Our Websites

Response to Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell

Dear Christine,

Great job in your recent debate! I’ve debated scores of evolutionists and have a small bit of advice after the “Do you believe in evolution?” question you got. Here’s what I would have said, “What do you mean by the word evolution?” That word has six different and unrelated meanings.

  1. Cosmic evolution is the belief that the universe came into being out of nothing by the “Big Bang.”
  2. Chemical evolution is the belief that all 92 elements evolved from hydrogen from the Big Bang.
  3. Stellar evolution is the belief that all 70 sextillion stars evolved and formed into the intricate complex galaxies we see from the dust clouds.
  4. Organic evolution is the belief that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter.
  5. Macro-evolution is the belief that plants and animals can change into different kinds over eons of time.
  6. Micro-evolution is the belief that plants and animals can produce varieties within the kind but the variations are limited and never produce a new kind.

So, you need to define exactly which of these meanings you are referring to. I do believe in micro-evolution, but think it is a bad term. It should just be called “flexible design ability,” or something like that. All of human observations over the last 4,000 years have shown us that dogs produce dogs and corn produces corn without exception. If someone chooses to believe that dogs and corn are related to some common ancestor “long ago and far away,” that is their business. I support freedom of religion and that idea would certainly qualify as a religion, not science. Although the current political climate may feel we should not have religion in tax-funded schools, under that premise, I would support getting all of the first five religious meanings of the word “evolution” removed from schools. Those ideas should be taught in liberal churches and all taxpayers should not be required to fund these religious teachings as is currently happening.

Advantageous suggestion

Christine: Please watch my video #4 (“Lies in the Textbooks“) free of charge on our website when things calm down for your schedule. We don’t need to get creation in schools or evolution out. We need to get LIES out. That will remove all “evidence” used to support the silly evolution religion, and it will die on the vine. We are praying for you. Even if you win, the problems you will face are gigantic! II Chronicles 7:14 is the only hope for America

Leave42 Responses to testResponse to Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell

  1. Mike Ayala October 19, 2010 at 7:33 am #

    Hey Dr. Hovind,

    I kind of like the idea of corn dogs – especially with mustard. So corn dogs aren’t chimeras or a plant/animal hybrid?

    Have you ever thought of doing a sort of briefing pack for politicians that would quickly get them up to speed on many of the basics of how bankrupt evolution is in all its forms and its effect on public policy? It would be helpful for candidates who hold principled views on the subject, and it would be a great welcome-to-the-office gift for the rookies just entering office.

    God bless and protect you, and thank you for the massive influence you are having over my family. My children are incurable creationists because of your ministry.

    Mike Ayala

  2. Mike Ayala October 19, 2010 at 7:38 am #

    http://www.drdino.com/fractured-fairy-tales

    Hovind October 12th, 2010

    Hi Duane,

    Thank you for your post. It is a breath of fresh air to rise above the scrum (a rugby term) to be able to examine these topics in a rational way.

    I agree: I do not like dishonest and false arguments. Such indicate a lack of general understanding at best and more likely intentional spreading of disinformation or a combination of both.

    What is unhelpful in the discussions on this site is: 1. The intentional noise submitted that some hope will drown out the signal of truth; 2. Focusing attention on secondary issues without first dealing with the foundational issues – that is, missing the big points while dwelling on minor issues which would evaporate once the foundational issues are settled. Once we establish based on what is observed how the mechanisms of life operate, then we can fruitfully discuss the implications of what we observe.

    Responding to your points, things have not changed much since Darwin’s day. Yes, science has moved on a tad, but Darwinism through evolution has not. If it has moved at all, it has moved in what I consider to be the wrong direction. Evolutionists have been spending the last 150 years trying to cover their back sides perpetuating the basic fundamental errors of Darwin. The basic premise and tenants of Evolution stand today just as they did in Darwin’s day.

    Please take a simple test to see if that is true:

    1. Given enough time, can one species be transformed into another species through many gradual changes?
    2. Do mutations add information?
    3. Are mutations best described as Lamarck described them or as Mendel described them?
    4. Is inheritance purpose driven or is it controlled by DNA?
    5. Does DNA change from parent to progeny adding beneficial information?
    6. Does Natural Selection design organisms?
    7. Is Natural Selection responsible for the diversity of all life from a common ancestor?

    Maybe even more to the point, do you think the editors of Scientific American would be willing to print on the front cover that Darwin’s primary premise of Evolution is not true: There is no limit to the amount of variation that Natural Selection can provide?

    Examining what Darwin proposed for Evolution is important and helpful because it is still the bedrock basis of Evolution today, and it also shows what was really born out of assumption and speculation. The sad fact is Darwin’s ideas have been perpetuated until the present with little change.

    In order to see just what changes have occurred in Evolution in the last 150 years, here’s a quick survey of the highlights of the history of Evolution since Darwin:

    To Darwin, the cell was not much more than just a bag of salts. In that day they did not have the wealth of knowledge we take for granted today. They could see the cell and it’s nucleus, but they were clueless about it’s protein structure, the lock and key mechanisms of metabolism, and the rigid structure of information storage and retrieval and its replication and transmission.

    Haeckel’s Monera soon burst upon the scene. This was an outright lie. He gave extensive detail about non-existent life forms which were purely the product of his imagination.

    In 1868, Thomas Huxley gave the world Bathybius Haekleii, the supposed primordial ooze which was an early embarrassment for evolution and was easily discredited 1872, but not before it had done much damage. It revealed how some could be malicious and disingenuous in spreading evolutionary dogma at the expense of the truth.

    Vestigial Organs: In the 1890’s – 180 organs; Today – 0. This speaks for itself. Vestigial Organs can be translated as “supreme ignorance of physiology”.

    Miller – Urey experiment in the 1950’s demonstrated how life could not arise spontaneously. What they actually produced was a mixture of toxic waste, lethal acids, and mixed racemates. The media reported that life was created by scientists. That was an embarrassing disconnect from reality. The truth is dirty random mass action chemistry produces random chemicals; Life critically depends on perfect specificity to the atom, perfect chemical specification and optically pure chemistry. Evolution cannot exist without dirty mass action chemistry.

    Junk DNA – the modern version of Vestigial Organs:

    A. Haldane’s Dilema 1957: With the discovery of DNA, Haldane recognized the complexity of life created the problem of a mathematical impossibility for evolution as it had been taught since Darwin: There was not enough time for Natural Selection to select for millions of new mutations. Evolution had run into the impenetrable wall of the complexity of life.

    B. Kimura 1968: Proposed Neutral Evolution to answer Haldane’s dilemma – Natural Selection acts on only “Important” bits of DNA and Neutral Evolution acts on the rest.

    C. Ohno 1972: Proposed Junk DNA based on Neutral Evolution – Invented to solve a Haldane’s theoretical evolutionary dilemma.

    Junk DNA was another embarrassment in Evolution’s history.

    “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century… The failure to recognize the full implications of this – particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules – may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” (John Mattick, The Unseen Genome: Gems Among The Junk)

    Fairly recently Stephen Gould and Niles Eldridge recognizing the inadequacy of the fossil record to support evolution as it had been taught came up with the Hopeful Monster hypothesis, also known as Punctuated Equilibrium. In tongue & cheek fashion, the only redeeming value of Punctuated Equilibrium is that it is only close to being true in a single case which was observed and reported in Genesis Chapter 1. Since then entropy has had a deleterious effect on DNA. The evidence show’s it’¢s been all downhill since then.

    Concerning your and Stephen Gould’s criticism of using his statement in a way he considers inappropriate, both of you are missing the big point and focusing on the moot point minutia.

