Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Creationist Lies That Never Die

Anyone who has dealt with creationists can tell you about the game of creationist whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is that game where you have a mallet and these moles pop out of various holes and you have to whack them with the mallet, but as soon as you whack one of them, another one comes up in another hole. It never seems to end. That is exactly what it’s like dealing with creationists. No matter how many times you disprove a creationist claim, it simply pops up in another hole and you have to whack it all over again. I was reminded of this yet again when I came across this essay on a creationist webpage that rehashes the long-discredited “moon dust” argument.

The moon dust argument is sort of a creationist classic, first advanced by Henry Morris in the early 70s, just after the first manned moon landing in 1969. The argument goes like this: meteoritic dust accumulates at a particular rate on the Earth (Morris used a figure of 14 million tons per year). On the Earth, erosion and other processes makes this negligible, but on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, that dust would simply accumulate. At that rate of influx, if the moon is really 4 billion years old it should have hundreds of feet of meteoritic dust on the surface; however, we only find a few inches of dust on the moon, which means it must be only a few thousand years old.

There are lots and lots of problems with this claim, the simplest being that the rate of influx used to calculate how deep the dust should be was wildly off the mark. I mean not even in the ballpark. Morris got his figure from a scientist named Hans Pettersson, who tried to make an estimate of the rate of influx by measuring the amount of nickel collected in filters placed on mountaintops. He assumed that nickel was found only in meteoritic dust (which is not true) and extrapolated from that a range of possible figures. The 14 million tons per year was the high end of the estimate, and in fact Pettersson thought the rate was about 1/3 of that, or around 5 million tons per year.

But even that rate was vastly exaggerated because of the methodological limitations of trying to take such measurements within the Earth’s atmosphere. It wasn’t long after the moon landing that NASA began collecting data using satellites in orbit, which could measure the real rate of influx without being distorted by atmospheric problems. In fact, such measurements were available by the time Morris first advanced this argument in 1974 but he ignored them. The real rate is in the range of 18,000-25,000 tons per year. Using the proper rate of influx, the amount of dust expected on the moon is, in fact, a few inches.

This is so obvious and straightforward that even the more honest creationists have long ago abandoned the argument. In 1993, Andrew Snelling, a young earth creationist geologist, and Dave Rush published a paper in a creationist journal examining the argument and concluded:

“It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists’ multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system.”

But that doesn’t stop David Pogge from rehashing this argument yet again on the link above, and adding a few profoundly silly new claims of his own. I particularly love the personal anecdote he starts with:

In the summer of 1969, I was an evolutionist finishing his junior year, majoring in electrical engineering. Like many other evolutionary scientists, I feared for the safety of the Apollo XI astronauts who were about to land on the moon.

I knew that cosmic dust fell on the Earth at a rate of 15 million metric tons per year. On Earth, that isn’t a problem. Most of it lands on the ocean and just settles to the bottom. The dust that does fall on the land gets blown (or washed) off rocks and mixed in with the soil. But on the moon, there is no atmosphere to blow it away, or water to wash it into the sea. I knew there would be a treacherous 2 billion1 year-old accumulation of dust more than 50 feet thick.

What would happen when the lunar lander tried to set down on the moon? Would its large landing pads distribute the weight enough so that it would not sink down into the dust? Would the rocket exhaust blow the dust away sideways? or would it bore a deep hole in the dust? Would the dust settle back down on the landing craft, burying it?

We were all very surprised when there turned out to be just a small fraction of an inch of dust on the moon. How could that be?

All of this is pure balderdash. First of all, the fact that Pogge, an electrical engineer, refers to himself, while still in college no less, as an “evolutionary scientist” can only provoke laughter. More importantly, if he really thought that there was going to be that much dust on the moon this can only be attributed to his own ignorance, and the fact that he projects that ignorance on to other unnamed scientists is simply pathetic. In fact, NASA and the rest of the world knew exactly how much dust there was on the moon long before Apollo landed. You know why? Because we’d already been there.

Yes, Apollo 11 was the first manned spacecraft to land on the moon but there had been at least half a dozen unmanned lunar landings in the years prior to that mission that sent back data. Throughout the mid-60s, the Soviet Luna projects and the American Surveyor missions placed numerous unmanned craft on the surface of the moon to send down data. They knew exactly how much dust there was on the moon years before Apollo left. This notion that anyone feared that they would sink into 50 feet of dust is false to the point of delusion.

But Pogge has one more incredibly bad argument up his sleeve. He admits that the real rate of influx is far lower than he thought it was in 1969 and therefore the moon has the right amount of dust on it. But A HA, he says, if that’s true then how did the planets form in the first place?

It might seem that all is well in Evolution Land, now that the moon dust problem has been solved-but all isn’t well. The greatly decreased cosmic dust measurement is a sword that cuts both ways. According to one evolutionist,

“My copy of Everyman’s Astronomy indicates that the earth collects about 9000 kg per day from meteors of visual magnitude 5.0 or brighter. Assuming a typical rock density of 3 g/cc, this corresponds to an accumulation rate of one inch per 10 billion years. Unfortunately no data is presented for fainter meteors. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the actual rate is one or two orders of magnitude higher.”

OK. Let’s assume that the rate is two orders of magnitude higher. In other words, 900,000 kg per day, or 100 inches per 10 billion years. The Earth was supposedly formed in a 10 billion year period following the big bang by the accumulation of cosmic dust attracted by gravity. 900,000 kg per day for 10 billion years is roughly 3 x 1021 grams. At 3 g/cc this is 1021 cc. There are 1015 cubic centimeters per cubic kilometer, so the volume of dust collected in 10 billion years is about 106 cubic kilometers. This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth. The dust accumulation would have to be about 8,000 times 900,000 kg / day for 10 billion years to create a planet the size of Earth.

So, the evolutionist is caught in a three-way stretch. He needs rapid dust accumulation for creation of the planets, slow accumulation for a relatively dust-free moon, and constant accumulation to satisfy the uniform rate assumption he uses.

Just a monumentally ridiculous argument. Does Pogge really think that the amount of meteoritic dust floating in the solar system is the same now as it was when the planets were forming? The very fact that the planets formed from such material means that there can’t possibly be as much now as there was prior to the formation of the planets – the formation of planets used up most of that material. We are literally sitting on it right now.

Contrary to Pogge’s absurd claim, there is no conflict here. No astronomer in his right mind would ever assume that the amount of interstellar dust in the solar system is the same now as it was before the formation of the planets. To even suggest this would get one a failing grade on a 10th grade science test. And the game of whack-a-mole continues once again.

