Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
92 online now:
kjsimons, nwr (2 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,045 Year: 5,157/6,534 Month: 577/794 Week: 68/135 Day: 8/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 4 of 257 (892510)
03-08-2022 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene
02-28-2022 5:42 PM


Obviously, the best choice would be the one that PaulK just offered in Message 3: the Omphalos argument ("ομφαλος" = "belly button" as in that millennia-old brain teaser, "Did Adam have a navel?"). After all, any god worthy of the label, "Omnipotent", could do anything he/she/it wants to do, right?

The Omphalos argument has led to Last Thursdayism which argues that the universe was created last Thursday complete with all the false evidence of a long past (including our own personal memories). Last Thursdayists strongly oppose a splinter faith, Last Wednesdayism, denouncing them as heretics. Denouncing both are the Omphalos Fundamentalists who maintain that the Universe was created five minutes ago (this interpretation of Omphalos having been put forth by Bertrand Russell). Just try to prove any of them wrong; you cannot.

Philip Henry Gosse wrote his 1857 book, Omphalos, to protect his literalist beliefs from the inexorable advances of science showing the earth to be ancient and with a very long complex geological history lacking any evidence for Noah's Flood. He was not prepared for the negative reaction against God being depicted as a liar whose Creation is a massive fraud. Despite that, modern young-earth creationists have repeatedly resorted to various forms of Omphalos in their desperate attempts to explain away the mountains of evidence for an ancient earth, a very long and complex geological history, and evolution being true. To quote from the introduction section of the Wikipedia page, Omphalos hypothesis (same link as above):

quote:
Various supporters of Young Earth creationism have given different explanations for their belief that the universe is filled with false evidence of the universe's age, including a belief that some things needed to be created at a certain age for the ecosystems to function, or their belief that the creator was deliberately planting deceptive evidence.

The idea was widely rejected in the 19th century, when Gosse published his aforementioned book. It saw some revival in the 20th century by some Young Earth creationists, who extended the argument to include visible light that appears to originate from far-off stars and galaxies (addressing the "starlight problem").


And there you have your answer from YECs themselves: that light was created in transit from those distant sources (assuming that they even exist, since the End Times are almost upon us, the actual light of any celestial object more distant than about 10,000 light years would never have any chance of arriving here).

 

Though that begs the basic question: why do creationists work so hard to explain away God's undeniable ability to perform any miracles He would want to? Why try to "prove" those miracles "scientifically" (instead distorting science) instead of just accepting them as miracles?

There are many things about what and how creationists think which we need to learn about. Because so far none of it makes any sense.

 


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene, posted 02-28-2022 5:42 PM God_Save_the_Scene has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by candle2, posted 04-14-2022 10:29 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 10 of 257 (893473)
04-14-2022 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene
02-28-2022 5:42 PM


This question is discussed in this YouTube video starting around 1:00:55:

"Dismantled" is the Most Dishonest Documentary I've Ever Seen ("Dismantled" is the Most Dishonest Documentary I've Ever Seen).

It's part of a series of videos by Erika (Gutsick Gibbon), Dapper Dinosaur, and Dr. Dan critiquing a YEC "movie", Dismantled (as in it being a hatchet job supposedly intent on dismantling "evolution").

At 1:00:55 Dapper Dinosaur discusses Dr. Jason Lisle, PhD Astrophysics (the University of Colorado in Boulder) and YEC who has worked at Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (a couple red flags right there). As described here, Lisle's idea about light is that its speed changes drastically depending on which direction it's traveling in. The special pleading upshot of Lisle's argument is that the light travelling towards earth from the stars travels/traveled at near infinite speed or whatever, you know, because. At around 1:05:13 Dapper summarizes Lisle as basically saying: "Hey, Science. What if we make the math really really complicated and extremely inconvenient for everything except for my idea that the universe isn't really that old?" And Science replies, "Na, that's dumb, let's not do that."

They finish with Jason Lisle's stuff around 1:07:45 after discussing that creationists are just making everything so much harder for themselves by trying to build all these flaky (my adjective for it) models instead of just saying, "Creation was a miracle" and be done with it. I mean, stupid is stupid, but creationists just get ridiculous about making up stupid stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by God_Save_the_Scene, posted 02-28-2022 5:42 PM God_Save_the_Scene has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 13 of 257 (893499)
04-15-2022 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by candle2
04-14-2022 10:29 AM


You demonstrate a primary problem with creationism and creationists, especially those of the "creation science" variety (ie, those who insist on having "scientific evidences" [sic] for creation whereas all they ever do is to attack science and their contrived strawman "evolution" boogeyman): You have to twist and distort all sources, including your own Bible, as well as make up all kinds of nonsense, including unsupported misinterpretations of your own Bible.

 
And what about the unfinished business of your past false claims? Eg:

Message 669

DWise1 writes:

This is why I stated that after 100,000
years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14
is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing
to do with this.
It is ludicrous to believe that significant
amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000
year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the
presence of iron in the soil.

SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!

Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?

Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

 
Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?

In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!

If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.

Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?

Have you since learned how radiocarbon dating does actually work, or are you still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance?

 
There are also your false claims about "kinds" which included the false claim about evolution requiring individuals of one "kind" giving birth to offspring of another "kind". For example, in Message 467:

candle2 writes:

It is observable science (since recorded history) that
an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The
same goes for humans. Human mothers will always
have human babies.

Professors cannot give an observable example where
one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different
kind of animal.

Have you realized your error yet? I would assume not since you run away from it even to the point of using a stupid lame excuse to refuse to even read an explanation (my Message 484 -- stop being an idiot and read it this time!).

 
Why do you expend so much energy maintaining your ignorance and avoiding learning anything? And for what payoff except for mental and intellectual impoverishment? That's not worth it!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by candle2, posted 04-14-2022 10:29 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 14 of 257 (893501)
04-15-2022 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by candle2
04-15-2022 10:25 AM


Dr. Mary Schweitzer placed tissue from an ostrich into
an iron rich solution and stored it at a steady temperature
for 730 days.
She says that the tissue showed very little degradation
At the end of two years.

This experiment, she asserts, proves that iron mixed with
hemoglobin at death would allow soft tissue to be
present in 75,000,000 year old fossils.

Is she stupid?

No, she isn't stupid, but I'm sure she thinks that the creationists who routinely lie about her work (as she complains) are.

Please supply the source where she is supposed to have made that assertion (" iron mixed with hemoglobin at death would allow soft tissue to be
present in 75,000,000 year old fossils.") so that we (including you) see what she had actually written. Oh, it was a creationist who made that claim? Well what source did that creationist cite? Did he cite Dr. Schweitzer herself? Or did he instead cite yet another creationist? And even if he did "cite" Dr. Schweitzer herself, was he just falsely claiming as his own another creationist's false claim of a primary source? (at least the result of that extremely common creationist practice is a link to an actual primary source, even though none of those creationists had never even tried to read it, except for the Creationist Zero of that particular claim)

Also, C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years.
And, being generous to a fault, there should be no
detectable C-14 in a fossils after 100,000 years.
(actually 50,000 years, but remember, I am being
generous to a fault).

Science allows for only one possibility.

...

Dino fossils contain significant amounts of C-14.

And you are indeed still making that flagrantly false claim.

Yet again, what is trace C-14 produced by subterranean radiation sources supposed to have to do with radiocarbon dating methods?

And don't you dare run away yet again. Just answer the damned question this time!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 10:25 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 15 of 257 (893508)
04-15-2022 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by candle2
04-15-2022 10:25 AM


Here is Tony Reed's How Creationism Taught Me Real Science video on Dr. Mary Schweitzer's findings:

You might learn something, unlit-candle.