    “The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

    1) Stasis most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

    2) Sudden appearance in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed”

    Stephen Gould’s exact reason for proposing punctuated equilibrium also happens to coincide with that which is taught by creationists: There are no transitions because they never happened. Gould is just being a bit more honest about what is observed in physical reality than what evolutionists would like him to be.

    The big point is: The lack of transitional forms is such a big problem, so much so that the Hopeful Monster had to be created to compensate for the silence of the fossil record to support evolution. Stephen Gould’s observation is still an observation by a paleontologist – and a seemingly rabid anti-creationists paleontologist at that. He may not like the implications of his observation as expressed by those who believe contrarily to him, but it is still a valid observation. If the problem of the lack of transitional forms was not real, then he would not have found it necessary to develop the Hopeful Monster hypothesis.

    The issue of transitional forms is not really that big of an issue in itself except for the fact that Darwin himself recognized and wrote that,

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (OOS Page 189)

    And,

    “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. (OOS Page 280)

    .

    If Darwin could recognize and acknowledge this “ most obvious and gravest objection “, the lack of transitional forms, then why is it so difficult for so many smart and intelligent adherents to Evolution to also recognize and acknowledge it?

    The basics of Evolution have not changed since Darwin. Are you willing to say that Darwin’s General Theory of Evolution is not true: There is no limit to the amount of variation that natural selection can provide?

    “Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by his powers of artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature’s power of selection” (OOS Page 109)

    This was based wholly on Darwin’s misunderstanding of the complexity of life.

    Are you willing to say that the DNA of a species can for no explicable reason just change and remain fully functioning so that it becomes another species? It is one thing, the change of a few nucleotide substitutions, to cause the slight variation of a beak. It is a total rewrite job to change a cow into a whale. Can you see the absolute ridiculousness of it?

    Are you willing to say that Darwin was wrong about natural selection, that it does not do what he claimed it did: unlimited change?

    Do you think the folks at Scientific American would be willing to say that Darwin was wrong about natural selection and that one species cannot morph into another species?

    These issues have not changed in the last 150 years. Only once we understand the mechanisms of Natural Selection, inheritance, and variation as observed can we then rationally discuss the implications of these.

    Darwin understood that he needed fossil evidence to even begin to establish his hypothesis as a robust theory.

    “… The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” (OOS page 280).

    Let the logic do its work:

    Darwin did not have the transition of the horse in his day. You will need to take it up with Boyce Rensberger about whether it has been discarded or merely modified. I suppose it depends upon with which evolutionist you speak about it.

    “The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today’s much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown”.

    (Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, November 5, 1980, p. 15.)

    I do not see how you can surmise from your quoted statement that Raup is suggesting that the horse progression has only been modified – especially when considering the last sentence of your quote:

    “So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”

    If Darwin’s dilemma had not been alleviated in the last 120 years, and Darwin complained that he had no fossil evidence to support his hypothesis including the horse progression,

    “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”,

    and Raup does say “ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time”, then it appears very unsafe to conclude that the horse progression is not in the least disputed among evolutionists and that its flaws and shortcomings do not undermine its legitimacy as valid evidence for evolution. This is reinforced by:

    “But perhaps the most serious weakness of Darwinism is the failure of paleontologists to find convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change… The horse is often cited as the only fully worked-out example. But the fact is that the line from Eohippus to Equus is very erratic. It is alleged to show a continual increase in size, but the truth is that some variants were smaller than Eohippus, not larger. Specimens from different sources can be brought together in a convincing-looking sequence, but there is no evidence that they were actually ranged in this order in time.”

    (Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 230.)

    Evolution has been built on the assumption that life is simple. Evolution has been built on the assumption that inheritance is purpose driven. Evolution has been built on the assumption that mutations add information. Evolution has been built on the assumption that there is no limit to the amount of variation that Natural Selection can provide.

    “Assumptions can be dangerous, especially in science. They usually start as the most plausible or comfortable interpretation of the available facts. But when their truth cannot be immediately tested and their flaws are not obvious, assumptions often graduate to articles of faith, and new observations are forced to fit them. Eventually, if the volume of troublesome information becomes unsustainable, the orthodoxy must collapse.”

    (The Hidden Genetic Program Of Complex Organisms, John S. Mattick, Scientific American 2004)

    God bless you, Duane.

    Mike Ayala

  3. Jay Liemowitz October 19, 2010 at 8:46 am #

    I still can’t believe you’re trotting out the so called 6 definitions. I won’t go through the list again as I did some months back.

    I’ll only ask that you please show me one scientist who refers to any of the first 4 of your definitions as “evolution” as a proper name. So far as I know, you are the only person (apart from your son and others at CSE), that has ever defined evolution in these terms.

    I agree that evolution has more than one meaning, as does almost every word in the English language. Evolution means “change”. But you know full well that the question posed to Mrs. O’Donnell was not asking “do you believe in change?”. The question was, “Do you believe in the theory of evolution, as defined in biological sciences”. Context is key here.

    I honestly can not figure out if you’re being intentionally obtuse with this continued mischaracterization of science or if your seriously this slow to realize the mistake. If you want to attack big bang cosmology (I know you do), plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, and well… every other field of science, then at least learn to call the fields by their proper names. Calling them all “evolution” is just plain silly.

    Jay

  4. Charles Mercier October 19, 2010 at 8:57 am #

    When I heard that question, I was praying that she had heard of Dr. Dino. Almost screaming at the TV saying, “What about Chemical evolution?” But I realize she would have blown their minds with your answers. Love you guys, thanks for everything you are doing to spread God’s plan.

  5. Ed Snipples October 19, 2010 at 9:46 am #

    Then you will get zero votes for not knowing what evolution is.

  6. Kyle Rutherford October 19, 2010 at 10:18 am #

    Eric, let me explain something simple for you that you might understand. Evolution simply means ‘change.’ That’s all it means. However, when someone refers to evolution, they are referring to biological evolution. They are not referring to the big bang or they would of stated the big bang. They are not referring to chemicals forming from hydrogen to all the other chemicals, which is possible with enough heat and pressure. They are not referring to how stars form or how life first began. If they were referring to how life first began, they would be calling it abiogenesis or biopesis. If someone asks her if she believes in evolution, they are asking her if she accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection.

    We have a ton of evidence for evolution and your suggestion to just remove the evidence as if it doesn’t exist is appalling. Science doesn’t work by censoring or hiding the evidence. Science works by bringing out all the evidence and objectively looking over the evidence to come to a conclusion. You can’t simply hide Endogenous Retrovirus’ from the evidence pile because you don’t like the conclusion that it leads too. This is very dishonest.

    Evolution is also the backbone of modern biology. If you want to get rid of something that causes biology to make a whole lot more sense, then you are expected to find a replacement for what you want to get rid of. That’s how science works.

    There is a reason that the vast majority of biologists accept evolution as the answer and it’s not to get rid of God. Many biologists accept both God and evolution. A good example is Dr. Kenneth Miller who fought against the inclusion of intelligent design in Dover PA.

    These are not lies in the text book just because you say they are. These are not lies in the text book just because they go against your strict theology.

    Have you ever wondered if you’re wrong?

