Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies

Creationist Fred Williams Web Site Lies - 3
Or, Cruel to be "kind"."No, creation science is not testable scientifically."
- Harold Coffin, Loma Linda University - another creationist under oath to GodFred Williams is a liar. He is dishonest, deceitful, and a shame in the eyes of the very God he claims to stand for. I will present more evidence of this here. Fred Williams is also rather warped. Read on.Williams emailed me yesterday (10/19/02), uninvited. I thought perhaps he had been reading the postings I have made here recently, but no. He wanted to tell me that he had banned me from the guest book on his web site!Why bother telling me? Does he think I care about his censored guest book where he will not let any real criticism of his web site go undeleted?! Does he think I read it avidly on a daily basis?! I have touched on it in this series, but it is not important. What is important is not his guest book, but his lies. However, since the guest book is so important to *him*, I think we should briefly review it here, and perhaps look into it a little more, further down the road.Williams deliberately invites all and sundry to leave their comments in his guest book, yet he censors anything he doesn't like - usually material that highlights his own stupidity, incompetence, and lies. Does he think his censorship represents some kind of divine judgment on me for trespassing against the religious kingdom he has created for himself? - punishment because I have posted things there from time to time that are not kind about the lies he is spreading? The truth is that Fred Williams cannot stand a fair fight, nor can he hold his own in one.He is already known to be fanatically in favor of heavy-handed censorship. As already discussed in this thread, he was found to be acting as an anonymous moderator on the Creation Web, along with his back-door buddy, Walter ReMine. Neither he nor ReMine told any participants that they were moderating, yet Williams and ReMine were censoring debates in which they themselves were taking part! When Williams was challenged on this, what was his first reaction? To make an honest Christian admission of guilt? Nope. Fred Williams did what he does best: he lied about it.This so-called guest book ban is, of itself, bizarre. You would think a ban would mean you cannot write anything in the guest book, but Williams' idea of a ban is much more comprehensive than that. It seems he is so afeared of me that I am apparently not allowed even to *read* his guest book. More hilarious, I am not allowed to read his "Response to Budikka" that he wrote in reply to a guest book comment I wrote some time ago! That's Fred Williams idea of fair and frank and open discussion: If you don't let potential opponents know what you say, how can they possibly oppose you?! 1984 anyone? Does he seriously think he can keep people out?What was Williams' reason for banning me? I posted excerpts from an email someone had sent to me "without their permission"! What email was this? Christopher Bohar wrote me an email in which he repeatedly mentioned Fred Williams and his web site, and challenged me to a debate.I responded directly to Bohar, but the email bounced back as undeliverable (obviously Bohar is another "Coward for Christ") and I have heard literally nothing from him since that email. This is why I began the Bohar thread on this discussion board (from which Bohar has also been conspicuous by his absence).When I failed to reach Bohar, I posted not Bohar's email in Williams' guest book (as Williams once more lies about!), but my *response* to his email which had, as I explained, failed to reach Bohar. In it, I quoted some of Bohar's comments back to him with my responses, in the hope of contacting Bohar. But this was too much for Williams. How dare I take up a challenge against every lie he holds dear and make a genuine effort to reach the challenger through the only means that challenger had left open to me?!!My understanding of the law is that emails are like regular mail: they are just like a gift, and become the property of the person to whom they are sent - to do with as the recipient wishes. I have specifically instructed Williams on this before and, as usual, he has offered no refutation whatsoever of my position. Of course he cannot possibly allow anyone else to even comment on the absurd rules he has made to safeguard the sanctity of *his* web site - which is apparently more important to Williams than truth or God. On his web site, he has become God.Anyway, enough on this digression. In the absence of even the most limp attempt to refute anything I have so far written on this topic, let me continue to examine Williams web site at The Evolution Fairytale , where he repeatedly pretends that he has answered my challenge to define "kind". This is, of course, another lie. Here is what Williams said:"A "kind", or baramin, refers to a group of organisms that either reproduce among themselves, or are linked by common ancestry. For example, there are several species of jack rabbits that can no longer interbreed, but share an ancestry with a previous jack rabbit population that could interbreed. Migration of groups from the main population (a speciation event) resulted in groups with changed mating habits. The same can be said for wolves, coyotes, and domestic dogs, who share some common ancestor that had the genetic information to produce a wide variety of the dog "kind". Much as evolutionists cannot agree or settle on clear classification boundaries, creationists also don't know enough to define absolute boundaries of a "kind". It is fairly certain that a "kind" would fall anywhere between the Linnaean classification of species to family."(Compare this with: "We must here attempt to define what we mean by a basic kind. A basic animal or plant kind would include all animals or plants which were derived from a common stock. In present day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool." which I believe appeared in Duane Gish's, "Evolution? The Fossils Say No!" in 1978.
In short, creationists have made literally no progress whatsoever in their "research" on this topic in 25 years! Either that or Williams, true to creationist form, is simply parroting another creationist without either thinking for himself or checking for himself.)Let's look at Williams' definition:
"Baramin"? This is simply creationist pseudo-speak for "kind" - just so's they can have another word to use that sounds less Biblical and more scientific. It is meaningless, because what it means is: "created kind" precisely the same as the term they are trying to hide. To paraphrase straight out of Williams' playbook: Was "kind" always labeled thus, or is it just recently (last 20 years or so) that this new name was established? If so, why was the name changed?"Linked by common ancestry? This is the biological definition of "clade"."Fairly certain"? "Would fall anywhere between"? This was supposed to be a scientific definition, and here we are two years later and Williams is still pretending that he answered the question!In short, Williams has defined nothing. He has offered nothing scientific and supplied no means by which one could tell if a given organism were of this "kind" or that "kind". He specifically mentions the "dog kind", but is apparently unaware that wolves and coyotes differ by 6% in their mitochondrial DNA, whereas wolves and domestic dogs differ by only 1%. Humans and chimpanzees differ in their DNA by only 1.6%. So by Williams' own definition, chimpanzees and humans must be of the same kind, since they are genetically closer than wolves and coyotes, which Williams himself insists *are* of the same "kind"!And what about jackrabbits? Williams claims the north American species are all of the same "kind" even though they cannot interbreed, but he offers no reason as to why this should be so or how this could be determined using "creation science"! If they "migrated" as he insanely describes it, how was this possible? How could God's created perfection possibly speciate into new varieties?The whole purpose of Williams' web site is to dismiss evolution as a fairy tale, so he cannot call upon any evolutionary mechanism to aid him in his just-so story. Why did the jackrabbits diverge? Why can they no longer interbreed? How was it possible to accumulate sufficient mutation to even speciate if there are no beneficial or too few beneficial mutations to accomplish this "variation" as creationists insist?When I brought up similar issues during our debate, I challenged Williams to support his wild claims on the topic of "kinds" by asking him why it is that humans and chimpanzees are *not* considered to be the same "kind" given that they are more genetically similar than some species of vireo bird (humans and chimps share 98.4% of DNA, the vireos share only 97.1%), or some species of elephant, or some species of camel. I quoted a comment supportive of this by Roger Fouts, from his excellent book, "Next of Kin".Williams derided Fouts as an authority (and thereby conveniently side-stepped answering this question as he effectively side-stepped answering some 30 other questions and challenges I set for him). He claimed that Fouts was outside his field. In this, Williams conveniently manages to forget that Fouts isn't quite so far out of his field as Williams himself is, since the latter is an electrical engineer and therefore (by Williams own circumscription) has no authority whatsoever to be hosting a web site discussing, much less criticizing evolution!The truth is more likely that Williams is out of his tree. Williams is a hypocrite and an incompetent advocate for his cause, either ducking every challenge that comes his way, or giving a response that a blithering idiot would be ashamed of and then claiming he has answered it.However, let me press this topic one more time, and let me humor Williams by not even referencing Fouts.In an article at;
Understanding our ape 'cousins:' chimpanzee g | EurekAlert!
we find this quote: "Pbo and colleagues searched...about 18,000 genes...Gene expression proved to be a very individual thing, with some humans appearing more closely related to chimpanzees than to other humans in overall expression patterns...For blood and liver tissues, levels of gene expression in humans were more like those in the chimp than in the macaque...But the brain tissue told a different story: This time, chimpanzee and macaque gene expression patterns were more similar to each other than to the human pattern...To determine if the differences between humans and chimps were common among closely related species, the researchers also analyzed gene and protein expression in two mouse species that are as genetically similar to each other as humans are to chimps. They found fewer differences in expression levels among the mice, further suggesting that the human/chimp discrepancy marks a special evolutionary event."Let me clearly list the issues here, so that even the expert in evasion, Fred Williams (or anyone who might try to support him) cannot side-step and evade this issue yet again:1. This article specifically states, in the first portion quoted, that "Gene expression proved to be a very individual thing, with some humans appearing more closely related to chimpanzees than to other humans in overall expression patterns"I want Williams to explain how it can be possible in two species that are, by his own claim, non-evolved, completely unrelated, individually and separately designed "kinds", that gene expression in some humans can be more similar to that in some chimps than it is to that in other humans.2. How is it possible, in this same regard, for humans and chimps to be more closely related than chimps are to macaques in some tissue levels of gene expression, such as liver and blood, but different in brain tissue? Does this or does this not provide powerful evidence that the theory of evolution is correct? That humans and chimps followed precisely the same path until about six million years ago, hence their liver and blood expressions might be expected to be similar, but beyond that point, humans split from chimps, distancing themselves most significantly by increased brain size, thereby accounting for the fact that gene expression in brain tissue diverges more widely between humans and chimps than it does between macaques and chimps?3. Thirdly (and if Williams and his cronies dance around the other two, let them even try to respond to this one): what is to be made of the portion towards the end of the quote: "the researchers also analyzed gene and protein expression in two mouse species that are as genetically similar to each other as humans are to chimps."If there are two mouse species that are as genetically similar to each other as humans are to chimps, are the two mouse species different "kinds" or are humans and chimps scientifically the same "kind" after all?Svante Pbo is a PhD who has lectured on cell biology and genetics and currently lectures on molecular evolutionary biology. He is Director of the Department of Genetics at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. So, is *he* out of his field? If not, what excuse will Williams and his clueless cronies find this time for not addressing this issue?And what of this glaring admission by Williams: "creationists also don't know enough to define absolute boundaries of a "kind"". If they do not, then how can they be so fundamentally convinced that there even is a boundary, and if they are, what is that boundary and how is it maintained? If they do not know the absolute boundaries, how can they possibly be so certain that one "kind" cannot evolve into another?I find it hilarious that Williams, who pretends, as do most creationists, that creation can be established scientifically, runs directly to the Bible for his "scientific definition", which then peters out as: a group of organisms that either reproduce among themselves, or are linked by common ancestry. He winds up snivelingly: "It is fairly certain that a "kind" would fall anywhere between the Linnaean classification of species to family."Creationists often switch places with evolutionists on this topic, forgetting which side of the fence they are on. They like to pretend that since evolutionists cannot define "species" nailed down for all eternity, then neither should creationists have to. Unfortunately, they are forgetting something crucial: evolutionists may sometimes have a hard time rigidly defining a species because all species are inter-linked in a huge tree of evolution!This is not true of creation. Creation insists that there are immutably separate "kinds", designed and created without regard to one another, members of any one of which can never give rise to other kinds. If creation were actually true, it ought to be the easiest thing in the world to demonstrate the reality of these "kinds". Yet here is Williams, at the end of his definition, vaguely alluding to "kind" as "anywhere between the Linnaean classification of species to family" (and he is only "fairly certain" about that!).Let's ignore his grammar and ask, "So which is it?" It cannot be both. If it is species, then creationism is already defeated, because speciation (i.e. one kind changing to another) is a proven event. If it is family, then all species within a family ought to be able to interbreed since they are all the same kind, and we know this is not true. Which is it? How do we tell? Where is, once again, the *science* that I asked for in his definition? Where is this (cheap excuse for a) definition demonstrable genetically? I don't see anywhere a tree (as evolutionists can produce) of which organisms are linked, which are not, and how creationists know this.The hypocritical thing about Williams running like a baby to the Bible for his "definition" is that this is a book he declared off-limits in our debate! In this same debate, he felt completely free to challenge evolution textbook by textbook, but I couldn't touch the Bible! See what I mean about this tin-pot little "god" creating his own Eden? Why was the Bible - the very cornerstone of his position, as articles on his web site prove - off limits? What was Fred Williams so desperately afraid of?Creationists still have to come up with an explanation as to how two moths and/or two butterflies on the ark managed to generate almost 150,000 species in only 4,400 or so years since the flood. That's almost three new species, *every single month, every single year*, since the flood, not even counting the ones which have become extinct. Where is the evidence of this fantastic mutation rate, and how did such a mutation rate flourish when there are (as Fred Williams himself and his bosom-buddy Walter repeatedly insist) no effective beneficial mutations? Why was it even necessary and what was the impetus for it without evolution and natural selection?!If the classification is at the family level, how did those two sweet little domestic cats on the ark manage to produce almost 40 species? That's very nearly a new species every 100 years since the ark. What was the impetus for this, if those two cats were perfect? Why, when there are no native cats on the island of Madagascar, is there a fossa, which is not a cat but looks exactly like one to the casual eye and leads a similar lifestyle? How do creationists account for convergent evolution? How could it happen if God created the cat perfectly, as a precise fit to its lifestyle?Under creationism, is the fossa a member of felidae, the cat family? How do creationists determine what is a member of a kind? What is it that makes the massive Bengal tiger and the all but cute little Scots wildcat members of the same family? How could one have possibly "varied" into the other, with no beneficial mutations in only 4,400 years? And why would it?Since no creationist has ever adequately answered these questions, much less scientifically defined their answers, creationism's most fundamental foundation - that of immutable "kinds" - is disproven from a comprehensive lack of support it has, and is dead. Admitting that "kind" *can* equal anywhere from species to family is the same as admitting to evolution!While on this topic, I have to highlight that Williams, in his catastrophic ignorance of the realities of genetics and evolution, has further blundered here. He specifically acknowledges Karl Von Linne (Linnaeus)'s classification when he himself fails to define "kind", but is apparently completely unaware that Linnaeus almost put humans and chimpanzees into the same "kind" because he could not for the life of him see any reason at all (except that the church would be insulted) for separating them out!Any creationist want to refute any of this, or shall I continue unimpeded?Budikka

