Posts by hooberus

107

Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

by Shining One in

here is an article from the 'stand to reason' ministry.

this is why i evolution and creation are incompatible.

designed by chance .

hooberus

This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.

The paper gives both independent evidence for the the flood (the presence of 14C throught the geological record- indicating a recent age for all samples which additionally would also thus indicate a global catastrophe for their deposition), as well as an explanation for the ratios within the catastrophic paradigm. The paper was written by 4 qualified scientists (including a Los Alamaos National Laboratory scientist) and was I believe also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.

And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.

The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data. Also a recent CRSQ arcticle discusses this (summarized below by Fred Williams):

"Finally, Russell Rotta's September CRSW article "Evolutionary Explanations for Anomalous Radio Carbon in Coal?", refutes the sister decay hypothesis mentioned by OC1.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/abstr...stracts41-2.htm

Rotta showed in a long, detailed analysis that “The concentrations observed in coal are at least a factor of 100,000 more than what could be generated by neutron activation within the coal, and this is the best case. There is just not enough C-14 generated by the low-probability radium decays, spontaneous fission or neutron activation of the coal. The anomalous concentrations of C-14 in coal cannot be explained by any of these generating processes.”

BTW, Rotta also cited evolutionists who admit that contamination is a toothless excuse, since the examples of in situ carbon-14 are so abundant."

Therefore your claims on this (especially "sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive") are fallacious. Futhermore, your claim that I "obviously don't know" about this is also false as I already was aware of both the statements by the Los Alamos scientist (I have his on DVD) as well as the above referenced information from Williams even before any discussions on this thread.

107

Why God Cannot Have Used Evolution....

by Shining One in

here is an article from the 'stand to reason' ministry.

this is why i evolution and creation are incompatible.

designed by chance .

hooberus

Examining a few of Abaddon's points:

Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.
As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".

AiG (Batten) didn't "completely forget" such a thing -in fact he wrote in his referenced source (note underlined word):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp "Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12 C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO 2 , which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14 C is also proportionately lowered at this time, . . ."

Battens point was not that the flood itself would immediately change the "14C/12C ratio" as Abaddon mistakinly implied- but instead that the burial of the large amount of carbon (which would have been composed of more C12 at the time) would have facilitated a later relatively rapid increase in the amount of 14C relative to total 12C in the biosphere (though of course most of carbon would still be 12C).

As I pointed out earlier:

"Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG."

and:

"If a person takes the time to research the above points of Dr. Batten in light of his additionally referenced source: "The Answers Book, chapter 4" [Chapter 4 is online here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp and is also found as the first arcticle in the "Get Answers" arcticle index "Radimetric Dating" on the AiG Site] and then tries to understand them you will find that there is no "dishonesty"; "incompetence" etc. involved."

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

On top of the proof of the 'historical record' please provide the URL to where you have thus far show Dendrochronology or the commonly accepted chronologies for the Egyptians to be in error. I've asked dozens of times. Don't count you thinking the article by Don Batten disproved it, you've not ever responded to me showing this was another prime example of bad science on AiG.

If you are unable to provide such a URL (we both know you can't), it would seem you have evaded dealing with this insurmountable problem for Creationists. A good example is the latest attempt; your contempt for the intelligence of fellow posters never ceases to amase me.

Where is it said that I am somehow required to provide a detailed online response to all of your claims about such things? I have already taken more than enough time responding to many of your other claims on other creation/ evolution subjects. Furthermore, at one point in time I started (in good faith) to take time to provide such a response (to dendrochronology issues), and you reaction was to launch false accusations against me (http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/49871/2.ashx). Therefore my patience expired with you on the subject, as I believe that it would simply be a waste of my time and patience to do any reseach for you. If you desire an extensive answer to this issue, you should obtain the written materials from those creationists who have gone into this issue (titles of resources having been previously provided to you). Then if you have a problem with their findings you can, discuss it (I would recommend politely) with them, or post it on talkorigins (which may -if in arcticle form- be eventually responded to by a scientist on the trueorigins site) .

