User Profile: frgough


Member Since: October 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [2] January 21, 2015 at 11:32am

    Radiometric dating in general is not very reliable. It’s impossible to determine initial amounts, so it’s impossible to tell age. It is therefore used in conjunction with other dating methods, all of which are equally unreliable. I really wish I had clipped the story from Scientific American because I can’t find it now, but a number of years ago, a crater was dated in Saudi Arabia as being a million years old via radiometric dating and 250,000 years old by geologic dating. Then they uncovered some documents describing the region and it turns out the crater was only something like 250 years old. Of course, since I don’t have the article, I can’t cite the source, so the account is no good except as personal evidence to me that radiometric and geologic dating are completely worthless.

  • January 21, 2015 at 11:25am

    Elitist is a very apt description of many scientists today. Quite an arrogant group and holders of the “secret knowledge” too mysterious for the common man to understand.

  • January 21, 2015 at 11:23am

    Mummy masks aren’t exactly rare. We can’t go around preserving everything just because it’s old.

  • [2] January 21, 2015 at 11:22am

    Actually, there is. The passages in question are quoted by church fathers as far back as the second century. The case against Mark 16:9-20 isn’t as strong as you’d like it to be. And, of course, the only reason it’s such a big deal for you is because you think Mark was the first gospel written, and the verses in question talk about the resurrection. If you can get rid of those, you can tell yourself the entire resurrection narrative is false, and be more comfortable in your atheism.

  • [2] January 21, 2015 at 11:15am

    Nope. They sifted through the stuff out there and worked very hard to identify what was authentic and what had been either fabricated or corrupted. For the most part, they did a pretty good job, IMO.

  • [3] January 21, 2015 at 11:13am

    Translation: Christianity is fragmented, therefore it is a fraud. In related news: scientists disagree on theories of planetary formation, therefore astronomy is a fraud. Economists disagree on economic theory, therefore economics is a fraud. Engineers disagree on manufacturing techniques therefore engineering is a fraud.

    Responses (2) +
  • January 17, 2015 at 2:41pm

    Um, yes we do. You can’t argue that it’s a continual process over time in one breath and then in the next say that NOT seeing it isn’t evidence against the theory.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:39pm

    Actually, evolutionary theory made great claims about origins of life. It was only when real scientists came along (chemists) and showed that it was impossible according to the laws of physics for the various RNA and DNA molecules to form “in the wild” that evolutionists started crying loudly about how they only attempt to explain speciation. Of course, their hypothesis is junk science in this realm, too, but most of them don’t understand enough physics, chemistry or mathematics, or enough of the scientific method to know why, and are terrified that those “god” people may have a point.

  • [1] January 17, 2015 at 2:35pm

    DNA actually argues against evolution. It’s self-correcting, tends to cancel out errors, is an information storage system and not information itself, and mutations to it produce not random, but predictable results, which is why you can categories mutations from irradiated fruit flies into categories and why we have congenital diseases that are recognizable and identifiable that are based on mutations.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:33pm

    No, there isn’t. The ONLY evidence in favor of it is an interpretation of a bunch of scattered pieces of fossil fragments.

    Evidence would be a laboratory re-creation of an evolutionary pathway using bacteria (since you can breed the necessary tens of thousands of generations in a reasonable period of time).

    Additional evidence would be LACK of species. The idea that species even exist argues against evolution. Why in the world would the process be so quantized? If it’s because of a bias effect of selection, then we fall back on the additional evidence we DON’T see: the transitional forms that should be all around us today. And by transitional, I mean forms we can’t identify as one species or another, but some mix in between that are too poorly adapted to survive.

