Creation: The Science of Information Part I
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
In the New Year
With these Sunday posts, my main intent is to demonstrate that Darwinism has much less substantial, reliable, and material basis than Christianity; relies on far more assumptions; is spiritually empty; and is generally less sound both logically and scientifically. What motivates me is a personal rather deep and abiding interest in the TRUTH, the fact that I resent being once personally fooled into believing that the secular account of origins had any validity, and a calling to bring others to a realization of the truth so that they may take those truths into account in their personal walk of faith.
That, in a nutshell, is a summary of the motivation behind what forms my proposed agenda for the first part of the new year. I state this here in black and white just in case anyone had any remaining doubts about my motivation or my personal agenda.
This year, I intend to begin my Sunday posts by exploring some of the scientific and observable LAWS that hold the universe together. Using Scientific Laws once defined and (to the best of my ability) explained as a springboard, I will move to what I am sure will be a lengthy and exhaustive discussion of Information and how critical that single non-material component truthfully is to prop up materialism’s secular guesses stated as tenets of faith in the religion of Darwinism.
Today’s post is intended to set the parameters for the coming discussions by offering definitions of terms that will come up in common use in the course of these discussions.
Definitions
First things first. It will henceforth be essential to have authoritative definitions of the proposed terms that will likely come up in future discussions. Therefore, it is foundational to have a good and authoritative definition of what a definition is.
DEFINITION: definition
def·i·ni·tion [def-uh-nish-uhn] –noun
- a. :the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear.
b. :an act of specifically determining
c. : a product of defining
d. : a statement expressing the essential nature of something - the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, word group, phrase, sign, or symbol, etc.
- a. :the condition of being definite, distinct, specific, or clearly outlined.
b. : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear
c. :clarity of visual presentation
So, for the purposes of the coming discussion, a good definition of a definition is a definite, distinct, and specific summary of a term in use. A good definition should state what something consists of and clearly eliminate what it does not consist of for clarity. Therefore, a good and authoritative definition of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich might be something like, “a sandwich consisting of bread, peanut butter, and jelly. The bread may be of nearly any type, either a single slice folded in half over the other ingredients or two or more slices of bread ‘sandwiching’ the ingredients, or unleavened bread containing the ingredients.”
This is very clear, specific, and distinct. Thus, if one were to bake peanut butter and jelly into a crust, it is understood that this cannot be properly defined as a PB&J, although it might be a pretty good tart. Likewise, adding or subtracting from the components — such as adding banana slices or taking away the jelly — would change the properties of what can properly be defined as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It might be, then, a peanut butter sandwich or a peanut butter, jelly, and banana sandwich — but it could not properly and without equivocation be defined as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Where Darwinists fail in this is by equivocating EVERYTHING to “evolution” just as, in recent comments, the phenomenon commonly recognized and accepted as speciation was equivocated to macro-evolution. Sorry, but fish changing into amphibians changing into land reptiles changing into mammals, etc. as described in the traditionally accepted definitions of macro-evolution — is VASTLY different than elephants changing into elephants and dogs changing into dogs.
And if dogs changing into dogs is the “best example” of macro-evolution that can be brought to the table in this discussion as evidence for neo-Darwinistic notions of punctuated equilibrium in the modern accepted fairytale version of Darwinistic evolution, then I assure you that Darwinism is in a very real crisis.
Regardless, now that we have a definition of a definition, I shall further define my terms.
DEFINITION: Theory and Scientific Theory
In common usage, a theory can describe a substantiated guess based on anything from intuition to observation. Thus, in everyday speech, a theory can consist of either an ideal OR a hypothetical set of facts, or principles, or circumstances and this is often stated like “Well, in theory, blah blah blah.” It can also be a pure assumption used as the basis for a hypothetical investigation or discussion. “Well, theoretically if that were the case, then, etc. etc.”
In science, a theory has more formal standing. Technically, to qualify as an actual Scientific Theory, it is conventional that the theory find some at least marginally unequivocal substantiation from empirical science and thus be supported with experimentation or observational evidence.
With respect to Darwinism, while there are those who continue to religiously maintain that such support exists, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who will publish or present any such support.
And even the amount of equivocal support has been greatly eroded in recent decades, as new knowledge has been gained in the actual applied sciences (genetics, biochemistry, microbiology…). So, with due respect, I am hard-pressed to concede and confer the status of “scientific theory” to Darwinian evolution.
Perhaps a concise definition of Darwinism would be “secular guesses [about origins]” or just a reference to the overarching umbrella of “Darwinism” (though that is a bit circular) might serve just as well from the perspective of defining the notion.
A proper, specific, clear, and complete definition of Darwnism might be something along the lines of “unsubstantiated conjecture or collection of interdependent unsubstantiated conjectures about unobserved events in the past based largely on unsupported assumptions mainly propped up by a philosophical bias.”
DEFINITION: Law and Scientific Law
In terms of common use, law is a body of conceptual notions and ideas that can also describe material things. In concept, a law is any rule or injunction that must be obeyed and, if disobeyed, often leads to [usually unfavorable] consequences. “Law” can also be applied to the specific written verbiage that describes a specific rule or injunction and possibly describes the consequences. “The President signed it into law.”
However, as a concept, law can be used to describe something that is instinctive and observed, such as the law of self-preservation or the fight/flight response. Law can further describe a principle based on the predictable consequences of an act or condition, etc. such as the law of supply and demand.
Rules described in a much larger body of work can be summarized using the word law coupled with the reference, such as the Law of Moses which refers to the entire body of Levitical laws. Contracts can often be written in accordance with the law of a specific state or political body. Our very language has laws, such as the laws of grammar.
A Scientific law is more formal and more specific. (In German, this is Naturgesetz. In England these are Laws of Nature. I am American. Deal with it.) Scientific laws are analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant, that is both invariable and universal. In general, a scientific (mathematical, physical, metaphysical) law is a statement of an observed principle that describes a relation or sequence of phenomena which is always invariable under identical conditions and never refuted by any empirical experiment or observed evidence.
In my view, it is safe to say that Scientific laws originated from God and are formulated by man. For example, man formulated the Scientific Laws of Gravity. This describes the principle created and originated by God that explains how He upholds all things in the universe by the power of His word (Hebrews 1:1-3).
There are two dominions that Scientific Laws cover and they are the MATERIAL and the NONMATERIAL.
