Creationist Terms Defined for Creationists

definitions-1KIND:
1. A distinction between groups of different animals.
2. An infinitely variable and complex description of similarities between animals.  A miraculous creation of the All-Mighty, instantly becoming whatever it needs to be in order to dismiss evolutionary arguments.
3. A speciation metamorphism.

GAP THEORY:
1. A period of time between the first and second verses of Genesis during which cool things like the fall of Satan occurs and the earth has a chance to grow old enough to not contradict radiometric dating or problems like the speed of light which exist for young earth creationist.
2. More generally, anything not explained in the Bible that needs to be explained in order for it to be compatible with what we actually know about the universe.

RAID EXPERIMENT:
An experiment which conclusively proves that accelerated radioactive decay is possible by demonstrating conclusively its impossibility.  The experiment demonstrates that scientists are silly for not accepting a theory which necessitates the extinction of all life on earth, which is clearly a minor difficulty which will be solved sooner or later.

CHARLES DARWIN:
1. A brilliant but deluded scientist.
2. An evil, satanic, non-scientist.

THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY:
1. A bunch of brilliant but deluded people who believe Charles Darwin despite overwhelming evidence supporting his theories.
2. Evil people who reject the truths of God’s Bible in favor of the lies of Satan’s reality.

CREATION SCIENCE:
1. A scientific discipline composed of brilliant and non-deluded scientists without degrees who use the Bible as the only source of truth and play with reality like silly-putty to make it fit.
2. A theory in vogue before it was thrown out by the courts and a new science called Intelligent Design took its place.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
See Creation Science.

DARWINISM:
Anything proposed by science which contradicts the Bible in any way.

ATHEIST:
1. Anyone who claims to reject the existence of God so that they can sin whenever they want.
2. Someone who knows that God exists, but denies Him so that more people will sin with him.
3. A Satanist.

AGNOSTIC:
A misguided soul who is rightly subject to ridicule by both Atheists and Theists alike.

MIRACLE:
Something that is accomplished by God, who is not subject to the rules of reality, using means that are entirely explained by the rules of reality, but leaves no evidence that can be found by the rules of reality.

TRANSITIONAL SPECIES:
A Darwinist myth that has never been found in the fossil record.  Silly scientists currently accept about 10,000 such myths.

GENETICS:
God’s miraculous building blocks, which allow for micro-evolution but never macro-evolution and do nothing to support the Darwinist theory despite the fact that it is necessary to develop new vaccines and medicines and exactly parallels the fossil records, which also does nothing to support the Darwinist theory and doesn’t prove anything.

BIBLE:
1. The inerrant word of God.
2. The greatest and truest source of knowledge ever created, as evidenced by the vast strides in knowledge that took place between 450 and 1300 AD when the book was religiously followed throughout Europe.

HELL:
The place where all of the scientists, atheists, agnostics, Jews, Buddhists, Hinduists, everyone who has never heard of Jesus, Christians who have not given away all of their possessions, Christians who have not obeyed all of the Biblical rules laid down in the old testament, and all children too young to accept Christ as their savior will go to burn in everlasting torture.

HEAVEN:
The place you go to if you don’t go to Hell, where the saved get to sing God’s praises through all of eternity and live in a beautiful mansion on a cloud.  Current population: 8.

MONOTHEISM:
The belief that there is only God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, a host of angels, Satan, the Virgin Mary, millions of dead relatives, and several hundred saints to whom one can pray and receive supernatural intervention.

Links, Climate Change, and RNA (Unrelated but on my mind)

rnaI look with some amusement at the “debate” raging in my last post between Reginald and Mike. Mike is an expert at wordplay, and I find him frankly not worth arguing with. He is not nearly as dumb as some YECs (Young Earth Creationists), but his reason is by nature flawed under the incredible weight of the very, very obvious. I won’t bother really to argue with him, as he quibbles over the color of the flowers in the forest, somehow managing to ignore the trees that exist all around him. The evidence for evolution has long been irrefutable, and our understanding of it and the gaps within it seem (to my untrained brain) seem to be increasing and filling exponentially.

