Understudy.net/org Ok you have made it this far. You obviously must be bored and have nothing better to do with your life.

My Archives: February 2010

Friday, February 26, 2010

Kyle Butts once again tries to show how scientific discovery means that creationism is right and well science is just inconvenient when it comes to God.

The original article from Kyle Butts. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240319

For 80 years-two generations-the majority of biology textbooks have propagated the lie that life spontaneously arose in a "primordial soup" near the surface of the ocean.

Oh here we go again. Abiogensis talks about the creation of life and it was anything but spontaneous.

Creationists who have not been duped by the evolutionary hype have pointed out for just as long that not only is the spontaneous generation of life biologically impossible, but the "chemical soup" theory is demonstrably false.

Wrong again. Why do you persist in promoting falsehoods? The scientist who have also attempted the Miller-Urey experiment have shown there was a flaw with the original experiment that instead of producing 5 amino acids it produced 22 amino acids. Creationists are not being duped they are being stubborn. They refuse to accept the facts. The truth doesn't matter no matter how much evidence there is.

Finally, after almost a century, the scientific community has admitted that the chemical soup theory cannot be correct. Nick Lane, from University College London, stated: "Textbooks have it that life arose from organic soup and that the first cells grew by fermenting these organics to generate energy in the form of ATP. We provide a new perspective on why that old and familiar view won't work at all" (as quoted in "New Research...," 2010, emp. added).

Hey Kyle, this does not contradict Abiogenesis. It merely offers an addition to the Miller-Urey experiment. Nick is also a firm believer in evolution and a premiere biologist. In talking about his book Life Ascending. He states this:
It was a world on which life emerged, 3,800 million years ago....
Whoops I guess that fits right into a creationist view on the age of the earth. Also the hydrothermal vents were a great break throiugh for science because they show how life can exist without light or UV radiation. There are several experiments that have been done in regards to what conditions life could have been created under. What is great about those experiments is they show complex organisims arise under a large variety of conditions.

In 1929, J.B.S. Haldane proposed that UV radiation "provided the energy to convert methane, ammonia and water into the first organic compounds in the oceans of the early earth. However, critics of the soup theory point out that there is no sustained driving force to make anything react; and without an energy source, life as we know it can't exist" (2010). So, with a simple wave of the hand, 80 years of evolutionary indoctrination is dismissed without so much as tinge of guilt about misleading two generations of children and adults. What is even more remarkable, and heartbreaking, is that the "primordial soup" idea is being replaced with another scenario that is equally flawed and biologically impossible. According to the "latest research," life arose in deep-ocean hydrothermal vents. Yet the "hydrothermal vent" theory has just as many defects and errors inherent in it as the "primordial soup" idea.

Abiogenesis is a work in progress. There is more information to be discovered. In 1929 the idea of life without light was a foreign concept. This is not done with a simple wave of the hand. Also so it is clear Abipgenesis is not evolution. You cannot seem to get that concept through your head.

If history is any indication of what will happen, we can expect to see the "primordial soup" idea remain in textbooks for several more years. Slowly but surely, over the next several decades, it will be replaced with the "hydrothermal vent" theory (or some other that might pop up). After years of indoctrination, the vent theory will be replaced by another, equally implausible scenario that allegedly explains how life spontaneously generated from non-living chemicals millions of years ago. This perpetual cycle of theory replacing theory will continue ad nauseam. The only thing that can stop this vicious, destructive cycle is for the scientific community to admit that spontaneous generation is biologically impossible-a fact that has been verified by every relevant biological experiment for the past 160 years (Lyons, 2009).

Sorry but using Eric Lyons as a source is a boatload of fail. Eric is not a biologist. The term of indoctrination is a interesting one. Considering that is exactly what the members of religion do to their followers. Science doesn't indoctrinate. Science educates. The idea that things can change and be updated in science textbooks is a good thing. As our knowledge in matters increases we need to improve the educational materials to our students. The bible hasn't taken much of an update lately has it?

Yet, if they admit this truth, they are faced with the reality that George Wald so concisely stated more than 50 years ago, when he said that the only alternative to spontaneous generation is "to believe in a single primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position" (Wald, 1954, 191[2]:46). How many times must the evolutionary community admit to indoctrinating millions of children for decades with false ideas before we demand that they be held accountable?

