The Antichristian Phenomenon

It seems that its Wednesday again! I hardly noticed the week pass… here is another installment. Beware, from this point on, posts are Epic in length.

If you would like to read the debate for yourself directly on Amazon you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 3.
If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, and Part 2.

Anath said:
>>I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

Yes, I am not sure how you drew the conclusions you did, but I am glad that you understand now. When I read the article on the global seed vault one thing stuck out at me that may not have stuck out at you : “The Seed Vault will provide insurance against the loss of seeds in genebanks, as well as a refuge for seeds in the case of large scale regional or global crises.” They are saving the seeds so that essentially if the world were to end in a horrible fiery apocalypse, the few survivors would be able to start anew, or if something were to physically happen to the genebanks, we would not have lost everything. This is very important goal, but has little to do with how genetic diversity works or doesn’t work and everything to do with guarding against the unknown factor for posterity. It would be a very good thing if our greatgreatgreat grandchildren could grow corn and not starve to death after the zombie apocalypse because we were insightful enough to set aside some seeds for them : )

>>When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

You are mixing up forms of taxonomic classification for confirmation bias.

Primate is an Order, which we share with every sort of “monkey and ape” from lemurs, to aye-ayes, to golden tamarins, to gorillas. Go further down the line to “ape” and we are talking about a superfamily which contains two families, one is primarily gibbons and the other is Hominidaie– Great apes which include orangutans, gorillas, chimps and US. We ARE apes. The question is how far do you want to go in your taxonomic evolutionary tree. We have a hominid (ape) ancestor, since we ARE apes from taxonomic family, subfamily, genus, to species and subspecies, but are distinctly different from other great apes. We had a common hominid ancestor, but we had many other common ancestors that would not be considered “apes” by the layman sense of the word (orangutan/chimp/gorilla) so it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common primate ancestor, since primates are apes and more. Similarly it is not inaccurate to state that we had a common mammalian ancestor or vertebrate ancestor or animal ancestor or eukaryote ancestor, so cutting off your evolutionary chain at “apes” is quite shortsighted. We are still classified as apes, so we didn’t evolve INTO anything other than a more specific specie of ape. Again, there is no “darwinist” I have come across that would refute this so I would very much love to see what arguments you have seen by “darwinists” that claim we do not have a hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote common ancestor.

>>If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. (and surrounding text)

Of course other animals can “control” their environments, it is the degree to which we can control ours that sets us outside the normal limitations of nature. First of all, our technology can have a staggering unintended impact on the environment, such as our old refrigerators and air conditioning leaking free radicals. Termites have “air conditioning” because they have figured out a way to manipulate their environment and build their structures so that it is natural. Our air conditioning and cars and refrigerators and video cameras and computers and cell phones and skyscrapers are unnatural. Termites don’t create new chemicals in an “artificial” effort to meet their end. They can only do what is natural.

We are still operating within our parameters, however those parameters, set by our ingenuity and capacity for abstract thought and organized creation of nature-defying materials, are outside the bounds of traditional survival-of-the-fittest nature. We don’t just nurse our infirm back to health with motherly care, we give them antibiotics that boost their immune system, or chemotherapy that destroys cancerous tumors. In “pure” nature, a sick creature with a weak immune system would die, a creature with lung cancer has no hope, no matter how much their families care for them. This doesn’t mean its fellow creatures can’t aid it, but they can NOT give it asprin or theraflu and boost its immune system beyond its natural capacity as we can. Thus, we are able to save members of our species that WOULD have been “unfit” by any standards, giving them the potential to reproduce where in ANY OTHER situation they would have died and produced no offspring. The central premise here providing the ability to REPRODUCE and in the process pass on “unfit” genes that would have been eliminated from the gene pool had nature taken its course and flu medication not intervened.

