The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Right so. It's been pages and pages and pages. And now I have two more questions. So, J C, wolfie, anyone. Please, take a shot.

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.

3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".

9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.

10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.

11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?

12. When attacking abiogenesis, why do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?

13. Can you offer a refutation of any of the abiogenesis hypotheses considered plausible by biologists? Such as the RNA world hypothesis?

14. Following claims that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?

15. Why do we always see that four-limbed organisms have backbones but no exoskeleton? Why do six-limbed animals always lack a backbone but instead have an exoskeleton? As there is no particular mechanical nor biological reason why the two sets of traits cannot be interchangeable if a designer is involved, why does that "nested hierarchy" exist at all?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wv6kgjOEL0

The first of a two-part final installment to this series, explaining what the words, hypothesis, fact, law, and Theory actually are, rather than what creationists want us to think they are. Hint: a scientific theory isn't a guess, but an explanative study of real phenomenon.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Right so. It's been pages and pages and pages. And now I have two more questions. So, J C, wolfie, anyone. Please, take a shot.

I have answered your questions in the next posting .... and I would ask you to attempt an answer to my questions.
I have included Griffonboy's previous poor attempt at answering these questions (in red below) ... as well as the fail mark ... which he awarded himself for each attempt!!!!:eek::D

What “facts, laws, inferences or tested hypotheses” can satisfactory answer any of the following valid scientific questions in relation to evolution? None of the following questions are valid scientific questions. Using big words and scientific terminology you clearly do not understand does not make them scientific. Fail.

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true? That’s not what evolution is. See Abiogenesis...Fail.

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility? See answer to question 1. Fail

3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba’s own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God? It’s not an if / therefore question. Fail

4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure? It is, there are and they have. Every fossil is an intermediary and every living organism is an intermediary between its parents and its offspring. Fail

5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman? Two words, Common Ancestor. There was a first ‘human’ woman but she wasn’t created from thin air, she was born just like the rest of us. Fail

6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally descended from ONE man?See answer to question 5. Fail

7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. Fail

8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems? See, Theory of Evolution. It explains it quite well. You do know what the theory of evolution is don’t you? Fail.

9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an ”accident of nature” – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design? I don’t know, why don’t you ask them. I do know that they don’t believe it was an accident of nature. Fail

10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when “dog eat dog” Evolution would predict very significant levels of “work in progress” and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual? Please provide evidence of perfection in all species. Most biological systems fail within a relatively short period even if they survive predation for any length of time. Fail.

11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time? It is not the ‘only’ mechanism...see Descent, Migration(Gene flow), Genetic Drift and Natural selection. Nor does it invariably damage the genome. Most times it has no effect at all. Fail

12. Any putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – how can a population “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” or Natural Selection ? Natural selection, that’s how. Are you even listening? Fail>

13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true? I don’t understand the question. Fail!

14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a massively complex array of other biochemical “machinery”? Hard to say, there isn’t much fossil evidence of ancient dna/rna. Fail

15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if “upwards and onwards” Evolution is in action out there? What in Gods name are you blathering about? Fail

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it’s existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only 10 to the power of 82? Making up odds and then using them to disprove an argument is the definition of a ‘Strawman’. Fail.

17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery? See answer to question 1. Fail.

18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor - thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life? The Cambrian explosion is quite well explained by evolution. It certainly makes more sense than God looking at his creation and thinking, "You know what, I didn't create enough ****. Lets add some stuff." Fail

19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection - even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred? Source? At any rate, adaptation appears to have been taking place here, therefore...evolution. Fail.

20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution - even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory? Because it is. Fail.

21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like? The theory of evolution makes no philosophical/moral arguments. The evidence is what it is. Deal with it. Fail.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Right so. It's been pages and pages and pages. And now I have two more questions. So, J C, wolfie, anyone. Please, take a shot.

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
.....I have told you (several times) already that the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for Created Kinds.....and that is quite adequate in my opinion.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
A Created Pair was an originally created pair of organisms from which all members of a Created Kind is descended...and that is quite an adequate definition in my opinion.

3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
My morals are just fine, thank you very much!!!

I didn't misquote Dr Gee....I quoted him verbatim. Many leading Evolutionists HAVE reservations about particular aspects of Evolution....and it is YOU that is trying to 'put words in Dr Gee's mouth'!!!
Such reservations don't necessarily invalidate Evolution and they certainly don't mean that Dr Gee isn't an Evolutionist...but these reservations are important because they often support various contentions of Creation Scientists in relation to Evolution....such as the paucity of fossil evidence for Human Evolution (in the case of Dr Gee)....or (in the case of Dr Grasse) the paucity of fossil evidence for ANY Evolution at all!!!

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
.....I am not going to name any Creation Scientists ... I would be wasting my time ....because you don't accept that a Conventionally Qualified Scientist can be a Creation Scientist....and I would be needlessly exposing a Creation Scientist to God only knows what!!!
....have a look at the film Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed to see what can happen when ID Proponents are identified ... and then ask yourself what would happen to a Creation Scientist!!!

