Creationists and research

[Physics_guy]

The comically bad physics I referred to was specifically Humprey's "White Hole Cosmology." I have read parts of his book (completely "laymanized" beyond any use in a discussion of General Relativity) and some of his "technical" papers at AiG, and come to one conclusion - Humphrey's failed General Relativity while getting his PhD. Even a lowly particle physicist like myself saw a few of his fundamental errors (lack of spacetime for his event horizon to exist in) in GR.

It would take real effort to go into this with you and show you why he is wrong. Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out, but it isn't. These are simple topics that can be discussed in a few short paragraphs in a web board, because they require a great deal of rather complex math (hint: that is where we get all those "assumptions" of modern cosmology that Humphrey's and other creationists complain about).

The fact is that no creationist has come up with an even remotely plausible explanation of for distant cosmic objects being visible. I would love to see some try more - it makes for great jokes amongst physicists (BTW - we are talking physics here, so it would be hard to say we all have some vested interest in evolution like biologists - if someone could show that distant stellar objects could cast light upon Earth in such short periods of time, it would be a mjor discovery)!

 

[LorentzHA]

I put my pointer on the icon next to your name at it reads "clueless". I do respect your honesty in disclosure.

 

[SLP]

Here isamy critique of some 'creation research:When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.

The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended form the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.

These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent form a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expande don earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.


Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:
“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272:7, 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”
This will be of interest later.
Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.

It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.
Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise.

And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.
Was known to the authors**. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.
The other data, ecological data, is the nmost subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence. For a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:
“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:

“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…


That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…


What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:

“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.

The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

* I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues form CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!


Creationist metaphysic in action.

So, objective reader – is this metaphysic superior? Is this the best way to engage in scientific pursuits – to seek the TRUE answers in Scripture then try to shoe-horn data to fit those ‘answers’?

Sadly, many seem to insist that the answer is yes. No wonder these folks do not wish to discuss science…


** During my IM chat with one of the baraminologists, I was asked if I knew the lead author of that paper. Indeed I did - we had tossed around the idea of doing a project together and I had helped him with some of the analyses. This was before I had even mentioned the paper in question - the baraminologist was fishing to see if I would be able to know the jiug was up. that is my interpretation, anyway...

 

[TheSleepWalker]

Take for example the statement "All ravens are black". That is a scientific statement. It is falsifiable (find a white raven), it is obvious how we can test it - find ravens to see if any aren't black. It is repeatable - we can test it again and again. It is also observable.

http://www.coaslsj.com/corneille3.jpg
This is a pic of two white (Albinos) crows.

 

[thomas the tank engine]

Take for example the statement "All ravens are black". That is a scientific statement. It is falsifiable (find a white raven), it is obvious how we can test it - find ravens to see if any aren't black. It is repeatable - we can test it again and again. It is also observable.

http://www.coaslsj.com/corneille3.jpg
This is a pic of two white (melanochromic) crows.

are crows the same as ravens? this is a genuine question as I do not know the answer.

 

[TheSleepWalker]

Evolution is falsifiable, repeatable and observable(nylon eating bacteria, fruit flies).
It's even predictable!

 

[JGMEERT]

Your use of caps is extra persuasive.

JM: Thank you. Sometimes, I've found that creationists don't listen unless you cyber-yell.

A vague statement. If you would point me to where I have inaccurately presented evolution, I would appreciate it. I'm willing to let youknow where you inaccurately present creation.

JM: Look back through your own posts.

I have occasionally been asked to give a scientific theory of creation

JM: So you're argument is that because evolution doesn't have one (at least according to you), you should not provide one? You need to catch up on your reading. A definition and discussion has been given to you in this thread.

Your constant request for a reference of published works, or an article in a peer reviewed naturalistic journal, are all dodges.

JM: No, that is where science is done. You may not like it, but that's the world we live in. If you want to whine about things on this board, you can do so. If you want to change things to your point of view, then you must present a scientific case for your viewpoint.

