Thursday, June 19, 2008

Follow Up to “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound”

As many readers know, I recently wrote a column titled “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound,” which explored the logical and philosophical case for the Divine. As I painstakingly pointed out in the column, all of the arguments hold true whether one believes in evolution or creationism.

In fact, for that very reason I chose not to get involved in the debate on evolution, as I felt it to be a distraction from the main point, that a universe so complexly designed, and a world that would not sustain life if any one of a trillion necessary ingredients for life were missing, does not come into being in and of itself.

Although I had recently concluded a debate with atheists on evolution, a roughly written but highly detailed transcript of which can be found at http://creationistsearcher.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/yomin-postelnik-debates-with-atheists/, I felt that delving into the scientific reasons against evolution would detract from the main theme of the column, that no matter how you believe the universe was designed, it had to have been done so intelligently. (As a side note, the above referenced debate touches on a number of pertinent issues and should be of value to the reader).

Nonetheless, many chose to attack the column from a scientific standpoint, not by bringing specific examples, but because of the lack thereof. While they entirely missed the meaning of the column, I would still like to address their issues.

To begin with, not only is evolution far from proven science. In fact there are gaping holes in its theory.

One central problem with the theory of evolution is that it dictates that life formed from non-life. This is not plausible. Furthermore, for there to be a rich enough variance in DNA/RNA this would have had to happen millions of times, separately. DNA and RNA are also both needed to reproduce a single cell.

A much larger problem with evolution is the lack of transitional fossils, fossils that show a gradual change from one form of species to the next. This isn’t an arbitrary problem. It is inconceivable that if man transitioned from ape, over time, that on the one hand we’d find a plethora of human fossils as well as a plethora of ape ones, but none in between that document such a slow and gradual change.

No one believes that such a transformation could have been sudden. If it had happened we’d have as many transitional fossils as there are human and as there are ape fossils. It also isn’t logical to suppose that reptiles formed into mammals when we have a plethora of both reptilian and mammalian fossils, but none that show a clear transition between one form and the next.

Darwin was aware of this and thought that future fossils would be discovered. But in the past 150 years, thousands of fossils were excavated and no conclusively transitional ones were found. He recognized that it isn’t logical that we’d have a plethora of human and of ape fossils but no transitional ones. The late Harvard Professor Steven J. Gould also had to admit that, quote, “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”

Given the amount of fossils excavated and the utter lack conclusively transitional ones (and the scarceness of any that scientists can even claim to be possibly transition), it’s entirely possible that Darwin himself would reject the theory of evolution today.

Proponents of evolution incorrectly cite the Archaeopteryx, a fossil that had feathers and scales, as a transitional form. In fact, it has fully developed feathers and fully developed scales. This doesn’t prove transition at all as nothing points to any transformation from scale to feather, like a half-scale for example.

The same is true of the oft-miscited duck-billed platypus. It has features that are reptilian and some mammalian, but none that show a transition from one to the other. Its reptilian, mammalian and other characteristics are each fully formed and do not show any transition of one to the other. In fact, all of its characteristics are perfectly suited to its unique climate. Furthermore, there’s no difference between modern day platypuses and those found in fossils.

The same is true of the hominids, the supposed ape to human transitional forms. Of the 12 hominids cited by evolutionists, 9 have been documented to be extinct species of ape/monkey with no human characteristics at all. The other 3 are modern day humans with no animal characteristics. A true half human half ape fossil has never been found.

But none of this was the point of the original column. Its central point was that no matter how the universe was formed, no one can plausibly argue that it happened by itself. How one can argue that both RNA and DNA came into existence, by chance, at the exact same time (because if not, no cell would reproduce, and it’s unfeasible that they developed separately and then joined together, as they are not found outside of the cellular form) is also unattainable. And we can go on and on about the trillions of coincidences needed for the evolutionist to deny a conscious Creator.

