Thursday, July 16, 2009

Big mean Council of Europe warns against us cute fuzzy little creationists

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

The dangers of creationism in education

(My comments in blue)


1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

Of course they aren't antagonistic to belief as THEY define it but to TRUE Biblical belief they are indeed antagonistic, because the God of the Bible made the universe and has given enough of a clue to how He did it that science must subordinate itself to His revelation to be true.

2. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life.

Of course they go on to define what religious belief is in such a way that their idea of science is not antagonistic to their idea of belief, and anything we say about the Bible's authority as the Creator's own revelation is defined as unscientific. No, they aren't antagonistic to this phony definition of belief but they are antagonistic to true Biblical belief. I guess we're safe from the lions as long as we accept their definition, huh?

Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

Possible ill effects of the spread of God's truth worries them, and somehow God's truth is anti-democratic TOO! And a threat to HUMAN RIGHTS! My my aren't we the enemies of society. But so the early Romans called the early Christians too, and threw them to the lions for their anti-social and atheistic ways. And so the Nazis called the Jews too, as well as Christians who wouldn't toe their line. Ever does Caesar repeatedly rear his ugly antichrist head, and the final one is surely coming soon.

3. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

Nice to know America still leads in honoring God's truth, but it's also nice to know there are a few Christian Europeans left too. (Unless, hm, yes it's possible, the European creationists are Muslims, since that group is growing so rapidly there. That would be enlightening information to have).

4. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are of the Christian or Muslim faith, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabuses. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

Well, what we actually claim is more that it reveals scientific truth rather than a scientific discipline as such, and above all we claim that evolution is not science and we know that because of God's revelation, but there is genuine creationist science that is conducted by creationists as well.

Yes, I suspect it probably is the Muslims who are mostly giving them a hard time over there, since European Christianity pretty much died a long time ago. Another case of God's judgment on the apostate churches, and just as with the head covering, He's using the Muslims to model what Christians have failed to do.

5. Creationists question the scientific character of certain areas of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, creationists defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

Actually it does but they are blinded by their prejudices.

6. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

What on earth are they so afraid of? Good grief, they can't tolerate leaving people alone in this world to compete with their ideas from a radically different point of view? Well, we know their crazed urgency to deprive us of our freedom is driven supernaturally of course. There is nothing rational about it.

7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

OUR children? Wouldn't want their children to suspect there might be a Creator God would they? Can't trust the next generation to make a rational decision, they have to force THEIR definition of science versus "belief" on them, brainwash them, but of course they do this in all sincerity because they are so convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs. Thus have tyrants always risen to rule.

8. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

Well, the Jews of Germany were also considered dangerous, so they had to be wiped out; and the Christians of the early Roman Empire were also considered dangerous, so they had to be wiped out, and so on. This is the nature of the thinking here but as with all oppressors they are so locked into their own feverish paranoid view all they know is they've got to get rid of the Enemy.

9. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a rather significant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

The theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the kind of TRUE science that has brought about the technological and economic improvements in life. Even if evolution were TRUE this would be the case because how things came about in the past DOES NOT AFFECT practical science. But they are blind to this, alas.

10. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In reality the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and spread doubt and confusion in their minds.

Paranoid ravings.

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research, aiming at combating infectious diseases such as Aids, are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

I suppose they believe this but it's absolute nonsense. The power of a delusion is truly amazing.

12. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human and civic rights.

Perhaps Islam rejects science but Biblical Christianity certainly does not. There would have been no science at all without the Biblical revelation. We'd still be back in paganism which defined the earth as the center of the universe (which got into the Catholic church through Aristotle and Aquinas) among other unscientific beliefs. Only the law-making God of the Bible could show us a rational universe that could be studied and understood and used more efficiently than pagan society could ever have discovered.

13. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism closely linked to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

Islam certainly is, but the Christian worldview supports separation of church and state, rightly understood (yes it does) -- not the warped idea of separation of church and state now held by American leftists but the original idea of the American Founders.

14. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of science in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

Yes, well of course the Antichrist is going to support evolution, anything against the true God.

15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

That is "microevolution" not evolution, and it is of course recognized by Christians, though the term is objectionable.

As a Christian who sees what's coming from all this, oppression by the establishment followed by total domination by Islam, I do have a strong urge to find some safe zone to flee to, but there is no such safe zone, and I couldn't flee to it if there were, and the Lord wouldn't have us flee anyway. No, we're being set up for persecution and we're going to have to rise to the occasion spiritually.

16. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

I doubt they are even going to allow this much. It sounds good at the moment but as soon as the creationist position is spelled out in all its truth under any title whatever they are going to clamp down on it.

17. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

The idea of evolution gives NO clue to how ANYTHING works. This is the biggest delusion imaginable. It's EVOLUTION that is all about "why things are," SCIENCE is something else entirely. Historically experimental science would never have developed at all without the Biblical revelation of the law-giving God who created all things.

18. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council of Europe’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

Final Solution anybody?

19. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to:

19.1. defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general the presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculums.

20. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 academies of science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.


1. Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).

Signs of the times, Christians, signs of the times.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

Intro to Natural Limitation to evolutionary processes seen in population genetics

Maybe this old thread at EvC will serve as an introduction to my other favorite theme besides the obviousness of this Flood-wracked planet, which is the fact that the processes of "evolution" or the selection of traits that get passed on, involves other traits being passed up and sometimes dying out completely. Although the process may be so slow as to be undetectable over hundreds of generations, it can be very fast, and in all cases the general tendency is the LOSS of genetic potentials, the opposite of what would have to be the case were evolution true.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Here's another old thread at EvC where I was piled on as usual, and where my very simple point was simply flatly contradicted and ignored as usual. Perhaps they absolutely can't see the facts, I guess that's possible, but it's hard to avoid the impression they just refuse to think about it at all. Anyway here's Global Flood Evidence. I'd already presented the evidence but this poster didn't see it so started this thread for the purpose of demanding evidence when I'd already given all I was going to give on the subject.
There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.
Stagger me, then.
He should already have been staggered by what I'd already pointed out. I guess he's blind. The worldwide extent of the fossils and the strata ARE staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. What mental block do they have that interferes with their even picturing this fact?

So of course I answered:
The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.
The existence of fossils worldwide is evidence that living things existed worldwide :rolleyes: . In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood. I suppose the global existence of extant life today is because of the flood, too?
See, he can't visualize it at all, or won't even try. Perhaps it's simply paradigm-blindness but then he should take extra pains in that case to overcome his prejudice.

The existence of FOSSILS is evidence for a cataclysmic sudden burial, NOT normal life and death patterns of worldwide living things. The incredible quantity of the fossils cannot possibly be explained in terms of NORMAL life and death patterns. Dead things NORMALLY disintegrate, they do not fossilize. It takes special conditions to bring about fossilization.

AND the fact that they are found within strata is staggering evidence for a worldwide Flood. The strata are worldwide, the fossils are worldwide. Strata are normally laid down in water. Look at the stack of them in the Grand Canyon. There are no breaks, there is nothing but a wall, a stack of layer upon layer upon layer of different rocks that were formed from loose sediments. I'd made this point over and over and over but they are blind to this obvious fact.

So I answer again:
Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.
The flood explanation is utterly inadequate. The pattern of fossil forms is contradicted by hydrodynamics. In any flood, the smallest particles separate out last, the largest, first. This means all the large organisms first. What do we find at the bottom of the fossil record, bacteria. Where do we find large organisms? At the top. Exactly the opposite of what you would expect from the flood model. I could go on.
So instead of simply appreciating the obvious implication of the fact itself of the prodigious quantity of fossilized life, he shifts focus to HOW it could have happened. That is changing the subject. We don't have to know HOW it happened to know that the sheer fact of their existence in such quantities over the whole world is in itself tremendous evidence for a worldwide Flood. Also all the Hows of these things are purely speculative; he has no right to treat them as fact the way he does. He has no idea what sort of hydrodynamics would have been involved in such a Flood. All that is speculative.
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.
Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there
. Funny how there's so MUCH marine life embedded in them, though, don't you think? Embedded in stratifications too.

