End of Year

Name-Calling vs. Fact

It is amazing to me how many times discussions with Evolutionists turn into arguing matches and lead to a lot of illogical name-calling. Tactics will turn ad hominem very quickly.  This is how a typical argument goes:

Mr. Creationist (Mr. C): Mr. Evolutionist, why do you believe in evolution when there is no scientific evidence to back it up?

Mr. Evolutionist (Mr. E): What are you talking about? There is lots of evidence to support evolution. Why do you think all scientists believe in evolution? There is not some conspiracy out there with a bunch of scientists in a smoke-filled room dictating what all other scientists must believe. They follow the evidence and draw conclusions from that evidence. The evidence points toward evolution.

Mr. C: No, the evidence points toward “micro-evolution.” There is no evidence that everything came from nothing. There is no evidence that a “singularity” could explode and create the universe. There is no evidence to show that stars formed. There is no evidence that life came from non-life. And there is no evidence to show that animals or plants are related to totally different kinds of animals or plants, such as a dog being related to a hamster.

Mr. E: Yeah, but we see small variations happen all the time, that is evolution in action. It takes such a long time for the big changes that we can’t see it happening in our lifetime, but it did happen. Just imagine all the little changes that take place happening over a long period of time and there you have it—evolution!

Mr. C: So what you’re telling me is that you don’t see the evidence but you believe it happened.

Mr. E: You know, you creationists are so stupid. You just stick your head in the sand and ignore all the science that we see today. You probably believe in a flat earth, too. You really need to catch up to what science has taught us and get on the bandwagon of reality.

And there you have it!  Mr. Evolutionist resorts to name-calling and illogical arguments in an attempt to cover up what he knows to be true and believes is a lie. The truth is that we do not see evidence of Evolution.

,

Leave75 Responses to testName-Calling vs. Fact

  1. dopi hogua January 14, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    In the words of Phillip Yancey : “no one ever converted to christianity because they lost the argument”, are we losing focus of what we are actually supposed to be doing?

  2. Mark James January 15, 2011 at 5:12 am #

    Hi Alex,

    You wrote: “… there are equally as many observations of stellar formation and starbursts, that all fit stellar models.”

    Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that modeling is usually based on a theory. The most likely candidate in this case is the nebular hypothesis, the most widely accepted model for star formation. Unfortunately this theory has some major issues explaining what we know (as fact) about our immediate neighbourhood of the universe. Surely good science demands that a theory accurately models what we know for certain before we trust it to provide evidence for things unknown?

    I acknowledge that your post refers to stellar models (plural). But if this is correct and more than one theory is being used, it is logical to assume that they are competing theories (otherwise they would not be separate theories at all). It is also logical to assume that none of these theories work any better in explaining the things we know for certain because, if they did, the nebular hypothesis would (or, should) have been abandoned.

  3. John Bebbington January 15, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    Duane wrote: “Who says it (the universe) has to expand into anything?”

    Quite right, Duane. The point I was trying (but obviously failing) to make was that, if the universe is still expanding creation has not been completed which is contrary to what fundamentalists believe.

  4. Jack Napper January 15, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that modeling is usually based on a theory.

    Here we go. Hey kids, it’s time “it’s just a theory”!

    The most likely candidate in this case is the nebular hypothesis, the most widely accepted model for star formation.

    Atleast once, pick up a dictionary. You might wanna also look up Scientific model.

    Unfortunately this theory has some major issues explaining what we know (as fact) about our immediate neighbourhood of the universe.

    Care to elaborate or do you just make statements and run?

    Surely good science demands that a theory accurately models what we know for certain before we trust it to provide evidence for things unknown?

    Since you didn’t bother elaborate it’s rather difficult to delve too deeply into this one. I’m sure it ‘s going to be an old familiar argument like “well it does explain this”. When you see E=MC^2 do you blast physicists with something like “Einstein’s wrong because he didn’t explain where the energy came from””?

    Also theories are not perfect. No one ever suggested they are. Neither are laws. No one ever suggested they are (except Eric and Sye-what’s his face). You might wanna grab that dictionary now.

    Here’s I’ll help you out with a little tid-bit.

    In scientific usage, the term “theory” is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena. Such theories are constructed from elementary theorems that consist in empirical data about observable phenomena. A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.

    I acknowledge that your post refers to stellar models (plural). But if this is correct and more than one theory is being used, it is logical to assume that they are competing theories (otherwise they would not be separate theories at all).