I would encourage those who disagree to give these columns fair consideration. The fact that some chose to misread the last column to the extent that they did seems ingenuous, just as those who chose to mistake the meaning of “spontaneous” as it was featured (the point there being that even the theory of evolution necessitates far too many and too complex random coincidences, trillions of them, for it to plausibly have occurred without a conscious designer) did so by reading the column in a way that differed from its obvious and intended meaning. Some even mistook “elements of life” to refer to the Periodic Table of Elements, which was an absurd interpretation and showed a lack of ability to openly think over the points of the column. Please treat the matter with fair consideration. I believe that you will gain from the experience.

7 comments:

Lui said...

“As I painstakingly pointed out in the column, all of the arguments hold true whether one believes in evolution or creationism.”

There was nothing “painstaking” about it, because that would have required you to look at basic science, which you didn’t do. Not only did you rely on a largely false view of evolution, you seem to fall (whether wilfully or out of sheer indifference to reality) for the same falsehoods each time they are pointed out to you.

”In fact, for that very reason I chose not to get involved in the debate on evolution, as I felt it to be a distraction from the main point, that a universe so complexly designed, and a world that would not sustain life if any one of a trillion necessary ingredients for life were missing, does not come into being in and of itself.”

A “trillion” is just a number you pulled out of thin air. You IMAGINE that everything had to have been “perfectly placed” (whatever that might mean) for life to appear. You don’t know what might have transpired if there had been some small difference in the past. It’s possible that life as we know it – that is, the particular types of life that have as a matter of fact transpired – would not have appeared if there had been a small change, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility of SOME form of life transpiring. Life’s history has been enormously influenced by stochastic events; if they hadn’t happened, evolution would have taken a different course with some lineages, and something else might be here talking about it. Again, what we know of in this world – the small set of possibilities that actually eventuated from the vast sea of other potentialities that could have been realised but weren’t - most certainly isn’t the best of all possible worlds; there are things that no divine designer in his right mind would have created, like the things I mentioned earlier (segregation distorters, Ebola and so on).

”To begin with, not only is evolution far from proven science. In fact there are gaping holes in its theory.”

There are gaps in every scientific theory; that doesn’t diminish their utility. The fact that you would doubt evolution on the basis that there are gaps in it shows how thoroughly you misunderstand the scientific method. Again, it would have been a trivial matter to understand this if you had actually ever bothered to look into it rather than drum up populist nonsense about it.

”One central problem with the theory of evolution is that it dictates that life formed from non-life. This is not plausible.”

Biochemists think it is plausible, not least because “life” is not unambiguously defined. Furthermore, non-living entities are capable of evolution, membranous globules can form in the right circumstances, and so can amino acids.

“Furthermore, for there to be a rich enough variance in DNA/RNA this would have had to happen millions of times, separately.”

Again, you utterly ignore the most important evolutionary insight: cumulative selection. You also ignore an even more elementary ingredient: heredity.

“A much larger problem with evolution is the lack of transitional fossils, fossils that show a gradual change from one form of species to the next. This isn’t an arbitrary problem. It is inconceivable that if man transitioned from ape, over time, that on the one hand we’d find a plethora of human fossils as well as a plethora of ape ones, but none in between that document such a slow and gradual change.”

That’s total nonsense. We have a remarkably good fossil record documenting the transitions between apes and humans (technically, humans are apes). From early Australopiths, to later Homo species, we find a plethora of change, with fossils that possess a mosaic of features typical of both groups, and increasingly human features as we come nearer to our time. The assertion that there are no transitional forms is a completely baseless one bolstered only by ignorance.

A Wikipedia search would have yielded these species, just within Homo: Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis

Of course, because evolution is an “evil” theory, it can’t be true, so none of these fossil finds can matter.

”No one believes that such a transformation could have been sudden.”

In geological terms, it could well have been sudden. In biological terms, it wasn’t. We’re still looking at periods spanning at least tens of thousands of years, but these look like rapid transitions in relation to geological time. At the resolution offered by the fossil record, such transitions might even look “instantaneous”, which we have no reason to believe they were.

