AiG Goes Mental

Answers in Genesis has to be the best resource for atheists everywhere in showing just why Christianity is nonsensical claptrap. Read this article they present attempting to refute atheism. It couldn't be a better propaganda piece for atheism if it had been written by the Freedom from Religion Foundation as a caracature piece. It is circular reasoning (and therefore not reasoning at all) at its best. Even a devout Christian who reads this would have to say that if their belief system were based on this argument, then they would have to reject it. Let's take a look at it:

Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Here’s why:
Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself ( 2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory. [Links are from the original article]

For an article that is trying to show all logic comes only from God, they sure violate many laws of logic. Let us work at this backwards. Here we are introduced to their basic premise: God is the source of logic, denying God denies logic therefore no atheist can use logic without proving God. Genius!! The small problem with this, is of course it follows no law of logic at all. The two things are independent. The existence/non-existence of God is one issue, the existence of logic is another. The two are independent. AiG tries to make them interdependent. In the above quote we see that clearly. Logic exists and is known to all. Christians know God exists and is the source of all. Therefore, according to them, logic must come from God. It would be like me saying People exist, and chickens exist. Thus since we have fried chicken, then humans must have made chickens. Fried chicken is the product of humans, as is domesticating chickens. But chickens themselves are not. The two are related but not independent.

Likewise, it is true that many people believe in God. But that does make God real. People use logic to ascertain the existence of God. But that is not relevant. People possess the ability to determine and use the rules of logic. So just because all those things are true, does not mean that the obvious and only conclusion is that God created logic. All it means is that logic created God. Because all we have is that humans created God, and humans possess logic. Any other conclusion is flawed and not based on those very rules of logic they claim to prove God.

But it only gets better:

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

Here we slip into two more logical fallicies. First the change from some abstract god to the "biblical God." I mean we all knew it was coming, but what is the logical foundation of it? Going from the idea of some all-powerful creative being to the God of the Bible is certainly a leap. Why are they one and the same? Couldn't it just as easily be some other god who created the laws of logic? That is the first mistake in this quote. It is probably the worst, but also the most forgivable, as the biblical God is the only God those at AiG are interested in, so we knew that that would be the "obvious" solution.. Second is the "nature" or concept of the laws of logic. They are unchanging. But does that have anything to do with the bible's depiction of God as unchanging? What if the Bible says that God does change? If God does change, then by those very same laws of logic, then the unchanging laws of logic cannot possibly come from God.

So let us turn to the Bible and see if God changes: Exodus 32:14, "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." So God changed his mind. His thought process was reversed according to this passage. Then by the "logic" of the AiG, the laws of logic can also be reversed as well. If logic only comes from the mind of God.

[Update:] Exodus 32:14 (KJV) should be directly compared to the AiG's citation of 2 Timothy 2:13. (Note: the NKJV of the exodus quote is equally as revealing, as it uses the word "relented" instead of "repented"; and relenting is more clearly showing of the "changing of God's mind") Thus we have even more proof that the AiG argument is flawed, if God changes, then how can his laws be unequivically called unchanging.. according to the bible no less.

Here is a shocker: Scientists, logicians, mathematicians, rationalists, freethought itself, all agree that logic is based on unchanging rules. So here we have our basic problem. According to the AiG, the "biblical God" is the source of logic, using the human idea that God is unchanging, yet the bible states that its God is changing. So the god of the bible cannot be the source of logic as presented by the logic of the AiG. Maybe some other god can, but not the God of the Bible. I just wonder if those at the AiG will now abandon their "biblical God" now that it is proven that HE cannot be the source of logic, based upon their very own views on the laws of logic.

If you want more fun, continue reading the AiG article. It is certainly good for a laugh and an excercise in logical fallacies.

Noah's Ark Challenge

You know what I would like to see? I would like to see some creationists/biblical fundamentalists do some actual research for once. Conduct a scientific experiment which is designed to test their theory that the world is only 6,000 years old and that the bible is literally true. One such test would not be hard to set up, would not be overly expensive, would not be difficult to conduct, and its results would go a long way to proving the literal truth of the bible. It would be unique in this way, as it is one of the few instances found in the bible of something required for a young earth, and that we can test today. I am of course, referring to the great flood and Noah's Ark. The Bible gave specifics as to the design of the ark, its purpose, its precise contents, and its length of use. This little experiment would be something right up the alley of "scientific" creationist groups such as Answers in Genesis. (read their current article.)

The experiment I refer to is this: build a ark, sail it for a year, and come out with all occupants alive and ready to breed. It is simple enough, the bible gives precise details as to the shape, size and construction of the ark. So it can be reproduced. Simple, neat, and evidenciary.

I call it a challenge, because of the obvious: No bible literalist would ever actually do it. Take AiG for example, they would much rather talk about what could have happened and never test it so that if it were, God Forbid, to fail then they would not have to explain how the bible could be wrong.

But let us set up this experiment and see what we have. First let us look at the construction of the ark: (Genesis 6:13-22 NKJV)

13 And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and outside with pitch. 15 And this is how you shall make it: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 You shall make a window for the ark, and you shall finish it to a cubit from above; and set the door of the ark in its side. You shall make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 And behold, I Myself am bringing floodwaters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall go into the ark—you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.” 22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.