I, myself, have just undergone an epiphany of sorts, having finally having it beat into my head that man-caused global warming is very much a reality. I was, for many years, deceived. I put too much trust in people pretending to be scientists and pretending to use the scientific method. I was a big proponent of the “Junk Science” website, and, considering myself reasonably scientifically literate, I actually believed the bullshit they slung there.  I guess I am prepared to recognize ignorance, or even deception when one is motivated by faith or by “higher” goals. However, I was unprepared to deal with people who deliberately take good science and distort it, or out-and-out lie about it, for such a base reason. I was naive enough about humanity to believe that no one would put the entire planet at risk for the sake of a few extra dollars in their pocket. They are being deliberately deceptive, and the only motivation I can see for them to be this way is pure greed. If their motivation lies in another direction, I am unable to imagine what it could be. Lying for the sake of religion can be argued as simple ignorance (most of the time).  Lying for the sake of greed, particularly on such an important topic as the earth’s climate, goes beyond loathsome.

Back to developments in biology, Ida is a somewhat significant find, but it is exceptional only in its completeness…it is an exquisitely preserved specimen that fills in a gap in the fossil record, but not nearly as critical a gap as my previous entry implied. (see this video link, which puts Ida into the correct perspective far better than I possibly could.) Reginald’s fossil is more interesting from a human family tree perspective.

Even more important with still insignificant media attention was the synthesis of a critical part of DNA in the laboratory using conditions present on early earth. A part of the RNA molecule has been created in a laboratory. That such a complex molecule could be synthesized from “simple” organic chemicals really goes a long way to smashing many creationist arguments to bits. Not that they will ever acknowledge it as such, however. Life from non-life (abiogenesis) has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, but they have been lumped together in the mind of those who don’t understand the science. Without knowledge of the science behind it, evolution does seem to imply the abiogenesis.

The arguments will merely shift to a new gap, of course. We may, with time, be able to create a functioning cyanobacteria within a test-tube, but I personally doubt that we will be able to go beyond that. The earth itself took billions of years to get beyond that step, so my unscientific guess would be that the next step is far more difficult. A cyanobacteria is still a long way away, and also is still a long way away from a living animal.   It really doesn’t matter.  No amount of evidence can convince one who refuses to be convinced. Nothing is provable beyond unreasonable doubt.

Thus, the battle for the world’s “soul” will rage on. The forces of cultural evolution will continue to shape the battle. Reason will force those with something to lose from truth to battle against it more furiously. In order to survive in a world where truth would destroy them, the fundamentalist will have to deny reality even more vigorously. If this were simply a matter of reason I would have some reason to hope that the YECs would eventually change their mind. However, we are dealing with a mindset that believes that a book written by the hands of men is more to be trusted than reality itself. The more successful the reasonable, the more destructive the unreasonable will have to become in order to maintain their world view. When arguments work less and less, violence, the last resort of the ignorant, is likely to become more prominent. It is only through the blind following of an inflexible philosophy that one man can turn another into a demon. The man without dogma has no reason to fly a plane into a building. A man who refuses to think is easy pray for someone or some thing that has motive to do their thinking for them.

For a while I was feeling guilty with my obsession with religion and creationism, but I’ve come to realize that it really is nothing new.  My first book was going to be about religion.  My first fiction novel with have strong religious elements (coming at it from a decidedly non-Christian perspective, however.)

So, I post without apologies.  This is who I am.  Enjoy, if you can.  🙂

Truth, God, and the Sun Rise: Karl Popper

popper-smA friend of mine, Twinkle, whom I know through Second Life, made a nice response to my last post, The Absolute Nature of Uncertainty pt. 2.  As is my unfortunate nature, I got a little long winded in my response, so I decided to make a separate article out of it.  I hope that she does not take offense to it, as absolutely none is intended.  I just felt that my response helps to give a clearer idea of the General Uncertainty Principle (see the bottom of this link).

*********************************

Twinkle: Popper said that nothing is true if you can’t prove its opposite.

Having done extensive research into Karl Popper (i.e. having skimmed the Wikipedia article article about him), I believe that he is skating along the edges of the General Uncertainty Principle without completely identifying it as such, and is thus making mistakes in interpretation. If I am reading the article correctly, I believe that what Popper said is that no amount of evidence can prove that something is true, but a single example of its opposite can disprove it. I.e., no amount of instances of sun rising will prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but a single instance of the sun not rising will disprove the idea that the sun always rises.

Again, the concept that NOTHING is provable beyond unreasonable doubt comes in. Popper seems to be toying with the principle of proof beyond ALL possible doubt, which I’ve demonstrated as an impossibility.

