The Antichristian Phenomenon

It seems that I missed a week in my goal!  I have been really busy recently, I didn’t even realize the week went by.

Anyway, we left off with typo drama and a bit of bragging.  Now it’s my turn to confront the nonsense.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Anath said:
I’m not too frustrated, I’m having a grand time since this sort of thing is very stress relieving and it is finals so I am very stressed. : )

>>Concerning 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.

I am still waiting for your examples. I have yet to come across one person who believes in either “Darwinian” evolution, or ANY form of the Theory of Evolution who does not assert that we had a common ancestor that was hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote… Only Creationists and ID proponents do not believe this because they believe for some bizarre reason we were made out of dirt, or are somehow not Apes. EXAMPLES, PLEASE. If you want to make a statement you NEED to back it up.

>>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.

I will read the stuff on dark matter after finals, but it does seem a bit odd the way you are presenting it.

Now you missed the purpose for this paragraph which I believe you should read again: “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”.”

I did not mean you cannot discuss these topics but let me rephrase for more clarity. It is not “evolutionists” that have theories about the universe (meaning anything other than biological life) as a whole but rather it is ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS. Astronomers and Cosmologists may follow the Theory of Evolution or they may not. There is a high correlation between scientists and those believe the theory is true, but remember your order of carts and horses. These scientists are ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS before they are “evolutionists”, so to state that “evolutionists” have a theory is erroneous, as there may be astronomers and cosmologists that do not follow evolutionary theory. You would be better off stating that “astronomers and cosmologists” have theories about the universe, because that is true. Also it is erroneous to assume that an issue with these theories impacts the theory of evolution in any way, or can be used as an argument against it. When discussing geology, cosmology/astronomy, or anything OTHER than biological evolution, keep “Evolution” and “Evolutionists” out of it. As stated before, it is fallacious and erroneous.

>> Peer review

I don’t “worship” peer review either, I am skeptical of everything. However I am much more likely to look at an article in a peer-reviewed journal, since it means that there is a higher chance the article is not total nonsense, and any oddities WILL be addressed in the future as more scientists try to repeat the experiment. No peer reviewed paper is gospel, and no scientist reviews peer reviewed papers as gospel. Why do you think they/we do?

And also, look, I know you’re trying to find any way to gain credibility here, but leave out nonsense like this:
>>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.

Your high school grades aren’t going to prove anything and have no bearing on the real world. Displaying actual understanding of the subject proves something. I also got straight A’s in high school, straight A’s in college (including college-level science classes), and even got 100+% A’s in Religion class in private Christian school, which CLEARLY has no connection to my reality. So WHAT? Who CARES? Grades mean NOTHING, just that one can regurgitate and spit for the test. How about you go back and readdress my points on operating “outside” nature and dolphins and antibiotics and predators other things I posted a rebuttal for rather than bragging about how well you did in high school and playing English teacher?

If you want to talk the talk, WALK THE WALK. Running away without addressing serious points and cowering under the shield of “I believe it is true so I’m not listening na na na na!” is, I repeat, foolish.

And now comes the epic posts. Hopefully my “step up or step out” comment inspired him, because Aelnathan breaks the character limit and has to move to using THREE posts to state his argument. However, I’m only going to blockquote once. You can safely skim the first three to five paragraphs though, its just Aelnathan continuing to play English teacher, berating everyone who’s omg so stupids to make and call out typos because its so not helpful for the debate… while insisting he’s being constructive and clever.

I am also going to annotate it in bold, because its too long to have annotations at the end.