  7. Geno Castagnoli October 19, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “’What do you mean by the word evolution?’ That word has six different and unrelated meanings.”
    #######
    Geno comments:
    This is nothing more than a strawman. We can look up “evolution” in a dictionary and find it simply means “change over time.” In biology, “evolution” means: “A change of allele frequencies in a population over time.” No more. No less.
    #####

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “2.Chemical evolution is the belief that all 92 elements evolved from hydrogen from the Big Bang.”
    ######
    Geno comments:
    We know for a fact how to form elements heavier than hydrogen. In fact, we have utilized the process of fusion that takes place in stars to produce helium (ie: hydrogen bombs). Two of the 92 elements referenced are man made (#43 Technitium and #61 Promethium). In addition, we have used the same process (fusion) to produce an additional couple dozen elements heavier than uranium.
    #####

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “4.Organic evolution is the belief that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter.”
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Nope. Life from non-living matter is abiogenesis. Evolution takes place only AFTER life exists.
    #####

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “5.Macro-evolution is the belief that plants and animals can change into different kinds over eons of time.
    6.Micro-evolution is the belief that plants and animals can produce varieties within the kind but the variations are limited and never produce a new kind.”
    ######
    Geno comments:
    All biological evolution is micro evolution. The question is to what extent micro changes can accumulate. To date, there is no known mechanism that prevents the accumulation of micro changes.

    Kent Hovind wrote:
    “I support freedom of religion and that idea would certainly qualify as a religion, not science.”
    ########
    Geno comments:
    Evolution is generally accepted science in ALL forums. The courts have unanamously held evolution is science and creationism (even ID) is religion. Every teachers organization agrees. More importantly, those most qualified to determine what is or is not scientific…. the scientific community …. agrees by a margin of about 100-1.

    The ONLY exception is a few extremists who have (largely) declared their ANTI-scientific bias toward the evidence.

  8. Jennifer Preston October 19, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    Not This Rubbish Again…

    1. That’s Cosmology
    2. Ever Heard of Nuclear Fusion?? We did that in the 1940s
    3. Astrophysics
    4. Abiogenensis

    So next time you have this conversation…
    “Scientist: Do You believe in Evolution?
    Hovind: What Kind of Evolution?
    Scientist: Uh…Evolution?”

    Just remember, the scientist sees 1. as Cosmology, 2. as Nuclear Fusion, 3. as Astrophysics and 4. as abiogenesis.

    Just for the record, Biologists are not Physicist and next time you ask a biologist about the big bang don’t be surprised if they don’t know anything about it. They’re not a cosmologist or a nuclear physicist so they couldn’t tell you anything about nuclear fusion either. Me? I’m a physicist and mathematician.

  9. Alfred Russell Wallace October 19, 2010 at 8:50 pm #

    Kent,

    I love how you represent six different definitions of evolution. None of them are right of course but hey, your vacuous fanbase might think you’re on to something.

    We can’t all be fact believers anyway, it’s good that we have people like you to show us the extreme of fatuousness.

  10. Nikolay Goussev October 20, 2010 at 1:39 am #

    The ONLY exception is a few extremists who have (largely) declared their ANTI-scientific bias toward the evidence.
    Geno Castagnoli October 19th at 1:34 pm

    Short list of ‘a few extremists who have (largely) declared their ANTI-scientific bias toward the evidence':

    Nikolay Copernick,
    Galileo Galiley,
    Johan Kepler,
    Isaak Newton,
    Rene Decart,
    Lui Pasteur,
    Max Planck,
    Feodor Dostoevskiy,
    Albert Einstein,
    Robert Millikan,
    as well as dozens of Nobel Prize laureates.

    My best wishes from Sofia, Lulgaria!

  11. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 1:52 am #

    Friends,

    Questioning science is not ANTI science. It’s the process that seeks to clarify and improve our understanding of science and the scientific process. And if there is one branch of science that undergoes constant reinvention, it’s Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution undergoes constant reinvention everytime a new peer-reviewed paper is published, which is literally every day. Again, think of Ida, a fossilized hoax that sent the “settled science” of evolutionary biology into a feeding frenzy as it was loudly proclaimed to be the “fossil that changes everything.”

    What actually concerns me the most is the total, undying faith so many evolutionists have toward science. All this talk of the scientific method being unbiased and self-correcting is disingenuous. Such talk is delusional and fails to take into account the reality of human nature.

    Science reeks of corruption, self-fulfilling prophecies, and personal bias. It is used by countless scientists as a means to an end and truth is the most likely casualty.

    So everytime I read a post that contains the following statements:

    “The courts have held…”

    “Teachers’ organizations agree…”

    “ALL scientists are on board…” (sure they are, especially the cowardly ones who don’t want to be mocked, ridiculed and expelled);

    I’m blown away by your degree of faith, nay, call it WORSHIP, of science and Darwinian evolution, the process that can transform bacteria into the millions of plant and animal species currently inhabiting our amazing planet.

    Kind of reminds me of the pregnant wife who places her husband’s hand on her belly and asks, “Did you feel it, honey? The bacteria just kicked. Isn’t this exciting? I can’t wait until the little gram negative is born. Do you think his petri dish is ready, or should we have a second one made just in case we have twins? And how’s our supply of agar-agar? Should you run to the store before they close?”

    All hail bacteria, our sacred prehistoric forefather!

  12. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 2:57 am #

    Kyle,

    Just a couple more thoughts I’d like to flesh out.

    You wrote: “Eric, let me explain something simple for you that you might understand. Evolution simply means “change.” Thats all it means.”

    Then you wrote this: “They are not referring to chemicals forming from hydrogen to all the other chemicals, which is possible with enough heat and pressure.” You do realize that (elements) forming from hydrogen “given enough heat and pressure” fits your evolutionary definition of CHANGE, right?

    Then you wrote this: “Many biologists accept both God and evolution. A good example is Dr. Kenneth Miller who fought against the inclusion of intelligent design in Dover PA.” How do you possibly reconcile Dr. Miller’s anti-intelligent design testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case as an example of a biologist who “accepts both God and evolution.” No one forced him to testify, so his anti-God bias was on full display.

    Do you believe all things created had a creator? If so, do you extend this belief to include the universe? Or is the universe one of the exceptions to the all things created had a creator rule? Are there other exceptions to the rule you’d care to mention? Can you clearly justify these exceptions?

  13. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 2:25 am #

    Kyle,

    Is this your evolutionary silver bullet? HERVs? What exactly are you getting at by suggesting the Hovind’s are suppressing information on HERVs? It’s deleterious to humans, and to itself. How does this further your evolutionary argument?

    Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are suspected of involvement in some autoimmune diseases, in particular with multiple sclerosis. In this disease, there appears to be a specially associated member of the family of human endogenous retrovirus W known as “MS-associated retrovirus” (MSRV).

    There are many thousands of endogenous retroviruses within human DNA (HERVs comprise nearly 8% of the human genome, with 98,000 elements and fragments[9]). All appear to be defective, containing nonsense mutations or major deletions, and cannot produce infectious virus particles.

  14. Jennifer Preston October 20, 2010 at 6:25 am #

    And still no creationist wants to talk about the Large Hadron Collider. The Large Hadron Collider smashes Hydrogen atoms together at 99.9999% the maximum speed of light to recreate the conditions less than a billion-th of a second after the big bang. But if the big bang never happened this should, by your reasoning, be impossible. And yet the LHC exists and is building up to the energy levels required to find the Higgs-Boson particle. If the Higgs doesn’t exist it will discover what gives mass to particles because it has enough energy to do that.

    But if the big bang never happened what conditions is the LHC recreating? Do you think they will find the Higgs Particle? If they do find it, would you then question the accuracy of their results? What about previous particle accelerators?