A material Scientific Law might be any of Newton’s Laws of Motion, for example. They govern such things as the quantifiable mass, force, and energy that affect objects in motion. Nonmaterial Scientific laws govern such things as consciousness, information, intelligence, and so forth. A good example of a Nonmaterial Scientific law might be some of the laws of thought, such as the law of non-contradiction or the law of identity.
The Law of Non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time, e.g. the two propositions A is B while simultaneously A is not B are mutually exclusive. Simply put, A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, both the absence and the presence of a contradictory quality.
The Law of Noncontradiction can be described as a law because it is always true in every case. For example, the sky can be seen as blue. The sky can be seen as black. The sky cannot be seen as both blue and black at the same time. It is either one or the other. Some say specific portions of God’s word is open to man’s interpretation (exegesis). Some say specific portions of God’s word is literal and means what it says (eisegeses). One cannot apply both exegesis and eisegeses to specific portions of God’s word at the same time without contradiction.
The Law of Identity states that an object is always the same as itself. When discussing equality, the fact that “A is always A” is a tautology. Any reflexive relation always upholds the law of identity.
The Law of Identity can be described as a law because it is always true in every case. For example, the moon is always the moon, it is never anything else like a baseball or a slice of cheese. Thus it is also true that God is always God and describes Himself as “I Am that I Am” (Exodus 3:14, John 6:48) because it is not in God’s nature to be anything other than God.
Here is a point to ponder. The Scientific laws, the laws of nature, that all originated from God all likewise reflect His divine personality.
With respect to scientific laws, they are described as laws because they have repeatedly been shown to be true (they are always true), they have never been refuted nor contradicted, they are universal (true in Kentucky, Brazil, or on the moon), they do not vary in time, they are simple, and there are no exceptions. These are very important properties of Scientific laws.
In point of fact, Scientific laws are considered invariable facts of the universe. Thus the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of cause and effect, the laws of energy conservation, the laws of motion, the law of biogenesis (life from life), and so on — and to name only a few — are considered universal, always true, and invariable facts in this universe.
Scientific laws are the basis from which hypothesis, theories, models and so forth can grow. Thus, when a notion comes along that seems valid only if one is able to suspend one or more of the laws of science such that they do not apply (are ignored), science is obliged to hold such notions to a very high degree of skepticism and rightly subject said notion to exceedingly critical analysis.
DEFINITION: information
in·for·ma·tion [in-fer-mey-shuhn]
- the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
- a. (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, language, code, or instruction
. .(2) : intelligence, news, wisdom, lore, knowledge
. .(3) : facts, data, intelligence
b. : the specific attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something as in a language, symbols, or code, (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce highly ordered and very specific effects.
So, a good definition of INFORMATION is that it does not include randomness, nor chaos, nor meaninglessness. Information is ordered, highly specific, and conveys meaning or instructions.
With respect to the Scientific laws, we know of several laws (and principles) that govern the physical universe and we know of one Scientific law pertaining to life, but LAWS governing INFORMATION and the empirical study of INFORMATION is fairly new and, as such, still a little bit radical. The data and conclusions that we are deriving is pretty amazing, as you will see in future posts.
“Because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life. All efforts to explain life processes in terms of physics and chemistry only will always be unsuccessful. This is the fundamental problem confronting present-day biology, which is based on [Darwinian] evolution.” Dr. Werner Gitt Ph. D., In the Beginning was Information, Preface.
Perhaps the most interesting point I would like to make about Scientific Laws is how they are called the Laws of Nature in England. Thus, anything that violates any of the Laws of Nature is called “supernatural” and should be seen as magical. A belief in the supernatural constitutes a religious belief. Thus, Darwinism, which relies on a deep and abiding faith in this definition of supernatural events that contradict or ignore the Laws of Nature, is a religion on that basis alone.
I am looking forward to diving in even more over the course of the coming months.
The Truth
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature described as “ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.
God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is neither haphazard nor arbitrary. The universe obeys laws of chemistry which are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and mathematical laws. All of it is bound by information, which obeys additional fundamental laws.
The most fundamental laws of nature only exist because God wills them to exist. They are the logical, orderly way by which the Creator upholds and sustains the universe that He created. Darwinists are unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe since Darwinism must ignore many Scientific Laws to even be seen as possible.
Here’s a thought. Why should their unsubstantiated conjecture or collection of interdependent unsubstantiated conjectures about unobserved events in the past based largely on unsupported assumptions mainly propped up by a philosophical bias have to obey Scientific laws if there is no Law-Giver?
But there is a Law Giver. There is a Creator from whom all logic and order is derived. The word of God, and the biblical account of God’s creation, is the foundation for natural laws in fact, not in guesses.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
Gregg, you said this:
…”Where Darwinists fail in this is by equivocating EVERYTHING to “evolution”
just as, in recent comments,
the phenomenon commonly recognized and accepted as speciation was equivocated to macro-evolution. Sorry, but fish changing into amphibians changing into land reptiles changing into mammals, etc. as described in the traditionally accepted definitions of macro-evolution — is VASTLY different than elephants changing into elephants and dogs changing into dogs.
And if dogs changing into dogs is the “best example” of macro-evolution that can be brought to the table in this discussion as evidence for neo-Darwinistic notions of punctuated equilibrium in the modern accepted fairytale version of Darwinistic evolution, then I assure you that Darwinism is in a very real crisis.”
.
I don’t think we reached an understanding in that discussion, and I don’t think it can fairly be described in this way at this point.
Macroevolution is the sum of speciation-level events. You agree that speciation events can happen. You have not (at least in the recent post and comments) described what you think would be a barrier to this additive process of speciation-level changes. You are willing to think that one canid ancestral pair existing in the past was, by speciation-level developments, the source for all the wolves and related species – and it seems like you include foxes in that (I could not tell from your remark). What is the problem with the similar idea that a carnivore ancestral pair (or population) existed in the past from which, by a series of speciations, were produced lines of descendants that became various carnivore lines which continued by speciation to produce descendants that are the canids and felids etc. that we see today? What is the barrier you see that would have stopped that from happening?
The evidence for this is not just dogs producing dogs. It includes the genomic similarities and differences in the animals we see today.
(We could continue this in the comments where it was being discussed, I think Frauds XVI but I’m not positive. But since you brought it up in this post it seemed like I should respond here.)
First, I have to observe a break in logic called shifting the burden of proof. It really isn’t up to me to prove that something impossible really is impossible. It is up to someone who believes in Darwinian magic to prove that it is somehow possible. Say you had a lemon and you informed me that the inside of the lemon glowed like an LED all the way up until it was cut open. Then, after such a preposterous and unobserved claim, you victoriously and with a flourish dared me to “prove this wrong.”