The biggie quote out of context. Read what George Wald actually said and the intent behind it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57

The best part is science is accountable. It does hold to the rigor of the scientific method. It does make scientist retract that which does not hold up.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" is a statement that has been preserved for 3,500 years. To this date not a single scientific discovery has invalidated the statement. How high must the stack of outdated, error-laden, evolutionary-based science textbooks reach before society returns to truths found in the only book that "shall not pass away" (Mark 13:31)?

You are delusional if you believe that. The scientific evidence has shown that the Universe and the Earth and their creation and existence do not fit with the story of Genesis. Also the creation of the Earth has nothing to do with evolution. You keep trying to throw garbage into your articles. The planet earth is not here because of Evolution.

I had several people point out to me that Kyle does this for a living. He is paid by other churches to come out and lecture on the bible and creationism. The problem is if he stopped being deceitful he would be out of a job. Kyle will resort to nothing more than circular reasoning or try to go off topic. This is the worst kind of deceit and indoctrination. He claims that science is guilty of this but science has evidence. Kyle should have a mirror.

References:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5900/404
http://www.nick-lane.net/About Life Ascending.htm
http://www.nick-lane.net/Life Ascending Chapter 1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Posted by understudy @ 10:23 PM EST [Link] [No Comments]

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Okay first and foremost let me say this. I have gone through several email exchanges with Kyle Butts over an absolutely insane article he wrote on killing people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.

This article of insanity is here. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2309

Kyle Butts (yes, that is his real name as far as I can tell) is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, which is a school that is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

Kyle lists in biography a double major...in Bible and communications and New Testament. Not biology or mechanics. He is also an editor of Discovery magazine, which you have to look at the articles to grasp how bad this magazine actually is. http://www.discoverymagazine.com/index.html

Here is Kyle Butt's staff page. http://www.apologeticspress.org/staff/kb

Now while I don't mind people having faith. I mind when they feel their faith gives you the right to kill people for picking up sticks in your yard.

However that is not enough for Kyle. he feels the education he has on the bible gives him the expertise to speak out on evolution also. Yup you got it Kyle is a creationist.

So here is a link to Kyle Butt's latest piece of dribble. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2778

Here is is his article with responses I have made. Kyle is in italics.

As modern science has acquired the ability to see deeper and deeper into the natural world, problems with the waning theory of evolution continue to plague its proponents.

Wrong, the theory is not waning. More information and facts continue to come to light and the theory continues to improve. This statement about the theory waning is an outright lie.

A multiplicity of natural, biological systems exhibit complexity that could not have arisen through natural, evolutionary processes.

Yes, they could and did. Natural selection has been shown to produce the variations, adaptations, and diversification.

In response to these findings, the Intelligent Design movement has begun to gain major footholds in academic circles. In a nutshell, intelligent design suggests that many natural systems are too complex to have evolved.

Yes it attempts through dishonest means to place itself in schools where it does not belong.

In an attempt to discredit intelligent design, supporters of evolution have made and repeated one primary line of attack. They posit that intelligent design is not scientific because it cannot be tested. The writings of those who bring this accusation against intelligent design are legion.

It has no peer reviewed articles. They hypothesis put forth have been tested and shown to be false. Yet ID continues to espouse them as if though they were fact. The legion you speak of is the scientific community at large in the fields of biology, geology, taxonomy, genetics, and many more. It is not an attempt to discredit ID. It is pointing out the outright lies used by ID.

In an article titled, "UNLV Teachers Dismiss 'Design' Theory," the author quotes Stanley Smith, professor of the Department of Biological Sciences, as saying: "[S]cience includes hypotheses that must be tested and proved or discarded." Smith then stated: "All science follows the scientific method, in which we make observations in nature, create testable hypotheses as to why we see patterns that we do and then conduct experiments that test those hypotheses" (as quoted in Thomas, 2005). Smith further quipped that intelligent design does not meet this criterion. Associate professor of biological sciences, Steven de Belle, commented on intelligent design as well. He stated: "'It is not science. The defining feature of the scientific method is lacking in ID,' which includes making observations and testing hypotheses" (Thomas, 2005).

The article also says this quote from deBelle:
"Many scientists are truly spiritual people with faith in some higher power," de Belle said. "Their science does not make them unfaithful and their spirituality does not interfere with their ability to be good scientists."

Hey Kyle, that means there are people who have faith and accept evolution. Maybe because they don't believe in a deceptive god.