Thus we have the basic plan. Build an ark of dimensions 300x50x30 cubits, with only one window and one door. The outside and inside shall be pitched and its occupants will consist of 8 humans and pairs of every animal type ("kind"). First, the dimensions of the ark, in more modern terms is 438 feet long by 73 feet wide by 46 feet high. That gives us a specific volume, 1,470,804 cubic feet. Certainly plenty of room to work with, but not so big that it cannot be built using modest funds. As for the gopherwood, well, I think it would be allowable to use another type of wood as a substitute; just not the treated wood we use to build houses, etc. Treating wood to be resistant to water, fungi, barnicles, etc. is expressly forbidden.



So now we have the basics of our experiment, a boat made of some natural wood, with pre-specified dimensions and only one window and one door. The next step is to fill it. We already have the need for 8 humans, and that will easily be supplied by some God-fearing Christians the AiG supplies. The animals that will populate the ark seems to be the next logical step. Since we no longer have dinosaurs or many of the other species ("kinds" as AiG prefers) due to extinction, it would only be fair to allow a generous substitution of of "kinds". I certainly would be agreeable to that easing on the restraints.

[Update:] One issue I neglected to address was the nature of the great flood itself. From a purely mechanical physics point of view, the flood waters would have to have been very violent, much more so than today's harshest hurricanes. In addition, the temperature of the floodwaters due only to the kinetic energy released from the deluge would raise the temperature of the water to boiling. The ark was, according to the bible, covered in pitch. Pitch in boiling water becomes very gooey and much more likely to bead up. This would have the effect of greatly reducing its ability to make the ark watertight.

I think that given the nature of today's animal kingdom, endangered and threatened species and all that, that we could further limit the varying "kinds" put on this neo-ark. We will allow only non-threatened species on board. The only real concern is that there be a fair representation of both carnivores and herbivores on board as well as parasitic species. Providing adequate food and water for everyone will be up to the decisions of the AiG and the 8 volunteers. AiG as well as many other Creationist organizations have written extensively on how this could have been done, so I will allow them their expertise on that matter. My only constraint is that the ark be fully self-contained, and only have one window and one door.



Since it is spelled out in the Bible, that this ark was completely self-sustaining for one year, this experiment must also be completely self-sustaining for one year. Here are some other issues which I think need be addressed and are vital for the success (or failure) of this experiment.

1. Since the Bible does not specify the number of "kinds" of animals, and is unclear as to whether there were just pairs of all animals, of pairs of all unclean animals except birds, and the clean animals and birds went in pairs of 7 males and females, then the best estimates of the Aig and other creationist sources be used for this number. Some estimates range from over 6,000 "kinds" to under 3,000 "kinds". I will happily accept the lower number for this experiment, as long as a representative number of carnivore and herbivores are present (along with parasitic species). For example, only two earthworms are allowed on board (unless they are also stored solely as food and not as a preservatory "kind").

2. Creationists speculate that that many, if not all, of the "kinds" brought on board were young and not adult animals. This is allowable.

3. Since many species are now extinct, substitute species are clearly acceptable.

4. Since many species alive still today are endangered or threatened, substitute species are again acceptable.

5. Again, since we do not know exactly how many, or exactly what 'kinds' of species were on board the ark, it is acceptable for the AiG to make their best guess, and use surrigate species in their places. This does mean that carnivore be replaced by carnivore, and herbivore be replaced by herbivore. This seems more than fair and adequately scientific for the purposes of this experiment, since the inhabitants of this neo-ark will not need to repopulate the planet after their fantastic voyage.

[Update II:] 6. Regarding aquatic animals, the conditions of the flood would cause all aquatic animals to die as well (also as God intended, since He did say all living things on earth), since both the PH and the saline content would be radically altered, then it seems that aquatic animals would need to be placed on the ark as well. This includes the bottom dwellers too.

As for technology and the internal workings of this neo-ark; again it will be left to the AiG to set up. I think the rules for this should be both simple and honest:
1. No modern technology be used in regards to the care and feeding of the animals, only technology available to Noah during his time is allowable. However, the AiG can determine what this technology is, given that they state it before the experiment begins.

2. Because the experiment is to last a year (as according to the Bible, Noah's voyage lasted) and due to modern nautical regulations, some emergency equipment should be placed on this neo-ark: An emergency radio.

3. If the occupants get sick or need emergency attention the experiment shall be deemed a failure. If there is a massive problem with their precious cargo, then the experiment should be called off, and deemed a failure.

4. This experiment can be repeated as many times as needed until AiG is convinced that Noah's ark is a myth.


I look forward to learning the results of this scientific experiment to prove the validity of Noah's ark and the vindication of AiG soon, as I know, as do you all, that AiG is really a science outfit and not simply a Christian apologetics evangelical operation.

Please allow me to put this in my own terms. I, as a scientist, see just how difficult it would be to design and build a spaceship to keep just 8 humans alive for the journey to mars and back. That craft would certainly have to be self sustaining, providing not just its own food, but oxygen and water as well. This type of endeavor is beyond our capabilities even today. Yet somehow, I'm supposed to believe that not only was this done thousands of years ago, it was done including the precursors ('kinds') of every single species on earth, living and long since extinct. And yet AiG would have all you believe that I'm the one who is unscientific and wrong. It just boggles the mind. All you fundamentalist Christians out there: put your beliefs where your mouth is, build the thing and prove yourselves right. It is not my responsibility to accept your outrageous claims without one shred of proof. Science provides proof for its claims on a regular, everyday, basis. Isn't it about time you did the same?

