouraged. is it really so bad that someone disagrees with you or any “majority?” as long as there can be civility and intelligent dialogue over a disagreement, where is the negative?

    it´s a small point, but, even according to the wikipedia article you linked to previously has a bit of a discrepancy in the numbers concerning the scientific “99.9%” support for the evolutionist model.

    the youtube videos you linked to by “donexodus2” lack the all-important references necessary to validate his conclusions, however, many (if not all) of the claims are quite common assumptions made by evolutionists and not difficult to pinpoint the main problem in their successive-passages-of-time-during-which-the-organisms-lived assumption, as well as your expectation of “tremendous amount[s] of intermixed deaths” dilema.

    as i mentioned in our previous exchange stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution. the range of fossils from one supposed time period keeps extending and overlapping fossils ostensibly typical of another period of time in the past. leave aside the possible ramifications of the sorting of organisms during a global flood, differential escape of organisms during the same (something you clearly discount the possibility of even playing a fractional part in), ecological zonation of life-forms in an antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during a catastrophic flood – for example, although trilobites and dinosaurs were contemporaries of each other, there is no basis for believing that trilobite-bearing and dinosaur-bearing rocks were necessarily deposited at the same time all over the world. during a flood, trilobite-bearing beds at one point on earth were very likely deposited at the same time as dinosaur-bearing beds at another place on earth.), and tectonically-associated biological provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities, since the early days of the acceptance of the standard geologic column, fossils have been turning up in “wrong” places as more and more fossils have been collected. dasycladalean algae, pipiscids, mr. donexodus2´s jawless (agnathan) fishes and his therapsid reptiles (lystrosaurus, for example), as well as the sponge neoguadalupia, the bivalve camptochlamys, the gastropod parafusus; to say nothing of “tiktaalik” and the like, which, even according to ahlberg and clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) are “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.” all of which being a part of why i made reference of the extinction of the so-called geologic column.

    my friend, my goal in posting a challenge on darwin´s birthday was not to “prove creationism”, as you seem to be supposing, rather, to expose the weakness of the arguement that the evolutionary hypotheses are somehow more scientific than those of creationists. neither are provable empirically, but, there is physical evidence that clearly falls more in line with the creation model over that of, and adding dellema to, the evolutionist model. eliminating the competion by routinely declaring it “pseudoscience”, when the same criteria, applied to the evolutionary model, reveals more weakness than substantiation is simply intellectual dishonesty (if not due to ignorance or miseducation).

    as far as my linking the origin of “any element, molecule, atom, chemical or particle of any kind” or “how life came into being from non-life” (abiogenesis) to evolution; follow the logic. if you believe in the concept of one species giving rise to another, there has to be an original. so, it stands to reason you should not only be able to show the evidence for such a transition (or at least your belief in such), but explain how the original came into existence as well. i´m sorry if that causes a problem for some, but, that same “some” doesn´t seem to have any problem with ridiculing those who believe in the creation model of origins for their presupposition of an originator, and demanding some sort of an explanation; not in my experience anyway.

    finally, as the “challenge” that any evolutionist (be he geologist, historian, anthropologist, chemist, or geneticist) prove evolution as a legitimate theory is not a total failure was/is mine, i reject the sentiment that “burden of proof falls to [me].”

    respectfully looking forward to part 2

  2. I have to admit that I find your arguments a little hard to follow, in part due to your style in your refusal to use capital letters. Nevertheless, let me see if I can sort it out.

    What you are saying, in essence, is that, with your ecological zonation terminology, that different animals lived in different areas of the world. That we don’t find, say, horses and dinosaurs in the same layer of death because they didn’t live together. Okay. Fine.

    Even if we disregard the scientific aging of the fossil layers (which use multiple methods of determining radioactive age and are consistent with each layer throughout the planet), wouldn’t your proposal suggest, in some areas of the world, that horses should be should be on the bottom and oldest layer, with dinosaurs and such laying on top? I mean, the horses would have died first, and then the dinos would have washed over on top of them. Where in the world do we find this kind of stratification?

    And please, let’s not forget that we are talking about a mere 40 days and 40 nights. If the flood came out and covered all the earth, then most of the creatures would surely have died in the first week. For dinosaurs to be washed from different areas of the world to the horse laden areas, then we are talking about some pretty sever currents and waves. I still find it rather incredible that week old dead horses would stay hard packed in their layer during such a cataclysm, without any of them floating around and mixing with the dinos.

    In fact, given the sheer number of geological catastrophes attributed to the flood, it sounds like it would have been pretty hard for ANY layers to be laid down. We are talking a SERIOUS storm. There should be a tremendous amount of mixing going on, no matter where the animals lived or how fast they climbed the hills.