In an article describing the University of Kansas decision to teach a course on intelligent design as religious myth, Paul Mirecki, the chair of KU's religious studies department, and teacher of the new course, commented on intelligent design in this way: "Creationism is mythology.... Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not" (Gendall, 2005).
In his article titled "Scientific Theories More Than Guesses," Jonathan Hoffman wrote: "Thomas Harrington correctly pointed out that a scientific theory is testable and falsifiable. What he failed to state, however, is that 'intelligent design' does not meet these criteria" (2005).
Here, then, is the alleged situation. Evolution is scientific because it is testable and falsifiable, and has been tested and confirmed. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not scientific because it cannot be tested and cannot be falsified, and therefore should not be viewed as science. In order to sort this out, it would be appropriate to see just how testable and falsifiable the theory of organic evolution really is.

Stand back people Kyle is going to attempt to do science. Watch the train wreck.

Every evolutionary scientist must recognize that the fundamental tenet of organic evolution is the idea that life arose from non-living material substances such as chemicals.

No! evolution only explains the diversity of life not it's origins.

This idea, often referred to as spontaneous generation, certainly is a testable idea.

Wrong again. The origins of life are referred to as Abiogensis. Which is not evolution.

Ironically, however, biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.

Still wrong and still not evolution. Again the word is Abiogensis and your statement is also incorrect. However we are here to discuss evolution. So try to stick with the topic at hand.

This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald wrote in Biological Sciences: "If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life-that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation" (1963, p. 42).

George Wald was a Nobel Prize winner who supported evolution. This is a quote mine and taken out of context.
You can see here that creationists like to take George Wald out of context because they completely misunderstand what he was talking about.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/creationist.html bottom of the page

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote57

David Kirk noted: "By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum 'All life from preexisting life' became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent" (1975, p. 7).

And the quote mining continues. That was the nineteenth century. We also didn't believe in doing heart surgery at that time also. David Kirk is now aware of this quote mining as I emailed him on it. David was kind enough to respond.

Dear Brendhan,

Thanks for your interest, and for bringing this matter to my attention.
There are a number of different things I might say about the context of that
quote:

First, the most important aspect of the context within which that quote
should be understood is actually included within it, in the phrase "...under
conditions that now exist upon our planet....." As I'm sure you realize,
there is compelling evidence that conditions on our planet have been very
different at various times in the past than they are today.

Second, another aspect of the context is found when one turns the page:
On page 9 (first complete paragraph) it is stated that "It may be years
before further confirmation of the mechanistic view is obtained through the
complete synthesis of a simple living creature from inorganic materials, but
few biologists today doubt that such a synthesis is ultimately possible.
(And remember that that statement was published 33 years ago, in what many
of us now refer to as "the pre-molecular era of biology." And as you may or
may not have heard, in just the last few years there has developed an
exciting and vibrant new field of experimental science known as "synthetic
biology.")

Third, another way to think about the context is that the entire book
provides the context. And in the next chapter (page 20, bottom of the first
column) it is stated that "The principle of evolution is reinforced by
analysis at all levels of organization in nature. That is why the principle
of evolution is the major unifying theme of this textbook."

Nurture your inquisitive nature, And let me know if there are additional
ways that you think I might be able to help.

Best regards,
Dave Kirk

And Martin Moe stated:
A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life, that the nucleus governs the cell through the molecular mechanisms of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and that the amount of DNA and its structure determine not only the nature of the species but also the characteristics of individuals (1981, p. 36, emp. added).

Again another quote mine. Just a load of fail. As a matter of fact I went to the source and ask
the author of this quote what the story behind it was. Here is what martin Moe wrote me:

Hi Brendhan,
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. It is really a "blast from the past" as the saying goes. I did write that article and that quote is from the article. It is interesting to see how one's words can be taken completely out of context to support a polemic that has nothing at all to do with the concept of the original article. In this case the quote was intended to show that through long application of the elements of observation, analysis, and the scientific method, that life did not and does not arise from supernatural sources or from spontaneous generation, such as worms from horsehairs. There was no implication that life was created de novo by a supernatural entity, in fact, just the opposite.

I wrote that article, "Genes on Ice", to introduce the concept of a book that I had written (Project Phoenix, 1981, still available on Amazon) to a larger audience on the concept of saving an individuals genetic code and life history for future generations. This seems like a much more functional and meaningful way of recording a life than the then and current practice of interring human remains underground for lengthy decay or immediate disintegration by cremation. The premise was (is) that individuals alive today may, through the preservation of their genetic code, become part once again of a human community, and through preservation of their life history, they would know who they were and what they did in a far distant past. It would also be a permanent record of a human life and corporal body accessible to future generations that carry that genetic line. Also, it is possible that if humanity survives its infancy (somewhat doubtful at this point), that we will become a species with a peaceful and stable population that can exist within the confines of Spaceship Earth. But we may still be driven to expand out existence to other worlds, and that case, the genetic codes of individuals with a free and aggressive spirit who have lived and contributed to the development of humanity when these traits were necessary, may be essential to the establishment and expansion of humanity. These preserved individual genetic codes may be extremely valuable to the future of humanity. The book Project Phoenix, explores the philosophy and possibilities of such a venture.