So, that the sun always rises is provable beyond reasonable doubt, and is therefore true (depending upon one’s definition of truth).  It is not, however, proof beyond unreasonable doubt. If the sun does not rise tomorrow, it merely demonstrates that an unreasonable assumption proved to be the correct one.

Twinkle: So, if you can reckon what’s God’s opposite and prove it exists, you’re done with your theory :)

So on to God. Firstly, it depends on how one defines “truth”. Absolute truth is unknowable by the General Uncertainty Principle. General truth I define as something proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, God’s opposite depends on what definition of God you prefer. If one accepts the definition of God as a supernatural being that created the universe, then, according to Popper, to prove that God is true requires that there exists no proof of its opposite, a universe created by completely natural processes.

I would submit that we have come a long way to proving our universe is created by completely natural processes beyond reasonable doubt.  In fact, by definition, science cannot use supernatural explanations, as science holds them by definition to be beyond reason and unprovable.  By the nature of science, a supernatural God is, definitionally, ruled out as an explanation.

This is not to say that science could not demonstrate strong evidence of the supernatural.  If, for example, prayer were proven to increase the likelihood of survival of  people undergoing open heart surgery, then we would have little choice but to conclude that something supernatural was indeed happening (alternative explanations, such as alien intervention, could be determined to be less likely via Occam’s Razor.)  Incidentally, this very experiment has indeed been conducted, in fact, and the results indicated that prayer did nothing to improve chances of survival.  This result proves almost nothing, for reasons that I’m not going to go into for time’s sake.

If this is a bias of science, then it is an absolutely necessary one.  Proof of natural processes cannot be found if we constantly throw “goddidit” into every unknown.

Therefore, if one (not unreasonably) redefines “truth” by throwing in the possibility of the unreasonable, then “truth” can never be proven.

What seems “reasonable” to me is that if God exists, He clearly does NOT want us to demonstrate his existence through our study of the natural world.

Twinkle: But at the end…does it really matter?

Well, in the “end”, it certainly DOES matter, as it could mean the difference between eternal hellfire and torture; 70+ virgins in assorted colors and flavors; or becoming worm food.

But I’m just playing and I know what sense you meant this in. And in the sense you meant it, then I would say no, it doesn’t matter in the least.

Twinkle: I’ve had so much proof of humanity’s evilness that I am positive that Love is somewhere out there…or maybe just inside myself… A secret recipe for serenity ;)

As to evil, mankind is imperfect and suffers from many mental illnesses and brainwashing resulting from unreasonable arguments. Hitler very likely had a mental illnesses (Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and who the hell knows what that mustard gas did to him). Whether these illnesses are in anyway treatable does not change this fact. When what we perceive as evil is in fact something that is beyond the conscious control of a mentally ill mind, can we truly call it evil?

This is not to say that Hitler wasn’t a nasty, dangerous son-of-a-bitch who needed to be killed far, far earlier then he actually was.

So evil is definitional. Love? I have no doubt of it. Love, too, is definitional, but “generally” doesn’t follow under anyone’s definition of mental illness. Most people have love within them. This is a statement of faith on my part.

And if you could more clearly express your secret recipe, I would greatly appreciate it. 🙂

Love,

Alphonsus

The Absolute Nature of Uncertainty pt. 2

Venusians

Venusians

 

I learned why the teacher mentioned Descartes in step two of my Proof of the Mischievous God (see my previous post).  Descartes had essentially devoted his life to the question expressed in step two.

To reiterate, step two states the following.

2) God can, then, influence the human mind and make one believe whatever He wants us to believe.  This would certainly fall under the heading of what an all powerful person could do.

Descartes had asked himself the same question.  Is there anything that God couldn’t possible fool us about?  Anything that is, to use his word, indubitable, that is, free from all doubt?

Descartes spent years on the question.  He was a deeply religious man, and wanted to believe that there was some absolute in the universe, some gift that God had given that was beyond all doubt, that we could use to build all of our other proofs about the universe from.

His answer finally came out as the famous expression, one that I hadn’t understood until then.  “Cogito Ergo Sum”, or, more commonly, “I think, therefore, I am.”

What Descartes concluded was that God could not possibly be fooling us about our own existence.  How could God possibly be tricking us into believing that we exist?  If we didn’t exist, who, indeed, would he be tricking?

How could He, indeed.