Comments

  1. #1 Tulle
    April 4, 2007

    Can we send him a Hubble picture of a solar nursery, so he can see how much dust is around before the solar wind blows it away?

  2. #2 Orac
    April 4, 2007

    Actually, is there a creationist lie that ever did die, that creationists no longer trot out periodically, no matter how many times it’s been debunked?

    I can’t think of one.

  3. #3 David Durant
    April 4, 2007

    > Actually, is there a creationist lie that ever did die, that
    > creationists no longer trot out periodically

    Perhaps the one about having to physically “open” the sky in order to allow the rain to fall?

    : (Rev 11:6 NRSV) They have authority to shut the sky, so that
    : no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying

    Also see (2 Chr 6:26 NRSV), (Psa 78:23 NRSV), (Mal 3:10 NRSV) and (Gen 7:11-12 NRSV).

  4. #4 Dave S.
    April 4, 2007

    Orac, as long as someone out there owns a Kent Hovind video and actually believes a word of it, no creationist idea will ever truly die.

  5. #5 Bob Munck
    April 4, 2007

    which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.

    I take it he’s also a Small-Earth creationist.

  6. #6 David Durant
    April 4, 2007

    Or the value of Pi being exactly 3 as defined in (I Kings 7:23-26)…

    A nice wiki of these claims (plus the same from other religious texts) would be extremely useful as every time they popped up in future we could just point people to the entries. Anyone fancy setting one up (or just starting a movement to do so on Wikipedia)…?

  7. #7 Ken Mcferren
    April 4, 2007

    This site is pretty good, from what I can tell:

    http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

    There are others, but the real problem is that the game of whack-a-mole described in the article (which is an extremely good metaphore, by the way), applies not only to the creationists themselves, but to the arguements used. The general formula goes something like this:

    1) Find some area of science that most people (primarly our own believers) know nothing about.

    2) Quote some disreputable scientist (or inaccurate research paper, or misquote a scientist, or quote a good research paper out of context) as saying something, in the field of science afore mentioned, that conflicts in some way with something taught in a school of any kind.

    3) Make sure the actual topic is so minute and off the wall that the likelyhood of this topic having been seriously published upon is very slim. That should buy some time.

    4) Return to step 1.

    No matter how detailed the list reasonable people make is, there will always be some questionable area of science. How long ago did fundamentalists give up on the flat earth idea? Or the Earth is the center of the universe idea? And how long until the topic becomes “Science cannot explain unforseen Hawking radiation events! Therefore God exists!”? It is a nearly infinate game of whack-a-mole.

    But it is fun to argue with these people. Thanks for the great article Ed.

  8. #8 Kevin
    April 4, 2007

    I’d also like to know what the moon has to do with evolution. I mean, I’m no scientist (although using his definition, I just might be one), but I’ve yet to see someone advance the claims of evolution by invoking the creation of the moon.

  9. #9 Ed Brayton
    April 4, 2007

    Kevin-

    They use this to argue that the earth and moon are only a few thousand years old, which would make evolution impossible.

  10. #10 mark
    April 4, 2007

    When I was a neurosurgeon finishing my junior year in college, where I majored in geology, I was surprised to learn that some people still published articles (in religious magazines) predicting the imminent demise of evolution.

  11. #11 Raging Bee
    April 4, 2007

    I heard the Moon-dust argument, in an even stupider form, from someone on a rabid-Bush-Republican blog, who basically said (I kid you not): “We all thought the Apollo 11 lunar module would sink in Moon-dust the minute it landed, and the fact that it didn’t proves evolution is wrong.” Then he capped off that idiocy by insisting that he learned this from his dad, who was involved in the space program.

    Apparently his dad never heard of all those unmanned probes that had landed on the Moon long before Apollo 11.

  12. #12 kemibe
    April 4, 2007

    Pogge’s argument is stupid, but is nowhere close to the most incoherent creationist rambling on the topic of moon dust I’ve seen. For now, that “honor” goes to this guy. On the errancy of Pettersson’s original formula, he writes:

    …remember that the person that made the first formula, for the amount of dust, had never been on the moon. Man had not been on the moon. This makes the odds even more far fetch that He could even come close to the correct amount. Or that he could have fixed the formula to look like a young earth. All these varibles makes his (Pettersson’s) formula the correct formula in my book. The odds would be like playing the lotto for the rest of your life, and winning every-time you played. The winning numbers of the lotto are unknown, and the amount of dust was unknown. But Petterson got it right. You figure it out.

  13. #13 dogmeatIB
    April 4, 2007

    Kemibe,

    Thanks a lot, you destroyed my brain for today trying to wrap some logic out of that idiocy you quoted. I’m done for the day thanks to you. :oP

    I don’t understand why creationists don’t stay away from astronomy, the distances alone shatter the idea that the Earth was created 6000 years ago. The sun traveling around the Earth, standing still in the sky, etc. etc. You watch a 30 or 60 minute commercial program on Discovery or PBS, and Genesis is already in serious doubt.

  14. #14 twincats
    April 4, 2007

    It seems to me that the creationists don’t stay away from astronomy (and also organic chemistry) because they consistently refuse to argue these things with astronomers and organic chemists. They only seem to want to argue with evolutionary biologists. This must be part of the strategy.

    Perhaps if the evolutionary biologists refused to argue astronomy and chemistry with creationists and gently but firmly referred them to the proper authorities, they could kind of ‘divide and conquer’ to respond the their silly arguments or, at the very least, recruit more scientists to the cause!

  15. #15 slpage
    April 4, 2007

    Did somebody say Pogge?

    I’ve documented some of his arrogant incompetence myself:

    Pogge on Human-Chimp DNA divergence

    Pogge on evolution and information

    Pogge on Human-Chimp differences again

    Pogge takes a creationist engineer’s stab at genetics

    I have emailed him links ot these and other articles and asked him to comment, but he has never replied in any way.

    He is the typical incompetent but supremely overconfident liar for Christ, as far as I can see.

  16. #16 Mithrandir
    April 4, 2007

    Technically, a young earth makes common descent via evolution impossible.

    Of course, most young-earthers also believe in a global flood, which means an even more recent genetic bottleneck for which there is no evidence in the genome (but then again, that’s just one more miracle piled on the massive number of cover-up miracles needed to make a global flood consistent with geological evidence).

  17. #17 RBH
    April 4, 2007

    I worked in the Apollo program (on the Command Module control system) for several years in the late 1960s, and I never once heard anyone worry about moon dust except as a potential contaminant if it was tracked back into the LEM. We damn sure didn’t worry about the LEM sinking up to its eyeballs in dust!

