The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

In case it has escaped your notice, matter can indeed form itself into ever increasing and complex forms, such as atoms, molecules, animals, stars, planets, etc, etc.

Chemically speaking second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of complex and ordered chemical compounds from simpler elements. Complex chemicals contain less energy than their constituent elements. The second law does not require a decrease of ordered structure it only requires a reduction of total energy when complex molecules are formed from simpler elements.

That life and all its complexity and order naturally arises from simpler elements is really the subject of the debate, so cannot be used as proof of one side.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, such people as:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_McIntosh_(professor)

Not up to your standards, obviously.

Well no, they aren't.

Considering that to show his point McIntosh basically invented a new law to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to biological evolution (and all macro systems). The article below calls it, rather sarcastically, McIntosh's Law and one can find examples of it breaking all over the place.

Which kinda demonstrates the lengths that some Creationists, such as himself, will go to try and disprove biological evolution (a topic i would point out that is outside his general area of study).

http://bcseweb.org.uk/blog/tag/thermodynamics/

"So important is this “fundamental law” - hitherto unknown to science - that it deserves a name in honour of its discoverer: McIntosh’s Law.

Unfortunately it is clearly untrue. All systems without exception are subject to 2LT. However, 2LT does not forbid macroscopic order from arising spontaneously. Just shake some mud with some water and leave it to stand. Lo and behold, the particles sort themselves out and you get beautiful layers forming at the bottom of the jar, coarse material at the bottom, fine stuff at the top. McIntosh’s examples are selective. Cars certainly rust and machines do wear out - but crystals form and embryos grow as well."

It is funny they use almost exactly the same example I gave you. McIntosh's law (the Creationist assertion that order cannot arise spontaneously out of disorder) can be disproved using the most simple of experiments.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That life and all its complexity and order naturally arises from simpler elements is really the subject of the debate, so cannot be used as proof of one side.

Are you arguing that if you pour oil into water it separates (thus increasing order, decreasing entropy) due to divine intervention?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The first cells were likely submerged in water, possibly quite deep water. It's unlikely they'd have endured direct exposure to sunlight. The energy to which they had access was still derived from the sun, but indirectly through warming of the oceans. For simple self-replicating systems, cycles of varying heat are all that is required to form new chains. I do something similar in the lab pretty much every week, though the chains are replicated by a more efficient external enzyme.

Does this contravene the second law? Should I tell the physicists about a common experiment that biologists have been doing for decades?

Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. Is this false?

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics. Or this?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Well no, they aren't.

Considering that to show his point McIntosh basically invented a new law to apply the 2nd law of thermodynamics to biological evolution (and all macro systems). The article below calls it, rather sarcastically, McIntosh's Law and one can find examples of it breaking all over the place.

Which kinda demonstrates the lengths that some Creationists, such as himself, will go to try and disprove biological evolution (a topic i would point out that is outside his general area of study).

http://bcseweb.org.uk/blog/tag/thermodynamics/

"So important is this “fundamental law” - hitherto unknown to science - that it deserves a name in honour of its discoverer: McIntosh’s Law.

Unfortunately it is clearly untrue. All systems without exception are subject to 2LT. However, 2LT does not forbid macroscopic order from arising spontaneously. Just shake some mud with some water and leave it to stand. Lo and behold, the particles sort themselves out and you get beautiful layers forming at the bottom of the jar, coarse material at the bottom, fine stuff at the top. McIntosh’s examples are selective. Cars certainly rust and machines do wear out - but crystals form and embryos grow as well."

It is funny they use almost exactly the same example I gave you. McIntosh's law (the Creationist assertion that order cannot arise spontaneously out of disorder) can be disproved using the most simple of experiments.

Would a beautiful layer of water on top of oil not be a simpler order than the complex interface of the pouring oil amidst the water? The physics demands it re-organises to the simpler state.

I think it was you who suggested before that the heat death of the universe would represent the maximum order. So minimum energy = maximum order in your reality.

In mine - albeit a non-scientific one - lifeforms are much more complex and ordered than, say, a hydrogen atom at rest. And the physics demand they return to the simpler state. Entropy.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. Is this false?

Yes, of course it is false, it is from AiG :pac:

Seriously though, it is false.

Besides, think about what you are saying. Living machinery can no more break the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics than anything else can. If God is causing the 2LTD to be broken to sustain life he would have to be doing it all the time, and thus we probably never would have discovered the 2LTD because it would not hold.

wolfsbane wrote: »

This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
[/COLOR] Or this?