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
Your demand is pure tautology ... there are many examples of so-called 'younger' fossils being found underneath layers where 'older' fossils arre found ... and Evolutionists explain this away by claiming that the 'younger' fossil creatures were living contemporaneously with the 'older' fossils ... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
....your thinking is all 'wet' on this issue!!!:D
...and what's with the occult pentagram for the Biologista logo???
...I thought you guys were Materialists???

My Creator is both adept and interested in EVERY Human Being.
Irreducible Complexity proves that it mathematically impossible for the complex specified genetic information found in living creatures to be produced by undirected non-intelligent processes!!!!
All redundant systems are themselves Irreducibly Complex and therefore their production by undirected non-intelligent processes is ALSO mathematically impossible !!!

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
....you are still being needlessly pedantic!!!!!

....the Fountains of the Great Deep were a once-off event in the gological history of the Earth... and it was the release of enormous quantities of suspended Calcium Carbonate in these waters that lead to the WORLDWIDE sedimentation cementation events that produced the Sedimentary Rocks that we now observe WORLDWIDE.

....to see a modern day example of Calcium Carbonate sediment cementation go look at concrete being poured on any local building site....and come back the next day and jump up and down on it!!!!!
.....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates VERY rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!!

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
.....the production of a specific 100 chain of Amino Acids required for a specific functional protein using undirected processes is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE...even if you had all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang' Universe....and the non-intelligent production of everything else is even more impossible!!!!!
Could I point out that the mathematical impossibility of producing a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative processes!!!:D

9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
There would be no definitive test for such a 'pseudokind' ... but physiology could assist in determining such a species as provisionally belonging to a particular Kind. Molecular Biology could also be used to assist in this exercise as well.

10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
Many Flies are able to interbreed artificially ... but physical breeding signals and/or pheromones mean that they don't actually interbreed naturally.

Equally, at a genetic level 'jumping genes' can account for full speciation divergence within one original species.
This is the Evolutionist explantion
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060908194141.htm

..and here is the Creation Science explantion
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/wallaby.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/OneBlood/chapter2.asp

..and for the 'millions of years' brigade here is an interesting quote in relation to the discovery of VERY RAPID speciation mechanisms in Wallabies:-
"One of the researchers commented:
‘We thought it took millions of years of long-term selection for a jumping gene to be activated. We’ve now shown that it can happen maybe in five minutes after fertilisation." Research in Action, La Trobe University, pp. 7–8, 1998.


11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
I don't know what you are actually referring to.
As a general principle, I would have thought that when anybody agrees to be interviewed by anybody else on film they clearly know that any statement they make will be 'on the record' and therefore such an interview is legitimate.

12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
As I have pointed out in my answer to question 8 above, proteins are observed in BOTH the simplest forms of life as well as in so-called 'higher' organisms. Therefore, in order to supposedly produce EITHER the first living 'cell' by Abiogenesis or to produce 'Mice to Man Evolution' many novel functional proteins and other biologically active biomolecules MUST be produced.
The fact that it is mathematical impossibility to produce a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because the production of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative materialistic processesis is ... IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

13. Can you offer a refutation of any of the abiogenesis hypotheses considered plausible by biologists? Such as the RNA world hypothesis?
NONE of them are plausible ... as well as RNA a whole host of other highly specified cellular components are required to produce any basic living cell ....and the chance of these all being produced by non-intelligently directed processes is ZERO!!!

14. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Your question is the same as the one my four year old daughter once asked me ... "Who made God?"
...and my answer is the same ... God is an eternal and transcendent Being.
... and He DOESN'T logically or actually have to have an 'origin'.:cool:

Materialists are actually the ones with an enormous 'ultimate origins' problem ... with the ultimate origin of energy and matter ... and I am sorry, but the idea that 'nothing' blew up is so unbelievable that even my four year old laughed out loud when I told her!!!!

The Big Bang Theory neatly 'buries' this question of ultimate origins in a so-called 'Singularity' ... which cannot and is not explicable by Physics!!!

God is CERTAINLY capable of producing the Universe ... but nobody knows what the 'fudge' known as the 'Singularity' at the supposed Big Bang is capable of ... if anything at all!!!!:pac::):D:D

15. Why do we always see that four-limbed organisms have backbones but no exoskeleton? Why do six-limbed animals always lack a backbone but instead have an exoskeleton? As there is no particular mechanical nor biological reason why the two sets of traits cannot be interchangeable if a designer is involved, why does that "nested hierarchy" exist at all?[/QUOTE]....a Designer can CHOOSE to always use the above 'rule' in His design...but you HAVE presented a major problem for evolution ... which would predict at least some six legged vertebrate descendants of the supposed 'common six legged invertebrate ancestor' of both vertebrates and invertebrates!!!!:D

The Mad Hatter

J C - you have (predictably) failed to explain why you think the answers to your questions are invalid.

As your responses to AtomicHorror's questions seem (again, predictably) to be copy-pasted from before, they do not address AH's explanations of their invalidity, and are therefore still invalid.

AtomicHorror

Well, we've been graced with another attempt at answers... Mostly, you've just re-pasted the same replies as last time. So obviously those answers are going to be no more acceptable now than they were last time. This will be a big one.

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundamental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.
.....I have told you (several times) already that the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary, is the definitive test for Created Kinds.....and that is quite adequate in my opinion.