For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

Now, here you are clearly trying to give the impression that you are refering me to a peer reviewed article, in response to my criticisms about peer review process or lack thereof. This is not true.

I believe that all published ICC arcticles have been peer-reviewed by qualified scientists. Though the reviewers they may hold the same basic world view as the scientists who submit the papers for review- the fact also remains that may very well disagree with points, arguments, theories, etc. made in the papers, and thus possibly reject or require modification or re-submission.

Any peer review of the CD-ROM proceedings copies of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism (2003) failed to comply with the standards normally applied to peer reviewing. You are essentially implying that something written by a Flat Earther and then read by another Flat Earther is peer reviewed.

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am wrong) that a creationist paper is not "really" peer reviewed if the the reviewers (even if qualified scientists) subscribe to the same basic world-view as the submitters. However, it should be pointed out that the reviewers of evolutionist papers themselves also subscribe to the same wold-view as the submitters of their papers. Furthermore, your own often used source (talkorigins) says: "Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts. Rather, they have been commented on and critiqued by the readership of the talk.origins newsgroup."

I find that deceptive.

These was nothing "deceptive" in my referencing the ICC paper.

Also, you typing 'Bristlecone pine' into a serach engine and finding an article doesn't mean the article disproves dendrochronology, as you've shown in the past.

I did not find the arcticle through a 'Bristlecone pine' search.

Please give me a condensed version of Woodmorappe's argument - I assume you read it before providing it? You did read it hooberus, didn't you?

Previously you launched accusations regards to my referencing Walter ReMine's book The Biotic Message such as:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/13.ashx

"You say you only quoted ReMine for "population genetics and evolutionary theory", but ReMine's theories on those areas are incompatable with your beliefs. You are quoting what you believe to be wrong to support an argument. Can you see why I don't think it's good behaviour?"

"For those that don't know, ReMine believes the number of mutations that would arise from a common ancestor in the amount of time since a common ancestor is not sufficient to cause the difference between humans and that common ancestor (a take on the so called "Haldane's Dilema"). However, in doing so he does LOADS of stuff you'd not accept, (even if you ignore him accepting a FAR longer chronology than you hooberus)."

Did you read it before launching these (false http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/99116/1715718/post.ashx#1715718) accusations? If not then why do you demand that others read every paper that they may merely reference as resources?

See what I mean hooberus? Rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts you use what ever wriggling you can to avoid it. But having read Woodmorappe's article, I am sure you will be able to show me how wrong dendrochronology is. I await with pleasure.

See my initial comments on this post.

Now it gets funny, in that my long-held suspicion you often don't even have the courtesy to read responses to you is confirmed;

For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx
Errr.... hoobey huney, on the same page I detail how ludicrous and insubstancial your reaction was...

I did read you response shortly after you posted it there- thus your claim that your "long-held suspicion" that I "often don't even have the courtesy to read responses" by others to me has been "confirmed" by this is a another fallacious accusation- trhe reason I didn't immediately respond because I perceived no real immediate need. However (for the sake of others) I have taken the time to respond to some of your points there.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

Of course, rather than calmly and intelligently trying to show that the common dates for the construction of the Great Pyramid and older structures are wrong, and that the dendrochrological and radiometric evidence I refer to are wrong using clear unambuguous data that has been peer reviewed, as a respoinse to this I expect;
Waffle and bluster, probably using the word 'godless', or utiltising red herrings straw men or ad hominums, rather than actually dealing with any of the contested facts

I diasgree that I engase in such tactics,- anyone can check my post history on the these debates to decide for themselves.

2. An AiG URL - despite having been show AiG's articles are typically unsceintific and can resort to concealing inconvenient facts that makes their claims obviously silly

For a response to several of your accustions against AiG see:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/5.ashx

3. Nothing

For a reviewed response to things such as bristlecone pine tree ring chronologies, radiometric issues, etc. see:

http://www.csfpittsburgh.org/icc03.htm

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

Yes, the "philosophic framework" of one view is that the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe. The philosophic framework of the other view is that the Bible is correct, literally and inerrantly. I consider the former philosophic framework to be infinitely superior.