    No as you are working from the assumption that things work only one way all the time. In short the answer is not necessarily as this could true in some instances. In all probability…NO. There are hundreds of atomic models. Does this mean we have hundreds of atomic theories? NOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    It is also logical to assume that none of these theories work any better in explaining the things we know for certain because, if they did, the nebular hypothesis would (or, should) have been abandoned.

    FACEPALM

    Double facepalm for jumbling up and trying to use terms interchangeably.

    Triple facepalm for claiming you assumption was logical as it’s clearly based on arguments from ignorance.

    Quadruple facepalm if you post a comment pointing out the obvious childishness in the latter half of this post and try and pass it off as an intellectual post.

  5. Stephen Holshouser January 15, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    John Bebbington,

    “I have no faith whatsoever in evolution any more than I have faith in metallurgy or the science of cheese-making. What can be shown to work and work predictably is good enough for me.”

    No faith in evolution, John? Why, your faith moves mountains! Here’s proof from this very same thread

    “But no cell came into existence by chance. Whatever the process was it was a very slow development and happened because the machinery within the walls of the primitive cell tended to survive to reproduce. Overall, that was not a matter of chance although the ability of any particular cell to survive was chance, a bit like the ability of a human being to survive to maturity and have offspring. Not all of us manage to grow to adulthood although human beings as a population do survive and reproduce.”

    Let’s see you or anyone else show this to work and work predictably. Something tells me you’ll lower your standards to hang on to your squalor.

  6. andrew Ryan January 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    Jeff Brace: “If it is not charity, why are we able to deduct tithes from our tax return. All churchs for the most part are 503c entities.”

    You may well ask, Jeff! Why indeed? Blame special interests and lobbyists.

  7. Jack Napper January 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    Philip Kingsley Subas spewed…
    I would suggest to use the word Expanded instead of exploded, Let us not give an opportunity for the evolutionists to say that as an excuse.

    Mark James belched up…
    Now, if Eric were to suggest that The Theory of
    Evolution (referring to Darwinian evolution) included these
    processes, then you would have something to complain about.

    Is this where I get to complain?

    Manuel Little started making a decent point and the it went downhill immediately when discussing high education…
    But there’s no definition from the start about who an “Evolutionist” is, and therefore the meaning is left to encompass ALL evolutionists, including micro-evolutionists. That’s a pretty bad start for an argument or should we say “a good start” if arguing is the intent”

    It would be rather nice if we could have a nailed down definition from a Creationist but it will never happen. The problem is that Creationists dump every piece of science from all disciplines they don’t like along with any philosophical belief and slap the label EVOLUTIONISM on it. So if you accept Evolutionary Theory as valid you are an Evolutionist. However, this also means you are an Atheist, Polytheist (yeah I wonder if most notice the contradiction) God Denialist, Sinner, Satanist, Pagan, “Big Banger”, Anti-Science………and so on and so forth ad nauseum.

    Of course none of that could ever be considered as vomitting up ad homs in the Creationists mind. I mean after all one or more of them could be true, right? Then again by that same line of reasoning calling someone an idiot, a retard or just plain stupid isn’t either. After all atleast one of them could be right.

    Julie Collins whined…

    i have been researching creation science for awhile. and
    every time i get into a debate with evolutionists, it is them who
    always start the ad hominem attacks. i will not deny that
    creationists also steep to name calling and other logical
    fallacies, but it has never been nearly as bad with creationists
    than it has been with evolutionists.

    Since when does your ability to use the Google machine count as research? Second I refer you to my comment above. You’ll find more often than not it’s the other way around.

  8. andrew Ryan January 15, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    Stephen H: “I was just pointing out that the believers I know personally are very generous with their time and money.”

    And I already told you that the non-believers I know are also very generous with their time and money. We both apparently have nice friends. So what?

    Yes, self reporting surveys on moral behaviour are notoriously unreliable when third-party checking is done on people’s claims. So why offer me surveys that we both know cannot be trusted. All we’re left with is your personal anecdotes, which I can match.

    Your question on life and death was not simple. Can you tell me when a virus is dead? Sure it’s easier to say when a dog is dead on a highway, or when your Aunty Nora passes on, but you’re talking about the first early life forms, which would have been much simpler, and closer to simple chemical reactions.