.
This is fallacious and known in terms of pure logic as “shifting the burden of proof.” The burden of proof (not disproof) is on you.
.
To be clear, I have never, and I mean never, declared that elephants cannot turn into different kinds of elephants. I have never said that speciation events along those lines do not take place. Just the opposite. I have stated that speciation DOES occur and that it is consistent with not only biblical principles but observed science.
.
However, you point to elephants turning into elephants and victoriously and with a flourish declare that THEREFORE single celled asexual organisms (which apparently magically appeared) can magically turn into multi-cellular sexual organisms which can magically turn into fish then magically turn into salamanders then into mammals ad infinitum and NOW you sit back and smugly tell me to prove you wrong?
.
Well, in a word, NO. It isn’t my job and it doesn’t follow simple logic. It is logically YOUR job to prove your claim and you can do this by providing ANY kind of observed evidence that such a PREPOSTEROUS and RIDICULOUS assertion has any kind of logical or scientific merit.
.
Next, let’s discuss equivocation. When Hallee and I had our children, our children each took from us half of their genetic code. They got half of their genes from me and half from my beloved bride. Now, in what universe other than one that is MARRIED to equivocation can those events be described as micro-evolution? Do we even need the word micro-evolution? Without the necessity to equivocate absolutely EVERYTHING to EVOLUTION, that word would not exist. That would just be parents having children. If you wanted to get all snooty about it, it would be human mammals reproducing offspring and if you wanted to get all biblical about it, it would be a husband and wife cleaving to each other and becoming one and being fruitful by multiplying and replenishing the earth. That has nothing to do with evolution so why the equivocation?
.
Now, when (for example) Mastodons speciate over time through natural selection and environmental forces all the way down their genealogical tree down to modern elephants, why is that described as macro-evolution? In this example, do we even need the word macro-evolution? Without the necessity to equivocate absolutely EVERYTHING to EVOLUTION, that word would not exist, at least not to describe the common reproductive cycle that we can observe logically and scientifically from generation to generation. Again, that would just be parents having children, bringing forth within their own kinds.
.
My argument is not that each kind had a common ancestor. My argument is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that EVERY kind came from only ONE common ancestor by a series of macro-evolutionary events such as Stephen J. Gould describes and has been commonly embraced by neo-Darwinists. Now, is it your position that you also reject so-called punctuated equilibrium?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
One species changing over time to another, different species IS speciation. Can we lay that argument to rest? Speciation, as defined in the scientific community has occurred, is occurring and has been observed occurring.
.
You cannot change the definition of speciation to be “change from one biblical kind to another biblical kind”, make the obvious point that no one has seen that happen and then declare that obviously speciation does not occur.
.
If we can lay that to rest, the next point would be whether or not continued mutation, genetic drift, etc. in combination with natural selection and other mechanisms could drive the change higher up the taxonomy tree.
.
It is not shifting the burden of proof to extrapolate from what we can observe to what should follow if the process continues unabated, unless there is a good reason for believing that those processes will reach some critical mass or barrier at which time no further changes could ensue.
.
This is especially true when we can look at the shared features of morphologically similar groups and in addition when DNA analysis confirms those findings for still living things.
For fast reference to those shared features and how they relate here is a quick video. http://mainereason.blogspot.com/2010/10/did-someone-say-evidence.html
.
This is the second or third time you have used what is called a Straw Man fallacy to argue your point. You said: “You cannot change the definition of speciation to be “change from one biblical kind to another biblical kind”, make the obvious point that no one has seen that happen and then declare that obviously speciation does not occur.”
.
The only problem with stating that I am trying to alter the definition of speciation and then destroying my attempt to do so is — I never tried to alter the definition of speciation. Therefore, you hold up a straw man, burn him in effigy, and declare victory in the debate.
.
Why not actually take on what I actually said? Would that be too challenging?
.
To be clear, once more, I have never, and I mean never, declared that elephants cannot turn into different kinds of elephants. I have never said that speciation events along those lines do not take place. Just the opposite. I have stated that speciation DOES occur and that it is consistent with not only biblical principles but observed science.
.
My argument is not that each kind had a common ancestor. My argument is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that EVERY kind came from only ONE common ancestor by a series of macro-evolutionary events such as Stephen J. Gould describes and has been commonly embraced by neo-Darwinists.
.
Now, is it your position that you also reject so-called punctuated equilibrium?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Let’s see if I can be more succinct….
.
You said:
“For example, macro-evolution has NEVER been observed…these words are not generalities, but expressions of actual fact.”
.
You also said:
“…Being of a KIND simply means that members of that kind can bring forth.”
.
and
“There are many different species of pears. There are bartlett and d’anjou and comice and bosc and the list goes on. They are all some KIND of pear. They can all cross pollinate and bring forth more pears.”
.
In other words, that the word “kind” depends on the ability to “bring forth”, or reproduce the same thing.
.
Therefore, one living thing which evolves into something else, which can no longer reproduce or “bring forth” with previous generations has changed or evolved into a different “kind”,
which is above the species level. Therefore it must qualify as macro-evolution.
.
So, to sum up…
1. Biblical “Kind” means able to reproduce same kind.
2. Observed speciation has resulted in new species unable to breed with prior generations
3. Inability to breed or “bring forth” means different “kind”
4. Different kind means macro-evolution
5. macro-evolution means your initial statements is incorrect.
.
(tried to work in “man kills dinosaurs”, “woman inherits the earth”…maybe next time!)
You said, “(tried to work in “man kills dinosaurs”, “woman inherits the earth”…maybe next time!)” and I have no clue what you are talking about so I can only assume this is yet another straw man in the making since I have never said anything resembling that.
.
On the other front, you did not answer my question. Is it — or is it not — your position that you also reject so-called punctuated equilibrium?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
It’s a quote from the movie Jurassic Park…it was a joke.
As far as PE is concerned, it seems to me a viable possibility, once the common misconceptions about it have been cleared up.
What is your opinion and understanding of PE?
http://www.halleethehomemaker.com/2009/10/engines-of-evolution/
In the last few years — since I have largely divorced myself from the secular culture — I have observed that films and/or television shows are now the language of our culture. Where perhaps a recently as 50 years ago, people would draw allegories against or allude to the works of the masters, the classics, or scripture — and they would relate stories based on actual events that occurred to friends or family members — today that is not the case. Today, people largely allude to complete works of fiction and it is upon that edifice that they often base their reality.