Creationist Fred Williams Web Site Lies - 4
Or, "Evidence? The Bible says No!""If you want to define science as testable, predictable, I would say [that creation science is not really science]"
- Ariel Roth, Loma Linda UniversitySo here we are at step number 4 in our look at the lies on creationist Fred Williams web site, and guess what? Not a single person has come to his defense - not even Williams himself. It looks like the only conclusion we can draw so far from this thread is that everyone agrees that Williams is a liar, that his web site is dishonest and deceitful, and by implication, that creationism itself is a lie.Yes, I know someone did step in and defend his search engine(!), but that person really offered nothing in support of Williams web site per se, and actually was missing the point of my comments on the search engine, so I need not address that.I think two more stages after this, and we will be done with this thread, so please, if you can offer any support at all for Williams, give generously and give soon.In this step, I want to look at Williams evidences of the Bible.In our debate, Williams felt perfectly free to attack all aspects of evolution. His attacks, of course, were ill-informed, misleading, ill-considered and impotent, but when I turned the tables on him and addressed his own "text book" - the Bible - what happened? He got all upset and unilaterally ruled it off limits, once again avoiding dealing with some difficult challenges that I set for him. This was, of course, true to form. Williams only wants to debate when he can be both participant and moderator of his own debate, making all the rules, but why is he so vulnerable when it comes to what he contends is God's word?The topic of the debate was his web site, and it is within his web site that he features topics addressing Biblical evidences and religion in general. The material was well within the scope of the debate. Why did he feel so unable to defend it? That's what I want to look at here.Williams opens the Biblical section of his web site thus: "OK, for many this is an uncomfortable topic, I know it was for me for years. But before you click away from this page, please at least consider what I have to present here, and just for a moment try to put aside whatever it is that makes you uncomfortable."So Williams, an unregenerate Bible-thumper himself, is so embarrassed by God that he has to open this section with an apology!He concludes in his opener: "I have found after much research that the Bible is the only religious book that provides overwhelming evidence that it is the Word of God."He then goes on to describe what he is apparently contending is evidence in support of his gullible assumption: that Bible was written in 3 languages over 1,500 years by over 40 authors and has been translated into more languages than any book in history.Of course, not a single thing he says here has any bearing whatsoever on whether the Bible is the authentic word of any god. The real truth is that we know for a fact that it is not. Not even the most fanatical Bible advocate contends that any god actually directly wrote those words. There isn't a single Bible-thumper on the planet who would deny that it was in reality written by humans. The absolute most anyone can claim for the Bible is that the real writers were "inspired" by a god (or gods) when they themselves put the words down.But it is even worse than this. In nearly every episode related in the Bible, those who put the words down were not the people who witnessed or experienced the events they were writing about! The actual events - the original events (assuming they occurred at all) - were passed on in folk tales for years, even generations, before anyone actually wrote them down!So you know what? in short, it doesn't matter that ancient Biblical fragments match the current translations, because the current translations are, in the end, translations of those very fragments. What's miraculous about that? The base fact is that no matter how well translations match, we have no idea what the original events actually were because no one alive today witnessed them. The base fact is that we do not know what those original stories actually were, because no one alive today heard them or told them.All we have is what someone thought those stories meant when they wrote them down and later translated, re-interpreted, copied and changed them. We really know none of the names of the people who actually did this. If someone today wrote a book and claimed it was the inspired word of God, not a single Bible supporter would accept this and embrace those writings, yet if you remove those same writings two or three thousand years so they are far more anonymous than any modern writer could hope to be and suddenly, magically, those same words become authentic word of God! Go figure.The bottom line is that it is in this - the words of men - that Williams and his ilk insist that you put your faith - not in the word of any god. Why does Williams want to limit God so?This is very embarrassing for the creationists, because what it boils down to when all is said and done is that every single attack they are leveling at the historical record for evolution also applies to the Bible. The only way to verify many of Williams claims for the Bible is to accept the scientific method used to verify evolution, a method whose utility is so anathema to Williams that he turns himself blue in the face denying it!Creationism adds nothing to any sphere of modern knowledge excepting that of acrobatics!And what of the reliability of those ancient manuscripts? Here's a very interesting article by Farrell Till on the topic, and it is relevant to later discussion in this article, since it features the supposed book of Jeremiah:
The Skeptical Review » Internet InfidelsWilliams makes this blind and bold claim: "Despite its many controversial topics, and the diverseness (sic) of its authors, the Bible has maintained a remarkable harmony and consistency from Genesis through Revelation."But this is yet another lie! The Bible is full of confusion, contradiction, error and fallacy. The God with which it begins bears little real resemblance to the God of the early New Testament who doesn't really seem to have any connection with the God of Revelation. The idea behind God's supposed relationship with humanity is not the same in the Pentateuch as it is in the New Testament. The same name is not even used for God in various portions of the Bible. This actually helps differentiate authorship to a limited extent, but it also means that the Bible itself denies Williams' claims for Biblical harmony. There are many different versions of God in the Bible, and simply cobbling together disparate texts from widely separated authors has done nothing to change that.There are two creation stories in Genesis that contradict each other, and this is not the only instance where the Bible repeats itself: either telling precisely the same story over again (and still getting the details wrong), such as in the Gospels, or telling the same story about two different people, such as the "king of Egypt" ordering the slaughter of Hebrew males at the beginning of the story about Moses, and the same story of slaughter being told about the birth of Jesus. In what way does this demonstrate harmony? The harmony of rip-offs? Here is Williams harmony:
The Skeptical Review » Internet InfidelsI have to agree with Williams that it does represent consistency. This is the consistency you get when when unimaginative authors want to pass off their work as original material (for what that's worth) and mix it in with earlier material that (for whatever reason) has some currency among readers because of its antiquity or because it is already venerated for whatever reason. But this technique speaks of the duplicity of humankind, not of the validity or authenticity of religious materials.Williams refers us to his presentation of "...strong evidence that supports the Bible as the true Word of God." His first line of argument is (so he claims) the Bible's "unswerving ability to accurately predict future events, often in minute details."Let me begin by referring you to this URL:
The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels
which deals with Biblical false prophecy. Now let's look at Williams claims.Williams first draws our attention to Israel - that once the Hebrews were scattered, but now have their own nation. He ignores the fact that the Hebrews are still scattered all over the world, and far more of them live outside of Israel than live in it. His point is to try and show that the Bible claims that god has threatened the Israelites with being scattered, and then says they will be one, and therefore this proves the Bible foretells things accurately, but this is another Williams lie.Let's look at one of his "scatter" prophecies. The first one he references is Lev. 26:33: "And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste."Now if Williams could demonstrate that not only have the Jews been scattered, but also God literally drew a sword after them, then he might be in a position to manipulate this to conform with his needs and try to claim an accurate prophecy down to minute details, but the fact is this did not happen. There was no sword! Neither is there here any date, any time, any place, any venue, or any description of which agency will bring this "prophecy" to pass.This is not a prediction. It is a prophecy. But just as Williams is utterly unable to grasp even the simplest principles of evolution that any school kid can grasp, he also cannot grasp what it means to prophesy, in a Biblical context. Biblical prophecies were not predictions, nor were they intended to be. They were songs. They were lamentations. To be a prophet was to be a folk singer. The Leviticus lines quoted above are a Biblical Bob Dylan chanting that the answer is blowing in the wind! Here's a look at what "prophets" really were:
Gerald Larue Otll Chap16 » Internet InfidelsOften Bible fanatics such as Williams will quote one verse, knowing that most people won't look it up, and even if they do, they probably won't read around that verse for context, but we're not as stupid as he needs for us to be in order to buy into Williams' Whacked-out World. Let's look at context.Leviticus 26 begins with God reviewing the 10 commandments. Why this ought to be necessary if they had truly been written by God in stone and delivered with fanfare from a mountain top, I have no idea. If I had witnessed anything like that, those words would have been permanently and indelibly engraved on my brain, but the people of the Bible, so we are forced to conclude from Biblical evidence, were extraordinarily dense, stupid, uneducable, incompetent and miserably unrepentant, even when they dealt with God on an almost daily basis and virtually face to face. Why religious fanatics (or god himself, for that matter) should expect things to be any different now-a-days, when we never see or hear from God millennium after millennium is beyond me.In the early verses, God is discussing what Israel will get for itself if it behaves, like some parent talking to a child. At no point does God offer eternal life, vanquishing of evil, life after death, sitting on God's right hand in Heaven. Never! Not once! All this god offers is land and food. This sounds highly suspicious and pretty pathetic to me. It does make perfect sense if this entire story were invented by a primitive and unimaginative human writer, thinking of his own (nation's) immediate needs and not of any greater cosmology.In verse 4, God promises to give rain, increased crop yields and fruitful trees. If this is a promise from God, why is it we do not see this? Williams is apparently arguing that Israel is ba-ack, therefore this proves that a Biblical prophecy came true, but verse 4 sure didn't come true.I've been to Israel. They way you can determine the border of Israel with Jordan is by where the green starts, but this green was not added by God - it was sucked from the soil by unremitting efforts of Israeli farmers. Even so, the southern part of Israel, particularly when they had the Sinai, was nothing but miserable rocky desert. God did and does nothing to help.Verse 6 "And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down, and none shall make you afraid: and I will rid evil beasts out of the land, neither shall the sword go through your land."What happened to that? That never happened and has never been less true than the last 18 months or so. Another failed "prophecy".Verse 7 talks of Israel's enemies falling by the sword. That didn't happen. Israel was given to the Israelis by the west, and no swords were involved, not even when the surrounding Arab nations attempted to invade and wipe out Israel on the day it became independent. And you know what? God wasn't involved in any of this. He never gave Israel to the Israelis - the west did. He never helped Israel defend itself. Israel did.Now let's jump to verse 16. Here is where God gets around to talking about what will happen to Israel if it disobeys him. He says they will sow their seed in vain - enemies will eat the seed, and will rule over Israel, crops will fail, trees won't fruit. There will be plagues, cattle will die, there will be so few Israelis that the streets will seem empty. Ten women will bake bread for Israel, which will eat its fill but never be satisfied. I don't seem to recall that one coming true, either! Another failed "prophecy".Verse 29 "predicts" that Israel will fall into cannibalism! I may have missed that on CNN, but I honestly don't recall hearing about that. Another failed "prophecy".Verse 32 "predicts" that the land will be completely desolate. I can appreciate the desolation of the south, but Israel sure isn't that way in the north, and this is the verse that comes right before the one that Williams quotes!The other side of the coin is in Israel coming together - becoming one land. Williams quotes several Bible verses supposedly supporting this contention, but they all come from Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Some of them actually have little to say about what Williams pretends they do, but he claims that these verses are true prophecies, so let's look at one of his examples. The last two verses of Ezekiel 28 say this: "Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered,...then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. And they shall dwell safely therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God."I don't see any evidence of this one coming true either! Yes, the Jews have a homeland, but it was not God who created this homeland, nor was it God who gathered all the Jews together and placed them in it. Jews returned or not, as they chose and most of them chose not to. And no! - the Jews are not safe in their homeland, as current events demonstrate, thereby disproving this as a "prophecy".Wasn't it Jeremiah who, in 25:12 ranted this false "prophecy": "And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that nation, saith the LORD, for their iniquity, and the land of the Chaldeans, and will make it perpetual desolation." And wasn't it also Jeremiah who predicted that Babylon would be overthrown by the Medes? And wasn't it also Jeremiah who predicted the resurrection of David (Jer. 30:9)?!!Clearly those areas of the globe aren't in perpetual desolation. People live comfortably there now. To my knowledge the Biblical King David never has been resurrected, and the Medean empire fell before the Babylonian one did. So how can Williams honestly even begin to pretend that Jeremiah was a reliable prophet?The fact is that the Bible did not meaningfully exist until the Jewish exile in Babylon, where it was recorded and aggregated, and came to resemble something a little more like the Bible that we think of today. Just how hard is it to predict the downfall of a nation after it has already happened?!There is apparently serious doubt (The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels) that the so-called book of Jeremiah was even written all at once by one person. We know that the Bible is a mish-mash of aggregated text, redaction and interpretation so what incentive is there to believe that all of Jeremiah was written by Jeremiah (we know it was not, since he apparently had a scribe), was written down all at one time, and was written down before the things it claims to "prophesy" upon? We have none whatsoever. Clearly it is not a prediction when it is documented after the fact.Williams next pretends that the Bible predicted the fate of numerous cities and nations. "What is amazing though is that the prophet Ezekiel made these same predictions" claims Williams, but actually lists only one: that of Nebuchadnezzar destroying Tyre.Williams is, of course, lying! Nebuchadnezzar did no such thing. He sieged the place for thirteen years but failed to break it. In the end he essentially backed off and left it alone.Williams lies: "The inhabitants all but abandoned the city and moved off-shore to a nearby island," but he doesn't tell you that the island was Tyre! The citadel of the city was on the island and that's why Tyre was such a Tyre-some place to siege. It had an ocean lifeline that kept it going long after other cities succumbed to hostile forces.Williams then has to go rambling on about Tyre's woes and eventual death in the 12th century AD! Some prediction! He fails to mention that Ezekiel 29:10 predicts the total destruction and desolation of Egypt. When did that prophecy get fulfilled? Never! Egypt is still going strong! So much for Isaiah the prophet.Williams next pretends that the Bible revealed the Messiah, but to do so, he has to lift diverse quotes from three different books, written by an assortment of people over many years. Given that option, you could predict the Messiah from Stephen King's novels!Here is the best he could offer:
"All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 'He trusts in the Lord; let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him (Ps 22:7-8, NIV)"
This was supposedly a psalm (read: song) written by David. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Messiah.I took two phrases ("mock me" and "they hurl insults") into the simplest Google search engine and virtually no effort, found the following two "verses" that are actually better than the ones Williams quotes:"I am driven forth by thieves who dwell in cliffs, in caves, among the rocks and nettles where they gather in mock prayer to mock me as their byword and their song, who mar my path and set my calumny, who come upon me as a wide breaking rolling in of waters, wind and terrors, a desolation and my soul poured out, so even garments of my body change""As they hang in their harnesses, they reminisce about other times or places, and when they tire of that, they hurl insults and curses at one another or at the authorities that imprison them."Did these URLs prophesy the Messiah?Here's another one from Williams:
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed (Isa 53:5, NIV)"Now this whole chapter in Isaiah isn't talking about the Messiah at all, but about those who choose to follow God - how will they be treated, how will they be viewed? It actually specifically refers to Israel itself. The wording makes it clear: such a person, such a nation, shall be despised and rejected of men, wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities and with his/its stripes we are healed."Note the past tense in these verses, not the future tense. And note *not* what fanatics like Williams claim are similarities with the supposed Messiah, but the contradictions, the number of which is far greater:Did Jesus come as a lamb to the slaughter? No! He came in preaching against the established church and causing an uproar!Did he "openeth not his mouth"? No! precisely the opposite!Did he make his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death? No! he has no grave according to believers, since he is risen!And finally, did he see his seed? Did he prolong his days? No!In other words, this purported "prophecy" from Isaiah is nonsense - another Fred Williams lie.I think this is enough to show what a farce Williams is trying to lead you into. The fact is that there is no historical evidence whatsoever that any "Jesus" character ever existed as depicted in the gospels. Williams attacks evolution all up and down his web site, but the base fact is that there is far more evidence that evolution is a living entity than there ever is that Jesus also is. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to offer me scientific evidence supporting it, of the same quality that supports evolution. Give me your ten best! And without a real Jesus, not a single Messianic prophecy can possibly be claimed as proven out!Just in the news is this story about an "ossuary" (a bone box) purportedly found in Israel with an inscription claiming that this box (once) contained the bones of James, brother of Jesus.
CNN.com - Scholars: Oldest evidence of Jesus? - Oct. 21, 2002Just a few years ago, a tomb was found which contained the bodies of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary! Is this proof that Jesus died and was never resurrected?There were no bones found in the recent box and the entire substance of the ossuary's claim to fame rests upon the easiest thing in the world to fake - the inscription. This box was not just dug out of the ground. These things are so common as to be worthless and this particular one was sitting around for years before the recent news announcement. What evidence is there that it was not faked at some later date (even recently) in a desperate attempt by some believer to provide support for their belief? Religious relics have a history of faking.As the article makes clear, " James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. Lemaire estimates there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in the city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph."So even if the box is real and so is the inscription, this still does not prove that the Jesus of the gospels existed. Neither is there any real evidence supportive of the Biblical James being the actual brother of Jesus.Back to Williams. He hypocritically decries what he describes as the false prophecies of "New Age "Prophets"" by arguing that these people "were also frequently so vague in the predictions they made that you could mold them into about any historical event you wanted." But, predictably, he is utterly clueless to the fact that his own claims are in precisely the same predicament!I love this quote however: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. (Deut 18:22, NIV)"
So we can see that Williams' concluding paragraph to this section makes a mockery of his own claims.Here are three challenges that were in our debate and Williams chickened out of answering:The last verse of 2 Chronicles (26:23) ends in mid sentence. The story starts over in the next book and is completed Ezra 1:3. If an error of this obvious magnitude has escaped correction, in the Bible, what does this say about important, but less easily discernible errors? For example, the four gospels tell differing stories. Not one was written by an eye witness, and the earliest dates to a half century after the supposed events. An ex-pastor turned atheist has defied anyone to combine the four gospels, include everything, and have them make sense:
Page not found » Internet Infidels
(read chapter 24)Mark 4:31 claims that the mustard seed is the smallest seed of all. It is not. The smallest are those produced by epiphytic orchids, of which it would take over 28 million to weigh one ounce. This doesn't mean that whoever wrote Mark's gospel was deliberately lying, but it does prove that he was ignorant, and therefore hardly inspired by god. How can creationists pretend that the many authors of Genesis were somehow less ignorant than the author of Mark?In Matthew 16:27-28, Jesus tells his followers that people alive then will still be alive when he returns. He amplifies this prophecy in Matthew 24:34, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and Luke 21:32. Here we are, well beyond the time-frame he gave, and nothing!In this latter example, we see a prophecy made by supposedly the greatest of all, the very reason for the Bible even being here, the son of God himself. If he lied, why should we believe anything in the Bible, let alone anything on Fred Williams' web site?Williams summarizes: "The Bible contains over 2000 prophesies that have been fulfilled, many with very specific details. One must ask himself why he would remain skeptical in light of this incontrovertible evidence."But the fact is that Williams has offered nothing, least of all "incontrovertible evidence"! His Biblical evidences are the same as the creation evidences - farcical lies, nonsense and passionately wishful thinking that wouldn't fool a grade-schooler.Williams offers a section on archaeological evidence, but this is nothing but a straw man. The Bible writers were appallingly gullible, backward, and downright stupid, much like the people they wrote about, but they would have to be unregenerate congenital idiots to have written materials and not got a few facts straight - such as which cities existed where and who happened to be king of Israel at a particular time. The fact that they do have some of these details right (and by no means all of them!) proves nothing supernatural. Although when it comes to the existence of two of the most famous kings recorded in the Bible - Solomon and David, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever! That ought to tell you something.The fact is that the Bible does not have all the details right as Williams claims. Many Biblical stories are of the "just so" variety - something has no known explanation in Bible lands, therefore some Bible writer makes up a cute story to explain it. For example, Robin Lane Fox writes in "The Unauthorized Version" (First Vintage Books, 1993, pp226-228) that Jericho was flattened long before Joshua arrived, and in Joshua's time (assuming he even existed) there was "...nothing like a city or an impregnable wall"! So the walls of Jericho were flat, and some Bible writer made up the Joshua story to glorify God.
See: The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels
and: The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels
for more details on archaeological findings.The above references refute yet another Williams lie: "It may be clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible".Yeah, right! Dream on, Williams. I think that's all we need say about archaeology.Next Williams would have us believe that advanced medical knowledge is to be found in the Bible, thereby "proving God"! A moment's thought will reveal what a complete ass you would have to be to even claim such a thing in the first place. Let's see, now: God created everything, but was so dumb, he forgot *not* to create disease. Then someone like Williams steps out, his mouth flapping faster than a hummingbird's wings, his brain running slower than an arthritic slug, yelling - look, God gave all these Israelites advanced medical knowledge, so they wouldn't get sick from all the evil diseases he created!Williams obviously thinks his god is so god-awful that he couldn't magic disease away (thereby totally obviating the need for this supernatural epdemiology), and instead made the insane decision to trust humans to grasp these principles and pass them on through the centuries, to protect adults and children from the very illnesses that god created!Williams first farcical claim in this regard is sanitary practices. This is ludicrous. No society that abandoned smart sanitary and dietary practice would survive! Nothing miraculous here.Williams champions Louis Pasteur's Germ Theory of Disease (isn't that "just a theory"?!). Nowhere does he decry the wisdom of scientists in *this* regard! Yet it is these same kinds of scientists using these precise scientific principles that Williams is essentially calling brain-dead when he starts blabbering about evolution! Can you say, "Hypocrite"?Williams' example for this is that "the Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge", if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass."He neglects to reveal that the reference he quotes in Numbers discusses someone washing themselves after they have deliberately slaughtered an innocent animal and sprayed its blood all over the tabernacle! Is *that* sanitary? If God is going around passing on these sanitary practices to the Israelites, why is he also demanding bloody, unsanitary sacrifices like some ancient Aztec god? Demanding sacrifices that then result in the need for sanitary practices? Is Williams so dumb that he cannot figure out that any society that was not as brain-dead as creationists typically are would figure these things out for themselves? How does this in any way constitute advanced medical knowledge?Williams also mentions bacteria and quarantine, but these are the same kinds of "sanitary practice" already dealt with. He cluelessly mentions Hyssop oil as having been shown to contain 50% anti-fungal and antibacterial agents, but then references the Bible, rather than some medical journal supporting this! This is from the hypocrite who harps mindlessly on someone not offering a page number in a book he has referenced!Williams carefully neglects to mention that Hyssop oil is toxic! Again, why would God put the Israelites at risk and offer a toxic remedy when he could simply remove the risk? Once again the creationist requires not just a creator, but a very thoughtless, even stupid creator to support his position.Williams addresses circumcision as though this is some sort of evidence of divine wisdom, but he is so stupid as to be unable to see the idiocy of the argument he is making. Once again he hypocritically calls upon modern scientific research to support his position - the same research he tries to trash when it offers evidence for evolution - but once again he offers not a single reference to support his claims.He claims on his web site that "Medical researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life, about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth."Not only is he appallingly ill-informed, he cannot even spell "prothrombin". Prothrombin is the precursor to thrombin in what's called "the coagulation cascade". Thrombin converts fibrinogen to fibrin, which then aids clotting. Vitamin K is not a clotting factor itself, but is required for the formation of prothrombin and other factors. It is deficient in newborns, which is why they are routinely given a K shot. Vitamin K breaks down very quickly in the body, so continuous production is necessary.Williams is obviously blindly quoting other fanatics here, because there is example after example of this precise Williams claim out on the web, and not a single one that I looked at offers any kind of medical or scientific reference to support it. However, this reference:
Request Rejected
reveals that "In the newborn the plasma concentrations of these factors are normally 30-60% of those of adults. They gradually reach adult values by six weeks of age. Administration of vitamin K immediately after birth prevents a further drop in these factors".So quite contrary to Williams blatant lie that the eighth day is best for circumcision because a clotting factor rockets to 110% of normal, the truth is just the opposite! A vitamin K shot is required at birth to prevent these factors from falling, and the factors are apparently substandard for the first six weeks of life.Of course, this begs the big fat question as to why God did not foresee this! Given that he is omniscient, why was it that he failed to elevate newborns' vitamin K levels at birth, so they could develop prothrombin, so they would be ready for the circumcision at 8 days? Why is it that newborns are at increased risk for bleeding during the very time period when circumcision is deemed "appropriate"? Why is it that for such an essential thing as blood clotting, god designed such a lousy system, requiring a continuous intake of vitamin K to prevent a body bleeding to death? Is this the best he could do?In fact, let's go further than this. Why is it that this God instituted this practice in the first place? The supposed God of love advocates painfully hacking a baby's foreskin off? How can this be? It's barbaric! Could this omnipotent God, who created the entire universe out of nothing, by magic, not have found a more loving and gentle method? If this God could mark a sinner like Cain without violently slashing the end of his penis, why could he not mark his devoted followers similarly? Why could he not have made the foreskin be reabsorbed once someone's heart turns to God? I really want some creationist, somewhere, to explain this to me.Once again Williams shows how duplicitous he is when he gets onto the topic of diet. He says: "By the 1980s, all the health organizations of the United States had adopted low-fat, high fiber dietary guidelines. This was the culmination of numerous scientific studies that had demonstrated that diets high in vegetables, fruits, and grains reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases."So here, again, he is using knowledge gained through the scientific method to support an argument he is making. This is the same scientific method this hypocrite claims is worthless when applied to evolution. He claims this scientific knowledge bolsters knowledge gleaned from the Bible, but offers not a single example to support his argument! We need not pursue this any further.Williams tells one of the few truths on his web site: "...the Bible is not a science book..." but then he spoils this brief digression into honesty by saying that the Bible is either completely accurate or non-contradictory when it comes to scientific areas and furthermore that it often shows what he calls "remarkable fore-knowledge".Again, he offers no real support for his wild claims (one of his references is to Readers Digest, for goodness sakes!), but let's look at these examples.Williams claims that in the Bible, "There is not a single passage that plainly states that the earth is flat." and he goes on to quote Isaiah and Job as stating that the Earth is a circle and hangs on nothing. Interestingly, he uses a different translation of the Bible here from what he uses when dealing with other areas! I wonder why?I think this will more than adequately deal with Williams lies regarding Biblical accuracy and the earth:
The Skeptical Review » Internet InfidelsNext Williams tries to dumb-down the laws of thermodynamics so his typical reader can grasp them. He uses the standard creationist definition: matter can be neither created nor destroyed, but what he fails to acknowledge is that this is a scientific principle, based on observation of nature. It is only as good as our observations are, and these observations were done in modern times, under present laws of physics, not during the Big BangFor accuracy, let's restate what the first law is: the total energy of the system plus the surroundings is constant (i.e. energy is conserved.). Note that this law relates to systems and surroundings. The universe can be considered a system, but what would be its surroundings? Nowhere does this law mention the Big Bang or what conditions were like then. Nowhere does it mention parallel universes or any other exotic concept of physics and cosmology, yet Williams feels completely free to indulge in unsupported extrapolation!He then goes on to insist: "If the First Law is correct...then the universe could not have created itself" and bizarrely claims that this is somehow predicted by the book of Hebrews (1:3)! The fact is that the Bible is so full of material that you can use it to support or justify anything you want no matter how ridiculous it is, so Williams' appeals to Biblical authority are a joke.By redefining what the law is in very loose terminology, Williams starts his famous shimmy-shuffle method of avoiding really dealing with a topic. He redefines it, slaps a bit of blather over it, quotes a Bible verse and moves on, desperately hoping you will not actually think about what he said. I am happy to disappoint him.The Williams dumbing-down machine next strikes the second law of thermodynamics: all systems degenerate from order to disorder, he claims. The actual law is this: If the volume and energy of a system are constant, then every change to the system increases the entropy.So what this law refers to is a closed system - a system in which there is no exchange of energy with the "outside". For Williams to claim it applies to "all systems" and not qualify his statement is to lie. The Earth is not a closed system, because it gains energy from the sun. Living things are not closed systems because they gain energy from the Earth. As far as we can tell, the universe is a closed system since there is no link with anything "outside" of it, but we do not know if the universe was always this way.Williams quotes meaningless Bible verses about God being constant but the earth wearing away in support of his claim that Bible writers "knew" this law. Williams is very artful in his selection and interpretation of Biblical verses. Earlier, he derided suggestions that the Bible speaks of a flat Earth by saying that the phrase "the four corners of the Earth" is a colloquialism and not a scientific statement. Now, in this section, he is claiming that this quote from Hebrews 1 "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;" is not a colloquialism but a statement of the second law of thermodynamics! I don't really know how to adequately and politely depict this kind of self-serving rank stupidity on his part.Williams drafts in another Bible verse: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man." (Job 36:27-28)" to demonstrate "scientific" knowledge of the hydrological cycle. But you know what - this is nothing more than common sense. You would have to be degenerately stupid to not grasp this principle.The hypocritical thing here is that Williams uses this cheesy example to support Bible "science" but carefully tiptoes around the grotesque insanity of the flood story, which has the Bible claiming that we used to have several thousand feet of liquid water suspended above the Earth. Where is the scientific support for that contention?Williams quotes the Bible as demonstrating the value of Pi, but again, this is not advanced science. This kind of thing was known to the ancient Greeks. Nothing miraculous here.Time after time these claims from Williams of startling Biblical scientific knowledge boil down to a vague Bible quote and a lot of sleight of hand. In other words, Williams has completely lost it here, grabbing at every little thing in a desperately attempt to shore up his clueless case.For example, Williams claims the Biblical reference to God creating humans from dust is another scientific triumph because the elements in humans are the same as those in the soil! The fact is that humanity is a carbon-based life form and soil is silicon-based. In other words, the Bible is dead wrong! Williams fails to address the issue of Eve, supposedly made from a rib by a god who made the entire universe out of nothing. How scientific is that? Does this mean that women have a different chemical composition from men - that women are neither carbon-based nor silicon-based, but calcium-based?He grasps at straws with even greater futility in quoting Job 38:16 as evidencing fore-knowledge of sub-ocean currents, and at claims in Genesis proving the ancients knew there were large numbers of stars! Well duhh! How is this advanced science? You can see them every night!Williams then digresses to advocate "Bible Codes"! He claims that secret codes have been found in the Pentateuch and that these findings were published in two secular peer-reviewed scientific journals, but nowhere does he reference those journals! The URL to a Bible codes site that he offers is a dead link. So here we have this hypocrite who mercilessly chases other people down when he feels they have poorly referenced their comments, once again demonstrating his sloppy and amateur habit of comprehensively failing to reference anything but the Bible.Williams at last moves on to claiming that there has been meticulous care in the transmission of the Bible, but this lie is easily revealed by perusing the following articles:The Skeptical Review » Internet Infidels
The Skeptical Review » Internet InfidelsWilliams then descends into sermonistic preaching, essentially announcing to the rest of the world that if they do not believe what he believes they are damned.He claims: "If what the Bible says is true regarding the spiritual warfare that is going on with Satan and his servants, the fact that there are other religions should certainly be no surprise, nor should it be a surprise that the Bible is attacked by non-believers far more than any other religious book."But where is his evidence that Satan is truly evil? There is no indication whatsoever of this in the Bible, if you don't disregard the psychotic Revelation.Satan first appears in the Bible in 1 Chronicles 21:1 "And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.", but the validity of this verse is directly contradicted by: 2 Samuel 24:1 "And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah."So was it Satan who provoked this or God? And what difference is there? God created everything, so Williams insists. How could Satan do anything that is not a part of God's divine plan? The "logical" conclusion is that by resisting Satan, you are resisting God, so therefore you should do whatever Satan says to do!Satan next arises in Job, where he saunters into His Holiness' presence like he is one of God's drinking buddies. No sooner has he arrived than he forces God into doing Satan's own will! The creator of everything is reduced to betting on one of his subjects - a vicious, evil bet that robs Job of everything he has, kills innocent family members and makes him terribly ill. God himself falls to temptation by Satan for no other reason than to settle a gambling bet, but there is no evidence offered here that Satan is evil or has any plan to subvert humanity.Apart from essentially meaningless mentions in Psalms and Zechariah, we hear no more of Satan until the New Testament, and even there (excepting the temptation on the mountain), Satan does not really *appear*. It is his name that appears as a euphemism for temptation. He is not shown to be really doing any evil, only that people thought that he was responsible for evil.Even Revelation doesn't make much mention of Satan - especially not as being evil per se, and it certainly does not suggest that Satan will be vanquished in the end times, as apocalyptic fiction would have it, only that he will be locked up for a thousand years (Rev 20:2). This is the last mention of Satan as such, in the entire Bible.Of course, Satan goes by other names, such as "dragon" (a Biblical word for serpent) and this is explored somewhat in Revelation, but gets the same fate as Satan.Under the actual translation of "serpent" Satan arrives very early in the Bible, as the tempter of Eve, but this story is a farcical piece of cheap fiction. Eve was not there when God issued the "tree edict" to Adam, and she was unable to tell right from wrong anyway, not having eaten of the tree which would bestow this benefit, so not only was she not warned, she was not given any means to help herself.Besides, what evil transpired here? None whatsoever! The evil was that God wanted his creation to be ignorant and helpless, Satan did not. Satan wanted to educate the creation. This was what upset God - that he would now have to deal with a creation that was a smart as he was and over which he had no longer the tyrannical control he had so carefully created.God also lied to Adam and Eve, insisting that "in the day" they ate of the tree they would die. Satan told the truth - they could eat and would not die.So Williams is ranting blindly about avoiding the evil of Satan, but the Bible itself does not make any solid case that Satan is evil in the first place. Besides, it was, according to Isaiah 45:7, God himself who created evil, not Satan!How appropriate that Williams closes his article on Biblical evidences with another lie - a silly story about Theodore Roosevelt and Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross. Once again he has stolen this, unattributed, from some other fundamentalist web site. It's all over the 'Net. Perhaps he got it from Kent Hovind's alma mater, Patriot University. Nowhere is there any reference to verify the story, which is why I am convinced it is another Williams lie. It clearly is one of these cheesy feel-good folk tales that fundamentalists are so enamored of, and who cares if it isn't strictly true? Why would he? His entire web site is built from such stories. What difference does one more make?I love that he ends up with this Bible quote: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you" (Matt 7:7). The irony of it is delicious. I have been asking creationists to substantiate their position for years, and all I get is lies and cute stories. I asked Williams to respond to 30 unanswered challenges during the debate, and to this day, he has not answered one of them. I guess Fred Williams does not believe in practicing what he preaches.Does anyone want to help Fred out and refute this material? Please give generously. Trust me, he needs all the help he can get.Budikka