  9. Alex M January 15, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    @ Mark,
    I’m not aware of any problems that the current stellar evolution model (or models, more on that later) have with explaining our immediate neighborhood. I’m sure you’re aware of the discovery of T-Tauri stars throughout the Galaxy, and many of the closest ones can be shown to have proto-planetary disks as expected. Main-Sequence stars do not have Proto-Planetary discs, but do have planets which also have been observed. In fact there are many observation of pre-main sequence stars that must (if the basic laws of thermodynamics are true of course) be relatively young (several hundred thousand/million years old).

    As for my plural use of the word models, that’s merely referring to the variation of the canonical stellar evolution model currently studied. The main model is correct within a certain error margin. While that is sufficient to explain almost all of the stellar phenomena and observations, there are always new and more precise observations that may be dissonant with some parts of the model. My pluralization was merely to reflect that the stellar evolution model is constantly improved through small modifications, and the most “fit” models survive!

    It’s the theory of evolution at it’s best! :)

  10. Jack Napper January 15, 2011 at 11:29 pm #

    A little bit of fun…

    STEPHEN
    Actually, if you had a good answer you would have given it. The problem with atheistic evolution’s view on the origin of life is that it is so easy to disprove, it always looks like a strawman, not matter what evolutionist explains it, so I guess I can’t blame you for avoiding the question of what life came from.

    No one is avoided it. However, if you ask the question in reference to evolutionary theory you’ve shown your hand and it’s not good. I wonder if the other Creationist posters are starting to see this pattern. Now you are asking if I know for certain the exact stage of events such as A lead to B then lead to C the answer is no. That’s called intellectual HONESTY. However, my inability to answer (or provide one that’s not miles over you head) does not somehow validate your God of the gaps.

    In fact, I think the only reason you originally objected to the phrase “life from non-life” is because it so simply, yet precisely reveals what you believe.

    I object to it because I despise those who insist on butchering the English language spouting off their latest favorite catch phrases.

    Don’t get mad at us because your theory is lame. If you don’t like the criticism, come up with a viable theory, but until then, you own “life from non-life.”

    So you think E-MC^2 is lame because it doesn’t explain where the energy and matter come from? Seriously that’s the argument you are making? Also you again show your hand that Pasteur was referring to spontaneous generation of fully form organisms (grain into rats). Thanks for playing, now on your way.

    MARK
    When it is “good science” I am more than happy to agree. Unfortunately your definition of “good science” and my definition of “good science” seem to be very different on this blog, which means we are unlikely to agree with each other very often (which was the point of my original post).

    Unfortunately you haven’t done much in the way to show you can tell the difference.

    If you go back and read my post you willl see that my point was actually to explain to Jack that, if all the chemicals for life are present but not alive, the use of the term “non-life” is more than valid.

    Could you give me an example of hydrogen that is alive and one that’s not? How about helium? Nitrogen? Oxygen? Yeah, great job on that whole ‘good science’ thing.

  11. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Hi John,

    In reply to Jeff you wrote:

    “Wrong again, Jeff. The denominator you have written is 1 billion 340 million which is 1 followed by fewer than 11 zeros count them for yourself. You are wrong by an order of magnitude of 34 million”

    If you’d taken a few seconds to attempt to interpret what Jeff wrote you would have realized that he intended to write 1/10^340,000,000. I’m sure he’s not the only person to be caught out but the fact that this blog doesn’t allow superscript exponentiation.

    Then you wrote: “But no cell came into existence by chance. Whatever the process was it was a very slow development and happened because the machinery within the walls of the primitive cell tended to survive to reproduce.”

    This makes no sense at all!! You seem to be suggesting that the cell wall and its machinery were already there and enabled the cell to come into existence. Where did this cell wall and its machinery come from?

  12. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    John (again),

    You wrote: “Is anything I have written in that paragraph erroneous?”

    Where did anyone suggest that this type of personal attack has to be erroneous? Whether it is false, true or you just believe it to be one or the other doesn’t matter, if a comment addresses the person rather than the topic at hand then it is ad hominem.

  13. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    John (again),

    You wrote: “A slight difference, Mark. Firstly, jumping in front of a moving train is a reproducible and demonstrable hazard. The idea of an everlasting hell is nothing more than a relatively modern ill-thought-out and untestable supernatural belief.”

    You missed the point completely – the concept of hell has nothing to do with it. Your post blames creationsts for something that we are, in fact, trying to prevent. In this light, my post is absolutely relevant.

    You also wrote: “The truth of evolution requires no decision by anybody. Indeed, evolution was true billions of years before modern man had evolved.”