 
This video series is very interesting. The standard format is to present a creationist claim and describe how amazing it is, followed by something like "It's so open-and-shut ... " and his standard, " ... I just had to investigate."

But what had caught my eye was its title, since it reflects my own experience. Like Slartibartfast, I have always been a big fan of science. When I started studying "creation science" in 1981, I would take their claims and verify them. From the very start I learned that creationist claims were invalid and even downright false -- in the subsequent four decades I cannot remember a single creationist claim that had ever turned out to be valid, let alone true. Instead I have consistently found them to be misrepresentations or expressions of creationists' abject inability to understand science, with heaping helpings of dishonesty and outright lying.

But in my studies and investigations of creationist claims, I have also learned a lot of science, real science. Like the protagonist in "The Shawshank Redemption", even though I have had to crawl through the raw sewage of creationism, I have come out of it completely clean with actual scientific knowledge.

You should try it some time. Take your claims and research them. If a creationist makes a claim, look into what the actual science is (eg, learn even just the basics of how the radiocarbon dating method works and what it is based on including its source of C-14 (which is not subterranean radioactivity)). If a creationist "quotes" a scientific source, then look up that source and read it yourself just to verify that it actually says what the creationist claims (that dishonest creationist practice is called quote mining).

If you question testing your own claims, then consider what the New Testament itself says:

quote:
I Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I do realize that, being a Bible-believing "true Christian" creationist, you have most likely never ever opened a Bible, let alone ever even tried to read it. And that you don't care one whit what the Bible actually says, only what your handlers tell you. But consider that verse nonetheless and apply it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 10:25 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 23 of 257 (893534)
04-16-2022 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by candle2
04-15-2022 7:46 PM


candle-less, instead of blathering this nonsense, why don't you instead respond to the still unresolved issue of your lying about radiocarbon dating?

From my having to repeat it yet again in Message 13, here it is yet again!

DWise1 writes:

Message 669

DWise1 writes:

This is why I stated that after 100,000
years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14
is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing
to do with this.
It is ludicrous to believe that significant
amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000
year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the
presence of iron in the soil.

SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!

Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?

Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

 
Now, answer my question/request! What possible significance can teh presence of that recently formed C-14 have on radiocarbon dating?

In order to answer that, you need to understand what radiocarbon dating is based on and what it depends on. You claim to know that, so demonstrate your knowledge!

If you have no clue, then simply admit it and allow yourself to learn something for a change.

Otherwise, you are lying not only to us, but also to yourself. Do you really believe that lying is the Christian thing to do?

Have you since learned how radiocarbon dating does actually work, or are you still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance?

And as I was writing that Message 13, you posted this in your Message 12:

candle-less writes:

Also, C-14 has a half-life of roughly 5700 years.
And, being generous to a fault, there should be no
detectable C-14 in a fossils after 100,000 years.
(actually 50,000 years, but remember, I am being
generous to a fault).

Science allows for only one possibility.

It is misguided scientists who grasp at straws
in order to preserve their paradigm.

It is not creationists vs. Science.
It is scientists vs. science.

Dino fossils contain significant amounts of C-14.

So you are indeed still making your false claims based solely on willfully ignorance. And since we have already pointed out to you the reason why that claim "invalidating radiocarbon dating" is absolutely false, that means that you already know better and that you are therefore deliberately lying!

Why do you (and virtually all other creationists) constantly lie? I used to be a Christian and I remember Christian doctrine on lying; ie, "Don't lie! It's a sin!". So why is it that now with creationists and other "true Christians" lying through your teeth is an article of faith? What went wrong with you people?

And why are you so terrified of the simple truth that you must always run away from a very simple question: "SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS?????"

And why do you keep lying about knowing all about radiocarbon dating when you keep demonstrating with complete clarity that you do not possess such knowledge? Your constant lying is very tiresome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by candle2, posted 04-15-2022 7:46 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 2:35 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 28 of 257 (893555)
04-16-2022 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


Typical creationist BS claims which lie about those cases. Why don't you describe them in more detail? Oh, right, you cannot. Since yet again you are only regurgitating creationist BS lies that you know nothing about.

Up front, have you ever noticed that in none of those cases did any creationist ever uncover and expose a problem. Rather, it has always been scientists who have done so.

  1. Piltdown man: Somebody as yet not identified had perpetrated that hoax. Since it did seem to indicate what British scientists wanted to see (that Man originated in England), plus scientists never expect nature to commit a hoax, it was accepted by many. Though not all scientists accepted it and when finally they could get access to the original "fossils" to run dating tests on them (which the "fossils" failed) that the hoax was exposed. And as a result of that hoax' exposure, Piltdown Man was dropped immediately.

    Somebody who was not a scientist had committed a hoax, so your accusation that it was scientists who had committed it is a lie. Also, when a scientific claim is found to be false, we correct that mistake and stop using it. But when a creationist claim is found to be false, creationist just keep using it. Notice a pattern there?

  2. Archaeoraptor: China is rich in fossil finds and Chinese farmers have learned to profit from that new industry. They know what paleontologists are looking for, so they seek to enrich themselves by satisfying the demands of the market place. In this case, a farmer took two separate fossils the stuck them together.

    Yet again, it was a farmer who created that fake, not scientists. And it was scientists who exposed it, yet again.

  3. Hackel's embryo illustrations, which was offered as scientific evidence. Actually, the name is Häckel, also written as Haeckel (Was ist denn mit Dir los? Weißt Du wirklich nichts?) His illustrations were indeed hand-drawn, an extremely common practice in biological science back then (c. 1860's) (crack open your copy of Gray's Anatomy some time). Part of the "controversy" stems from his resizing a collection of drawings to make them all the same size, plus he had his own ideas about "recapitulation" which very likely influenced his eye and hand. Now we use photography to compile images of embryos and which confirm the overall development of embryos observed by Häckel. So what's your beef?

  4. Nebraska man, which turned out to be a pig. The tooth was not typical, but rather had rotated in its socket producing uneven and atypical wear which was similar to the wear on an anthropoidal ape tooth, hence its misidentification. And, yet again being a product of the time, American anthropologists wanted to claim America as the birthplace of humanity. However, very few scientists accepted that misinterpretation of the find, were very critical of it, and a few years later the tooth's discoverer himself unearth evidence of its true nature and was the one to retract his own original claim.

    So yet again, no fake nor forgery, but rather a misidentification which was corrected immediately and dropped by science. But the creationist lies about it persist long after they have been exposed repeatedly.

  5. "Peppered Moths. Both dark and light specimens have always existed simultaneously. Neither rest on tree trunks during daylight, and they only fly at night."

    Even more creationist silliness based on creationists being unable to understand science. Though we are rewarded with the creationist cry of "But they're STILL MOTHS!!!!", their self-proclamation of their abject ignorance and stupidity.

Yet more evidence of creationists being the most dishonest group in existence.

So then, candle-less, you just confirmed that you are indeed ignorant and dishonest. Now what about your gross dishonesty in your false C-14 claims and your false "kinds" claims?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(2)
Message 36 of 257 (893570)
04-16-2022 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by candle2
04-16-2022 2:35 PM


candle-less, please learn something about science. Your abject ignorance is almost as painful to watch as is your lies to support it.

Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
with radiocarbon dating crap. It is extremely
unreliable.

If you don't want your intelligence insulted, then stop saying such utterly stupid things!

How would you know since you have demonstrated conclusively that you have no clue what you are talking about.