Having works published or not is no sign of their correctness, something a student of philosophy should realise (not saying you are such a student).

JM: I have never made such a claim. However, science progresses by presenting results for criticism by other scientists. Like I said, you can whine and complain to your hearts content, but until you actually DO science and present the scientific community your objections they are meaningless. If you have a better explanation, then publish it.

Apparently I need to pay to subscribe to search it. Either that or there were no results found.

JM: Doing research means taking some time, effort and money.

I have already seen some talk of whale transitionals, I wanted to know exactly what you referring to. Why should you be permitted to make a vague reference, and expect me to find out what you were talking about?

JM: Because I've learned that if people are truly interested in the science and criticizing the science then they will take the time to research the science. Obviously, you want me to do your legwork for you. I'll give you the names, you can do the search (Gingerich, Thewissen). If you promise to go to your local university library and read the articles, I'll provide you with the full references.

How about if I say "there's plenty of evidence to show a young earth", and then call you a fool because you don't bother to look it up yourself and accept it?

JM: You would be wrong because I have already looked it up and already dismissed most of it based on scientific data. You see, I research things carefully before making a decision including a read of the original sources.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but I've been told the scientific definition of evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

JM: Yes, but you've given qualifiers to that elsewhere. You want to stick with that definition and offer scientific criticism, please do so.

If you have a problem with that definition, then you let me know.

Form an earlier post of yours:

Evolution A: that all living things descend from a common ancestor, that the earth is billions of years old, and that all species and genetic diversity today arose through random mutations.
Evolution B: that allele frequencies change in populations over time

If you now are stating that B is the definition for biological evolution and you are sticking to it, ok.

I have no idea what you are saying, and again its a dodge to say "scientific research publications" - I'm guessing you will outright reject any publications in the "Technical Journal" because that fails to follow naturalistic science beliefs.

JM: No, because they fail to follow scientific protocol.

I don't understand why on earth you would want an "independant" judge to decide on whether your topic includes religion or not.

JM: You'd have to ask Walt, they're his rules.

Of what relevance is the source of a theory? Darwin looks at finches change, and he wonders to himself "what if this is the process by which all life arose, and if we go far enough back all creatures would share an ancestor?". He had no proof at that time, just an idea to test. So he then looked for evidence for that. The foundation of his idea was just a vision, a thought, nothing more.

JM: Umm, you answered your own question. Walt states in his biography that the Noachian flood in the bible was the basis for the hydroplate hypothesis.

The Bible is much the same. We look at that and say "I wonder if the history that the Bible describes is true". So then, we look for evidences for that. The foundation is irrelevant to the discussion.

JM: You answered your own question.

One can have false premises and still have true conclusions.

JM: In this case, Walt has both a false premise and an incorrect conclusion. If the Noachian flood story is the basis for his ideas, why should the flood story become off limits to me?

I'd like to make a further note that you seem to have a pattern of making biased, loaded, claims.

JM: Whereas, you've not done so?

I take interest in this sentence:
You have not presented any evidence whatsoever for his reasons of not submitting to a naturalistic scientific journal (which you also insist on calling merely a 'scientific journal' in an attempt to make it look like we have some conspiracy). You have made some allusions to a possible reason for his refusal, then deliberately manipulated the reader to believe these unsupported allusions by saying "Why? You be the judge!". Its obvious what you want them to believe, but you fail to present proof of your reasons. Poor debate tactic.

JM: He's offered me no reasons. The only reasons I see on his website are about some conspiracy against creationists. Yet Walt says his theory is scientific. If it is scientific, he has no reason to fear the bias. YOur argument was poorly thought out or poorly researched. He states quite clearly:

Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case? The playing field is not level.

JM: I assume from your statement that you disagree with this, correct?

I've already said there's no conspiracy. Naturalistic scientific journals reject creation articles for the same kind of reason that creation scientific journals reject naturalistic evolution articles. It's just so obvious!