.
I find it most interesting when any cast member of the Simpsons or Family Guy is put on that metaphorical pedestal. Or shows like “Nip/Tuck” or “True Blood” which I have never seen and will never see. Or films that promote junk science, such as all of the films in the Jurassic Park franchise.
.
I’m sorry I did not catch your reference. I’m sure I would have laughed.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Gregg, what you say about Punctuated Equilibrium in that post is too sarcastic and full of hyperbole for me to figure out how it relates to Gould’s actual idea of punctuated equilibroum (if in fact it does have a connection).
…..”Well, in a word, NO. It isn’t my job and it doesn’t follow simple logic. It is logically YOUR job to prove your claim and you can do this by providing ANY kind of observed evidence that such a PREPOSTEROUS and RIDICULOUS assertion has any kind of logical or scientific merit.”
.
Wait, what about you giving some evidence for your claim?
.
What about the fact that genomic data from many different organisms make the same taxonomic tree that was predicted by anatomical and morphological observations? How can your view explain the genomic data? Details, please.
How can you tell the difference between a special creation where a cat kind, a dog kind, a bear kind, a hyena kind etc. were each created separately and after the flood speciated into lions, leopards, housecat ancestors etc, and wolves, jackals, coyotes, dire wolves etc, pandas, black bears, spectacled bears, polar bears, cave bears etc? Or between a situation where a ‘carnivore’ kind was created, a ‘carnivore’ pair went on the ark, and after the flood, produced all the carnivorous mammal species, evolving initially into the ancestral cat species, the ancestral dog species etc and from them into the lions, leopards, etc etc?
My sister is a geneticist with a masters in Micro-biology. I’ll ask her if she can provide a decent explanation. Meanwhile, I will not have a lot of time for debate in the next few days. I am taking a vacation with my beloved bride.
.
Gregg
It depends on whether or not you consider the Bible an authoritative source. If you do, then that is all the evidence I need. If you think it’s just a fairy tale and not the authoritative history of the world, then I will have to find some conclusions based on the evidence for you elsewhere.
.
We have the same evidence, by the way, we are just interpreting it different ways and coming to different conclusions based on diverse world views.
.
Gregg
…..”In point of fact, Scientific laws are considered invariable facts of the universe. Thus the laws of thermodynamics, the laws of cause and effect, the laws of energy conservation, the laws of motion, the law of biogenesis (life from life), and so on — and to name only a few — are considered universal, always true, and invariable facts in this universe.”
.
There are laws in physics and chemistry which could be regarded as true and invariable, but it may be that they are defined as invariable a within certain context.
.
Biology is a little different, I think. It’s my impression that people, in the 19th century especially, used the word ‘law’ to describe biological observations which were not in fact invariable truths, at least not in the sense that physical laws were. I don’t assume that something called a law at some time in biology necessarily carries that much weight today. You need to see what the current understanding of the field is. You included the ‘law of biogenesis’ in your tstaement, but Pasteur’s observation only was valid for a limited set of conditions and was not enough to establish any kind of universal truth. So whether it was called a law or not, it can’t be used as an authoritative universal statement. Some things called laws in biology are probably better described as useful generalizations from observations.
(an example of a biological ‘law’ that is only accurate in some cases: what has been called “Mendel’s law of independent assortment”.)
The age of a law has nothing to do with it’s validity. Newton’s Laws of Motion are getting pretty hoary but they are still Scientific laws and valid and nothing has refuted them.
.
Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis, likewise, is still valid. In all of recorded history, it has never been shown that life ever comes from non-life, or that it can, or that there is any reasonable mechanism where it even possibly could. The Law of Biogenesis is supported by all known observation both past and present. Law of Biogenesis is supported by mathematics in the form of probability. It has never been refuted and it is true under every tested circumstance.
.
That’s good enough for me.
.
If one considers that it is a Natural Law, as in “In nature, life only ever comes from life,” than to believe otherwise is either ignorance of this fact that governs all known life in the known universe, or it is a belief in something supernatural. Darwinists believe that life can spring forth supernaturally from rocks and dirt and water. I believe that in the beginning, God created man, male and female created He them, in His image created He them. So we each have our various religious bias, mine just happens to believe that God was the original prime mover, the first cause, who spoke life into existence setting the Law of Biogenesis in motion. That’s all.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
This is a straw man argument? I never mentioned Mendel’s law. I also never mentioned Haeckel’s Law of Recapitulation (the so-called biogenetic law) which was a fraudulent hypothesis based on what turned out to be false data. Neither of these are referred to as laws anymore, I didn’t cite them in my post, and showing them as no longer valid does not in any way affect the validity of Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis.
.
Despite any so-called laws I never mentioned or cited, Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis which I DID mention and cite is universally valid. In all of recorded history, it has never been shown that life ever comes from non-life, or that it can, or that there is any reasonable mechanism where it even possibly could. The Law of Biogenesis is supported by all known observation both past and present. The Law of Biogenesis is supported by mathematics in the form of probability. It has never been refuted and it is always true under every tested circumstance.
.
Please point to a known case where the above paragraph, speaking of the Law of Biogenesis, is not the case.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
“Life can only come from life” is not a law; it’s a catchphrase. It is useless as a scientific law because it doesn’t say what is meant by life and what is meant by coming from life.
Newton’s laws are valid in context. Einstein’s work showed they were not universally valid.
My mention of Mendel’s laws and Starling’s law was not a straw man argument. You said Pasteur’s law was the only scientific law about life. I was pointing out some others. (To my mind life meant life science; perhaps you only meant origin of life.)
Pasteur’s ideas were related to the misunderstandings of his time, and that is what his experiments and the law derived from his experiments were addressing (I don’t know who named it a law). We have vastly greater knowledge now of cellular function and we know from that information that complex organisms (all with the same proteins and genetic codes) could not assemble from chemicals in a broth in a few weeks. We don’t need a law now to tell us that; we can come to that conclusion based on evidence.
The question is whether some kind of reproducing system could organize from a collection of specific chemicals under a series of physical conditions different from what we have today in a time period of billions of years. That question is not addressed by Pasteur or Pasteur’s experiments, so that Pasteur’s law as formulated from his experiments does not address those conditions. It is not universal. It is not okay to extrapolate from Pasteur’s law as developed from his limited experiments to include processes over billions of years and very different conditions. Maybe it could have happened, maybe not, but Pasteur’s law didn’t address that. When you use those words to discuss abiogenesis, you are not using Pasteur’s law, you’re making up your own law based not on science but incredulity.