You claim that trace C-14 found in dino fossils (mike the wiz also includes C-14 found in diamonds) somehow contradict radiocarbon dating, when the simple fact is that that trace C-14 formed recently by subterranean sources of radioactivity have absolutely nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

In Message 482 you lied when you wrote, "I know how carbon dating works." Proof of that is that you have absolutely no clue that radiocarbon dating only makes use of atmospheric C-14 which is incorporated into plant tissue (and from there into animals). Recently produced subterranean C-14 is not and has never been a factor! But you keep telling that same stupid lie! And that you keep running away from it (which is precisely what you have just done!) demonstrates that you know full well that it's a lie.

What is wrong with you? Are you so utterly stupid? Insulting your intelligence is clearly not possible since you display no evidence of possessing any intelligence.

Simple test: can you recognize the significance of C-14 formed in the atmosphere versus C-14 formed deep underground? Do you know which is used in radiocarbon dating and which is not?

If you can answer those questions, then why do you persist in lying about it?

If you still want to persist in your lie about knowing how radiocarbon dating works, then describe it in detail! Specifically, describe where the C-14 comes from and how it gets into organic material. That should be trivially simple for anyone even only casually engaged with reality could answer it. But can you answer it? I doubt it very much, but do please give it a try. And, of course, if you still want to include C-14 produced by subterranean radiation then you must also describe in sufficient detail how that C-14 is supposed to get into organic material.

IOW, I'm calling your bluff.

General speaking, the results are manipulated
to obtain the expected age. Deny all you
want, but we both know this is true.

No, that is not true, but rather that is just yet another creationist lie that you've swallowed whole like a camel (while straining at the gnats of reality -- it's from the Gospels, so I doubt that you have ever encountered it).

Please cite examples, since your reference is so vague. But what I have heard from stupid creationists in the past was that they were talking about how when you submit a sample to a lab for testing you provide an estimate of its age. The very practical reason for that is for the lab to apply the right test: testing a millions-years-old sample with radiocarbon (especially if it is inorganic like a dino fossil) would yield bad results as would testing the Shroud of Turin (not old geologically speaking) with a uranium method (which test very old things).

It's like deciding whether to weigh something with a trucking scale, a bathroom scale, or a postal scale. You wouldn't weigh a letter on a trucking scale because the weight of that letter wouldn't even be detected by the scale giving a weight of zero. And you wouldn't weigh your car on your bathroom scale because that would just peg the scale at its maximum value (eg, 400 lb) giving a weight for your car of 400 pounds. Nor would you weigh yourself on either a trucking scale or a postal scale. Before you weigh something you need to choose a scale that would give you a meaningful weight.

That's about all that that is about. Or were you talking about something different? Do you even know the answer to that question?

In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.

Yeah, you'll have to give a reference (from Hovind, I'm sure). Since we don't date a fossil directly but rather from its in situ location, there would be no such thing as different dates for head and tail both found in the same layer.

Are you talking about radiocarbon dating of frozen mammoths? I heard of that "different parts of the same body had different ages" claim before. It turns out that those were three different mammoths, not a single mammoth.

That's another creationist camel that you gulped right down.

Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.

Yes, and? But the way you say that means that you are insinuating circular reasoning. Same dishonest creationist lie, hasn't changed a bit.

Radiometric dating on rock is how long ago it solidified from being molten.

Radiometric dating cannot be performed on sedimentary rock since it is ground down and recycled older rock, so radiometric dating would just get the age of bit of old rock tested. However, we can tell which layers are older than others by the order in which they are stacked. We can also establish dates for layers from igneous intrusions which bracket them in. Therefore we can determine the age of a particular layer.

Fossils cannot dated directly (excluding organic specimens). For one thing, if you melt the fossil in order to "start its clock", then you have destroyed that fossil -- if it's a fossil, it hasn't been melted, so no radiometrically dating a fossil. Fossils result from burial and so are most commonly found in sedimentary rock, but we can arrive at a date for the layer it's found in as described above (extremely important that you don't just pull a fossil out of the ground and carry it to a museum).

So how do we identify a layer here to be part of that other layer way over there?
In geology it's done by with identifying characteristics which have been determined empirically, which includes index fossils. However, many of those index fossils are microscopic, eg diatom shells which evolve over time. Fossils such as the ones that we are interested in (eg, dinos) are not used a index fossils. Thus the fossils identifying the stratum (from which we know its age) are not the same as the fossils that get their age from which stratum they're in. There is no circular reasoning here.

There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.

Evolution is supported by almost everything since it's based in reality. However, creationism is divorced from reality and so has nothing to support it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 2:35 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 47 of 257 (893607)
04-17-2022 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by candle2
04-17-2022 1:05 PM


You didn't answer PaulK's question:
PaulK writes:

Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.

Well, what's your answer? Do you really think that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a good idea? Who in their right mind would ever believe such a thing?

How can you criticize my viewpoints;
yet, are not willing to offer your own?

We have been offering them, but you refuse to read them. Instead, you start whining like a baby that your phone is too small to read anything (your Message 492 in avoidance of my explanation in Message 484 of nested clades and why your lies about evolution concerning "kinds" are completely and utterly false).

Your refusal to even look at our messages is not evidence that they don't exist. Quite the contrary! So please stop lying about it!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:05 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 2:02 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 53 of 257 (893615)
04-17-2022 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by candle2
04-17-2022 8:01 AM


Chapter one of Roman's states that the
qualities of God can be seen just by
observing the world's around us.

And indeed, we have a long tradition of theists (eg, Christians (of all mutually exclusive and mutually antagonistic stripes), Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc) turning to the study of science in order to "learn more about the Creator."

Which would only make sense to an actual creationist (as opposed to the many fake creationists like you) who actually believes that their Creator did indeed create Everything (eg, earth, universe, everything), AKA "The Creation" (which you fake creationists expend incredible amounts of energy denying).

It is so obvious from what has been
created that we are left without excuse
when we deny Him.

Then why do you keep denying your purported "God"? I mean, you keep claiming that that's your god, and yet you keep denying Him and, far worse, The Creation. You creationists even go so far as to insist adamantly that if The Creation is really as it truly is, that that disproves God! What??? For example, John Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, in 1986 answering a direct question about the age of the earth:

quote:
If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.

Well, the earth is indeed far more ancient than a mere 10,000 years, so a leading creationist just proved that Scripture has no meaning. Similarly, many other creationists also insist that if evolution is true then God does not exist (or is a liar and should not be worship, or other nonsense which all boil down to them instructing their followers to become hedonistic axe-murderer atheists (which itself is just yet another ludicrous lie, in case you're too dense to realize that) ).

So why do you fake creationists deny the Creator and His Creation while hypocritically claiming otherwise? What do you think you are, [voice=utter_disgust]Republicans?[/voice] We cannot understand it and you always refuse to explain your actions to us.

For example, you act as if there's some kind of big irreconcilable conflict between evolution and Divine Creation (when in fact no such inherent conflict exists\), but you never ever explain what that "conflict" is supposed to be. On top of that, you appear to be accusing evolution of being something that it clearly is not, but yet again you never reveal what that is supposed to be!

So what do you think evolution is? And how do you think that it works? And why would you ever think that it conflicts with "God"?

Until you tell us what's behind your insane ramblings, how can we ever have any kind of construction discussion? It's like in the old joke where you're the old wife and we normals are her husband driving the car:

She: "Remember how we used to sit right next to each other while driving? Why don't we do that anymore?"
He: "I haven't moved."

You want to proclaim an insurmountable divide between evolution and "God", but that divide is entirely of your own construction. Which makes it your move to resolve that.

Speaking of these misguided professors.
It states that "professing themselves to
be wise, they become fools.