JM: What's the reason? Walt claims conspiracy. Jonathan Sarfati claims conspiracy. Gentry claims conspiracy. I'm glad you don't, but perhaps you'll explain why you think scientific journals reject creationist articles.

I don't appreciate your methods of debate, because they are deceptive.

JM: There's nothing deceptive about anything I said. You think using the word makes it so?

I'm interested in logic and truth, not persuasion through manipulation.

JM: Me too, that's why I asked for scientific discussion using scientific terms. The 'debate' is not settled by anything more than data. Do you have any?

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Meatros]

evolution is a religion, just as much as Christianity is. it is a religion created by scientists. Scientists, who arent christians, say that evolution is extremely flawed. Society has latched on to the "theory" as a religion. had that not happened then the theory would have died a long time ago. When we came out with DNA testing it was supposed to prove evolution was true. what it did was the opposite. I hope this will help you i your life. If you belive in evolution you have greater faith than me.

Uh-huh...

How do you define religion? Is it simply "an idea people accept"?

Who are these non-Christian scientists who say evolution is extremely flawed? Are they perhaps, Muslim scientists?

Why do you put the word theory in parenthesis? Do you not understand the difference between how the scientific community uses the word theory and how the layman uses the word theory?

How did DNA prove the opposit?

 

[TheSleepWalker]

are crows the same as ravens? this is a genuine question as I do not know the answer

Crows and raven are in the same family (corvidae just like jays) American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) have a square shaped tail. The Common raven (Corvus corax) are a little bit bigger and have a pointy slightly triangular shaped tail. But they all share an incredible inteligence. I used to have a familiar crow and it can imitate certain words and perform some tricks as well as dogs.

 

[napajohn]

Here isamy critique of some 'creation research:When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.

The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended form the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.

These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent form a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expande don earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.


Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:
“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272:7, 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”
This will be of interest later.
Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.

It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.
Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise.

And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.

They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.
Was known to the authors**. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.
The other data, ecological data, is the nmost subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence. For a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:
“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:

“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…


That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…


What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:

“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.

The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

* I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues form CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!


Creationist metaphysic in action.

So, objective reader – is this metaphysic superior? Is this the best way to engage in scientific pursuits – to seek the TRUE answers in Scripture then try to shoe-horn data to fit those ‘answers’?

Sadly, many seem to insist that the answer is yes. No wonder these folks do not wish to discuss science…


** During my IM chat with one of the baraminologists, I was asked if I knew the lead author of that paper. Indeed I did - we had tossed around the idea of doing a project together and I had helped him with some of the analyses. This was before I had even mentioned the paper in question - the baraminologist was fishing to see if I would be able to know the jiug was up. that is my interpretation, anyway...

kind a hard to question your POV..the proper response would be for Ashley Robinson and/or david cavanaugh to give their rebuttal to your comments...
only when a dialogue between both parties are present can one truly determine if your contentions have merit...often you will see especially at talkorigins that there is a listing of arguments directed against a specific author or work...absent any counterpoint by the author or someone with equal expertise, it comes across as the creationists "silence" becomes an affirmation for acceptance of defeat..yet when you read a book like when Creationists answer their critics or trueorigins, often you see a different picture of the arguments..so even though I respect your POV only a rebuttal by the authors or someone more familiar with this subject could change how one should view your claims.

 

[JGMEERT]

kind a hard to question your POV..the proper response would be for Ashley Robinson and/or david cavanaugh to give their rebuttal to your comments...
only when a dialogue between both parties are present can one truly determine if your contentions have merit...often you will see especially at talkorigins that there is a listing of arguments directed against a specific author or work...absent any counterpoint by the author or someone with equal expertise, it comes across as the creationists "silence" becomes an affirmation for acceptance of defeat..yet when you read a book like when Creationists answer their critics or trueorigins, often you see a different picture of the arguments..so even though I respect your POV only a rebuttal by the authors or someone more familiar with this subject could change how one should view your claims.