Creationist Fred Williams Web Site Lies - 5
Or, "Be My Guest""Eugenie Scott and Henry Cole surveyed the editors of 68 journals for the period from 1980-1983, looking for creationist submissions. Out of an estimated 135,000 submitted papers, Scott and Cole found only 18 that could be described 'as advocating scientific creationism' (p.26)"
(from the "Answers In Genesis" creationist web site).18 papers out of 135,000! And not a single one of those refuted evolution or made a positive case for creation, I'll bet. What kind of dilemma would that create for Haldane?I mentioned earlier that I might want to touch a little more on Williams' hilarious guest book. Let's do that now and get it out of the way.Fred Williams guest book is nothing more than an excuse for Williams to exercise his control freak tendencies over what he feels people should think. It's actually ideal for him because he simply deletes what he is afraid of and can edit and comment all he wants on what he keeps. Anyone who disagrees or who posts material he cannot deal with is quickly deleted, and anyone who embarrasses more than a couple of times is summarily banned from the guest book. What could be more perfect for his little fairytale world?!Here is a sample of the kind of primitive commentary his guest book attracts:"It's easy for an Evolutionist (or any non-believer at that) to find things
that will contend with a Christian's irrational faith in a "Creator God"..."Here the writer is so clueless as to equate evolution with atheism. There is no answer you can give to someone as this ill-informed, but Williams condones this kind of comment, because he shares the attitude.Here's an amateur take on mutation and natural selection: "what you're witnessing is inhereted (sic) genetic variables that were present from the beginning."So there are no mutations and no natural selection. All there is, apparently, is an unnatural amount of genetic variability that can allow for absolutely any situation conceivable excepting that which converts one "kind" to another "kind"!Why a perfect god creating a perfect world would even need to add in such a factor is completely inexplicable, but then so is all of creation "science". I would love for any creationist to demonstrate these whacky beliefs scientifically. Of course, they cannot, otherwise they would have done so before now.But let me challenge them to explain the cichlid fish of Lake Victoria, Uganda. This lake was dry only 12,400 years ago. Now there are some 300 species of cichlids that are genetically closer to each other than are humans to each other (see Page not found – Pets Forum for more details). Fred Williams can gripe all he wants about his strawman "Haldane's Dilemma", but all it takes to refute him is a little fish. Further information can be found in "The Cichlid Fishes: Nature's Grand Experiment in Evolution" (2000, Perseus Publishing) by George W. Barlow.What creationists have to pretend is that Noah had two cichlids on the ark with him and traveled to Africa to release them, or that somehow, these fish managed to survive the muddy, salty soup of a flooded planet for a year and then, magically, all managed to end up with their closest relatives in the same lake in the middle of Africa. If Noah released the two of them, how could they have possibly evolved so many species in such a short time with no evolution? If the original cichlid pair was so perfectly designed by some god, where did the impetus come from for them to evolve at all? Evolution is an indication of imperfection.Back to the guest book. Here's Williams' pathetic attempt to talk (a somewhat ill-informed) evolutionist out of his convictions:"It's also a bit arrogant of you to claim that "height" is an advantage. There is no evidence that "height" is an advantage to survival and reproduction, the tenet requirements of Darwinism. For example, tall people (I happen to be 6-5) are typically slower runners. If my 5.9 brother and I suddenly find ourselves face-to-face with a lion, guess which one of us becomes lunch!"The one who doesn't pray hardest, maybe? One is forced to wonder just how much of Williams' 6-5 frame is actually gray matter especially since, as usual, Williams thinks one-dimensionally here. This is actually all that creationists appear to be capable of. He thinks survival of the fittest literally means out-running lions and nothing else. He has insufficient imagination to think outside the box and consider sexual selection and other factors! How many lions could a peacock out-run with that huge tail dragging behind it, do you suppose?An example of Williams' bias is that someone called Kyle Shockley has posted quite extensively in Williams' guest book. Since he supports Williams idiot view of the world, then this is perfectly acceptable. If Shockley had been someone who trashed Williams' web site with every entry in the guest book, you can bet your life he would have been "moved on" by Williams in short order. Shockley blathers like Williams - like he has a clue - but when he writes things like "close resemblensce (sic) to", you can only conclude that his education needs some serious adjustment in the upward direction before he is ready to comment on scientific matters.Here is Williams tardy response to my reference to a wasp-ant transitional reported on the talk.origins web site.Williams: "This wasp-ant "transitional" was completely refuted one year after your
Talk.Origins article. This is an email I saved from Dr. Joachim Scheven of the Museum LEBENDIGE VORWELT:"Williams neglects to mention that this so-called Lebendige Vorwelt "museum" is a creationist lie mill. This is supposed to be some sort of refutation? A quote from a creationist - that Williams doesn't even have the honesty to identify as such?The supposed refutation of the example continues: "In January 1998, a report of further discoveries of Sphecomyrma freyi appeared in NATURE, vol 391. A tiny gland on both sides above the place where the hind legs are attached, known as metathoracal gland, that had not
been visible in the 1967 specimen, has now proved that Sphecomyrma freyi was a perfectly developed social ant! This gland, that is only found in the worker caste, produces germ-killing substances in order to protect the ant brood from fungal and bacterial infections. For thirty-one years, Sphecomyrma was regarded, world-wide, as the primitive forerunner of the ant. That is, until this new example unceremoniously broke the "connecting link" between the solitary wasps and social ants!"However, this is another creationist lie! First of all, there were indications in the original specimen of the metathoracal gland. Secondly, I have read the relevant papers, something I can almost guarantee you Williams has not. Nor did he read the original reference in his hell bent panic to "refute" it! This is why his refutation stinks and fails.This is a portion of the original article at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
"Wilson reported that the ants were indeed as primitive as expected. They had a mosaic of anatomical features found variously in modern ants or in wasps as well as some that were intermediate between the two groups."Note that the fossil, regardless as to what it was eventually classified as, quite clearly (and inexplicably, for creationists) had a "mosaic" of features from both ants and wasps, including some that were intermediate between the two. In other words, it is a true transitional form, something which is impossible under creationist beliefs. This makes both Williams and his creationist crony "Dr" Scheven liars.Here is more from the original article: "The diagnosis of the Ur-ant was astounding: short jaws with only two teeth, like those of wasps;..."Like those of wasps."...what appears to be the blister-like cover of a metapleural gland the secretory organ (located at the thorax, or mid-part of the body) that defines modern ants but is unknown in wasps..."This is the gland that Scheven pretends was not noted in the early specimen but was discovered in other specimens and therefore "proves" this was an ant. The truth is that this was noted in the earlier specimen, as quite clearly stated, but it was not conclusive as to what it was then. Later specimens showed this feature which, since it is diagnostic in ants, then resulted in the earlier specimen being arbitrarily labeled an ant. However, sticking it into this pigeon-hole did nothing to resolve the multiple intermediate issues that are also listed, and that Williams very conveniently ignores.Williams and Scheven stopped right there like morons, thinking they have solved the puzzle, but they have "solved" this to their own narrow-minded satisfaction only! In reality, they have addressed none of the other factors that quite clearly place this discovery into the intermediate or transitional category.Williams is an idiot! He asks for transitional examples and is given one with clearly transitional features. He does not have the honesty to admit this. What he has instead is the stupidity to fail to grasp that a transitional form must, of necessity, not only have dissimilar features to its original stock, but similar features to its target stock. Because the transitional ant has features similar to ants, then Williams, an electrical engineer, arbitrarily declares it an ant and refuses to deal with the actual transitional details. He does the same thing with the archaeopteryx.The article continued: "...the first segment of the antennae elongated to give them the elbowed look characterizing ants, yet here, in the Mesozoic fossils, only to a degree intermediate between modern ants and wasps; the remaining, outer part of the antennae long and flexible, as in wasps; the thorax with a distinct scutum and scutellum (two plates forming the middle part of the body); also a trait of wasps; and an ant-like waist; yet one that is simple in form, as though it had only recently evolved. "In short, Williams is not only a liar, but also GDG (Gallus domesticus guano). He grasped desperately at the first straw he could, then ran off like a frightened gazelle, yelling "I solved it, I solved it" in his wake. He has resolved nothing but the fact of his own comprehensive incompetence and his repeatedly proven inability to actually deal with a challenge rather than the first tangent to that challenge that gets stuck in his fly-paper-thin mind.Here is another reference to it in the book "The Ants" (1990, Belknap Press) by Bert Holldobler and Edward Wilson: "Sphecomyrma freyi proved to be the nearly perfect link between some of the modern ants and the nonsocial aculeate wasps" (p23). This book also reveals that several new families of ant have been created as a result of canadian finds of a similar nature, and S. freyi has been determined to be so different from modern ants and so peculiar to itself, that it has been assigned to its own family. Here is some detailed data: http://research.amnh.org/...publications/ms_sphecomyrma.htmlAnd what of Williams' smug quotation of NATURE, vol 391? I have a copy of that article and here is what part of it says: "A reasonable estimate would thus place the origin of the ants into the lowermost of the Cretaceous (about 130Mya ago), but probably no older. This conclusion is consistent with the relationship of the Formicidae to the wasp families Vespidae and Scoliidae."In other words, Williams, who doubtlessly has never read this article but instead, trusted his equally deceitful creationist buddy, was himself deceived. But when has he ever cared about honesty and integrity? When?If an organism is an intermediate between wasps and ants, where do you put it? Do you put it into the wasp section of the stands, and have creationists dismiss it because it is a "wasp", or do you put it into the ant section and have creationists dismiss it because it is an "ant"? Since S. freyi did have the metapleural gland, which is the "only morphological trait unique within the Hymenoptera that distinguishes ants" (quote from the Nature article), it was arbitrarily classed as an ant.In reading the Nature article there is raised a deadly serious problem for the creationists, as far as I can see. Since "The metapleural gland is the only morphological trait unique within the Hymenoptera that distinguishes ants", I have to ask creationists this: Is the Hymenoptera a "kind"? If not, how can someone (even given Williams classical incompetence) try to pretend that, since the metapleural gland is the only morphological trait unique within the Hymenoptera that distinguishes ants, some other member of Hymenoptera could not have evolved a metapleural gland and lost its wings, and become an ant where it was once a wasp?Here is a good example in Williams' response to a message in his guest book regarding the fossil record:
"It's a shame you would put your faith that we evolved from a pile of mud on fossils so subjective and questionable that several leading evolutionists agree that the Australopithecines, including africanus, are extinct apes."Lies. Lies. Lies!Note how he carefully uses the word "faith"? Creationists have to do this. They have to pretend evolution is faith, because they cannot defeat it scientifically. If it can be tarred with the faith brush, maybe they can get it thrown out of schools. It's their warped way of getting what they perceive as a level playing field, but their idea of a level field is confined solely to one which slopes all the way to the opponent's goal. Anything else is completely unacceptable to them because it will cause them to lose.The truth is that there is nothing in the Theory of Evolution regarding our ultimate origins.Talking of mud, this is a classic example where Williams (as do all creationists) deliberately and dishonestly mixes abiogenesis with evolution. Even abiogenesis does not talk about mud turning into humans. This is just creationist male Bos taurus feces (MBTF) which they liberally slather over everything to which they have no competent or scientific response.Williams: "The famous anatomist Lord Zuckerman was so frustrated with the bad science of those desperate to turn these monkeys into men that he exclaimed "They're bloody apes!""Go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, type "Zuckerman" into the search engine and you will find out how pathetic this creationist lie is. Williams talks as though Zuckerman is a leading, modern evolutionist who is calling evolution into question. Here is a refutation of Williams antique and dishonest argument regarding Zuckerman:
Creationist Arguments: AustralopithecinesDredging up ancient, outmoded, outdated, discredited nonsense and presenting it without date or reference, suggesting that maybe it happened just yesterday, is standard creationist practice to which Williams is forced to adhere because his pathetic and childish case is so poor.Williams: "For more, here is a short essay from leading creationist John Woodmorappe: Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of God"Go to TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy, type "Woodmorappe" into their search engine and you will find refutation after refutation of his claims. John Woodmorappe isn't even his real name.This is another creationist practice. Throw out enough garbage and hopefully some will stick in people's minds. Never, ever, ever do they cite references to material refuting creationist claims. Why? Because most all of their claims have been repeatedly refuted, and they have little else to offer. The only site I am aware of that comes close to doing this is the Answers in Genesis site. Here, they take *young* Earth creationist Kent Hovind to task: Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Here they take *old* Earth creationist Hugh Ross to task: Special Feature: Hugh Ross Expos | Answers in Genesis - just which side of the fence are they on? Do they even know where the fence is?!AIG published a list of creationist arguments that should not be used any more (!) ( Arguments to Avoid Topic | Answers in Genesis ). Why can't creationists use them? They have been shown, by evolutionists, to be lies or erroneous. Eventually, all creationist claims will be in this category.Again Williams responding to another doubter: "Thanks for your comments. I also believe the earth is very old. Six Thousand years is a looong time!...On scientific grounds, I had not been aware of the level of assumptions built in to arrive at old ages, and the amount of faith required to accept the dates as accurate. I was taught that these ages were incontrovertible fact, I never heard the problems and the assumptions, and frankly became a little peeved to discover I had been misled (brainwashed) for years. They have to assume no daughter product at the beginning, a closed system for the age of the dated item, plus a constant decay rate."(the rest of Williams' reply is snipped because it degenerates into addle-brained blather and sermonizing).This is quite simply a big, fat, Fred Williams lie.Williams is basically saying here that all scientists are too stupid to think of these things, therefore they never think of these things, never account for them, and never verify anything, therefore all radiometric dates (except for the ones that testify to Biblical events, of course!) are lies, therefore unqualified and untrained creationists have to point out these lies on laughable web sites. Williams has absolutely no idea whatsoever of what's involved in such dating. Here is an article from someone who has more than an idea:
Radiometric Dating
The article is called, "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective." by Dr. Roger C. Wiens who has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. Let's see if Williams dare spout about this guy being unqualified. He will assuage all of your doubts about geologic radiometry, and he ain't no atheist.Williams: "Since then evidence has mounted suggesting radioactive decay rates have not always been constant"Another unsupported claim. Evidence from supernovae indicates that this is another Williams lie, since we can check decay rates from the past by looking at light just now arriving from supernova events! Unlike the rate of creationist lies appearing on web sites, decay rates haven't changed.Grab a hold of this: "I trusted fallible man for 35 years, instead of trusting the One who was there". This relates to how he trusted the Bible to guide him. And who wrote the Bible? Was it God or was it man? You got it - man! So what Williams is saying here is that he trusted fallible man for 35 years in the open scientific arena, where scientist's names are appended to papers and their methodology is published so anyone can repeat their work and check for themselves.Williams is apparently admitting that he couldn't hack it there, in the real world, and so was forced to retreat into trusting anonymous, primitive, ill-educated fallible man, who insists you take their word for it in the Bible! Does this make any kind of intelligent logical sense? No! But then why should it? It's Fred Williams.He finishes up with: "Yet virtually all Hebrew scholars, those who understand the context of the language best (and most of who (sic) are not Christian), acknowledge that Genesis is written as a historical account that clearly refers to a literal 6 day creation and a global flood."What a pity Williams had so little faith in this god of his that he was unable to take up my challenge to debate the flood on his web site. Maybe he is smarter than I credit him - he was smart enough to know when he was on to a hiding to nothing and back out, I guess.Williams actually offered this Biblical quotation at the end of his long sermon: ""It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man." (Psa. 118:8), but this is the height of hypocrisy. As I have made clear in this thread, Williams faith is entirely in man - in the words of man that constitute the Bible! He has no faith in any god. If he did, he would quit his farcical web site and trust in God to ensure that things work out for the best. I am unaware of any believer who has this kind of faith.Williams in another response to me: "The offer still stands. If you can find within your citations a clear-cut transitional lingeage (sic) that leads up to an invertebrate, I will post your claim on my website. Please give me specific page numbers."This was not what Williams challenged me to do, and he knows it. It is another Williams lie. What he insisted was that there are no transitionals. I proved him wrong by referring him to a score of them in a talk.origins article. In fact, in my opening article of our debate, I slammed him time after time after time with references to transitionals.Williams totally failed to address these. Instead, he took the standard creationist tack when presented with overwhelming evidence against his position. Fred Williams moved the goal posts. He evolved into a greased pig. Now he was insisting that there were no *invertebrate* transitionals!The fact is that one single transitional is all that is needed to refute creationism, but I humored him. I presented him with evidence that there were invertebrate transitionals - not one single example with no page numbers, as he desperately pretends, but many examples. You can look them up in the debate. Here they are again:"Understanding Evolution" by E. Peter Volpe (Wm. C. Brown, 1984) which, in Chapter 17, details snail evolution, supporting both Darwinian descent with modification and Eldredge and Gould's punctuated equilibrium within the same fossil bed!
"Evolution and escalation" by G. J. Vermeij (Princeton University Press, 1987) which not only addresses invertebrate transitions, but the even bigger gaps in MO's knowledge base.
"Evolution" by Mark Ridley (Blackwell Science, 1996)
"The Fossil Book : A Record of Prehistoric Life" by Rich, Rich, Fenton, & Fenton (Dover Publications, 1997)
"Wonderful Life" by Stephen Gould (WW Norton, 1989)
"History of Life" by Richard Cowen (Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1995)
"Vital Dust" by Nobel Laureate Christian de Duve (Basic Books, 1995) outlines pathways from what creationists love to call "inanimate matter" to cellular life.
"Eight Little Piggies" by Stephen Gould (WW Norton, 1993). An article called "Wheels and Wedges" recounts direct evidence of snail evolution in response to more predatory crabs in the fossil record, which Darwin himself drew our attention to.Eight references.Did Williams refute any of these? Nope. Not a single one. instead, he whined about page numbers and then he did what all creationists do when presented with overwhelming evidence against his position. Fred Williams moved the goal posts. Again. Now he was insisting that there were no invertebrate transitionals between *kinds*!Remember, he has never defined "kind" in any way that is useful or meaningful, but he wants me to show him transitionals between these undefined "kinds"! If I did that, all he has to do next is move the goal posts again: redefine "kind" or whatever he has to do to maintain his position regardless of how stupid and lame it makes him look. That's what creationism is all about: stupid, thoughtless, incompetent people insisting that you worship this stupid god that they invented for themselves.This made me laugh out loud: "But let's be honest - the reason you are dodging my request, is because you cannot find what I have requested."Let's be honest? I would be thoroughly impressed if he knew what honesty was! Let's be honest? This from one of the biggest unregenerate liars on the Internet!I listed eight references (including an actual chapter reference with one of them, lest anyone should raise the cheap Williams strawman about page numbers), I listed countless examples of vertebrate transitionals. Remember that Williams has refuted none of these and only one single documented transitional in the fossil record is required to completely and utterly rout special creation. I already addressed the wasp-ant transitional that Williams has yet to refute (note, standing like a spoiled child in a school yard repeatedly stamping one's foot and chanting "No it isn't" is not a refutation!).Should I throw in the 34 genera of Lake Victoria cichlids? Naw! That would be cruel.However, let me offer a new beach for Williams to flounder upon. In "The Book of life" (1993, W. W. Norton & Company): "Five million years ago, a brackish sea formed over southeastern Europe, and within a few tens of thousands of years more than 30 genera of bivalve cockles evolved in this new habitat." (p52). Does this or does this not refer to marine invertebrates? Is this or is this not 30 genera? Not species, but genera. Fred Williams is a liar.If he wants to take this argument further, then he needs to specify, ahead of time, not retrospectively, *exactly* what it is he wants scientists to show him in the fossil record - *exactly* what it is that will prove evolution to him (not that he knows what evolution is, judged by previous interactions on that topic!).Amusingly, on the same page quoted above is a chart showing the geometric rise of fossil taxa (orders, families, genera) in the Cambrian and Precambrian rocks. Note that this does not show an instantaneous appearance of modern forms as all creationists lie about, but a rise, at an increasing rate, of fossil taxa - *precisely what we would expect with evolution*. Let Williams try to refute that.Here is another clueless comment in Williams treasured guest book: "...I believe both evolution and creationism have some very good points, and we should learn from each other. I don't
pretend to know much about either,"Doesn't know much about either. Believes in both. That pretty much says it all, doesn't it? I think this commentator has pretty well highlighted the problems with blind belief for us.This same commentator blabs: "There can be no disputing the fact that Jesus was a real man"But there is, you know! There is. I have had a challenge out on this board for several weeks now, asking for scientific proof that there was a "Jesus" as the gospels describe. No takers yet. That pretty much settles it for me. The creationists want scientific proof of evolution, and it looks like they will ignore all scientific evidence until and unless someone can line up a fossil for every single step from the first cell to George Washington, yet turn the argument around, and they have not a single shred of scientific proof for the very foundation of their entire belief system - the belief system they want to force upon your children in school. Which side do you think is the *most* hypocritical here?This from the clueless John Paul: "Hey Budikka, Why would anyone expect to read about meteorite impact stories in the Bible? Do you think the Bible was a daily diary? Is misrepresentation the best you can do?"How is this misrepresentation? John Paul is completely missing the point, and so is Fred Williams who once again offered a "refutation" that addressed not a single issue that I raised! Oh, and yes, the Bible is a daily diary after a fashion.Here is the relevant guest book comment from me: "Your article on Evolutionist so-called Sleight-of-hand with regard to the fossil record is nothing short of a lie. I highlighted this selfsame lie in
our Winter 2000 debate. I gave you references to invertebrate evolution which you conveniently ignored as you ignored all other difficult facts I presented. I also asked you why, if there were a world-wide flood, the fossil record is so slanted toward marine life. You had no answer, nor did you dare you take up my challenge to specifically debate the flood story, which would have dealt directly with the fossil record. How cowardly to pretend to represent god in your one-sided web pages, yet shy away from every real challenge. I am still awaiting a real debate with a creationist as I am still awaiting any creationist explaining the total absence of meteorite impact stories in the Bible: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Meteorite 'changed Earth's history'"Here is Fred Williams calculatedly side-stepping and therefore cowardly response: "Yes, and I am also still wondering why the Bible does not mention solar neutrinos, polonium halos, and synergistic epistasis! Ian, the Bible is not a science book, which is a good thing because science books, which are written by fallible men, change all the time! The Bible does not change, it is constant because it contains absolute truth. When it does touch on issues related to science, it is completely accurate. I provide a few examples at my Bible Evidences web site."I have dealt with Williams' farcical Bible evidences. Now if you go look at the URL I listed, it specifically talks about a massive meteorite impact. It isn't discussing a fleck of dust hitting a mountain top which is what Junior League John and Feckless Fred insist upon addressing. They have to insist upon dealing with that, because they have no answer whatsoever to the topic I actually raised.Here is the opening few lines of the article: "Scientists say they have found evidence that a gigantic meteorite, twice as big as the one which is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs, collided with Earth billions of years ago...The 20-kilometre (12-mile) wide asteroid is believed to have hit the planet with such force that it would have caused tidal waves kilometres high and torn up the bottom of the ocean."Since the creationists insist that all we have is a six-thousand year history, all of which is documented in the Bible, and since they insist that humans have been present every single day of Earth's history from their creation to the present, don't you think they might have noticed a 12 mile asteroid hitting the planet with literal earth-shattering force and felt compelled to document it, if not in the Bible itself, then *somewhere* in historical records? But there is nowhere that I am aware of that any such cataclysmic meteoritic impact has ever been recorded by human hand.The implication of this is devastating for creationism. It means that these huge impacts occurred in Earth's early history, millions or billions of years ago when no humans were present to record the event. It means they did not take place in the last 6,000 years.Now Wussy Williams can blather and flap his hands all he wants about trumped up creationist lies about "polonium halos", and he can make a good argument for Bible scribes knowing nothing about invisible solar neutrinos, but these are not issues that I raised, and Williams knows it. The issue I raised was cataclysmic meteorite impacts. Impacts that cannot fail to have been noticed had there been humans around. Impacts that cannot fail to have been recorded in the Bible, where every hiccup was assumed to be a communiqu from God.An article in Discover magazine (August 2002) reported that 25 million meteors hit earth every day. Clearly the fat majority of these are unnoticed specks, but they come in at 37 miles per second, and the daily accumulation from this dust shower is 100 tons/day spread over the planet!If we look at our Moon, and at other plants such as Mercury and Mars, we cannot fail but be awed by the punishment they have taken from meteor impacts. If the Moon is so battered, would not the Earth have been considerably more battered due to its size and gravity that is six times stronger than the Moon's? I read somewhere that Earth receives 25 times the meteor bombardment that the Moon does. Either nobody noticed these massive and repeated impacts - a literal rain of huge rocks from the sky, or the impacts did not occur in human history but in the billions of years of earth history before humans. This latter fact alone defeats the young Earth creation myth.Here is a list of meteor impacts that contains over 50 that are 10Km (6 miles) or larger:
http://www.meteorite.ch/crater.htm
Here is a map showing many of the impacts:
Planetary and Space Science Centre | UNB
As you can see, Israel doesn't appear to have received a direct hit, but it is literally surrounded by them.In terms of a large impact that couldn't fail to be noticed, either because of proximity, or because of size, or both, these are all "next door" to Israel:
Al Umchaimin, Iraq
Aorounga, Chad
Azuara, Spain
several in the Ukraine
Bigach, Kazakhstan
Bosumtwi, Ghana
B.P. Structure, Libya
Chicxulub, Mexico
Gweni-Fada, Chad
Kara-Kul, Tajikistan
Manicouagan, Canada
Oasis, Libya
Obolon, Ukraine
Popigai, Russia
Sudbury, Canada
Vredefort, S. AfricaThe effect on Earth of the Chicxulub impact is described here:
Page not found | Lunar and Planetary Laboratory & Department of Planetary Sciences | The University of ArizonaNow evolutionists (to use the term as loosely as the creationists do) do not have a problem with these, because the worst of this onslaught took place before humanity arose. The impacts and the humans never met.For creationists, this is an insurmountable problem. I can see why Bible writers never mentioned neutrinos, but this isn't the challenge I presented to Weasely Williams. Neither did I ask him to explain why 25 million impacts/day of dust are not recorded in the Bible.Let me lay it out as simply as possible, for Williams and other cognitively-challenged creationists: The challenge I present is: why are the massive, earth-shattering impacts such as those listed above not mentioned in the Bible? Do you get it now, Williams?Get a load of this farcical challenge from Williams: "If you can provide one example from the list of references you provided of a documented case of evolution leading up to an invertebrate that contains a specimen that is not within the same taxonomic family, then I will post it here."I notice that here Williams completely abandons his creationist roots, avoiding use of his own "kind" as the yardstick and falls back onto good solid science to shore him up when it comes to an example of what he insists on defining as "evolution" (talk about biasing the playing field)!Seriously, why is it that Williams runs screaming to science when he can't hold his own in the creation corner? Can you say bald-headed, butt-naked hypocrisy? This is after he blathered around dithering through species, genera and family when I tried to pin him down to a definition of "kind"!You know what? I feel no compulsion whatsoever to dance to Williams' transitional tune until and unless he has refuted *all* of the transitional examples (both vertebrate and invertebrate) I have referenced. Of course, before he can do that, he will have to come up with a scientific definition of "kind". Not the vague blather he already tried to palm us off with, but a real definition. After that, maybe I will look around and see what I can dig up, but then I am going to hold him rock solid to this definition from now on.Here's another hopeless guest book signee: "There is very little science in evolution. Just a lot of dogmatic faith in atheism/materialism. I look forward to visiting this site in the future."And, of course, religion is all hard-science based....Another: "I enjoyed very much readding (sic) this site and will do so again in the future.Yes some of the evolution theory is far fecthed (sic)"And a big bearded omnipotent giant in the sky making everything out of nothing in just six days and then being so worn out he had to rest is...?The clueless Pope John Paul again: "To any evolutionist reading this- Can you substantiate any claims made by the theory pertaining to the alleged great transformations?"Yes: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQHe continues: "Or do you just belive (sic) it to be true because of your distaste for God-based religions?"Another Idiot for Christ....This is truly sad: "i am researching for a science assignment on natural selection and i found ur
list of websites most helpful. I love ur site and will visit it whenever i need a creation viewpoint."I guess she failed that assignment!This idiot can't tell the difference between the science of taxonomy and a college dictionary: "Regarding apes, monkeys, Dr. Pages remarks, etc. According to Random House College Dictionary (1975, but this is still covering most of the time frame of evolutionist thinking since Darwin) an ape is 1. a tailless monkey or a monkey with a very short tail 2. any monkey..."The hopeless in pursuit of the worthless: "Certainly, being unpredictable and chance driven,
it would be "adaptable" to _any_ evidence... it is not falsifiable then and therefore _not_ science. Case closed"Gee, how much time could we have saved if Darwin had only consulted Mike before publishing!Here is one from someone who accurately describes themselves as: blindfools "The next time someone points out a supposed "transitional fossil" as evidence for evilution (Oops, did I misspell that?) ask them this: Why is it transitional and not just a variation in design (by God)?
After they spend some time propping up their answer (if they can) with other supposed evidences for evolution, then ask them this: If you have to prove it's a transitional with other evidence for evolution, how can it possibly be adequate evidence for evolution itself? The whole "transitional fossil" argument turns into circular reasoning and fails as evidence for evolution."So here we have a creationist quite happy to accept that there are transitionals, but that these transitionals are merely more evidence of design and therefore do not "prove" evolution! This is a classic example of the low-level thinking that is necessary for creationism to survive. A good education and a healthy aversion to mythology will cure it every time.This is also a classic example of the creationist philosophy of "divide and conquer". There is a de facto admission among creationists that they cannot defeat evolution per se. If they could, they would have done so by now in the refereed science journals (what was that ratio? 135,000:18?!!!). After all, it has been 140 years of heavy-duty cannon fire from the evolution camp with only an occasional whoopee cushion fired in response from the creationists.However, one way they feel sure they can score points is to isolate a tiny, tiny, tiny portion of the whole and attack it in isolation, as is done in the example above. The genius of this method is that when the evolutionist then tries to create some understanding and says, "Well, you can't look at it in isolation, the creationist can then turn around and chant "circular argument" (which is one of Williams' favorite mantras. How adorably cute! Nonsense and lies, but very cute.This is Williams clueless response to someone who wrote in his guest book that a religion is spiritual, evolution is scientific: "I never claimed that science is a religion. I claimed that evolution is a religion."The fact that evolution follows precisely the same practices as all other sciences, must also mean that all other sciences are religions, according to Williams' definition, therefore by claiming that one science is a religion, Williams is indeed claiming that all science is religion. This is another certified Fred Williams lie.He mindlessly blathers: "Can you name one benefit evolutionary "science" has offered society?So Williams' definition of a science is something that benefits society? I guess we can also kiss off cosmology, geology (other than find gasoline to pollute the atmosphere with, what has geology ever done for anyone?), zoology, taxonomy, whatever.So let me answer his question as to what evolution has ever done: genetics for one thing! If it were not for the fact that all organisms share the same genetic building blocks and many of the same genes (clear support for evolution and a refutation of special creation), it would not be possible to properly understand diseases or to test treatments on animal subjects. Period.Williams lies some more: "While evolutionists may be trying to develop a theory that is "reliable & predictable", the bottom line is that after 130 years of trying since Darwin's book, nothing reliable or predictable has been produced."Well, duhh, the prediction of the ant-wasp intermediate form that was later discovered (discussed above) is one immediate prediction that comes to mind. If it were not for evolution, it would not be possible to make any sense of anatomy, genetics, biology, or medicine. And for an engineer, Williams' math sucks if he thinks it is only 130 years since 1859.You can almost hear the panic in Williams voice as he writes; "If you think there is anything about the theory that qualifies for either "reliable or predictable" I'd be interested in hearing it. I am talking about large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution, not small scale change such as
micro-evolution"What the heck does this have to do with reliability of predictability? Williams has so hog-tied himself that he cannot speak a phrase without redefining everything in it to his own advantage.The fact is that the entire fossil record is a prediction come true. Darwin's theory established the de facto prediction that we would find in the fossil record (a record that was essentially unknown in his own time), examples of organisms starting out as simple one-celled creatures and steadily progressing, through history, towards the organisms we see in the world today. This is precisely what the record shows. It most categorically does not show a totally mixed-up jumble of marine and terrestrial organisms sorted by size and hydrodynamics in sediment that seamlessly grades from coarse to fine, as it would do if there had been a catastrophic global flood.Another Williams nugget: "(see my article on how the very word "evolution" is equivocated by evolutionists in an attempt to make the theory true by default)."Williams is utterly unable to grasp that when he is corrected on the use of the word "evolution", it is because he is deliberately misusing it for no other purpose than to benefit his own arguments.The *fact* is that the scientific definition of evolution is a change in allele frequency of a population. If creationists wish to dump everything else into this, then it is incumbent upon them to define a new word and make it expressly clear what they are talking about. It is not the job of evolutionists to run around changing creationist dirty diapers. And if creationists wish to claim that this change in allele frequency cannot result in evolution of new families from old, as the fossil record shows, then it is also incumbent upon them to define, *scientifically* the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from "varying" into another "kind".Williams: ""I am equally and unabashedly close-minded to the idea of evolution because the evidence overwhelmingly refutes it."Then all Williams has to do is publish all of this "evidence" in a paper in a standard science journal, and he will become the most famous human being who ever lived. What is he waiting for? What is any creationist waiting for? Why don't they publish all of this evidence?Without a doubt the absolute best message ever left in Williams' guest book is this one from "hayley" in New South Wales in Australia: "Can you tell me if a emu, (sic) cat, elphant, (sic) crab, scorpian, (sic) dog, mouse, fish, bird and frog. is vertabrate (sic) or invertabrate (sic). If not can you at least e-mail me back to say you can't. Thankyou, Hayley."Since Williams offers no response whatsoever to Hayley, I can only assume he "emailed her back" to say that he can't....One of the most clueless comments in the guest book is this: "I really think the what (sic) ol' Fredy (sic) shoud (sic) do is abolish all messages from this guest book bar the one that states clearly (unambiguously) that this site is met (sic) to be poking fun at evolution theory. It is not supposed to be giving a balanced account of the debate, nor is it supposed to contain scientific evidences. Therefore comments complaining about lack of evidence, incorrect context, out-of-date journals are really quite vaccuous.(sic)"No - actually, the only thing that is vacuous is the brain of the one who left this message. There is nothing wrong with satire, but when a site such as Williams' which is demonstrably and provenly full of lies, pretends to accurately portray evolution in order to show how "wrong" it is, but instead presents a view of evolution so misleading as to be a pathetic lie in itself, then that site must be opposed forcefully. This is not a question of a site simply making fun. The kind of people who support and believe sites like this are the same people who will take truth out of schools and get in your children's faces and force lies upon their malleable minds. Such people, and the web sites they propagate are despicable in the extreme, and I will oppose them with my last breath.Now once again I have to put out a world-wide request for people to come to Fred Williams' aid. Can no one lift a finger for him? The Fred Williams Organisation for Clueless Creationists (FWOCC) desperately needs your support, so please give generously. Aren't there any creationists at all out there who can give a FWOCC? 100% of your support goes directly to aid evidence-impoverished creationists right here in North America, so please give until it hurts, otherwise Williams is going to have to FWOCC himself.Budikka