Aelnathan said:
First of all, for Cleric’s benefit, I will here declare my understanding that this medium through which we are currently conversing is not intended to be a beacon of grammatically correct English speech. Spelling error is not a fatal sin here, nor is the occasional double negative. Though I have noticed spelling and grammar errors in your previous posts (whether it be your failure to capitalize the first letter of “Noah” in your March 16 post, or your more recent replacement of “theorm” for “theorem” in your May 6 post), I have not previously commented on them, because I realize the casual atmosphere of this discussion. I am sure that anyone could pick out errors in my own posts. However, it is not necessary (nor productive) for one human to label another human a fool in discussions like these. I am not quite sure why the word “fool” was decided upon. Perhaps the person responsible for this word’s utterance was attempting to engender anger in myself, hoping that I would return with some biting remark. However, I do not believe such activity is helpful, and so instead I commented on the confusing layout of the derisive sentence of which I was the target. It is amusing to note that you, Cleric, have used a similar method yourself before. On July 23, 2008, in response to a post R. Schrader had made about your review of Expelled, saying,

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 2 Peter 3:5″,

you said,

“By the way, I like how you pluralized “god” in relation to the creation. This at least shows that you might have a clue about the Hebrew translation of “elohim” in the beginning of Gensis, where it reads “gods”. However, you might just be bad at writing and didn’t make it a possessive. Anyway, if you could get back to me that would be great!”

One could argue that my comment on your post was somewhat fairer, considering that I made it obvious that I understood what you were trying to say. At any rate, English is but a mode of conveying knowledge, whether it be helpful or inflammatory. Science is the discussion here, and the varying nuances of the English language are of neither great concern nor pertinence. When one is being insulted, however, the least one could ask for is a clearly stated deprecation. All in all, it is obvious that grammar is not tantamount to scientific proficiency. If I have skill with it, it makes me no better a person or scientist than the next person. It has not been my intent to disparage you, Cleric. I was merely illustrating yet another occurrence of the “Misspelled Moron” phenomenon that I and others have observed over time. Generally, this singularly amusing principle can be seen when a person proclaims another to be an “ideot” (instead of “idiot) or “moran” (instead of “moron”), botching their attempts to insult another by portraying their own fallacies with spelling. Perhaps theses occurrences have little to do with the subject at hand, yet it is interesting nonetheless.

Now that the “English Incident” has been resolved, it is time to move on to other things. I am happy to hear that you, Anath, have found such a convenient method of stress-relief, and if I am of service, I am glad. However, in many cases, the treatment SRVD (Stress Relief Via Debate) often has seriously frustrating side effects. Side effects may include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, denial, incredulity, disappointment, and stress-generation. If these symptoms should occur, stop using SRVD immediately.

I have quite logically been asked to support my claims of discord among evolutionists concerning man’s ancestry, and thus I now provide my ex-planation. What follows is a quote from the book This View of Life, written by the renowned, Darwin-Wallace Medal-winning paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson: “On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pus-syfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the des-cendant of any living ape—-a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—-and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, p. 12, This View of Life [New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World]).
I hope this makes my point concerning the contention of man’s origins clear. By Simpson’s comments, we can see that such an argument, at least at one time, existed. That’s right, because the debate about semantics in 1964 is so relevant to our level of knowledge today. Additionally there was a conclusion drawn here, and I think it was the opposite of what he wanted..

In response to the apparently “erroneous” exercise of pointing out fallacies in the biological theories of evolution by means of commonly held astrophysics, I will in turn ask my own question. If it is forbidden to apply astrophysics to theories concerning the dawn of life on Earth, why is it so often used as a method to disprove Creationism? Why do so many scientists ridicule the idea of a young universe (and subsequently a young Earth, and thus recent emergence of biological life, etc.), stating examples such as “It takes over a million years for the light of the Andromeda Galaxy to reach Earth” or that “Since it takes so many billions of years for a star to become a red giant, the fact that there are so many red giants proves that the universe is very old”? If one side of the debate is allowed to use such methods, than it is only fair that the other may also use such methods. I do not see why this item would be so controversial. In addition, much of today’s accepted theories concerning the origin of the universe are “evolutionary” in nature. Stating that the exceedingly complex universe of today arose from the “primeval atom” or whatnot suggests that the universe has evolved to greater complexity in its components and as a whole. Whether it fits within “Darwinism” or “evolutionary biology” is irrelevant. I must apparently clarify my aims of discussion yet further. I never said that I would limit myself to discussing Darwinism or evolutionary biology. I have all along been discussing evolution as a whole—-stellar evolution and related topics included. To harp about my departures from the mysteriously formed rules that only the evo-lution of biological life can here be discussed is immensely absurd.

