- ... You re the one engaging in argument by assertion. You and many, many others on this list and off it repeatedly make far too much of what you callMessage 1 of 70 , Apr 30, 2008View SourceSusan Cogan wrote:
> said in the face of repeated examples to the contrary. This isYou're the one engaging in argument by assertion. You and many, many
> argument by assertion. Just keep saying it over and over. It's a
> problem with the authoritarianism of creationism. Your say-so should
> be enough. More than enough.
others on this list and off it repeatedly make far too much of what you
call "transitional forms." On CreationWiki, in case anyone's interested,
we have a whole repertoire of responses to every claim that
TalkOrigins.org cares to make about transitional forms.
> please point to a single scientific discovery by a YEC'er. SomethingThe eradication of smallpox, /if/ that has been accomplished, was
> the equivalent of the eradication small-pox would do nicely.
accomplished by public policymakers. But I'll give you a discovery
that's directly relevant to the origins debate. In 1984, D. Russell
Humphreys developed a model to explain the formation of planetary
magnetic fields, based on the statements in Genesis 1 to the effect that
the original constituent substance of all of creation was /water/, much
of which later transmuted into other elements either during the Great
Expansion (Day Four) or in the Divine interventions that gave us the dry
land on earth, the plants, and the animals. From this assumption, and
from another assumption (that God made each planet with all the water
molecules lined up in the same direction), he predicted magnetic moments
for all the planets (plus Pluto, which would not suffer its demotion for
another twenty-two years) at the time of creation. He then showed that
the data we had on magnetic moments in the then-present day were
entirely consistent with his model.
And then he did something that many of you on this list say that
creationists never do: he made definite predictions of what Voyager 2
would determine to be the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune, and
what a future mission might determine the magnetic moment of Pluto to be.
Here is the reference to Humphreys' original article:
And the full citation:
Humphreys, D. R. "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields." ''Creation
Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984.
Less than two years after the December 1984 publication of the above
article, Voyager 2 flew by Uranus. And it found a magnetic field having
a magnetic moment well within the range that Humphreys predicted.
Three years later, Voyager 2 flew by Neptune. And in measuring Neptune's
magnetic moment, it /also/ found a magnetic moment well within the range
that Humphreys predicted.
In 2015, New Horizons will fly by Pluto. Then we can see whether
Humphreys pulled a hat trick.
>By "they," you mean CRSQ and J. Creation. Well, now, do you deny that
> they are creationist house organs and are not scientific journals.
> Authors must swear they will not contradict the Bible no matter what
> the evidence shows. That's not science. That's your basic
> authoritarian religion.
/Scientific American/ and /Science/ are /naturalistic/ house organs, and
that authors must all but swear (or at least affirm) that they will not
contradict Darwin, Lyell, Hubble, and so on, no matter what the evidence
shows, if they expect to get published? That probably explains why the
models published in those organs so often have been lacking in
>> Humans are not found because instead of being fossilized, they wereYou must be talking about /Compsognathus/ in that last example. In any
>> decomposed. One possible mechanism is simple heat. "The fountains of the
>> great deep" were sequestered deposits of water that broke out through a
>> rupture in the earth's crust. That rupture persists today as the
>> Mid-Oceanic Ridge system. The water would have been scalding hot in
>> addition to rushing incredibly fast.
> so it would have wiped out everything else including humans. We are
> supposed to believe that humans dug up every single skeleton,
> dismantled and carried to higher ground every single house and hut,
> found every single tool they had ever used and burdened down with all
> of that ran faster than the fleetest two-legged human-sized dinosaur.
> Dinosaurs came in all sizes, did you know that? There were little
> ones the size of dogs and cats. An ordinary cat can outrun a human,
> how could a human outrun a dinosaur?
event, part of "outrunning" is knowing when and where to run. I recall
that /Tyrannosaurus rex/ had a brain the size of a pea. Not very smart.
The compys wouldn't have been much smarter.
You forgot my suggestion that the world population might not have been
very great--and with only sixteen hundred years of history, /and/ the
tremendous longevity of the human species at the time, not many graves
would have been involved. Houses? Huts? Do you believe that any of these
would have survived a 1.5 to 2.0 kilometer wall of water?
> Also oak trees are always found in more recent strata (floweringTrees are in fact found /across/ strata--or didn't you read that
> plants evolved long after the first plants). did the oak trees also
> run to higher ground as the flood water rose? I would have loved to
> watch that.
example? If Lyell was right about "millions of years of erosive
deposition," then how would he explain that?
> Henry Morris made up the "ran to high ground" fairy tale out of whole/Argumentum ad hominem/. In any event, you seem to think that the Bible
> cloth. You have such outrageously high standards of proof for
> evolution but you don't even care if your own explanations make sense
> in the crudest way.
was also a made-up story, so why should Henry Morris or I expect you to
show any respect for anything we say? Jesus did say, after all, that as
badly as people hated Him, they'd hate us worse. With that last, you
provided yet another instructive example.