[Update Sept 13]: I found this interesting web site. Apparently they are building an "exact" replica of Noah's ark as a building. Unfortunately though, it requires concrete and steel. Not exactly materials you'd find thousands of years ago. P.S. I have no idea if this is real or a hoax, but it is funny nontheless.

The absolute last update: I make a few closing comments here.

Ken Ham Video Edition, Part 'e'

[Note: I initially wrote this two months back, in the time since, AiG has released new videos. I have not yet reviewed them, but I cannot imagine they are any better than those I have already reviewed. Otherwise, this material is reasonably up to date..]

The two latest parts of Ken Ham's video series that have been released are focused on human races, and racism. He decides to define races in a rather interesting way (I'll explain why its interesting later). He decides that races are defined by characteristics -- skin color, eye shape, etc. Then he goes on to say that there are no races, all humans are one race -- the descendants of Adam and Eve (and more precisely, descendants of Noah). He uses genetics in a strange way to prove his point.

Ham's genetics theory consists of the Tower of Babel story, and some guesswork about Adam and Eve. First Ham guesses that Adam and Eve were brown, having genes for both white and black skin. He then mentions Noah and that we are all actually his descendants. Then comes the reason for different races (although he does not accept the idea of race, he says we are all one race -- more on that later). His explanation for black, white, brown and yellow is Babel. It scattered the once unified race all over the planet, and due to environmental pressures, the different 'races' emerged. He then goes on to say that current genetic knowledge backs up his interpretation and contradicts evolution. The only problem is that he is wrong. His lecture presentation makes much sense when one refuses to go beyond his limited set of facts and simplistic explanation. Which of course is exactly what he is counting on when it comes to his Christian audiences.

So lets move beyond Ham's little mythological tale, and point out some other facts that everyone is aware of and which resoundingly defeat Ham's fantasy. He goes on at length to show that skin color is due to gene selection based on environmental pressures. He uses africans as an example; due to the heat and intense sunlight, the extra pigmentation was useful protection, so the light skin genes were bred out, leaving only dark skin genes, thus black people. He then says that they only lost information, not gained. This explanation is only half true, and leads to his totally false conclusion.

One reason it is half true (and there are many, but require biology and/or genetics courses to explain) is that he only focuses on one trait, skin color. But there are many different traits which distinguish the races. Hair color, eye color, eye shape to name just a few (there are also other less visible traits as well, blood disorders, susceptibility to disease, and other genetic traits). When you look at his linkage of environment to genetics in only the context of skin color, it makes sense (but still inaccurate). But the moment you link these other traits as well, say skin color, hair color and eye shape to environmental factors, reality sets in, and the errors of his theory become clear. Environmental pressures cannot explain why blacks have dark eyes or dark hair, it cannot explain why asians have narrow eyes and dark hair and it cannot explain why whites have either dark or light hair and dark or light hair. Bringing in seperation of populations due to distance further disproves Ham's case, not bolstering it. The reason is that Ham wants to claim that genetic information is only lost, never gained, and his mechanism for loss can only be environment, or distance. It cannot be cultural preference either because, for example, in Ham's view no one would have narrow eyes, so preferring narrow eyes would never result in a race with narrow eyes. So now we have solid proof that Ken Ham's theory of genetics fails to explain all the facts we know about humans, race, genetics, environmental pressure selection, and other methods of selection. Since his theory only moderately fits one special case, but falls apart completely when generalized, and evolution explains everything in the general case, and the specific case Ham chose to focus on, evolution must then be the truth, and Ham's creationism the fantasy.

Evolution better fits the facts and is the whole truth -- as opposed to Ham's half truth because:
1. Ham is correct, environment does play a role in genetic selection, but not the only role.
2. Evolution uses, in addition to environmental factors, geographic factors (seperation) and time as well (not to mention mutation and selection).
3. Time and geography give rise to traits that can't or didn't occur due to environmental pressures. These would in essence, add information to the genetic code
4. Ham's premise is that environmental factors only select between present genes, his 'loss of information' but evolution has a second method, mutated and replicated genes can be selected for based on environmental pressures, an 'addition of information'

Facts and worldviews
One interesting aspect of differing worldviews is how one sees facts. Science views facts as little pieces of the truth, not themselves interpreted, rather guideposts to interpreting the truth. Young earth creationists, on the other hand, already possess the 'Truth' (the bible story) and strive to interpret the facts themselves. The difference is profound. Science presumes the truth is unknown initially, and works toward uncovering it by finding the facts that compose it. YECs by virtue of already 'knowing' the truth actually have no need for learning the facts (which is why no research is done by them -- I will discuss this in more detail later). They are left trying to re-explain the facts to fit their worldviews.

The re-interpretation of facts is quite interesting in itself. That is what we are going to consider today. As an example, let us consider the theories (interpretations of the truth) of geocentrism versus heliocentrism. We will limit ourselves to three facts; the motion of the sun across the sky, the motion of the visible planets, and the rotation of the esrth itself. Representing science, I will use Carl Sagan, and for YECs, Ken Ham.