This does not answer the question. If there is no means to test Kinds by genetics please state this. The variation in life is based on genetics. We agree on this. Thus if life is designed, the medium of that design is genetics. Interbreeding capacity is not based on genetics alone, it does not reliably predict interbreeding capacity. If the Kinds are a real division in life itself, this should be measurable by genetic means.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy. Please refrain from scripture-based definitions.
A Created Pair was an originally created pair of organisms from which all members of a Created Kind is descended...and that is quite an adequate definition in my opinion.

This does not answer the question. Again, we would surely expect some means to genetically test for the existence of such organisms in the same manner as it is possible to show relatedness between breeds of dogs by genetics. A “baraminic common ancestor” of some sort should be readily identifiable.

3. Specifically for J C or whoever originally quoted Dr. Gee: Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally quoted Dr. Gee out of context by suggesting that he was talking about a topic (the theory of evolution) that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.
My morals are just fine, thank you very much!!!
I didn't misquote Dr Gee....I quoted him verbatim. Many leading Evolutionists HAVE reservations about particular aspects of Evolution....and it is YOU that is trying to 'put words in Dr Gee's mouth'!!!

This does not answer the question. Please read the question once again. You were not accused of misquoting Dr. Gee but of quoting him out of context either deliberately or through negligent copying from a source without fact checking.

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.
.....I am not going to name any Creation Scientists ... I would be wasting my time ....because you don't accept that a Conventionally Qualified Scientist can be a Creation Scientist....and I would be needlessly exposing a Creation Scientist to God only knows what!!!
....have a look at the film Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed to see what can happen when ID Proponents are identified ... and then ask yourself what would happen to a Creation Scientist!!!

This does not answer the question. We are not looking for you to identify scientists who are also creationists. This does not concern us. We are interested in active creation researchers.
If there is creation science research currently occurring (as you have suggested several times) then that research must be funded. If it is publicly funded then the fears to which you refer are irrelevant since the identity of the researchers and the nature of the research will already be a matter of public record. If it is privately funded by an ID or creation science institute, then the researcher will have nothing to fear from their employers.
The only other alternative is that you are referring to creation science being performed using funding acquired for other purposes, which would be a form of fraud.
Which is it please?

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.
Your demand is pure tautology ... there are many examples of so-called 'younger' fossils being found underneath layers where 'older' fossils arre found ... and Evolutionists explain this away by claiming that the 'younger' fossil creatures were living contemporaneously with the 'older' fossils ... in some cases the 'older' fossil creatures are even still alive today!!!!

This does not answer the question. You stated that the reason why simple organisms are found alone at the bottom of the fossil record is due to rapid sedimentation. Bottom feeding organism, above which are fish, above which are land animals. However, it is observed that the bottom feeders are found in the fossil record up to the uppermost layers, which you credit to “upward mixing”. Such mixing would be an upward mixing of 100%.
I am merely asking you for a single example of a “downward mixing” of 10%.

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.
....your thinking is all 'wet' on this issue!!!:D
...and what's with the occult pentagram for the Biologista logo???
...I thought you guys were Materialists???
My Creator is both adept and interested in EVERY Human Being.
Irreducible Complexity proves that it mathematically impossible for the complex specified genetic information found in living creatures to be produced by undirected non-intelligent processes!!!!
All redundant systems are themselves Irreducibly Complex and therefore their production by undirected non-intelligent processes is ALSO mathematically impossible !!!

This does not answer the question. Question regarding the “pentagram” was already answered. It is not a pentagram. It is also not possible for a single system to be simultaneously redundant and irreducibly complex. These terms are antonyms.

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable. The process must be naturally-occuring, fast enough and common enough to explain the build up of the entire fossil record within 10,000 years.
....you are still being needlessly pedantic!!!!!....the Fountains of the Great Deep were a once-off event in the gological history of the Earth... and it was the release of enormous quantities of suspended Calcium Carbonate in these waters that lead to the WORLDWIDE sedimentation cementation events that produced the Sedimentary Rocks that we now observe WORLDWIDE.

Finally the beginnings of an answer. Can you explain why this rapid sedimentation produced stratified layers rather than forming a single gradient of constituent particles from fine to course as would be expected by a single settling event? Also, can you explain why igneous and metamorphic rocks form discrete layers contained within this stratified sedimentary rock? Can you point to an experimental confirmation of either process?

....to see a modern day example of Calcium Carbonate sediment cementation go look at concrete being poured on any local building site....and come back the next day and jump up and down on it!!!!!

The composition of concrete is not chemically similar to any natural rock that I know of. Can you provide an example? Also, concrete does not set in stratified layers.

.....equally look at ephimeral fossilised creatures like fossil Jellyfish....whose perfect fossilisation indicates VERY rapid setting of these rocks in minutes or hours AT MOST!!!![/COLOR]:D

Given that the process you are describing is not reproducible, why would we assume it to be the cause when other processes such as avalanches, lava flows, pyroclastic surges and mud flows or mud slides can all produce the same result? And with greater speed and in most cases with lower risk of damage to the remains as would be posed by a single cataclysmic event in which a column of sediment tens of kilometres in thickness is deposited on the remains in the space of months.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Some conditions: a) Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". b) Please confine your data to the process of evolution itself, that being the emergence of variation within life from a pre-formed common ancestor species. c) Abiogenesis is not a consideration. d) Data supporting Creation also does not impact on "possibility".
.....the production of a specific 100 chain of Amino Acids required for a specific functional protein using undirected processes is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE...even if you had all of the matter and supposed time in the 'Big Bang' Universe....and the non-intelligent production of everything else is even more impossible!!!!!
Could I point out that the mathematical impossibility of producing a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative processes!!!:D

This does not answer the question. This answer proposes and simultaneously dismisses a form of abiogenesis not considered plausible by any biologist. It does so despite the author having been informed that biologists do not dispute with him that this invented form of abiogenesis is too unlikely to have occurred. This is a dishonest tactic.