Do you creationists ever do anything except project your own issues on everybody else? "Creation science" claims are the most brain-dead stupid nonsense ever devised -- though QAnon has taken your dark arts even darker and more deeply stupid.

Jesus advised that his followers would be called fools in his name, so part of the fundie persecution complex fantasy is reveling in being called fools such that you people will go out of your way to make that happen. In the Jesus Freak Movement c. 1970 (I was there!) there was even a troupe of proselytizing clowns in full clown makeup and costumes who called themselves "Fools for Christ" (true story! Since I'm not a creationist, I have no reason to lie.)

However, Jesus did not advise his followers to be actual fools and proclaim utterly foolish things, which is what you creationists persist in doing. The idea was to stand firm against all nay-sayers, not to become utterly stupid fools. As utterly stupid fools, you can accomplish nothing more than to thoroughly discredit your religion and drive ever more people away from it. You even succeed in driving away your own members as about 80% of youth raised in the faith being fed a steady diet of your fake creationism end up leaving religion altogether -- that 80% figure comes from youth ministries themselves.

So to repeat PaulK's question from his Message 42 which I quoted in my Message 47:

DWise1 writes:

You didn't answer PaulK's question:

PaulK writes:

Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.


Well, what's your answer? Do you really think that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a good idea? Who in their right mind would ever believe such a thing?

That is yet another of the many questions that you keep avoiding and running away from. Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 8:01 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 54 of 257 (893617)
04-17-2022 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by candle2
04-17-2022 2:02 PM


Dwise, you have put nothing out there that
I have not already dismissed dozens of times.

False! I have to keep putting out questions that we have asked you and have had to repeat "dozens of times". Why? BECAUSE YOU ADAMANTLY REFUSE TO DISCUSS THEM!

You cannot just close your eyes, plug up your ears, and arbitrarily wave away reality.

So cut the crap and answer and discuss those questions!

For example, yet again:

DWise1 writes:

Message 669

DWise1 writes:

This is why I stated that after 100,000
years (probably closer to 50,000) no C-14
is detectable in fossils. The soil has nothing
to do with this.
It is ludicrous to believe that significant
amounts of C-14 is still present in 75,000,000
year old fossils, regardless of the soil or the
presence of iron in the soil.

SO WHATEVER DOES C-14 IN FOSSILS HAVE TO DO WITH RADIOCARBON DATING METHODS????? Stop evading the question!

Any C-14 incorporated into the organisms through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on would indeed all be gone after 50,000 years. In addition, in most fossils all the organic material has been replaced by minerals (including any C-14 that had been incorporated in that organic material through the means that radiocarbon dating is based on). You are familiar with what fossilization is, aren't you?

Rather, the C-14 to be found in those fossils (as well as in all kinds of non-fossils) has not decayed away yet because it is of recent origin. And that recently formed C-14 has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

The reason why I have to keep bringing this up with you is because you have never ever discussed it. Furthermore, you keep lying about what this means for radiocarbon dating -- you keep presenting such finds as a problem for radiocarbon dating when in fact they don't as I have repeatedly demonstrated and which you repeatedly ignore and run away from.

Discuss this question honestly and fully enough and it will go away. At least until you start posting your lies about it again.

It's really that simple: if you're tired of hearing about issues that you keep avoiding, stop avoiding them.

Another question regards your persistent lies about evolution requiring impossible events (eg, a dog giving birth to a cat). I explained it to you in Message 484 which you refused to read using the extremely lame excuse of "my phone is too small" (So then use your computer, you idiot!). There is no excuse for your form of deliberate ignorance!

So here it is yet again, but this time with the ASCII art diagrams left out so that you cannot again use your stupid lame excuse for committing deliberate ignorance:

DWise1 writes:

It is observable science (since recorded history) that
an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The
same goes for humans. Human mothers will always
have human babies.

Yes, that is exactly what science says, because that is how life operating in reality does work. That is also why evolution, which is based on how life operates in reality, says the same thing!

You seem to be trying to misrepresent evolution as saying something entirely different. What false words are you trying to put into evolution's mouth? Please be as specific as you can be. That would include your explanation of why you are coming to the false conclusions that you appear to be pretending to reach.

Professors cannot give an observable example where
one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different
kind of animal.

Of course, because that is not how life works. Nor is that what evolution teaches! Why are you misrepresenting what evolution teaches? Because if you told the truth then your anti-evolution position would fall apart? So you end up having to support your position with no other way than one falsehood after another.

I know that you have been told the term, "nested hierarchies", but apparently you do not understand what that means. It's also called "clades" or monophyly -- the graphics there are much better than I could create via ASCII art.

Basically, offspring will always be in the same clade as their parents, what in your muddled terminology caricature would be a "kind" (BTW, "Kind" is the German word for "child", as in Kindergarten). They will never ever jump into a different clade. Yes, closely related clades may be able to still interbreed with varying degrees of success, but only if they are in the same next-higher clade.

Remember that a child will be very highly similar to its parents, yet slightly different. Over many generations, those differences between the n-th kid and the ancestor n generations ago will accumulate. Isolated populations of a species can, through the lack of remixing into a common gene pool, become noticeably different from each other, thus having become two different species. Both new species can go on to form newer species, but all of them will still be a part of that original clade.

You will complain that that is only micro-evolution, but that is also how macro works. Except you do not understand macro, but rather you undoubtedly have a massive wrong idea about it. And also apparently about how speciation happens, which does not happen in a single generation (as your "argument" implies) but rather over many generations.

Dr. Eugenie Scott recently gave a presentation: "What People Get Wrong--And Sometimes Right--About Evolution." I have posted it in Message 111 preceded by a message in which I presented my notes on it just immediately before finally finding the video.

Part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution is that they are caught in the millennia-old idea of The Great Chain of Being, AKA "The Ladder of Life", in which species progress up the chain (or ladder) from more primitive to more advanced until they reach our position at the top. Thus, according to that absolutely wrong model, evolving involves jumping up the chain (or ladder) to become something completely different. Absolutely wrong and that's why you don't understand anything. We have so often seen that kind of misunderstanding leading to creationist "proofs against evolution" by pointing out that we do not see dogs giving birth to kittens. Absolute rubbish that only a creationist would be ignorant enough to say.

Rather, Darwin's idea was a branching tree or bush, which is the right idea. An ancestral species splits into two or more daughter species which then go on to branch out even further. Every single branching is still on the same earlier branch, there's no jumping over to another branch like you would jump from one link in a chain (or rung on a ladder) to another. No dogs giving birth to kittens is possible, yet it can lead to dogs being ancestral to later species of "doggish" (definitely related to dogs, yet different).

. . .

In essence, that is how nested hierarchies work. Descendant species are in the same clades as their ancestors, but not those of their cousins.

So, dogs and cats are in two very different clades, so dogs cannot have kittens. However, they, along with bears, are in a same clade because they all share a common ancestor, a carnivore. That carnivorous ancestor was also placental (carrying its fetus longer thanks to having a placenta as opposed to what marsupials need to do). Not only that, but it was also ( ... wait for it, wait for it ... ) a mammal! Going further back through the cladistic levels, it was also an amniota (egg bearing), and a tetrapod (basic body plan including four limbs), and a chordate (AKA vertebrate), as well as being a member of Animalia.

I'm sure you've been fed that BS argument against Peppered Moths: "BUT THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!" Are you starting to see the error in that non-argument? Of course they're still moths! And even though speciation did not occur in that study, when they do eventually speciate their daughter species will still be moths, just a different kind of moth!

 
Please learn something about evolution so that you can oppose it with truthful arguments that actually address actual problems with it, not with false claims based on abject ignorance.