Yes it is wrong, because it supposes that life appeared as it is now, which we know isn't true.

The argument that DNA is needed to produce the cell but the cell is needed to produce DNA (the chicken and egg argument) misses the whole point of biological evolution, that these processes evolved from simpler processes.

They didn't just appear. If they did it wouldn't be called Darwinian evolution, it would be called Darwinian spontaneous chemical generation or some such.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

No, we assume nothing we cannot observe. We don't know what caused matter to come into being (or at least I don't, perhaps a physicist can shed some light). Does that mean we can jump to the conclusion that the Sky Beetle did it? We have no faith, but faith that we can fill in the gaps one day. We're not asserting anything untestable.

I see. You aren't able to say that the options are either eternal matter or matter coming from nothing? That's all I was asking. You refuse to face the fact of my conclusion: Either option, you accept that matter can form itself into ever-increasingly ordered and complex forms. Such faith!

I too have such faith - that the things I don't understand now about how God made it all work will one day be revealed - we can fill in the gaps one day.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Would a beautiful layer of water on top of oil not be a simpler order than the complex interface of the pouring oil amidst the water?

No

Do you understand what order is in this context.

Entropy (disorder) is the statistical probability that a particular thing (such as a particle) can be found at a random position in something (a beaker, or the universe). The greater the disorder, the more likely that a particle can be found at random positions. The greater the order (the lower the entropy) the less likely a particle will be found at a random position.

When you mix water and oil in a beaker the chances that a particular particle will be found at a random point are greatly increased (you increase the disorder of the particles).

As the oil and water separate out the water molecules and the oil molecules clump together. This decreases the chances that you will find a particular at a particular point in the beaker. The chances of an oil molecule being in among the water approaches close to zero. The natural process of the water and oil separating has greatly decreased the entropy of the beaker.

An important point though is that this process increases the entropy of the universe as whole because it uses energy. The energy moves from ordered to disordered as it is used by the particles as they order together.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The physics demands it re-organises to the simpler state.

Physics demands no such thing. Physics "demands" that energy move form an ordered state to a disordered state. And processes, such as life, cause this to happen. Life increases the entropy of the universe.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I think it was you who suggested before that the heat death of the universe would represent the maximum order. So minimum energy = maximum order in your reality.

No, the heat death of the universe represents maximum disorder. the universe as a whole is moving from a state of high order (the big bang) to high entropy (disorder).

As wikipedia says

"The heat death is a possible final state of the universe, in which it has "run down" to a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life. In physical terms, it has reached maximum entropy."

Processes such as life, or oil separating from water, actually increase this process because they use energy, they convert free energy from an ordered, usable state, into a disordered unusable state.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In mine - albeit a non-scientific one - lifeforms are much more complex and ordered than, say, a hydrogen atom at rest.

That is irrelevant because the entropy of the universe in terms of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a measurement of free energy, not the structure of molecules. The free energy is related to the chances of a molecule being in a random position in the universe.

As wikipedia says

"In thermodynamics (a branch of physics), entropy, symbolized by S,[3] is a measure of the unavailability of a system’s energy to do work.[4][5]

It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system and is central to the second law of thermodynamics and the fundamental thermodynamic relation, which deal with physical processes and whether they occur spontaneously. Spontaneous changes, in isolated systems, occur with an increase in entropy. Spontaneous changes tend to smooth out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how far this smoothing-out process has progressed."

The chemical reactions of Life uses energy. They converts free energy into disordered unusable energy. The molecules do this as they form, as they move, as they react with each other. This increases the entropy of the universe. It increases the disorder of the universe. In fact all motion or reaction or heat does this. It does not increase the disorder of the particular molecule that is forming, but that is irrelevant to the measure of entropy in the entire universe as a whole


The universe is moving from a period of heat (high energy) to a period of cold (disordered energy). Life facilitates this by using energy. The energy never goes anywhere, because the universe (appears) to be a closed system. But the energy is converted into unworkable energy, energy that can not do anything.

Galvasean

I love when Creationists claim that evolution is only strongly favored due to empiricism.
I wonder exactly why Creation according to Genesis was once favored?

empiricism, only this time without the evidence

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. Is this false?
Yes, of course it is false, it is from AiG

Seriously though, it is false.

Besides, think about what you are saying. Living machinery can no more break the 2nd law of thermo-dynamics than anything else can. If God is causing the 2LTD to be broken to sustain life he would have to be doing it all the time, and thus we probably never would have discovered the 2LTD because it would not hold.