JM: Of course, the never ending problem is that most creationists refuse to publish their work in scientific journals. THis effectively shields them from criticism at a cost. The cost is that their science is non-existent to the modern world. Hide that light under a bushel so to speak.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

The comically bad physics I referred to was specifically Humprey's "White Hole Cosmology." I have read parts of his book (completely "laymanized" beyond any use in a discussion of General Relativity) and some of his "technical" papers at AiG, and come to one conclusion - Humphrey's failed General Relativity while getting his PhD. Even a lowly particle physicist like myself saw a few of his fundamental errors (lack of spacetime for his event horizon to exist in) in GR.

It would take real effort to go into this with you and show you why he is wrong. Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out, but it isn't. These are simple topics that can be discussed in a few short paragraphs in a web board, because they require a great deal of rather complex math (hint: that is where we get all those "assumptions" of modern cosmology that Humphrey's and other creationists complain about).

If you honestly believe that, then you should write a careful rebuttel directly to him, and publish it elsewhere at the same time. Even if he avoids the problems, at least you will have an answer for others to point them to.
He's responded to other critics, so I can't see why he'd avoid you.

 

[JGMEERT]

If you honestly believe that, then you should write a careful rebuttel directly to him, and publish it elsewhere at the same time. Even if he avoids the problems, at least you will have an answer for others to point them to.
He's responded to other critics, so I can't see why he'd avoid you.

JM: Why? He's never published his original work. In short, Humphreys "White Hole' cosmology exists in a black hole of creationist propaganda rags. If he wants to be heard, he knows how to do it. It's not writing feel good pubs for dogmatic theocratic societies.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: Why? He's never published his original work. In short, Humphreys "White Hole' cosmology exists in a black hole of creationist propaganda rags. If he wants to be heard, he knows how to do it. It's not writing feel good pubs for dogmatic theocratic societies.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Your comments are really unhelpful. I personally would like to see Humphrey's work tested or proven wrong for my own edification. I will respond to your earlier diatribe in good time.

Physics_guy, at the very worst you can post your work on talkorigins.org, so I can't see your time being totally wasted if Humphreys does not respond.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

JM: Thank you. Sometimes, I've found that creationists don't listen unless you cyber-yell.

So you're telling me that those who don't listen unless you cyber-yell suddenly do listen when you yell? Either way I don't find myself easily persuaded by the same arguments notched up a few decibels.

JM: Look back through your own posts.

How helpful. I say you make a vague claim about my misrepresentation of evolution, and ask you to be specific - so you tell me to look back through my own posts? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you have either been summoned here, or came of your own volition, to make repeated statements you consider particularly powerful arguments. You aren't interested in educating, but rather respond with the same things no matter what someone else says. Like a broken record.

JM: So you're argument is that because evolution doesn't have one (at least according to you), you should not provide one? You need to catch up on your reading. A definition and discussion has been given to you in this thread.

You need to read what I've been saying. I said nothing of the sort. I said if a scientific theory of evolution was given, I would provide a creation one of the same kind. Take note of the word "scientific" here.

JM: No, that is where science is done. You may not like it, but that's the world we live in. If you want to whine about things on this board, you can do so. If you want to change things to your point of view, then you must present a scientific case for your viewpoint.

It's like you don't read what I say. It's as if you read what you want to see me saying. Science is one thing. Science is inductive. Philosophy is another thing. Philosophy is deductive. They are two separate things. An argument can (and usually is) deductive. It is not scientific, but no-one says it is wrong just because it isn't science.
You need to realise that there's more to reasoning in this world than science - and philosophical arguments are not under the umbrella of 'science'. If I make deductive arguments, then what have I to do with science?

JM: I have never made such a claim. However, science progresses by presenting results for criticism by other scientists. Like I said, you can whine and complain to your hearts content, but until you actually DO science and present the scientific community your objections they are meaningless. If you have a better explanation, then publish it.