As far as predators, we do have a number of them, but the difference is that now, in the 21st century, our #1 fear is no longer death from natural predators. Lions and bears are physically much more powerful than any human, but they are not more powerful than a human wielding an AK-47. Disease is very dangerous and kills a very large portion of the human population every year, but if you analyze the statistics, these numbers primarily exist in the “third world”, or overcrowded places, or just places with poor medical care and lower levels of hygiene. Many of the diseases that once plagued our ancestors do not even exist anymore for us, and many of the diseases that plague us will not exist for our ancestors. Man has BECOME the #1 predator on the planet, whereas the other hominids have not. We have transcended our “mere” genes and evolutionary tree through ARTIFICIAL means. This means we are NOT subject to the normal predator-prey dynamic that keeps other populations and gene pools in check.

>>If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them

I seem to have missed this on first read.

No, dolphins are not “outside” the scope of “naturalistic” evolution because, while they possess great intelligence and ingenuity, they have not developed a way to ensure that genes that would have been eliminated by natural selection are passed to the next generation.

Why would you think they should have developed hands with opposable thumbs? Would that have helped them swim faster and escape predators? NO. They adapted to fit their marine environment. We adapted to our arboreal one. Different solutions for the same problem.

>>Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

Um, no. The reason the planets are not further away from the sun than they are is because the Sun has maintained a constant gravitational field throughout its existence. The expansion of the universe at large does not affect local gravitational fields. Also I would NOT expect all the planets to rotate uniformly on perfectly perpendicular axes. The universe IS a chaotic and random place, especially during the formation of what we consider a “regular” system, so collisions are incredibly HIGHLY probable. Our own tilted axis as well as Neptune’s is most likely due to a collision, as is the retrograde rotation of Venus, Pluto, and Uranus, as well as the rings around the ringed planets, which are due to colliding moons, asteroids, and comets. Why would you find the anomalies odd? There ARE scientific explanations for apparent “exceptions”.

Also, evolution says nothing about anything other than life. It says nothing about the universe at large or solar system or the movements of planets or the deaths of stars or the big bang or abiogenesis. It has to do with adapting life, and ONLY adapting life. Discussing the estimation of the age of the universe is in the realm of astronomers and cosmologists, NOT “evolutionists”.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You may find this interesting, but a modern system of peer review was not fully in place until the mid 20th century. Prior to this, there WAS no established, formal, peer review process. And also note that there was not really a “scientific community” in the terms we have today. We had groups of scientists, but science was not an independent realm with its own “community”, and those practicing science had other connections, usually religious. It was not the nonexistent scientific community that spurned the discoveries but rather the religious and philosophical communities that either found an apparent discrepancy between their holy text and the finding, or found the potential implications unsavory (You mean we are just machines??!!11!!? O NOES!!1!!). Also with no peer review process or “establishment” in place, it was just a man and his discovery. In many ways, it still is, BUT the wheat is separated from the chaff more times than not, especially post 1950 when more rigorous standards were put in place.

>>I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

I have pointed out a number of holes in your understanding and misconceptions you hold, you have even admitted to one or two.

Remember that you do not have to give up your Christian faith in order to hold an accurate view of how the universe operates. Many Christians find “God’s power” even more mysterious and amazing once they break out of a young earth creationist mindset. I have seen both sides of the argument. It would be absolutely foolish not to try to do so yourself.

In retrospect, I should have used different wording in the “natural/unnatural” paragraph, but this was written long before the Natural thread in Kriegphilosophie so I didn’t realize how my words could have been misunderstood. I don’t believe Aelnathan ever touched on it again, but any reader who currently has problems with the wording should read the Natural thread for further clarification.

Cleric jumps in again.

>> Cleric Said:
Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age.

I’m sorry, but you are clearly in error here. This is a ridiculous assumption and to say you have stated “facts” at the end of your response is merely disengenious to what you have written. You attempt to assert that the expansion of the ENTIRE universe somehow changes the way gravitational fields work. This is NOT true. It would be a good idea to learn some gravitational mechanics before you assert such ideas as this. I have no idea who told you this or why you think it’s true.

Furthermore, attempting to relate the evolutionary theory of life to the development of planets is simply a fantasy. The mechanics of how life developed on a planet are vastly different than how large rocks or gas planets developed. Sure you can use the word “evolve” with the defintion of “to develop gradually” but you cannot apply the Theory of Evolution to Celestial Mechanics.