It is pointless to talk about all recorded history when the question of the origin of the first cells is billions of years before recorded history. Maybe there will never be evidence fo how this could have happened. The best we can do is to try to evaluate chemical processes that might have been able to lead up to the first protocells, as people like Szostak and Joyce are trying to do.
I don’t know about the specific claims of mathematics that you have in mind, but from what I’ve read, some claims of that type make assumptions that are not justified. (for instance, assumptions that proteins in early cells or protocells had to be the same as they are now, or assumptions that every amino acid in a protein had to be exact, when this is not necessary.)
I suppose it depends on what the definition of is is.
My claim pertaining to Scientific Laws: “With respect to Scientific laws, they are laws because they have repeatedly been shown to be true (they are always valid), they have never been refuted or contradicted, they are universal (true in Kentucky, Afghanistan, or on the moon), they do not vary in time, they are simple, and there are no exceptions. ”
.
The Law of Biogenesis states that life only ever comes from life. In what circumstance does this law not meet the above criteria?
.
Two living frogs of opposite sex can create fertilized eggs which become tadpoles, which become other living frogs. Slapping two frogs in a blender and subjecting them to all kinds of chemical processes and electrical manipulations in a recreated “primordial” atmosphere results in goo, even though you started with everything you needed to create life.
.
With respect to the theory of abiogenesis, technically, to qualify as an actual Scientific Theory, it is conventional that said notion find some at least marginally unequivocal substantiation from empirical science and thus be supported with experimentation or observational evidence. With respect to Darwinism and the original first “spark of life,” while there are those who continue to religiously maintain that such support exists, I am hard-pressed to find anyone who will publish or present any such support.
.
And even the amount of equivocal support has been greatly eroded in recent decades, as new knowledge has been gained in the actual applied sciences (genetics, biochemistry, microbiology…). So, with due respect, I am hard-pressed to concede and confer the status of “scientific theory” to Darwinian evolution just as you seem hard pressed to concede that life has only ever been shown in experimentation or observed science to come forth from something already living.
The supposed Law of Biogenesis was based on Pasteur’s results in the 1800s; its original formulation was limited to those and similar experiments, and it did not, could not, and was not intended to address other conditions. It is not considered a law by current science, and I remind you that current biological science has vastly better undrestanding of the function of living organisms than Pasteur had. (Also other sciences are greatly more informed than in Pastuer’s time.) So when you claim it is a Scientific law, you are speaking of your own opinion. People unfamiliar with the subject might think that when you called this a Scientific law that it was understood to be true by modern science, but if they got that impression they would be incorrect. To extend Pasteur’s Law beyond current organisms into a general rule that prohibits abiogenesis is a claim outside of modern science.
.
You said this:
….”Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis, likewise, is still valid. In all of recorded history, it has never been shown that life ever comes from non-life, or that it can, or that there is any reasonable mechanism where it even possibly could. The Law of Biogenesis is supported by all known observation both past and present.”
.
You make the point that this observation of life only coming from life has never been disproved in recorded history. Until microscopes were invented nobody could have observed bacteria anyway, so there was no way to observe whether bacterial life came from nonlife until the 1600s. I’m willing to agree with this observation: since the 1600s, all bacterial, archaeal, or eukaryote organisms have originated from reproduction by other archaeal, bacterial or eukaryotic organisms; none have been assembled in nature from a mixture of nonliving chemicals. There could be a thousand other observations, like the function of ATP or cellular excitation or the fact that the hearts pumps blood, but they are just facts or observations which are correct in context, not laws.
.
I disagree with your statement ” it has never been shown … there is any reasonable mechanism where it even possibly could”. The people who are doing research into options like the RNA World ideas, and the way membranes behave are finding potential reasonable mechanisms. I hope you went to the Rockefeller University website and watched some of the videos from that evolution seminar I mentioned. They haven’t come to any kind of conclusive answer, that’s true, but they are investigating a difficult problem in a reasonable way and finding practical chemical possibilities.
.
As has been pointed out already, the idea of abiogenesis is NOT included in the theory of evolution. Biological evolutionary theory describes a convincing way that evolution of organisms could have occurred from the earliest populations of reproducing cells. Until reproducing cells with stored genetic information had developed, there was no way for the processes of biological evolution to take place, so by definition abiogenesis cannot be included in biological evolution. Biological evolution is well-established. How abiogenesis occurred is still not a solved problem. But because we know the chemical/biochemical mechanisms by which living cells function, we have a way to investigate how those mechanisms could have developed on earth. There is no unitary “life” – there is a collection of co-ordinated biochemical functions.
.
You said this:
…”And even the amount of equivocal support has been greatly eroded in recent decades, as new knowledge has been gained in the actual applied sciences (genetics, biochemistry, microbiology…). So, with due respect, I am hard-pressed to concede and confer the status of “scientific theory” to Darwinian evolution …”
.
If you are talking about abiogenesis in that first sentence, you are wrong: with greater understanding of RNA etc. support for ways it could have happened has increased.
.
If you are talking in that first sentence about support for biological evolution from genetics, biochemistry etc, evolution has been HUGELY supported by genomics. If that is what you meant, you are completely incorrect.
.
It isn’t called the “supposed” or the “alleged” or the “assumed” Law, it is called the Law of Biogenesis. It’s called the Law of Biogenesis even after a few centuries for a reason.
.
The invention of microscopes allowed for the observation of microscopic life. Still, in all of recorded history preceding that, living things of every scale have only ever been observed to come from other living things. Is it your argument that single celled life forms spontaneously generated from rocks and dirt and other non-living things until the day we invented microscopes? How would one go about quantifying or qualifying such a proposition?
.
You are free to disagree that there has never been any reasonable mechanism to make spontaneous generation possible, however, it is an entirely accurate statement and assessment despite your demur. The problem isn’t that chemicals do not bond — they obviously do. The problem isn’t that the hundreds of problems leading to the creation of a single protein could not be potentially overcome to form protiens and even strands of RNA. I accept that. The problem is that there is absolutely no reasonable material mechanism that the highly specific and highly complex information can be randomly added to the equation without intervention by a mind.
.
