Feedback for November 2002

There's an awful lot of "proof by assertion" going on here. Scientific method is about testing disprovable hypotheses, not about looking for evidence in support of a theory. There are two problems in this case.

One lies in the statement of evolutionary theory in terms of "species". Evolution is obvious and logical, but the notion of species is too arbitrary and weakly defined to allow the hypothesis to be tested. Some humans produce sterile offspring, some couples are infertile through physiological incompatibility, most tend to segregate into visibly different mating communities, some have radically different morphology attributed to unusual chromosomes that do not make them sterile... We are all classed as homo sapiens, but each of these tests would be considered sufficient to define a new species of fish or mouse.

The other lies in the nonspecific nature of evolutionary prediction. Observation suggests that a cannon ball will land "somewhere", Newtonian physics predicts exactly where, so it is a scientific hypothesis and can be tested by experiment. It is pretty obvious in retrospect that living things have evolved, but until we can predict, say, that the next garden predator will be a ten-legged adaptation of the spider, we can't call evolution a scientific hypothesis - it's just a plausible link between observations.

Evolution is certainly a lot more explanatory, and a lot less ridiculous, than creation, but it isn't science - yet!

Eddington said that a student of physics must get used to having his common sense violated five times before breakfast, every day. I'm a physicist, and it's breakfast time - thanks for listening!

Example: I see an object at point A. Later an identical looking object is at point B. One theory is that the object has moved. Refutation of the alternatives may leave the above as the most plausible, even the only possible explanation. It may, however be impossible to prove 'empirically'.

I often go to the GRI site to read the articles they link, on both sides of the issues. Because the scientific sources are done well, and the creationist sources generally not well done, I'm not sure what purpose they have for linking articles, as it seems to me that the evolutionist side more or less trounces the creationists also linked.

I'm always wondering, of course, how the folks at GRI manage to read Science, Nature, and many other good journals as well, while maintaining a creationist posture. They are pretty much on the edge of the opposition to radiometric dating, in any event, not able to deny the honesty and integrity used in such chronometry, yet finding the inevitable questions and problems that arise in science to sort of maintain a plausible deniability (I don't find it plausible, of course). Coffin, from GRI, is remembered, naturally, for stating in the Arkansas creationist trial that without the Bible he'd accept the scientists' statements about the age of the earth (something like that).

Anyway, I just thought, credit where it's due.

Glen Davidson

If there was no flood... How could there have been enough sediment dumped into the Gulf of Mexico and other bodies of water, to completely bury trees in their standing position, resulting in their being petrified, While still standing?

How could the Grand Canyon have been formed over millions of years by a river that begins and flows 2,ooo plus feet below some of the higher drop-offs in the canyon? Did the water defy gravity for a few thousand years and flow up hill?

If so many of the dinosaurs were vicious carnivores(as scientists would have us believe).. Why are the dinosaur fossils found intact? Look around you the next time you are in the woods. You won't see any entire animal carcasses lying about. This is because the other carnivorous animals Eat the dead ones, resulting in the scattering of the remains. The same thing would have been happening Millions of years ago if the earth were in fact that old. These "dinosaurs" died suddenly/quickly and were buried very rapidly below hundreds of thousands of tons of sediment... before their bodies could naturally decay or other animals could get to them to consume them.

Remember: The truth shall set you free! For more information that will discredit your "facts" even more go to www.drdino.com

by Damian Carroll

The following transcript is from a debate between Carl Johnson, P.H.D., a leader in the rapidly developing field of “Celestial Foodstuffs,” and Mark Howard, an undergraduate astronomy student.

MODERATOR: Gentlemen, welcome to the debate. Today’s topic: Lunar Composition. For years, schoolchildren have been taught only one theory about the composition of our orbiting sister, the Moon, popularly known as the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” Theory. But this theory has come under fire recently by a group of religious and political activists, demanding equal time for their own views, dubbed the “Celestial Foodstuffs” Theory. Educators and scientists say that CF Theory is no more than a barely disguised reworking of the ancient “Moon Is Made Of Cheese” Theory. Our debate today will focus on differences between these two intriguing fields of research, in the hopes that the public will gain greater understanding of each. We’ll begin with Carl.