    I won’t argue this point any further, other than to say that, if the book of Genesis did not exist, then we would not be having this discussion. No one looking at the fossil record would conclude “flood.” What Creationists have done is take the biblical story and come up with theories to fit the facts. This is NOT the way science works. Science has looked at the facts, rigorously tested them every which way, and now uses the fact of evolution routinely in the development of new antibiotics and medicines. The creationist model is purely based on scripture and gives us absolutely nothing. Therefore, psuedoscience.

    And I really failed to read in your arguments how you can still so totally reject the fact of intermediate species in the fossil layer. Please don’t bother with your explanation.

    And, while we still don’t have a solid idea of how life begun, even if we say that goddidit, it still does nothing to insubstantiate the fact of evolution.

    One article is all I ask for. Surely you’ve come across something in your 17 years of research.

    Respectfully,
    Alphonsus

  3. wow. i just spent 3 hours responding to your argument and, with a double tap to the backspace button, it´s gone. oh well. must´ve been too wordy (especially considering it seems you´re somewhat disgusted – “Please don’t bother with your explanation”(?!?!?) – by the conversation – which i´m sorry to sense).

    i´ll try to limit myself to the essentials here.

    a) birds of a feather not only flock together, they are burried and become fossilized together too. the deluge lasted 40 days and 40 nights, but it took the flood about a year to recede. therein took place the laying down of strata/fossil layers. weight and size play heavily in the grouping. also see my previous comments on localized catastrophe (mt. st. helen´s) and similar results. always tilting: chuck d. february 12, 1809 – april 19, 1882

    b) only about .0125% of fossils are vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the ice age (after the flood). this accounts for the relatively rare occurance of dinosaurs fossilized with other mammals. but don´t forget about the mammal (repenomamus robustus) fossil with a dinosaur (psittacosaur) either in its stomache (or possibly just burried directly on top of it).

    c) i´ve discussed the documented inaccuracy of the geologic dating methods before (MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL, by JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY), wherein i also provide you with that peer-reviewed paper you have been asking for as well always tilting: chuck d. february 12, 1809 – april 19, 1882 (along with the reference to ahlberg and clack – Nature 440(7085):747–749 – who commented on the evolutionist emphasis on “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”)

    i´m quite clear as to how science works. i´m also quite clear concerning the fact there is only one set of data (evidence – i.e. one earth/cosmos) and how that evidence is studied and applied to the model is all that is important. as you seem determined to rely on unreferenced youtube videos and wikipedia articles as the substance of your arguement, while demanding peer-reviewed publications (which i supplied nearly a month ago) from me, i feel i am justified in saying; you first! therefore, i turn your own demand on you:

    “Show me one, single, peer reviewed, scientific paper from ANY reasonably reputable journal that has not been invalidated by later evidence that concludes that [evolutionism] provides better evidence for ANY even reasonably significant aspect of ANY of these sciences.”

    respectfully (as well as continually open to the dialogue),

    mike

  4. as far as my linking the origin of “any element, molecule, atom, chemical or particle of any kind” or “how life came into being from non-life” (abiogenesis) to evolution; follow the logic. if you believe in the concept of one species giving rise to another, there has to be an original. so, it stands to reason you should not only be able to show the evidence for such a transition (or at least your belief in such), but explain how the original came into existence as well.

    Does it? I believe that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, but I can’t prove it. If you want to say that abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life) is impossible, it would be up to you to prove that. And the refutation of “it is impossible” is not “it happened exactly this way,” but rather “it is possible,” i.e. it is plausible given what we know about the natural world, in this case pre-biotic chemistry. For this particular example, the current situation is just exactly the opposite of what you would want to disprove anything. It is not that there are no viable theories, but that there are a great number of viable theories, and at present not enough data to choose between them. After all, we are talking about events that happened over 3 billion years ago.

    Abiogenesis FAQs

  5. only about .0125% of fossils are vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the ice age (after the flood). this accounts for the relatively rare occurance of dinosaurs fossilized with other mammals.

    And yet bone beds with fossils from hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of dinosaur individuals have been found, and somehow there never seem to be any modern mammals in the entire bed.

    Geologists reached a consensus that a) the Earth was older than the Biblical account and b) there was no worldwide flood even before Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

  6. i´ve discussed the documented inaccuracy of the geologic dating methods before (MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL, by JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, PH.D. LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY)

    Presented at the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 4–9, 2003. Published in: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, R. L. Ivey (Ed.), pp. 127–142, 2003.

    Is that what you call “peer review”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s