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),


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.



My response to Mike – part 1


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.


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:
Transitional Fossils II:
Transitional Fossil Redux:
Creationists and Transitional Fossils:

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:

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,


Junk Science – A Sin against God?

junk-science-1I was talking to a friend the other day, and she made an excellent point to me that explained why a lot of people don’t have faith in the scientific method.  Part of the problem, you see, has to do with chicken eggs.

30 years ago, nutrition scientists came out and against dietary cholesterol.  Eggs, it was proclaimed by many, were evil, and could lead to heart attacks.

Well, this news was not particularly well taken.  People, it seems, really like eggs.  Eggs have been eaten since the beginning of history, recorded or not.  It is very difficult to make a birthday cake without an egg, and far more difficult still to make an omelet.

Still, science had decreed eggs to be bad, and thus people, trying to be good little healthy citizens, cut back on them.

So how did people react when, in 2007, a study of 9,500 people reported in Medical Science Monitor showed that eating one or two eggs a day did not increase the risk of heart disease or stroke among healthy adults.

Well, they were not outraged.  Mostly, what they did was sigh, shrug their shoulders, and put another check mark in the column on the unreliability of science.

This kind of thing happens all the time, from the perspective of the average citizen.  One week science will say something…the next week science will say the exact opposite.  Scientific predictions fail.  Scientific proclamations are refuted after a lot of fanfare.  To the lay person, there seems to be a very good reason to believe that science is no where near having its shit together.

The problem is a combination of Junk Science and the media.  There is, without doubt, a lot of bad science out there.  The results of experiments are announced before being properly reviewed.  As these experiments tend to make bolder claims (it’s easy to make bold claims based on poor scientific evidence), the media love them.  The media is by and large scientifically illiterate, and is not capable of evaluating the value of an experiment on its own.  Often, they publish the results as 100% factual, even when the results clearly show a significant margin of error and clearly state that more research must be done.

Trust once lost is not an easy thing to gain back.  So, how can we expect the non-scientifically educated public to trust science when they are given reasons every day as to why they should not?

Creationism and Intelligent Design are pure junk science.  Its proponents profoundly reject the scientific method, which, as I said before, might better be described as the accepted truth evaluation methodology.  Thus, quoting out of context, science so bad that even calling it junk gives it too much credence, out-and-out lies, and misinformation and smear campaigns are standard operating procedure practiced by those attempting to promote their agenda.

What seems bluntly obvious to me is that religion, rather than being at odds with science, should be its greatest watch keepers.  The one thing agreed upon by virtually all theists is that God created the universe.  God is, in effect, the universe’s author.  It stands to reason that God, if He is fair, would weave his commandments and laws into the fabric of the universe itself.

Science, being the accepted truth evaluation methodology, is effectively man’s best way to read God’s holy word as it is etched into the universe’s fabric.  The Bible has been demonstrated again and again to be a document which can be read multiple ways.  The universe, on the other hand, is truly inerrant.  Good science will read God’s word within the universe the same way, no matter where you are in the universe, no matter what time, no matter what belief system you were raised under.

So I would LOVE to see religion actually start to defend God’s first and ONLY signed work, the Universe, with the same enthusiasm that they have used to defend the errant words written by man in the past.  Were religious leaders actually to do this, then the conflicts between atheists and believers would diminish to practically nothing.

But this provides that religion defend the universe FIRST, as this would be indisputably in the theists mind God’s first and inerrant primary source, and their own religious works second.  Any work corrupted by the hand of man cannot be chosen over the Universe, which is incorruptible.  Science is very corruptible, but with proper management, it can be used as an ideal tool, and indeed ONLY tool, to reveal God’s true word.

Bad science, which proclaims falsehoods against the universe and thus against God, could be defined as a true sin.  The accepted truth evaluation methodology should be taught in Sunday school with passion and with vigor.  As a non-violent man I don’t feel stoning is a proper punishment, but shunning would certainly be appropriate, and not allowing them to practice the truth methodology again until they can get some better education and can thus repent for their sins would seem more than fair.

And yes, I am totally serious about this.  I am an agnostic, admittedly.  I do not truly know if God exists.  But, if God does exist, then worshiping and studying his creation makes a tremendous amount of sense to me.

Belief is a private choice.  Truth is universal.  Everyone is free to believe what they want to believe, but when it comes to truth, everyone benefits from understanding it as it clearly as possible.


Creationism vs Science – My Current Obsession

bizarro-creationism45% of the people in the United States don’t believe in evolution, and believe that the world is less then 10,000 years old. (1)

99.9% of scientists accept evolution. (2)

To say that I find the former number to be disturbing is a profound understatement, particularly given the latter.

I have spent my spare time over the last several days watching creationist and anti-creationist videos on YouTube, and while I find the support for the anti-creationist videos to be heartening, I still can’t get over the fact that 45 percent of Americans are totally, mind-bogglingly ignorant of one of the most basic tenants of science.

I was introduced to these disturbing numbers after I read a post on another blog site, called Always Tilting, in which the author, whom I otherwise considered to be a reasonably intelligent man, made a rather bald-faced post that proclaimed evolution to be effectively dead as a concept.  It shows the degree of my own naivete that I found the statement to be jaw-dropping and put me into a state best described as apoplectic confusion.  I knew that people held such views, but I considered the percentage of those who prescribed to them to be at best 5% of the population.  I was appalled to find out exactly how wrong I was.

Thus I began my quest to learn the arguments used on both sides of the debate, if it can be characterized as such.  I say this in this way as each side approach the argument from two completely different sides.  Those who believe Darwin and natural selection support their facts through the scientific evidence and through vehement support of the scientific method.  Those on the Creationist/Intelligent Design side of the argument reject outright or do not understand the fundamentals and, more importantly, the REASONS behind the strict methodology of the scientific method.

Many on the Creationist side state that science is merely a faith and a religion in and of itself.  This it most decidedly is not.  Science is merely a rigorous method for abstracting truth, in whatever form that truth may take.  Humans are fallible, very subject to faulty logic, and are prone to out and out lying to obtain desired results.  The methods of science take these factors into account and do their best to counteract these human tendencies.  In bypassing the scientific method, you also bypass these controls, and thus you find creationist literature and argument laced with exactly the kind of errors for which science exists to prevent.

Science does possess one single element of faith (although most scientists fail to realize this), and that is that science relies on the idea that the universe and reality is truly as it presents itself to us, and that no deliberate deception is involved within the nature of the universe itself.  Deliberate deception implies a conscious God.  If God is indeed deliberately deceiving us, it could be for one of two reasons.  One: God is a deliberate liar and wishes us to believe His inerrant holy book despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.  Two, and more generously: God has created a universe which suggests a history deliberately different then that of what really happened because God wants us to believe in the alternate history.

Putting this aside, we are left with the Creationist using arguments that were either rejected by scientists over a century ago, using arguments based on the inerrancy of the Bible (i.e. not really an argument at all), or using arguments that are not submitted for peer review in scientific literature because they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is all about and are either never submitted or summarily rejected by the literature in question because they are not phrased in a scientific manner.

As the word ‘science’ is so fundamentally vilified and misunderstood by so many, I will use the synonymous phrase, “the accepted truth evaluation methodology” when I refer to it henceforth.

I must thank Mike, the author of Always Tilting, for staying calm and friendly on his side of the argument, and also for ultimately introducing me to the disturbing discrepency between the facts derived from the accepted truth evaluation methodology and the beliefs of 45% of the American people.  I will do my part to try to heal this discrepency.