>>Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day.

You are a fool to do so. It would be like me ignoring things like the Pythagorean theorm simply because the scientific community supports it. You also seem to misunderstand that “Peer-review” was NOT a requirement until the mid 20th century. Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton. So to make this statement is to not realize the history of required scientific writing. It is also the reason why you see a gap in “bad science” versus “good science” in times like the 1800’s and before. If the scientific discoveries made then hold up today, then you can be assured that under peer review they are as factual as they’ll get. To say otherwise is to not understand the peer review process and I think you will have an incredibly difficult time with your aspirations in mechanical engineering if you wish to dismiss the process from which you’ll be learning!

>>The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

My father is a mechanical engineer, and so are a few friends of mine. You will NOT learn the things you claim to have opinions of. Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not bring you to astrophysics, it will not explain the intricacies of geology, or anything of that nature. If you want to find out what the scientific world says about these things then YOU will have to seek out the information. Reading the Bible, going to young Earth creationist propaganda sites, will NOT help you understand any of these topics. Anath and I have delved into these topics pretty heavily so to dismiss our help or dismiss our willingness to discuss these topics is further folly. It smacks of not wanting to have your worldview challenged at all costs. This is something I don’t understand and really belies the makings of a poor scientist and mechanical engineer, in my opinion.

If my words anger you, they probably should, for your words have frustrated me. While you have been quite amiable, I can’t help but feel dismay that you would choose to go into a field heavily science laden with such a biased and close minded attitude. I am sorry, but you need to be challenged in some fashion on this. If not by me, then by your future teachers on the subjects. We offer our help, yet it is rejected, that is what angers me.

Aelnathan said:
It has not been my attempt to anger anyone. I am sorry that you have become so frustated.

Concernig man’s evolutionary descent, I will here remind you of a fact that I am sure you are aware of: not all evolutionists are Darwinists. In my post I mentioned and was speaking of evolutionists, not Darwinists. There are contentions about man’s origins. Perhaps you have merely dealt with the evolutionists that follow Darwin.

Concerning the expansion of the planet’s orbits, they are getting farther apart, though perhaps not as fast as I first expected. Here is link to a dis-cussion concerning NASA’s upcoming attempts to study “dark energy”, a mysterious substance that is pushing galaxies and, yes, planets apart. http://www.sitnews.us/1006news/100206/100206_shns_darkenergy.html . Of course these a very small amounts that will not apparently affect us for billions of years, and does not quite illustrate my argument. However, the moon is moving at a relatively rapid pace away from the earth—-somewhere around 3.8 centimeters per year, according to an article by Britt Britt Scharringhausen, PhD, at cornell.edu ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=124 ). Of course, the article says that it did not always move this fast, saying that the “Moon was slowed down by the tides raised on it by the Earth.” It would be interesting to find out what the rates were “billions of years ago”, before the magma ocean cooled and the tides stopped. Still, just applying the current rate to a time after the magma ocean apparently crystalized (said to be around 215 million years ago, according to wikipedia’s article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_magma_ocean ), that would mean that at the time when the ocean cooled, the moon was 2,150 km nearer to Earth than it is now. That makes for an orbit over .5% smaller than the current orbit of 384,000 km. What affect do you suppose this would have had on the earth’s oceans? The earth and moon may have been even closer than this, actually, because the rate of this orbital expansion is now slowing down ( http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=699 ). I find it interesting that this rarely seems to be discussed in this context. I do not remember claiming that my discussions would be limited to biologic life. In fact, I remember discussing plate tectonics in a much earlier post. Ah, yes, evolutionists do have theories concerning the origin of the universe, do they not? I notice a trend of responses to my posts constantly referring to Darwinism. I never declared that I only would discuss Darwinism.