Concerning your stance on peer-review, have a care! You are in danger of being lambasted by a certain poster in virtually close proximity! You risk being labeled a “fool”! Ah, well, your views on peer-review are pretty much my own (… Cleric holds the same views I do on the topic, I don’t get it.). It is a very real possibility that certain potentially in-cendiary findings may be suppressed indefinitely, however, and consi-dering how much faith is put into this fairly recent system, this possibility is disconcerting to say the least. As said by Dr. Richard Horton, a man much more highly qualified and experienced than myself, the peer-review system is “easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” [see my previous post for a more complete quote, as well as its source]

Your comments on my rather junior education so far are quite right, though to assert that such truly meager achievements have left absolutely no mark on my life is somewhat untrue. My average of 97 in English has certainly shown results, much to the unfortunate chagrin of some. However, I hope this most recent post has imbued my side of the discus-sion some greater measure of credibility (No, it really hasn’t.). If you wish to return to the subject of the bounds of natural evolution, dolphins, and the like, I will most happily oblige.

Concerning the bounds of natural evolution, and man’s apparent transcendence of it, I will ask another question. Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence? You made a rather succinct statement before concerning the evolution of dolphins when you said, “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.” Again, I ask, “Why did we ever leave the jungle?” The gorilla is incredibly well-suited to his arboreal environment. If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment, why would our ancient “primate ancestor” find the need to evolve to a more complex mental form? Man’s intelligence, in the strictest sense, is unnecessary. Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like. Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

I hope that so far I have been found to be walking the walk. However, I am not finished. Yes, I am sure that this will bother some, but I will now return to the subject of the origin of the universe, and how the most commonly held secular view is rather pertinent to evolution as a whole. The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe by secular scientists. However, the theory’s entire existence depends on two assumptions,

1. That physical laws are universal
2. The cosmological principle, which says that the universe on large scales is ho-mogenous and isotropic.

Yet the claim that the universe arose unaided from some superhot, super-dense clump of matter during the Planck Epoch breaks one of the fundamental physical laws—-the second law of thermodynamics, which in the version relating to entropy states, ” In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.” This renders the Big Bang Theory little more than a peculiar paradox, at least when it is expected to occur unaided. Nearly all of the evidence of astro-nomical observation indicates that the universe was certainly once much smaller, but when scientists try to explain its completely “natural” birth, they find that there is only so far they can go before scientific principles literally cease to exist. As demonstrated by such natural processes as photo-synthesis, entropy can be fought in small systems, yet even these events contribute to the greater total entropy of the universe. The only logical explanation for the occurrence of a Big Bang would be that some outside force instigated its activity. From a secular point of view, perhaps this could be attributed to some mysterious, enormous external energy force. But then the question of this external energy’s origin arises.

I believe now I have addressed the questions asked of me. I will now proceed to give an alternative view on the origin of the universe. Perhaps a Creator is involved with the universe. Yes, I know, eyes are rolling, sighs are emerging, but I must proceed to quote Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe. If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis. With this idea, the variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe. In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time. One of the formerly popular theories concerning life’s emergence from the inorganic was the theory of Spontaneous Generation, popularized by Aristotle in such books as his The History of Animals. For around two thousand years this theory was accepted by most scientists, until it was scientifically dispro-ven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century (who just happened to be a Christian). There are gaps in the Theory of Evolution, most glaringly so perhaps in the fossil record. Assuming that life slowly evolved from one life form to another, there should be hundreds of transitional forms for every single species. It is rather odd that these transitional forms have remained so elusive. Here I quote Darwin medal-winning botanist E. J. H. Corner.

“The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced – the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory – and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?” (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from ‘Evolution’, p. 97, in “Contemporary Botanical Thought”, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)

You can read the quote yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._H._Corner

Anyway, I hope now my views—-and the reasons for them—-have been made clear. I bear no ill will toward any of you, and I hope you share the same sentiments. It has been a pleasure having this discussion, though somehow I feel that it is not yet over. In any case, farewell for now.