Creationist Fred Williams Web Site Lies - 6
Or, "The Gene Genii"Williams on Haldane's dilemma
In a recent post at:
Error | Baptist Christian Forums
Williams admitted this: "I have never claimed Haldane’s Dilemma is a "fact", in fact I have said many times it could be wrong."
So by his own admission, Williams is effectively admitting that his claims on Haldane's dilemma are nothing but a catch of herrings, all of them red.Scott Page has cleaned Williams' clock more than adequately in his "informal" debate with Williams, and Robert Rapier has done the same at: Baptist Christian Forums where Williams also admits: "I cannot conclusively prove that 1667 [beneficial mutations] isn't enough [for a common ancestor to evolve into either a human or a chimpanzee over 10 million years] because there is not enough sequence information available for both chimps & humans...."Neither can Williams best buddy, Walter ReMine! Williams is such a clone of ReMine that it is worth a moment or two to look at some of ReMine's claims. Here is ReMine's breakdown of his 1667 mutations:
http://www1.minn.net/...iuc2.htm#Haldane%E2%80%99s%20Dilemma
Quote: "Evolutionists do not get to assign the 1,667 mutations any way they please, say, as "regulatory genes" or as "mutations with a large effect". Nature does not work that way. Rather, the preponderance of mutations will be of the ordinary kind, with a small effect. Let me illustrate the concept with crude figures: about 1500 mutations with an ordinary small effect, 100 more for re-positioning genes on chromosomes (inversions and so forth), 60 as gene duplications, and 7 mutations to regulatory genes that have a larger effect — for a total of 1,667. Nature, not evolutionists, must dictate how these parcel out."And yet here is ReMine dictating how these parcel out! Isn't nature supposed to dictate this?!ReMine on natural selection
"I told how evolutionists - especially in their presentations to the unwary public - present evolution as a walk ever upward on a uniform fitness incline."Actually this is untrue because evolution offers no promise of endless progress. There was nothing to predict humans from the genes in that first cell. All evolution can ever do is match organisms to environments and imperfectly at that. In the process of doing this, new species arise which may well be comfortably adapted at that time, but this is not the same as saying that they, now, are better adapted than earlier species were then, nor is it the same as saying that any given species will always be better adapted than an earlier species. This is something that creationists, with their limited grasp of evolution, are unable to understand.ReMine opines on "...the failure of Darwinian Systematists to identify real ancestors."
Yet here we are, and there chimpanzees are, and there is only some 1.6% difference between us. Edward Max reports that we even share junk DNA with our closest relatives, something which evolution can explain, but creation cannot:
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
(see section 4.7 - "Implications of functionless sequences shared between species")ReMine again on: "...the Darwinians attempts to create the illusion that ancestors have been identified. (I identified a variety of methods used, including the creation of paraphyletic groups. and mis-use of terminology such as "intermediate form".)"When he publishes papers in peer-reviewed science journals with evidence calling these ancestral examples into serious question, and scientists duplicate his work, I will accept his word.ReMine also calls punctuated equilibrium into question referring to: "...the peculiar structure and use of punk-ek theory."This is an old creationist rocking horse. They all ride it but get nowhere. Punctuated equilibrium was really not a brand new, startling, alternate theory. It was more like a restatement of something Darwin had addressed in "On The Origin...", where, in chapter 4, we read, "Isolation, also, is an important element in the modification of species through natural selection. In a confined or isolated area, if not very large, the organic and inorganic conditions of life will generally be almost uniform; so that natural selection will tend to modify all the varying individuals of the same species in the same manner."Darwin also addressed the difficulties in finding intermediate species in chapter 6: "But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me. But I think it can be in large part explained." And he goes on to explain it.Re-mining old, useless arguments is another ReMine staple. He remarks upon: "...the diverse contradictions between evolutionists when they attempt to identify ancestors.", but you know what? There is bound to be discussion when new fossils turn up and scientists try to determine where they lie in the overall picture. That creationists jump on these discussions and try to exploit them is not evidence of weakness of the Theory of Evolution, but proof of how pathetic and weak the creationist position is and how desperate they are that they are forced to do this because they cannot make a positive case for creation.And this is supposed to be evidence of the weakness evolution: "...numerous statements about the fossil data, both particular and general, from evolutionist experts themselves."How pathetic that he is reduced to nonsense attacks like this!Back to Williams. He claims: "I argue that there are no solid examples of any mutation that added new information to the genome"This one article alone refutes that:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/1999/10/991005071327.htm
It is buttressed by this:
| American Scientist
And in another article, Edward Max addresses information arguments propagated by the Williams/ReMine misinformation consortium:
The Evolution of Improved FitnessSince Robert Williams effectively destroys Williams "Haldane" arguments (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/haldane1.html), let me just deal with one or two apparently bone-headed Williams assertions.He claims, in an attack on Robert Williams' article (which is actually an attack on an earlier version of the article): "Regardless, this does not double the amount of substitutions that can occur from point A (man/ape ancestor) to point B (man), and this is the context of ReMine’s (and Haldane’s) argument", but it seems to me that Williams is in error here unless he can produce evidence of Remine's possession of the genome map of the ancestor of the human-ape line.Possession of such a map is the only way that a common ancestor can be compared with a modern human. All other comparisons are forced to be between modern apes and modern humans, which have more substitutions since each species has been following an evolutionary path for the same amount of time.The question is, can you reasonably halve that number of differences between modern apes and modern humans, and then claim that the resulting number is the difference between either a modern human or a modern ape's genome, and that of their common ancestor? I am not at all convinced that you can.And look at this rather weird quote: "According to ReMine, Haldane showed that cost is minimized only when fixation moves steadily upward"! Rather than quote his false god, Haldane, whom he adores, venerates and worships, Williams refers here to what *ReMine* (his other false god) says about Haldane! Why? Why not refer directly to Haldane?Williams: "... population geneticist Ronald Fisher (1930) estimated..." Isn't it quaint how creationists pad their arguments with ancient, antiquated, out-of-date quotes? Haldane's paper itself is getting on for fifty years old. Maybe what Fisher estimated 70 years ago is still true, maybe it isn't. If it is still true, why can't Williams find the same estimate in an up-to-date book? I'll tell you why: it's because creationists are the most parasitic, idle, and incestuous species on the planet. They do no foraging for themselves, but addictively feed off each other, quoting each other's quotes endlessly (talk about circular reasoning!) until they find they are inadvertently quoting themselves without releasing it, and forgetting that what they originally stated has long since been refuted!Williams' Pseudo-Paper "Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates" claims that "Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry...[because]...the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high" I assume that he means the deleterious mutation rate is too high, but creationists play so fast and loose with language that he could mean anything.I find it hilarious how creationists turn blue in the face denying vehemently all of the solidly reinforced and buttressed scientific evidence that evolution does indeed explain the diversity of life, slanderously attacking the scientists into the bargain, but let them find a single sentence which they think they can glean some support from in a single paper which may or may not have been validated, by those same scientists, and they fall on their bellies and kiss those scientist's feet.If scientists are lying scum in the one context, hiding, forging or lying about evidence, blinded to "The Truth"(TM), then how can they possibly be paragons of veracity in another? Can you say, "Hypocrisy"?The hypocrisy continues: "By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation."After chiding the author of an article on Haldane's dilemma for accusing a creationist of not grasping that we did not descend from modern chimps, Williams is so childishly excited by his supposed "discovery" that he blindly rampages in where angels fear to tread. So what if that rate is true? We didn't descend from modern apes! Williams here commits the very faux pas he accuses the other writer of unjustly accusing creationists of!After blowing off a lot of flatulence, Williams then claims to prove his case, but in doing so writes reams of fluff, none of which he explains for the layman. He first talks of U=1.6, supposedly the harmful mutation rate, without at any point explaining why he uses U (I guess he's just using you). He then asserts that "p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation", insists that a female is "required" to produce two offspring divided by "p" and sets "B" to represent the birth threshold that he just created, expressing part of this thus: B = 2/p, and asserts that the probability "p" of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6.So amidst all this math, none of which is explained to the layman (which is his entire audience) - we have already two conflicting definitions of "p". The "e^-U6" is his way of confusing you. it translates, as far as I can tell, to the natural log e (2.71828182845904
) raised to the power of the mutation rate of 1.6 multiplied by negative one, times six. If you actually multiply this out, it comes to zero. However, if you multiply 2*2.72^1.6 you get his 9.9 number. Immediately after this, though, he insists, "What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium" Since when is 9.9 over 10? Clearly such sloppy work demands that we dismiss his argument summarily. However, let me keep at it.The thing that no one seems to have raised with Williams or ReMine is that it is essentially the male that provides genetic diversity. The female (at least in mammals, as far as I am aware) has all her eggs already made. The male produces several million sperm, and these are generated anew throughout the male's life. Thus the potential for mutation is massively weighted towards the male side of the equation as these sperm develop.How many deleterious mutations are eliminated in these sperm, before the egg is ever fertilized? And if they are eliminated there, why would we need a huge reproductive rate to eliminate them later in the cycle? Even after an egg is fertilized, many of these are aborted before they ever begin to develop significantly. I don't know for sure what the rate is, but I have heard it as high as one in two eggs (God apparently is in favor of abortion). This further reduces the weight on offspring that are actually born.I don't know. I am not a biologist or a geneticist, but it seems to me that even if Williams and ReMine are right (and from what I have read, they are far from right), they need to address the issue of how many deleterious mutations are eliminated early in the reproductive cycle, before they concern themselves about actual reproductive rates and how many mutations are left to be eliminated there.Williams dismisses comments on "synergistic epistasis" as a mutation eliminator as just-so stories. He does this as a knee-jerk response with evolutionary concepts he either cannot grasp or has no answer for. How hypocritical from someone whose entire web site hangs on absurd just so stories! He claims that synergistic epistasis is "pure speculation with no real, tangible evidence to support it."You can read an abstract about synergistic epistasis here: Page Not Found
a more mathematically oriented discussion is here:
Page not found | College of Biological SciencesFinally, this is a limited study of modern apes and modern humans, completely removed from the real-world empirical, with conclusions extrapolated from that. It is not a final commandment engraved in stone.Williams, as usual, is also making a massive blunder. Creationists do not see the whole picture, they see only what they want to see, and what he is seeing here is that every female of every species has to reproduce 60 viable offspring in every delivery, or that species becomes extinct!He is blind to the fact that most organisms that creationists typically address are the big ones we are most familiar with, which typically have a low birth-rate whereas the vast bulk of this planet's bio-mass is organisms that routinely produce far more offspring than this, even in one "delivery".He makes no allowance whatsoever for fitness to reproduce, makes no accounting whatsoever for organisms that are so genetically deficient that they never even make it out of the egg or womb. need I go on?In a last, desperate attempt to shore up his invalid conclusions, Williams rants insanely, "Sure, sex will certainly slow the propagation of harmful mutations...But Crow is forgetting the other side of the coin, that sex will also slow the propagation of beneficial mutations!" Sure, Williams! Whatever you want to believe, because we all know that beneficial mutations confer absolutely no benefits whatsoever on a species.The biggest indictment of Williams' thoughtless claims is reality! What he is rabidly salivating over here is his own destruction. If any organism needs to produce 60 offspring (as he eventually determines) to even survive, let alone vary, then how is it possible for any of the "kinds" on the ark to have produced the millions of species (even within their own "kind") that we know to have existed throughout time?How did Williams' two kitty cats on the ark ever produce enough offspring to grow to almost forty species of extant cats? How did the two moths or butterflies on the ark ever produce enough viable offspring to achieve almost 150,000 varieties of their "kind"? Clearly, his mutation and reproductive rate nonsense cannot possibly be true, even under his own belief system, because nature proves him wrong. Creationists must admit to this, because they rely absolutely on evolution to explain current diversity just as much as the evolutionists do!Williams has a section on his web site claiming that a high rate of mutation supports a recent creation of man. Nowhere in this article (typically for a creationist) does he address the issue of why there is a mutation rate at all. Remember - the creationist position is that God created us all only 6,000 years ago. This god saw that his work was good, and this god is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient. How is it possible for such work to be so flawed that there is any mutation at all? Why would there have to be? How could anything created by a perfect god even begin to deteriorate?Working from this clueless beginning, Williams tries to illustrate his claim: "...let's start with a simple model where we will assume heterozygosity throughout the generations (this essentially means no inbreeding),"But Williams own scenario, starting 6,000 years ago, cannot possibly assume no inbreeding: there was only one genome to begin with! Eve was a clone of Adam, so there was no new genetic information there. There were no other people to breed with, so every single descendent of Adam and Eve was inbred. Williams own scenario is fatally flawed even when applied to his own claims! So his calculation, carefully designed to prove his case, proves nothing but Williams' incompetence and thoughtlessness.Even assuming he was starting from a solid foundation, Williams efforts flounder. First of all he assumes a genome of twice the size that it apparently is, and he assumes all mutations will be in active genes: "...we have an estimated 80,000 genes...However, if we use the evolutionist's estimated time since the split between ape and man of 6 million years, we get 720,000 bad mutations, or about 9 mutations per gene!"Even if this were true, genes are so large and have so much junk in them (known as introns, material that is deliberately cut out of the resulting template before the gene is allowed to make its protein) that even nine mutations could get safely lost. And Williams is talking about point mutations, but he fails to inform you that most amino acids are coded for by only the first two of the three base pairs, so a mutation to the third of the set is not going to make the slightest bit of difference to the resulting amino acid for the most part.The real however is (even using Williams calculations) that if we spread the mutations over the entire genome, and not just over the genes, we get less than one mutation per 4200 base pairs. Williams himself admits that "more than 50% of these mutations will be recessive, and therefore not expressed." so all we have to worry about is 2100 mutations even using Williams' own numbers!Williams tacks a lot of trash onto these bad numbers, including the already flawed material he spouted about Haldane. One of the absurdities he blabbers on about is is that "...evolutionists try to "fix" this problem" (note that this is a non-existent problem!) "by lowering the amount of functional genome. But as this is lowered, they remove space for new genes that are absolutely essential for their theory."But this is patent nonsense! One way in which new information is added to the genome is by gene duplication. If a gene is duplicated (and many genes are), it clearly becomes a playground for evolution as long as the original gene continues to do its job. So for Williams to try and pretend that (in his peculiar grammatical way) "...lowering the amount of functional genome [removes]...space for new genes", demonstrates only that he does not understand what he is talking about. He seems to think that evolution has a restricted space for functional genes and that somehow one of these gene must "die off" to make space for a duplicate gene to fit in! Clearly Williams has had to invent his own personalized brand of voodoo genetics to make his ridiculous claims have half a hope of sticking.Anyway, that covers the bulk of Williams' web site. This series is almost through and there is still no sign of support for Williams, not even from Williams himself! I think one more concluding post and, unless someone wants to come to bat for him, that ought to do it. We can close out this thread and get onto more important matters than Fred Williams error-encrusted and totally trivial web site.Budikka