End Note:
When I spoke of no YECs doing science, I was not saying so in an absolute sense. There are many who are in the science fields. What I was referring to were those who could potentially make discoveries which contradict biblical teachings only. Since the bible is silent on the characteristic spectral lines of isotopes, you will find scientists in that field of physics, whereas the radioactive decay of ultra-long lived isotopes like uranium and thorium suggest an old universe, you won't find many YECs doing research in radioactive decay theory. Ironically, even in fields where they disagree, like astro physics, where they dispute the constancy of the speed of light (a fundamental constant in physics) over time, they refuse to conduct any research to back up their wild assertions on these fundamental constants. This shows my initial statement to be true, that YECs do not do any science contrary to the bible and consider science to be nothing but assertions and interpretations. They are satisfied with simply saying something, and not seeing it as necessary to back it up with proof.

Finally, the "part 'e'" in the title is a reference to a mathematical quantity, the base of the natural logarithm. It was simply another little joke in a long line of little inside jokes.

More Creationist Gold - Ken Ham Edition

Maybe I am wrong after all, and there is a god(dess)... Because only a supernatural entity could lay such a cornocopia of creationism goofiness in one spot at my feet. I am -- of course! -- referring to Ken Ham's videos made available to the public for free. He releases a new 15 minute video every week. This week's video is "Do Animals Evolve? Part II"

But upon viewing it, I found it lacking, he fails to tie up any of the points he made from part I; choosing instead to rail on about races and humanity. So, instead I will focus on the incomplete part I of the series in this post.

It is chock full of such typical creationist junk talking points that it is hard to narrow down, but I will focus on his use of the words "kind" and "Information", and talk some about mutation and natural selection. One thing is obvious from the outset; that no meaningful definitions of these words have ever been given by creationists, especially Ken Ham. They use words like "kind" to mean just about anything they want based solely on the circumstances required at the time. We shall see this laid bare for all to see; well except for boobies, beaver, and weanus.

Ken Ham, and YECs at large, all use the term "kind" to delineate between different types of animals. They do this because the Bible uses that term. The problem is that neither the YECs nor the Bible ever explains just what a "kind" is. Thus, you hear them refer to the "dog" kind as we do in in this video. But what does that mean? The only clue given in the Bible is a reference to being able to breed "after its own kind." But that presents a real problem for creationists, for example, there cannot be a "primate" kind, since chimps and apes cannot interbreed, thus they are each in their own kind. There cannot be a "snake" kind for the same reason. Furthermore, when you look at the "dog" kind that Ken Ham refers to, you see that he does not define "kind" in that way at all. The reason is he includes domesticated dogs, dingos, wolves all in the same kind. A wolf can no more breed with a dingo than a mountain lion can. So it becomes clear that "kind" cannot be defined by breeding ability as Ken claims. This means that, Ken can make the claim to a "primate" kind, and a "snake" kind and a "dog" kind without ever explaining what it is that distinguishes them. He does this because there can be no way to generalize what it means to be a kind. Is there only one "bacteria" kind or thousands?

We have some tantalizing clues from the Bible that shows just how far into the land of make-believe Ken Ham wanders. Genesis specifically says that Noah brought aboard doves and raven. It does not say the "bird" kind. Thus there must be a more specific meaning to kind than dog, cat, snake, pachyderm, etc. That, has the real disasterous effect on Ham's belief that the ark was real, because by this narrowing down of "kind" there becomes too many "kinds" of animals to have fit on the ark, and survived a year in sealed-off capitivty. But getting into an explanation of just how absurd Noah's ark really is, is far beyond the scope of this post.

The same is true for his use of the word "information." What does he define it to mean? It cannont mean what everyone else defines it as, since he says there is no increase of information -- ever -- without intelligent assistance. That means that when hydrogen fuses to form helium, neutrons, and gammas, there is a loss of information. This is simply wrong. Just consider the helium atom alone, and you quickly see that there is a huge increase of information. There are vastly more excited states of the electronic shell configuration than found in hydrogen, as also in the nucleus. The structure of the helium atom is more complex than the hydrogen atom, requiring an increase of information. Even if you consider the total information contained in the four hydrogen atoms before they fuse together into one helium atoms there is still an increase of information.

Information can even be increased in ways that we do not grasp. For example, a random letter generator, using radioactive decay intervals to determine the letter produced (1 ns = A, 2 ns = F, 3 ns = M, 4 ns = B, etc.) A string of information is produced, e.g. "AGKLTIDNVYOIDJCVMHYRIODCKFHGRJY" That looks like meaningless garble to us, but to some device capable of understanding it, it could be quite meaningful, if could be the translation of "To be, or not to be. That is the question." So, generating new information occurs all the time, all around us, and without our knowledge or consent. Not recognizing it is the fault of our intelligence, not the lack of its existence. Our understanding the meaning of information does not preclude unrecognizable or even random information. Yet for Ken Ham, if we do not see it as containing something recognizable, then it is not information.

Information is created and lost all the time. Consider a very pitted and jagged rock. Describing its surface would constitute a very large amouont of information. But throw that rock in a river ,and years later, it will be very smooth and featureless. That same rock could be said to have lost information. But consider the origin of that same rock, it was once liquid magma, with virtually no surface information. Then it got spit out of a volcano, cooled and crystalized, gaining huge amounts of information. Thus we can even go so far as to see a cycle of information gain and loss. It is only the confusing and altering the meanign of the word information that creationists can get the result they want; that being no new information. They change the definition of information whenever it suits them, so that they can exclude whatever they find necessary, then later sneak the definition back in when they need to explain something else. It is this shiftiness that proves their argument has no merit whatsoever.