–Author of the Aelnathan

Pain. in. head.
Cleric made a follow up post indicating that he’d refrain from commenting “at the risk of sending someone on a typo tirade”, so that left me. My reply ended up taking up two posts.

Anath said
.I will try to keep this organized topically.

>>Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence?
>>Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like.

One of the things that characterizes man is our very efficient form of locomotion, which allowed us to populate every environment. You are thinking in VERY small terms with evolution here. Remember that the whole purpose of evolution is not to benefit an individual, or even an individual species, but the “immortal coil” = our GENETIC CODE. The purpose of anything is more efficient replication of the genetic code. You have to take a step back here and think about evolution on a very large scale. Through trial and error, the code finds ideal solutions for problems it faces in replication. Take a step back for a moment and think of some of the first complex life, and then we’ll fast forward and apply what I am about to say to humans, because it is much easier to understand when we address it on a small scale.

Imagine we have a small pool with the “first” micro organisms containing the “first” DNA. All of these organisms have advanced to the level where they have advanced metabolic processes and self replicate regularly. Currently there is only one strain. This strain replicates enough, and the pool is populated, but there is only ONE common food supply, lets say glucose, to feed thousands of these little microorganisms. Overpopulation kills a certain number of these microorganisms and they are unable to replicate. This presents a problem for the genes–they need to ensure that they replicate properly in order to “survive”, and now they are faced with COMPETITION (key word) from rival strains. They need to adapt NOW or go extinct. Now it so happens that the waste product of the glucose-based metabolic process is a citrate, and since it is the waste product it is in abundance in the environment. This means that in order to beat competition in this environment, the ideal way is to find a competition-free source of “food”… or the citrate. Within a few generations, there will be micro organisms that have developed a mutation that allows them to digest citrate and replicate with significantly less COMPETITION. Sound impossible? This is actually an experiment that has occurred in labs in the past few years. Here is a link to the official site and here is a link to an article explaining the results.

Now that we’ve imagined microorganisms that “solve problems” through developing new traits in order to eliminate COMPETITION and allow themselves to replicate more freely, lets turn back to humans. Why would humans leave the jungle? Why would they come down from trees and seek food and shelter elsewhere, and develop the intelligence and skills needed in order to create our own environment? ELIMINATING COMPETITION. GREATER FREEDOM OF REPLICATION. The jungle is a crowded place. There are panthers and snakes, rival primates, dangerous insects, and so on. We faced a lot of competition in the jungle, so it was highly advantageous for our genes to “solve the problem”, and find a way that we could innovate and skirt the competition, but we are more complex organisms than e coli, so simply changing food source was not enough. The solution our genes found was bipedalism and our efficient form of locomotion. Our intelligence came later. Our ability to walk efficiently for miles on two hind legs and use our forelegs to carry infants and or gathered food is what set us apart and allowed us to spread into any environment worldwide. The gorilla ancestors came up with a different solution to the competition problem.

Further, we are an omnivorous species, which allows us to make use of nearly any food source in our environment that we could catch. An increased intelligence allows us to come up with creative solutions to catch greater game, as the greater intelligence of wolves allows them to collaborate in a hunt. But also remember that brains are VERY “expensive” organs to operate so we see our diet change our physiology, as we eat more meat and higher calorie food, we have more fuel available to run a very expensive brain, which in turn lets us catch more game, find more efficient methods of finding vegetable matter, and thus fuel even more expensive brains. The “smarter” we got, the “smarter” we were able to get, and the more advantageous it was to be “smart”! No, it was not “necessary” to have a brain as advanced as ours is, but remember what was said earlier: The whole purpose of evolution is to benefit the GENETIC CODE and increase chances of replication. Bare survival is the minimum goal of evolution, the “higher” goal is to create “replication machines” that allow for minimum competition and increased replication. Survival helps with this goal, but our genetic code has hit on the solution that makes us the ultimate “replication machine”; adaptable to every environment, able to ELIMINATE competition, able to sustain our own food sources instead of relying on fickle nature… THAT is why we became what we are. But what will come after us? There will most certainly be a more efficient replication machine, but that is the future.