9. Following on from question 1, it has been asserted that kinds are defined not by genetics but by interbreeding capacity, producing fertile or infertile offspring. Please suggest a means by which we could test the difference between a genuine Created Kind and a false kind or pseudokind that has arisen by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its former Kind due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past.
There would be no definitive test for such a 'pseudokind' ... but physiology could assist in determining such a species as provisionally belonging to a particular Kind. Molecular Biology could also be used to assist in this exercise as well.

Given that there is no means to test the difference between a pseudokind and a genuine created kind, how do you propose to test the existence of genuine created kinds? Also, given that you assert that evolution cannot create new kinds, are you now willing to accept that evolution may create the illusion of kinds by the emergence of a new species unable to breed with its related species due either to a chromosomal mutation, gene insertion mutation, extinction of an intermediate species or other means in the distant past?

10. Please explain by what mechanism a Created Kind such as the Motherfly Kind could have diversified to produce 148,000 known species (not counting extinct or unidentified species) within the 4,400 years since Noah's Flood. Please explain why such rapid speciation is no longer occurring.
Many Flies are able to interbreed artificially ... but physical breeding signals and/or pheromones mean that they don't actually interbreed naturally.
Equally, at a genetic level 'jumping genes' can account for full speciation divergence within one original species.
This is the Evolutionist explanation [link]
..and here is the Creation Science explanation [link]

These references explain a mechanism that is currently active in some species. However, it is evident that the moths and butterflies are none the less not producing a dozen new species annually now even though your proposed explanation is observable now. Thus this mechanism, although interesting, cannot account for the rapid speciation required by the “Ark Model”. It is also a mechanism not characterised in the many other “kinds” that would also have to have produced rapid speciation. Is there any evidence to suggest that this mechanism was ever more active than it is now, or that it was active in all species?
An addendum to this question: Why does neither the Bible nor any other contemporary written record make any reference to the extraordinary rate of speciation that must have occurred during the 4,400 years following the Flood?

11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
I don't know what you are actually referring to.
As a general principle, I would have thought that when anybody agrees to be interviewed by anybody else on film they clearly know that any statement they make will be 'on the record' and therefore such an interview is legitimate.

I am referring to the requests for an interview made to Dawkins which at no time made clear that the crew were employed by AIG despite it being quite well known that Dawkins would decline an interview with any creationist group. Indeed, the requests instead attempted to imply some association with individuals not involved.

12. J C, why, when attacking abiogenesis, do you do so on the basis of the random formation of peptides- a process not claimed to be a part of any of the conventional abiogenesis hypotheses?
As I have pointed out in my answer to question 8 above, proteins are observed in BOTH the simplest forms of life as well as in so-called 'higher' organisms. Therefore, in order to supposedly produce EITHER the first living 'cell' by Abiogenesis or to produce 'Mice to Man Evolution' many novel functional proteins and other biologically active biomolecules MUST be produced.
The fact that it is mathematical impossibility to produce a small functional protein using non-intelligently directed processes rules out BOTH Abiogenesis AND 'Mice to Man Evolution' ... because the production of all of the novel functional proteins required by BOTH putative materialistic processesis is ... IMPOSSIBLE!!!:D

Again, you are not answering the question. I have stated that the process you describe is not considered by biologists to be a part of abiogenesis, and would indeed be describable as impossible. Your observation of proteins in organisms does not demand that they be present in the first replicators, and it certainly does not demand random formation of such proteins if they are present. The question asked is why you continue to call “impossible” a process that we do not claim to be possible?

13. Can you offer a refutation of any of the abiogenesis hypotheses considered plausible by biologists? Such as the RNA world hypothesis?
NONE of them are plausible ... as well as RNA a whole host of other highly specified cellular components are required to produce any basic living cell ....and the chance of these all being produced by non-intelligently directed processes is ZERO!!!

This does not answer the question. None of the abiogenesis hypotheses proposes that protocells were formed in a single step. Please offer a specific rebuttal of any one of the abiogenesis hypotheses currently considered plausible by biologists.

14. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Your question is the same as the one my four year old daughter once asked me ... "Who made God?"...and my answer is the same ... God is an eternal and transcendent Being.... and He DOESN'T logically or actually have to have an 'origin'.:cool:

If God is exempt from time and causality then how did He initiate cause or create anything?