This is where we wander into mutation and natural selection. And where Ken Ham makes his most dishonest claims. Considering that he does no more than simply shrugs off the idea of mutation as nothing but a loss of information (again, whatever he means by that term), and then moves on. He apparently accepts natural selection though. I guess he could no longer ignore the proof of it, as even natural selection was at one time denied (and still is) in some creationist circles. He mangles the meaning of mutations so much as to make it wholly unrecognizable in biological science. Mutations are never positive or negative when they crop up, as this would most often lead to them being selected out of the given population. They most often occur as completely neutral in their effect. They create no ready change in the biology of the organism. For example, a mutation can affect one amino acid in one protein, and that change has minimal or no effect on the function of that protein. It is only when that protein is coopted by another set of genes that the mutation shows an effect' It can make it bond with another molecule easier, for example. Mutations can also involve copying. A gene or set of genes can become copied within a chromosome, and have no effect on the function of the chromosome, until a mutation occurs and makes this duplicate gene(s) perform some other function. That is an increase of information, and one that happens quite frequently. We have observed this occur not just in the lab, but in nature as well. We have witnessed an increase of information.

This effect of mutation is then fed into natural selection. The frequency of the copied/mutated gene(s) spreads throughout a localized population, if it benefits the population in some way (makes it better suited to its environment). This makes the local population just a little different than the same species in other locations. The catch is, those other locations are undergoing similar mutation/selection chyanges as well. As the accumulation of these tiny differences increases, soon a threshold is passed where members from the species from different populations either can no longer interbreed, or no longer are willing to. This point is where speciation occurs. It is not something that is never seen, or only took place millions of years ago, it happens all the time, and still occurs today. Spreading untruths about this process is what people like Ken Ham do best.

But lets look for a moment at Ken Ham's version of natural selection. He says some proto-"dog" kind was aboard the ark. It bred and spread, creating seperate populations where selection took over, and created new "dog" breeds. He claims this was all a loss of information. That the proto-"dogs" aboard the ark were front-loaded with all the genetic information for all types of dog and wolf and dingo, etc. That as they spread out, each type lost the information of the other types, and thus lost the ability to interbreed. This makes perfect sense doesn't it? Not really. Because it ignores reality, what we see and know to be true. We have seen many instances where bacteria gain information, for example, the ability to digest nylon. They did not possess the genetic information prior to the existence of nylon, and suddenly today they have it. It is a gain of information, it is a new feature of bacteria where none existed before.

Now I won't even go into how Ken was simply deceiving his audience when he said that the proto-"dog" kind contained all the information and each new type of "dog" that came about did so as a loss of information. This would mean that there can be no novel information in one species that didn't exist in its parent species. The problem is that this is the exact opposite of what we see in real life. Again, this contradicts mutation/copying/selection that we know to occur. Ken Ham can only be right if he ignores the facts. It is not a matter of interpretation of the facts, because he simply denies they exist.

[Note: in part II, Ham does mention some of this. He discusses bacteria and resistance, but again falls back on the tired and wrong, "only a loss of information". But his examples are so distorted that anyone with any biology knowledge can quickly and easily prove him wrong. The closest he gets to saying something accurate, is when he says that bacteria with resistance survive, and those without it don't. But that isn't even half the story. I am sorry but explaining this fully is way beyond my capabilities, I would suggest reading a real biology text (not Creationist You-can-be-a-doctorate-in-biology-in-15-minutes-by-watching-my-video garbage). But for a quick fix, the truth can always be found at talk.origins. For example here, and here.]

AiG response -- and my response to it

Please note: I edited out all the irrelevant comments from my original email, leaving only those that the "Answers Department" replied to, or that I thought they ignored, but which should have responded to (in other words, all the snark is right out.)
My original comment is labeled in black, Aig in red, and my response in green.

For a complete copy of my original letter, see here.

[Jeffperado:] I was wondering why the authors chose to attack the NYT article instead of the actual science articles (there were two) in Nature. You criticized the (NYT) article for using "cautionary" words, and the NYT for being the secular press.

[Aig:] I couldn't find anywhere in our article where we criticized the NYT for being secular. What we criticized them for was the fact that since they were a secular press, they should not be so biased in favor of the evolutionists' point of view.

[Response:] Actually, your comment is somewhat true, you do, in fact, use "secular" as a codeword. But the fact remains that the accusation is apparent in the original AiG article. I guess I should rephrase it to say that you use "secular" to suggest to your readers that it is not being fair to creationist thought. In other words, the use of "secular" means to your readers that it is anti-Christian, and all your readers recognize this immediately. But secular to all others means unbiased by generally accepted principles of the press. For example, you would never see the Washington Post (or the NY Post for that matter) refer to the NYT as being "secular" Thus it has a secondary meaning picked up by your readers, and that is what I was referring to.

Point two: You still refused to acknowledge that the authors refused to attack the actual science articles at all, choosing to attack the NYT article instead. Real science (and real scientists) would have used as their basis the actual Nature articles. Thus, again, AiG is not science, rather propaganda.

[Jeffperado:] It should have been obvious to both Dr. David Menton and Mark Looy that the NYT had to use cautionary terms because it is 'secular'; that is the NYT has creationist readers as well as reality-based readers, so it has to cater to those creationist readers by including such cautious' terms.