That is not what Dr Sarfati is saying. He makes the point that life is designed so as to use the energy available - it observes the 2nd Law, maintaining order at the expense of energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Or this? [/COLOR]
Yes it is wrong, because it supposes that life appeared as it is now, which we know isn't true.
The argument that DNA is needed to produce the cell but the cell is needed to produce DNA (the chicken and egg argument) misses the whole point of biological evolution, that these processes evolved from simpler processes.

They didn't just appear. If they did it wouldn't be called Darwinian evolution, it would be called Darwinian spontaneous chemical generation or some such.

I note your refutation of Sir Karl Popper's comment. You will understand my scepticism about the weight of your case.

As I will be off-line for about a week, I'll leave you with an article interacting with anti-creationists on Entropy:
Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
(including a rebuttal of Frank Steiger’s Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive)
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicknight said:

That is not what Dr Sarfati is saying. He makes the point that life is designed so as to use the energy available - it observes the 2nd Law, maintaining order at the expense of energy.

That isn't what he is saying, but that is the point. Life does not break the 2LTD. Order can arise from disorder. So stop claiming it can't. :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note your refutation of Sir Karl Popper's comment.

You should also probably note his own refutation of his own comments that came a year later :rolleyes:

like a scientist, and unlike a Creationist, Popper had no problem changing his view of evolution after he learned more about it.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Chemicals obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and do not arrange themselves into self-sustaining metabolic pathways. Living cells have molecular machinery to channel the chemistry in the right direction and amounts. Is this false?

Yes. Whoever wrote that is taking too narrow a view of how the second law actually works. Sounds rather like he/she really wants life to be special, or is simply ignorant of physics in some manner.

wolfsbane wrote: »

What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.
Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life (like the origin of physics) becomes an impenetrable barrier to science, and a residue to all attempts to reduce biology to chemistry and physics. Or this?

That's actually quite a cut above your normal linkage- very well thought out. I would say that this was probably written by someone lacking in a detailed understanding of biology or chemistry, or perhaps merely written before the full nature of nucleic acids was understood, which is only in the last couple of decades. I'd venture that even Watson and Crick, in discovering the nature of DNA in the 1950s would have been surprised to hear that its cousin, RNA, could act both as genetic material and enzyme.

Nucleic acids (and similar polymers; of which there are many) can self-replicate with no external intervention. No translated meaning is required, they're simply repeating a pattern in the same way that crystals propagate themselves, mud sediments and oil aggregates. They replicate because of pure chemistry (or physics if we wish to go deeper still) and it is all perfectly in line with thermodynamics. Based on this paradigm alone, there are dozens of ways that more complex life can form, complete with translation mechanisms. In fact, we're rather over-burdened with such models and are having a hard time choosing, not which ones are possible, but which ones were the most probable during Earth's early history.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note your refutation of Sir Karl Popper's comment. You will understand my scepticism about the weight of your case.

Aha, so by failing to credit Popper, you figured you'd trap us. Nice tactic, but as I stated (bang on the money it turns out), Popper wrote in ignorance of the nature of nucleic acids and similar polymers which were only beginning to be understood in the 1950s. He was also, whilst being a very clever man, not a biologist, chemist or physicist.

wolfsbane wrote: »

As I will be off-line for about a week, I'll leave you with an article interacting with anti-creationists on Entropy:
Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism
(including a rebuttal of Frank Steiger’s Thermodynamics FAQs in the Talk.Origins Archive)
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Trash.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I see. You aren't able to say that the options are either eternal matter or matter coming from nothing? That's all I was asking. You refuse to face the fact of my conclusion: Either option, you accept that matter can form itself into ever-increasingly ordered and complex forms. Such faith!

Right... so by failing to assume either of the only two supposed options (according to you), we are showing some manner of faith in something. By failing to take a position, we're having faith? That makes absolutely no sense at all Wolfie.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought I explained my purpose before - not to win the scientific debate by my superior scientific skills (I don't have them), but to point to those who do. I also engage in a bit of dispute on the logical flaws in your arguments.