Deductive arguments are not science!

JM: Doing research means taking some time, effort and money.

Put it this way. Everything you've said so far shows me that you put little thought into your responses other than finding a way you can repeat your favourite claims. When I look at that, I think that anything that proceeds from you is going to be of questionable value. So, given the choice to pay for the possibility of real information, I'm going to refuse. I'll be quite happy to look at any online free resources. The net has a wonderful wealth of information available for only the cost to connect.

JM: Because I've learned that if people are truly interested in the science and criticizing the science then they will take the time to research the science. Obviously, you want me to do your legwork for you. I'll give you the names, you can do the search (Gingerich, Thewissen). If you promise to go to your local university library and read the articles, I'll provide you with the full references.

There are multiple whale claims made by evolutionists, I've heard a few. Which of those claims are you referring to? Am I supposed to read your mind?!?

JM: You would be wrong because I have already looked it up and already dismissed most of it based on scientific data. You see, I research things carefully before making a decision including a read of the original sources.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, but it obviously passed over you. I was pointing out how it is a pathetic argument to make vague references to existing evidence, but failing to point specifically to it, and then blaming me when you fail to produce! Talkorigins.org is a favourite resource of evolutionists - surely what you claim is published there somewhere? At least a website is open to public review, showing representative arguments, unlike an obscure article somewhere.
And here again you make a claim of dismissing something on scientific data - but fail to realise that many of the problems with evolution are logical (deductive) problems, not scientific (inductive) problems.

JM: Yes, but you've given qualifiers to that elsewhere. You want to stick with that definition and offer scientific criticism, please do so.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you happy with the definition of a change in allele frequencies in population over time, or not? I didn't put qualifiers on it - I'm happy with that definition exactly as I have written it now. You are confusing.

Evolution A: that all living things descend from a common ancestor, that the earth is billions of years old, and that all species and genetic diversity today arose through random mutations.
Evolution B: that allele frequencies change in populations over time

If you now are stating that B is the definition for biological evolution and you are sticking to it, ok.

I never said otherwise! Are you reading the same thread as me?

JM: No, because they fail to follow scientific protocol.

Ah, how silly of me! So, what scientific protocols do they fail to follow?

JM: You'd have to ask Walt, they're his rules.

No, I'm asking *you*. Walt wants a debate on the controversy with only scientific arguments. You are then saying you want to include religious arguments. So I'm asking *you* why *you* want a judge to decide on something so central. Now Walt Brown is the one making the offer, and from an outsider's POV it looks pretty convincing that no evolutionist would want to argue in a strictly scientific debate. Very ironic, considering your battle cry that creation fails in the science arena while evolution stands strong.

JM: Umm, you answered your own question. Walt states in his biography that the Noachian flood in the bible was the basis for the hydroplate hypothesis.

JM: You answered your own question.

Read what I said. You complained in your letter that you wanted religious arguments, so you could battle the foundations of the hydroplate theory - the Bible. I said that even if you could prove the Bible wrong it would not invalidate the hydroplate theory, because it still could be true.

I'll tell you how it looks from here - it looks like you want the easiest way to win the argument. And that easy path is to claim that Walt Brown refuses to argue with you - thus causing those who are empathic towards you to believe that you have won the debate of CvsE without uttering a single argument. You latched on to the first small dispute you could that would enable you to "win" without debating. Your refusal to debate him is undermining your position that evolution is valid scientifically, and conversely creation fail scientifically.

JM: In this case, Walt has both a false premise and an incorrect conclusion. If the Noachian flood story is the basis for his ideas, why should the flood story become off limits to me?

Because, as I described in my previous post, the theories can still be correct even if the reason for first inventing them was faulty. Imagine if I believe that there is milk in the fridge because someone said "I put milk in the fridge 5 minutes ago, left it there, and no-one else has opened the fridge since". I open the fridge and there's milk there. You then show me with video evidence that this person who told me was not around 5 minutes ago, and had not even opened the fridge. Even though my reasons for believing that there was milk there is incorrect, the evidence overwhelmingly showed my contention (there is milk in the fridge) to be true.