[Aig:] So where in the NYT article did they 'cater to ... creationist readers'? They are simply using the cautionary words of the evolutionary scientists themselves, which we point out should alert people to the fact that their arguments for the proof of 'missing links' is anything but watertight.

[Response:] Let me clear up a point here. In real science, everything known is "cautionary" The theory of gravity is cautionary. We have the "law of gravity" (simplified as F=MG here on Earth) but it is still cautionary, as Einstein proved that gravity can be affected by other forces, and thus is not constant everywhere and everytime in space. Quantum Mechanics is "cautionary" in that there is a probabilistic nature to it. Then getting into more advanced physics, it is even more "cautionary". The point is thus, our knowledge and our theories are based on what we know to be fact. But since we do not know every single last fact in the universe, we must be "cautionary". But being "cautionary" does not equate to being wrong. It means we have the best explanation given what we know.

You should know this by now: Every time real science uncovers a "missing link" two new gaps are created, making necessary two new "missing links". This should make creationists very happy! So you should be proclaiming the now new existence of TWO missing links where there used to be just one!

[Jeffperado:] So why attack science,

[Aig:] Where did we attack science?

[Response:] Again, what I am saying: The NYT is not science. The NYT is popular press. Using the NYT to "prove" the actual science performed on these fossils is wrong, it is attacking science. If you want to show your point is correct from a science standpoint. DO NOT use the NYT, rather use the actual two Nature articles. That is how you attacked science, by proxy.

[Jeffperado:] Why not use the articles of the actual scientists who made the claims?
I would venture a guess that the reason is that the scientists didn't use those 'cautionary' terms that you built the majority of your response around.

[Aig:] Evolutionary scientists use these and other cautionary words all the time, but most people do not know how to interpret them (i.e. evolution is just a big guess!). See the link below, which was highlighted as a link in our article.
Obviously you did not follow it to see what it had to say.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0326fineprint.asp

[Response:] This is true. Real science does use tenative terms when discussing new breakthroughs. But to call that "cautionary" is improper. It is like calling a child a "short" adult. The child is not an adult, and it is typical height for its age. Science uses tenative terms because more knowledge is out there yet to be discovered. That does not mean it is "cautionary" which is suggestive of likely being wrong.

[Jeffperado:] No matter what your reasoning was, it is dishonest and deceptive to your readers.

[Aig:] Where is the deception and dishonesty?

[Response:] The deception is that you did not answer even one single question. You answered with responses that were not the subject of my questions. That dodginess is what I call deception. The dishonesty is that you say things that you either know to be untrue, or are simply unaware of the real truth, either way, it is dishonest. I will prove this throughout this response to your response. But the best example of AiG's deceptiveness is using the NYT in place of the real Nature articles to attack the credibility of the discovery.


[Jeffperado:] [I]t is easy to pick on the NYT, but you seemed to ignore the real challenge the actual science articles.

[Aig:] Can you provide us with some good examples of pro-creationist writing in the NYT to balance their evolutionary reporting?

[Response:]
NYT 1
NYT 2
NYT 3
NYT 4
NYT 5

This was just a quick google of "creationism" and "intelligent design" at the NYT. And again, it is easy for you to pick on the NYT, but that is not the heart of the science is it? This is precisely why AiG was being deceptive -- they were passing off the NYT as the actual science.


[Jeffperado:] Then out of the blue, the authors wrote: "For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information[...]" What does genetics have to do with the paleontological facts? No one claimed there was an 'increase in information' concerning this fossil.

[Aig:] I quote from the NYT article: "other scientists were not so reticent. They said this should undercut the creationists' argument that there is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind." In order for one kind of creature to become another kind, new genetic information would have to be added to its gene pool, which has never been demonstrated.

[Response:] Here is a perfect example of the AiG being dishonest. The article does not speak of "information" or of "genetic information" at all. That quote is a quote referring to creationism. It is NOT a quote discussing the actual genetic information contained in the fossil at all. The fact that genetics was involved in the original creature is completely irrelevant. No one, not a real scientist or a creationist, would dispute that the original creature was based on genetic information. But the truth is, and what you are obscuring is that the fossil itself, and the study of it, had nothing to do with genetics or any sort of "information increase" at all. It was purely, 100%, a study of macroscopic feature preserved. Surely even the "scientists" at AiG would recognize that there was exactly zero genetic material in the fossil, and there were exactly zero molecules or atoms in the fossil that were present in the living creature. Thus no matter how you word it, this was not a study about information increase. Again I will say that the genetic and microscopic study of how this creature came to be will take years and has not yet even begun. Thus to even bring the topic up now is purely meant to confuse your readers.


[Jeffperado:] The evidence being discussed was macroscopic in nature, while genetics are molecular in nature,

[Aig:] Again you are showing your ignorance of the nature of biological change. Please tell me how macroscopic changes would come about without first having changes at the molecular level.

[Response:] Again, you are mixing apples with oranges. THERE WAS NOT ONE MOLECULE OF DNA OR ANYTHING OF THE ORIGINAL LIVING CREATURE FOUND. Thus there was no study done at all of genetics in this creature. All that was studied were the features found. Again, I will say this: Of course the living specimen was a product of genetics, but that was not the focus of the science article. There was no genetic material present, so no science of that was possible. So, again, everything you argued was merely smoke and mirrors.