CARL: Thank you. Folks, I’m here tonight to tell you something groundbreaking. It’s something most scientists do not want you to hear. They’re afraid that if you discover the truths I’m about to tell you, you’ll stop funding their research. You won’t allow them a monopoly in what gets taught in our school science classes. But luckily, after tonight you’ll be armed with the latest in cutting-edge research and proven facts that will allow you to refute the bogus theory that has a stranglehold on our educational system. I’m talking, of course, about the “Moon Is Made Of Rock” theory. What’s that you say? You thought scientists had proof that the Moon is made of rock? Well, folks, I’m here tonight to tell you they don’t. “Moon Is Made Of Rock,” or as I like to call it, MIMOR, is just a theory. It hasn’t been proven. And until it is proven, conclusively, all we ask is that our Celestial Foodstuffs theory be given equal time.

MODERATOR: Thank you Carl. Mark…

MARK: First of all, I can’t believe we’re even having a debate about this. But since we’re all here, I’ll try to make this short. The Moon is definitely made of rock. That’s a fact. We have loads and loads of evidence. We have rocks from the Moon. We’ve run thousands of chemical tests on Moon materials – they’ve all come up as, well, rock. We’ve sent astronauts to the Moon – they saw that it was, in fact, made of rock. Now, it’s true we don’t know exactly how the Moon was formed. We have some good ideas and there is ongoing research. But as far as the Moon being made of cheese, I don’t understand how anybody could still believe that.

MODERATOR: Thanks, Mark. Carl…

CARL: Folks, Mister Howard would like you to think that all scientists agree on MIMOR. But this is absolutely not the case. I, for example, have P.H.D.s in Nutrition and Statistics, and I do not agree. Furthermore, many of my colleagues find grave problems with MIMOR theory. Even leading astronomers have trouble accepting the theory. Why, just last April NASA scientists admitted, “Many questions remain about the chemical composition of the Moon.”

MARK: That quote is totally out of context. You know as well as I do that NASA was talking about the exact chemical composition of Moon rock. They certainly do not doubt that the Moon is made of rock, and there’s no way that they are saying it might be cheese!

CARL: I’ll leave that up to the audience to decide. My point is that many questions about Moon composition remain unsolved, yet Mark Howard would have you believe they’ve got it all sewn up. That simply isn’t true.

MODERATOR: Well let’s look into your Celestial Foodstuffs theory, Carl. Tell us how your research points to the Moon having a dairy-based composition.

CARL: I’d be happy to. For hundreds of years, humans have known intuitively that the Moon is made of cheese. It’s really quite obvious if you don’t hide behind a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo. Let me give you a little thought experiment. If you opened up your refrigerator at home, and saw something greenish white, with little holes in it, you would assume it was cheese. Any rational person would do the same. Why then, should the case of an object in the sky be any different? Logically, we should assume the same thing – the Moon is white, the Moon has holes, and therefore it is cheese. But don’t take my word for it -- I have statistical facts to back up that statement.

MODERATOR: Well let’s get into those statistics. As you know, for a long time Moon Is Made Of Cheese theory was based largely on doctrine. Poems, literature, and the like insisted that the Moon was cheese-based. But you say your Celestial Foodstuffs theory incorporates new evidence.

CARL: That’s right. Let’s first look at the so-called “scientific” theory that is taught in our schools today. Scientists tell us that the Moon is a huge ball of rock, circling – in astronomical terms – right next to the Earth, another huge ball of rock. Now I ask you, does this make sense? Does it seem likely that two balls of rock would be found right next to each other in space? Let’s look at the math. According to scientists, the ratio of empty space to rock in the universe is enormous. Jump anywhere in space and you are likely to find yourself in a totally rock-free zone. Considering this, what are the chances that two balls of rock would appear right next to each other in the vast enormity of space? I’ve performed the calculations, and the answer is: nil. Of all the places for a ball of rock to appear, right next to the Earth is so unlikely as to be statistically impossible. So we’re left with the question – if a ball of rock could not appear next to the Earth, what might the Moon in fact be? And of course, the only other possibility is a ball of cheese.