Materialists are actually the ones with an enormous 'ultimate origins' problem ... with the ultimate origin of energy and matter ... and I am sorry, but the idea that 'nothing' blew up is so unbelievable that even my four year old laughed out loud when I told her!!!!
The Big Bang Theory neatly 'buries' this question of ultimate origins in a so-called 'Singularity' ... which cannot and is not explicable by Physics!!!
God is CERTAINLY capable of producing the Universe ... but nobody knows what the 'fudge' known as the 'Singularity' at the supposed Big Bang is capable of ... if anything at all!!!!:pac::):D:D

Scientists do not claim to have all of the answers regarding the origin of the universe, nor indeed the origin of life. They fully admit that there are many questions to be answered. The Standard Model does not claim that “nothing blew up” and the question is certainly not “buried” as it is a subject of active research. It is a question that will require at least one more major revolution in our understanding of physics, but it is not something that has been accepted as an unanswerable question. We don’t have all the answers, but neither do you. At least we know it.

15. Why do we always see that four-limbed organisms have backbones but no exoskeleton? Why do six-limbed animals always lack a backbone but instead have an exoskeleton? As there is no particular mechanical nor biological reason why the two sets of traits cannot be interchangeable if a designer is involved, why does that "nested hierarchy" exist at all?....a Designer can CHOOSE to always use the above 'rule' in His design...

Indeed, but how does the creation model explain that apparent “rule”? Why did the designer display such apparently illogical behaviour? If a human designer decided to ignore potentially useful or even optimum design features from the designs of unrelated objects (say a new ultra-light but strong hull on a ship that could also work as a great skin for a sports car design) then that designer would really suck.

but you HAVE presented a major problem for evolution ... which would predict at least some six legged vertebrate descendants of the supposed 'common six legged invertebrate ancestor' of both vertebrates and invertebrates!!!!:D

Deary me, you have confused yourself. When did I suggest that six-legged invertebrates were ancestors of any vertebrates? It is not predicted by evolution, not by the phylogeny we know of at the moment. I’ll try to explain it better:
In the species that exist, we see:
-invertebrates, no limbs, no exoskeleton
-invertebrates, 6 limbs, exoskeleton
-vertebrates, no limbs, no exoskeleton
-vertebrates, 4 limbs, no exoskeleton
But we never (even in the fossil record) see:
-invertebrates, 4 limbs, exoskeleton
-invertebrates, 4 limbs, no exoskeleton
-vertebrates, 6 limbs, no exoskeleton
-vertebrates, 6 limbs, exoskeleton
These are not mechanically or practically prohibited in any way. In some circumstances, such combinations would thrive well. Some small vertebrates would certainly benefit from an exoskeleton. Some arthropods would benefit from the added support of a spine as it would allow them to be larger. A designer could have no particular reason to prohibit such combinations. And the only way that we could explain the curious distribution of traits in the designer context would be to fruitlessly speculate about the aesthetic sense of that designer. We can point to an endless number of such “forbidden viable combinations”. Evolution can explain such “prohibited” combinations, in fact it predicts that they should exist.

I'll get to your questions at some point, I'm pretty busy these days so it might be some time.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

J C - you have (predictably) failed to explain why you think the answers to your questions are invalid.

As your responses to AtomicHorror's questions seem (again, predictably) to be copy-pasted from before, they do not address AH's explanations of their invalidity, and are therefore still invalid.

...I have adequately answered ALL questions asked of me.....

....go answer my 21 questions about evolution .... and try to rise above Griffonboy's FAIL MARK for each answer previously given!!!!!

Answers like "I don't know", "I don't understand the question", "It's hard to say" and "Because it is" will get NO MARKS !!!!:pac::):eek::D

The Mad Hatter

AH - perhaps you should include a 'Why J C's previous answer was invalid' section with your copies of these questions in future.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...I have adequately answered ALL questions asked of me.....

Wrong. See above.

....go answer my 21 questions about evolution ....

No. Explain why you think they're wrong and I may upgrade that no to a maybe.

and try to rise above Griffonboy's FAIL MARK for each answer previously given!!!!!

The fail mark was awarded to you.

Answers like "I don't know", "I don't understand the question", "It's hard to say" and "Because it is" will get NO MARKS !!!!:pac::):eek::D

No marks for you, then.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...I have adequately answered ALL questions asked of me.....

In a couple of cases you have come close, but overall it's the same evasion of the questions as usual. Most of these replies are no more "answers" than a string of random symbols would be.

At any rate, I have taken the time to reply to each of your answers, I will certainly look at your 21 questions next. In the meantime I would invite you to consider addressing some of the points I've laid out above.

J C wrote: »

....go answer my 21 questions about evolution .... and try to rise above Griffonboy's FAIL MARK for each answer previously given!!!!!

Certainly.

J C wrote: »

Answers like "I don't know", "I don't understand the question", "It's hard to say" and "Because it is" will get NO MARKS !!!!:pac::):eek::D

Fair enough, however I'll reserve the right to ask for clarification of meaning and definitions of terms. Further, if the subject of the question has nothing to do with either evolution as it is generally accepted by biologists or abiogenesis as it is generally hypothesised, then I will reserve the right to point this out and dismiss the question unless you can demonstrate how I am incorrect.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

AH - perhaps you should include a 'Why J C's previous answer was invalid' section with your copies of these questions in future.

The list is fairly long as it is- including J C's replies as well as my own criticisms of them would be pushing it I think.