Hey BudikkaIf you are done with FW, or you want a bigger chomp out of creationists, try this.evolutiondeceit.com is for sale | HugeDomainsIt is by the Harun Yahya committee, dedicated to creationism--international. Pick a language.

Thanks for the URL. I visited the site and downloaded the text, but when I will be able to get to it, I have no idea. Just when I thought I could see the light at the end of the tunnel, you present me with this!! On the other hand, it ought to be easy, since they aren't saying anything new!I looked at the audio-visual presentation and was thoroughly unimpressed by their nonsense and misrepresentation. He insists that the world exhibits evidence of design. This can be refuted readily.He does the typical creationist obfuscation of lumping abiogenesis into the story and calling it Darwinism. He lies about the Miller-Urey experiments.He does a Behe in "chapter 3" of the a-v presentation, which basically gets down to him saying, "Hey, I'm too dumb to figure out how the cell works, therefore Godidit". Chapter 4 is just bizarre! Chapter 5 covers the fossil record. I don't see anything in this presentation at all that is not of the same brain-dead blindness that people like Fred Williams and Kent Hovind adore.Chapter 6 is completely mindless - it begins with the topic of the coelacanth - how finding this fish still living somehow overthrew Darwinism and left it in a shambles. Of course, they can only do this by completely misrepresenting what evoltuionists say, and dumbing down the data until it is menaingless. Even Williams isn't that braindead.Perhaps the text I downloaded will be more interesting.Anyway, enough of this. I am not done with Williams yet. I have one more posting to make addressing his material, which I am hoping to get done this weekend, then I think I will be done with this. If and when I go after the reference you gave me, I will open a new thread. This one is about ready for archiving.Budikka