God could, if He was mischievous and chose to do so, make us believe that two plus two equals five with the same certainty and conviction that we believe, “Cogito Ergo Sum.”

The point is, there could be a flaw in the logic of, “Cogito Ergo Sum.” that we are missing, or something obvious that we are being kept from seeing.

Can I point out what this flaw is?  Of course not, because I believe it to be true.  The logic of his point seems to be irrefutable.

But Descartes was the one who made the rules here.  The legal system tells its jurors that, to find someone guilty, they must be guilty beyond “reasonable” doubt.

By Descartes’ rules, the word “reasonable” no longer applies.  We are no longer talking about “reasonable” doubt, but to be completely beyond “any” doubt.

Descartes’ question is, in essence, is there anything that we can know for sure that is beyond unreasonable doubt.  The problem, of course, is that once one throws out reason, anything goes.  Logic no longer applies.  A madman who is convinced that he is being tricked by God into believing he exists will except no demonstration that he is wrong.

Cogito Ergo Sum depends upon reason, but reason is one of the conditions that doesn’t apply under Descartes rules.

The General Uncertainty Principle does not require that the flaw be pointed out.  All it does is state that a flaw could exist beyond our ability to see it.

To reiterate, NOTHING can be proven beyond all possible doubt, for all possible doubt includes unreasonable doubt, and without reason, the very concept of proof becomes meaningless.

Thereby, if I were to introduce unreasonable “what ifs” to any statement, such as, what if a statement, such as “a=a”, is wrong and God / Venusians / The Flying Spaghetti Monster / The Invisible Pink Unicorn is only making you BELIEVE the statement to be correct, then the statement has not been proven beyond ALL possible doubt.

**************

After I wrote out my little principle, I turned stupid for the next decade or so.

I loved this theory.  I loved the logic of the theory.  And, like a man who falls in love with and marries an axe murderess because she’s got nice boobs, I paid too much attention to the outstanding attributes and almost lost my head.

I spent the next several years of my life believing that absolutely nothing was provable ‑ ‑ that nothing could really be demonstrated with certainty, therefore anything was possible.  I became deeply philosophical during this period of my life.  No one could ever get a straight answer out of me.  I would respond to peoples concerns with relaxed, knowing smiles.  Nothing mattered, so no decision was demonstrably better than any other in the long run.

This is the same fallacy that the nihilist falls into.  Its a basic belief that just because nothing can be proven beyond all possible doubt that nothing can be known or proven at all.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it gives equal weight to reasonable doubt and to unreasonable doubt.  There is absolutely nothing in the argument that suggests that this is necessary.  In the tautological statement “a=a”, we are faced with the overwhelming logic of it’s obvious correctness.  This statement is the cornerstone of all reason.  If it is not true, then nothing else we have ever thought of can be true.

The only way it can be stated as being possibly false is by invoking the Venusian clause.  But, even if the Venusians existed, there is absolutely no reason for us to believe that they would be able to, much less want to, make us believe this.  One would have to be unreasonable to the point of insanity to seriously doubt that this statement is correct.

In other words, just because something is not provable beyond all possible doubt does not mean that it isn’t true.  Just because it is possible to doubt something does not mean that it is wrong.  To believe otherwise is not … uh … reasonable.

Therefore, I retract my argument that it is impossible to prove God’s existence.  God could very easily prove his existence by making his existence known beyond reasonable doubt in a multitude of ways.  Sending the same message to everyone on earth while simultaneously making all the non-believers walk around and quack like a duck would go a long way toward demonstrating His existence.  I still maintain that it is unlikely that we will ever be able to prove His existence beyond a direct demonstration on His part, but I don’t have a proof for this; it’s just a statement of belief.  I can imagine several ways by which science could come up with reasonable proofs for God.  Nothing yet, but that doesn’t mean anything either.

Love and peace,

Alphonsus

Why I am an Agnostic

agnostic-cemetaryIt is my experience that most people in the U.S. are born and raised to some degree already walking on some religious path.  My parents raised me completely without religion in my life.  There, therefore, is no path that has been laid down as a suggestion for me to follow.

Instead, when I became curious about religion, I was faced with hundreds of different paths to choose from.  How could I possible choose?  I could only measure the merits of each against the only accurate map that I knew of: science.  Under this criteria, all of them failed.  I’ve been forced to make my own way through the woods ever since.