I realize that Abiogenesis is often glossed over by Darwinists and has been since Darwin’s book, the title of which begins “On Origins…” and then the entire book never actually addresses the topic of origins. It only espouses the notion of Phyletic Gradualism by means of Larmakism and Natural Selection. The reason is because it is an instant refutation of the entire theory.
.
I do not believe I am wrong on either count. I have a pretty good understanding of RNA, DNA, histone, chromosomes — all of it — and despite the exponential gains in the mechanics of it, there exists absolutely no reasonable material mechanism that the highly specific and highly complex information can be randomly added to the equation without intervention by an intelligent agent. None.
.
Gregg
Hello!
This comments thread is a fine job of standing your ground against the relentless and illogical assault of the typical Darwinist commenters. Applause!
It is true that macroevolution has never been observed. Furthermore, facilitated variation and genetic redundancy theory indicate that the mother lays the framework for the child during reproduction, thus setting a barrier against the changing of one kind (baramin) to another. Also, there are “switches” built into the organism to facilitate a change from, say, short to long beaks on finches. Furthermore, in all organisms meta-information is also included that directs the assembly of that organism. In all ways, as the scientific world looks deeper into organisms, they become remarkably complex organic machines, with both hardware and software that are designed to work together to not only reproduce the young but to preside over all cellular events taking place during the life of the organism.
When the Law of Biogenesis was finally universally accepted in the 19th Century, it had tested for tiny microbes as well as more advanced organisms. That law still stands, as do the laws of thermodynamics that prohibit a self-creating Universe.
You will always have Darwinist trolls. Allow them to sharpen your weaponry as they parry and thrust with you and know that your armor is impenetrable by their preposterous suppositions. It is a sad commentary on the state of education in the USA that college graduates would be so gullible as to believe in Darwinism and Uniformitarianism, two ideas conceived in ignorance and falsfied by modern day findings of science. The only reason they continue to be taught is on the basis of faith. Those who prefer anything but God will desperately cling to any shred of folly rather than admit that a superior being, a Creator God, has made them and therefore has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong. Even now they continue to set their finite minds in the seat of God. I would prefer to let God have his throne and use my mind to actually think and reason. Grins and blessings!
hd,
.
You said, “Wait, what about you giving some evidence for your claim?
.
What about the fact that genomic data from many different organisms make the same taxonomic tree that was predicted by anatomical and morphological observations? How can your view explain the genomic data? Details, please.”
.
In my logical mind, genetic similarity does not argue for evolution since I do not subjectively and by default equivocate absolutely everything to evolution. Objectively, similarity in genetic code could also signify that all life had the same DESIGNER and in that case one would EXPECT to find similarities in the genetic code.
.
What I am saying is that we are looking at the same evidence. We only differ in our interpretation of that evidence.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
hd,
.
You asked, “How can you tell the difference between a special creation where a cat kind, a dog kind, a bear kind, a hyena kind etc. were each created separately and after the flood speciated into lions, leopards, housecat ancestors etc, and wolves, jackals, coyotes, dire wolves etc, pandas, black bears, spectacled bears, polar bears, cave bears etc? Or between a situation where a ‘carnivore’ kind was created, a ‘carnivore’ pair went on the ark, and after the flood, produced all the carnivorous mammal species, evolving initially into the ancestral cat species, the ancestral dog species etc and from them into the lions, leopards, etc etc??
.
The answer is I don’t know but it is a fascinating question. I have had to re-evaluate a number of my assumptions based upon the question and I really enjoy re-evaluating my personal assumptions, particularly if they might not be accurate.
.
What would we expect to see if there were a global world wide flood that covered the hilltops? Well, we would expect to see the scars in geology all over the earth and we see that. We would expect to see incongruent evidence, like 10 feet of dead clams on the peak of Mt. Everest and we see that. We would expect to see billions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth in the fossil record and we see that, too.
.
I see evidence that a huge number of species were wiped out in the flood but scripture states that two of every “kind” were brought to the ark to be preserved. Honestly, my day job is not conducive to allowing me the privilege and the luxury of performing the kind of study in this arena that I would like to perform at this time. It comes down to “what represented each kind on the ark” I suppose? Or what do I assume did?
.
I’m not sure that I have enough data to even take a stab at it right now but you really have me thinking and I will be doing further research. So thank you.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
hd,
.
You said, “Gregg, what you say about Punctuated Equilibrium in that post is too sarcastic and full of hyperbole for me to figure out how it relates to Gould’s actual idea of punctuated equilibroum (if in fact it does have a connection).”
.
Thank you for the honest rebuke. In rereading that post I agree with your assessment. Please check back two Sunday’s hence for a post entitled: Creation: The Modern View Stepping Backward II which will be dedicated entirely to so-called “macro-evolution” beginning with how it was originally defined according to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and then including both the Neo-Darwinist position as well as Gould and Niles’ proposed Punctuated Equilibrium. I will try to refrain from making too many peanut gallery comments.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Speaking as a reformed Darwinist myself, I am more and more aware each day of just how pervasive the Darwinist Philosophical Bias is and how the products of indoctrination are delivered via every media channel. It is a program that disallows logic, critical thought, reason, and objectivity. One has to first grasp the very nature of truth and then apply filters according to what is and is not factual, what is and is not logical, what is and is not ASSUMED, before true reason can reassert itself.
.
Even if someone IS an atheist or agnostic with respect to the Judeo-Christian God and Creator of the Universe, I believe they can arrive at the truth that Darwinism is an assumption based on a very restrictive worldview. I would like to think that someone who isn’t a believer can at least be that intellectually honest in context.
.
Very glad you found my weekly contributions here.
.
God Bless,
Gregg
I did some searching to see if I could find the history of how Pasteur’s conclusion started being called the Law of Biogenesis and how it featured in the scientific writings of the time. I didn’t have much luck. Clearly some people did call it that, and it was generally accepted, although I think it was accepted as true in the context of the previous belief in spontaneous generation as it was understood at the time (which was very different from the idea of abiogenesis billions of years ago). When Pasteur (or whoever) said ‘Omne vivum ex vivo” that person was countering the idea of spontaneous generation that people had back then – for instance the idea (disproved before Pasteur) that maggots sponaneously formed in rotting meat. That person was not talking about today’s idea of abiogenesis, and Pasteur’s experiments didn’t address that. To the extent that it is still called the law of biogenesis, it’s a name that was given in the past. It is a historical name. Just having that name does not elevate it to the status of laws in physics or chemistry; as I said before, biology doesn’t have laws in the same way that physics and chemistry do. I didn’t have much luck finding uses of that phrase in scientific literature except in describing his experiment in a historical context. There’s no need for it now. When Pasteur did those experiments bacteria were barely observable through the microscope – their internal processes were a mystery. Now we know a lot about cellular processes and we don’t need a simplified law, doctrine, aphorism or whatever you might call it to describe them. It was a fine experiment, a fine observation, a fine conclusion, a step forward for biology. But it only is correct in context.