JM: Whereas, you've not done so?

I said you have a pattern of doing so. I probably have occasionally, but I try my best not to make a pattern of it. Feel free to show me where.

JM: He's offered me no reasons. The only reasons I see on his website are about some conspiracy against creationists. Yet Walt says his theory is scientific. If it is scientific, he has no reason to fear the bias. YOur argument was poorly thought out or poorly researched. He states quite clearly:

You claim my argument was poorly thought out? Lets take a look at what's been said:
1. Walt states that he won't publish in journals.
2. You say:

However, I find it more interesting that Walt has refused an invitation to submit his article for review in a scientific journal. Despite all the back-and-forth rhetoric regarding the pseudodebate, Walt has been afraid to submit his work for critical review. Why? You be the judge!

3. I respond, saying " You have not presented any evidence whatsoever for his reasons of not submitting to a naturalistic scientific journal"
4. To which you respond "He's offered me no reasons. " and follow straight after this giving the reasons he offered! And I make the poor argument?
Either walt offered you reasons, or he didn't. Which is it? And if he hasn't offered you reasons, then what is this statement which you kindly reproduced:

Unfortunately, leading science journals have a solid history of hostility toward creationists. Evolutionists are both judge and jury. Who would want to make his case in a court run by an opponent? Why would that opponent publish your case? The playing field is not level.

And if you acknowledge he did give reasons, then what proof do you have to offer for your unsubstantiated claim that he does it out of fear? (the subtext of your claim above that he "has been afraid to submit his work for critical review")

So far I can only see a poor argument from you.

JM: I assume from your statement that you disagree with this, correct?

No, why would I disagree? Because...:

JM: What's the reason? Walt claims conspiracy. Jonathan Sarfati claims conspiracy. Gentry claims conspiracy. I'm glad you don't, but perhaps you'll explain why you think scientific journals reject creationist articles.

Walt didn't say "conspiracy" - not in what you quoted anyway. He simply stated the facts in a way that anyone could understand. You try to make it sound like we are nuts as if we cry conspiracy, but we state the simple truth - that evolutionary scientific journals reject creation articles because they are creation articles, just as creation scientific journals reject evolutionary articles.
You are making no sense.

JM: There's nothing deceptive about anything I said. You think using the word makes it so?

I've already pointed out your deception. You like to make claims without arguments or proof, and you repeat the same things again and again as if I didn't hear the first time. Just now you've claimed that Walt cries conspiracy when he didn't. You said that he didn't give reasons and that he did give reasons. You mix deductive with inductive. You pretend that I have a mixed up view of evolution, then pretend I've changed my argument when I say the same thing all along (definition of evolution). I'm sure I'm forgetting other things. The one that really gripes me though is your attack against Walt, making an unsubstantiated claim about his reasons, and deliberately inviting the reader to deluding themselves into believing something without evidence that may not be true (that quote you made which I took from another website).

JM: Me too, that's why I asked for scientific discussion using scientific terms. The 'debate' is not settled by anything more than data. Do you have any?

I had said:

I'm interested in logic and truth, not persuasion through manipulation.

Logic is the realm of philosophy. Tell me, Joe, what do you think of Darwin's finches as a testimony against the creation model?

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Almost missed it, you still haven't answered this question. The more you miss it, the more intrigued I become

How is it you came to this thread? Do you sometimes browse christianforums.com, or were you summoned over by others on a mailing list?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Supporters of Walt Brown might ask themselves why he has never even tried to publish his mega goofy hydroplate model in creationist pseudo peer reviewed journals. Could it be because he knows the model is so silly that even YEC publications would reject it and he wouldn't have the excuse of evolutionist bias? The only way he could get it published is to publish it himself. Walt doesn't want to have to defend the worldwide flood because he knows it can't be defended. He just wants to attack evolution and keep selling books and videotapes to the terminally gullible.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Physics_guy]

How is it you came to this thread? Do you sometimes browse christianforums.com, or were you summoned over by others on a mailing list?