  18. #18 Jeff Hebert
    April 4, 2007

    In all my arguments with my YEC friend, the only time he ever even halfway admitted he was full of crap was with astronomy. “Well, yes, there are some problems with astronomical data … ” he muttered before changing the subject.

    I suspect the reason YECs focus mainly on biologists is that biology is something we are while things like astronomy and physics are subjects about “the other”. Everyone’s a biological organism and that makes people feel like their opinion is as good as anyone else’s. Astronomy is something you study, biology is something you are.

    Of course unfortunately these same people don’t go the next step and operate on themselves, choosing to leave that to a doctor who’s studied this shared biological organism we call “humans”.

  19. #19 random guy
    April 4, 2007

    Its sad but a guy I used to arguee politics with used this argument a few months ago. He’s in his late thirties and told me that he heard the argument on Fox News. I felt so bad for him, I mean he’s the kind of guy that if someone walked up to him on street and said that, he would just tell them that their full of crap. But when the same argument came from a reputable source (to him at least) he compleatly abandoned his critical faculties.

    I also love that stuff about “evolutionary scientist”. It reminds me of those sanke oil salesman in the depression that we go from town to town with a name like Dr. Marvalo.

  20. #20 Michael LoPrete
    April 4, 2007

    Musing on something that I had thought about in the past but was triggered in my head after Jeff’s most recent comment…

    I wonder if we can compile a list of medical advances that used evolutionary theory as the backbone of their development/discovery, post it online, and challenge creationists to refuse to benefit from those advances on the basis of their belief that evolutionary biology is bad science.

    They won’t bite, of course, but it would be a pretty straightforward way of showing people that the creationist position is inconsistent if not disingenuous, at least among its most vocal proponents.

  21. #21 Ginger Yellow
    April 4, 2007

    “They use this to argue that the earth and moon are only a few thousand years old, which would make evolution impossible.”

    Indeed. But ask them to say how Noah got all the animals onto the ark (and presumably all the flowers that can’t take being drowned under miles of water for 40 days), and they’ll say that he only took representatives of each kind (baramin). So according to YECism all the modern diversity of life had to come from this small number of examplars, requiring a far greater rate of evolutionary change than evolutionary theory itself suggests or the known mutation rate allows.

  22. #22 dogmeatib
    April 4, 2007

    So apparently everyone was fornicating like bunnies eh Ginger? ;o)

  23. #23 Coin
    April 4, 2007

    I always thought the “the sun is shrinking” one was more fun.

  24. #24 Xetheare
    April 5, 2007

    First, I would like to point out that the author of ‘Dust on the Moon’ must not be an engineer. Accredited engineers do not use the abbreviation ‘cc’ for cubic centimeter; cm^3 is proper.

    He/she/it also alternates between first and third person and begins sentences with “Nor”.LOL

    The whole argument about accumulated dust is ridiculous. The lack of air to suspend particles allows the “dust” to compact much more thoroughly than here on Earth.

    Similarly, having no oxygen nor other acrid chemical to glaze materials with a neutral crust allows for cold welding. That is, the metals in the “dust” bond readily, on contact.

    What’s more he/she/it seems to declare the dust accumulation as a constant. That is downright silly. A five-year-old can tell you that particle encounters within a system occur rapidly at first and diminish at a rate over time.

    Further, I would not trust an engineer that does not understand evolution and said author apparently has no idea what evolution is, since he is describing astronomical encounters and attributing his/her/its observation to his “evolutionary scientist’s” prowess.

    I am a proponent for free speech, but perhaps when one is spewing scientific “fact” all over the world they should be required to show proof of their aptitude or be listed as uninformed.

  25. #25 dogmeatib
    April 5, 2007

    A five-year-old can tell you that particle encounters within a system occur rapidly at first and diminish at a rate over time.

    While I agree completely with the general gist of your argument, I would have to disagree with the idea that a 5 year old could tell you this … unless it was Dakota Fanning(sp) and the statement was her line in a movie. ;o)

  26. #26 Dave Mullenix
    April 5, 2007

    Way, way back in 1961, Isaac Asimov wrote a good story for the Saturday Evening Post called, “A Fall of Moondust”.

    At that time, people still believed there were hundreds of feet of dust on the moon and his story concerned a lunar “boat” that skimmed across the surface of the dust. Due to reasons I can no longer remember, one of those boats sank and the story covered their efforts to get rescued.

    It was a good “ripping yarn”, but the “science” behind it was obsolete a few years later.

    Hmmm, I just googled “Fall of Moondust” and Wikipaedia seems to think it was published as a Reader’s Digest Condensed Book and doesn’t mention the Post at all. Memory getting faulty?

  27. #27 Nebogipfel
    April 5, 2007

    Not to mention that it was Arthur C. Clarke who wrote “A Fall Of Moondust”… ;-)

  28. #28 ikester7579
    April 5, 2007

    Quote:I always thought the “the sun is shrinking” one was more fun.

    What is solar wind? You cannot lose matter with also losing mass. Or does the rules change for evolution when it comes to such problems?

    Also, on early earth which came first?

    1) Oxygen.
    2) Water.
    3) Plants.
    4) Ozone layer.

    Each one of these needs the other. so which one formed first and how without the others?

    Also, how do you get a non-toxic primodial soup for abiogenesis to occur? For the early earth was very toxic air. And rain brings down onto the water what was in the air. Then you have the toxic run off from land. Then you have lightening. Which by the way can electrify 1 mile of water in all directions with each strike. Breaking up any newly formed amino acid chains.

    Now I have to wonder who will be the first to post:
    1) Duh, I don’t understand post.
    2) The evolutionist version of the God did it post (evolution just happens).
    3) The water came from volcanoes (the volcano god did it).
    4) Your an ignorant moron (because I can’t answer your question).
    5) You would not have asked this question if you understood evolution.
    6) Cuss words because it makes evolutionists sound more intelligent.
    7) Your a Flat Earther.
    8) It all either formed or evolved together at one time (even though there is no proof that it happened this way). Or that there are any laws that would make this even possible. it happened only because I say so.

    I apologize before hand if I left nothing for anyone to say. But then again, I have never known a evolutionists that could ever be silent. So all of the above will probably be repeated. or deleted.

  29. #29 Alison
    April 5, 2007

    Hmmmm. Would it be #5 to point out that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis, which is what you’re (notice the spelling and punctuation) talking about, ikester? You also didn’t give a number for pointing you to talkorigins or any other website that actually answers that question, because it, too, is another one of those creationist whack-a-mole ones.