>(Yawn) You still haven't explained how Austin could have gotten the
>> And naturalism doesn't? Come now, don't you know that those who
>> "determine" radiometric dates routinely throw out dates that don't agree
>> with their preconceived notions? That might explain why I have not read
>> one single explanation that comes close to being satisfactory of why
>> Steven A. Austin was able to obtain ages reaching into the millions of
>> years for igneous rock that was only ten years old.
> Austin ran a highly dishonest test intended only to fool people like
results he got from ten-year-old lava.
> You are satisfied with a ludicrous story like "they ran toIf anything is ludicrous, it's what has been offered in "explanation" of
> higher ground" but you are unsatisfied with the detailed explanations
> of why Austin's "tests" were dishonest? And you think we should take
> your word for anything?
Austin's findings. The best gas of them all was, "the mass spec was dirty."
> layers are sometimes laid down rapidly. This was explained in theTrouble is, that "explanation" violates Lyell's basic principle. Now
> 19th century. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
> and I don't believe for a second that you haven't seen the explanation already.
which of us is conveniently setting aside basic principle when it suits?
for details. In case that link doesn't work or anyone doesn't have time,
let me quote:
> Polystrate fossils are a problem for uniformitarian geology becausePrecisely.
> they often go through layers of different types of rock, and even coal
> seams. There are even a number of cases where they go through two or
> more coal seams. Without the polystrate fossils uniformitarian geology
> would say that many of the layers these they go through took millions
> of years to be laid down.
To D. R. Lindberg, I haven't forgotten you, either. You say that dating
is evidence against creationism. It might be, were it reliable. But I
have shown repeatedly that dating is /not/ reliable, for three reasons:
1. Investigators routinely throw out dates that don't fit the profile.
2. Some dating methods rely on circular definitions.
3. Other methods have had their underlying models exploded.
But then you ventured to say:
> The main issue separating our points of view isNow if you mean "alteration in any given species over any number of
> that evolution is part of science and creationism is not. Let's see
> some evidence contradicting that statement!
generations," you're right. But that doesn't mean that creationism isn't
part of science.
But I suspect that what you /really/ mean when you say "evolution" is
/naturalism/, otherwise known as "goo-to-you" or "molecules to man" or
simply by the Three Pillars of uniformitarianism, abiogenesis, and
common descent from one ancestor. And I deny that any of /those/ are
part of science. Charles Lyell browbeat his fellow geologists with a
proposition that simply cannot stand up to critical analysis today. No
one has demonstrated abiogenesis--and Louis Pasteur would be shocked
that anyone was trying to revive that old chestnut, after he put paid to
it, building as he did on the work of Francisco Redi and Anton van
Leeuwenhoek. And "common descent from one ancestor"? That's why so many
people are making so much of forms that they assert to be "transitional."
On the other hand: some of you here have repeatedly asked for a real
discovery that a creationist made, using creationist models. In this
message I have given you one. That ought to show that creationism is as
much a part of science as is Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.
- ... If your OriginsTalk posts were in fact advocac[ies] for reason and science, the posts would manifest reason and science, not the unreflective emoting,Message 70 of 70 , Jul 27, 2008View SourceOn 7/16/2008, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
>no, its an advocacy for reason and science. If you think that isIf your OriginsTalk posts were in fact "advocac[ies] for reason
>advocacy for atheism that means you have abandoned both reason and
and science," the posts would manifest reason and science, not
the unreflective emoting, trivialization, misrepresentation,
deliberate and deceptive under- and overstatement, facile
political sloganeering, etc., that _substitute_ for rational,
>no, secularism isn't atheism. Would that it were!Rational, reasoned debate demands that a person's "advocacy" be
_consistent_, not convenient. A visit to and a quick search of
the OriginsTalk archive will return the numerous posts you have
written that feature adamant assertions that secularism and
atheism are synonymous. Now, suddenly, you eat your own words
and regurgitate the very contention your opponents have made
and you've denied - a "tactic" that pollutes a good many of
your OT posts.
> >>I haven't bothered to comment about that on this list because it isThe assertion that "a college kid got death threats because he
> >>so wildly, totally off-topic. My comment is that PZ Myers and the
> >>Catholic League have booth acted like hysterical jerks. A college kid
> >>got death threats because he stole a cracker. That pissed off Myers
> >>(and me). But Myers threatened to desecrate a consecrated host in
> >>retaliation. That is, indeed, childish and over the top. He hasn't
> >>actually done it, you understand, he has threatened that he might do
> >>it. He's still getting daily death threats from the followers of
> >>Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild.
stole a cracker" is not rational, reasonable, or scientific.
The truth is that the "college kid" who "stole a cracker" has
claimed that he was on the receiving end of "death threats,"
but there's not a jot of _evidence_ to substantiate the claim.