You've been trying ignorance for about a century now and it still does not work! You might consider trying a different approach, like actually learning what evolution actually is.

You keep lying about that too; eg in your recent Message 43. We've explained it to you so many times that you have no excuse for your ignorance.

What is it about your religion and your god that requires you to go to extremes to maintain your ignorance and to avoid learning anything?

You are trying to tell me that evolution is true
and has been proved.

It is impossible to prove this assertion.

First, science is not about proof (rather, that is what math and logic deal in). Rather science is about the preponderance of evidence. There is indeed a preponderance of evidence supporting evolution.

We observe evolution in action all the time. Evolution is based on how life works on the population level and is confirmed every time we observe populations of living individuals doing what they naturally do.

Now what about "creation science" and its plethora of claims? You believe in those claims, but have those claims been proven? It turns out that those claims have been examined, they have been tested, and they have all failed those tests. That means that your "creation science" has been disproven.

You creationists use the ICR's Two Model Approach (TMA) to "prove creation" solely by attacked your "evolution model" (which actually has nothing to do with evolution -- we should discuss the TMA some time). You creationists attack and attack "evolution" and conclude with "Since evolution has been disproven, the only alternative, creation, has been proven."

Well, we got your TMA right here and we can apply it too. We have disproven your "creation science", so by the power invested in us by the Institute for Creation Research, we hereby proclaim evolution to be proven.

That is your creationist "logic" hard at work. "Doing the Lord's Work", since evolution is part and parcel of how The Creation works, just as is things being produced by natural processes. You really need to stop feeding solely on camel-sized turds of creationist BS and learn what The Creation really is and how it really works. But no, you will remain a fake creationist. So sad.

 
Of course, all that is begging the question: What do you think evolution is?

I have no doubt that you have absolutely no clue at all. Evidence for this lies both in your fact-free messages and your close association with YEC to the point where you do nothing but mindlessly regurgitate YEC BS lies.

So you have yet another question to answer: What is evolution? And how does it work?

After all, if you don't even know what it is that you're trying to fight, how could you ever hope to prevail against it?

Ignorance does not work. We know that, because we have tried it so many times already.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 2:02 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 55 of 257 (893618)
04-17-2022 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by candle2
04-17-2022 2:02 PM


AND you have yet again avoided answer PaulK's question as I directly requested you do:
DWise1 writes:

You didn't answer PaulK's question:

PaulK writes:

Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.


Well, what's your answer? Do you really think that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a good idea? Who in their right mind would ever believe such a thing?

More fully:

DWise1 writes:

However, Jesus did not advise his followers to be actual fools and proclaim utterly foolish things, which is what you creationists persist in doing. The idea was to stand firm against all nay-sayers, not to become utterly stupid fools. As utterly stupid fools, you can accomplish nothing more than to thoroughly discredit your religion and drive ever more people away from it. You even succeed in driving away your own members as about 80% of youth raised in the faith being fed a steady diet of your fake creationism end up leaving religion altogether -- that 80% figure comes from youth ministries themselves.

So to repeat PaulK's question from his Message 42 which I quoted in my Message 47:

DWise1 writes:

You didn't answer PaulK's question:

PaulK writes:

Has it ever occurred to you that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a bad idea? Because you don’t seem to get that at all.


Well, what's your answer? Do you really think that arrogantly spouting stupid falsehoods is a good idea? Who in their right mind would ever believe such a thing?

That is yet another of the many questions that you keep avoiding and running away from. Why?

The more you duck and dodge and refuse to answer reasonable and pertinent questions, the more they will continue to come back to haunt you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 2:02 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 56 of 257 (893650)
04-17-2022 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by candle2
04-16-2022 1:08 PM


ar, you accuse me of being ignorant and dishonest.
However, evolutionary scientists are among the most
dishonest professionals of all disciplines.

{ followed by the typical creationist list of long refuted "evolutionary fakes and frauds" }

So what about the creationist fakes and frauds and forgeries? The following is a very short list, some of which I copied from the talk.origins An Index to Creationist Claims to save myself a bit of typing.

The complete list starts at An Index to Creationist Claims . unlit-candle (ie, you're constantly in the dark), you should check out that list. Look up some of your favorite claims and read the responses to them. Do that especially if you ever decide to use that worst of creationist claims, "No scientist has ever been able to answer these questions."

An example of that most outrageous creationist lie was a creationist who created a new web site listing YEC claims he had learned in a class around 1980 and even posted invitations here along with his challenge of "no scientist has ever even tried to answer these questions." He repeated that false claim on his home page where he invited anyone to respond. About a dozen of us did respond to every single one of his claims (we as a group answered every single one, not each of us answered all the questions, though most of us did answer several of his claims). He didn't know what to do with all the answers, so one of us created a webpage for those answers which the creationist did link to. For a few months, whereupon he suddenly and without notice removed that link from his site, though he continued (and still does continue) to falsely claim that nobody has ever been able to respond to his claims (a damned deliberate lie!) and that he will post on his site any response to his claims (yet another damned deliberate lie!) When I emailed him asking about his actions and his deliberate lies, he just said "It's my site and I will post on it whatever the hell I want to!" As for the question of how a Christian is supposed to justify deliberately lying, especially for the purpose of serving the "God of Truth", he clammed up completely.

That is just one of the more egregious examples of extreme creationist dishonesty, but we have found that dishonesty is in the nature of creationists; creationists cannot keep from lying any more than scorpions can keep from stinging.

So here's a short and incomplete list of creationist fakes, frauds, and forgeries, AKA "lies". Please bear in mind that is it the creationist claims about these topics that are the frauds, not the titles themselves. For what the claim is and why it's false, you will need to go to the index page, then click on the specific claim and read that item -- I retained their index numbers to make finding their links much simpler. And I will add comments to a few.

Again remember that the creationist claims attached to these titles are all false, all depending on misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting and/or just making up stupid shit about the titles, thus qualifying all those claims as fakes and frauds (plus some fabrications). And please also note that this does not include the massive volumes of creationist quote mining which lie about what the sources say:

  • CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
  • CA202. Evolution has not been proved.
  • CA601.1. Evolution's materialism or naturalism denies a role for God.
  • CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
    No more "atheistic" than gravity or osmosis are, which begs the question of how creationists are also misrepresenting atheism. As I described today in Message 54, creationism's false dichotomy, The Two Model Approach (TMA), posits two "mutually exclusive models for origins": their "atheistic" evolution model" and their "creation model" which they absolutely refuse to ever present, support, or defend ("Because this is a scientific discussion and including the creation model would be injecting religion" (despite their having created the TMA as a deliberately crafted legalistic deception to allow them to describe their opposition to evolution as being "for completely scientific reasons, nothing religious about it."
    The irony here is that Dr. Henry Morris himself informed me personally (and wrote the same in his books) that their "evolution model" "includes most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." So a major portion of that "evolution model" consists of theistic creation accounts, which creationists call "atheistic." Theism is atheistic? Peccable creationist logic!

  • CB100. Mutations are rare.
  • CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
  • CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
  • CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
  • CB102. Mutations do not add information.
  • CB110. Microevolution selects only existing variation.
  • CB120. Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable.
  • CB121. The cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane's dilemma).
  • CB130. "Junk" DNA is not really junk.
  • CB141. Chromosome counts differ greatly and unsystematically between species.
  • CB144. Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent.
  • CB150. Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another.
  • CB200. Some systems are irreducibly complex.
  • CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved.
  • CB301. The eye is too complex to have evolved.
    Darwin wrote that at first blush our faculties are unable to visualize the evolution of the eye (operative verb being "imagine"). That is all that most creationist quote minings of that passage include, leaving out the rest which says that one can indeed work that problem out using reason (much like we cannot visualize more dimensions than three, but we can work with much higher dimensions with mathematics). And then Darwin went on for 3 or 4 more pages describing existing eyes in nature that would represent each step of the evolutionary path to the vertebrate eye.
    So what's the problem?