Just because the words sound like they would apply to origin of life does not mean they do; it is a simplified phrase used to sum up a particular set of experiments in response to a particular controversy which was NOT about abiogenesis as we currently talk about it. You can’t legitimately take that simple phrase and read more into it than its originators meant. (repeating myself here.)
.
(Do I think that living cells were forming from nonliving chemicals in the 1500s before microscopes were invented – no I don’t. I think that happened billions of years ago.)
.
(I think the information evolved in a process of chemical evolution of molecules in some kind of protocells and continued to evolve as those cells became more complex. I think that is reasonable. But I can’t give any evidence for that, and I can’t give you a good argument on it.)
Please read my post scheduled for two weeks from today which will thoroughly cover the “Prebiotic Molecular Evolution” or “Abiogenesis” or “Biopoesis” or “Spontaneous Generation” evolutionary thought.
Of course I will read it, and I hope you won’t say that Pasteur’s experiments rule out abiogenesis or that the name ‘Law’ of Biogenesis’ given to his experiments and conclusions means that it applies universally.
Well, so far at least, living things have only ever been shown to come from other and already living things. In the definition of what qualifies something as a Scientific Law or law of nature, the “Law of Biogenesis” has met every single criteria 100% of the time for 100% of people in 100% of the places it has been tested. That strikes me as pretty universally utilitarian.
.
Another fact to consider is that making the process of “Prebiotic Molecular Evolution” take “billions of years” exponentially increases the mathematical unlikelihood of it ever having taken place in the first place.
.
First, the universe and the earth are only so old and that amount of time is calculable based on the the single parameter that we know how many seconds there are in a given year. So even if one chooses to believe, as presumably you do, that the universe is 14 billion or so years old and the earth is 3.9 to 4.5 billion years old, you run out of time to invent that original living first ancestor of all life on earth pretty darn quickly.
.
Second, using principles of substitution, e.g.: rock for cell wall or silicate crystal for cell membrane etc., you only add more time to the equation in addition to introducing MILLIONS of unknown variables that all run counter to life, inasmuch as we understand life based on observable, operational, empirical science.
.
Third, there are insurmountable mechanical problems, for example the required presence and required absence of oxygen. And there are insurmountable logical problems, for example the presence of the highly specific and almost infinitely complex information encoded in the SYSTEM of protein synthesis as it relates to RNA/DNA or it’s proxy’s according to the hypothesis (see above with respect to substitutionary modeling).
.
And finally, you encounter numerous chicken and egg problems. What part of the system originated the other interdependent and inter-related parts of the system? For instance, RNA encodes the proteins that are required to encode proteins in the process of protein synthesis.
.
And while I have no objection to having FAITH that all of these things can be ignored or somehow magically overcome, I do have a problem with calling FAITH some kind of SCIENCE, which it definitively and most specifically IS NOT. Just go ahead and admit that it’s faith. Who could have a problem with that?
.
God Bless,
Gregg
Gregg,
I see you are having some problems finding support that falls squarely under the title ‘Scientific Theory’
“I am hard-pressed to find anyone who will publish or present any such support.”
Can I point you to the Pubmed site… I think you’ll find eack paper includes a title, an abstract, a body of data, informations that is compiled using this method along with a list of sources where ‘assumed’ data itself is evaluated using the same methodology.
Genertally speaking most of this data is also cited AS a soure in someone elses work after it is reviewed. You can choose any subject you like generally….all will follow the same methodology.
Now in the natural sciences such as biology it is even more important to present valid evidence. So much money and resources are spent on this area that is is vital such infomration is accurate since it is eventually going to be used to create a new drug, some new form of medical practice or indeed new technology…such as genetically modified crops or biofuels.
Getting it wrong repeatedly would result in none of this working and investors removing their support. Thankfully that does not happen.
In areas such as new and classical physics evidence an factual data is more ridgid…
So for example gravity is a ‘fact’ even without the theory of gravity we would still observe things to fall or be attracted to one another… we just wouldn’t know HOW that happens… The theory of gravity however offers an explanation as to the processes and forces at work that cause the ‘fact’ of gravity to occur.
So evolution is a fact. Its certainly observed to happen… the ‘theory of evolution’ (which I might add is never actually used in biology) is an explanation of the forces at work that demonstrate how that fact occurs. Its been relabeled a long time ago too… ‘theory of evolution that is…we now call it Genetics!
Now you insist that this explanation is not yet validated… but there are several very distinct problems with that.
1. You need to explain why geneticists using their model have created so many advances in technology using this invalid idea.
2. Why creationists have produced nothing whatsoever using their alternative.
3. If you download any one of those papers explaining how one new discovery or other is evaluated in evolutionary biology and then another in any other field you will see that they both go through exactly the same process.
4. That same process is NOT adhered to by creationists. In science we do not start with a conclusion and gather evidence which supports it and ignore everything else. We start with the evidence we have and draw the conclusion (hence the word conclusion as in conclude) from that evidence) This may not be a perfect source of new knowledge but its better that sticking only to one conclusion and looking at nothing else.
So with regards to the word ‘theory’ as far as biology and evolutionary biology goes its not only a theory, not only includes mathematical principles and factual data and not only offers prediction in its analysis…but the alternative you present here does not!
When you can predict based on your ideas…at that point you might get listened by those in education. Until then your only audience will be those who do not think critically. Which is fine, society relies almost totally on 90% of the individuals being uneducated. How else would we ever proceed if everyone asked lots of questions.
So keep up the good work!
Mick said: “Getting it wrong repeatedly would result in none of this working and investors removing their support. Thankfully that does not happen.”
.
Of course it happens. Man is fallible and dozens of drug recalls by the FDA in the last 50 years or so have been required as a result.
http://www.consumerjusticegroup.com/drugrecall/drugrecalls.html
.
Mick said: “In areas such as new and classical physics evidence an factual data is more ridgid [sic.] … So for example gravity is a ‘fact’ even without the theory of gravity we would still observe things to fall …So evolution is a fact.”
.