Also, let's keep in mind that this is part of the evidence that there were no high mountains before the Flood, but they rose afterward, as the continents moved apart on their tectonic plates.
The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood.
Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification. Why does the bottom of the geologic column not consist of breccia, followed by gravels, sands, muds & claystones, in order of particle size, as it should do if the flood occurred?
Why is he so certain what WOULD HAVE happened? He insists on being myopic about this while I'm trying to make a point about the overall big picture. I'm talking about the SHEER PRODIGIOUS QUANTITY OF FOSSILIZED LIFE AS WELL AS THE WORLDWIDE EXTENT OF THE STRATIFICATIONS. He wants to take a microscope to the bottom layer and ask utterly irrelevant questions considering the overall evidence of a Flood. He's trying to say it couldn't have happened based on some assumption of his own about HOW it would have to happen, instead of considering the staggering evidence that it DID happen which is what I'm trying to focus on.
The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.
Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.
He wasn't bothering even to think about what I meant. Most of the strata HAD to have been on the surface at one time or other for the geologic time table to have any validity.
The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.
Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.
At this point I begin to suspect some sort of mental incompetence. The prodigious quantity of such life forms and their unusual varieties are GREAT evidence for a single worldwide Flood that wiped out all living things. Living varieties now are clearly related to them but are appreciably different, which is exactly what would have happened if most of the gene pool of each species had been wiped out.
It's all consistent with the Flood story.
As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?
Right in front of his eyes, where it's always been but he just can't see it, and isn't the slightest bit interested in looking for it, just shooting off his mouth.

But I do very much appreciate what Purpledawn wrote, in a few of her posts on that thread. She's the only sane voice in the whole place. Go to message 74 for starters, I can't figure out how to link to it. This is the link to the start of the thread. Go from there to #74.

In post 74, Purpledawn says:
From what I have read of the original off topic post and the OP, Faith has already given you her evidence for a world wide flood.

Faith writes:
The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood.
The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding.

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.
In your responses all you've essentially said is that you disagree with her.
Thank you, PD. Then she responds to my opponent:
In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood.
Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?

How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.
Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification.
What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.
Why is surface disturbance irrelevant to the flood?

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.
Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.
I assume you mean inconsistent with the flood story, but again you've said it is inconsistent, but you provided nothing I could use to explain why they are inconsistent.

Ultimately a nonscientist like myself would have to digest information coming from someone like Faith and someone like yourself to decide whether I believe the flood to be world wide or not.

So far in this discussion, from the information I think I understand, I haven't seen anything that obviously tilts the scales in either direction.
Her other posts, 169, 176 and 180 continue in this same vein. In 180 she answers the charge that I'm not being scientific by saying:
Fossils, stratification, geological columns, fossil record. Sounds scientific to me.

No opinions or arguments from unbelief. Interesting.
Thank you again, PD.

poking around EvC came up with this

Here's a thread from EvC forums titled "written in the year 5767," begun by JAR with the example of a frozen mummified man, "Oetzi," who was determined by "science" to have lived 5300 years ago, which is impossible if the Flood occurred 4500 years ago, as the Biblical timeline suggests.
There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.
What do we know about Oetzi?

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

There was blood from four other people on him.

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.

So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?
This opening post is a list of assertions of supposed fact about this man that are not fact at all, but interpretations, with the exception of the statement about his shoes. This is typical of how evolution-type "science" is done.

I spend much of my own first few posts simply identifying this fact, that he has not given facts but only interpretations, and I ask for the facts upon which the interpretations were based -- a very straightforward and you would think easily accommodated request. But he doesn't give any; instead he starts interrogating me. Typical evasive tactic, especially by that particular poster, JAR.
First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.
[Faith]I would say, no, this is definitely not something you could KNOW about a mummified man, this is obviously interpretation. What is actually KNOWN about him? Perhaps that he was a certain height, had eaten certain foods, was dressed in a certain kind of garb, was found with certain items, these are the sort of things that can be actually KNOWN and even in these things there is room for error.

Age you cannot know, you can only speculate based on certain physical facts. What are those facts?

This is the most frustrating thing about reports from the sciences that follow the ToE, that the sheer facts are often not given but only the interpretation of them.
He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.
You cannot KNOW this, but only infer it from what are probably rather scanty facts. Please give all the kinds of evidence that were used to determine how long ago he lived.
His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.
What does this mean and what are the implications of this classification? What condition was his DNA in? Were good samples obtainable or only fragments? How certain are the results of the analysis?
He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.
This is clearly quite complex interpretation of some simple physical facts. What are the simple physical facts and how did they lead to this complex interpretation? How can anybody think about what you are saying if you don't give the foundations of your interpretation? All this does is create mystification in the reader.
He was around 40-50 years old when he died.
This is no doubt based on particular physical facts too. Please provide. It shouldn't be hard to give good evidence in this case.
He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.
Yes, I read a discussion of this. Analysis of stomach contents. Not absolutely certain nevertheless, but likely.
His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.
Now THAT is an actual fact for a change. I knew you had it in you! It could be more precisely stated of course -- "On his feet were found ... " etc. But I'll let you get away with that. A real fact! I'm SO happy.
There was blood from four other people on him.
Um, does this mean that there were minuscule spots and splotches of something found on and about him that when analyzed in a laboratory appeared to be human blood of four different types?
Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.
Plausible but still interpretive. How can you be sure that the pollen got into his stomach while he was eating his meal or had perhaps traveled some distance with him first?
The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.
But it is more likely that the dating of him was WAY off.
So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?
Well, the idea of the super genome is simply the most likely interpretation based on what we know from the Bible, but it could of course be wrong and need rethinking. But Oetzi doesn't prove much really since it's just the usual imaginative construction from who knows what.