The Biblical creationist view does not precludes that "the world is real and largely as it appears to be, and that measuring, investigation and the use of logic can lead us to useful conclusions about the universe."

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

Evolutionary science is not merely a philosophical interpretation of history.

My comments were not to imply that Evolution (nor creationism) were "merely" philosophical interpretations of history, but instead to point out that the same scientific facts (fossils, DNA, etc.) are in both views interpreted through philosophic frameworks.

It is observed, studied and predicted.

This depends on what definition of "evolution" you are using (see my previous comments). The "Evolution" in question here -that is the view of history (universal common ancestry, men decending from the fish, etc.)- was not subject to direct observation.

New species are being produced, DNA is being analyzed and relationships identified, new varieties resulting from mutations are predicted and observed on a regular basis.

These same facts can also be interpreted quite well within a Biblical/ historical creationist framework. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

The past shows unmistakable evidence of change consistant with all present observations.

By the "past" I assume that you are referring to the fossil record.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

The links you posted to are from a Creationist site. They demonstrate little more than a desire on the part of Creationists to equivocate evolution, evolutionism and atheism, and label them as a religion, specifically one in opposition to (fundamentalist) Christianity.
Very very poor, hooberus, even by your low standards.

I'll leave this to the readers to judge for themselves.

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

hooberus:
The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history. Generally, (though not always) "history" as interpreted through the lens of the recorded history in the Bible vs. "history" as interpreted through the lens of anti or non-biblical types of philosophy. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that most most of the major organizations on either side of the debate have historically openly embraced one or the other world views.

My comments were edited slightly before I saw your quote, though they were posted timewise later.

15

Jesus death

by lime05 in

jw
friends

did jehovah know that jesus was going to die before he sent him to earth or is that just the way events unfolded.

it sounds a bit mad sending your only begotten son to earth as a perfect baby knowing that later in life he would be nailed and toutured on a stake because jehovahs's principles of justice requires a soul for a soul

hooberus

It doesn't matter how you explain in hoob........the fact is.......god is STILL going to kill 9 out of 10 people on the planet for something our own justice system wouldn't put a person to death for.
Gumby

Why should "our own" justice system be the final authority in judgement?

35

Regardless what you think of it Evolution has brought us great good

by zagor in

instead of replying to numerous new threads that come up every day about intelligent design vs. evolution ive decided to rather open a new thread.

(go with the flow kind of thing .

personally, im not completely certain how life originated (but neither are many scientist) however, life does change over time and animals and humans alike do adapt to new conditions, which often changes their shape and characteristics.

hooberus

One thing is certainly clear though. Evolutionary theory has certainly freed inquisitive minds of scientists to seek natural explanations to natural phenomena without shackles of religions and religious thinking.

I mean, whatever your personal beliefs are, just put that aside and think for a moment of what the alternative is. It is nothing else but call to return to 1500’s ways of thinking back into our society along with religious dogmatism, separatism, “my god is better than your god” line of thinking and ultimately hatred.

There are many possible definitions of the word "evolution." However, "Evolution" (in the dispued molecules-to-man sense) is really a claimed version of history. This view of history involves facts being interpreted by a religious/ philosophic framework (using philosophic principals such as materialism, uniformitarianism, etc.).

The Creationism/Evolutionism debate/war is thus really about history. Usually, (though not always) history as interpreted through the lens of the recorded history in the Bible vs. "history" as interpreted through the lens of anti or non-biblical types of philosophy. This can be easily demonstrated by the fact that most most of the major organizations on either side of the debate have historically openly embraced one or the other world views. I will not take the time here to document the philosophic world view of the major creationist organizations- you can read it for yourself on their websites. However, the following demonstrates the religious/ philosophic bias of some of the major proponets of evolutionism (a bias that is not always known by many people).

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/religion.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/189.asp