I do find it very poor form on J C's part that he could not be bothered to write new replies to the majority of these questions despite clear explanations as to why the original replies were useless. If he insists on the same reply every time without further explanation then I suppose I'll just paste the same criticism each time.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

...I have adequately answered ALL questions asked of me.....

The more times you reply with nonsense answers that have little or nothing to do with the question you are being asked the more it looks like you don't have a clue how to answer the question (or even understand what you are being asked)

It would be like a Christian asking someone who baptised Jesus and someone answering "Jesus' body is in heaven" It is an "answer" but it has nothing to do with the question being asked.

wolfsbane

JC covered your questions, but let me respond to those I am qualified to deal with.

AtomicHorror said:

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

We are not looking for you to identify scientists who are also creationists. This does not concern us. We are interested in active creation researchers.

Some examples:

Older creation research:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1541/

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1760/

And an evolutionist critique to the scientist and his work:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/berthault_critique.htm

Article that refs. creation research:
Rapid Petrification of Wood: An Unexpected Confirmation of Creationist Researchhttp://www.icr.org/article/rapid-petrification-wood-unexpected-confirmation-c/

List of some research papers:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

Creationist biology research,June 11, 2008 :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/karyotype-variability-cattle

But I've given several creation research sites before, with the scientists and the creation research work they do. You guys refuse to acknowledge any of it is science, or if admitted you declare it is not creation science. Some of you even refuse to check the sites.

11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?

I am referring to the requests for an interview made to Dawkins which at no time made clear that the crew were employed by AIG despite it being quite well known that Dawkins would decline an interview with any creationist group. Indeed, the requests instead attempted to imply some association with individuals not involved.

I've answered this fully before. Again, you just ignore the answer and repeat the question. But to humour you, in brief the answer is: a perfectly valid piece of journalism. Only the guilty need fear the light. That's why Dawkins is so upset.

14. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?

If God is exempt from time and causality then how did He initiate cause or create anything?

Because He is self-existent and all-powerful. The material universe can into being from nothing by an exercise of His omnipotent spiritual force. That is a coherent explanation of God. You have no coherent explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe.

Unless you want to go for energy being self-existent, self-aware and organising itself in ever-increasing complexity? The old dead materialist stuff just doesn't hack it - Pullman might give you some relief.

J C

..and here are some thought-provoking thoughts for atheists by an Atheist Prof Thomas Nagel B.A., Cornell; B.Phil., Oxford; Ph.D., Harvard; D.Litt (hon.), Oxford), University Professor, Professor of Law, Professor of Philosophy. Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy, and a Member of the American Philosophical Society, who has received a Mellon Distinguished Achievement Award in the Humanities, the Rolf Schock Prize in Logic and Philosophy, and the Balzan Prize in Moral Philosophy.

"I am talking about something much deeper – namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is not God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous over use of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life, including everything about the human mind, Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning, and design as fundamental feature of the world. Instead they become epiphenomena, generated incidentally by a process that can be entirely explained by the operation of the nonteleological laws of physics on the material of which we and our environments are all composed. There might still be thought to be a religious threat in the existence of the laws of physics themselves, and indeed the existence of anything at all – but it seems to be less alarming to most atheists." The Last Word (1997) pp. 130-131

J C

.....and here are some interesting thoughts from one of the greatest Creation Scientists to have ever lived, Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God." Principia

"We are therefore to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy." "A Short Scheme on the True Religion"

"Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in his works, but I do not think them alone sufficient for the Creation." Letter to Thomas Burnett

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Happy Darwin Day! Today we celebrate the 200th birthday of a scientific revolutionary.

What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6299/

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

.....and here are some interesting thoughts from one of the greatest Creation Scientists to have ever lived, Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.
A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God." Principia

"We are therefore to acknowledge one God, infinite, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, the Creator of all things, most wise, most just, most good, most holy." "A Short Scheme on the True Religion"

"Where natural causes are at hand God uses them as instruments in his works, but I do not think them alone sufficient for the Creation." Letter to Thomas Burnett

Isn't it ironic how someone who was called a heretic in their day is now used to defend creationism? It's a funny old world

Mickeroo

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:


What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6299/

Well at least we know his birthday and know for sure that he existed. :P

Dave!

More argument from authority, J C ? Who cares what Isaac Newton says about creation? He knew nothing about it. Darwin wasn't even alive in Newton's time.

Thankfully we go by evidence, and that's why the scientific community accepts evolution by natural selection and uses it every day 'fraid your jibes and quotes don't make a lick of difference!

: :D:D::D:D:D:D:D:D:

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC covered your questions, but let me respond to those I am qualified to deal with.

I find it richly ironic that you think you are qualified to deal with questions on creation science when you haven't provided an example of one or their work; when you admit to not knowing anything about science; and when you admit to not even reading the 'creation science' articles you link to. :rolleyes:

I also note with some amusement that your response is in stark contrast to J C's refusal to 'name and shame.' I wonder why? :pac:

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In a couple of cases you have come close, but overall it's the same evasion of the questions as usual. Most of these replies are no more "answers" than a string of random symbols would be.

:pac::):eek::D?

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In a couple of cases you have come close, but overall it's the same evasion of the questions as usual. Most of these replies are no more "answers" than a string of random symbols would be.

Perhaps she's trying to use random variation (but without natural selection) to evolve a set of answers?

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps she's trying to use random variation (but without natural selection) to evolve a set of answers?