This thread has been skirting the boundaries of the Forum Guidelines for some time. Criticizing opposing views is fine, but if you could please treat the holders of those views with respect it would be much appreciated. The primary reason for guideline #3 is to keep debate focused on the issues rather than the personalities. Thanks!--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Fred Williams Web Site Lies - 7
Or, "The Debate That Never Was"Fred Williams sports on his web site (under the header "winter debate") a debate I had with him some time ago. First of all, I have to credit him that he did take part in a debate - he is the only creationist in getting on for three years who has had the courage to debate me. Not that I am claiming to be a great debater. I am an amateur at this, which begs the question as to why experienced creationist debaters dare not even tackle me. Of course, in order to debate, Williams had to insist that he get the last word! This was fine with me, because I thought him to be a different person then than I know him to be today.Here is a look at Williams' immoderate moderation:
http://www.creationweb.org/viewtopic.php?t=151This was my very first debate, and I have to admit, after exchanging several decent emails with him preparatory to the debate, I was totally unprepared for his attitude during it. Also I failed to control the debate - I let it drift wherever instead of keeping it focused on the material on his web site, which was the original intention of the debate (at least from my point of view).Unfortunately, this is where the creationists have the advantage. They can afford to throw out lies, mistruths, half-truths, out-of-context quotes, out-of-date quotes, and miscellaneous trash, because all they have to do is try to create doubt in under-educated people's minds. The evolutionist, on the other hand, has to be right, has to focus on the facts, and worse than this, has to run down and highlight creationist lies and educate the misinformed public to boot.The odds are heavily in favor of the creationist in these exchanges simply because the evolutionist cannot possibly cover all the garbage and red herrings thrown out by a creationist in the time allowed. Creationists know this, and this is why they are usually so loathe to tackle written debates (Kent Hovind has been running away from me for years) and favor the live debate - preferably in front of a church audience.The problem with Williams was that he pretty much consistently failed to grapple with the material I presented. He (either deliberately or cluelessly) side-stepped the tough topics to address material only tangentially connected with the main point. I left him with 31 unanswered questions (gleaned from the entire span of the debate) for him to deal with in his final response. He has not, to this day, dealt with them!Here they are with some explanatory material:
(Note that the original list was mis-numbered - item nine was deleted and I neglected to renumber from that point on. That has been corrected in this list.)Fred Williams
1. Failed to acknowledge that creationists testified under oath to god that creationism is not science.This was from my opening argument, where I quoted three creationists who testified under oath in court that creationism was not science. These quotes have appeared in the headers of material in this series. Unfortunately, I added a fourth quote from the same trial that was not from a creationist, but from a scientist, and in my haste to get the material finished, I neglected to change the ensuing comment, which was left suggesting that all the quotes were from creationists. Williams seized on this and thereby side-stepped dealing with the bare fact of three creationists, including the then vice-president of the Creation Research Society, Margaret Helder denying that creationism was scientific. To their credit, but under oath to God, these creationists could not claim that creationism was scientifically testable or that there was scientific evidence for it. Williams has yet to acknowledge this or deal with its implications.2. Failed to answer 3 Biblical errors (and check out:
Origins of Christianity | Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ for more!In my opening argument, I highlighted three instances of Biblical problems, which Williams failed to deal with. True to form, he ruled them inadmissible - in other words, he wanted to be perfectly free to trash science textbooks, but when I tried to show some problems with his "science textbook" he yelled "uncle!".3. Failed to establish creation "science."Williams' web site establishes absolutely no positive evidence for creation whatsoever. Typically for creationist web sites, he expends a lot of words trying to trash evolution (but actually all he is trashing is the creationist strawman of evolution), in the empty pretense that if he can defeat evolution, creation wins by default, but he is so wrong it isn't even funny. Even if Darwin was completely wrong (and creationists haven't even come close to establishing this much) there is still the bare fact of evolution - of related species and families, of genetics, of geology and cosmology, etc., that needs to be explained. Until and unless creationists can explain this with the same efficiency as evolutionists can, they have no science and nothing to offer.4. Failed to explain why a creator designs sharks so badly that they need cleaner fish.This related directly to Williams' web site claims. I made the point that if his "cleaner fish" scenario held any truth, then all it establishes is a clueless creator. Williams never rebutted this.5. Failed to explain why a benign creator made parasites - or viruses, harmful bacteria and
virulently venomous animals. (see "Parascript: Parasites and the Language of Evolution" by Brooks and McLennan, Smithsonian Press, 1993, for information on how parasites demonstrate
evolution).This was another challenge to Williams based on the Intelligent Design (ID) scenario. He never established a case, nor has he refuted this challenge. At best, he has addressed only viruses , not the parasites and venomous animals I also mentioned. His position is that somehow, somewhere, some when, a creator made viruses to help organisms evolve, but somehow these viruses "went bad" and now make us ill. So here Williams is establishing several things:a. Viruses were made by a clueless, uncaring, omnipotent, omniscient god who had no idea they would go bad and kill babies, or who knew they would go bad and didn't care.b. It looks like Williams lied when he claimed no new information can enter the perfect genome this god created, because he is here claiming that viruses can bring new information into the genome! I am still waiting for him to explain the hows and whys of this or to explain how it works and why it went bad.c. Williams seems to have abandoned the perfect, fixed "kind" here, unless he has some sort of explanation as to why perfect animals would need new information, or why the original explanation Williams offered - that animals come with pre-arranged variability to help them cope with new circumstances - was so imperfect that they need viruses to help them along. He also needs to offer some sort of mechanism, if he has not abandoned the fixed "kind" that would prevent new virus information in the genome from tipping a given organism over the "kind" barrier.6. Failed to explain why many plants are inedible (even for animals) or poisonous, or covered in thorns given the Biblical claim that they are for food (Gen 1:29).This one needs no explanation from me. It needs a huge one from Williams.7. Failed to explain why natural processes couldn't evolve a giraffe, given that the okapi is pretty much half way there.I presented the okapi, which is related to the giraffe, as a very plausible model for a transitional form, to explain how the giraffe could have evolved. The okapi is literally halfway to being a giraffe. Creationists cannot claim that the okapi is unrelated to the giraffe in the same way they try to claim that organisms in the fossil record that demonstrate evolution were unrelated. The okapi is alive and well and clearly a halfway giraffe. If it did not exist, but was known only from the fossil record, the creationists would insist that the okapi was not related to the giraffe, no matter how close their anatomy was. Fortunately, we have them alive today and know that they are closely related. No creationist has tackled this issue in any of their drivel concerning giraffes.8. Failed to acknowledge that his caricature of the whale/wolf is deceitful.Williams web site shows a modern wolf in his fairytale about whale evolution. If you bought his story, you would be led to believe that evolutionists are claiming that modern wolves evolved into modern whales, or at best that an ancient wolf so evolved, but this is not the case and is not what evolutionists have said. The evolutionists may have said that the whale evolved from an animal the size of a wolf, or even a "wolf-like animal", but this was definitely not a wolf. So of course, the creationists dumbed it down, took the least common denominator and manufactured a strawman directly from this.9. Failed to explain why snakes have vestigial legs and hip bones, including at least one fossil snake with legs (http://www.ngnews.com/news/1999/12/121799/snakelegs_8255.asp)No need for explanation from me, but still waiting on one from Williams. Of course, we are never going to get one, which is why Williams retreated hastily from this and is now involving himself only in debate about information theory and genetic mutation. It's a lot more esoteric, a lot easier to obfuscate, especially for the layman, and no need to have to answer difficult questions such as these. He also needs to address whales with legs both from the fossil record and from vestigial organs in modern whales. These are facts, and simple denial is never going to cut it.10. Failed to explain why a creator, supposedly the most perfect engineer ever, chose the same design for all vertebrate limbs: horse, bird, bat (differently configured), whale, mole, elephant, leopard, kangaroo. Would you consider an engineer divine if he built an airplane wing and claimed it was adaptable digging holes?Again self explanatory. Still waiting on any creationist answering this.11. Failed to explain the archaeopteryx, given its mix of bird and reptile traits.This goes to Williams caricature supposedly on flight, in which he fails to actually deal with flight and instead talks about "flying" squirrels! I raised the archaeopteryx, which despite being labeled as a bird by Williams (in the same way that he labels the wasp-ant transitional, as an ant), has a complete mix of reptilian and avian characteristics. Williams has failed to address this.12. Failed to acknowledge other transitionals: Caudipteryx, Confuciornis, Gobipteryx,
Protarchaeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx (Dinosauria On-Line)Same problem here as #12, but several different species. How easy it must be to deny transitionals when you look the other way every time another one is set before you!13. Failed to define how creation beats evolution given that evolution looks at what is actually there, and tries to explain it, whereas creation begins with fixed dogma taken from ignorant and primitive texts, none of which are even close to original, with stories demonstrably stolen from other cultures.Self-explanatory.14. Failed to explain why creationists focus tightly on modern living species in their anti-evolution examples rather than address fossil ancestors, and why focus on anatomy rather than genetics.It is a fact that when creationists try to show how "foolish" evolution is, they always talk about something along the lines of a tree turning into a bear, or a lizard giving birth to a bird. They focus on modern anatomy, but they never address genetics, which is where evolution takes place. The reason? The genes are all made of the same few materials. It is easy to see how a mutation here and there could change one "kind" into another at genetic level. It is harder to see it if all you do is look at outward appearance, especially if all you do is look at outward appearance of modern families, rather than "outward appearance" (actually skeletal anatomy, in this case) of fossil ancestors who were a lot closer than many modern families are.15. Failed to illustrate any misquote after claiming my opening remarks were "laced" with them.This was one of those instances where Williams' rhetoric got out of control. He literally said that my opening article was "laced" with misquotes, but offered not a single example when I challenged him.16. Failed to explain why creationists do not challenge evolution in the science forums.Again failed to address this issue. If creation "science" is real, and as strong as creationists like to fool themselves, why is it that they do not attack evolution where it would really hurt - in the refereed science journals?17. Failed to back up this assertion: "Anybody familiar with the major science mags knows of their dogmatic protection of their sacred cow of evolution, and their snubbing of anti-evolutionists who try to challenge it." which he pretends answers #16.I challenged Williams on this and typically for a creationist, he failed to offer any support for his wild claim.18. Failed to demonstrate that evolution is even close to being religion.Self-explanatory.19. Failed (along with every other single creationist on the planet, throughout the entire history of modern creationism) to demonstrate any mechanism which could prevent change between "kinds."Still waiting on any creationist to define this.20. Failed to define "kind."As I mentioned in earlier postings in this thread, Williams definition of "kind" was inadequate. I challenged him on it and he failed to support his claims.21. Failed to justify this self-contradictory claim: "An infinite God is the only possibility. There must be a first Cause..." If there must be a first cause, how can there be an uncaused, infinite god?Self-explanatory.22. Failed to demonstrate why there *must* be a first cause.Williams may have considered this to be a "duplicate" challenge and thereby excused himself from responding, but he actually responded to *none* of the challenges. First of all, this is not a duplicate - it is different from #21, but he should have at least tackled one or the other! The fact that he tackled neither, I assume is an admission that he cannot address either.23. Failed to show why a creator had to base all living things on the tiny minority of amino acids and 6 basic elements if he was omnipotent and made them all from scratch.Again, evolutionists have no problem with this, since whatever combination came to be part of the first surviving, replicating chemical/organism would carry that prescribed set of organic building blocks through to every descendant. Creationists cannot explain why the creator limited himself (or was limited by outside constraints) to so small a subset of what was available, and mindlessly used this same set over and over again. How does this demonstrate the glory of god?24. Failed to show any mix of fossils that would support the creationist flood scenario.I challenged Williams to a separate debate on the flood - in order to keep the range of material narrow (a constraint I failed to enforce in the winter debate). Such a debate would have given both sides much material to mine, but have remained focused on one topic. Williams was, of course, not up to this. I think he was wise to decline. He has yet to offer up any set of fossil finds that demonstrate a flood, i.e. that demonstrate a wild mix of fossils in one stratum that defy the "rules of evolution".25. Failed to explain poor quality of fossil record if it is so recent.One of Williams favorite hobby horses is the fossil record. He likes to ignore transitional forms among vertebrates, because (he claims) the fossil record is so heavily biased toward marine invertebrates. This may be so, but it does not excuse him from addressing the transitionals that are presented to him. Worse than this, the flood scenario simply does not explain the fossil record, and it certainly cannot begin to explain, if virtually all living things were slaughtered en masse just 4,000-odd years ago and immediately buried, free from erosion and predation, why the fossil record is so poor for terrestrial vertebrates! It ought to be replete with them if creationists are right, and all of them ought to be recently dateable.26. Failed to explain why fossil record shows five separate, distinct, major extinctions in aquatic life, and nine separate land plant extinctions which do not match the other five. (See "The Evolutionary Biology of Plants" by Karl J. Niklas, University of Chicago Press, 1997).Again, the flood scenario cannot explain the clear demarcations in the fossil record, which show five, definite, major extinctions along the lines of the dinosaur eradication 65 million years ago and repeatedly show new sets of organisms, different from those in earlier strata, arising subsequent to each extinction. A single, catastrophic, global flood cannot explain this.27. Failed to demonstrate how a perfect genetic code designed by a supreme being could mutate at all or mutate so badly in only 6,000 years.This relates to Williams best buddy Walter ReMine, upon whom Williams apparently dotes. They are so insistent that the genetic code is a designed "biotic message", but they cannot offer any explanation as to why such a perfectly designed system could deteriorate so very badly in so short a time period.28. Failed to demonstrate how 40 individual instances of eye formation demonstrates the competence of a creator who apparently could not make one all-purpose eye.Self-explanatory.29. Failed to demonstrate how evolution defies the laws of thermodynamics.I have seen this claim often, but never seen it supported. Actually recent research (see _Discover_ magazine, Dec. 2002, p12) suggests that over very short time scales, the first law of thermodynamics may not be a law at all! In that same edition on p28, there is an article discussing bird migration (another of Williams' hobby-horses), which strongly suggests that it is not anywhere near as miraculous as Williams likes to pretend.30. Failed to demonstrate why something akin to an ordinary squirrel could not, over the course of time, grow flaps between its fore and hind limbs which demonstrably contribute to gliding ability.This related to Williams "flight" farce. I tackled him both on the fact that it had nothing to do with flight, and at face value on the fact that it is the easiest thing in the world to imagine how a regular squirrel could, over time, develop flaps between its fore and hind legs to aid gliding. Williams, adopting his typical creationist response pose, pooh-poohed this idea, but offered no reason whatsoever why it could not have happened. He wants us just to take his god-like word for it - entirely on faith. And this is the same guy who demands that evolutionists prove everything NOW!Of course, it would be very difficult to find examples of this in the fossil record, because it would more than likely be all soft tissue-related, which does not preserve at all well. Creationists have no explanation as to why the creator simply did not make squirrels literally able to fly. It would have saved a lot of lives and broken limbs.31. Failed to show examples of where good science refuting evolution has been turned down by the peer-reviewed journals.This is not the same as #17, but is related to it. Williams claimed that creationists do not publish papers in peer-reviewed journals refuting evolution because those journals will not publish such papers, so I asked him to provide examples of this. I am still waiting. How easy it is to make creationist claims when you never have to support any of them!Williams final response in the debate, something I am sure he drooled over, hoping for a devastating knock-out blow, was hilarious. It was completely deflated because he could offer no such killer punch. He was reduced to niggling and nit-picking, and even so, failed to address any of the serious issues I had raised. He even desperately "explained away" his failure to tackle the 31 challenges in his opening sentence: "In my final installment of this debate, I will try to focus most of my comments to new material from Budikka". He addressed the new material in the same way he addressed the old - dancing around it, sniping at it tangentially, and failing to refute it, while being able to avoid tackling all of his failures from the earlier material.I listed a series of organisms that represent not transitionals between ancestral forms and modern forms, but that are transitional in the sense that they are organisms that are not quite here or there. My point was that if such organisms exist today, how can creationists even try to deny that similar organisms, that *were* actual transitionals, existed in the past? I *never* said that these organism were being presented as actual transitionals, but this is what Williams chose to rebut, of course, because it was the easiest way out for him.These are what I listed:
frogfish (Antennariidae) (fish with legs!)
http://www.starfish.ch/index.html
walking catfish (Clariidae) (walks on fins over dry land)
Felsida - Naturhistoriska riksmuseet
lungfish (Neoceratodus) (fish with lung!)
Page Not found
mudskipper (Periopthalmus - moves around out of water)
http://www.aquascape.co.uk/mudskipper.jpgAmazingly, all of these URLs still worked except the last one, which I have replaced with a working one. These organisms are "neither fish nor fowl" in the sense that each of them exhibits a trait or traits that *ordinary* fish do not. Why do we have these "intermediate" organisms today, and if we do have these today, how can creationists pretend that evolution could not have proceeded along similar lines, with different organisms in the past?Williams tried to debunk the "frogfish" by insisting that the legs are fins. Well duhh! It's a fish, of course they are, but they look precisely like legs and are used exactly like legs, not as fins. Does this mean they are fins or legs? I submit that it means they are legs. Why would a creator create such a thing? If a modern fish can have such things, why, over a period of time, could not a series of fish develop legs in this way, and eventually move out onto land? Williams failed to answer this challenge. You will have to dig around on the URL to find the picture, but it is still there even after all this time. You can see the right forelimb, and I challenge Williams to define how that looks more like a fin than a leg, and to define how it is used as a fin rather than a leg.The "walking catfish" actually does walk on fins (or squirm, if you like, in this case), and it can move from pool to pond using this method. It can spend quite some time out of the water (the snakehead fish that was in the news recently in Maryland, USA, is another that can do this). Again, it is easy to see how evolution could have created such an "extended fish", but it is a mystery as to why a creator would create such a thing. If he wanted the fish to move from place to place out of water, why not make it an amphibian instead of hampering the catfish so? Is Williams' creator a sadist or a practical joker?!Williams assumed that the lungfish actually supported creation! How wrong he is - again. He claimed, "The lung fish is befuddling to evolutionists, because they are forced to accept that the complex lung evolved down totally independent paths.", but this is nonsense. It isn't befuddling to anyone but creationists. If 40 eyes can develop independently and not be a problem for evolutionists, why should two lungs be a problem?!And again, why would a creator design a fish with a lung? Why not make it an amphibian, or give it a habitat where the water is better oxygenated? Or create a better method of oxygenating the water in the first place? Or better yet, why make any of these animals have to breathe? Wouldn't it be infinitely better if *none* of us had to breathe?We could still smell the roses without being utterly dependent on oxygen, and never would we have to read about a child drowning or suffocating, or dying from smoke inhalation or in a crib death. Does Williams' creator enjoy smothering children to death? Imagine what life would be like if we could go swimming under water without the need for cumbersome scuba equipment! I read somewhere that some 98% of the Earth's habitat is aquatic. Why would a creator make the supposedly dominant species ("man") limited to only the last 2% of his creation?The mudskipper is another fish which uses it fins as limbs - to hold itself out of the water on a rock. Again, why is this a fish and not an amphibian? Why are there so many intermediate types of organisms alive today - organisms that "are not happy" with their lot in life and seem to be striving for something else? Is it because we have caught evolution in mid stride? If evolution is happening on the largest scales, we would expect to see such a variety of organisms at any given point in time. We should not expect to see these kinds of things if some creator made everything perfectly on the first try, within separate "kinds" and it has only been 6,000 years since then.Williams then goes on to try and deal with the global flood issue. It's hilarious. It's like when you catch a young child doing something they oughtn't and then you get to listen to the rambling, almost incoherent excuse they trot out.Williams: "There are various reasonable possibilities, but since no one was there we can only speculate on the available evidence."No one was there when the creation took place, but Williams insists that every word in the Bible is exactly true. Hardly any (if any at all) of the Biblical narrative was written by someone who actually saw it for himself, yet Williams wants to you swallow all of it whole as absolute fact. But according to Williams, when it comes to a creationist explaining the fossil record, "we can only speculate"!He continues: "I will first note that fossil preservation almost always requires rapid burial in sediment. So the very fact we have as many fossils as we do is a strong testament to a global catastrophe involving water. Most notable is that sea-dwelling marine (sic) fossils can be found in great abundance anywhere in the world, including the great plains of the US, in the walls of the Grand Canyon, and every mountain range."This exact scenario applies to every living thing, not just to marine organisms. Every living thing should be preserved in proportionate abundance to the marine organisms, yet it is not. So why is Williams mis-directing us into what he tautologously calls "sea-dwelling marine fossils"? I didn't ask him about those. I asked him about terrestrial fossils.Here are his excuses that I believe even a high school kid would be too embarrassed to use:Williams: "To summarize why there are far fewer land-dwelling fossils:
1) Ecological zones - sea-dwelling zones would be the first to be destroyed"What does this have to do with terrestrial organisms that would be equally inundated?Williams: "2) Land animals would naturally seek higher ground"All the mountain tops were covered. What difference does this make? Everything drowned. Everything died. Everything was buried in tons of sediment. With that much rain, all dirt and dust would be washed down to the lowest point, carrying the dead animals with it. And rapidly burying them. This happens in local flooding all the time. Why should the global flood be any different?Williams: "3) Differential Suspension - land animals tend to "bloat and float", causing rapid decomposition"I am not talking about preserving the entire animal, I am talking about preserving the bones. Is Williams suggesting that the bones floated and decomposed?!Their dead bodies would still sink in the muddy ocean, their bones be buried in sediment and their fossils preserved perfectly. Or is Williams trying to pretend that land animals that died in the first day or two would stay afloat for the entire year of the flood? And what, dead fish don't float? Dead birds? Dead pterodactyls? Dead whales and large squid don't get washed ashore even today?Have you noticed that when Williams is demanding information from evolutionists, he orders fact, fact, and more fact, proof, proof, and more proof, but whenever you try to pin him down on his alternative, all we get is just-so stories, speculation, ifs, ands, and buts, and in this case "tend to". I want to see his scientific studies supporting his claims on the flood. "Tend to" is absolutely not good enough. He needs to prove his claims, not simply have faith in his own presumptive infallibility.You know, if creationists wanted to settle this, they could easily do so. All they would need is to build an ark, exactly to the dimensions in the Bible, load it with 8 people and representatives of each "kind" and set it afloat for a year. Then let us see what is left when they finally come back ashore. You know why they don't do this? I'm guessing it's because not a single one of them has any faith in their own beliefs.The fact is that paleontologists find groups of fossils in scenarios that we know are the result of local flooding. These fossils are often well-preserved because they are rapidly buried, meaning that erosion and scavengers cannot mess with the bodies. The global flood scenario would be a perfect example of this. There were no predators and scavengers at all, after the flood, not on a global scale (there were only 2 - or at most, 7 - of each "kind", remember?), so no scavenging. The bodies would have lain preserved perfectly until discovered by modern paleontologists. The bones of *all* vertebrates - land and sea - would have been preserved and ought to radiometrically date - using Carbon-14 dating methods - to the same time, just 4,000 or so years ago. They do not.Here is a complete non-sequitur: "4) evolutionary bias - if a fossil is found in flood strata, the evolutionist's interpretation will be clouded since they insist the fossil shouldn't be there. Then the "flood" of excuses begin."What, exactly, is this ramble supposed to say? How does this in any way, shape, or form, address the issue of the relatively poor representation of terrestrial fossils in the record? In fact, how do any of Williams excuses answer the original question? Simply: they do not.Williams on the so-called Cambrian explosion: "However, if creation is true, particularly the Biblical account which records a global flood, then finding fossils that appear suddenly with no trace of ancestors, followed by stasis, is undeniable collaborating evidence."Can Williams not understand what he writes? First he denies (in a segment prior to the one quoted) that the Cambrian explosion represents creation. He insists that it represents the flood (and from the creationist perspective, this is all that it can represent), then he turns right around and says that if we find fossils with no trace of ancestors, this supports not destruction, but creation!Here are two articles on the Cambrian and early life (the latter of these was written by an ex-creationist. His whole web site is a joy to read):