  30. #30 Tulle
    April 5, 2007

    ikester, firstly plants do not need oxygen. One could argue that the release of free oxygen was the first environmental disaster on earth. Oxygen is poison to all early life forms. The early bacteria had to evolve to adapt to the oxygen. In the long run it was most likely a good thing or we may have ended up a lot like Venus. An ozone layer is not needed for water based life as by just living a few centimeters under water is as good as the ozone layer. One ony needs Ozone to live on land. The source of water on earth is not certain, but most believe that most of the water on earth came from comets. So to answer you question.

    1) Water came first
    2) Plants evolved to use light and gave off oxygen
    3) Oxygen filled the atmosphere
    4) Ozone was formed when oxygen drifted to the upper atmosphere allowing life to live on the land.

    You asked very easy questions the even a software engineer can answer.

  31. #31 doctorgoo
    April 5, 2007

    Wanna have some fun? Google “ikester7579″ and read a few of his ideas. Most are just basic creationist canards like the one here, but here’s one that stood out for me:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t121831&page=1&pp=40

    Dude’s actually a conspiracy theorist on big pharma, too!

  32. #32 kemibe
    April 5, 2007

    Ikester7579 is the same guy who built the YEC Headquarters site I linked to, by the way. You can spend a whole afternoon there, marveling over his aggressively dismissive rants about biology and other matters, which include gems like this:

    …our bodies are way to complicated to have evolved. For if the DNA could not precisely stay up with the changes in the body (evolution), we would die. And if the DNA evolved faster than the body, the body would not function and we would die … With my next post, I will go into more detail on just how complicated our DNA really is. For I have only touched the tip of the ice Berg with this post. And you will soon see just how impossible evolution really is.

    Quod erat retarsum.

  33. #33 Phobos
    April 5, 2007

    David –
    Forget Wiki…TalkOrigins already has this list…
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

  34. #34 Phobos
    April 5, 2007

    And here’s the TalkOrigins summary for the moon dust claim…
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html

  35. #35 Phobos
    April 5, 2007

    Ikester7579 –
    Please explain how water needs plants to exist (which is what you claimed). Similarly, why does water need atmospheric O2 and O3?

  36. #36 Fastlane
    April 5, 2007

    For those who are interested, the NASA archive of the ‘landers’ (crashers would be a better term =P) can be found at:

    http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1965-023A

    I haven’t found the video file online that those images come from.

    I spent many hours in the Planetary Sciences image archive at the University of Arizona watching these films and poring over all those old 3D (you have to use special viewers) images from those early lunar missions.

    Great stuff.

    Even answersingenesis is telling the cretinists not to use that argument any more.

    Cheers.

  37. #37 EdgyB
    April 5, 2007

    Folks, we never even went to the moon! See, I was at NASA back in the 60′s and tried to warn them about all the dust! No one listened! We dropped the first rocket on the moon and ‘poof!’ it was gone! WAY to much dust! We ended up having to fake the whole thing on a sound stage in Nevada…

    Huh, I wonder how much crazy shit like this I could string together? Like a Unified Field Theory for wingnuts.

  38. #38 Xetheare
    April 5, 2007

    About the five-year-old. It’s a very simple question. Instead of saying ‘particle encounters’ use Easter Eggs. Ask them how quickly they could find eggs if their were a lot of them as opposed to a few of them.

    The point is: the anti-evolution author is an imbecile, as is the author of the previous post. He says, “I was at NASA…” (at? NASA) and “We dropped the first rocket…” (dropped? rocket?) Doesn’t sound like NASA tech speak.

    EdgyB sounds like a seventeen-year-old dreamer who wants to feel important. “I.. tried to warn them.” Persons such as this can be measured more for their affectiveness rather than effectiveness. Consider: the Unibomber; mad at everything and grasps at the elation of a bloated ego.

  39. #39 ikester7579
    April 6, 2007

    1) Water came first
    2) Plants evolved to use light and gave off oxygen
    3) Oxygen filled the atmosphere
    4) Ozone was formed when oxygen drifted to the upper atmosphere allowing life to live on the land.
    ————————

    LOL, Easy? Water is made up of what molecules? H2O correct? Where did the oxygen come from if the plants are not there to produce it?
    I guess the answer might be the volcano, or the lava god did it.

    And I see resurrecting the moon dust thing really irritates you guys. It’s why I put it up. it’s fun to watch you guys knock yourself out on stuff you claim is not even worth the time.(:

  40. #40 ikester7579
    April 6, 2007

    About the five-year-old. It’s a very simple question. Instead of saying ‘particle encounters’ use Easter Eggs. Ask them how quickly they could find eggs if their were a lot of them as opposed to a few of them.

    The point is: the anti-evolution author is an imbecile, as is the author of the previous post. He says, “I was at NASA…” (at? NASA) and “We dropped the first rocket…” (dropped? rocket?) Doesn’t sound like NASA tech speak.

    EdgyB sounds like a seventeen-year-old dreamer who wants to feel important. “I.. tried to warn them.” Persons such as this can be measured more for their affectiveness rather than effectiveness. Consider: the Unibomber; mad at everything and grasps at the elation of a bloated ego.
    —————

    Yeah, I don’t put much stock in what evolutionist claim about themselves. I’ve caught to many of them in bald face lies

  41. #41 Jeffrey Kramer
    April 6, 2007

    Where did the oxygen come from if the plants are not there to produce it? [ikester7579]

    Once again, Poe’s Law is triumphantly vindicated.

  42. #42 Dave S.
    April 6, 2007

    LOL, Easy? Water is made up of what molecules? H2O correct? Where did the oxygen come from if the plants are not there to produce it?
    I guess the answer might be the volcano, or the lava god did it.

    Boy, just when you think you’ve seen every ridiculous argument there is, someone trots out another.

    The formation of oxygen atoms in the universe considerably predates the presence of plants. Oxygen is synthesized in stars and common throught the universe. As stars burn, they convert hydrogen to helium, and they also synthesize successively heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Do you seriously think that since plants produce O2, that only plants produce atomic oxygen? All plants are doing is to take two previously existing atoms of oxygen (ultimately from water and carbon dioxide) and combining them to make the gaseous oxygen molecule which they expell.

    And I see resurrecting the moon dust thing really irritates you guys. It’s why I put it up. it’s fun to watch you guys knock yourself out on stuff you claim is not even worth the time.(:

    Not at all. One doesn’t have to knock oneself out with such arguments as the refutations are already there and have been for decades. It just amazes us that there are still people out there so dense that they would continue to use arguments even others of their own side have rejected.