    The fact that you have decided to believe it is true doesn’t necessarily make it true. I admire your faith, I just don’t agree with it.

  14. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    Hi Jennifer,

    You wrote: “In this day and age to work in Science you are expected to have at least a PhD in a relevant subject.”

    This is true but does it necessarily work for the advancement of science? Let’s take a look at how such qualifications are obtained. The recipients start out at school where they are taught the basics of prevailing scientific theories. They then progress to university where again the teaching relies heavily upon prevailing theories, albeit in considerably more detail. Up to this point, success has required answering exam questions in a way that those setting the curriculum require, which means parroting the prevailing scientific theories, and students are often well and truly indoctrinated (through no fault of their own, I might add). They then progress to post-graduate work. In most cases this presents the first opportunity for independent research but supervisors and review panels are required and funding must be found, all of which are again governed almost exclusively by the scientific establishment.

    I would suggest that the majority of PhDs produced by this process are bound ideologically and financially to upholding the theories that they have been taught. And I would argue that it is not good for the advancement of science.

    Contrast this to a little known (at the time) German patent clerk, with no formal science qualifications, whose theories revolutionized our understanding of physics.

  15. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    Hi Jack,

    You wrote: “Now you can play your semantics game all you want but you apparently never bothered to open a dictionary or are attempting to apply the word to instance outside of the other definitions. FAIL”

    The definition I gave in the post you are referring to is from a dictionary. I have since looked at another couple of dictionaries and they all have the same, or similar, definition. In all cases what I assume is your definition is also listed – as an alternative definition under the heading Biology. I suggest you open a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word FAIL!

    This, then, makes the first part of your post look rather ridiculous.

    You wrote: “Firstly your description of how evolution works is wrong. SOMETHING does not turn into SOMETHING else. Species evolve. Populations evolve. Individuals do NOT.”

    You have taken your preferred definition, imposed it on another valid definition and then claim that you have proven the second definition wrong. And you believe yourself!

    Next you wrote: “I started as a baby. Then I was a child. Then a teen. Now I am an adult. Does that mean I evolved?

    Did you change into something different? No, you just got older and bigger. Did you change into something more complex? I’m not sure. Did you evolve? Tough question.

    And: “My city used to be a town. Did it evolve?”

    Town planners might use the word evolution to describe the transformation of a town into a city. I probably would not.

  16. charles morrell January 16, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    Just recently came across this site and have read the approx.
    50 responses before this entry…..So this question I pose is for
    all of the above evolutionists to answer. First of all TIME is a very important component . Let us forget for a moment the three basic factors that Science, science investigation, must contain for this will not work here
    Question :You (evolutionists) believe the first form of Life was bacterial……more precise a single cell and IT grew from there.
    We can say it is not vegetable or mineral as IT is in the water. So, to grow,expand and to thrive and reproduce this IT ate or consumed what ?

  17. Mark James January 16, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    Hi Duane,

    You wrote: “Have you even been paying attention to Kent and Eric? This IS what they suggest. They have always included these non-related fields when they discuss the Theory of Evolution.”

    Actually, quite the opposite is true. The Hovinds separate out 6 different definitions for evolution, all of which must have involved evolutionary processes i.e. gradual change from a less complex to a more complex form – if they were ever to have happened. Two of these definitions, macro and micro evolution, combine to make what would be called “Darwinian” evolution.

    To discuss the first 4 definitions at the same time as discussing the last 2 is quite different to including the them in the definition of the 2.

  18. Stephen Holshouser January 17, 2011 at 7:10 am #

    Duane,

    The Bible does say there are, were, and will be those that care nothing about people, but only for their money (Titus 1:11). However, that takes nothing away from the Bible-practicing ministers that don’t love money. You need to read the Bible qualifications for deacons and elders in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5, which DISqualifies those who love money.

    I agree there are a lot of scammers out there, no question about it. Have you really not been able to find ANY Bible-practicing churches or Christians?? … I know of many. You read the Bible and tell me if Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John were living for money.

  19. andrew Ryan January 17, 2011 at 11:11 am #

    Charles Morrell:
    “So, to grow,expand and to thrive and reproduce this IT ate or consumed what?”

    The energy from the sun would provide it with the energy it needed to thrive. There would still have been plenty of minerals too.

  20. Jack Napper January 17, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    The definition I gave in the post you are referring to is from a dictionary.

    Yep and you cherry picked the one that you like in an effort to pay the semantics (you might weanna look that one up too) game. Sorry Marky Mark but FAIL.