    I need these questions answered people. Kent, Eric, CSE, All Creationists! No one seems to want to talk about this. I NEED TO HAVE THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE LHC! Until you do, I have to agree with the Big Bang theory and relativity and nuclear fusion and the maximum speed of light because I can’t see how the LHC would even exist and do what it does (smashing atoms together at 99.9999% the maximum speed of light) without a) the maximum constant in a Vacuum speed of light and therefore b) a big bang 13.7 billion years ago.

    • CSE (for Dr. Hovind) October 20, 2010 at 9:59 am #

      Jennifer, CSE is trying to get the basic creation message out to the world by “putting the cookies on the bottom shelf” and making complex topics understandable for 4th graders. There are already several great ministries that deal with the physics disproving the “big bang.” I suggest you check ICR.ORG or Answersingenesis.org or creationscience.com. As for LHC, they will have several articles on line now. I think the entire project is really expensive welfare for scientists. As I read the constitution the government has no business funding projects like this. Privately motivated individuals can do all the research they want and sell the results if anyone will buy them. That’s the great American dream. Hope this helps. KH

  15. H. Bosma October 20, 2010 at 8:27 am #

    Come on, again your infamous 6 meanings of evolution.

    This only shows you don’t know what you are talking about.

    Problem with the Theory of Evolution and biology in general. Because it’s so close to us all, people think they know everything about it.
    No other scientific theory is so heavily debated outside science, because evolution touches the creation myth in it’s core when the bible (or other manuscript) is take literal.
    Please first study the theory do look objectively at the evidence and then judge the theory on it’s merits and not on the implications on our holy book.

  16. andrew Ryan October 20, 2010 at 10:08 am #

    David McRea: “How do you possibly reconcile Dr. Miller’s anti-intelligent design testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case as an example of a biologist who “accepts both God and evolution.” No one forced him to testify, so his anti-God bias was on full display.”

    David, where is the disconnect or contradiction here? Dr Miller is a theist who accepts evolution is true. So there’s no contradiction in him testifying against intelligent design in court. He believes in God, and he believes that life on earth evolved, so he does not accept intelligent design.

    He testified because he believed what he was saying was the truth. There’s nothing there to suggest an ‘anti-God bias’, on full display or otherwise.

  17. Geno Castagnoli October 20, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    Nikolay Goussev wrote:
    Short list of few extremists who have (largely) declared their ANTI-scientific bias toward the evidence:
    #######
    Geno comments:
    Really ???

    Which of those scientists said:
    “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and science, can be valid if it contradicts Scripture.” (From the CSE Statement of Faith)

    The point is that each and every one of the scientists you mentioned examined the evidence objectively. Not one of the said evidence in conflict with (their interpretation of) Scripture is invalid. On the other hand, many of the current creation “scientists” hold exactly that position.

  18. Geno Castagnoli October 20, 2010 at 11:45 am #

    David McCrea wrote:
    Questioning science is not ANTI science. It’s the process that seeks to clarify and improve our understanding of science and the scientific process.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    It is not the questioning of science that I call “ANTI-science”. It is the declared refusal to even attempt an objective evaluaton of the evidence that is ANTI-science. Most YEC ministries, including CSE have clear declarations any evidence conflicting with (their intrepretation of) Genesis is invalid… often stating the invalidity is a matter of definition.
    ######

    David wrote:
    And if there is one branch of science that undergoes constant reinvention, it’s Darwinian evolution.
    #####
    Geno replies:
    ALL branches of science undergo constant evaluation and, if necessary, revision. That is an essential part of science. It is only the (Young-earth) creationists who have openly declared their ANTI-scientific approach that their position is NOT subject to revision no matter what evidence may be presented.

    One other thing…. physics is MUCH more a nightmare for YEC than Darwinian evolution ever was…. if one examines the evidence objectively, that is.
    ######

    David wrote:
    What actually concerns me the most is the total, undying faith so many evolutionists have toward science. All this talk of the scientific method being unbiased and self-correcting is disingenuous.
    #######
    Geno:
    Coming from a YEC, that’s actually funny. I can present a number of examples where science HAS self-corrected and the YEC will then point to that as an example where science was “wrong.” Yes. It was. But scientists DID find the error and science DID correct it. Tell us the last time a YEC said something in Genesis (or their interpretation of Genesis) must be in error.

    As for bias, every YEC organization I can think of has a statement similar to the one CSE makes regarding the validity of evidence in conflict with Genesis. Produce an example of just ONE mainstream scientific organization making such a biased statement of their position. YEC won’t even consider the possibility their interpretation of Genesis is wrong.
    #####

    David wrote:
    Such talk is delusional and fails to take into account the reality of human nature.
    ######
    Geno answers:
    I never said scientists aren’t biased. They’re just as human as anyone else. The key point is, as I have pointed out, they at least ATTEMPT to approach the evidence objectively. Something YEC openly declare they REFUSE to do.

    The position that “is delusional and fails to take into account the reality of human nature” is the one declaring they MUST be right and, by definition, ANY evidence in conflict with their position is wrong. To me, that sounds a lot like YEC who are fond of pointing out the scientific evidence is subject to “interpretation” by “fallible” humans while ignoring the obvious fact they are “fallible” humans who are “interpreting” Scripture.
    #####

    David:
    Science reeks of corruption, self-fulfilling prophecies, and personal bias. It is used by countless scientists as a means to an end and truth is the most likely casualty.
    ######
    Geno points out:
    If you want to talk about “corruption, self-fulfilling prophecies, and personal bias….. Would you like a list of the ministries who have corruptly defrauded their followers …. sometimes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? How about the ministers who have committed all kinds of immoral acts while preaching from their pulpits how the rest of us should behave?

    The line that comes to mind here is something about: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone…” Or another one about “planks” and “motes.”
    #####

    David wrote:
    So everytime I read a post that contains the following statements:
    “The courts have held”
    “Teachers’ organizations agree”
    “ALL scientists are on board” (sure they are, especially the cowardly ones who don’t want to be mocked, ridiculed and expelled);
    ######
    Geno answers:
    I suggest you look at the list of scientists presented (above) by Nikolay. How many of them do you think achieved their status by following the established paradigm? Answer…. not ONE. In science you make your fame by making waves and showing your explanation is BETTER than the generally accepted one…. not by simply going with the flow.

    When I made those statements about the courts, teachers, and scientists, it was in response to a claim that evolution is a “religion.” The fact is that evolution is a religion only in the same context that could be applied to bowling. Further, those most qualified to determine what is (or is not) science clearly state evolution is scientific and creationism is not. I’ll say it again… the ONLY ones who are claiming evolution to be a religion are those who wish to advance their own religious beliefs and refuse to examine the evidence objectively.
    #####

    David wrote:
    I’m blown away by your degree of faith, nay, call it WORSHIP, of science and Darwinian evolution,….
    ######
    Geno answers:
    You’ll hear little from me about Darwinian evolution. Biology simply isn’t my “thing”, thought I taught it for 5 years. Physics, not evolution, is your biggest problem.
    #####

  19. Charles Haley October 20, 2010 at 11:15 am #

    The constitution of Switzerland?

    And for comparison’s sake, the 9 billion dollar cost is less than what was spent on the Iraq war every two weeks. And LHC has already had a higher ROI.

    This could have been built in the US, but our scientifically ignorant politicians killed it in a short-sighted move which is allowing Europe to surpass us in science.

  20. Jennifer Preston October 20, 2010 at 11:38 am #

    Um, I think I get that. So basically, the Big Bang never happened and because the Big Bang never happened, we cannot trust any results from the LHC and any of the results from the LHC that support the Big Bang theory can’t be right or scientists are interpreting them wrongly?