[Jeffperado:] My question to the authors is what you think the definition of 'transitional' is, if it doesn't mean intermediary, possessing some features of fish and land animals, but not all the features of either? How do you define transitional then?

[Response:] Since AiG chose not to comment, I take it that they had nothing to say in their defense.

[Jeffperado:] My question is what research? The AiG, ICR, or any creationist 'researchers' are free to examine the fossils, but the truth is no creationist actually ever does any research at all. A thorough examination of the AiG q&a, and creationism journal turns up zero research. You never do any research. All that does appear are articles disputing what scientists claim, and that is not research. It is commentary, pure and simple.

[Response:] No comment from AiG. The reason is it is true; AiG does no original research.


[Jeffperado:] In this very article you make the claim of species being static, or only 'losing information' (whatever that means). Yet where is any research by even one creationist scientist investigating what the mechanism that acts as a 'stop sign' to prevent microevolutionary (variation within a species) changes from adding up to a macroevolutionary (a new species evolving from an old species) change? Surely if you claim to accept that small evolutionary changes occur within a species, then you could develop a research program that determines what mechanism prevents those changes from creating a new species... Is it a genetic 'stop sign' or something else? Do some actual research, and not just critiquing real research and calling that 'research' and you might gain some respect from real scientists.

[Aig:] Obviously you are unaware of the new scientific information that creationist PhD scientists have just published. See the link:
http://shop5.gospelcom.net/epages/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-3-112

Please read this voluminous peer-reviewed book before criticizing creation scientists any further.

[Response:] I am familiar with creationist "peer reviewing" it is nothing more than proof-reading. I have read it all before, and I will read this as well. But there will be nothing new in it, as every new creationist book or article is simply rehashing old and widely debunked creationist arguments. I can guess right now what it contains: peppered moths, Piltdown Man hoax etc., no evidence of transitional fossils (even though even the authors here admit this find is a transitional fossil), information increase not possible, and basically just retelling Henry Morris throughout with just a fresh coat of paint.

P.S. However, if you care to send me a complimentary copy of this book, I will be happy to read it, and will even return it with notes on how it deceives and is dishonest.

Then what is it, a shazzinflagin fossil?

Our bestest buds over at Answers in Genesis have chimed in over the latest discovery; an evolutionary "missing link." It is a transitional fossil of a newly discovered species, Tiktaalik roseae. It is called transitional because it has some attributes of fish, but also has some proto-features of land animals, like a moveable skull and proto-wrists. PZ Myers, as usual, has more.

Their response, "Gone Fishin' For a Missing Link" contains many laughable statements. Two in particular that I picked up on were:

It has features similar to fish:

"There is the coelacanth fish, found in the same geological system (Devonian it is called) as this Tiktaalik discovery, that also has lobe fins. These lobe fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor (in fact it was, like “Tiklaalik,” once considered by evolutionists to be a type of
transitional form). Later, it was determined that the coelacanth fins were used
for better maneuvering through the water, and not for walking. The new creature
uncovered in the Arctic might be something similar."

And it has features similar to land animals:

"All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today—the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures—except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and
toes (and as has been stated, they are NOT connected to the axial skeleton)."

In other words they agree that it is an intermediate, but disagree with calling it transitional.

I just had to write them and ask some questions on this. Here is a copy of the email I sent to AiG:

I just finished reading your statement on the transitional fish fossil. I was wondering why the authors chose to attack the NYT article instead of the actual science articles (there were two) in Nature. You criticized the (NYT) article for using "cautionary" words, and the NYT for being the secular press. It should have been obvious to both Dr. David Menton and Mark Looy that the NYT had to use cautionary terms because it is 'secular'; that is the NYT has creationist readers as well as reality-based readers, so it has to cater to those creationist readers by including such ‘cautious' terms. So why attack science, using as your only source, the decidedly non-scientific NYT? Why not use the articles of the actual scientists who made the claims?

I would venture a guess that the reason is that the scientists didn't use those 'cautionary' terms that you built the majority of your response around. No matter what your reasoning was, it is dishonest and deceptive to your readers. An analogy would be going to the beach and beating up the 99 pound weakling, then looking at the 100 pound weakling and saying, "you want some of this?" all the while the van Dammes and Segals are looking at you saying to themselves, "is this guy nuts?" it is easy to pick on the NYT, but you seemed to ignore the real challenge – the actual science articles.

Then out of the blue, the authors wrote:
"For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information[...]"
What does genetics have to do with the paleontological facts? No one claimed there was an 'increase in information' concerning this fossil. The evidence being discussed was macroscopic in nature, while genetics are molecular in nature, it was a red herring thrown out to confuse and deceive your readers. This is not even to ask just what an 'increase in information' really means. (Please don't simply point me to your article(s) like, "Evolution? It doesn't add up!," "Creation question: Snowflakes," etc., I have already read them and they only serve to confuse instead of enlighten as well, but that is a different topic). The way scientists describe the process, there is not an immediate increase at all, merely a copy of existing information, and the copied information serves no immediate purpose. Then later natural processes cause mutations in that copied information, changing its function. That is how information gets increased.

But again that is completely irrelevant in this example, because this was merely the first step in an actual scientific process, describing and understanding the fossils themselves. The molecular biology involved in understanding the genetics of this species, has not even begun and will take many, many years. Thus making a 'increase in information' argument now is just putting the cart ahead of the donkey, and fooling your readers into believing that something that has not yet occurred, in fact is years away.