Now for dolphins:
>>If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment,

Remember again, our physical form came before our intelligence, as did the dolphin’s. Carts come AFTER horses! The dolphin’s solutions to adapt and overcome competition are much different than ours, and involved going back into the water and re-adapting to marine life to become one of the top predators, as remember, it is a mammal and has out-of-water ancestors. Mammal brains are also much more advanced than fish brains so going back to dominate the water with intelligence and speed was a very good “choice”.

>>Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

Genetics is a complex thing. Perhaps the answers are largely genetic, and remember it is not necessarily true that an advantageous trait will continue to be advantageous or is necessarily correlated to another trait. Our ancestors may never have had the “great strength” of other primates in the first place, and an excess of hair may not have been advantageous in certain environments. Why would you presume it would be, or has to be a “cosmetic” loss or gain?

It also appears you do not understand sexual selection at all… it is not about pretty faces but appealing TRAITS, and I’m not sure how you think that natural selection has “dropped beneficial traits to replace them with subjective, aesthetic appeal”? That makes no sense in terms of replication. Advantageous traits and what we might call “aesthetic appeal” correlate in nature, they HAVE to in order for the advantageous traits to replicate, and we are the only species that seem to separate the two due to our capacity for abstract thought. Dominant Bull Sea Lions aren’t “sexy” to Cow Sea Lions, they exhibit their strength and fitness to get mates. Species like Bowerbirds create their elaborate displays to prove that they are “fit” to mate, and some other males present females with gifts to display their hunting prowess and prove that they can care for offspring. None of this has to do with sex appeal or beauty, and most other primates follow these basic guidelines where a “fit” male gets a “fit” female, and they are “fit” not because they’re gorgeous super-models, but because they somehow display the fact that they have a good set of genes. Again, with these creatures (and us, but I’ll get to that), the traits that are beneficial to survival and traits that will gain them mates positively correlate, so it IS efficient, especially for the genes, which is what matters.

Now us… again, natural selection has NOT dropped off beneficial traits to make us “beautiful”. We find certain people beautiful because they display a set of genes that is beneficial and advantageous. (There is a lot of research done on this, so I can provide you with a lot of sources if you’d like.) There are certain visible characteristics that indicate heath and vigor, some that indicate strength, and so on. For example, Symmetry is one of them. If you go through a series of faces, and rate them in terms of how attractive you find them (HONESTLY), the higher rated faces are generally the most symmetrical, and scientists have created composite faces out of features taken from multiple different faces to prove this correlation (so it wasn’t just “Do you think Angelina Jolie is attractive? What about this random person on the street?). Symmetry of body and facial features do indicate that the genes are generally “good”, without major defect, so we are attracted to symmetry in the same way a female bowerbird is attracted to the male bowerbird who creates a very symmetrical nest. It is a genetic solution with its base in our GENES, and is advantageous to our GENES. Similarly, we can also find mates who are good genetic matches by smell, as specific pheromones will smell good to someone who is a good genetic match that will potentially make an good complement in terms of disease immunity among other things, that will ensure future replication. Again, a very highly efficient system for REPLICATION. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about individuals, or even individual species. Truly advantageous traits are never replaced because the creature will never replicate. We simply overthink the reproductive process because we have the capacity for abstract thought and can actually make of list of “ideal traits” for a mate.

>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have a friend who is making his career studying this, so I will see if he’ll type up a more thorough response later, but for now I guess my explanation will have to do.

You miss one KEY word in your definition. CLOSED. Thermodynamics relates to a closed system. Sticking external energy in makes it an open system, but to our knowledge the universe is not an open system, it is a closed system, and the idea of an infinitely dense amount of material spreading out and cooling fits perfectly with the second law, especially with the idea of energy change. Whatever the initial dense material was, it had a LOT of potential energy, and the expansion was simply taking that potential energy and changing it into other forms. Here’s a site that goes over entropy.