  21. H. Bosma October 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    @CSE

    A 4th grader does not have to fully understand science. Your attempt to simplify science, is kipping important details and making it look like scientists only spend money.

    The LHC research should be funded period. Just because it does not have a direct application, the wordl needs fundamental research to be able to solve it’s future problems.

  22. Jack Napper October 20, 2010 at 3:42 pm #

    Jennifer, CSE is trying to get the basic creation message out to the world by “putting the cookies on the bottom shelf” and making complex topics understandable for 4th graders.

    Doesn’t seem likely as time and time again we see that creationists don’t understand the very topics they wish to communicate. Must be why they like talking to 4th graders. Most don’t seem to have a science education beyond elementary school.

    There are already several great ministries that deal with the physics disproving the “big bang.”

    Yep and we can find the flaws and outright lies in all of them.

    I suggest you check ICR.ORG

    A purely religiously motivated group that has flip flopped on every issue brought before them. Presented with an Australopithecus afarensis fossil TWICE they first said it was an ape and then claimed it was just a man. Sure it was a little dishonest not to inform them that both specimens were Lucy. ICR article from Earth’s Magnetic field (supported by an author who cites himself) to a Creationist favorite Thermodynamics.

    Answersingenesis.org

    AIG walks a fine line sometimes. I actually like AIG because after like the 500th time they are debunked they finally admit it. Of course they start with the belief that everything in the bible is true (no need to prove it) and most answers for anything are simply Goddidit either outright or by use of a false dichotomy. Oddly enough they maintain a list of arguments Creationists should NOT use. Apparently Kent Hovind didn’t see the NOT in there.

    creationscience.com

    I’ve written about this one before. I keep it short by pointing out the glaring ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

    As I read the constitution the government has no business funding projects like this.

    I suppose you mean the US Constitution. Of course it also also doesn’t mention Office of High Energy Physics , Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences of the the National Science Foundation (NSF) but hey why worry about details.

    Congress has the right to spend money for the “general welfare” and according to the US Supreme Court this includes funding scientific research. Apparently you have forgotten that the US Constitution was written to be interpreted and exactly what role the Judicial system is pertaining to the document.

    By the way, how do you like this little thing called the Internet? If you don’t like government funded projects I suggest pulling your hands away from the keyboard right now.

    Privately motivated individuals can do all the research they want and sell the results if anyone will buy them. That’s the great American dream. Hope this helps. KH

    Who brought fish sticks?

  23. Stephen Holshouser October 20, 2010 at 3:44 pm #

    Jennifer P,

    Just a few humble observations from a non-physicist, non-mathematician…

    You have no way to know the LHC is “recreating” anything that has previously happened in nature… it would be pure speculation to assume that. Aren’t there some man-made elements that previously did not occur in nature?
    Besides, do you think that getting a bunch of physicists together who utilize much planning and forethought along with super-hi tech equipment is good evidence that it could happen on its own? You see, every event in nature has to have a cause, and it seems this experiment would indicate it took great intelligence and power to bring it about (for a specific purpose, I might add).

    The theoretical H-B particle is still exactly that.

    Don’t look at good experiments (smashing atoms together near the speed of light), and then jump to bad conclusions (the universe made itself 13.7 billions years ago). Nothing has proven that.

    We may get a little closer to understanding how God “stretched out the heavens,” but we will never figure it all out… you will always be able to ask, “Okay, so what made this happen?” or maybe one day ask, “where did the H-B particle come from, and where did that come from, etc, etc?” –which is a great question, but each new answer should give you a greater adoration for your Creator. All nature is a sign that says, “Behold the infinite wisdom and power of Jesus Christ!”

    One last and more important question for you (actually 2); Jennifer, do you think God will overlook your sin? In 80 years, will the LHC matter to you?

    May the Lord grant to us more understanding of truth,

    Isaiah ch. 53

  24. Carl M October 20, 2010 at 5:13 pm #

    @ David McCrea

    Again, think of Ida, a fossilized hoax that sent the “settled science” of evolutionary biology into a feeding frenzy as it was loudly proclaimed to be the “fossil that changes everything.”

    1) Ida is 100% genuine. You’re confusing denial arguments.

    2) There is no such thing as “settled science” of evolutionary biology.

  25. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 4:41 pm #

    Jennifer,

    I bow in all humility to your knowledge of math and physics. I have no doubt you are an extremely intelligent and decent person.

    I did, however, respond to your LHC challenge. I asked you if the LHC created itself or if there was intelligence behind its creation.

    This is where believers and unbelievers always get cross-wise with each other. I take it by faith the universe had an intelligent Creator. You take the opposite position.

    You deny intelligence was involved in creating the actual universe but acknowledge it took intelligence to create the LHC, yet the LHC can’t come anywhere close to matching the awesome splendor and wonderment of the actual universe.

    I can even put the concept into a basic mathematical formula:

    No Intelligence = No LHC. No Intelligence = No Universe.

    AND I DIDN’T EVEN USE ANY CAPS TO MAKE MY POINT.

  26. David McCrea October 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm #

    I sometimes feel like the guy who keeps running around in circles because he has one foot nailed to the ground.

    Generally speaking, creationists understand the concept of “Kinds” of animals as mentioned in the Bible, but we don’t have a definition of “Kinds” that we can toss onto the table to the satisfaction of the unbelievers.

    Creationists don’t deny evolution. Creationists don’t deny there can be morphological changes to a plant or animal over time. Creationists believe there are limits to the genetic changes that can occur within a particular plant or animal. We believe these genetic changes if taken to the extreme are harmful to the plant or animal. I’ve survived cancer four times. Cancer is a genetic mutation.

    We believe strongly in the notion of natural selection. The strongest and healthiest of a given kind of plant or animal are more likely to survive and reproduce. It’s the process that keeps the different kinds of plants and animals at their peak of genetic fitness. It’s worked well for thousands of years because God thought of it first.

    But it will never be a process that can turn plant A into animal Z, or vice versa, over time. It can only make plant A and animal Z better.

    We do not believe everything came from nothing and that something dead was able to self-organize and drag itself out of the primordial soup eventually evolving over eons of time to become the millions of plants and animals in existence today.

    Creationists don’t know where God came from. We have faith in His existence and place our eternal trust in His Son, Jesus Christ. We believe we are created beings with purpose and meaning to our lives. The only difference between a believer and an unbeliever is that as believers we have recognized and acknowledged our sinful nature, repented of our sin, and placed our faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ. This does not make us self-righteous or better than the unbeliever. We are simply forgiven. Despite this, we are still imperfect and subject to sin.

    We love our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and are instructed to do good to everyone, especially those who are the household of faith.

    Christianity is not a religion per se. It is a personal relationship with our risen Lord, Jesus Christ.

    With respect and prayer, I am

    David McCrea

  27. Mike Ayala October 20, 2010 at 8:20 pm #

    Jennifer Preston October 20th at 6:25 am

    Hi Jennifer,

    Thank you for your posts. You add valuable insights to the flow of conversation. And thank you for your questions.

    Concerning the Large Hadron Collider and the conditions that will supposedly be recreated, you ought to appreciate the enormous assumptions upon which its technicians and theorists rely to suppose they will recreate anything of an historical nature.

    For starters, it is way beyond ridiculous for them to suppose they will recreate the conditions less than a billionth of a second after the Big Bang because the unimaginably intense gravitational field will be missing.

    So that brings us to your question which hit the bulls-eye:

    “But if the big bang never happened what conditions is the LHC recreating?”