You can't point to science if you don't know what it is. If more creationists, chiropractors, nutritionist, journalists and politicians would twig that, the world would be a better place. It's not about leaving it to the professionals, it's about trying, really trying to understand a subject matter and (more importantly) an exploratory method that may just be the most important elements of our culture. Ever. Logical flaws? How about assuming that because we don't know how something happened that it must have been done by a Man In The Sky? How about making that assumption even when we do know the cause of something? How about claiming to be able to tell a diamond from glass whilst telling us that you don't know what diamonds are? Don't talk to me about logical flaws Wolfie.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You can't point to science if you don't know what it is. If more creationists, chiropractors, nutritionist, journalists and politicians would twig that, the world would be a better place. It's not about leaving it to the professionals, it's about trying, really trying to understand a subject matter and (more importantly) an exploratory method that may just be the most important elements of our culture. Ever. Logical flaws? How about assuming that because we don't know how something happened that it must have been done by a Man In The Sky? How about making that assumption even when we do know the cause of something? How about claiming to be able to tell a diamond from glass whilst telling us that you don't know what diamonds are? Don't talk to me about logical flaws Wolfie.

Where have I ever said I assume God did it because I don't know how something happened? Creationists know God did it because He said so. We make no assumptions on it.

But if we stick with the mere science of it, we do assume an Intelligence did it, for the idea we are the result of a material process of ever-increasing complexity flies in the face of all we scientifically know about information/complexity.

By faith you believe matter does it itself.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I see. You aren't able to say that the options are either eternal matter or matter coming from nothing? That's all I was asking. You refuse to face the fact of my conclusion: Either option, you accept that matter can form itself into ever-increasingly ordered and complex forms. Such faith!
Right... so by failing to assume either of the only two supposed options (according to you), we are showing some manner of faith in something. By failing to take a position, we're having faith? That makes absolutely no sense at all Wolfie.

That's a good example of your flawed logic. Whether you choose one or not, if both require you to hold that matter can form itself into ever-increasingly ordered and complex forms then you - logically - have to believe it.

I'm going off-line for about a week, so you can think about it without distraction.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
We've posted many scientific articles by real scientists - it's just that we can't get you to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears just long enough to objectively assess them.
I posted about this a while ago and I'm a bit mystified that you've forgotten so quickly. But it's late so I'll be brief.

Yes, I too must be brief as I'm going off-line tonight.

Yes, I have assessed them and they're rubbish. Not even good rubbish or even amusing rubbish, just bad rubbish. Specifically:
They are not publish in peer-reviewed publications, because they are not scientists and what they write is not science.

I am not able to personally challenge your allegation that their articles are not science, but I am given the key to that assessment when you also say they are not scientists. That shows how empty your rebuttals are - I've been able to check the credentials and positions of several of these individuals. It's your assessment against that of many prestigious establishments, for example, in Dr.John Baumgardner's case:
Los Alamos National Laboratory
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3527

The standard of written English that most of them use is embarrassingly lowbrow. Some of it is as dumb as the scientologists literature, and by golly, that's saying something
Their grasp of logic is lousy. Simply because, for example, there is some doubt about the origin of some biological feature, one cannot safely conclude that a bearded man from first-Century Palestinian created the universe. Creationists do this all the time. Wow.

That is not their logic. How illogical of you to think so.

When their logic and facts fail, they accuse their counterparts of contributing to genocide, mass hysteria, mass murder, gas chambers and so on. These accusations are as false as they are infantile, but then again, they know as well as I do that this is what their "truth"-market demands.

Yeah, no eugenics scientists then. All a big lie by creationists. A smear on Darwinists. Where did you learn your history - in Soviet Russia?

They do no research, so they are intellectually sterile.

http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

They plunder the results of people who do research, then misquote, misrepresent, or just lie about it, knowing that you, nor the rest of the creationist consumer public won't ever check it, nor will you believe the calumnied researchers when they cry foul.

Sounds like the inter-evolutionist spats to me.

They can't even get along themselves -- witness the hysterically funny spat that blew up between AiG and their former colleagues in Australia. There was precious little display of christian love in the courtroom when the two sides met and threatened each other. Perhaps you forgot this little episode?

No, I know of it. It is indeed a sad comment on both misunderstanding and sin in the camp. It happens in all walks of life, but is particularly sad amongst (professing) Christians.

It included accusations of witchcraft, sex and if memory serves, necrophilia.

Yes, that perhaps shows the nature of some of the protagonists in the allegations they came up with. See a detailed response on the allegations here:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/mackay/information_package.pdf

They build up fake causes célèbres like Richard Sternberg,

Nothing 'fake' about it. I suppose Prof. Reiss was not dumped by the Royal Society - another creationist lie?

then slander people and institutions to make their "truth"-consuming public think what they want them to think because there's so much money in it.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Yes, you have. It illustrates how blinded to reality you are. Thanks.