  43. #43 Daniel Kim
    April 6, 2007

    ikester7579 said:
    Yeah, I don’t put much stock in what evolutionist claim about themselves. I’ve caught to many of them in bald face lies

    I would like to see a list, with refutations and links to primary sources, of the lies of proponents of evolution. I would expect a level of stringency on a par with the talk.origins list of creationist claims, which was cited earlier in this thread.

  44. #44 doctorgoo
    April 6, 2007

    Ed, is it okay if I nominate ikester7579 for this month’s Robert O’Brian award?

    I know the month’s only 20% over, but I can’t imagine we’ll find a more deserving character than the ikester in the next 3 weeks.

  45. #45 kehrsam
    April 6, 2007

    doctorgoo: As entertaining as the ikester has been, he hasn’t really begun to touch the content-free idiocy and persistence of connie or vasteve in the various southern heritage threads.

  46. #46 Ed Brayton
    April 6, 2007

    ikester wrote:

    And I see resurrecting the moon dust thing really irritates you guys. It’s why I put it up. it’s fun to watch you guys knock yourself out on stuff you claim is not even worth the time.

    I suspect that’s a lie. You put it up because you’re actually ignorant enough to believe it’s true, or intellectually dishonest enough not to care.

  47. #47 Matthew Young
    April 6, 2007

    Ikester is veering hilariously close to implying that plants invented oxygen. And that water existed before oxygen, which is rather like saying that cars existed before we invented the wheel.

    I like him – he’s hilarious.

  48. #48 EdgyB
    April 6, 2007

    I like ikester7579 and Xetheare because to them I’m some delusional evolutionist, not a bored lurker making shit up. Maybe I’m a plant put here to make creationists look bad. Ooh, Secret Agent Man!

  49. #49 gwangung
    April 6, 2007

    You put it up because you’re actually ignorant enough to believe it’s true, or intellectually dishonest enough not to care.

    Not mutually exclusive, of course.

    In fact, they often go together when talking about creationists….

  50. #50 Xetheare
    April 6, 2007

    Perhaps the oxygen settled into our orbit. Ask Kessler.

  51. #51 ikester7579
    April 7, 2007

    Boy, just when you think you’ve seen every ridiculous argument there is, someone trots out another.

    The formation of oxygen atoms in the universe considerably predates the presence of plants. Oxygen is synthesized in stars and common throught the universe. As stars burn, they convert hydrogen to helium, and they also synthesize successively heavier elements like carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. Do you seriously think that since plants produce O2, that only plants produce atomic oxygen? All plants are doing is to take two previously existing atoms of oxygen (ultimately from water and carbon dioxide) and combining them to make the gaseous oxygen molecule which they expell.
    —————

    How many oxygen molecules would you say is in a glass of water? Now how much would it take to fill all the oceans of the world? Now add the ozone layer, and our atmosphere. And don’t forget the water that’s underground. So what produced all that oxygen if water was present before plants?

    How did the plants survive without an ozone layer? Ultra violet rays will destroy newly formed life. How? It alters The genes to where the newly formed life cannot reproduce. Even some higher priced water filters use this method to sterilize water. And it is also used to stop the growth of mold.

    And if there was oxygen present, then abiogenesis could not take place because oxygen oxidates what is required to make life.

    Then we have the storms cause by the rain on early earth. Lightening comes with storms, correct? Also volcanoes erupting make lightening as well. So how does the newly formed life dodge lightening bolts that electrify one mile of water in every direction?

    Also, so called Global warming has giving us a glimpse of how early earth was. For there was only a 1-3 degree global temp change and the weather went wacko with all those hurricanes. So how much hotter was early earth? Wonder how that weather was? The whole earth must have been one big hurricane. Maybe the early earth was the movie: “The day after tomorrow”.

    Also, different chemicals mixed in water can have a antifreeze affect on water (freeze and boil point change). Changing the freeze and boiling point of the water globally on early earth, changes how the hydro-logic cycle works. So how much of the chemicals from volcanic eruptions contaminated the water. And to what degree was the antifreeze effect (freeze and boil point changed)?

    There is also the toxic run off of volcanoes. Rain that brings down toxic ash into the water. And how many volcanoes were erupting on a hot early earth? Or were the early earth volcanoes environmentally friendly? Maybe Al Gore invented the early earth conditions as well?

  52. #52 doctorgoo
    April 7, 2007

    Ahh, I see what the ikester is up too. He thinks he’s clever by pointing out an Irreducibly Complex environmental system:

    Also, on early earth which came first?

    1) Oxygen.
    2) Water.
    3) Plants.
    4) Ozone layer.

    Each one of these needs the other. so which one formed first and how without the others?

    Similarly to Behe and IC, the ikester correctly points out that if, today, you take away just one of the four, then the entire environment of Earth collapses and life ends. And then he leaps to the conclusion that this balance must have always existed as it exists now for life to develop. He, personally, cannot imagine a scenario where three could develop without the fourth, so therefore all 4 must have been blinked into existance at the same time.

    So not only is your concept not new (just recycled IC), it’s also easily refutable… and has been refuted plenty of times in the past.

    Yes, ikster, it is a very unjustified leap that you make when you assume that the environmental balance that exists now must have always existed for life to develop.

    You want to learn the science behind it? Forget about your strawman ‘volcano theory’, and think more along the lines of what others have pointed out… virtually all the oxygen on earth was already present when the earth was formed (yes, ALL the gazillions of oxygen atoms… plants don’t create oxygen, they just take the oxygen atoms from other molecules and reform them into O2).

    And UV radiation that you say requires the existance of the ozone layer for life to exist? Even working on your assumption that the ozone layer didn’t exist when life was first formed (actually we know this assumption to be mostly false, but I’ll keep it in here just for a thought exersize)… here’s a scenario that would work just fine:
    1. The first primative life was protected from UV radiation by the environment (e.g., under water or in the mud).
    2. In the future (when more complex plants existed in without much of an ozone layer of protection), the more complex plants were more resistant to such radiation. And as the ozone layer developed, the plants didn’t require such resistance and evolved into what they are today.

    Ikester, I could go on and on about the science behind why your concept is wrong. But really, it would take hours and hours of one-on-one schooling to bring you up to speed on what evolution means. If you were interested (which I’m sure you’re not, but perhaps others are), here’s a great link to learn about what evolutionary theory is and how it works: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

  53. #53 Dave S.
    April 7, 2007

    How many oxygen molecules would you say is in a glass of water?