That is actually very close to her misunderstanding of evolution...Well spotted.

J C

Mickeroo wrote: »

Isn't it ironic how someone (Creation Scientist, Sir Isaac Newton) who was called a heretic in their day is now used to defend creationism? It's a funny old world

...just goes to prove that Creation Science IS a Science ... and NOT a Religion!!!!:pac::):D

...I have met brilliant Creation Scientists who are Deists, Jews, Moslems and even Agnostics!!!!!:pac::):D

....it doesn't really matter what your religious viewpoint is .... the EVIDENCE for Creation is there for ALL to observe scientifically!!!!:pac::D

....ironically, it is latter day Evolutionism that is increasingly behaving as a religion, complete with it's very own 'Saints', 'Holy Books', 'Acolytes' and 'High Priests'.
It also has quite a few 'Heretics' ... who can, and do, suffer professional 'death' for expressing any 'unorthodox' Evolutionist beliefs!!!!:pac::):D
....have a look at 'Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed' if you doubt me.:pac::D:eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

J C

AtomicHorror wrote:

Happy Darwin Day! Today we celebrate the 200th birthday of a scientific revolutionary.

....I observed a Darwin Day 'celebration' where I found plenty of false beards and various games that resembled 'musical chairs' and 'contortion exercises' ... but appropriately enough, NO science!!!!

Here is Tas Walker's incisive observations on this contrived 'Event'!!!!

What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
by Tas Walker

Published: 12 February 2009(GMT+10)

The 12th February 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and evolutionists around the world want us to make it into a big celebration.

Unlike when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, most evolutionists are not open and up-front about what they are on about, or how they feel.

They tell us it’s about the impact of Darwin’s great ideas. But when we ask about the way his ideas underpinned the blood-stained policies of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot they change their tune.
Richard Dawkins, Darwin’s famous promoter, put it like this, “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” They want it both ways.

They pretend it is all about science but when do they make a similar fuss over other scientists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, or Maxwell? It seems that Darwin is an excuse to banish God. As Dawkins said, “ … Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

They pretend that Darwin is about natural selection, but it was a creationist who first came up with the idea. Furthermore, natural selection is a simple part of the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Dispersion model, as a culling rather than a creative force.

What they really mean is that bacteria changed into bananas and butchers all by themselves over billions of years. It’s about removing the need for the Creator, but they won’t usually spell that out, or admit that they have no explanation for how it could possibly happen.

They claim Darwin’s idea of evolution was a great intellectual achievement, but don’t explain that the idea destroys reason itself. It certainly worried Darwin, who wrote, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”3

They ask us to join in their celebrations but don’t give any reason for joy. How can we celebrate a Darwinian universe that has, as Dawkins described it, “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”?

Darryl Scott, whose teenage daughter was gunned down in the school library by a killer with Natural Selection emblazoned on his tee-shirt, found no comfort in Darwin. He said, “If children are taught that they came from slime, that they evolved from a lower form of life, and that there’s no future after death, then their views of life are affected by that … life really doesn’t have the meaning that it does to children who believe they are created in God’s image and that they have not only this life but a future life as well.”

William Provine, Professor of Biological Science, Cornell University and the son of a (liberal) minister, lost his professed faith to Darwin under the teaching of his evolutionary professor at university.
He asks, “How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction and ‘cares’ as much for the HIV virus as for humans. Nothing could be more uncaring than the entire process of organic evolution.”

What is the sense of celebrating the uncaring process of evolution? C.S. Lewis wondered about this too, and whether there was a hidden agenda: “Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?”

No, I find all this hoo-ha about the Darwin celebrations a bit contrived. So do lots of other people, according to the UK Guardian and UK Telegraph. Commenting on the latest polls the Telegraph said, “More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a ‘designer’ must have lent a hand.”

So, on the occasion of Darwin’s birthday in 2009, the Darwinists themselves would likely feel a bit unhappy about that result. Rather than celebrate, they must feel frustrated at not being able to convince the public after 150 years of continual indoctrination.

Mickeroo

J C wrote: »

....I observed a Darwin Day 'celebration' where I found plenty of false beards and various games that resembled 'musical chairs' and 'contortion exercises' ... but appropriately enough, NO science!!!!

Here is Tas Walker's incisive observations on this contrived 'Event'!!!!

What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
by Tas Walker

Published: 12 February 2009(GMT+10)

The 12th February 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and evolutionists around the world want us to make it into a big celebration.

Unlike when Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, most evolutionists are not open and up-front about what they are on about, or how they feel.

They tell us it’s about the impact of Darwin’s great ideas. But when we ask about the way his ideas underpinned the blood-stained policies of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot they change their tune.
Richard Dawkins, Darwin’s famous promoter, put it like this, “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” They want it both ways.

They pretend it is all about science but when do they make a similar fuss over other scientists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pasteur, or Maxwell? It seems that Darwin is an excuse to banish God. As Dawkins said, “ … Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

They pretend that Darwin is about natural selection, but it was a creationist who first came up with the idea. Furthermore, natural selection is a simple part of the biblical Creation/Fall/Flood/Dispersion model, as a culling rather than a creative force.