    And don’t talk to me about time frames required for evolution. In a steady state process with a large enough sample, time cancels out. Which is why I can go to Disney world with a camera and capture every stage of a 70-year human life cycle in one photograph.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:29pm

    Sorry, J-Mo. A transitional form is one that cannot be identified as either one species or another. It would be a jumble of both. What you are describing is the human tendency to assign patterns to non-related events. This is a correlation vs. causation confusion. Organism A walked sort of upright, and organism B walks more upright, therefore B is descended from A via gradual change. Congratulations, you’ve just engaged in a Begging the Question Fallacy.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:25pm

    Also, genetic drift does not create more complex organisms. It only results in less complex organisms, or creatures with less genetic diversity in the species. For this model of evolution to work, you have to argue that the first single-cell organism contained within its DNA the coding for every form of life that ever existed on the planet.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:21pm

    Nope, it’s a term that rightly highlights the Post Hoc fallacy engaged by evolutionary theorists who maintain that an observable change of genetic expression within a species automatically translates to creation of a new species over time.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:19pm


    The hypothesis of evolution fails on your definition of scientific. It has never been verified through repeatable experimentation (no evolutionary pathway has ever been re-created in the laboratory). It is based entire on an interpretation of a collection of scattered and isolated bone fragments, which, in a begging the question fallacy, are categorized and identified according to rules of modern taxonomy.

    As far as the expanding universe, no, it has not been directly observed. What has been directly observed is red shift. The assumption is that the red shift occurs via doppler effect and therefore indicates recession. Red shift is measured using reference bodies (cepheid variables) and similar light sources we THINK are universally constant in their output and can therefore be used as indicators of absolute luminosity (so that we can assume any change in their color output is the result of red shift).

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:15pm

    Um, no we don’t. Our dating techniques are not as accurate as folks would have you think. There’s simply no way to know original amounts or to account for contamination, so you wind up doing all sorts of cross checking and eventually end up using less precise methods (like tree rings) to calibrate your more precise methods (radioactive dating), and then go around spouting off your dates as if they were as precise as your accurate measurements. That’s junk science.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:12pm

    Pascal’s Wager is precisely the posit that there are the two possibilities. That of atheism or theism. It was a rebuttal to the idea that atheism is the logical choice.

  • January 17, 2015 at 2:10pm

    “Only” five to 6 million years. Do you have any comprehension of just how long a time that is? Are you aware of the mathematical absurdity of postulating a situation where a flow of water maintained through the geographic area in an unchanging environment that precluded any significant erosion for SIX MILLION YEARS.

    It is much more likely the Grand Canyon is a flood gorge carved in a matter of weeks or months during some catastrophic event.

  • [2] January 17, 2015 at 2:04pm

    If you were actually interest in the expansion of human knowledge, you’d be excited at the prospect of debunking the hypothesis of evolution. It would be a huge advancement of knowledge to discover it was wrong.

    When the Large Hadron Collider was being built, many of the physicists being interviewed expressed how amazingly awesome it would be if they DISPROVED the Higgs Boson because it meant everything they thought they knew was wrong and would have to be scrapped. They were absolutely excited at the possibility.

  • [4] January 17, 2015 at 1:57pm

    A transitional form is one that cannot be identified as belonging to one species or another. Saying it is a species with traits shared by other species is no different than arguing an airplane is the evolutionary descendant of an automobile because they both have wheels.

    But I’ll do you one better. Just ignore the fossil record completely, and re-create an evolutionary pathway in the laboratory. Work with bacteria. Irradiate some bacteria without a nucleus and through selection pressure, create bacteria that have a nucleus. Considering humans an apes diverged only about 30,000 generations ago, you should be able to do it in about 15 years, and see statistically significant progress in five years.

  • [6] January 17, 2015 at 1:54pm

    Here’s your problem. Evolutionary theory negates some pretty core elements of Christian theology. In order to make the two reconcile, you have to do some pretty serious, mind-bending twisting of scripture to get it to work. You have to treat Adam and Eve as allegorical. You have to ignore the concept of the Fall, which in turn seriously dilutes the atonement. You have to engage in a Fallacy of the Beard to declare at some arbitrary point, organism A ceases becoming an animal, and suddenly becomes a living soul.

    The ironic thing is, you are doing all this for something that doesn’t even qualify as a theory. It’s barely a hypothesis based on some creative interpretations of bone fragments, and a Post Hoc fallacy that genetic expression within something we can’t even agree on how to measure and define (species) can be extrapolated to introduction of new genetic information to create a new member of something we can’t even agree on how to measure and define (species).

    The evolutionary hypothesis is the biggest piece of junk science to come down the pike since Aristotle’s theories on Humors and the Four Elements. The only reason it is given any credibility at all is because it is the only alternative to the idea of God.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go