“If it had happened we’d have as many transitional fossils as there are human and as there are ape fossils.”

Wrong, because it didn’t have to be constant. Furthermore, fossils tend only to preserve hard parts like bones, so there could have been lots of non-fossilised variation that we’ll never know about.

“It also isn’t logical to suppose that reptiles formed into mammals when we have a plethora of both reptilian and mammalian fossils, but none that show a clear transition between one form and the next.”

Wrong. We have the early synapsids and things like therapsids, gorgonopsids and lystrasaurs, that had features typical of both groups. We also have the transitions in the mammalian auditory system, that clearly evolved from the jaw-bones of a reptile-mammal ancestor.

”Darwin was aware of this and thought that future fossils would be discovered.”

As they have been - many dozens of them.

“But in the past 150 years, thousands of fossils were excavated and no conclusively transitional ones were found. He recognized that it isn’t logical that we’d have a plethora of human and of ape fossils but no transitional ones. The late Harvard Professor Steven J. Gould also had to admit that, quote, “the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.””

Creationists love to quote-mine Gould, as though he somehow doubted the validity of evolution. Gould and Eldredge formulated the theory of punctuated equilibrium (backed with positive evidence, not as ad hoc fix for the rarity of transitional forms) to explain certain things in the fossil record:

“We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
“Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."”

“Given the amount of fossils excavated and the utter lack conclusively transitional ones (and the scarceness of any that scientists can even claim to be possibly transition), it’s entirely possible that Darwin himself would reject the theory of evolution today.”

Not with things like Tiktaalik roseae, which is about as good a transitional form as you could possibly ask for.

”Proponents of evolution incorrectly cite the Archaeopteryx, a fossil that had feathers and scales, as a transitional form. In fact, it has fully developed feathers and fully developed scales.”

And lots and lots of typically reptilian characters; in fact, more of these than typically avian ones. Transitional doesn’t mean that every feature has to be transitional. Why would you expect that anyway? Why would Archaeopteryx have to have a perfect blend of partially formed avian characters to count as transitional? Feathers didn’t evolve for flight; they appear on things that couldn’t fly (see below), so Archaeopteryx had already inherited feathers from something else. Transitional forms are fossils with a mosaic of characters from two groups in a pattern consistent with genealogical affinity. The fact that we find a bird-like dinosaur (which you seem to be passing off as an unambiguous bird) is what’s interesting and relevant, not whether every one of its particular characters are themselves transitional.

We find feathers on species that couldn’t fly (like Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx), and there are skeletal features consistent with the presence of feathers on Velociraptor. A close relative of Tyrannosaurus rex also appears to have had feathers.

“This doesn’t prove transition at all as nothing points to any transformation from scale to feather, like a half-scale for example.”

Half-scales, if they are ever found, will be found on something more ancient than Archaeopteryx, and which almost certainly didn’t fly. The notion that we must find proto-feathers on a proto-bird is naïve and falls for the fallacy that adaptations must always have had the same function. Feathers provided part of the potential to evolve flight; they didn’t evolve in order that flight could eventually appear, and they certainly didn’t need to wait around for Archaeopteryx or even anything with wings.

”The same is true of the oft-miscited duck-billed platypus. It has features that are reptilian and some mammalian, but none that show a transition from one to the other.”

The platypus and the echidna (the only extant monotremes) represent an early divergence in mammalian diversity. They have retained many features from a common ancestor with other mammals, while the others changed more markedly in certain respects. There has been an enormous amount of time since that split, and we should not expect that monotremes and other mammals (placentals and marsupials) have smoothly blending features. What’s relevant is that we have mammals with features more typically associated with reptiles, NOT that there is an ultra-fine continuum of change (if you want something closer to that, look at the beetles), and that’s what’s consistent with our evolutionary expectations. If mammals evolved from reptiles, we should expect that there would have been forms that share features of both. And that’s what we find. Monotremes lay eggs; they have lower metabolic rates than other mammals; they have no nipples and secrete their milk through openings in their skin; they have a more reptile-like posture; and they have certain skeletal features that are not typical of any other mammalian group. The interesting thing is that DESPITE the discontinuities that must necessarily exist as a result of extinctions, we still find things like this.