Myers is so consumed by irrational, unreasonable hatred, anger,
resentment, etc., that he imagined that a window of
opportunity had opened a crack to rationalize dumping his
>as it happens one person already lost their job over it:The person who "already lost her job over it" didn't threaten
a soul, and her husband, who did threaten Myers, wrote:
"You have two choices my f***ed up friend, first you can quit
your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your
brains beat in."
Meanwhile, PZ Myers has threatened, for instance:
"Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous
enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate
responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much
butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some
teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy
"I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time
for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass
knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and
idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for
it, then get out of the way.
"[D]on't even suggest that we're being too partisan. I am on the
side of reason and human rights, and my only failing is that I'm
not partisan enough."
It's typical that Myers, who has been insulting and threatening
those with whom he disagrees for years, hollers like a stuck
pig when he's given just a taste of his own medicine.
>Apparently a lot of Christians out there think sending PZ to hellApparently not.
>would be doing God's work.
> >>This posts has a nice summation of what is currently known about_Temlakos_, not Matzke, "has convinced you to change [your]
> >In sum, Mr. Matzke /specifically takes methodological naturalists to
> >task/ for attempting to dissociate abiogenesis from biological
>He has convinced me to change my debate tactic.
>I can be convinced with good argumentYou can "be convinced with good argument" to change your debate
tactic, period - a fact to which your archived OriginsTalk
posts are incontrovertible testimony.
> >>for an eternal being two thousand years isn't even an eyeblink. IfFirst, the assertion that "if God exists then the universe has
> >>God exists then the universe has no reliable order. You can't even
> >>trust your own mind and, of course, reason has no place in such a
> >>universe. Of what use is reason if the rules of reality can change on
> >>a dime?
> >Is that what you're really afraid of? For those of you reading this: if
> >this is your stumblingblock to the faith, that if God exists, then you
> >can't be sure that the next chair you sit in will hold you up, then by
> >all means stop worrying about that. God always does things in an orderly
>in that case why bother believing in God? The UNIVERSE always does
>things in an orderly fashion. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist.
no reliable order" is neither rational nor reasonable.
At every moment of the day man "breaks nature's laws," yet you
don't fret that because _man_ "breaks nature's laws" the
universe is disorderly / chaotic. God's action relative to its
bearing on natural forces / laws is analogous to the action of
Secondly, the assertion that "if God exists ... you can't even
trust your own mind" is irrational and unreasonable, not least
because you adamantly insist that  man is mindless and 
human reason is a product of and serves natural selection. If
human reason were a product of and servant to natural
selection, then human reason would be merely another of natural
selection's cunning illusory tricks. Darwinians cannot
rationally and reasonably appeal to the power and
trustworthiness of reason their ideology has destroyed.
Christians know the laws of nature and man's mental capacity to
fathom those laws and through them, gain greater and deeper
understanding of His creation, are God's handiwork - and have
been making rational, reasonable arguments to that effect for
centuries, arguments that you have never made even a token
attempt to answer.
Thirdly, the response to the observation that "God always does
things in an orderly fashion," is a breathtaking example of
the intellectual consequences of ideological blindness.
That "the UNIVERSE" always does things in an orderly fashion" is
an EFFECT that's plainly not disputed. What's disputed is the
CAUSE of the rational, intelligible orderliness that the
universe we inhabit manifests. Many people, the great unwashed
and scientists alike, attribute the _cause_ of the rational,
intelligible orderliness of the universe we inhabit to GOD.
>I don't want the Noah story to be true because it represents theI don't want it to be true that some Americans demand blind
>deepest blackest evil and I don't want to think human beings are
>capable of that.
obedience to euphemistic "personal freedoms" such as
abortion on demand and desiccating those human beings they
deem "unworthy of living," because those so-called
"personal freedoms" represent the deepest, blackest evil
and I don't want to think human beings are capable of that.
>But I know they are. The Holocaust was a repeat of the Noah story.The Holocaust is, as Jim Goff has rationally and reasonably
>Humanity sacrificed to blind obedience.
observed, a consequence of blind obedience to the false
Darwinian concept of man. Humanity sacrificed to blind
>And in the act of giving up your autonomy you have to exercise yourYes, "giving up your autonomy" is an act of will - a deliberate,
>autonomy. Not only that, you must continue to exercise your autonomy
>to keep giving it up. It's not a one-time event. It's a
intentional - autonomous - decision, not "blind obedience."
>there are NO answers that would satisfy you because obedience isIf _reality_, not ideology, is "primary," then rational, reasonable
>primary, not reality. For me reality is primary. That's why I don't
>like the idea of some whimsical deity stirring the pot.
argument, not ad hominem / straw man fallacies, is demanded.
>when people come into an emergency room, if they were shoved in aVery often, the first person an emergency room patient demands to
>treatment bay and surrounded by people praying for them, they would
>sue that hospital into a hole in the ground. They want bloodwork,
>MRIs, X-rays, DRUGS! They don't want some mumbling priest or
see is "some mumbling priest or gibbering preacher."
>In your fantasies. Human beings are born with empathy. It's aSo much for "reason and science."
>survival skill for our species.