Meert has been posting here for quite some time - your thread had nothing to do with it. If you notice he has 225 posts on CF - more than you.

 

[JGMEERT]

So you're telling me that those who don't listen unless you cyber-yell suddenly do listen when you yell?

JM: I was being facetious.

How helpful. I say you make a vague claim about my misrepresentation of evolution, and ask you to be specific - so you tell me to look back through my own posts?

JM: Actually, I gave you the specific post later in my answer. Apparently, option 'A' was purely superfluous on your part. If you don't want to be misread, don't add 'options' that have no meaning.

You need to read what I've been saying. I said nothing of the sort. I said if a scientific theory of evolution was given, I would provide a creation one of the same kind. Take note of the word "scientific" here.

JM: You need to read responses. At least one answer was given on here with a link. If you want to close your eyes and pretend no one has answered, what course of action might I have? If you are not willing to read anything outside of that you can access on the net, then what else can I do for you? If you want to learn and understand the science, then go to the source and do the work yourself. Whining about your access problems does not help your argument. If you want to learn more, then read Gould's Structure of Evolutionary theory. Oops, you'd have to spend some money or drive to the library. Or you can wait until someone posts it on the net.

It's like you don't read what I say.

JM: Sounds familiar.

Science is one thing. Science is inductive. Philosophy is another thing. Philosophy is deductive.

JM: You need to learn a little bit more about science then. Science is both, it's not either/or. If science were solely inductive, then science would never progress. If you want to argue a silly premise, find someone else.

You need to realise that there's more to reasoning in this world than science -

JM: I am well aware there is more to reasoning in this world. I'm not sure you're doing anything more than paying lip service to this.

Deductive arguments are not science!

JM: Do you think if you keep repeating this mantra, it will make it true?

Put it this way. Everything you've said so far shows me that you put little thought into your responses

JM: I put as much into my responses as the questioner puts into the question.

So, given the choice to pay for the possibility of real information, I'm going to refuse.

JM: Then you're arguments will be poor. If you want to neglect primary sources and research, what's the point of discussion?

I'll be quite happy to look at any online free resources. The net has a wonderful wealth of information available for only the cost to connect.

JM: It's also full of junk. You need the primary sources in many cases to decide what's real and what's baloney. I suspect you've dug up your definition of science from the net rather than from talking to a real scientist or studying science in depth. HOwever, I'll do a little more legwork for you. Here are the references, the journals have free access at your local university. No excuses for you:

TI: Middle Eocene stratigraphy and marine mammals (Mammalia, Cetacea and Sirenia) of the Sulaiman Range, Pakistan
AU: Gingerich, Philip D; Arif, Muhammad; Bhatti, M Akram; Clyde, William C
MT: Dawn of the age of mammals in Asia
ED: Beard, K Christopher; Dawson, Mary R
SO: Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, vol.34, pp.239-259, 1998

TI: Eocene Cetacea from the Kuldana Formation (Pakistan)
AU: Thewissen, J G M
MT: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Fifty-fourth annual meeting; abstracts of papers
AU: Padian, Kevin (chairperson)
SO: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol.14, no.3, Suppl., pp.49, 07 Sep 1994

Stratigraphic and micropaleontological constraints on the middle Eocene age of the mammal-bearing Kuldana Formation of Pakistan
AU: Gingerich, Philip D
SO: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol.23, no.3, pp.643-651, 12 Sep 2003

Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls
AU: Thewissen, J G M; Williams, E M; Roe, L J; Hussain, S T
SO: Nature (London), vol.413, no.6853, pp.277-281, 20 Sep 2001
Additional holotype remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and their implications for locomotion in early whales

AU: Madar, S I; Thewissen, J G M; Hussain, S T
SO: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, vol.22, no.2, pp.405-422, 08 Jul 2002


TI: Locomotor evolution in the earliest cetaceans; functional model, modern analogues, and paleontological evidence
AU: Thewissen, J G M; Fish, F E
SO: Paleobiology, vol.23, no.4, pp.482-490, 1997

There are multiple whale claims made by evolutionists, I've heard a few.