“In fact, all of its characteristics are perfectly suited to its unique climate.”

That’s an entirely different question. By the way, perfection doesn’t come into it. Adaptations represent good averaged solutions to conditions that have prevailed over long periods; the environment fluctuates with appreciable frequency, meaning that there can be no objectively perfect solution. What we see in organisms is a good-enough fit to that environment, not some universal optimum solution. This also harks back to what I challenged you with several slides prior: those things that are the very anti-thesis of good design, like the existence of genomic parasites and sub-optimal morphological traits like the human birth canal. You can’t talk about perfection in one context and hold that up as evidence for God (or at least as evidence again evolution, which is isn’t since perfection isn’t a feature of the natural world) and then ignore or downplay the other stuff.

“Furthermore, there’s no difference between modern day platypuses and those found in fossils.”

The fossil platypuses are known only from fragments of jaw-bones. Their dental similarity is how we even knew supposed they originated from monotremes in the first place. The artistic reconstructions of these animals are pure speculation.

”The same is true of the hominids, the supposed ape to human transitional forms. Of the 12 hominids cited by evolutionists, 9 have been documented to be extinct species of ape/monkey with no human characteristics at all.”

Monkeys? I’d love to know what hominids were monkeys.

“The other 3 are modern day humans with no animal characteristics. A true half human half ape fossil has never been found.”

It almost sounds like you’re just making this stuff up, but then again, I’ve heard even more ridiculous things emanate from creationist sources.

”But none of this was the point of the original column. Its central point was that no matter how the universe was formed, no one can plausibly argue that it happened by itself.”

Actually, that’s precisely what most cosmologists do argue, and plausibly too. No magical entities were required to arrange stars and planets and galaxies. Which itself begs the question: if the universe is so “perfectly designed”, why is the universe so in unamiable to human life? Why is the universe so monstrously large (recently, a region of empty space was discovered that is a billion light years across). God could have designed us to live in vacuum. Why all the space? And it also raises something else: if God designed the laws of physics, why would he need to intervene in his own creation to bring about life? On the one hand, the laws of nature are held up as evidence for God creating everything; on the other hand, they are deemed completely inadequate to produce life or even to produce planets.

“How one can argue that both RNA and DNA came into existence, by chance, at the exact same time (because if not, no cell would reproduce, and it’s unfeasible that they developed separately and then joined together, as they are not found outside of the cellular form) is also unattainable.”

It’s easy: no one argues that they did. RNA is supposed to have come about BEFORE DNA (according to the RNA world hypothesis anyway). There is no requirement for them both to have come about “at the exact same time”. I seriously don’t know where you get your information from, but it’s certainly not from a scientific source, because even a rudimentary look through a scientific exposition would have shown up the flaws in your argument.

RNA and DNA didn’t have to appear simultaneously with fully-formed cells. Molecules could have co-oped globules, which are observed to occur today. In addition, self-replicating molecules can be set up in laboratories and undergo natural selection. In fact, the US Department of Defense hires a bloke
who evolves molecules in his lab for a variety of purposes.

It’s funny you should say that DNA and RNA are not found outside of cellular form, because that would imply that you’ve never heard of a virus. Viruses come in both RNA and DNA forms; they are genomic parasites that use the molecular machinery of their host to make copies of themselves and lack metabolism, but they are found as virions (non-replicating particles) outside of cells.

All these separate things suggest that, even with the substantial gaps in our knowledge pertaining to the origin of life, its naturalistic basis isn’t quite as obviously “impossible” as you would like us to believe.

“And we can go on and on about the trillions of coincidences needed for the evolutionist to deny a conscious Creator.”