    I’d say about 7.83 x 10^19 molecules. Depends on whether you’re dealing with a saturated solution, and if so, what the temperature and pressure are…and how much volume you define as a ‘glass’.

    Now how much would it take to fill all the oceans of the world? Now add the ozone layer, and our atmosphere. And don’t forget the water that’s underground. So what produced all that oxygen if water was present before plants?

    You’re obviously deeply confused about the difference between oxygen molecules and oxygen atoms within molecules like the water molecule. I suggest a remedial chemistry program.

    As to your question, the data is readily available (units cubic kilometers). Data from US Geological Survey.

    Oceans = 1,338,000,000
    Icecaps/Glaciers = 24,064,000
    Groundwater/aquafers = 23,400,000
    Permafrost = 300,000
    Lakes = 176,400
    soil moisture = 16,500
    Atmosphere/water vapour = 12,900
    Swamps = 11,470
    Rivers = 2120
    Organisms = 1120

    97% is saline, and only 3% is fresh, depending on how you define “saline”.

    The oxygen originally came from water and carbon dioxide exhausted from vulcanism and scavanged from residual cometery accretion. Molecular oxygen then came from photochemical and later biological reactions.

    How did the plants survive without an ozone layer? Ultra violet rays will destroy newly formed life. How? It alters The genes to where the newly formed life cannot reproduce. Even some higher priced water filters use this method to sterilize water. And it is also used to stop the growth of mold.

    1. The earliest photosynthesizers were aquatic. Water and dissolved/particulate matter contained within can absorb some UV near the surface.

    2. Oxygen (and hence an ozone layer) can form in the absence of plants via photochemical reactions alone.

    3. The earliest life was not the same as modern life.

    So photochemical reactions and absorption sheild the earliest blue-green algal photosynthesizes, who release oxygen which enriches the atmosphere further…which in turn forms an even stronger ozone barrier…which in turn allows for the emergence of plants on land.

    And if there was oxygen present, then abiogenesis could not take place because oxygen oxidates what is required to make life.

    I agree that significant oxygen was not present at this time. Also note that oxygen when formed can be scavanged by chemical reactions. In other words, chemical reactions having nothing to do with life can both form and remove oxygen.

    Then we have the storms cause by the rain on early earth. Lightening comes with storms, correct? Also volcanoes erupting make lightening as well. So how does the newly formed life dodge lightening bolts that electrify one mile of water in every direction?

    There’s a lot more life today, and it seems to survive OK.

    Also, so called Global warming has giving us a glimpse of how early earth was. For there was only a 1-3 degree global temp change and the weather went wacko with all those hurricanes. So how much hotter was early earth? Wonder how that weather was? The whole earth must have been one big hurricane. Maybe the early earth was the movie: “The day after tomorrow”.

    Lots of organisms even today can survive extreme conditions.

    Also, different chemicals mixed in water can have a antifreeze affect on water (freeze and boil point change). Changing the freeze and boiling point of the water globally on early earth, changes how the hydro-logic cycle works. So how much of the chemicals from volcanic eruptions contaminated the water. And to what degree was the antifreeze effect (freeze and boil point changed)?

    You tell me.

    There is also the toxic run off of volcanoes. Rain that brings down toxic ash into the water. And how many volcanoes were erupting on a hot early earth? Or were the early earth volcanoes environmentally friendly? Maybe Al Gore invented the early earth conditions as well?

    No doubt the early Earth would be an inhospitable place for us.

    And your point?

  54. #54 ikester7579
    April 8, 2007

    Just as I thought. The answer is: It works like this!. The proof is: Because I say so.

    Also the antifreeze question was more or less skipped. And the burden of proof reversed. It would seem that the supposed answers here are no better than the answers I get back on the forum. Claims that things happen certain ways, and that life just lives regardless of the situation is a “evolution god did it excuse” without God. But I guess mother nature could be a god also. At least one that evolutionists seem to understand.

    And then I like the last response: And your point?

    Point was already made. The point is: The lame answers to the questions posed are always the same. Evolution just basically happens. And anyone who does not agree is lying. Sound about right?

    You know, I was actually kinda scared to post here at first. I figured the most knowledgable that science has to offer would be here. But I guess most are becoming just like Nowak. Pride before the fall.
    I’m really disapointed in you guys.

  55. #55 Dave S.
    April 8, 2007

    Just as I thought. The answer is: It works like this!. The proof is: Because I say so.

    The only one speculating and saying things happen based merely on say-so is you. Everthing I’ve said is based on already known chemistry and evidence in the geologic record.

    Also the antifreeze question was more or less skipped.

    That’s because I have no idea what the point is supposed to be. Conditions on Earth were different in the past. So?

    And the burden of proof reversed.

    You’re the one making claims about antifreeze and toxic runoff, and so you’re the one who has the burden of proof.

    It would seem that the supposed answers here are no better than the answers I get back on the forum. Claims that things happen certain ways, and that life just lives regardless of the situation is a “evolution god did it excuse” without God.

    Life does “live”. It does exist. How it arose is still largely an unanswered quesion. A lot of good work has been done on this issue, but a definitive answer is not there, and may never be there. And evolution is a different issue altogether. Evolution is about the development of life, not its origins.

    But I guess mother nature could be a god also. At least one that evolutionists seem to understand.

    Scientists understand testable empirical models, which evolution provides and which creationism does not. For the most part anyway. Creation does supply a few testable models, but those models have failed the tests.

    And then I like the last response: And your point?

    Point was already made. The point is: The lame answers to the questions posed are always the same.

    Perhaps it is the questions that are “lame”.

    Evolution just basically happens. And anyone who does not agree is lying. Sound about right?

    No, it doesn’t. There is evidence for evolution. A lot of evidence. Some who disagree are liars, but most are simply wrong.

    You know, I was actually kinda scared to post here at first. I figured the most knowledgable that science has to offer would be here. But I guess most are becoming just like Nowak. Pride before the fall.
    I’m really disapointed in you guys.

    I’m sure we’ll survive your disappointment just fine.

  56. #56 doctorgoo
    April 8, 2007

    Wow ikester, you sure do have a high opinion of yourself.

    Just as I thought. The answer is: It works like this!. The proof is: Because I say so.

    Well, yes ikester, we ARE saying how it works. But how do you expect us to prove it to you over the internet like this? If this were a classroom setting, several of us would be able to walk you through all the evidence. You clearly have many misconceptions of what evolution actually is and how it works.

    So I challenge you, are you willing to learn about it, or are you just interested in fighting (and insulting) your own strawman versions? If the berkeley evolution site isn’t enough for you, then I encourage you to take an evolution/biology class at your local college.

