Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 29th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
UPDATE: There is an excellent discussion happening on this topic HERE at IIDB. Read the posts by “afdave” and “Jet Black” to get a handle on the issues.
Anyone who has studied cells should say with Michael Denton that “Cell Amaze!” We now know that cells are literally factories–no, more like whole cities full of factories, with each factory containing thousands of automated machines for accomplishing the myriad tasks necessary to support life. (Picture above from Biovisions at Harvard, an awesome video entitled “The Inner Life of the Cell”) But many Darwinists say “those are not true machines, those are not true factories. It’s just an analogy.” Why do they say this? What disqualifies them from “machine-hood” and “factory-hood”? They do all the same things as machines and factories, do they not? My mother once told me that “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s probably a duck.” Pretty good advice from a non-scientific lady. So why can’t the Darwinists get this simple logic? Do they wish to avoid the obvious problems with their naturalistic theory of origins if they were to admit the reality of these cellular machines and factories? I would love for a Darwinist to explain WHY they think these are not real machines. And, if they ARE real machines, why is it not the most reasonable inference to say that they may have originated by intelligence. Doesn’t prove it of course … but comes close. Our duck example above could turn out to NOT be a duck upon closer inspection. But at least we should admit the possibility of intelligence and investigate further. After all, that’s what we say when we see man-made machines. Why should we not say this with cellular machines as well? All I can think of is that Darwinists don’t WANT there to be an Intelligent Designer.
In any case, here are some interesting items about cellular machines. Hope you enjoy them as much as I did. Read more »
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 28th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
From Ken Ham’s blog recently …
“A good laugh is also considered good medicine. Recently, the Bob Jones University Help at Home Live program broadcast on the university’s satellite network (BJ HomeSat) visited the Creation Museum. They not only filmed the Museum, but also interviewed me for the program (see photograph). They also asked me to be involved in a parody of the GEICO caveman commercials. You will really get a laugh when you see this parody.”
Link to Ken’s Blog Link to BJU Geico Spoof
NOTE TO IIDB FORUM MEMBERS: I would have posted this at IIDB, but I think that “Worldtraveller,” an anti-creationist activist moderator there, would have issued me an infraction for “baiting.” Funny … from reading others’ posts, it appears that “baiting” is a one-way street … an infraction only issued to creationists.
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 27th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
At the various forums where I converse with non-creationists, I hear a common theme … “Fundies are anti-science, authoritarian, not very smart denialists who would return the civilized world to the Dark Ages.” I’ve always believed that this is utter and complete nonsense … I think the opposite is actually true. But I have never attempted to document my position … UNTIL NOW. When you begin to examine the evidence and quit reading modern revisionists, you find that, in a very real sense, it was “Fundies” who founded modern science. Stay with me now as we take a look. (At left: Robert Boyle, Founding Royal Society Member, Father of Modern Chemistry, Puritan Christian Activist, Example of How NOT to Fix Your Hair if You Are Male :-) , etc. Credit: Wikipedia) Below, you will see that … “When the Royal Society was chartered by Charles II on this day July 15, 1662, it was the first scientific society in history. Not surprisingly, active Christians, with their interest in God’s creation, brought it into existence. In fact, its membership was overwhelmingly Puritan in makeup.” Read more »
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 24th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
Everyone knows about Galileo’s suppression.
Galileo’s championing of Copernicanism, particularly the heliocentric model of the universe, was controversial within his lifetime. The geocentric view had been dominant since the time of Aristotle, and the controversy engendered by Galileo’s opposition to this view resulted in the condemnation of heliocentrism in 1616 by the Catholic Church as contrary to Scripture. Galileo was eventually forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest on orders of the Inquisition.
But many don’t realize that suppression of dissenting views in science continues today. No, it’s not the Catholic Church doing the suppressing. It’s a different “church” and a different dogma. It’s “high priests” are high profile atheists and evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. It’s apologists are activist professors like P.Z Meyers who run anti-creationist blogs. And it’s “god” apparently is Charles Darwin. And quite frankly, anyone who disagrees with Darwinism and flirts with Creationist/ID ideas is in danger … not of house arrest … not of getting burned at the stake … no, no … we are more sophisticated than that. You’ll just be denied tenure, or you won’t get promoted, or you’ll get demoted or some such thing. See the “Smithsonian Darwinists Harrass Competent Scientist for Publishing a *Gasp* Intelligent Design Paper” for a perfect example of such harrassment.
Thanks Ben Stein and company for doing this much needed work! I hope your movie is a great success.
(I recall that Michael Behe once said that he didn’t dare publish “Darwin’s Black Box” until AFTER he got tenure. Does anyone have a link for that quote?)
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 23rd, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
NOTE: IIDB did not allow discussion on this thread. They closed the thread within minutes of my posting it. Click HERE.
If you cannot see the type, the caption says this is “Robert Boyle.”
In the last week or so, people here were giving Dr. Jerry Bergman a hard time about some typos in his footnotes … their message was clear … “Bergman is incompetent because of these things.”