    (see also CB921.1: What use is half an eye?)
  • CB302. The ear is too complex to have evolved.
  • CB303. The brain is too complex to have evolved.
    (see also CB400: Behavior and Cognition)
  • CB310. The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved.
  • CB310.1. Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor.
    A classic example of deliberate lying by creationist professionals. When Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR was guest speaker for Awbrey and Thwaites' two-model class at SDSU where he spoke on "Bomby" and repeated that false claim of spontaneous explosion, A&T mixed the two chemicals together right there in class and the mixture ... changed color. Gish blamed the translator of the original article (he would always blame someone else for his false claims) and admitted that that claim was wrong. Then he went on to continue using it for years afterwards, finally responding to too many embarrassing questions about it by changing the wording of the claim slightly though essentially keeping it the same.

    This was the first question I had used to open discussion with a creationist, Charles, at work, my first discussion with a creationist. We both attended a 1985 debate between Gish & Morris versus Awbrey & Thwaites. Every table at that debate was selling "Bomby" books, which embarrassed Charles very greatly since he now knew the truth about that. When the debate ended and we were walking out, he was in shock and kept muttering, "We have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present any of it? We have mountains of evidence. ... " Half a decade later I bumped into Charles again. He was still a fundie, but he absolutely hated creationists and wanted nothing to do with those liars.


  • CB311. Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved.
  • CB311.1. Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar.
    Part of that is because populations evolve, not individuals! Stupid creationists don't even know what evolution is! And if we want to figure out how butterfly metamorphosis works, then research it! Which I'm sure has been done. Analyzing the enzymes involved should help to solve that mystery and studying the genome should help to work out the evolutionary path. Though comparing butterfly studies with studies of the other forms of metamorphosis should shed even more light on the question. Just using the creationist approach (standing there with your thumb up your rectum saying "Duuuh, looks insolvable to me!") will not cut it.

  • CB325. The giraffe neck could not evolve without a special circulatory system.
  • CB340. Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all parts were in place.
  • CB341. Snake venom and hollow fangs could not have evolved simultaneously.
  • CB350. Sex cannot have evolved.
    (see also CB610: no mate for 1st of a species.)
    Creationist presentations of this particular "unanswerable question" (a typical fundamentalist dishonest proselytizing trick, damn their eyes!) are among the absolutely stupidest I have ever seen.

  • CB381. Men have fewer ribs than women.
    I have never seen this one in the wild, but apparently it is still current since Answers in Genesis included it in their article, "Claims that We Wish Creationists Avoid Using."

  • CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.
  • CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
  • CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
  • CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
  • CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
  • CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
  • CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
  • CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.
  • CB601.3. Direct mutagenesis better explains peppered moth variation.
  • CB601.4. An increased recapture rate suggests fraud in Kettlewell's data.
  • CB610. The first individual of a new species would not find a mate.
    This claim is based on the absolutely stupidest descriptions of how a new species evolves, a description which has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution or just plain life itself actually works. IOW, creationists completely misunderstand evolution so drastically that it boggles the minds of normals.

  • CB620. Human population growth indicates a young earth.
    Yet another drastically stupid claim. I posted an essay on it on CompuServe back in the day and reposted it on my web site: THE BUNNY BLUNDER

  • CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.
  • CB701.1. Recapitulation theory is not supported.
  • CB704. Human embryos do not have gill slits.
  • CB710. Genes with major effects on development are conserved across phyla.
  • CB731. Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs.
  • CB732. Finger development differs greatly between human and frog.
  • CB751. Bilateral symmetry is improbable under evolution.
  • CB801. Science cannot define "species."
  • CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
  • CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
  • CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
  • CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
  • CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.
  • CB901. Macroevolution has never been observed.
  • CB901.1. Range of variation is limited within kinds.
  • CB901.2. No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
  • CB901.3. Darwin's finches show only microevolution.
  • CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
  • CB902.1. There are barriers to large change.
  • CB902.2. Small changes do not imply large changes.
  • CB904. No entirely new features have evolved.
  • CB910. No new species have been observed.
  • CB910.1. Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies.
  • CB910.2. Peppered moths remained the same species.
  • CB920. No new body parts have evolved.
  • CB921. New structures would be useless until fully developed.
  • CB921.1. What use is half an eye?
    The closest thing to a creationist scenario for the evolution of an eye the I have ever seen was them imagining each individual eye part evolving separately and independently of all the other parts, each part useless for vision all on its own, until all parts are finally assembled in the end like a camera in a factory. More explicitly, those independent eye parts were defined by taking a razor blade and slicing them out of an existing eye. Yeah, extremely stupid; there's stupid, and there's brain-dead stupid, but then there's creationist stupid which is so much dimmer than all the rest.

    How it actually worked was described by Darwin which was repeated by Dawkins in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (in the first half of Chapter 3, "Accumulating Small Change", as I seem to recall). Every step of the way you still have a functional light sensing organ, so the evolving eye is functional every step of the way.


  • CB921.2. What use is half a wing?
  • CB922. No two-celled life exists intermediate between one- and multicelled.
  • CB925. We do not see creatures in various stages of completion.
  • CB926. Preadaptation implies that organs evolved before they were needed.
  • CB930. Some fossil species are still living.
  • CB940. Pure chance cannot create new structures.
  • CB940.1. Odds of many successive beneficial mutations are minuscule.
  • CB941. How do things know how to evolve?
  • CC001. Piltdown man was a hoax.
  • CC001.1. Piltdown man was the subject of 500 doctoral dissertations.
  • CC002. Nebraska man was a hoax.
  • CC003. Lucy's knee was found far from the rest of the skeleton.
  • CC004. Ten Peking Man skeletons were suppressed.
  • CC030. All human fossils would fit on a billiard table.
  • CC050. All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
  • CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
  • CC150. If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
  • CC200. Transitional fossils are lacking.
  • CC200.1. There should be billions of transitional fossils.
  • CC201. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
  • CC201.1. Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps.
  • CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
  • CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
    In the notes for their two-model class, Awbrey & Thwaites compared 27 characteristics of coelurosaurs, birds, and Archaeopteryx. In two features, all three groups were the same. In two other features (feathers and fused clavicles (wishbone)) Archaeopteryx was the same as birds and different from coelurosaurs. In 17 other features Archaeopteryx was different from birds and the same as coelurosaurs. And in the final 6 features, Archaeopteryx was intermediate between birds and Coelurosaurs. To quote from John Wayne: "Archaeopteryx is fully bird"? Not hardly!

    Funny story to demonstrate the extent that creationists will go to make their false claims. In an ICR Impact article, Dr. Duane Gish spent most of the article presenting the usual false arguments for Archaeopteryx being "100% bird, nothing dinosaurian about it", but then towards the end of the article he notes the then-recent claim by a couple creationists that Archaeopteryx was actually dinosaur fossils that had been modified to included feathers carved in by hoaxters. So suddenly Gish switched to arguing that Archaeopteryx was instead "100% dinosaur, nothing avian about it". So then according to Gish's article Archaeopteryx was 100% bird and 100% dinosaur, but not a combination of the two. And a combination of the two is precisely what Archaeopteryx was.


  • CC300. The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly.
  • CC301. Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary "tree" pattern.
  • CC310. Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.
    We went over this yesterday in my Message 36. Did you understand it, unlit-candle, or did you religiously ignore it?