No we can’t, because, as I said, “trillions” is a number you basically invoked with no evidence. It’s not a quantitative estimate, and since you’ve gotten the above facts wrong, you haven’t yet mentioned anything that represents anywhere near the sorts of difficulties you imagine that evolution faces.

”I would encourage those who disagree to give these columns fair consideration.”

And I would encourage you to give basic facts fair consideration, rather than going off on flights of fancy. I say that not to be nasty, but because what you said smacks of incredible hypocrisy.

Yomin Postelnik said...

Lui,

You're not "pointing out" tenets of evolutionary theory, you're changing them. Darwin was extremely clear on what transitional fossils are. But we don't need Darwin for that. On the most basic level, if you want to document transition, you need fossils that document clear gradual change.

You've failed to deal with that. In fact, you're avoiding it with typical absurd definitions of transition that are illogical and would have shocked Darwin. Amphibious type species do not show transition. That's simple logic that you keep running away from time and time again.

Most evolutionists wrongly deny that evolution demands that life evolved from non-life. Congratulations on at least not being one of those. Still the transition from non-life to life is a scientific impossibility that needs to have happened millions of times according to evolutionary theory.

Comparing the viruses that attach to cellular life to RNA or DNA structures, even in their first forms, is completely unattainable. It's also extremely disingenuous.

Trillions of coincidences is being generous. Enumerate all aspects of evolutionary theory's explanation of the development of man and add to that all ingredients necessary to sustain life.

Yomin Postelnik said...

See also

Here are facts you will not read in the newspapers and magazines. Scientists know that the Big Bang did not, and could not, occur. In professional books and journals they tell why the theory is unworkable. Evolutionary theory is a myth. Nothing else can explain the mountain of evidence. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

In the list below, full caps at the beginning of a hyperlink show it begins a new page.

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about the Origin of Matter - 1

Introduction - A foolish concept
The Atomic Gaps - A special reason why the Big Bang could not produce the heavier elements
Wrong Elements - The Big Bang could not have produced the elements in our planets
Supernova - Star explosions do not occur often enough
Population III Stars Missing - The theoretical "first stars" are not there
Calculations Are Too Close - The theory requires calculations within extremely narrow limits

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about the Origin of Matter - 2

Missing Matter - The Big Bang theory does not agree with the amount of matter in the universe
Ever Outflowing - The Big Bang does not explain the universe as we know it
Stellar Rotation Too Rapid - Many stars turn too fast to have been casually formed
Antimatter Not There - The Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter
Universe Too lumpy - The theory does not allow for such lumpy things as stars and galaxies

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about the Origin of Matter - 3

Background Radiation - The facts disprove this "evidence"
Redshift - Scientific facts disprove the speed theory application also
Arp Discoveries - A careful scientist found much evidence disproving the theory

SCIENTISTS SPEAK about the Origin of Matter - 4

Quasars - Their existence ruins the speed theory
Conclusion - The Big Bang theory has been discredited

Related Articles

THE ELEMENTAL FORCES of the Universe - How very amazing they are
3 MEN Who Gave Us Our Modern Stellar Theories - It is surprising to learn more about them

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Forward to the next major topic in this series: THE ORIGIN OF THE STARS - 51 scientific facts disproving evolutionary origins of stars and galaxies

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/01-ma5.htm

Lui said...

"Darwin was extremely clear on what transitional fossils are.”

Sure. And you’re not. The only one changing evolutionary tenets is you.

“In fact, you're avoiding it with typical absurd definitions of transition that are illogical and would have shocked Darwin. Amphibious type species do not show transition. That's simple logic that you keep running away from time and time again.”