I call myself a militant agnostic not because I’m willing to go out and kill for my lack of beliefs.  Many people consider agnostics to be kinda wishy-washy about their beliefs.  I am not.  I am a firmly committed agnostic, and I strongly believe that being agnostic is exactly where where I belong on the theistic spectrum.  Science cannot disprove God’s existence.  God Himself could very easily prove His existence beyond virtually all possible doubt.  As He hasn’t done this, I can only assume that it’s either because He doesn’t exist, or that He has good reasons for wanting us to believe He doesn’t exist.

Unlike many agnostics, I am not just uncertain about the God of Abraham, I am also uncertain about just about any other God you could name.  To be quite honest, in fact, I’m quite atheistic as far as the God of Abraham is concerned.  Not only is the bible quite flawed, the God in that Bible does not behave even remotely like how I’d expect a non-insane God to behave.

No, the God I’m uncertain of would be a far more sane and reasonable God.  My God would have control over the entire universe and be far less obsessed with this little rock we live on.  My God could kick the God of Abraham’s ass through several unlikely dimensions.

The God I don’t know if exists is a God of my own deduction and thoughts.  I will talk about Him as a concept, but I will in no way try to push him down anyone else’s throat.

At times, I will talk like an Atheist.  I fully understand and sympathize with the atheist point of view.  I just can’t quite make that final step.

First of all, I spent so much time playing with the concept of God, and running through various plausible Gods that fit in with our current knowledge of the universe that for me to choose atheism would entail my acceptance of a “belief” that there is no god.  Most atheists profess that belief is not necessary from their point of view as they see no evidence for God’s existence.  This is fine, and absolutely true.  There IS absolutely no evidence for God’s existence.  It still would not feel intellectually honest for me to choose this path.

What’s more, I enjoy thinking about God.  He’s fun.  I kinda enjoy imagining the limitations that an omniscient, all powerful MUST have, despite the fundamentalist viewpoint that there are no limitations.  I enjoy putting God through God simulations in my brain and try to guess how He would come out as a result.

I will admit to some predjudices.  I’ve grown up in western culture, and I’ve got a western bent.  I call this being “God” for example, instead of Allah.  I refer to God as He even though God would almost certainly be genderless if God exists at all.  I do this because the original translations of the Bible had God as a male, and English has a profound lack of non-gender specific third person pronouns.  I have more respect for God than to call Him an It.  It just lacks class, you know?  So if there are any women who have a problem with this, then I leave it to you to come up with a proper non-gender specific third person pronoun for me to use.  Otherwise, I’ll stick with tradition, thank you very much.

I also capitalize the word God and the He, His, Him pronouns because it’s in the rules of proper English, and plus again it just feels more respectful when dealing with the possible creator of the entire f’ing universe.  The concept of a God who has managed to create something this big and complex deserves a capital letter, whether He exists or not.

There are times when I will talk as if I don’t believe God exists.  There are times when I will preach quite vehimently as if He DOES exist.  I am not being disingenuous.  It’s just that I am capable of holding both thoughts in my mind.  Call it doublethink.  It’s my brain, and I can maintain two contradictory thoughts in it at the same time if I want to.  😛

Others may ask me, “What if I’m wrong, and God will send me to Hell for doubting?”  Well, my answer to them would be that then either we would ALL be screwed, or we have nothing at all to worry about.  There are, by last count, an infinite number of potential mutually exclusive jealous Gods out there.  Even if I follow just the God of Abraham, then there are at least three major paths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) that could get me flaming if I choose the wrong one.  Within Christianity, the are literally hundred’s of sub-variations of God that promise damnation unless I follow their particular set of beliefs.  There is certainly no safety in belief.

And, if the unproven God is NOT jealous, then I think He will forgive me for doubting.  I’ve lived a reasonable good life.  I’ve helped a lot of people.  I’ve given to charities and gave large tips to my waitresses.  The degree to which I am mentally unsound is not my fault.  I was born that way, and I am doing my darnedest to get past it all.  I am as I was created.  I am very hopeful that any reasonable God would see that.

So, that’s about it.  The atheist really shouldn’t care what I think so long as I don’t try to force my beliefs onto anyone else…no worries there.  The theist, well, they will think what they will think.  I am automatically condemned to eternal torture according to some of their beliefs.  Well, I really don’t like the sound of that, and I’m fully willing to jump into the arms of Jesus if He is waiting there after the truck squishes me.  I’ll just cross my fingers and hope for the best.