It is interesting to note the furor that surrounds the comments folowing one’s questioning of the peer-review process. I said I do not “worship” (”to honor or reverence as a diving being or supernatural power”, The Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1997) the peer-review process, not that I discard everything produced by it. Curiously, I am far from the only person who does not think that this process is all that it claims to be. Richard Horton, fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, honorary professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and University College London, and editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that “The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability – not the validity – of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Criticisms_of_peer_review ) I am sure that Richard Horton does not dispute the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that peer review did become so prominent until the middle of the 20th century raises questions about its proclaimed crucial nature. “Galileo and Aristarchus did not publish peer reviewed projects. Nor did Tesla, nor did Newton.” Thus, why is peer-review so necessary? The “bad science” of the 19th century is not in use today, and fell out of use before the dominance of peer-review.

It is an interesting phrase, “claim to have an opinion”. By definition, an opinion is a personal view. In my study of science so far, I have experienced a reasonable amount of success. For several years my grade average in general science has been above 95. My average in chemistry was 93. I have chosen mechanical engineering because of its practical application of science. As you have put it, “Mechanical Engineering does not take you down the path of evolutionary biology, it doesn’t not [Ah ah ah, let us watch those double negatives! Your words actually mean the opposite of what you were intending to say. "Doesn't not" means "does", technically. "Doesn't" or "does not" are much more fitting for the sentence at hand.] bring you to astrophysics, or anything of that nature.” I am quite fine with that. I am no theoretician, but I do have skill applying science, whether it be gardening or machine repair. At any rate, I did not mean to offend anyone with my choice to forgo the tutelage offered me. I am sorry this has kindled such anger, for that was far from my attempt. I also regret that this discussion has shown the first signs of name-calling arise, though it came in the form of a grammatically absurd remark. In response to my post, “Personally, I do not worship `peer-reviewed scientific fact.’” your comment, “You are a fool to do so.” would have been much better served with the phrase “You are a fool not to worship it.” or “You are a fool not to.” As the phrase currently stands, its peculiarity would render it unintelligible were it not for the sentences that followed. I could be led to believe that I would be a fool to worship the peer-review process, or rather that I was being a fool in my worship of peer-review. Both outcomes are contradictory, with the former contradicting your apparent faith in the system, and the latter carrying this anomaly in addition to the contradiction of my own stated opinion of peer-review. Fortunately, the words that follow clarified this potentially confusing line. One must not forget one’s grammar, even in scientific discussions. It becomes even more crucial when one must write scientific papers to receive one’s degree.

In any case, I am not angry to see my views challenged. I do not mind being called a fool. That of all things is the last item that could hope to sway my passing interest. Alas, that this discussion has come to this! Well, I must retire from this discussion now, for it is obvious that my beliefs are not going to be blown away. For those who have remained calm and resisted the urge to taunt, I congratulate them. For those who almost managed such a feat, but failed at the end, I pity their misfortune, yet am glad that they composed themselves for the majority of the debate. Thank you all for this discussion. I will not be seen posting here again, at any rate not for quite some time. I chance the appearance of being a stubborn brute, yet I am equally stubborn in my belief in the practicality of the sum 2+ 2= 4. Good-bye to all, farewell, and may we come to know the Truth.

Author of the Aelnathan

WOW you got good grades in general ed high school science? That’s amazing and totally gives you credibility on high level topics such as abiogenesis. And its so cool that you know grammar so well and can give us several paragraphs of condescending instruction instead of actually addressing our points.

Cleric obviously was not a fan of this worthless post.

Cleric said:
Yes, it is wonderful that you resisted the urge to taunt, despite the lengthy paragraph analyzing a typo. Obviously one (you) could not resist the urge. Despite this you go into lengthy detail while forgetting the fact that we are conversing in a forum, not writing scientific documents. I’m sorry that was so lost on you, despite the fact that you got the gist of what I was saying. I love how you try to be overly pretentious and high minded through most of this yet imply you resisted the urge not to taunt at the end… splendidly good show sir. Well, you obviously grasp the English language quite well, you should stick with writing and leave science to the scientists. I hope you find the truth that 2+2 does equal 4 someday.

Next week, the typo/grammar drama continues, and I call Aelnathan out to either step it up or step OUT.

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 24th, 2009 at 10:54 pm and is filed under Internet, debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.