    You have taken your preferred definition, imposed it on another valid definition and then claim that you have proven the second definition wrong. And you believe yourself!

    Uber-facepalm. Seriously are you try to go round about or what here? If anyone is playing a game it’s you.

    Did you change into something different? No, you just got older and bigger. Did you change into something more complex? I’m not sure. Did you evolve? Tough question.

    Firstly you state that evolution is simply chage over time. Now it has to be in complexity? Organisms do not necessarily have to become more complex to have evolved. I’m sure you’ve been listening to too many Hovind seminars. Evolution is not about BIGGER BETTER STRONGER blah blah blah. Here I thought you said you bothered picking up a dictionary.

    Town planners might use the word evolution to describe the transformation of a town into a city. I probably would not.

    Thanks for the great example of contradiction and cherry picking as well as proving my point.

  21. Stephen Holshouser January 17, 2011 at 7:46 pm #

    Andrew Ryan,

    Again with the charity thing; You questioned whether people lie about their giving, I said that some people probably do, but I can personally verify that the ones I know really, actually are generous, that’s all. Have you seen the charity checks clear the bank for your friends, brother, etc. ?

    “Your question on life and death was not simple. Can you tell me when a virus is dead? Sure it’s easier to say when a dog is dead on a highway, or when your Aunty Nora passes on, but you’re talking about the first early life forms, which would have been much simpler, and closer to simple chemical reactions.”

    And just how did you know that my Aunty Nora passed on? That’s a bit troubling…

    I’m trying to get you to describe to me the first thing that you believe ever replicated itself. According to your theory, there was something that first replicated itself. This “something,” according to many atheistic evolutionists, came about by natural processes. I think it will be very beneficial for us to ponder this and to follow this out to its logical end. Please, no more stalling.

    Hey, I met a guy named Andrew Ryan the other day. I thought, man what a coincidence! What if this is the same guy I’ve been writing to on that blog? I didn’t mention my last name just in case my presence would have inflamed you, if it was you, just teasing you, I bet we would get along in person.

  22. Alex M January 17, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    @ Mark James

    “Contrast this to a little known (at the time) German patent clerk, with no formal science qualifications, whose theories revolutionized our understanding of physics.”

    Wow, are you comparing the Hovinds to Einstein? Einstein had to undergo rigorous mathematical preparation in tensor analysis before formulating his theory of relativity. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve dabbled in tensor calculus and it isn’t easy. Even though not obtaining a PhD (Hint: you need to be fluent in tensor calculus to have a PhD in cosmology), Einstein was very well educated in the mathematics required to understand the universe.

    THIS is why the Hovinds aren’t qualified to talk about cosmology.Also, i feel this discussion has strayed from the point that senior academics do not need to resort to personal insults as they have a sufficient mathematical understanding of the universe to support their theories.

  23. Stephen Holshouser January 17, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Jack Napper emits,
    “No one is avoided it. However, if you ask the question in reference to evolutionary theory you’ve shown your hand and it’s not good. I wonder if the other Creationist posters are starting to see this pattern. Now you are asking if I know for certain the exact stage of events such as A lead to B then lead to C the answer is no. That’s called intellectual HONESTY. However, my inability to answer (or provide one that’s not miles over you head) does not somehow validate your God of the gaps.”

    Translation; “I have absolutely no clue how life started, but however it happened, it definitely wasn’t “poofed” into existence by God.”
    Thank you, Jack, for your honesty. The reason you have no idea is because it is well known that life can’t just appear. The most brilliant group of scientists, generating the ideal environment, with the most advanced technology can’t create life, but you still hope that, somehow, some way, it did happen by itself, after all, we are here, so life from non-life MUST have happened on its own since there is no God, right? It’s such a no-brainer, why didn’t I realize that before!

    “I object to it because I despise those who insist on butchering the English language spouting off their latest favorite catch phrases.”

    You “despise those”?? Dial it back a little. You’re going to facepalm yourself right into a stroke or something.

    “So you think E-MC^2 is lame because it doesn’t explain where the energy and matter come from? Seriously that’s the argument you are making? Also you again show your hand that Pasteur was referring to spontaneous generation of fully form organisms (grain into rats). Thanks for playing, now on your way.”

    No, your theory is lame because you and evolutionism (you own this term too and like it) propose that life, energy, and matter, all came into existence by itself without the purpose, power, and intelligence of Almighty God. Also, you do believe what Pasteur disproved, except you believe it just needed some more time for the rats to show up.