How would you know what "animals, plants, spores and pollen" were "contemporary with Adam" anyway? Nothing in the above even discusses the age of these items or how they were analyzed. Nothing. Perhaps you could supply some discussion of the thinking that arrived at this conclusion, and the facts that were taken into account.

ALSO, other bodies have been found in this same glacier that were dated much later. A discussion of the differences between them and Oetzi -- the actual physical facts I mean -- might be most illuminating.
Then he picks on one of the nonfactual points, about how they determined the age of the mummy and of course it's by radiocarbon dating which is known to be unreliable, and to my mind the whole thread is already over. Too bad because it would have been nice just once at EvC to have a completely rational conversation about the actual evidence. And it would have been nice to get into just what Oetzi's genome looked like since the whole point of the thread is JAR's argument that there never was a super-genome, which is one of the hypotheses creationists come up with (but that's a whole other angle on the evolution debate I haven't begun to discuss yet).

Perhaps I'll explore this topic some more here, apart from the ridiculous frustrations imposed on me by the "scientific" minds at EvC who wouldn't know what evidence is if it bit them.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Man puts himself above God in science.

The cheekiness of the evolutionists who are always trying to prove that what God said is wrong. It's funny sometimes but mostly it ought to be scary to us. The Bible clearly says God created the earth and all living things, and they go to great lengths to say He's wrong, it didn't happen that way. They claim to know more than God; they design the Designer according to their own fallible imaginations. They ought to tremble.

Anyway, here's a recent example of one of the endless arguments against God.
When a human designs something, (s)he knows what the overall purpose of the design is, and uses that knowledge to make the design more efficient, less expensive, less complex, more dependable, etc. For example, multi-room buildings have adjacent rooms separated by integral shared walls, rather than separated by a pair of wall modules back to back between the adjacent rooms. Another example: a faucet designed to mix hot and cold water brings both water supplies to a mixing point, and has valves for modulating the ratio of the flow of hot and cold water in order to achieve different temperatures. The design of a modern single-lever faucet integrates both the mixing function and the ratio modulating function. A third example is integrated electronic circuits, which are laid out by the designer to fit in a socket with multiple pin connections for the various functions built into the design.

If life structures and processes were designed by a designer, i.e. an entity who knew how the parts would fit together and function together, one would expect to find evidence of integrated design throughout life forms. However, the structures and processes of life are largely modular. That is, the bits and pieces of living things are largely distinct from each other. Thus it is possible to smash up a living thing and get out of it pieces which work substantially as they did in the assembled life form. That property is what makes possible the research fields of biochemistry and molecular biology. Consider the proteins which are enzymes, for example. Each enzyme catalyzes a specific reaction or closely related set of reactions at a specific catalytic site on the enzyme. The catalytic site is often only a small part of the protein. In an integrated design, it could be more efficient to make multple uses of individual proteins, rather than having a different protein platform for each type of catalytic site. One would expect to find multiple catalytic sites on some proteins, each site capable of catalyzing a different reaction.

Modularity is the rule, not the exception in the design of life forms. Each piece has an existence largely independent of the other pieces. I am proposing that the absence of integrated design characteristics in life forms is scientific evidence against a designer who knew the ultimate purpose of the parts in life forms.
It doesn't seem to him that the way God did it is the way God should have done it. See what I mean? His own ability to IMAGINE what a designer would have done becomes for him evidence that no designer exists.

They should tremble over there at EvC forums for their silly human pride and their insults to God they throw out every day.

Monday, July 6, 2009

Some more thoughts in answer to my visitor, Craig

I hope Craig McQueen doesn't mind if I use his comment on a previous post to say more here. He pointed out that gradual buildup really isn't what mainstream geology believes any more, but
...also believes that fossils were deposited in rare catastrophic burial events, as far as I can tell. But not that the entire fossil record was a single event (the global flood).