The Method of Creationism (mike part 2)

creationismThe following is the last response, counter response from a gentleman by the name of Mike on the subject of Creationism vs. Evolution.   For the complete record of this discussion, please see the last post, and indeed the previous three posts before that.

mike said:

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

Alphonsus replies:

I am very sorry that you lost 3 hours of work.  I know how frustrating that can be.  As for my “please don’t bother with your explanation,” it shows not disgust, but frustration in my realization from the very beginning that I am fighting an unwinnable battle in my hopes of getting you to concede to reason.

a) – So no horses, cattle, etc… got buried with with similar sized dinos? NONE? While I haven’t a scale, it seems to me that the velocoraptor(sp?) would have been about the same weight and size. If not, I’m quite sure that a paleontologist could find dinos of similar weights. And the baby dinos surely would have gone to the top of the layer, up there with the feather weight mastodons. This actually shouldn’t be too hard to test scientifically. One could create animals of various weights and distributions across a computer generated landscape, or even in a room sized diorama simulating the Biblically flat earth, and add flooding. Multiple kinds of flooding could be tested…falling from a hole in the firmament dome above the earth, escaping from the vast underground oceans known to exist beneath the earth’s crust, or a mixture of both. It would be interesting to see how the animals would fall. My hypothesis, however, would not be that they would fall anywhere nearly like the way you are suggesting.

While there might be an untestable, unverified hypothesis for explaining this, using Occam’s Razor, radiometric dating and the layering suggest strongly that layers are the result of time, not of a flood.

b) – What is it about mammals that cause them to fossilize during the young earth ice age as opposed to the flood? I would imagine that cows and dinos could swim about equally well.  I suppose the argument would be that mammals lived in colder climates to begin with.  Of course, there is zero evidence that the documented “mini ice-age” was anywhere near this large to support this supposition.  And it wouldn’t apply to the incredibly large number of mammals that live near the equator, anyway.

There is no real debate that early mammals and dinos were around at the same time. And repenomamus robustus was an apparently nasty opossum-sized mammal who may have eaten a small dino called psittacosaur…130 million years ago.

Again, Occam’s Razor suggests that the layering, combined with radiometric dating, against the no-evidence-for mammal / dino location differences and the different apparent death times mammals versus dinos gives far more balance to the evolution view than to the creationist

c) The article you mention (by John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics/Space Physics, Institute for Creation Research), has not been published or peer reviewed (I am not accusing you of saying that it did, I’m merely pointing this out). While it is true that Dr. Baumgardner has had over twenty peer reviewed papers, all of them relate to geophysics, this particular paper was not among them. Why did he not submit this paper to the same scientific scrutiny that he had done so many times before?  Perhaps because in this paper, Dr. Baumgardner refers to carbon 14 dating from coal samples. The very title of the paper is misleading, as fossilized materials (coal, in this case) by definition are not organic. 14C dating is not a good way of dating rocks, and 14C dating is not effective for dating materials over 60,000 years old. There are many other good ways that 14C could be found in coal or oil deposits (impure samples being among the chief). This is why coal is never used for dating via 14C.

And I’m not sure why you use the reviewed paper (Nature 440(7085):747-749 Palaeontology: A firm step from water to land) as meaning anything at all. The excerpt you used was a classic example of “quote mining”.  The Nature article refers to a review on the finding of a possible fossil of an intermediate “missing link” fossil between water and land animals and does absolutely nothing to bolster the creationist argument.  What it does instead is attempt to quell the penchant for people to read more into a discovery than may actually be there.  The article actually begins, “A project designed to discover fossils that illuminate the transition between fishes and land vertebrates has delivered the goods. At a stroke, our picture of that transition is greatly improved.”  It most certainly does NOT support the creationist viewpoint.

I am not a scientist. I’m a librarian. I apologize if my all of my evidence was not properly referenced.  Nevertheless, the Wikipedia articles are, without exception, well referenced. It is true that the YouTube videos are not (although references can sometimes be found by looking at the full information present in the rightmost column). So, as my evidence for intermediate species, I point you to Nature 440(7085):747-749.  Also, I point you to every peer reviewed article published in Nature or Scientific American, or dozens of other peer reviewed journals dealing with fossilization, paleontology, inter-speciation, genetics, biology, or biochemistry in the last 50 years.