Since you utterly misconstrued what a transitional fossil actually is, your attempts to put this on me are disingenuous and cowardly at best. A transitional form doesn't have to show "gradual change" all by itself; it can show it with reference to other fossils. The series itself is relevant, not just individual fossils looked at with no context (creationists are especially adept at looking at things with no context, focusing on them as though they were stand-alone entities existing in a void. They seem incapable of understanding that no single fact about nature demonstrates evolution. It's the convergence of many lines of evidence that together support evolution. The demand often made to provide "just one proof" is designed so as to fail, but that doesn't mean that the demand itself is valid, because it rests on a wrong presupposition). Tiktaalik shows a mosaic of features from fish and amphibians, as do other “fishopod” type fossils. Some are more fish-like, others are more amphibian like. Tiktaalik is somewhere in between, and has some features that are a “blend” of fish and amphibian (exactly what you demanded, so in this case, yes, a single fossil does show gradual change, but it also reinforces the series that was already there before its discovery). The existence of any one of these fossils is impressive (and suggestive) enough, but we in fact have a series of them.

“Most evolutionists wrongly deny that evolution demands that life evolved from non-life.”

Indeed, it doesn’t demand this. Even if we discovered that God had planted the first seeds of life (for which there’s no evidence), it wouldn’t falsify subsequent evolution. If God created the universal common ancestor, it wouldn't mean that life couldn't have evolved from there.

“Still the transition from non-life to life is a scientific impossibility that needs to have happened millions of times according to evolutionary theory.”

Again, you provide a complete caricature and bald, naked assertions with no grounding in fact. You should be clearer about what you mean when you say that it had to have happened “millions of time”. There is no sharp, definitive discontinuity between life and non-life, and even if there was, it wouldn’t have had to happen millions of time independently (that’s actually closer to what you believe: that God created each species independently from nothing; it’s emphatically not what I believe). It only had to happen once, and once it did, that entity would have simply replicated and spawned lineages, some of which survived and others that didn’t. That life coming from non-life is impossible is your own personal opinion based on incredulity, not a scientific assessment.

“Comparing the viruses that attach to cellular life to RNA or DNA structures, even in their first forms, is completely unattainable. It's also extremely disingenuous.”

Actually, it isn’t, since I was simply refuting a statement that YOU made: that DNA and RNA doesn't exist outside of cellular form. That’s false, so don’t now try to turn this around and imply that I’m the one being “disingenuous”. At least admit that you got your basic facts wrong.

“Trillions of coincidences is being generous.”

You’ve provided not a single coincidence that has to be met.

“Enumerate all aspects of evolutionary theory's explanation of the development of man and add to that all ingredients necessary to sustain life.”

And again you ASSUME that what eventuated must necessarily be what was somehow planned. Evolution didn’t produce us because we were its goal (any more than parasitoid wasps were its goal). We are a consequence of evolution. If evolution had produced other intelligent beings – say, intelligent reptiles – those reptiles would also imagine that they were the “point” of the universe. Of course, there was nothing inevitable about them. As it happened – due to historical contingencies - they weren’t the ones who in fact eventuated. They would have been the products of an algorithmic process (acting upon the material available) just as much as we are. We happen to be the ones who eventuated, and here we are talking about it. After the 9/11 attacks, scientists took the opportunity to study clouds, since all commercial air travel was suspended. Does that mean that the 9/11 attacks happened in order for scientists to study clouds? Are you saying that everything in your life was planned and inevitable, and that no accidents or surprises ever led onto anything important? Some of the most important things in one’s life – and indeed, some of the most important things in history – followed on from contingencies. Evolution is basically a process that filters some contingencies (certain mutations) and discards the rest, depending upon the conditions produced by other contingencies (the environment conditions owing to, for example, the aftermath of a meteorite impact). You seem incapable of conceptualising the idea that a change in something can lead to other possibilities, which aren’t necessarily any “worse” than the possibility that has actually transpired. If Attila the Hun had never been born, you and I might never have been born. But that doesn’t mean that history would have been halted; it simply means that other people would have been born. And they, too, might be arguing that they were inevitable because they were the ones who got to be born. There are countless people that could have been born but who weren’t, owing to the countless permutations of genetic configurations owing to recombination and segregation. If the meteorite that wiped out the dinosaurs hadn’t done so, humans might never have evolved. But something else would have (not necessarily an intelligent species, but something). They would have been – in retrospect - just as unlikely as us, because a great many occurrences would have been required to produce them. But they were just one of great many possibilities, any of which could have happened if the conditions had been right. There is no reason to privilege our existence with the veneer of inevitability.

