Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: steve austin
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17857
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 46 of 278 (893606)
04-17-2022 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by candle2
04-17-2022 1:05 PM


quote:
I'm still waiting Paulk.
Waiting for what ?
quote:
Tell me what you interpret the light
from day one and day 4 to be.
You didn’t ask.
But really I just take the text at face value. The “light” of day 1 is called “day” and therefore represents daylight. Day 4 adds sunlight, moonlight and starlight, but the “light” that is “separated” from “darkness” is still day.
quote:
How can you criticize my viewpoints;
yet, are not willing to offer your own?
Well, I have. But you are the one who said he could prove his claims, and I don’t have to offer any viewpoint of my own to answer that.

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 48 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:52 PM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 47 of 278 (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

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 48 of 278 (893609)
04-17-2022 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
04-17-2022 1:23 PM


What was the daylight on day one?
And, without the sun being the determining
factor, what caused the light?
Furthermore, what then caused the night
(Darkness), if the earth didn't rotate to
face away from the sun?
These questions have to be answered.
God tells us to prove everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 1:23 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-17-2022 2:08 PM candle2 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 49 of 278 (893610)
04-17-2022 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dwise1
04-17-2022 1:27 PM


Dwise, you have put nothing out there that
I have not already dismissed dozens of times.
If you were to tell me that you believe evolution
is true, then I could at least respect your faith.
You are trying to tell me that evolution is true
and has been proved.
It is impossible to prove this assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 1:27 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 3:27 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 55 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 3:33 PM candle2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17857
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 50 of 278 (893611)
04-17-2022 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by candle2
04-17-2022 1:52 PM


quote:
What was the daylight on day one?
The daylight. That’s what it says.
quote:
And, without the sun being the determining
factor, what caused the light?
You’re expecting an ancient text that says that the sky is solid, in water above it to be scientifically accurate? What it says is that God created the daylight - it mentions no other source, or even a need for one.
quote:
Furthermore, what then caused the night
(Darkness), if the earth didn't rotate to
face away from the sun?
Since the author obviously didn’t know about the rotation of the Earth, that’s not a very sensible question. If you want to look at Ancient Middle Eastern ideas of day and night I suggest you do your own research,
quote:
These questions have to be answered.
These questions are fundamentally wrong-headed. Trying to fit the text to modern scientific knowledge is no way to understand it. As you have demonstrated.
quote:
God tells us to prove everything.
I believe that would be more in line with current usage if it said “test”. And really you ought to try testing your ideas before posting them here. Maybe we’d see less silly crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 1:52 PM candle2 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 278 (893612)
04-17-2022 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by candle2
04-17-2022 12:51 PM


candy2 writes:
I have been adamant about how life started.
I've laid it out there.
All based on a poorly written book of fiction.
candy2 writes:
Now, you tell me how life started. And don't say
that this has nothing to do with evolution.
Chemistry.
candy2 writes:
Either prove that life came from non-living
matter, or that it was created.
Life still comes from non-living matter.
candy2 writes:
If you say that life began by chance, then
I challenge you to prove how this happened.
I challenge you to replicate it.
Once again chemistry, not chance.
candle2 writes:
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.
There's no evidence that life was by design.
candy2 writes:
Where are all the transitional fossils?
There must, by all reasonable standards,
be hundreds of millions of them.
How would you know what "ALL" reasonable standards for fossils are?
We have museums with tens of thousands of intermediate fossils. New ones are reported monthly in dozens of scientific journals.
candy2 writes:
Why should science be restricted to naturalistic
causes rather than logical ones?
Science is a method of analyzing and understanding the nature of the Universe based on observation and evidence. Logic is a way of thinking that may or may not involve reality.
candy2 writes:
Can you explain In a step-by-step procedure
How the flagellum motor came to be? How
about the eye? Or the enormous complexities
of blood clotting?
Nope, I can't, but scientist who study these subjects are revealing more and more about the molecular processes involved. They can describe what they have learned so far, but you would not understand it.
candy2 writes:
Name me all the scientific breakthroughs due
to evolution?
Far too many to name here, but basically all of modern medicine and agriculture, as opposed to zero scientific breakthroughs due to the bible.
candy2 writes:
Why do evolutionists place more importance on
ridiculous theories than they do on operational/
observable science?
Oh, that's an easy one, they don't place any importance on ridiculous theories. Operational science is just something you made up.
candy2 writes:
What has been observed during all recorded
history is that one kind of animal always
reproduces the same kind of animal.
Evolution does not dispute that.
cany2 writes:
This is called operational science, and it has
been replicated trillions of times.
No it's not. It's just you making some obvious statements without any scientific investigation what so ever.
candy2 writes:
It is impossible to replicate this mumbo-jumbo
nonsense you dish out.
I didn't notice Jar dishing out anything, but we all know mumbo-jumbo is the easiest thing of all to replicate, just make up shit and repeat it, exactly like you do.
Nice Gish Gallop, by the way.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 12:51 PM candle2 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 52 of 278 (893613)
04-17-2022 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by candle2
04-17-2022 12:51 PM