I answered him that the actual facts don't support "rare catastrophic burial events" any better than they support gradual buildup OR a single worldwide Flood and such a Flood is overall a more plausible explanation.

But I'd like to continue with my previous theme of asking ourselves to imagine how all this could have come about, this time not in terms of gradual buildup but in terms of periodic rare catastrophic burial events.

How does that work? The layers of different sediments -- sometimes layers of similar sediments, but clearly recognizable separate layers in any case -- can be seen worldwide. Layering of sediments is something we know water does. It is hard to imagine any other way such layers could be created.

However, let's follow it out. Think of a layer of say, sand, full of dead life forms of a certain predictable kind. Well we know we're going to get a thick layer of sandstone eventually, in which are embedded some arrangement of fossils, and this is how it had to start out, as loose sand. The layers do contain predictable fossil contents, so that they can actually be named by their fossil content, but they all had to start out as loose sediments full of living things that died in the burial process.

The layer has to be fairly deep, and it has to get compressed over time somehow, in order to harden into rock, into sandstone. How this could happen without a stack of layers on top of it to do the compressing is already a puzzle that destroys the whole idea, but we'll proceed on anyway. It has to be hardened.

This is a periodic rare event, remember. So time has to go by while it's hardening and fossilizing, which, again, isn't going to happen because there is nothing to make it happen, but then for some reason after a VERY VERY long time ANOTHER layer of a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sediment full of DIFFERENT dead creatures suddenly catastrophically arranges itself neatly and horizontally on top of the sandstone.

Well, what we actually see IS different kinds of stone in layers in which different kinds of fossils are embedded. If this happened in periodic catatrophes something like this is how it would have happened. Isn't it? Am I being silly? Are geologists being silly? I don't know. Would they rather I imagined a whole bunch of layers at once? But then I have to imagine water sorting them, OR SOMETHING sorting them, and water is the only thing I know that does that, usually on a very small scale, so it's REALLY hard to imagine water on a less than global scale sorting layers so neatly and to such a depth and full of so many pre-fossilized and even pre-dead things as we actually see had to have occurred.

So, continuing the silly scenario, this next layer is also quite deep -- many feet deep -- and it's a completely different sediment from the first layer and it's also full of predictable dead things, DIFFERENT dead things just as the layer of sediment itself is a DIFFERENT sediment, let's say it's pulverized seashells that harden into limestone.

And again, without anything to explain how it gets hardened into a neat horizontal layer and the dead things get compressed so that they can become fossilized over time, this happens. And if it happens in say the American Southwest, then we are going to keep on imagining layer after layer after layer of different soft sediments full of different collections of living organisms being periodically sloshed over previously hardened layers, there to harden themselves before the next catastrophe.

If I'm totally off the wall, please explain.

Craig also said:

I can't believe the idea that ecological zones or hydrologic sorting would so perfectly arrange the fossils into such distinct layers, in a sequence that can be seen globally. Sure, I could imagine a general trend if the flood model were true, but I'd expect to see much more mixing, much less perfect sequencing.

Basically I answered that it's no more likely that periodic catastrophic burial events OR gradual buildup could have so perfectly arranged the fossils into such distinct layers EITHER, and really, it's less likely, so that of all the possibilities the Flood is far and away the most plausible explanation.

Also, Craig, there is no way to have an Old Earth scenario if you believe what Genesis actually says. Its time scale is very specific and doesn't lend itself to other interpretations without doing violence to the text.

P.S. It sometimes helps to keep an image in mind of just WHAT we're trying to explain either in terms of gradual buildup over millions of years, or periodic catastrophic burial events over millions of years or a single worldwide Flood. I think all you really have to do is keep in mind the Grand Canyon to see that there's no way the layers into which the canyon was cut could have been laid down gradually over millions of years OR laid down in periodic catastrophic events either. Geologists continue to talk about the formation of the canyon layers in terms of those millions of years, dating each layer to specific time periods. But keep the picture in mind: horizontal layers that cover miles and miles of terrain, all stacked on top of each other while maintaining their flat horizontal appearance. No way they happened gradually or in periodic events either. Of course it's staggering to think of the magnitude of a Flood that could have created all that all at once, but the Flood WAS of such staggering magnitude -- the usual ideas people have about it are paltry indeed compared to what a worldwide Flood would do.

Just LOOK at all that layering to such a depth! Hard to imagine a flood on such a scale but all the other explanations are much less reasonable.