Martin

According, then, to every piece of experimental data that has been collected, life in this material Universe does not arise from non-living chemicals.

Wrong, and just so we are clear evolution is about the diversity of life not the creation of life.

Thousands of experiments have been designed and executed, each of which verifies this fact (for more information see Thompson, 1989). And yet, the general population is being led to believe that evolution is scientific because it is experimentally testable and falsifiable?

And peer reviewed, you forgot that part.


If, by scientific, it is meant that, regardless of the outcome of the experiments, the theory will be maintained, then by all means evolution is scientific. In reality, the origin of life according to organic evolution has been tested and disproved.

You just keep repeating the same stupid stuff over and over. Let repeat this for you. The origin of life is not evolution.

Therefore, if the foremost precept of organic evolution is untestable (at the least) and has been satisfactorily disproved (at the most), how can its advocates maintain that it alone belongs in the science classroom?

Because the thousands of scientist and experiments have tested the evidence and hold consensus on evolution.

Is intelligent design scientific and testable? Can intelligence be tested and verified?

No and no.

In reality, intelligence in the Universe can be tested and verified. The SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project is a classic example of the testability of intelligence. Basically, millions of dollars were pumped into a project to detect codes or messages from outer space that would indicate intelligence. Those involved in the project recognized that mathematical patterns, codes, languages, algorithms, and various other "fundamental laws" would be accepted as evidence that some type of intelligence did exist. The premise that can be surmised from the SETI program is that intelligence could be recognized and distinguished from non-intelligent, natural explanations; the required criteria for this recognition being some type of code, mathematical sequence, physical patterns, etc. Such codes have been found in biological systems such as DNA and living organisms (see Butt, 2005).

SETI is your example? What color is the sky in your world? This attempt at misinformation is laughable. It confirms a lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills. The possibility of life on other planets has nada to do with evolution on this one. Also citing yourself as a reference? Are you kidding?

Another example of testing for intelligence would be that of the IQ (Intelligent Quotient) test designed to measure intelligence scientifically. Countless tests have been designed to assess the amount of intelligence possessed by individuals. Web sites that discuss such testing often use words and terms for their tests such as "scientifically valid," "intelligence testing," "developed by Ph.D.s," etc. (see IQtest Home Page). From such admissions, it can be inferred that intelligence is measurable and testable. If a person could take the different aspects of IQ tests that verify intelligence and apply them to things that are studied in the natural world, then intelligence could be tested and verified. In essence, that is exactly what has been done in intelligent design books such as Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and William Dembski's Intelligent Design.

Yeah, the IQ test again has nothing to do with evolution. Intelligence itself may be a factor in evolution but so are many other things. Also quoting Behe and Dembski is a lose lose since neither of them are credible.

W.R. Thompson, in his introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species, stated it perfectly when he said:
It is...right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (p. xxii).

You must love quote mining. You do a lot of it. Here is where Thompson was talking about new evidence on evolution. we must remember that Darwin's Origin of Species was written more than 150 years ago. We have learned a lot since them. Some things Darwin was wrong on. However the basic idea of evolution is still true and reinforced.

In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism. Furthermore, they know that evolution cannot be tested nor is it any more scientific than intelligent design; in fact, it is less so. Therefore, in order for them to keep it ensconced in textbooks, they must suppress criticism of it and not allow its varied and numerous flaws to be considered critically. The situation that has arisen due to this irrational adherence to evolution is nothing short of "abnormal and undesirable in science." The next time someone demands that evolution is testable, ask for the experimental evidence that confirms that life came from non-life and observe the tell-tale silence that speaks the truth.

You must enjoy lying because this one is pretty bold and outlandish. How about ID comes up with something that is credible? They can't because they don't deal with reality.

References:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter4.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/beta/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
http://www.ntskeptics.org/news/news2005-12-02.htm

Posted by understudy @ 12:55 AM EST [Link] [1 Comment]

[Archive Index] [Main Index]