99 percent of all known species are extinct (Past Mass Extinctions. About 99 percent of all species that existed on Earth are now extinct. (2000). The CQ Researcher. 10(31), 726.) I have to conclude from this data that God’s attempt to save the animals via the Ark was not terribly successful. While a good percentage of these extinctions are doubtlessly plants, one still has to wonder what happened to all the other fauna? The couldn’t have been killed during the flood…they were all on the ark. Creation only allows for one ice age, and that wouldn’t have affected Africa or the great rain forests of South America much at all.

Of course, all the flora on the earth would have died after being under water for a year. Some of it could have come back, no doubt, but not all of it. While I don’t have a citation, I’m willing to bet a fair amount of cash that many existing plants would become completely extinct after being underwater for a year.  And, if Noah had a lot of seeds aboard the ark in addition to the animals, he must have had a hell of a time getting around afterward to plant them all.  Funny that the Bible fails to mention Noah’s world-wide Johnny Appleseed trip.  It seems like a rather important detail to miss.  Of course, there could be a completely unscientifically supported supposition to explain this, as well.

And why in the heck did all the marsupials only go to Australia after the flood? What did they have against different areas with similar climates? Where are the dinos now? They are still around? That’s a heck of a lot of missing species that are hiding. Where is your evidence? Speculation based on unverified data, or indeed no data?

And you dare to call the creationist model to be more scientifically likely than evolution?  I see no science when I look at creationism whatsoever!  Unsupported theories.  Speculation.  No peer reviewed documents.  Quote mining.  Fraud.  Lies.  Isolated examples poking at evolutionary theories unknowns, and those themselves not even properly documented or even properly representing evolutionary arguments.

No. I am forced to use Occam’s Razor. There are way too many unsubstantiated, unprovable, unverifiable, and, quite frankly, ludicrous holes in the creationist account. As I said before, if Genesis did not exist, we would not be having this discussion. If creationism had legitimacy, keeping it out of academics would require a mass conspiracy of a proportion that we have not seen since the dark ages with the church disemboweling people who dared to question anything they interpreted as the literal interpretation of Bible. It is precisely because of this past ignorance, and the degree of violence still existing because of different religious belief today, that some of us are so opposed to giving any scientific legitimacy to religion at all.

Nevertheless, if there were any legitimacy, it WOULD be in the scientific journals. There is not, however. Most of the Christians in science have no problem accepting evolution and keeping their faith…they simply accept that the Bible is an imperfect work of men. The Pope himself accepts the evolutionary view. The United States is the laughing stock of other nations for still having such a large proportion of people sticking to this view. This is excusable among the ignorant…among those with a scientific education, there can be no excuse.

Richard Dawkins has said that Evolution is one of the most well documented of all sciences. To accept creationism and a young earth model we would have to accept that far, far, far too many scientific geniuses are easily duped (Dawkins, Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, and far to many others to mention).

Creationism has an aim of ignorance, pushing the Biblical view over the scientific. As such, it not only attempts to discredit science, it also in itself helps to discredit religion and all of its more reasonable followers. The debate between Mike and I demonstrates the incredible lengths that creationist dogma will go to bolster a claim that stands in the face of virtually every scientific discovery made in the last 150 years. Its proponents take on an airy confidence and make outrageously bold claims, having only pseudo-science and wishful thinking to back them up. They cannot get their ideas past the front door of legitimate scientific methods, so they cheat, trying to sneak textbooks into classrooms without undergoing scientific review.

Mike, I do not accuse you of deliberate deception.  I do accuse you of letting your Biblical inerrant misconceptions lead you down a path of self-delusion.

I will make no more posts with regard to creationism. Any such posts only serve to bolster the argument by creationists that there is a debate to be had. In the true scientific community, there IS no debate, and there hasn’t been for more than a century.  I will not debate the errancy of the Bible in other aspects.  Science has proven the first two chapters of Genesis to be errant beyond reasonable doubt.  I need go no further.

Creationism is dead. If it had just stayed back and let itself be a belief, it would still be alive today. Instead, it has tried to sneak around the outside of the bloody battleground of real science, and was still ripped to shreds by the claws of scientific debate before it could take two steps. It is dead–it has murdered itself–its followers just do not realize that they are falling to the floor yet.

Respectfully,

Alphonsus

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