Saturday, July 4, 2009


Yes, I'm going to get to unconformities and other supposed evidences that the layers full of fossils that cover the earth to a great depth were the result of gradual buildup over time. They say the unconformities can't be explained any other way. Really it's not hard at all to explain them in terms of cataclysmic events. Just so you know.

Meanwhile think about all that again. Think about the fact that where we can see the strata or layers of different sediments exposed to a great depth, such as in the Grand Canyon (but remember, the strata are found everywhere on earth, this is no local phenomenon) -- again, where we can see them to a great depth, it is very very deep indeed, a mile at minimum, two or three if you recognize the higher levels that had to have once existed above what remains.

That being the case, where did all that STUFF come from? Outer space?

Nope. Obviously what happened is that whatever the original form of the Earth, the Great Flood of Noah massively rearranged it, in some places separating out those different sediments and depositing them in layers. The material was already there; it was merely rearranged.

But in order for the usual theory to be true, that it was all gradually built up over millions of years, there has to have been an external source. And there just isn't one.

Kinda Just LOOKS LIKE it got drowned once

Now look at some satellite images of earth, such as this one for instance. Google Earth is OK if you have it but the way the images are broken up into oblong differently-colored patches can interfere with getting an impression of the usual look of the terrain. The link I posted above isn't broken up as much and gives more of the normal impression.

Look at how the surface of the earth seems to swirl, through northern Africa and across the Saudi peninsula and across the area north of India into China. Sure LOOKS like water did that, don't you think? Looks very much on a large scale the way the remaining mud looks after a small flood. Then look at the western US where there's a rippled or striped north-south effect that seems to flow from the Great Basin of Utah and Nevada toward Baja California and Mexico. Kind of LOOKS LIKE maybe a massive quantity of water once drained from that whole area to the ocean?

Sure, what it LOOKS LIKE could be an illusion. But I dunno, how come geologists don't mention such an obvious effect?

More Flood Evidence

I used to have a picture similar to this on my wall because I thought it was beautiful. Over time it started to have a depressing effect on me and eventually I took it down. It seemed to exude a musty smell of death.

I couldn't stop thinking of it as just a monument to the Great Flood in which all living things that weren't protected in the ark died.

All the earth is now to me a massive graveyard. I see it everywhere. I see it particularly for some reason in the rather forlorn-looking sculpted rocks of the Southwest. A forlorn and desolate place. Its spooky wild desolation is what starts eating at me if I look at it long enough. Such places are sometimes called "badlands," uninhabitable places. For all their weird beauty that's what they are, uninhabitable places and a massive graveyard.

Within all the layers that make up the striped effect carved out over thousands of miles in that area, are dead things. Fossils. Once-living things buried in mass profusion.

At one level of the national park in Utah known as the Grand Staircase are found "many fossils of fish and early dinosaurs from the Triassic Period" and another level contains "the best and most continuous record of Late Cretaceous terrestrial life in the world."

Of course time-defined concepts such as Triassic and Cretaceous are a delusion. The layers were not put down over great periods of time but in the single massive cataclysm of the Great Flood of Noah. For some reason the layers were distributed in such a way that the more "primitive" forms of life, meaning mostly life forms that live in water, were preserved in the lower layers deposited by the Flood, which form the walls of the Grand Canyon, south of the Grand Staircase, while the higher layers that remain preserved in the Staircase area contain the "higher" forms of life, meaning mostly animals that lived on the land. There are also fish there and in the lower layers insect life, so it's not a hard and fast rule and how the layering and depositing occurred can only be guessed at. By the look of it, though, it HAD to be done by a massive quantity of water. Nothing else makes sense.

It ought to be recognized as absurd on the face of it to think such evenly horizontal fossil-packed layers of completely different sediments -- which is what causes the striped effect -- represent millions of years of time gradually built up. That implies that each layer, in fact each fraction of a layer, was earth's surface for long periods. Just think about it. Spend an hour thinking about how it could possibly have happened over millions of years. Think about how long any flat deposit of loose sediment would stay that way on the surface of the earth. Think about how whole dinosaur skeletons that take up a lot of space could have been buried whole in gradually-built up layers of unsolidified sediment. Think about how ANY living thing could have been preserved at all if the layers were built up slowly. Fossilization takes immediate burial and hard compression to keep it all from disintegrating and leaving no record. And why on earth would a "time period" be represented by a single type of sediment or even a short stack of different types of sediments?

It can't have happened that way.