Finally, concerning the actual argument made by Dr. David Menton and Mark Looy, that this is not a transitional fossil, but then they proceed to state that the reason it is not transitional is because it has some, but not all, of the characteristics of a fish, and also some, but not all, of the characteristics of a land-based animal. They admit that the leg bones are quite similar in many aspects to land walking species, but that they also have some differences, namely they are not yet fully attached to the axial skeleton – thus could only partially support the animal's weight. Again that is to say it has some features of land animals, but not all of the features. My question to the authors is what you think the definition of 'transitional' is, if it doesn't mean intermediary, possessing some features of fish and land animals, but not all the features of either? How do you define transitional then?

You claim elsewhere to use the same facts as scientists, just interpret them differently. In this case, you have come to the exact same conclusion as science (disregarding that red herring about 'increase in information'), only want to call it by something other than transitional, despite the clear truth that even by how you explained this fossil is by definition, transitional. You are free to make up any new word you like, and define it the same as transitional, but that in no way changes that your interpretation matches the definition of a transitional fossil.

You (AiG) wonder why you get no respect from science and everyone in science ignores you;well the reason is what you did here in this article. You chose to attack a secular popularized version in the NYT instead of the actual science the scientists produced, and claim that your statements knocked down the real science. How would AiG react if science attacked the AiG using an article about the AiG found in "The Onion"? The official statement of the AiG surely would be to cry foul. So why do the same thing to science by using the NYT to attack science, especially since the NYT is secular and therefore has to respect all its reader's views?

You mention that you are waiting to make any final statement because:
"No creationist to our knowledge has yet done a careful analysis on this fossil. Until one of ourscientists or an adjunct AiG researcher has conducted a careful study, we will not issue a conclusive statement."
My question is what research? The AiG, ICR, or any creationist 'researchers' are free to examine the fossils, but the truth is no creationist actually ever does any research at all. A thorough examination of the AiG q&a, and creationism journal turns up zero research. You never do any research. All that does appear are articles disputing what scientists claim, and that is not research. It is commentary, pure and simple.

In this very article you make the claim of species being static, or only 'losing information' (whatever that means). Yet where is any research by even one creationist scientist investigating what the mechanism that acts as a 'stop sign' to prevent microevolutionary (variation within aspecies) changes from adding up to a macroevolutionary (a new species evolving from an old species) change? Surely if you claim to accept that small evolutionary changes occur within a species, then you could develop a research program that determines what mechanism prevents those changes from creating a new species... Is it a genetic 'stop sign' or something else? Do some actual research, and not just critiquing real research and calling that 'research' and you might gain some respect from real scientists.

Why don't you do this already? I can only guess, but the most likely answer is that you only want to deceive your readers into thinking you do real science. But that leads me to wonder what you really are thinking, if you realize that you are only perpetrating self-deception and self-delusion onto your readers, or you actually think that 'doing research' only means critiquing facts and experiments that somehow magically appear in secular sources. You can't possibly think that the 'research' you do is the same as the research real scientists do, because then you really would have to believe that facts and experiments do just magically appear. Surely you must understand that you have to actually conduct research to claim to be a researcher.

For example, I could cite the NYT article and critique it saying it proves that the flying spaghetti monster actually designed fish and land animals, and my critique would be every bit as valid as your conclusion. If I do not add anything to support my conclusions other than my interpretation, I have not added any information. If you're truly intent on proving your interpretation as valid, you need to add information, yet not one single creationist has ever added one single piece of information; this time is most likely to be no different. Meanwhile real scientists are adding new information every single day – they conduct experiments, they dig up and analyze fossils, they observe living organisms, they conduct molecular biology experiments, etc. So, once again, if you want to gain that credibility needed to push your creationism theory, you must start adding information. That is why science is so far ahead of you on the credibility, theoretical, and evidenciary fronts, they do the work, they make the analyses, they build on what is known, they predict what will come in terms of new facts, they study and critique other scientist's work, they reproduce experiments, they test hypothesis against new evidence, and they are willing to junk bad hypotheses or analysis if found to be in error. None of that is done by creation ‘scientists'.

I look forward to your comments and responses to these points and questions I have made.

P.S. Why did you choose to mention the ‘96 Mars meteor, not once but twice? What does that have to do with this fossil? It is an apples and oranges fallacy. They have nothing to do with each other, other than they are both old and rock. You seemed to use it as an analogy, but even then the analogy makes no sense, as when the possibility was first announced, the very first thing other scientists said was that there were a lot of possibilities that it could be something else. No one in the science community said it proved life on Mars; even the scientists who did the analysis and made the announcement claimed it was [not] conclusive proof, just highly suggestive. So it was never a hoax, or a trick or a lie meant to ‘fool' the public; it was a piece of rock that looked like fossilized tracks of a unique type of bacteria. Some scientists concluded that it could be, many others, said more analysis needed to be conducted. They decided it was purely mineralology. Science worked just like it was supposed to. None of that is the case here, so it was a bad and misleading analogy for the authors to use. It clearly is a fossil, of what clearly is an animal, and it clearly has characteristics of both fish and land animals, which you admitted. Science always puts a halt to bad conclusions, maybe you should take that to heart.

P.P.S. Here is another secular article, this one from the Wall Street Journal


I have always gotten responses from AiG in the past, I will post their response when I get it.

Update: I have now received a response. Check here for it, and my comments on it.