    Now that the left side of your body is numb, insert facepalm here ( ).

  24. Duane January 17, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    @John Bebbington.

    Sorry, I misread yours and somehow lost track of the loonies, which you are not one.

    @charles morrell January 16th at 9:34 pm

    “Just recently came across this site and have read the approx.
    50 responses before this entry…So this question I pose is for
    all of the above evolutionists to answer. First of all TIME is a very important component . Let us forget for a moment the three basic factors that Science, science investigation, must contain for this will not work here
    Question :You (evolutionists) believe the first form of Life was bacterial more precise a single cell and IT grew from there.
    We can say it is not vegetable or mineral as IT is in the water. So, to grow,expand and to thrive and reproduce this IT ate or consumed what ?”

    What do you think current one-celled organisms do for food now? Some create their own from naturally occurring elements, others ingest other single-celled organisms. I found this in 2 seconds on Google.

    @Stephen Holshouser January 17th at 7:10 am

    “Duane,

    The Bible does say there are, were, and will be those that care nothing about people, but only for their money (Titus 1:11). However, that takes nothing away from the Bible-practicing ministers that don’t love money. You need to read the Bible qualifications for deacons and elders in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, and 1 Peter 5, which DISqualifies those who love money.

    I agree there are a lot of scammers out there, no question about it. Have you really not been able to find ANY Bible-practicing churches or Christians?? I know of many. You read the Bible and tell me if Jesus, Paul, Peter, James, and John were living for money.”

    There are the outright scammers, but even the most benign church is perpetuating a scam. They’ve taken an ancient superstition, pretend it is real and collect 10% of the income of the poorest, least educated segment of society by exploiting them. If someone wants to pay an exorbitant amount for a golf club membership or country club, it’s on them. They can afford it and they know what they are getting into. Churches misrepresent reality, make outrageous false promises and exaggerated claims and sell what is basically an invisible product. They do this by exploiting people’s ignorance and fear and greed. If I give my money to a charity, I know what it is for. Giving money to a church is implied as giving money to Jesus to buy our way into heaven and out of Hell. It is a completely irrational belief and is perpetuated by indoctrinating children when they are most vulnerable and feeding the adults fake “science” like the Hovinds do when they start to have doubts. I’ve studied both sides of the issue and one side doesn’t have all the answers but it making efforts to find them. The other side consistently lies about both their own and the other side’s positions. This isn’t Democrats versus Republicans with just a difference of opinion. One side claims to speak for GOD with all the Authority that is implied. They can be specific about what He likes and doesn’t like but when pressed about His actual existence the best they can do is a vague first cause argument and claims that “He lives outside of science and the universe” conveniently out of our reach. You’ve got nothing but a big book of multiple choice that you ignore 3/4 of and lord the remaining 1/4 over the rest of us (and bits and pieces of that 3/4 when trying to justify your bigotry). It tells us nothing that a patriarchal community of 2500 years ago couldn’t have known. Any mathematical trickery is easily explainable as mnemonic devices to aid what was for years a verbal record. Taking lines that have actual meaning in context out of context and reading into them some vague significance doesn’t make for prophesies fulfilled, nor does any messianic prophesy since Jesus didn’t become the messiah (Oh, that’s for the second coming).

    I’m sorry you guys are so wrapped up in this fantasy you can’t look at it objectively, but if you ever could, you would realize how peculiar it really is. It just amuses me to no end to see people complain how current stellar evolution models don’t explain the lack of neutrinos emanating from the sun so their magic invisible man theory must be right.

  25. Mark James January 18, 2011 at 3:39 am #

    Hi Alex,

    You wrote: “I’m not aware of any problems that the current stellar evolution model”

    One of the major problems is angular momentum. The sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of the angular momentum. This is directly opposite to what the nebular hypothesis would predict.

    Apparently scientists have proposed that the sun has slowed down over time but to satisfy conservation of angular momentum, it would have to have started rotating at 35,000 times its present rate i.e. approx. once every minute, or so. The rotational velocity at the equator would have been more than 72,000 km/s, or nearly one quarter the speed of light, which is absurd.

    The theory seems to fail by a huge margin when used to model our own solar system but it is still used as the basis for modelling the rest of the universe. Finding phenomena elsewhere in the universe that are predicted by the model won’t help make the theory any more ‘fit.’

    And, Jack, when predicting outcomes, models use assumptions. To make assumptions you must first start with a theory.