Candle, stop acting like the complete ass you have shown so far.
Learn the very basics.
We do not know how life got started yet.
It really is that simple.
Adults are willing to admit there are things they do not know unlike you who simply make shit up.
AbE:
One thing I have learned is that every living thing on the Earth that we have ever examined is just made from non-living stuff.
Edited by jar, : applin spallin

Edited by jar, : see AbE

Edited by jar, : still more applin spallin


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by candle2, posted 04-17-2022 12:51 PM candle2 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 53 of 278 (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 not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 54 of 278 (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 not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 55 of 278 (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 not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 56 of 278 (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: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 57 of 278 (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 not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 04-18-2022 8:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 58 of 278 (893670)
04-18-2022 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
04-17-2022 11:15 PM


candle is a pitifull example of Christianity
He claims to be a Bible believing Christian yet thinks there is a god of the bible.
First, there is no such thing as "The Bible™". There are numerous Canons and each has a book they cal the Bible, yet they are all different collects of stories. The shortest Canon has only the first five book of the Old Testament while the largest Canon has over eighty books.
Second, if he had ever honestly read the Bible he would know that the description show not one god but rather each god that the author of that particular story wanted to create.
The god of Genesis 1 and the god found in Genesis 2&3 are mutually exclusive, two entirely different critters.
The god found in Genesis 1 is totally competent, creating without hesitation simply by will but also aloof, apart and having no interaction whatsoever with the creations. Once done he says that's good enough and takes a nap.
The god created by the author(s) of Genesis 2&3 though is not totally competent, learning by trial and error and not creating by will alone or without hesitation and trepidation, using whatever is handy and somewhat bumbling and unsure. But this god is not aloof, not apart and does interact with the creations.
Two entirely different gods created to serve two entirely different purposes.
He is still thinking like a child and has never put aside his childish things.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 11:15 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 892
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 59 of 278 (893673)
04-18-2022 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by dwise1
04-17-2022 10:57 PM


Dwise, several things to say here:
First of all, I do have cataracts, and
the left eye is scheduled to be operated
on a week from today. The right eye is
Two week from the left.
I ask that you shorten your posts and
make one or two points at a time.
Also, I am not asking that creationism
Be taught in school.
In addition, I would like to see the theory
of evolution stop being taught as fact, when
It takes much more faith to believe in
evolution than it does in creation.
You give a lot of people's opinions about
how evolution might have progressed, but
that is all they are.
Give me infallible, undeniable proof of
creation. Conjectures are valueless.
Scientists do not know one percent of
all there is to know about the universe
and everything contained in it.
In other words, We are extremely primitive.
Don't pretend otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by dwise1, posted 04-17-2022 10:57 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 10:45 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 61 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 11:12 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 62 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-18-2022 11:42 AM candle2 has not replied
 Message 63 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 12:06 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 4:24 PM candle2 has not replied
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 04-18-2022 4:44 PM candle2 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5991
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 60 of 278 (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 not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024