First appearances of the metazoans:
First Appearances of Metazoans
Cambrian Chronology:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambchron.htmIf the fossil record represents the flood, then once again, why are terrestrial forms so under-represented and so poorly preserved? Williams excuses for excuses solve nothing.If the fossil record represents the flood, then why do the bones date to widely disparate ages instead of all being carbon-dateable to just 4,000 years ago?If the fossil record represents the flood, then why is it so orderly? Creationists are so very fond of quoting the first law of thermodynamics, saying everything tends toward disorder unless there is some intelligence guiding it, yet they are claiming that a completely random and disorderly flood managed to arrange rock strata and fossils in magnificently ordered strata, each stratum containing the same mix of fossils, no matter where in the world it is inspected! The strata are so fossil-specific that they can be compared across the globe.What we should see, if the flood were true, is a complete jumble of fossils (ordered hydrodynamically at best) in a single bed of rock that ordered itself (again hydrodynamically) from the coarsest granularity at the bottom to the finest granularity at the top. We do not see this anywhere.What we see is almost endless individual rock strata, clearly laid down under different circumstances at different times. What we see is a mix of granularity from stratum to stratum, and within each stratum, a mix of fossils of all sizes.We see no large fossils, and no vertebrate fossils in the very earliest planes, exactly as evolution predicts. We see no regular mixing of organisms of the same hydrodynamic qualities across geological ages. For example, we see no marine reptiles mixed in with the modern-day marine mammals of the same size and shape. We see no mixing of modern-day humans and with what evolutionists identify as early hominids, such as australopithecus, homo erectus, and so on. We see no large terrestrial mammals mixed in with similar sized dinosaurs. We see none of the faster, more able animals from prehistoric times in layers above humans, even though, by creationist "logic", the most able organisms headed for higher ground as fast as they could go and drowned last. In other words, the fossil record completely refutes the global flood stories invented by creationists.Williams on mutation: "My article also rebuts Budikka's charge that the genetic code could not mutate this badly in 6K years. In fact, the model I used to demonstrate that the high mutation rate supports a recent creation..."So here is Williams insisting that there is a high mutation rate. Elsewhere, he denies a high mutation rate! He tries to use Haldane's dilemma to show that the mutation rate couldn't possibly be high enough to evolve a human being from an ape-like ancestor! This would appear to be a very self-serving contradiction!I offered Williams an estimate of how many years it would take for a mouse to become a man. Clearly this was just a rough-and-ready example, since modern mice did not evolve into modern humans, but my argument was that I had read recently that we share 90% of our genes with mice.This argument was formulated when it was estimated that humans had about 80,000 genes - now the estimate has dropped precipitously and we appear to have only about 30,000. This means a difference of only 3,000 genes between us and mice, all things being equal (again, this is rough and ready. We will not know how many genes we share until the mouse genome has been properly decoded and compared with ours. The truth may be that we share more or fewer genes).Since we know that organisms like mice existed 65 million years ago, let's pretend that these were similar to modern mice, and they had 3,000 different genes from us. Based on that difference, it would require only one successful mutated gene every 21,667 years to turn that primitive mouse into us. This relates *only* to the genes that are different between humans and mice. This rate is far more favorable than the rate I came up with when I thought we had 80,000 genes. Why is this so hard for creationists to deal with?Williams apparently couldn't deal with it and he couldn't answer it, so what he had to do was do what he always does when backed into a corner - he had to take a completely different proposition from the one I had presented and argue against that one!Williams: "Budikka's genetics is incorrect. He is treating genes as singular units for mutation, where in fact the gene is comprised of many base-pairs in a specific sequence (the average human gene contains roughly 1500 sequential bps)."I am fully aware of this, but I was talking at the top level, about a successfully mutated gene, regardless of how many mutations within that gene were required to change its function. Until we know precisely which genes differ between us and mice, and precisely how they differ, no other argument makes any sense, but Williams was on a roll in his fairytale world, so he couldn't see that logic.Williams' blind ramble gets him down to base pair (bp) level, where he introduces, without reference, the "fact" that each gene consists on average, of 1500 bp (he specifically refers to these as "human genes" as though they are somehow different in principle from genes in other species!). He then multiplies this by the number of genes (in the debate this was 8,000. With the latest information, this is only 3,000), and comes up with 12 million bps to deal with! Williams somehow has magnified (originally 8,000, now) 3,000 genes into what would be, using his figures, (originally 12 million, now) 4.5 million bp.Now I was talking only about a new gene arising or a gene accumulating sufficient mutation to change its function. This does not automatically mean that every single one of Williams' putative 1500 bp has to change, but he is insisting that it does, with no supportive evidence whatsoever. In fact, it may mean only one bp changing. It may mean several. I would be willing to bet it *never* means all 1500 changing, so Williams' farcical 12 million number (or 4.5 million with the new view of the genome) is completely fictitious. And since a portion of these 1500 bp is actually junk, the number is less yet. Of course, since this contribution by Williams was the final word in the debate, I could never go back and refute this lie. If I tried to refute it on Williams' web site via his guest book, he would whine about that. This is why I am addressing it here, the very place he directed me to.As if this irrelevant fairytale isn't enough, Williams then goes on to talk about mutations in the non-coding part of the genome, which is by far the larger part! This is, of course, a huge, ripe stinking red herring. I never addressed the junk DNA, nor did I need to. Note that my argument specifically began with this: "we share 90% of our genes with mice...". Where is the reference to junk DNA? Where did I say we share 90% of our *genome* with mice? Obviously I didn't. Obviously we don't, but this was not something Williams could cope with which is why he had to introduce a bunch of irrelevancies. I guess it was the only way he could appear to be answering my argument.I addressed only those genes that are (for the purposes of this argument) different between mice and humans. This means (in the context of this argument) only 3,000 genes, only 4.5 million bp, and the mutations thereto. Everything else is irrelevant to this argument and is thrown in only as a big fat straw man because Williams cannot answer the argument without larding up his response with a bunch of meaningless trivia serving no other purpose, as far as I can see, than to glorify Williams in the eyes of his devotees. Talk about humans wanting to become god!But let's take Williams seriously for once and let's look at this using his own numbers. He assumes 1500 bps (bp) per gene, times 30,000 genes, gives us 4.5 million bps out of a genome composed of 3.8 billion bp. This is actually .001% of that genome! So using only Williams figures with the new estimate of human gene totals, we see that apparently 99.999% of the genome is useless junk. This alone destroys any hope of a designer or creator. Williams would disagree that there is any junk in the genome, but his arguments suck, as we shall see.So Williams goes rambling on about the supposed fact that "Mutations occur at the base-pair level, not the gene level."But this is really misleading, because if one gene becomes duplicated, and one bp changes, it is a new gene (assuming it remains functional), and in effect, is a mutated gene, so genes do mutate at the gene level in an evolutionary sense - by small changes to their basic make-up!In short, even if we address Williams' 4.5 million bp argument, this means simply that we substitute one base pair per month over 65 million years. This seems a bit high, but remember this is if we have to replace *every single base pair in each of the 3,000 genes*. Clearly we do not have to do this, so even using his own figures, Williams argument is nonsense.Williams resurrects his Walter ReMine argument: "1) Information cannot build up by random processes."But this is refuted easily. All it requires is one duplicated gene, and then one or more base pair substitutions within that gene, to add new information to the genome. Science can demonstrate that such things happen. Unless Williams and Remine can definitively and empirically demonstrate that this does not happen, their argument dies.Then Williams goes on to refute his own claim that "Information cannot build up by random processes." with this: "Of course mutations arise, and of course a wide variety of alleles can be expressed. The Creator unquestionably programmed each kind or creature the capability to adapt under various conditions. But there are clear barriers to variation, that is why birds remain birds, cats remain cats, dogs remain dogs, people remain people, apes remain apes""The Creator unquestionably programmed..."? If this isn't bald speculation, I don't know what is.So we have not only caught him in a contradiction, never does Williams define what, exactly, these barriers are. He apparently wants us to take this on the same basis that he wants us to take creation "science" - on blind faith!Williams on the ark myth: "Regarding the original population of 8, it is likely they had a much lower genetic load""It is likely"? If an evolutionist says this about some aspect of evolution theory, Williams laughs in their face, yet here he is begging for our acceptance of something he is just making up!Williams: "...since the split between ape and man of 5 million years, we get 187,500 bad mutations!"But Williams also claims that "Using a simple model, half of these mutations will be filtered out through sexual reproduction. We can also estimate half will be recessive, and seldom express themselves."This reduces his 187,500 to 46,875 (I think we can assume that Williams ignored his own guidelines when attacking evolution - he usually does). This represents only .01% of the functional genome, even using the new, lower estimate of functional genes! Even using Williams original figure, it is still only .04% of the functional genome. What is the problem here?Williams then tries to refute predictions that evolution has made that have come true. I gave Williams references where "Gradualism in the fossil record has been demonstrated." He chose to ignore this evidence, precisely because he cannot refute it. Instead he refers us to what he claims are evolutionists who disagree. But the fact that there are discontinuities in the fossil record does not refute the fact that there is gradualism in the fossil record. Williams inability to grasp this is very damning of his credibility.Williams quotes this as supposed support for his claim that Darwin supported Lamarckism: "In every district some one kind of animal will almost certainly be able to browse higher than the others; and it is almost equally certain that this one kind alone [giraffe] could have its neck elongated for this purpose, through natural selection and the effects of increased use."There may be places where Darwin supports Lamarckism, but this does not appear to be one of these as far as I can see. He specifically states "natural selection" - indicating that this was a predisposition in the giraffe, which was selected for because it has survival value (although I don't necessarily agree that browsing higher was the impetus for it). The only support Williams can remotely beg for in this quote is the last six words, and I don't agree that they say what Williams desperately needs them to say, so this quote fails unless he can support it further.I mentioned earlier that I would get back to junk DNA. Here is where Williams gets on to the topic. He was claiming that introns have some function, which means they are not junk DNA. Introns are a portion of a functional gene that is not expressed (the expressed portion is described, I believe, as exons). The way genes are expressed is that a complete copy of the gene, from start to finish, is made. Next, the introns are *cut out* of the copy and discarded. After this, the transcribed gene is set in motion to produce its protein or do whatever it does. This is why introns are junk. They are not needed for gene function and are *discarded*.Williams cited an example where an intron interfered with the proper functioning of a gene to pretend that this somehow meant that the intron was not junk! This is like a used-car salesman trying to tell you that non-functioning brakes in a vehicle are actually a beneficial feature, because they will save you from being rear-ended! Would you buy a used car from this man?!Williams continues: "Here's the part of the article he failed to cite: "It's also possible that there is an acquired or inherited mutation in the introns of EAAT2 that gives the wrong cues during the editing process""So here he amplifies his misguidedness. He is saying that because there is a mutation that gives the **wrong cues** during the editing process (where the intron is removed and discarded), this somehow makes this junk DNA useful! No - it is not useful! It is junk DNA that in this one case, happens to interfere with the correct functioning of the gene. Just because it does something does not rescue its status! This is like saying that when a garage was fixing your car, a piece of junk fell into the steering linkage that results in the wheels on the road turning in the opposite direction from the way you turned the steering wheel! Is this somehow a beneficial feature, or is this a case of junk causing problems? Would you pay for this "repair"?In order to win this argument, Williams needs to come up with many examples of what is termed "junk DNA' as having a real, proven, beneficial function to the organism. One poor reference that Williams apparently misunderstands is not going to do it.Here is a prime example of Williams not taking the plank from his own eye before commenting on the mote in someone else's: "Budikka's only citation to support junk-DNA is from someone completely outside of his field (Don Lindsay)." And Williams' qualification to be arguing this? He is an electrical engineer!Here is another example of how grotesquely out of touch with reality Williams is: "I have provided several references from geneticists, including those from qualified evolutionists, of mutations in the non-coding region that cause disease."So here again Williams is saying that these examples are not junk DNA, because they cause disease!Williams inability to predict: "We are far from sequencing all the afore-mentioned genomes (at least 3 years more for the human, with the others lagging much farther behind),"And here we are with the human genome already sequenced (very shortly after Williams posted his estimate!) along with several others, and more just around the corner.This was in connection with the evidence that humans and chimpanzees are very close genetically. This has been demonstrated using key portions of the genome, and since Williams cannot refute this, he is forced to deride it with desperation: "...so to make such a preliminary claim is bound to be founded in philosophy and not science. In fact such a ludicrous extrapolation would be laughed out of reverse-engineering circles."He then blathers on about non-coding DNA again, like this has anything to do with the similarities between species based on functional DNA. He also seems to be deliberately ignoring that studies have been done in the non-functional portions of DNA, where irrefutable evidence is to be found that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. For example, in this article by Edward Max:
Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics
This is from the conclusion of the article: "In "the case of the shared functionless sequences," an unbiased jury would surely conclude that copying from a shared ancestor was the most likely explanation, consistent with the evolutionary interpretation"Williams, who hosts a web site out of his field, has the gall to write: "The book Budikka cites was written by a primatologist, not a geneticist. Again Budikka cites someone outside his field. He also failed to provide a page number, making it very difficult to verify his claim (its a 420 page book)."Then Williams needs to get out more. He also needs to quit with the excuses about people outside their field, and he needs to get his facts straight: Roger Fouts is a professor of psychology, or at least he was when he wrote the book. By the way, the page number is 55.Here is another Williams excuse: "He cited The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence Krauss, but *again* failed to provide any page numbers so that we can attempt to verify his claim."All that Williams had to do was get a copy of this book, look up vacuum energy in the index, and see it gives the page numbers right there, pages 118 and 119. Can we please take it from this point on that when I cite a book, the information is in there and Williams needs to do some reading *outside his field*? Can we take it from this point on that whenever Williams gripes about page numbers it has nothing to do with page numbers but with his repeatedly demonstrated inability to refute the facts? And his quoting the opinions (as opposed to the factual research and evidence) of long dead scientists is not going to replace modern, up to date science, nor is it acceptable as an excuse for repeatedly avoiding difficult topics.Williams again: "He also *again* cites a non-scientist outside his field"Can I cite *again* the fact that Williams is an electrical engineer, who has a web site spreading misinformation about evolution?Williams supposed scientific rebuttal of the vacuum energy issue is entirely irrelevant since it relates back to the first law of thermodynamics, and as I quoted earlier, recent evidence again supports the hypothesis that over small time scales, the first law can indeed be overcome.Remember that this law was not handed down from a court of law, and as such it is not inviolate. The first law of thermodynamics is based solely on the same kinds of scientific observation that supports the theory of evolution. If Williams claims that the one is insuperable, then he has to admit that so, too, is evolution. If he pretends that evolution is flawed, then how can he pretend that the first law may not be properly described at quantum scales?!!Williams next tries to escape the painful list of 31 challenges by claiming some are duplicates, such as items (in the re-numbered list 16, 17, and 31).Here they are:
16. Failed to explain why creationists do not challenge evolution in the science forums.17. Failed to back up this assertion: "Anybody familiar with the major science mags knows of their
dogmatic protection of their sacred cow of evolution, and their snubbing of anti-evolutionists who
try to challenge it."31. Failed to show examples of where good science refuting evolution has been turned down by
the peer-reviewed journals.Now these are actually not duplicates. The first question asks him to explain *why* creationists do not typically seek to challenge evolution in the standard science publications. The real answer to this is because creationists have no science to challenge it with.The third question asks for examples of such papers that actually have been refused publication, and the middle question asks for examples of science magazines actually "snubbing" anti-evolutionists, regardless of whether this was over the publication of a paper or in some other regard. These are related questions, but not duplicates. Of course, labeling them duplicates allows Williams to avoid answering any of them. If he wants to roll them all together and answer them as one question, then he is welcome to do so, as long as he answers each individual point, but until he does, he has not answered any of the points!He claims he has answered "a couple" of the others, but answering a couple of them, even if he has, is not answering all of them. The answers he typically gave to my challenges, where he even tried to answer, were not adequate answers, or they answered at a tangent, a favorite ploy of his, or they answered a different topic altogether, another favorite ploy. This is a refined technique that Williams uses repeatedly to avoid addressing topics he apparently cannot handle. This is why I asked the questions again, because he has yet to answer them competently. And yes, you're darned right I don't like your answers when they are answers such as the ones I list in this paragraph, and I will not let you or any other creationist wriggle out of it.Williams claims that "Others are question begging or circular reasoning" and lists (original) 7, 8 and (renumbered challenge) 12 as examples.7. Failed to explain why natural processes couldn't evolve a giraffe, given that the okapi is pretty much half way there.8. Failed to acknowledge that his caricature of the whale/wolf is deceitful.12. Failed to acknowledge other transitionals: Caudipteryx, Confuciornis, Gobipteryx,
Protarchaeopteryx and Sinosauropteryx (Dinosauria On-Line)I don't see how his comments apply to any of these! The bare fact is that he has failed to address, let alone refute the okapi (#7) as a model for a transitional giraffe. He has failed to acknowledge, even directly, let alone on his web site, that evolutionists do not claim that a modern wolf evolved into a modern whale as his caricature shows, and failed to admit that this is nothing but a straw man, and is simplified to the point where his very example not only has no bearing on evolution, but is farcical in and of itself. Finally, he has failed to refute even the archaeopteryx's mix of features, let alone all these other examples (#12).I challenge him to explain how these are begging or circular reasoning. This can be unanswered challenge #32, bringing my list back to the original total!Williams tries to argue: "Several more are attacks against what he labels an "ignorant & primitive" Bible, a topic that is outside of the scope of this debate"No it was not! The debate, as I specifically indicated in my very first email to him, was on the topic of his misleading and inaccurate web site, a web site in which he includes Bible evidences. I challenge him to explain logically how it is that this excludes the Bible.Williams further wriggles out of some challenges by claiming they are wild speculation! I do not know what could be more speculative than his web site, but the example he uses is the flying squirrel. All I asked him was why could a regular squirrel not develop flaps between fore and hind limbs! There is no logical reason whatsoever that I can see, nor could Williams offer one. His desperate references to NASA have no bearing whatsoever on the topic. I am not saying I can prove that it did, all I am asking is for him to come up with a logical or scientific reason why it could not. He failed.Williams then tries to make mileage from this inane challenge: "In my last post, I challenged Budikka to give his three best evidences for evolution."Creationists would love it if it did, but but the theory of evolution does not exist on a single example. Creationists like to pretend it rests on a series of individual, single examples, none of which are related to one another, because they can lie about any single example, stretch things out, tell half truths, misquote evolutionists, and pull any number of stunts to "refute" one example, or in this case, three examples. But the fact is you cannot isolate three simple examples, you can only look at the big picture, and take all the evidence - properly understood, in toto. Williams is incapable of doing this, which is why his challenge was bogus. It also allowed him to do his best routine, which is "playing dumb". Creationists do this rather well.Williams never offered any restrictions on the three examples, but when I mentioned the fossil record in toto, rather than a single fossil, what did he do? He did what he does best - he complained. Then he interpreted my example as an argument against creation rather than an argument for evolution.The entire creationist armory, a point I believe I made in the debate, is argument not for creation, but against evolution. So Williams perceives me as using the same method as the creationists he gets all excited! I don't think he released what a huge faux pas this was on his part, and what a big disservice he was doing to his cause.Look at his ridiculous posturing: "For some reason, instead of offering any fossil evidence, Budikka immediately begins by claiming a global flood did not occur! I asked for evidence of evolution, and I get an argument against a global flood!"My evidence was the fossil record as a whole. This is what I listed first as the evidence. I followed that evidence with a brief contrast between the evolution position and the creationist position. Here is what I said: "The fossils are not sorted hydrologically. The layers in the geologic column were demonstrably laid down over many millions of years. The so-called "Green River varves" show at least 12 million years of seasonal deposition which cannot be emulated by a catastrophic one year flood. Within the layers of the geologic column (which itself is in no way sorted with respect to granularity) are animal burrows and tracks, evidence of airborne volcanic activity and erosion, "fossil" meteorites, and raindrop imprints. None of this could have happened under a global flood."Of course, the logical conclusion from the fossil record is that the layers were laid down over millions of years and that the organisms in them demonstrably changed over time, showing a linked sweep from simple one-celled organisms to present day organisms, none of which appear in the lowest (i.e. earliest) layers. This is the evolution position. I challenge Williams to demonstrate, when all the evidence of the fossil record is taken into account how this is making a case against a flood rather than for evolution. The fact that I added comments designed to show how the fossil record does not support the flood takes nothing away from the first evidence I presented - the fossil record. Details of how this supports evolution are widely available.If Williams wishes to pursue this, then let him start a new thread on these boards showing his best examples of how the Genesis flood is supported by the fossil record and I will be more than happy to refute it.My second evidence was genetic. Williams failed to refute this, but instead repeated his excuses about disease-causing introns being good, useful, beneficial, functional DNA.My third choice took Williams by surprise (which is what I intended), and was meteorite impacts. I have addressed this earlier so there is no need to re-address it here except to look at Williams flaccid comments: "I must say this was an interesting choice as one of Budikka's top three, since it is hardly direct evidence for evolution! Instead it is evidence (allegedly) for an old moon, and hence an old earth, which is required by evolution."Notice how Williams, who has equivocated up the wazzoo on the definition of evolution, now retreats back towards a more solid scientific definition here. Actually I cheated somewhat since this, of the three evidences, really is an evidence against young-Earth creation rather than for evolution. I wanted to take the fight directly into Williams camp since I knew that, from my point of view, the debate was over after I sent him this, and I would have no chance at a rebuttal of what he said in return.Here is what I said: "Whether you think the moon is 4 billion years old, or only 6,000, it has masses of impact craters. Erosion has hidden the evidence, but the larger Earth had to have sustained at least as many as the moon. The Theory of Evolution has no problem with this because they were spread out over 4 billion years, but can you imagine all of those impacts in only 6,000 years?
"Creationism seriously needs to explain why geology shows that Earth was massively bombarded, yet there is no mention of it whatever in any written documents, including the Bible. The Earth was populated from the earliest time with humans - according to creationism. How did they survive this torrential rain of falling stones? How did humanity survive the massive extinction impacts such as the one that hit the Yucatan peninsula and wiped out the dinosaurs? How did they survive the massive volcanic eruption that is now known as Yellowstone National Park in northern USA?"As you can see, from the very first time I mentioned this, I made it explicitly clear that I am talking about massive meteorite bombardment, including extinction event impacts. For Williams to whine, as he did in his original "Response to Budikka" (he now claims that this coincides precisely with a later email he sent me, but this is not - or once was not, true) that the Bible doesn't mention meteorite impacts because they are as trivial (from the point of view of our noticing them) as neutrinos passing through the Earth is the worst kind of self-serving deceit and is shameful for anyone, let alone someone who pretends to be a Christian.Williams did not even attempt to address this evidence. He did what he does best. He briefly danced around it and then wrote his own conclusion, which I am not even going to address because it is simply not worth my time.Here are some more articles on similar difficulties that creationism has yet to overcome:
Cosmic Ray Catastrophe:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/1975354.stm
Global Flood Article by Aron-Ra
Sign in - Google Accounts
Lava traps and acidic atmosphere:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/acid.htmThis concludes the series on Fred Williams' Web Site. This is going to be closed and archived before long, so please, if you can offer any support at all for the embattled Williams web site, give now. He desperately needs your support! If I see no dissenting commentary quite soon, I will have to declare