    In all simplicity, they are just playing with big expensive toys. “Recreating” I think not. Having fun to see what will happen under certain conditions – yes, and it will be most interesting to observe their efforts and results

    For all that modern physics has going for it, and it has a lot going for it, it is still woefully ignorant of the most basic of phenomena upon which we daily depend for our existence such as light, gravity, magnetism, and time. We are free to observe these, and yet our understanding of them is pitiful. To say these things are poorly understood is to give ourselves way too much credit. We certainly have developed great understanding how to use them to our advantage through the development of various technologies, but our understanding of them is severely limited.

    The Large Hadron Collider is a machine which is designed to limit entropy in a particular way. All machines are designed to limit entropy. In order to limit entropy, energy must be vectored, and structured matter must be organized. These do not happen by random chance – they are the antithesis of chance. All machines limit chance.

    Supposedly all that we observe in the universe are the results of the Big Bang which are subject to entropy. Big Bang doctrine teaches that all matter/energy after the Big Bang was in a state of random flux and “somehow” (a great scientific word) quantum fluctuations gave rise to differentiations of energy which were stored. If for no other reason, (and there are more), the whole scenario breaks down at this point: In order to store the energy, a machine must be employed. However, this supposedly occurred at a time when there were no machines nor anyone to design machines. This creates an inescapable dilemma for Big Bang theorists.

    Slow down, and be careful.

    Earlier you posted,

    “Energy is created by mass, but at the right energies, mass can also be created by energy.”

    It would be better to describe the process as energy and matter as a reversible conversion: Matter can be converted into energy, hence Hiroshima, and energy can be converted into matter, hence mankind’s attempts at alchemy. I like to think of matter as structured energy.

    Also, you posted,

    “E = mc^2 is a result of the theory of relativity which tries to explain gravity by the warping of space-time. This result depends on c being constant and never changing. What relativity also says is that time slows down near large objects. This has actually been proven true. They have to account for this time difference for GPS to work accurately. If you want to be really specific, then time goes faster at your head than it does at your feet.”

    The speed of light as a constant is merely a theory with many untested and untestable-in-our-lifetime conditions. As a constant, the speed of light has not done very well historically. Since measurements have first been recorded, the speed of light is slowing down, and the plot points follow an asymptotic curve. This throws a very uncomfortable wrench in the gears of modern physics that many reject or choose to ignore. For some it is really unthinkable.

    Please recognize the assumptions with the whole idea that time slows down. No, it has not been proven. What has been proven is that humans cannot distinguish between time and the measurement of time. Yes, the GPS system takes the observation of this effect into account for the technology to work, but doing so gives no understanding to what is really happening.

    As far as Einstein’s theory of relativity goes, it has one basic foundational flaw that precludes it from being all that many think it is: Einstein essentially defined out of existence God’s ability to make two events occur simultaneously. Our limits of perception in no way affect the operation of God’s creation nor limit His abilities.

    Unfortunately, Relativism has been translated into other areas of life and has resulted in cultural detachment from the absoluteness of God and His morals.

    The Bible reports God’s account of how He stretched out the heavens and that the heavens are still being stretched. It is amazing how our observations of the universe coincide with what Scripture has to say about the matter (pun intended). The rate of expansion of Jesus stretching out the universe would appear to us from our perspective as a big bang, but it is in no way what some folks describe as the “Big Bang” in popular evolutionary science circles.

    (Incidentally, Big Bang doctrine is spawned from Evolution: the vastness of time past is critically required for biological evolution.)

    The Bible also describes how the material of the universe is wearing out like a garment and that He will roll it up like a scroll. The Big Bang in the Bible is when the Lord wraps it all up before He makes all things new:

    “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.”

    Robert Frost had wondered about the fate of the universe. He would have known if he had just paid a little more attention to the word of God.

    Jennifer, I hope this gives you a little bit to think about when trying to make sense of the world round about us.

    God bless you.

    Mike Ayala

  28. Jennifer Preston October 21, 2010 at 2:28 pm #

    I wasn’t finished when I posted that. I accidentally pressed return. I see I also spelt “speed” wrong too. Sorry about that. Anyway the way I interpret that, you’ve just said there is a time difference between the Earth and space and that we observe it, but that we don’t understand it. But then you said earlier that the idea that time slows down has not been proven. First you’ve said it hasn’t been proven, then you’ve said we’ve observed it. Isn’t 50 years worth of consistent observation evidence enough that it is true? I’m having real problems getting my head around that one.

    But this time difference is exactly what relativity said should happen. Given, in 1915, they hadn’t started with space exploration, this was an amazing predition of relativity. I’ve already explained in a previous post that relativity also predicted the existence of black holes and explained how we know one is at the centre of our galaxy.
    But then you’ve gone on to say that knowing that there is a time difference doesn’t give us any understanding of why there is a time difference. No, but relativity does. What relativity says is that large objects distort space-time. It’s much like putting a large rock onto a cloth attatched across the top of a bucket. The cloth will dip slightly when the rock goes in, and if you put a marble on the cloth it would role down towards the rock. That’s relativity’s explanation of gravity. It’s this curving of space and the idea that space and time are not independent that explains why time slows down at large objects.

    But while relativity works well on the very large it completely falls apart for the very small. String theory is the theory that allows relativity and quantum mechanics to be combined. But for that to work, it needs at least 11 dimensions. At that number of dimensions you’re basically guaranteed paralell universes. The advantage of string theory is that is also explains why gravity is such a weak force – it’s leaking through all these other unseen dimensions. But unlike relativity and quantum mechanics, there is no observational evidence for string theory yet. The LHC may create mini-black holes and they would be the first observational evidence for string theory ever, but the chances of mini black holes forming in the LHC is virtually 0 so I don’t ever think we’ll find observation evidence for string theory. It’s a wonderful and valid theory, but I’m very sceptical about it.

    “and energy can be converted into matter” That is exactly what particle accelerators have been doing since the 1930s.

    “As far as Einstein’s theory of relativity goes, it has one basic foundational flaw that precludes it from being all that many think it is: Einstein essentially defined out of existence God’s ability to make two events occur simultaneously. Our limits of perception in no way affect the operation of God’s creation nor limit His abilities.”

    What I interpret that as is: Einsteins theory must be wrong because the Bible says so. Okay, so ignore the observation evidence that I thin you’ve admitted and I’ve explained, and you want ignore it all because the Bible says it’s wrong. I’m having trouble getting my head around that reasoning too.

    As for the intelligent design bit, Yes intelligence had to create the LHC, but that doesn’t automatically outright prove that the universe has to have a creator. You might ask, what came before the expansion of space-time, and scientists are working on that as we type, but I could just as easily ask, who created God? The normal response I wouldve gotton from my church is God has always been, but you are saying that everything needs an intelligent designer, so by your own argument, God cannot be exempt from this. In both scenarios, the further you work back both sides are going to have to ask the same question. How did something arise from nothing. And if God was created by an intelligent being can he really be called God?

    One last thing. Where is Kent Hovind’s PhD in PHYSICS that allows him to make all these statements. High school science is very basic, even he’s admitted that. The fact is, if I want to know anything about astronomy, starlight, physics or the LHC, I’m going to listen to the guy with a PhD in Physics. If I want to know how to teach anybody anything Kent Hovind will be at the top of my dialling/e-mail list.

  29. Jennifer Preston October 21, 2010 at 1:33 pm #

    The reason the speen of light has shown slower measurements in recent years is because it is only recently we have been able to develop the most accurate ways of measuring it. We need technology that just wasn’t around when they first started measuring the speed of light. You’ll find the speed of light in a vacuum has been constant in scientific literature since around the 1970s maybe a bit before.

    Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. Before the big bang there was the steady state theory. The idea that the universe is expanding only cam around in the 1920s and did’t really catch on until the 1930s. It was Stephen Hawking who realised that if you work the calculations back, i.e. reverse this expansion, everything would have been in the same place, a singularity. But then, the Big Bang theroy doesn’t say anything about an explosion. It says there was an expansion of space-time.

    Mike Ayala Wrote:
    “Please recognize the assumptions with the whole idea that time slows down. No, it has not been proven. What has been proven is that humans cannot distinguish between time and the measurement of time. Yes, the GPS system takes the observation of this effect into account for the technology to work, but doing so gives no understanding to what is really happening. ”

    I can’t be interpreting this right. “Distinguish between time and the measurement of time”. What’s the difference? Time itself is just a measurement. But space and time are not independent. You might think you, sitting still at your desk, have the same co-ordinates in the universe but time is moving on. But you are never in the same place in the universe. The Earth is rotating in space as it orbits the sun. You have to have three points in space and a point in time to describe where you are in the universe. A day is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once, a month is the time it takes for the moon to rotate once round the Earth and a year is the time is takes for the Earth to rotate once round the sun. How a year in space could be the same as a year on Earth I’ll never understand. But the fact is, if you go away to space, count one Earth year and come back to Earth, one Earth year on Earth won’t quite be finished yet. That is Einstein’s relativity. Undeniable observation. We know there is a difference. You said it yourself I think – “observation of this effect”.

  30. Geno Castagnoli October 21, 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    David McCrea wrote:
    Generally speaking, creationists understand the concept of “Kinds” of animals as mentioned in the Bible, but we don’t have a definition of “Kinds” that we can toss onto the table to the satisfaction of the unbelievers.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Except, I’m not an “unbeliever.” As I see it, the closest the definition of “kind” comes is the modern term “species.” Since we have directly observed new species form both in the lab and in nature, there are (and have been) new “kinds” since creation week.
    ####

    David writes:
    Creationists don’t deny evolution. Creationists don’t deny there can be morphological changes to a plant or animal over time.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Then you don’t understand evolution. Changes to an individual are NOT evolution. Evolution is a change in a population, not an individual.
    #####

    David:
    Creationists believe there are limits to the genetic changes that can occur within a particular plant or animal.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Again, genetic changes that happen to “a particular plant or animal” are not evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies passed on thru descent. (We call it “descent with modification” and it is the source of new traits.) Then natural selection acts as a “filter” on those changes. That’s why creationists who go on about natural selection not creating information are correct, but ignorant of the process.

    That said, demonstrate the mechanism that limits the accumulation of genetic changes in a population over time and pick up your Nobel Prize.

  31. Geno Castagnoli October 21, 2010 at 11:02 pm #

    Mike Ayala wrote:
    The speed of light as a constant is merely a theory with many untested and untestable-in-our-lifetime conditions. As a constant, the speed of light has not done very well historically. Since measurements have first been recorded, the speed of light is slowing down, and the plot points follow an asymptotic curve.
    #####
    Geno answers:
    The “c-decay” argument is so bad even AIG lists it as one of the arguments creationists should NOT use. AIG admits if there were a significant decay in the speed of light, we could expect to observe certain things. We don’t. Further, Setterfield, in his analysis of c-decay modified the critical Roemer measurement. (Of course, it’s only the evolutionists who do these things <>.)

    There was a paper published by Davies et. al (in the 8/02 (IIRC) issue of the journal “Nature” demonstrating the speed of light has changed since it left galaxies some 12 billion light years from Earth. By a whopping 0.001%. That paper was greeted with considerable glee by creationists all over the place. It seems they forgot for YEC to be true, they need a change in the average velocity of light more like 200,000,000%. As I see it, that’s 0.001% down, only 199,999,999.999% to go.
    #####

    Mike wrote:
    The Bible reports God’s account of how He stretched out the heavens and that the heavens are still being stretched.
    #####
    Geno comments:
    Links are prohibited. Do a web search on my name and sn1987. You will find a paper I wrote detailing how that object directly refutes YEC. It is worth note that if the speed of light were significantly different at the time and place of Sn1987a, we should expect to see things we don’t. If the heavens between Earth and Sn1987a were significantly stretched, we should see evidence of that also…. we don’t.
    #####

    Mike wrote:
    Incidentally, Big Bang doctrine is spawned from Evolution: the vastness of time past is critically required for biological evolution.
    ######
    Geno responds:
    Completely false. The Big Bang is the result of direct independant observations in a completely different field of science from evolution and is based on our ability to directly observe objects FAR beyond the 6000 or so year event horizon we should have in a YEC universe. There is no grand conspiracy among astronomers to further evolution as evolution is irrelevant to astronomical observations.

    Oh yeah… the Big Bang could be completely, totally, absolutely, utterly false and YEC would STILL have the light travel time problem. (ie: How can we see objects billions of light yeas from Earth in a 6000 year old universe.)
    #####

  32. martin bernal October 21, 2010 at 11:23 pm #

    You know I have this CRAZY scientific theory, and I’m hoping that with enough evidence it can become scientific law. Let’s call it the “Bernal Theory”. I believe that If you get enough people to say that our great great great grandfather was a rock, and that our very very distant cousin is a pineapple, there will be people that ACTUALLY will start to believe it! But you can’t just get anyone to say it because then it would just sound stupid. I believe that you would have to get somebody that sounds credible, like someone that has a PhD in front of their name. I know that this theory is crazy but I believe that we can find enough evidence to make it a law.

  33. Jennifer Preston October 22, 2010 at 6:49 am #

    Last post I promise, Then I’m gonna sit back and read.

    Mike Ayala Wrote:
    “because the unimaginably intense gravitational field will be missing”

    The unimaginably intense gravitational field was only there at exactly the singularity. Any tiny fraction of a second after the singularity started to expand doesn’t have this intense gravitational otherwise space-time wouldn’t be expanding anyway. This is the problem with relativity. You can’t make it describe the very small. At quantum levels gravity is repulsive. That’s what happened at this singularity. Gravity was repulsive. That’s quantum mechanics. But that doesn’t mean relativity is completely wrong. So far it’s working amazingly well. Just only on large objects, not on a quantum level.
    So no, the LHC does not need an intense gravitational field to recreate those conditions. In fact it need to get rid of it which it has because it was impossible to have in the first place. What scientists need to do is try to make relativity work with quantum mechanics. It doesn’t mean we have it completely wrong. It just means we’re missing something important. but we are on the hunt for it.

    Another example of time slowing down near large objects. When we send probes such as Opportunity and Spirit to Mars, as they approach the red planet, the signals take just a bit longer to get to Earth than when they are at the same distance away from Earth but closer in to the planet. Another way you can do this is to measure the time it takes to hear a signal from a probe next to the plant then send it in a horizontal straight line behind the planet so the signal has to go through the planet. The signal that doesn’t have to go through the planet gets to Earth in a shorter time every time.

    The most major problem relativity has with Genesis 1 is that because of its explanation for gravity, Relativity means the sun had to come first because it is the sun’s gravity that pulled the Earth in. So if the Bible is right, you would need to essentially deny gravity since the Earth came before the sun, and we should all start floating away from the Earth any day now, which in all fairness I think would be rather fun to experience. When I told my Christian friend this she said God has a sense of humour but the fact is we’ve been stuck to the planet for over 5000 years whether you think the world was created six thousand years ago or more. Even if it were a day-age thing and Gods time is different from ours, like my friend thinks, God would still have to understand how we experience time otherwise people wouldn’t hear anything from him for years on end. I think after 5000 years the joke has gone on just a bit too long for my liking. There you go, I’ll believe in a literal meaning of Genesis when we all start floating up from the Earth for no good reason.