JM: I'm talking about the arguments put forth in Gingerich and Thweissen in their scientific articles. You've already stated you're not willing to read them if they are not free and insist that your internet sources are reliable. University libraries have open access. You can go there, get out the journals and read the articles at no cost.

pathetic argument to make vague references to existing evidence, but failing to point specifically to it, and then blaming me when you fail to produce!

JM: As pathetic as stating "I've heard a few of the arguments" and then pretty much admitting you've never read the original sources of the scientific research. I gave you the names of the authors, searching at a University library is free. I do my own legwork and that's all I expect of you. If you are not willing to research a topic, then I'm equally unwilling to do the research for you.

Talkorigins.org is a favourite resource of evolutionists - surely what you claim is published there somewhere?

JM: TalkOrigins has some useful summaries. However, it is not the same thing as reading the original sources. You need to go to a University, look up the articles and then detail your criticisms.

And here again you make a claim of dismissing something on scientific data - but fail to realise that many of the problems with evolution are logical (deductive) problems, not scientific (inductive) problems.

JM: Learn what science is and isn't.

What is this supposed to mean? Are you happy with the definition of a change in allele frequencies in population over time, or not?

JM: You had (A) and (B). I'm glad you've accepted the correct definition. I see no point in belaboring this now that you've cleared up your position.

Ah, how silly of me! So, what scientific protocols do they fail to follow?

JM: Three that I can think of right off the bat. The first is taking an oath that predetermines the conclusions. AIG and ICR both acknowledge that all their science must harmonize with the bible. If the science and the bible are at odds, it is the science that is wrong. Any scientist who has ever done the most simple of experiments understands why this oath precludes sound science at the outset. The second mistake that ye-creationists make is mostly refusing to submit their work to scientific journals for criticism and future testing. All other scientists do this because they know that science advances only when ideas are presented in an open forum. Thirdly, there is the problem of inventing data and misrepresenting science to make a point. Humphreys work on the magnetic field is an excellent example of someone willing to misrepresent science and invent data in order to get the conclusions to spin his way.

No, I'm asking *you*.

JM: I've answered. I am following Walt's rules. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

I'll tell you how it looks from here

JM: I don't care how it looks from there.

- it looks like you want the easiest way to win the argument.

JM: No, I want to debate. That's why I've signed the agreement and agreed to abide by the rules in Walt's challenge. Apparently, this is very difficult for you to grasp.

Because, as I described in my previous post, the theories can still be correct even if the reason for first inventing them was faulty.

JM: I'll ask you this question again. If the bible claimed the earth was destroyed by a meteorite and God commanded Noah to build a spaceship, would there be a hydroplate hypothesis?

You claim my argument was poorly thought out?

JM: Yes it was. Walt admitted the conspiracy and you did not check your facts before mouthing off about it. When confronted with the obvious conspiracy theory verbiage, you tried to cover up by insisting that because the word 'conspiracy' was not used, a conspiracy was not implied. Your argument that one must use the word 'conspiracy' is specious.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[JGMEERT]

Almost missed it, you still haven't answered this question. The more you miss it, the more intrigued I become

[/size][/color][/font]

JM: What were the words used by Jack Nicholson in "A few good men" after learning Tom Cruise's father was dead? You should be saying the same thing after checking facts. Then again, you've already admitted you don't want to check facts if it requires legwork. However, in this case it did not even take legwork. All you had to do was click on a link.

Cheers

Joe Meert