But what if we were that hard on Evolutionist authors, such as the one who wrote this Nature article …
Do you see anything wrong with this picture? That’s Sir Isaac Newton, not Robert Boyle. Got to http://www.granger.com/ and put both names into the search box and see for yourself. But don’t be too hard on this author. And lighten up on creationist authors while you’re at it. After all, they are only human too.
SOME BERGMAN LINKS
Creationist Author Bergman on the Cutting Edge
Bergman’s research supported by Recent Nature & Science Articles
Virus Knowledge Poll
Attack Jerry Bergman Thread
Nice Analysis of Bergman’s Virus Ecology
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 23rd, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
UPDATE 8/25/07: I stand corrected on woodpecker tongues. I have been shown that woodpecker tongues pose no problem for microevolution. Thanks to Jet Black and others for showing me this. Link HERE. This is a misconception among some creationists that needs to be corrected. The most prominent creationist I know of who holds this misconception is Dr. Jobe Martin, creator of the “Incredible Creatures Who Defy Evolution” DVD series.
UPDATE 8/24/07: I have read through the Talk Origins article on woodpeckers and, to my shock and amazement, the article seems to be very factual — not laced with evolutionary speculation as many Talk Origins article are. There is some very good information there about bird tongues and I learned something. I would like to study woodpecker tongues more. It seems that there may be some misunderstanding out there about the exact biology of bird tongues, not just on creationist websites, but in popular magazines like this one (Missouri Conservationist). That being said, evolutionist explanations for innovations like this, like so many innovations in nature, read like speculation and “just-so” stories. In other words, they really cannot explain how things evolved.
NOTE 8/23/07: I posted this at IIDB and someone gave me an “argument by link” to Talk Origins. The moderator immediately jumped in and locked the thread. He assumes the question has been answered satisfactorily and wants no further discussion on his board. Interesting. Anyway, if you trust Talk Origins, fine. I don’t because I have found much misleading info there. If you want to comment, you can do it here.
Are there any other extant critters with a tongue like this? Any fossil critters unlike woodpeckers? And critters — fossil or extant — with, perhaps, tongues that go only HALF way around the head? I mean how did this tongue evolve? I am told that evolution occurs when beneficial mutations are selected for in nature. What selective advantage would there be for …
a) a tongue anchored at the base of the skull, then
b) a tongue anchored part way around the skull, then
c) a tongue anchored somewhere near the eyeball, then finally
d) a tongue anchored near the nose holes!
You think creationism has hard things to explain? Not near as hard as “evolutionism.”
But I’d love to hear the attempts.
(Picture credit Missouri Conservationist, March 2007)
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 18th, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
DID GOD MAKE PATHOGENIC VIRUSES?
(Image credit www.nature.com)
This is the title of a very interesting article written by Jerry Bergman, a creationist, in 1999. I provide Dr. Bergman’s main points below and one reason this article is significant is because up until very recently, most people including scientists have viewed viruses as “bad”, as the 2006 Nature article below points out. Bergman, on the other hand, being a creationist, apparently realized the truth of the Biblical statements which affirm that God created all things “good” in the beginning. This is a great example of how the Bible is an excellent source for valid scientific hypotheses, often when the rest of science has it wrong.
Here’s the abstract of Bergman’s article …
A review of the structure, function, and role of viruses in ecology is presented. It is concluded that viruses are non-living entities, similar to seeds and spores whose functions include carrying genes from one plant or animal to another. Viruses are a part of a system that helps to produce the variety that is critical for life and, importantly, they carry resistance to disease from one organism to another. Most viruses live in their host without causing problems. Pathogenesis is evidence of something gone wrong, a mutation or the accidental movement of genes, and not evidence of a system deliberately designed to cause human disease and suffering.
And some points Bergman makes which I think are fascinating …
* Bacteria used to be thought of as mostly “bad”, but now they are known to be essential for life
* Viruses seem to be turning out the same way — once thought of as “bad” — it now appears that they are essential for life on the planet
* Pathogenic viruses probably are so because they are either out of place, or mutated
* We may be able to use viruses to treat bacterial infections much more effectively than with antibiotics
* Viruses are essential for molecular biology research Read more »
Posted in Creation/Evolution on August 1st, 2007 by dhawkinsmo
“Dr. [Richard] Leakey produced a biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” said Dr. Bromage, whose reconstruction, by contrast, shows a sharply protruding jaw and a brain less than half the size of a modern human”s.
Dr. Timothy Bromage is a paleoanthropologist and Adjunct Professor of Biomaterials and of Basic Science and Craniofacial Biology at New York University College of Dentistry
Click HERE to read the rest of the article. Click HERE for Science Daily article on this and HERE for the presentation details.
This is the same skull which was found in strata originally dated at over 200 million years, but the date was explained away as “excess argon” and redated. Hmmm … Why was it redated? Was it because of the fossils that were found there?
Click HERE and HERE for some good creationist articles on this topic.
So really, now that the dust has settled, what Richard Leakey found was probably an extinct ape … nothing more. Think of how much effort and expense was expended researching this supposed human ancestor! The truth is, the pre-Darwinian view of nature–a Creationist view–fits the data that science continues to uncover much better than today’s evolutionary paradigm.