  • CC331. Polystrate fossils indicate massive sudden deposition.
  • CC335. A fossil whale was found vertically through several strata.
    This is kind of a funny story. The fossil whale fossil was found in road bed excavation (as I recall) near Lompoc, Calif. The only sources for it that I could find was from a creationist book (which claimed it to be polystrate, standing vertically on its tail/fluke) and from their source, a short blurb in an industrial chemistry journal (I looked it up in the library). Later I learned that it was encased in a single layer of diatomaceous earth which had subsequently been tilted to an angle of about 45 degrees ... and the whale fossil with it.

    In general, I have found creationists' polystrate fossil claims to be among their worst documented. Almost as if they're trying to hide something.


  • CC371. Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial.
  • CC371.1. Soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus bone indicate recent burial.
  • CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
  • CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
  • CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
  • CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
  • CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
  • CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
  • CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
    I suspect that this is what you were talking about in your Message 30 false claim of "In some instances the head and the tail of the same fossils have been dated as much as 20,000 years between." Those samples were taken from two different mammoths, not from the same specimen as per your lie.

  • CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
    This was the second creationist claim I was given (the first one was a real doozy of a stinker; see below). It didn't smell right, so I was skeptical, but it was a couple decades before I was able to find a reference to the source. Freshwater clams made their shells out of "old carbon" from the limestone dissolved in the spring's water. It's called the reservoir effect in that the reservoir of C14 that an organism draws from affects the results of radiocarbon dating. The method depends on that reservoir being the atmosphere (and hence animals feeding off of terrestrial plants) to get the most accurate results. Drawing from a reservoir of "old carbon" (ie, the ocean, limestone) throws the results off to looking older.

  • CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
    The reservoir effect again. Only terrestrial plants get their carbon from the atmosphere, while animals get their carbon from their food. If you feed on "fresh carbon" sources like land animals and plants, then your radiocarbon dating results should be accurate. But if you feed on "old carbon" (like in the ocean) then your results will look older than they should. For example, NOVA recently covered an archaeological dig of an enormous Viking encampment in England whose date we know. Dating almost everything at the sites were in line with the known date except the human remains which came up about 200 years too old.
    Then they realized that those humans' diet depended a lot on fish, so taking that into account straightened that "problem" out immediately.

  • CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
    This is the issue that you still have not learned. That deep subterranean reservoir of C14 has absolutely nothing to do with the radiocarbon dating method. So this is still a very stupid creationist lie.

  • CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
  • CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
  • CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
  • CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
  • CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
  • CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
  • CD101. Entire geological column does not exist.
  • CD102. The geological column is sometimes out of order.
  • CD102.1. Out-of-order strata occur at the Lewis Overthrust.
  • CD103. The geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
  • CD200. Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.
  • CD210. The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.
  • CD211. Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.
  • CD220. There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.
  • CD221. Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.
    One of those dissolved minerals is aluminum. If we were to employ creationism stupidity to determine the age of the earth using aluminum, then the earth would be only 100 years old. In his book, Dr. Henry Morris mentioned that in passing and passed it off with a "gee, I wonder what that could mean."
    Uh, maybe that your claim doesn't work?

  • CD221.1. Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.
  • CD240. Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.
  • CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.
  • CD501. On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now.
  • CD502. Volcanic mountains are built too fast for an old earth.
  • CD510. Folded rocks must have been soft when folded.
  • CD610. The erosion rate of Niagara Falls' rim indicates a young earth.
  • CD701. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.
  • CE010. NASA scientists found a day missing.
    This was the second creationist claim that I ever heard (that was in 1970) and it is such a stinker that I immediately wrote off creationist claims as bogus -- a decade later I was surprised that creationism was still around so I started studying it seriously and almost immediately discovered that creationist claims are bogus.

    Refer to this essay, Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day", for the complete story. Basically around 1965 somebody published a bogus story of NASA having discovered "Joshua's Lost Day" through a computer program that calculated the moon's position. It imbues computers and computer programs with magical properties that in 1970 (when almost nobody had any access to a computer) I knew they did not have.
    If you Google for this claim, most of the hits will refute it and most of those sites are Christian sites. This claim was also in that Answers in Genesis list of claims that creationists must not use. I was surprised in the late 1980's when my sister-in-law mentioned having just read it in the Sunday newspaper magazine supplement.


  • CE011. Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth.
    Not at the rate at which it's actually slowing down, such that 4 billion (109) years ago one earth rotation would have been 12 hours. Needless to say, the creationists got it all wrong and claim a deceleration rate that is hundreds of times too great.

    While the original claim was based on a mistake (and misunderstanding of leap seconds), it has been fully incorporated into the creationist mythos such that when you educate a creationist as to his error, he will ignore the truth and continue using the claim (hence engaging in deliberate lying. Read the article, An unsuccessful attempt to correct an error on young-earth creationist websites. (Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, 2001) for that story -- their conclusion is that it is virtually impossible to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with creationists. Also refer to my own web page on this topic, DWISE1'S CREATION / EVOLUTION PAGE:
    Earth's Rotation is Slowing
    .


  • CE011.1. The frequency of leap seconds indicates a young earth.
    That "earth's spin is slowing down" claim seems to have originated with Walter Brown in a 1979 brochure. He seems to have dropped it by the 1980's, but

    BTW, in the last two decades of my career as a software engineer I did design work with devices that used GPS receivers. As a result, I became very familiar with working with leap seconds. But Walter Brown did not understand them, so he came up with a deceleration rate for the earth's rotation that was hundreds of times too great, which in turn messed up with his conclusions. And those messed up conclusions is what creationists live by (and base their faith on) four decades later. Ain't no stupid like a creationist stupid because a creationist stupid is so dumb.


  • CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.
  • CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe.
    I did independent research on this claim, but a couple astronomers published first -- see my page, MOON DUST. At that 1985 creationist debate that Charles and I attended (see my notes above on the bombardier beetle claim), Dr. Henry Morris claimed that a "1976" NASA document ("Well into the Space Age!") showed that there should have been a layer of meteoric dust on the moon 284.8 feet thick, which of course we did not find. I wrote to the ICR for more information and Dr. Duane Gish sent me a letter by Harold Slusher containing the calculations (ie, it wasn't the NASA document that gave that figure, but rather an equation that Slusher had concocted which included two extraneous factors that together inflated his results by a factor of 10,000 (correcting his results yields a dust layer depth of about a third of an inch, which is about what we did find). Slusher's letter also cites a "1976" NASA document ("Well into the Space Age!").

    But then I found that NASA document in the university library stacks and the instant I looked at the front cover I knew the rest of the story -- ie, creationists lying yet again as they always do. The papers were from an August 1965 astrophysics conference and was printed in 1967.

    So I wrote back to Gish to warn him of the problem and he deflected and lied about the document's date (even with the xerox'd front page in front of him) and then he ignored all further correspondence. The two astronomers who had written about the same experience though with Henry Morris also got that same treatment. Although a single creationist book subsequently said, "moon dust is unreliable so we don't use it anymore", Morris' book, Scientific Creationism, which contained that false NASA document citation still does, so 30 years later any creationism newbie buying the most recent version of that book will still be deceived by Morris' lie.


  • CE110. The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.
  • CE301. The lack of solar neutrinos indicates that the stellar model is wrong.
    This one also made it to Answers in Genesis' "please, creationists, don't use these claims" article. When I took astronomy in the early 70's, this was an actual problem in astrophysics. It turned out that our understanding of neutrinos wasn't quite right in that it turned out that they have extremely little mass, not zero mass, so some of them change to a different kind of neutrino in transit from the sun's core to earth. The problem with creationist claims about this is that it is very out-of-date. No creationist malfeasance here, unless the creationist using the claim is aware of the truth.