“Scientists know that the Big Bang did not, and could not, occur.”

Show me. I’d love to know where they say that. No offence, but I don’t seriously believe that you’ve actually read professional books and journals.

“Evolutionary theory is a myth.”

Another naked assertion, backed by not one shred of evidence. The journals are overflowing with discoveries in evolutionary biology. The mountain of evidence is all one-way. You’re just engaged in excuses because creationism has failed so miserably. As Martin said, it’s basically a case of, “Okay, we’ve lost. Now let’s split the prize.”

“The Atomic Gaps - A special reason why the Big Bang could not produce the heavier elements”

Which elements are you referring to? Have you heard of stellar nucleosynthesis?

“Wrong Elements - The Big Bang could not have produced the elements in our planets”

Not all of them; the stars were involved in that as well.

“Stellar Rotation Too Rapid - Many stars turn too fast to have been casually formed”

“Casually?” What does that even mean? And I’d love to know why God would create stars thousands and even millions of light years away (I suspect you’ll cover that one up with the common excuse that God is “beyond” us and that his plans are mysterious).

You get your information from creationist sources and swallow it unquestioningly, not even bothering to cross check it with what scientists actually say to see if the latter's claims are being adequately conveyed. Quote mining and Red Herrings seem to be the order of the day. Creationist propaganda mills do absolutely nothing other than poking holes in current scientific knowledge and contribute not one iota to it.

Yomin Postelnik said...

Lui,

The only one misconstruing things is you. Look at what Darwin actually said. Or if you want, forget Darwin and look at logic, which should be a new concept to you. If all you have is a supposition based on DNA and common characteristics, one of two things is true
a) they're related, through evolution
b) physical life forms share common physical characteristics

A good case for "a" would be found if there were evidence of clear transition, the gradual type that the evolution needs for its premise to be supported. The lack of these shows "b." We have a plethora of fossils that are supposedly from a very early stage, an equally large plethora of those supposedly from the latter stage, and absolutely nothing in between. Based on the amounts available of the other two categories it's safe to conclude that they're two different species, not one that gradually transitioned into another, with all steps of that transition, seemingly hundreds of generations, having disappeared (yet leaving behind the earlier fossils).

Stop making a fool of yourself by changing Darwin's account of what constitutes a traditional fossil and start doing some research.

Yomin Postelnik said...

Lui,

You've failed to address any of my questions and your last post consisted of nothing more than trolling.

I've accepted a lot of rude insults as substitute for facts from you because you did raise some points worth discussing (that were refuted) in your other posts. Your last one had nothing of substance, was crass and insulting and was therefore deleted. If you wish to be crass and insulting you can still post here, but at least address the questions, directly above. The lack of transitional fossils in their true form (read The Origin of Species) for Darwin (and logic's) definition of what would constitute a transitional fossil and the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Lui said...

I see that you've finally resorted to censorship (it means I'm doing my job), as can be expected from someone who wants to straitjacket the truth and present their side as such. Not only DID I "address" your points, you have singularly failed to address any of mine without resorting to still more straw-men, crude caricatures, and outright distortions. I have exposed them as such each and every time, but apparently this isn't allowed, for it would imply that maybe you're not as knowledgeable as you'd like to imagine. This is why I sincerely asked that you stick to what you know, because science is clearly not your strong area. You can also rest assured that I will post the deleted message on my own blog as well as on Martin's. I should also point out that your latest messages haven't exactly been "polite" either, and that mine weren't terribly rude. If you're going to resort to censorship when things get a little heated (or factual), then I feel sorry for you.