What they really mean is that bacteria changed into bananas and butchers all by themselves over billions of years. It’s about removing the need for the Creator, but they won’t usually spell that out, or admit that they have no explanation for how it could possibly happen.

They claim Darwin’s idea of evolution was a great intellectual achievement, but don’t explain that the idea destroys reason itself. It certainly worried Darwin, who wrote, “But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”3

They ask us to join in their celebrations but don’t give any reason for joy. How can we celebrate a Darwinian universe that has, as Dawkins described it, “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”?

Darryl Scott, whose teenage daughter was gunned down in the school library by a killer with Natural Selection emblazoned on his tee-shirt, found no comfort in Darwin. He said, “If children are taught that they came from slime, that they evolved from a lower form of life, and that there’s no future after death, then their views of life are affected by that … life really doesn’t have the meaning that it does to children who believe they are created in God’s image and that they have not only this life but a future life as well.”

William Provine, Professor of Biological Science, Cornell University and the son of a (liberal) minister, lost his professed faith to Darwin under the teaching of his evolutionary professor at university.
He asks, “How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction and ‘cares’ as much for the HIV virus as for humans. Nothing could be more uncaring than the entire process of organic evolution.”

What is the sense of celebrating the uncaring process of evolution? C.S. Lewis wondered about this too, and whether there was a hidden agenda: “Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?”

No, I find all this hoo-ha about the Darwin celebrations a bit contrived. So do lots of other people, according to the UK Guardian and UK Telegraph. Commenting on the latest polls the Telegraph said, “More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a ‘designer’ must have lent a hand.”

So, on the occasion of Darwin’s birthday in 2009, the Darwinists themselves would likely feel a bit unhappy about that result. Rather than celebrate, they must feel frustrated at not being able to convince the public after 150 years of continual indoctrination.

yea i already read that from wolfsbane's link. It reminds me of old communist propoganda news reels, entertaining stuff. It says a creationist first came up with the idea,indeed darwin himself was a creationist when he first discovered it. I believe one of his piers who's name escapes me actually came up with the same or similar theory and they both released their theories at the same time.

robindch

J C wrote: »

....have a look at 'Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed' if you doubt me.

Out of interest, do you genuinely believe that Stein has produced an honest documentary that does not misrepresent his opponents?

Pahu

Mickeroo wrote: »

Parallel layers are only a rule in sedimentary rock,like limestone,also layers can be bended and folded by earthquakes,you can see evidence,nay proof, of this in this very country. I garauntee you get channels in the topmost layers of the grand canyon because it's made from limestone, in places anyway,and limestone is a permeable rock,do you know know what that means? There is also fossilised mollusk and coral found there. You ever been to the burren? Or any karst region in ireland? You can clearly see fossils in limestone. Mt st helens is a volcano,naturally volcanoes can bury trees quite quickly etc, as can earthquakes. Polystrate trees are common in volcanic areas and some limestone areas and areas with lots of coal deposits. For them to have been caused by a global flood the sedimentary basins they are found in would have to be huge,possibly global...duh, but they're always quite small, which suggests no global flood. You no doubt think plate tectonics are fictional too, but yet the geology of scotland,donegal and the appalachian mountains are the same,why do you think that is? do you think its coincidence that the western seaboards of europe and africa fit into the eastern seaboard of the americas like a jigsaw.

This is not a question of beliefs or faith but common sense.

There is more scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. The tectonic plate idea has a lot of holes that the hydroplate idea fills up. For more information, you might find the following interesting:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

Mickeroo

Pahu wrote: »

There is more scientific evidence for a worldwide flood. The tectonic plate idea has a lot of holes that the hydroplate idea fills up. For more information, you might find the following interesting:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

Plate tectonics is not an idea it's a theory theres a big difference. This hydroplate baloney is not a theory because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I found the articles in your link very interesting but struggled to find any actual scientific facts or figures to support any of the crap it was pedaling. I did look up hydroplate "theory" elsewhere though:

* The rock of the Earth's crust does not float, and any subterranean waters underneath the crust would have been expelled almost immediately and risen to the surface.
* The temperature of water rises with depth, due to pressure (the principle is the same as in a pressure cooker): any water at the depths proposed by Brown would reach the surface as steam, creating flood waters too hot for any life on the Ark to survive.
* The violent explosion of subterranean waters proposed by Brown would erode the walls of the fissures as it escaped, leaving behind obvious evidence of basaltic erosion near the fissures and along the thousand-miles long course of the receding waters as they drained into the ocean basins. Such evidence has not been found.

further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplate#Hydroplates

J C

robindch wrote: »

Out of interest, do you genuinely believe that Stein has produced an honest documentary that does not misrepresent his opponents?

...Ben Stein questioned ALL sides in the film.

He intensely quizzed the ID Proponents, as well as the Materialists.:pac::):D

... Ben happens to be a liberal Jew ... and he is therefore not the sterotypical Christian opponent of Materialistic Evolution that Materialists would like to believe are it's only opponents!!!
Indeed Dr David Berlinski, who features strongly in the film, is ALSO a Jew and a devastating critic of Materialistic Evolution!!!

Could I ask you if YOU are shocked that a teacher could be summarily sacked when she just mentioned that life looks like it could be designed ??
...or do you think that it is fair to deny tenure to a scientist simply because he doesn't accept Materialistic Evolution???