  • CE310. A shrinking sun indicates a young sun.
    This is the infamous "shrinking sun" claim that is completely bogus, a surefire guarantee of longevity for a creationist claim. Two astronomers, Eddy and Boornazian, had studied solar transit data collected for a 117-year period (1836-1953) at the Royal Observatory. That data turned out to contain systematic errors that led them to a false finding of the sun's diameter contracting at the rate of about 5 feet per hour. When they presented their abstract at a conference, it sparked several studies of other sets of observations which agreed with each other and not with E&B whose article was never published. That should have been it, but their abstract was reported in a physics newsletter and a creationist got hold of it and the "shrinking sun" was born. It is now a creationist stable and it is still completely false. A standard version of the claim gets all the details wrong, naming "Boyle Observatory" and that it used "300 years of data"; if you see those details then you know what you are looking at.

    BTW, if you plot all the measurements of the sun's diameter over a 300 year period then you get a scatter which centers around a slowly increasing size. That reflects the fact that the sun is slowly increasing in size as its core is slowly heating up -- the rate I've seen is about an inch a year, though the gases at the surface of the sun are about the same density as the earth's atmosphere at 30,000 feet, so the visible disk tends to oscillate in size.

    Kent Hovind went one step further with his solar mass loss claim intended to bolster the shrinking sun. He took the rate at which the sun "is burning its fuel" (hydrogen fusion in the core, though there is reason to suspect that Hovind thinks it's combustion on the surface), which is about 4.6 million tonnes per second but Hovind uses 5 million tons (close enough). He also uses 5 billion (109) years for the sun's age, which again is a wee bit high but still acceptable. Then he claims that the sun had lost such a huge amount of mass that an ancient sun would have "sucked the earth in." But if you do the math as I had then you realize that the total amount of mass lost, which is astronomical, is insignificant compared with the sun's total mass. As a result, the ancient sun's mass would have been a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's mass, making the ancient sun's gravity a few hundredths of one percent greater which would have "sucked the earth in" by about 60,000 miles. Read my page on it, DWise1: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim. When I tried to learn more about his claim, Hovind became increasingly beligerent and even tried twice to pick a fight with me over my email name, DWise1, which prompted me to write its very mundane origin story at that link. Hovind's evasive conduct indicated that he knew that his claim was bogus, but then he went off-line for a decade while serving his prison term for federal tax fraud. Now he has bolstered his solar mass loss claim by commanding his audience to never ever do the math! And to never ever listen to anyone who has done the math. Because, of course, the moment you do the math then you know how bogus his claim is. Definitely deliberate dishonesty.


  • CE311. The faint young sun paradox contradicts an old earth.
  • CE380. Galaxies should lose their spiral shape over millions of years.
  • CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant.
  • CE411. The speed of light has changed.
  • CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster.
  • CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.
  • CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
  • CF002. Complexity does not come from simplicity.
  • CF005. 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to information theory.
  • CF010. Cybernetic simulations show that Darwinian processes do not produce order.
  • CF011. Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in design in the fitness function.
  • CF011.1. The outcome of Dawkins's WEASEL program was prespecified.
    The target string for WEASEL (and my own version, MONKEY, deemed highly true to the original as it should be since I used the book's description as my software specification) is indeed preset (a line of Shakespeare for Dawkins, the alphabet for MONKEY), but that has no bearing whatsoever for the results.
    They compare two different selection methods, single-step selection (SSS) and cumulative selection (CS) as described in Chapter 3 of Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. SSS is abysmally inefficient (you make an attempt and when it fails you start all over again from scratch, whereas CS converges on the goal very quickly (you make a multiple attempts in a population of strings with a single random change in each one, then the one that came closest "fathers" the next population of strings). SSS is the favorite of creationist probability arguments and has absolutely nothing to do with how life works, whereas CS, which was based on how life works, very closely matches how life works. When I analyzed the probabilities, I found that it is virtually impossible for CS to fail -- SSS would require thousands of times the age of the universe in order to have one chance in a million of success, whereas CS would routinely succeed within 30 seconds on an XT running at Norton Factor 2 (on a current post-Pentium box it appears to succeed instantaneously).

    Of course, creationists have to lie about WEASEL. Dumb ... er, Demski and Royal Truman both use the lie that WEASEL locks in successful letters and doesn't allow them to change ("locking rings"). That is a damned lie! That was not described in the book, so it was not in my software spec, which means that it's not in my MONKEY. Download it and read my source code (original in Pascal, redone into C). If you can find anything even close to any "locking rings" then tell me!


  • CF201. Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.
    This was Robert Gentry's false claim. He claimed to have found polonium halos (blemishes in the rock from a decaying atom) in "basement basalt" AKA "Genesis rock" -- the very first rock to have formed. When the site where he collected his sample was visited, it turned out to be an igneous intrusion into metamorphic rock, IOW, just about the furthest thing from "Genesis rock" imaginable. Internet chatter was to the effect that Gentry couldn't recognize igneous rock even if it came up and bit him.

    In 1980 when Arkansas public schools were required to create a "balanced treatment" creationist curriculum, the teacher with that assignment was at a loss to find anything. The ICR's "public school edition" materials were so very bad as well as being to blatantly religious that they weren't acceptable. One of two sources that that teacher could find was a Readers Digest article on Robert Gentry's polonium halos. If that poor teacher had only known at the time ... .


  • CF210. Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant.

And that only begins to scratch the surface of creationist dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by candle2, posted 04-16-2022 1:08 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by candle2, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 57 of 257 (893654)
04-17-2022 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by candle2
04-17-2022 12:51 PM


If you say that life was by design, then
I challenge you to prove that it was not the
God of the Bible who created it.

First, it's your job to make a case for that. Can't do it, can you?

But there's the entire matter of your credibility being all shot to hell. As I just posted, creationists have made a great many claims, all of which have proven to be wrong. So if everything you tell us that we can test has proven to be wrong, why should we accept something you claim that we cannot test?

You have been dead wrong about everything that we have been able to test. There is absolutely no reason to expect you to break your perfect record and suddenly be right about something that we "coincidentally" are unable to test. No reason whatsoever.

So if you want to convince anybody of your "God of the Bible" even existing let alone doing something useful for a change, then you must make a very convincing case supporting that. Think of it. If you were us, would you believe anything that you said? Be honest! ... oh yeah, that's right, you're a creationist so it's impossible for you to be honest.

What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always
reproduces the same kind of animal.

For example, a pig's offsprings will, and always
has been pigs. The same is true for humans.

Still telling the same f*cking lies!

Read my Message 484 which explains all that. Or my Message 54 where I repost that lesson without the graphics (so you won't be able to bitch and moan about how small your phone is).

You have no excuse for remaining so abjectly ignorant about really basic stuff!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 12:51 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 04-18-2022 8:35 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5112
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 60 of 257 (893680)
04-18-2022 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by candle2
04-18-2022 9:39 AM


Well, this is very new. Suddenly you are starting to sound human instead of a sewer pipe spewing creationist BS. This is a look that needs to be developed more, since for the first time we can see some hope for discussion from you instead of your previous mindlessly attacking science and reality.

This is a huge step forward for you, perhaps even a breakthrough. You need to follow through.

We need to talk, so let's talk.

My sister recently had cataract surgery and it did wonders for her, though she needed new glasses either for reading or distance -- sorry, I forget which. Your surgeries should go well. We have cataract surgery down to a science. Yes, that's right, science


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by candle2, posted 04-18-2022 9:39 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022