Sorry, but no. Macro evolution has never been observed and never been shown to be factual based on observational, operational, empirical science nor does it agree with logic. As Sir Isaac Newton (a believer in the Biblical account of creation) demonstrated, one can drop objects and observe gravity in action along with other forces such as centripetal force.
.
Dirt and rocks one day up and deciding to form a living cell has never been observed. An amoeba growing into a multi-cellular life form has never been observed. A fish changing into a mammal has never been observed. There are no transitional forms that act as evidence of this so-called “fact” you claim, either.
.
Mick said: “Its been relabeled a long time ago too… ‘theory of evolution that is…we now call it Genetics!”
.
Equivocating the entire “theory of evolution” as described by Darwin to “genetics” is the fallacy known as equivocation. Parents having children labeled “evolution” as we witness in genetics is vastly different than “tree of life” molecules to man version of “evolution.” I have no argument with parents having children (each bringing forth within their own kind) I am just not afflicted with Darwinism, so I don’t call that event “evolution” when I can call it parents bearing offspring each according to their own kind.
.
Mick said: “You need to explain why geneticists using their model have created so many advances in technology using this invalid idea.”
.
The explanation is that I have no issues whatsoever with parents having children. You need to explain what that has to do with Darwinism.
.
Mick said: “[You need to explain] Why creationists [sic.] have produced nothing whatsoever using their alternative.”
.
Unfounded allegation and highly inaccurate based on secular indoctrination. First of all, nearly every scientific law known today was first penned by a believer in the Biblical account of creation from Galileo to Newton. Are you not counting those in your grand pronouncement?
.
Secondly, the truth is that Darwinism includes a staggering multitude of unfalsifiable assertions regarding origins and most Darwinists default to grand pronouncements (such as yours) based on statistics they make up on the spot, fraud, falsified data, or unfounded assumptions.
.
Furthermore, a multitude of recent predictions by Biblical believers have proven true. For instance, Biblical theorists predicted that it was implausible that a specific section of genetic code in a selected organism is truly non-functional, and thus “Junk DNA” and this prediction has proven true.
.
Biblical believers predicted that the assumption of long uniform geologic change over millions of years –known as uniformitarianism — was false and that geologic formations mainly reflect catastrophic events, describing sudden changes. This prediction has proven true.
.
Biblical believer Russell Humphreys predicted that the magnetic dipole moment of celestial bodies at their creation is calculable from the body’s mass and an estimate of the fraction of water molecules that are aligned for maximum magnetic-field effect. With this calculation, the magnetic dipole moment at present is predictable within at least an order of magnitude.
.
In his 1984 paper “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, the magnetic dipole moments of the planets Uranus and Neptune were calculated and those predictions confirmed by observations made by the spacecraft Voyager 2 two and five years, respectively, following the publication of his predictions.
.
He predicted that older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon’s rocks do. This prediction was confirmed for Mars in 1999 when the Mars Global Surveyor orbited low over the planet’s surface
.
Biblical believers predict that variation within certain kinds of organisms would be observed, and genetic change would be the result of environmental pressures and natural selection, though never above the genus or family level of taxonomic classification. This prediction has been shown to be 100% true 100% of the time.
.
The ability of species to rapidly specialize has been observed. However, there is no observed natural mechanism which leads to progressive related mutational random selection that can produce a “molecules to man” type of change that Darwinists posit. What is observed is organisms becoming specifically adapted to a given environment through small non-related mutations. This is consistent with what Biblical believers predict and inconsistent with Darwinism.
.
Bibilical believers predict that species will speciate within their own kind. Speciation is supported and seen as a way in which species become diversified through geographical isolation or genetic mutations. But a frog is still a frog is still a frog.
.
I could go ON and ON but scratching the surface as I have done handily demonstrates that you are vastly incorrect in your point. I am sure you can ignore/forget that these scientific predictions and follow-on advances were made by believers in the Biblical account of creation just as you conveniently ignore/forgot that Newton was a believer.
.
Mick said, “If you download any one of those papers explaining how one new discovery or other is evaluated in evolutionary biology and then another in any other field you will see that they both go through exactly the same process. … That same process is NOT adhered to by creationists.”
.
Adolf Hitler said that if a lie is told loud enough and often enough, a certain percentage of people will believe it is true even in the face of contrary evidence. Your statement above is tter nonsense. The opposite is actually true. In unbiased scientific endeavors, objectivity is key and logic actually matters. If one’s experiment relies on too many assumptions, one’s conclusions are always questionable. If objective evidence contradicts those assumptions, it is time to eliminate those assumptions from one’s parameters. This is what Darwinists consistently refuse to do.
.
Mick said, “In science we do not start with a conclusion and gather evidence which supports it and ignore everything else.”
.
I agree completely that science works that way. However, that is not how Darwinists work. When Darwinists lack evidence, they simply manufacture it. When evidence starkly contradicts Darwinism, it is fallaciously attacked or ignored.
.
Mick said, “This may not be a perfect source of new knowledge but its better that sticking only to one conclusion and looking at nothing else.”
.
This is precisely what the Darwinian philosophical bias does. It prevents Darwinists from taking on any hypothesis objectively. Any evidence which does not fully support Darwinism or methodological naturalism is instantly disqualified and ignored.
.
Mick said, “So with regards to the word ‘theory’ as far as biology and evolutionary biology goes its not only a theory, not only includes mathematical principles and factual data and not only offers prediction in its analysis…but the alternative you present here does not!”
.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are mistaken. Darwinism has brought fraud after fraud after fraud into the scientific arena in the last 250 years. Social Darwinism methodologies have contributed everything from Eugenics all the way to the extermination of the New Guinea tribes and the Jews in WWII. In science, Darwinism has offered every false claim from recapitulation theory to vestigial organs. All of it is a made up mental construct as questionable as Darwinists often quoted statistics.
.
Mick said, “When you can predict based on your ideas…at that point you might get listened by those in education. Until then your only audience will be those who do not think critically. Which is fine, society relies almost totally on 90% of the individuals being uneducated. How else would we ever proceed if everyone asked lots of questions. So keep up the good work!”
.
And speaking of statistics, thank you for proving my point by making up statistics on the spot. Your claim is that 90% of individuals are uneducated? Mick, I hate to point this out, but your entire comment is rife with spelling errors, grammatical errors, logical fallacies, and false claims. Should I, therefore, deem you as one of the uneducated 90%?
.
Thanks so much for your comment and I intend to keep up the good work.
God Bless;
Gregg