    Perhaps with some education, you’ll be able to gain some humility.

  57. #57 ikester7579
    April 9, 2007

    Perhaps with some education, you’ll be able to gain some humility.
    ———-

    If secular education makes me like you guys, no thanks. And your attempt on reverse of proof is most laughable. You deem what you have as absolute truth, even though absolute truth is not obtainable through a theory. I guess not having Hovind to pick on must make you guys more irritable.

    I’m going to do a Nowak vs. Hovind comparison on my website. I wonder who will come out smelling like a rose, and who will come out stinking like a dirty diaper? The best that NASA has to offer? I bet she was more educated than anyone here. It did her no good. I certainly would not want to end up wanting to wear a diaper, when it’s not needed.

  58. #58 Matthew Young
    April 9, 2007

    Ikester you cluless buffoon. Dave S provided you with a long and detailed response full of evidence and arguments refuting the things you said earlier in the thread.

    Your response was pretty much ‘Yah-boo sucks to you.’ He made reasoned arguments with which you haven’t even tried to enagage and you have the gall to describe him as making glib, unsupported statements.

    Quite apart from the utter dismantling your gibberish has already recieved, have you researched extremophile bacteria at all? There are numerous kinds but many of them live without light and at unimagniably high temperatures and pressures. So, given that there are a great many organisms living on Earth even today that actively thrive in the kind of environment you are describing as too hostile for the formation of life, then I think your argument is rendered rather pointless, don’t you think? The boiling point nonsense becomes moot.

    Or are extremophiles a godless liberal Darwinist conspiracy? Like gravity. Damn those Newtonists and their lies about gravity. If I step off this building you’ll see it’s all complete nonse….aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.a….splutch.

    Cretinous imbeciles like you only make this sort of idiotic statement because the timescales involved mean it is something you see as more abstract and hence if you make up some infantile alternative scenario in your head then it appears to your tiny little brain to be in some way equivalent, but it is not.

    And as for confusing abiogenesis with evolutionary theory, well that’s just nuts. Evolutionary theory is founded on descent with modification. Without self-replication, it doesn’t apply at all. How that first self-replicating molecule came about is not its territory.

    That said, questioning evolutionary theory – not the cutting edge details, which people are still defining and developing, but the fundamental underlying theory – is as stupid as questioning the germ theory of disease or gravity. Evolutionary theory underpins virtually all of modern biology and finds its way into all kinds of things, from psychology to medicine and horticulture. It is as fundamental as any theory in science and it because it is so far-reaching that it has been so widely and invariably confirmed again and again and again.

    Just because you don’t fall off a building or die of TB if you pretend it isn’t true doesn’t make it any less irrefutable.

  59. #59 Dave S.
    April 9, 2007

    If secular education makes me like you guys, no thanks.

    Yeah, can’t have anything like education that might stand in the way of how you’d like the world to be. Facts…YUCK!!!

    And your attempt on reverse of proof is most laughable.

    We do have a burden of proof, just as you do when you make a claim. The difference is, we actually meet it.

    You deem what you have as absolute truth, even though absolute truth is not obtainable through a theory.

    LOL. No, that’s you. Science claims only to make tentative (although often very well supported) statements about nature. Now if you want to make the claim the claim that God only probably exists, then you’ve taken a step towards science. Is that what you want to do?

    I guess not having Hovind to pick on must make you guys more irritable.

    Hovind is a joke even within the creationist community before he went to the Big House. What a total fraud and theif.

    I’m going to do a Nowak vs. Hovind comparison on my website. I wonder who will come out smelling like a rose, and who will come out stinking like a dirty diaper? The best that NASA has to offer?

    Gee…I wonder too. I’m sure you’ll do a detailed objective analysis.

    I’ll start you off.

    Degree: Nowak has a bachelor of science, a masters of science, and a degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from real institutes of higher leaning.

    Hovind has a fake degree from a diploma mill named Patriot University which operated out of the rec room in someone’s split-level in Colorado.

    I bet she was more educated than anyone here. It did her no good. I certainly would not want to end up wanting to wear a diaper, when it’s not needed.

    Maybe it was needed for her purposes. All astronauts do wear diapers routinely when they can’t get to the bathroom for parts of their missions. Didn’t you know that?

    Oh, and I saw her bio (see above), and she’s not more educated than anyone here. Although she’s way more educated than Hovind.

    And I’m guessing you.

  60. #60 ikester7579
    April 9, 2007

    The oxygen originally came from water and carbon dioxide exhausted from vulcanism and scavanged from residual cometery accretion. Molecular oxygen then came from photochemical and later biological reactions.
    ————

    Has anyone ever tested this to see just how much oxygen, on average, comes from vulcanism? So it can be determined just how much volcanic action is needed to acheive what we have today?

    I also hear that someone is trying to claim that volcanic rock, when rained on, produces oxygen. Has anyone tested this to see how much it can actually produce? I doubt that either can produce as much as needed to where we are today.
    ————–
    1. The earliest photosynthesizers were aquatic. Water and dissolved/particulate matter contained within can absorb some UV near the surface.
    ———–
    Were you there? Where’s is the evidence to what was first? And I don’t mean a chart, anyone can draw a chart.
    ———–
    2. Oxygen (and hence an ozone layer) can form in the absence of plants via photochemical reactions alone.
    ———–
    To what evidence do you base this upon? That this is how it works because it’s the only way it could work? That’s not science. That assumptions. Because it is based on no working model, or evidence.
    ———–
    3. The earliest life was not the same as modern life.
    ———–
    What you deem as early life that evolved just happened to die. The flood was another form of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Even when the animals got off Noah’s boat. The ones best suited to survive did survive.
    ———–
    So photochemical reactions and absorption sheild the earliest blue-green algal photosynthesizes, who release oxygen which enriches the atmosphere further…which in turn forms an even stronger ozone barrier…which in turn allows for the emergence of plants on land.
    ————
    So a full ozone layer just poofed into existence? I wonder how big the holes in the ozone were back then? I wonder what the stages of the formation of the ozone layer are. I wonder how long it takes to get enough O4 in the upper atmosphere to even start a formation? Does anyone know how long it took before the ozone layer was actually formed enough to even protect the earth from harmful UV rays? Or is the answer soley based on when it was needed to do so, so that evolution could work?