    For the record, I do belive in God. I believe Jesus died and rose again, always have, but I could never think Genesis was literally true. Not just because of Science but because recent Theological and Historical research has shown that Genesis was never supposed to be interpreted literally. Besides, I think the most important thing to believe is that Jesus rose from the dead and died to take our sins and I will always believe in that. I don’t think it’s right that the church should tell people that if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead but don’t believe that the world was created in six literal days then you will still go to hell. It’s making it seem like the Christian faith is based on Genesis and that couldn’t be further from the truth. There is actually a major scientific theory that strongly influenced me to actually believe in God, but I don’t think this is an appropriate place to say what it is.

    For the record, I also live in England, UK.

  34. Stephen Holshouser October 22, 2010 at 11:27 am #

    Jennifer,

    You said,
    “For the record, I do belive in God. I believe Jesus died and rose again, always have, but I could never think Genesis was literally true. Not just because of Science but because recent Theological and Historical research has shown that Genesis was never supposed to be interpreted literally. Besides, I think the most important thing to believe is that Jesus rose from the dead and died to take our sins and I will always believe in that. I don’t think it’s right that the church should tell people that if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead but don’t believe that the world was created in six literal days then you will still go to hell. It’s making it seem like the Christian faith is based on Genesis and that couldn’t be further from the truth. There is actually a major scientific theory that strongly influenced me to actually believe in God, but I don’t think this is an appropriate place to say what it is.”

    Some questions for you;

    1. Was Jesus confused when He said, “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.” ? (Mark 10:6)

    2. Was Jesus the One that created them? (Colossians 1:16-20)

    3. Was there death before man fell into sin? (Romans 5:12-21)

    You “always” believed that Jesus died and rose again, but it took a “major scientific theory” for you to “actually believe in God”?? It seems, by your own admission, you are fundamentally confused about what Christianity is… better re-evaluate it from the Word of God…

    Meaning no offence, but in sincerity…

  35. David McCrea October 22, 2010 at 5:55 pm #

    Jennifer,

    You must feel pretty lonely being a believer in the UK.

    I don’t think the Bible says you will go to hell if you don’t believe in the literal six day creation event. As long as you have repented of your sin, believe in the gospel, and place your faith and trust in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, you’ll be just fine.

    I am very pleased and delighted to be able to call you a Sister in Christ!

    In His Love,

    Dave

    PS Any chance you can talk to Dawkins and ask him to stay home? ; )

  36. David McCrea October 22, 2010 at 7:00 pm #

    Martin,

    I’m signing on! But we’ll need to call it the McCrea/Bernal Theory before we take it public.

    Okay?

    Take care, Brother!

  37. David McCrea October 22, 2010 at 7:16 pm #

    Geno,

    You’re one funny guy! Your new name is “Geno the Comic Evolutionary Know-it-all Literalist Guy.” With a little more work you’ll be right up there with “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”

    Good luck!

    And another thing. How do you know that I don’t already have a Nobel Prize?

    Hmmmm?

  38. Geno Castagnoli October 22, 2010 at 7:55 pm #

    Jennifer Preston wrote:
    It was Stephen Hawking who realised that if you work the calculations back, i.e. reverse this expansion, everything would have been in the same place, a singularity.
    ***************
    Geno comments:
    I don’t think that’s correct. The theory must have been around when Fred Hoyle coined the term “Big Bang” in 1949. I know that by 1964, it was well established in physics…. Hawking would have been only 22. I’m fairly certain Lemaître was the originator of the theory in around 1931. (According to Wikipedia, anyway.)
    ***************

    A bit more on a changing speed of light, also known as “c-decay.” The biggest YEC proponent of c-decay is Barry Setterfield. Setterfield has done a statistical analysis based on historical measurements of the speed of light. Leaving aside, for the moment, Setterfield’s tampering with the (critical Roemer) data…..

    Setterfield proposes the speed of light at creation was 10^10 (10 billion) times the modern value. According to Einstein (e=mc^2) the sun would put out 10^10 squared or 10^20 (100 billion billion) times the energy it does now. While I have not done the calculations on this, I have no doubt this would quickly vaporize the planet and likely the entire solar system.

    In order to fix this problem, Setterfield claims mass (an intrinsic property of matter) was less when “c” was greater. This means mass would have been only 10^(-20) (a hundred billionth of a billionth) of its present value.

    Unfortunately, with so little mass, it is unlikely a planet could have sufficient gravity (F(g)=Gm1m2/(r^2)) to stay together as the force of gravity would be only 10^(-40) (a tenth of a thousandth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth its present value). At this point, Setterfield proposes the gravitational constant (G) must have been greater (it would need to be 10^40 or ten thousand trillion trillion trillion times its present value).

    Even then, Setterfield is unable to deal with the laws of conservation of energy (KE = 0.5mv^2) and conservation of momentum (p = mv) of Earth in its orbit around the sun. Since “m” in both cases is the mass of the Earth velocity (v) would need to change by different amounts to satisfy both of these fundamental laws of science.

    At some point, the objective observer will shout E – N – O – U – G – H, invoke Occam’s Razor and be done with both Setterfield and c-decay. That, of course, is not the case for those who have already declared any evidence in conflict with (their literal reading of) the Bible is invalid.

  39. Mike Ayala October 23, 2010 at 6:23 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    Thank you for the great post. I’m buried with some inescapable responsibilities right now, so here’s just a quickie until I can provide a point by point response.

    In the mean time, please allow me to pose just a few questions:

    1. Who told you that the speed of light is a constant, and how do you know?

    2. How do you define a vacuum?

    3. What is the standard of reference of time in E=mc^2?

    4. Who has precisely verified mass consumed and energy released in a nuclear conversion to test the accuracy of E=mc^2?

    Please give me a few days. I look forward to getting back to you on this, and I hope we all can learn a lot through this process.

    Grace and blessings to you.

    Mike Ayala

  40. Mark James October 24, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    Hi Jennifer,

    I agree with Mike that your posts add valuable insights to this blog. I’m also pleased to hear that you have come to faith in Christ.

    I do not know what theory it is that so strongly influenced you to believe in God but I would offer a word of warning. Almost certainly there will, somewhere, be a scientist, or scientists, working to counter your interpretation of the theory. If their interpretation is compelling enough, the results will likely be published. You will then have a decision to make.

    Please do not think that I am judging you here. You strike me as being the type of person who will have thoroughly investigated Christianity and your faith will now be grounded in many different truths. But there are people who, when faced with this sort of challenge to their beliefs, will come to doubt their faith and may even abandon it completely. Often the “new” interpretation of scientific data is eventually proved to be wrong but by then the damage is done.

    It is in these situations that organizations such as CSE provide such valuable input. CSE may not get everything right – they are, of course, only providing an alternative interpretation of the currently available scientific evidence – but they always point us back to God and for that I am eternally grateful.

  41. Mark James October 24, 2010 at 2:19 am #

    Jennifer (again),

    Your comment that string theory requires at least 11 dimensions reminded me about the ancient Hebrew scholar Nachmonides who apparently, writing in the 12th century, concluded from his studies of the text of Genesis that the universe has ten dimensions, four knowable and six beyond our knowing.

    And for the record I was born in England but now live in New Zealand. The weather’s (marginally) better down here.