As for the time before, we do not know what happened, but that does NOT imply that “goddidit”. It simply implies that there is a hurdle to overcome. There are alternative ideas to “goddidit” that involve black holes, collapsing and expanding cycles, and so on, but we do not yet have the math needed to prove any of them. We also can not prove the “goddidit” idea either. Now I will address your version of “goddidit”, god-of-the-gaps Creationism.

Remember that I will be using the Bible as literature written by human authors.
Time for point by point.
>>Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe.

It would answer nothing in terms of scientific incongruities unless it were an experimentally testable hypothesis. Perhaps there is a chance it is the answer, but it will answer NOTHING in SCIENCE until SCIENCE can confirm it. All it can do is make you feel good and pretend you have an answer that you do not have. The reason I say you are pretending to have an answer is because you can not empirically prove that your answer is the correct one, when you can do that, THEN you will have an answer.

>>If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis.

Do you understand that you have provided a cop-out here? This is nothing more than God-of-the-Gaps. “Since we can’t explain it (yet), it must be a being outside the physical laws and ultimately powerful.” This is no different than assuming your house is haunted because the TV keeps flicking off and you can’t figure out why. You haven’t ANSWERED anything, just made up an unfalsifiable statement. If it is unfalsifiable, it can not be a scientific explanation, and thus not an answer. PROVE that your version of a god-being did this with a falsifiable hypothesis. Test it. Report the results. Then we will agree that this solution is plausible. Until then, do NOT propose that your answer is correct, or even plausible. YOU HAVE NO HARD DATA.

>>he variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Remember the Bible was written (inspired if you like) when we had already achieved the level of intelligence and other capacities necessary to become the dominant species from natural methods. At the time this was penned, mankind had cities, agriculture, animal husbandry, technology and had thus fulfilled “god’s promise”. This is simply repeating the state of things ex post facto, and thus does not require a supreme being to have inspired it. Other societies made similar statements independently.

>>Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe.
PLEASE read the page I linked to you about entropy. If for some reason you believeentropy to be general “disorder” or “chaos” you have GREATLY misunderstood the concept. Even if we take Bible literalism, in order for Adam and Eve to breathe and metabolize nutrients in the first place there HAD TO HAVE BEEN ENTROPY. You may believe it, but your beliefs do not align with reality and are thus wrong. Either change your unfounded belief to align with reality or admit you are living in a deluded fantasy.

>>In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

Again, we simply have not discovered a viable model yet. THAT DOES NOT MEAN GODDIDIT.

>>In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time.

Nonsense. Creationism fails to provide a falsifiable hypothesis, thereby it cannot ever be proven or disproven. Once Creationists step up to the plate and provide the most basic requirements, then scientists can do something about it. The theory of spontaneous generation had a falsifiable hypothesis: “Organisms spontaneously generate”. You CAN prove or disprove that. Creationism lacks this.

>>Transitional forms and quote

Did you even look at the DATE on that quote????? It’s from 1961! A LOT of discovery has been made since then. I am not surprised that a scientist of any kind doubted the evidence for transitional fossils and other aspects of evolution in 1961. If you can find serious, reputable biologists post-2000 making the same claims, then I would be impressed.

Additionally, we are finding fossils of transitional forms all the time. I have also read in a textbook on Evolution of Insects about scientists observing potential transitional forms, that these transitional forms may NOT be obvious in terms of obvious fossil differences. The transitions that we are studying currently are BEHAVIORAL, specifically having to do with mating behavior, or in color, neither of which would appear in fossils. There is no reason to insist that transitional forms do not exist simply because they aren’t obvious in the fossil record when we are observing transitional forms through behavior and color in the field.

This is the insect evolution textbook I was talking about.

Anyway, I’ll try to remember to post next week instead of skipping!
Then you get to see Aelnathan get hung up on wording instead of concept, and make more bizarre statements about thermodynamics. Tasty.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 7th, 2009 at 7:14 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. 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.