I just posted what will be my final message to this thread (barring opposing commentary that might need to be addressed - which seems to be in short supply so far). I have tried to sanitise the last message as much as possible. If there is anything in this or previous messages in this thread that is unacceptable, I will be happy to rephrase and repost whatever portions of it you deem necessary.B.

Attacking one creationist doesn't refute the entire theroy of creation. There are just as many people on your side of the fence we could choose to pick on, but that is not what we are about here.The point of this discussion seems to be that of creationists challenging the thory of evolution, and evolutionist challenging creationists. Please pay close attention cause it is part of my point.While we refute what we believe is the truth in the thory of biblical creation, you attack us personally for our beliefs. There are many holes in the theory of evolution such as the method of carbon dating which has been proven by scientists to be inaccurate. Most of the people on this site stand by that method and even attempt to use it as part of thier evidence.Much of what you say sounds good and even logical, but then it begins to take a turn for the worst, I like to call it circular reasoning, the cause causes the cause, or the effect causes the effect, and even the effect effects the effect, and so on and so on.The theory of creation stays the same no matter how you describe it and it has been written many different ways, but the end result never changes. It is hard for most people to consume it as it is a simple yet complex theory. The best part is we are only talking about one story from the bible.Someone please explain that if the theroy evolution is true, why does everything show a pattern of being designed by intelligence. I've seen people use digitally coplex graphics to show chaos taking shape and making something that reveals perfection, but it is a computer being told to do exactly that and proves nothing. I'll end this reply at that and see where you take it.Bless You All.

wwjd says:

quote:

---

There are many holes in the theory of evolution such as the method of carbon dating which has been proven by scientists to be inaccurate. Most of the people on this site stand by that method and even attempt to use it as part of thier evidence.

---

I suggest you initiate another thread on this particluar point and you will be informed of the correct scientific view and application of carbon dating rather than the strawman which you appear to be attacking.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wj:

I suggest you initiate another thread on this particluar point and you will be informed of the correct scientific view and application of carbon dating rather than the strawman which you appear to be attacking.

---

I've been informed of the scientific view. Your dating method is inacurate. You assume I am attacking something other than the theory of evolution, why did you not answer my question?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wwjd:
I've been informed of the scientific view. Your dating method is inacurate.

---

Carbon dating is perfectly accurate within its margin of error It isn't applicable to all materials, nor to all time frames, and it is subject to contamination. Big suprise. We live in an imperfect world.Why not post your data proving C14 inaccurate?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Carbon dating is perfectly accurate within its margin of error It isn't applicable to all materials, nor to all time frames, and it is subject to contamination. Big suprise. We live in an imperfect world.

​

Why not post your data proving C14 inaccurate?

---

Why not try this on for size."...Carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results..."Harvey Rowe (Smithsonian Institute)
Curator, AntiquitiesThis having been said when the head of a chewed up barbie doll was found buy some guy who likes to dig in his back yard and decided to send his findings to the Smithsonian Institute to have it carbon dated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wwjd:

​

Why not try this on for size.

​

"...Carbon dating is likely to produce wildly inaccurate results..."

​

Harvey Rowe (Smithsonian Institute)
Curator, Antiquities

​

This having been said when the head of a chewed up barbie doll was found buy some guy who likes to dig in his back yard and decided to send his findings to the Smithsonian Institute to have it carbon dated.

​

---

Well, you can't carbon date plastic-- such as a barbie doll head.The head was chewed up, presumably by an animal of some kind. This would introduce organic matter which could be dated (maybe) but wouldn't match the age of the head.A barbie doll head would have been manufactured within the last hundred years or so. Human activity-- nuclear tests-- has skewed atmospheric C14 levels.I doubt that the guy digging in his yard followed any of the proper procedures to prevent contamination. (of the plastic head that can't be dated anyway)I also doubt that the guy digging in his backyard properly prepped the sample.So, how about the complete quotation and a source for it, so we can check it out.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com