When one of your guys actually has an original idea, or does some original research, or gets published in a real journal, or lifts the standard of his game above the level of Barny-the-Dinosaur, by all means, do point me to it and I'll read it.

But in the meantime, don't bother linking to AiG's rubbish. I don't read it anymore and I doubt many others do either. We can use Google too.

To keep you happy, I've refrained for using AiG. You are free to use the others - but I doubt your real problem is them being 'rubbish'. More like the Truth hurts when you prefer the lie.

wolfsbane

2Scoops said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's a few. The sites have many more.
Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity
http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/research/IC...ake_Hybrid.pdf
Some snakes can interbreed... therefore God exists. Didn't you read my last post on this??

Sorry if I didn't get back to you on it. I must be brief as this is my last post for about a week.

No, the logic is not Some snakes can interbreed... therefore God exists, but that this is further to support the creationist model of how the present biosphere got to be. You know, from a mature creation of 'kinds', to the wide diversity we see now. A bit of research into the details.

Until I return, I commit you all to the tender care of JC. :):D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's a good example of your flawed logic. Whether you choose one or not, if both require you to hold that matter can form itself into ever-increasingly ordered and complex forms then you - logically - have to believe it.

Water. Oil. Mix

Seriously, you can try it at home. That simple experiment falsifies your assertion.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Water. Oil. Mix

Seriously, you can try it at home. That simple experiment falsifies your assertion.

Even better, though a little harder to do at home:

Phospholipids. Water. Mix.

You get cell membranes, just like that.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, the logic is not Some snakes can interbreed... therefore God exists,
but that this is further to support the creationist model of how the present biosphere got to be. You know, from a mature creation of 'kinds', to the wide diversity we see now. A bit of research into the details.

But the investigation does not directly support that idea. It only does not directly contradict it. Equally, that toast lands butter side-down more often than not does not directly contradict creation. Does that mean it is evidence for creation? Of course not! Furthermore, the results can be explained entirely by the evolutionary model, meaning it doesn't 'disprove' that either.

Do you see why this snake sex study has no bearing on creation one way or the other?

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

http://creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

What a very productive 'science' lab: 4 creation essays from 1997-1999... and nothing else! :eek:

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Where have I ever said I assume God did it because I don't know how something happened? Creationists know God did it because He said so. We make no assumptions on it.

Rubbish. There are several assumptions you are making even in that statement, none of which you can meaningfully test and all of which rely on a set of subjective "evidence" that is contradicted by the subjective evidence cited by countless others who also claim to follow the very same Cloud Man that you do. What makes your subjectivity more significant than theirs? More to the point, what makes your subjectivity more meaningful to us than theirs is? Your world starts with what you think, not what you see. I couldn't care less if you didn't insist on trying to make the world conform to your delusion instead of asking the world what it is.

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if we stick with the mere science of it, we do assume an Intelligence did it, for the idea we are the result of a material process of ever-increasing complexity flies in the face of all we scientifically know about information/complexity.

That's not science. Of course, you can't know this because you don't know what science is, not do you care. You just like the comfort of big words from people telling you whatever makes you feel happy.

wolfsbane wrote: »

By faith you believe matter does it itself.

This statement is meaningless. We have faith that we can define rules for the universe by observing it. Aside from that, there is what we know and what we don't know. We build hypothese and theories from the former and speculate about the latter. We know full well the difference between them. I find it staggering that after all this time, you're still struggling not with the details, but with what science fundamentally is.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I am not able to personally challenge your allegation that their articles are not science

Why don't you read any of the articles you link to? The errors should be obvious to anybody who's got as far as the kind of thing you study as a teenager in school.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yeah, no eugenics scientists then. All a big lie by creationists. A smear on Darwinists.

Got it in one

wolfsbane wrote: »

More like the Truth hurts when you prefer the lie.

Tried mixing oil and water yet to see if Mr McIntosh is being honest?

AtomicHorror

Where'd all the creationists...... go!!!?!?! :eek::D:pac:

2Scoops

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where'd all the creationists...... go!!!?!?! :eek::D:pac:

Elbert County, GA?

Galvasean

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Where'd all the creationists...... go!!!?!?! :eek::D:pac:

*declares victory*

Ah come on, they do it all the time!

MrPudding

Perhaps there is some kind of event on? Medication adjustments or something...

MrP

Zombrex

Meh, they have probably gone away to try and figure out what this water/oil thing is we keep going on about ....