    Dave s.
    Yeah, can’t have anything like education that might stand in the way of how you’d like the world to be. Facts…YUCK!!!
    We do have a burden of proof, just as you do when you make a claim. The difference is, we actually meet it.
    ———–
    Sure, must be all those scientific absolutes I keep hearing about but never see.
    ———–
    LOL. No, that’s you. Science claims only to make tentative (although often very well supported) statements about nature. Now if you want to make the claim the claim that God only probably exists, then you’ve taken a step towards science. Is that what you want to do?
    ————
    Funny how one minute you imply that you have “the facts”, and then when you are pinned down to what those facts are (absolute or not), you retreat. Not being able to commit to what you believe, and retreat as well, shows that you do not have enough faith in what you can’t prove.
    ————
    Hovind is a joke even within the creationist community before he went to the Big House. What a total fraud and theif.
    ————
    And Nowak is a person who actually planned to murder someone. Much worse than a theif. She is lucky that her plan did not pan out.
    ————
    Degree: Nowak has a bachelor of science, a masters of science, and a degree in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from real institutes of higher leaning.

    Hovind has a fake degree from a diploma mill named Patriot University which operated out of the rec room in someone’s split-level in Colorado.
    ————-
    I have no problem showing these things about Hovind. But I see you still ignore what Nowak did. Ignoring things don’t make new realities regardless what science has taught you. She will go to jail unless she claims insanity. In which I respond: Education should have taught her better. But as we see, it did not. So I guess like the Columbine kids. She was taught natural selection and survival of the fittest, and like Hitler. Decided to put them into action.

    But even with all her education, she could not pull it off.
    —————–
    Maybe it was needed for her purposes. All astronauts do wear diapers routinely when they can’t get to the bathroom for parts of their missions. Didn’t you know that?
    —————–
    Of course. I guess her next mission was murder.
    —————–
    Oh, and I saw her bio (see above), and she’s not more educated than anyone here. Although she’s way more educated than Hovind.

    And I’m guessing you.
    ——————
    O, I see. You must be more educated than anyone here. LOL. I also see that very educated people are some of the dumbest as well. Or would you say that Nowak did what she did because of her education? I would never do what she did, and that right there makes me more smarter than her.

  61. #61 Dave S.
    April 10, 2007

    Has anyone ever tested this to see just how much oxygen, on average, comes from vulcanism? So it can be determined just how much volcanic action is needed to acheive what we have today?

    That depends. Are you still confused on the difference between molecular oxygen and oxygen contained within other molecules like water?

    As far as water goes, people have tested this. However I don’t know the exact state of the debate between water coming from volcanoes verses water coming from residual comets. Either way, it has nothing to do with evolution.

    Were you there? Where’s is the evidence to what was first? And I don’t mean a chart, anyone can draw a chart.

    Yes, I was there and I watched it with my owns eyes. Sheeesh. The evidence is in the fossil record.

    To what evidence do you base this upon? That this is how it works because it’s the only way it could work? That’s not science. That assumptions. Because it is based on no working model, or evidence.

    Hello, it’s called chemistry and biology.

    What you deem as early life that evolved just happened to die.

    Organisms don’t happen to die. They do die. Do you deny that much?

    The flood was another form of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Even when the animals got off Noah’s boat. The ones best suited to survive did survive.

    Clearly you don’t know what natural selection is.

    So a full ozone layer just poofed into existence?

    Read it again. I never said a full ozone layer came into existance this way (that had to await photosynthesizers), and I never said it poofed. I pointed to known chemistry and biology. You’re the one using the *Poof* goddidit model.

    I wonder how big the holes in the ozone were back then? I wonder what the stages of the formation of the ozone layer are. I wonder how long it takes to get enough O4 in the upper atmosphere to even start a formation? Does anyone know how long it took before the ozone layer was actually formed enough to even protect the earth from harmful UV rays? Or is the answer soley based on when it was needed to do so, so that evolution could work?

    Ozone is O3, not O4. I dunno how long it took or exactly how it formed. Again, its irrelevant as far as evolution is concerned. That has its own evidence.

    Sure, must be all those scientific absolutes I keep hearing about but never see.

    Heard about from whom?

    Funny how one minute you imply that you have “the facts”, and then when you are pinned down to what those facts are (absolute or not), you retreat. Not being able to commit to what you believe, and retreat as well, shows that you do not have enough faith in what you can’t prove.

    My position isn’t based on faith like yours is. It’s based on the evidence.

    And Nowak is a person who actually planned to murder someone. Much worse than a theif. She is lucky that her plan did not pan out.

    I’m sorry, but what does she have to do with anything whatsoever?

    I have no problem showing these things about Hovind. But I see you still ignore what Nowak did.

    That’s because I don’t care, and it’s totally irrelevant. Is she an expert on evolution like Hovind claims to be? Does she claim a degree that she does not posess like he does? As far as I know, she’s a Creationist like Hovind.

    Ignoring things don’t make new realities regardless what science has taught you. She will go to jail unless she claims insanity. In which I respond: Education should have taught her better. But as we see, it did not. So I guess like the Columbine kids. She was taught natural selection and survival of the fittest, and like Hitler. Decided to put them into action.

    Education doesn’t stop people from doing crazy or bad things. What makes you think that? It’s like religion that way.

    O, I see. You must be more educated than anyone here. LOL.

    LOL. I think you need a basic logic class to go with remedial chemistry. How do you go from “she’s not the most educated” to concluding I think I’m the most educated?

    I also see that very educated people are some of the dumbest as well. Or would you say that Nowak did what she did because of her education? I would never do what she did, and that right there makes me more smarter than her.

    If she did what she did because of her education, then wouldn’t the prisons be filled with university grads instead of petty ignorant frauds like Kent Hovind and illiterate dropouts?

    Get a clue.

  62. #62 Ray Ingles
    April 13, 2007

    Here’s a good question to pose to “young Earth” types:

    Let’s assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did
    the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the
    Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or
    perhaps it really did form from dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times
    faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a
    young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific
    questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable)
    research programs to start. How come nobody’s actually pursuing
    such research programs?

    Why don’t fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where
    people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like
    oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better
    theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw
    materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a
    venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn’t anyone doing
    this?

  63. #63 Dave S.
    April 14, 2007

    Ray Ingles writes:

    Here’s a good question to pose to “young Earth” types:

    Let’s assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a
    young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody’s actually pursuing such research programs?

    Creationists have a wrong answer for everything. Coal beds for instance come from compression of floating mats of vegetation left over after the Flood. Oil can come heat and pressure on plant material at the bottom of Flood sediments.

    Why don’t fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If “Flood geology” is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn’t anyone doing this?

    They have. Google ‘Zion Oil’. Mind your wallet though.