MARK: That’s totally ridiculous. You’re assuming that the Moon just appeared randomly out of nowhere. No scientist would argue that. You’ve ignored everything we know about the development of solar systems, planets, and moons. What’s more, even if you could prove that our Moon was not made of rock, there’s no reason to assume that cheese is the only other alternative. What are the chances of a ball of cheese appearing next to the earth?

CARL: I would love to give you that calculation, and believe me, I am working on it. The problem is, because science has totally ignored the possibility of Celestial Foodstuffs, we have no data about the ratio of cheese to empty space in the universe! Until science takes our theory seriously, we will have to gather that data on our own, and that takes time.

MARK: Science has no reason to study cheese ratios in the universe. We’ve never found cheese anywhere except here on Earth. On the other hand, we have found loads and loads of rock on the Moon. How do you explain that?

CARL: Mark is referring here to so-called “rock evidence,” gathered on the Moon by astronauts, that scientists claim proves their case. I don’t have to tell you that this evidence is spotty at best. Astronauts have only set foot on a very small fraction of the Moon. The Moon rocks they’ve gathered show us only tiny pieces of what the total composition of the Moon might be. Here’s a little thought experiment: imagine you are a tiny astronaut on the Moon. You come to Earth and land in Wisconsin, a region rich in cheese. In fact, your spaceship lands on a large cheese wheel. You get out of your ship, take some samples, and bring them back to the Moon. There, your Moon scientists analyze the samples, and determine that the Earth must be made of cheese! I think we can all see how NASA has made this very mistake. They’ve sent their astronauts to a couple isolated locations on the Moon that contain some rock. But we’ve seen no samples from the vast regions between those scattered Moon landings. They bring us back tiny pieces of the puzzle and expect us to jump to conclusions along with them. But there is no reason to make that jump! The Moon is no more made of rock than the Earth is made of cheese.

MARK: Carl is right. We don’t have samples from every inch of the Moon. Trying to collect them would be a logistical nightmare. We don’t have the resources to send millions of missions to the Moon to take samples in every direction. Luckily, we don’t need to do so. The samples we have from the Moon paint the larger picture, and every one of them is consistent with the moon being made of rock. We can’t prove that every inch of the Moon is rock, but we have shown that possibility to be far and away the most likely. I’d like to ask Carl, are you saying it’s a coincidence that every time we landed on the Moon, we just happened to be on a huge platform of rock?

CARL: I don’t know, Mark. That’s not for me to prove. You’re the one saying the whole Moon is rock. You’re the one saying that’s the only theory our children should hear.

MARK: We may not have rock from every corner of the Moon, but one thing we’ve never found is cheese!

CARL: That’s what science would like us to believe. But I suspect that scientists may be hiding cheese evidence, for fear that it would demolish their case. It wouldn’t be the first time science perpetrated a fraud. Let me call your attention to the Buzz Aldrin fiasco. As you know, in 1982 Mister Aldrin was caught telling a girl in a bar that some rocks in his pocket were authentic Moon rocks. But subsequent chemical tests proved that those rocks were from a ranch in Montana! Do you deny that this was a case of clear-cut lies?

MARK: Yes, we’ve all heard about the Buzz incident. But let me point out that it was scientists who discovered that fraud, and publicly debunked it! The beauty of science is that every claim is rigorously tested by a large number of individuals.

CARL: Nevertheless, we can see how scientists are perfectly capable of misleading the public. What’s more, I am not convinced that the samples brought back from the Moon are rock at all. A careful look at those samples shows that they are indistinguishable from old, hardened cheese! Anyone who has let cheese sit out for a couple days in a cold, dry climate – such as that on the Moon – knows that cheese can harden to a remarkably rock-like consistency. Imagine how hard cheese could get after a couple billion years spent orbiting the Earth! Thus, science has not proven that their samples are non-cheese.

MARK: Just because you say it could be cheese, doesn’t make it true! Are you a geologist? Have you ever taken a chemistry class?

CARL: Ah, again, we see the appeals to scientific elitism. As if regular people aren’t smart enough to understand the complexities of lunar study.

MARK: You’re the one who is treating this audience like idiots.

CARL: Mark, Mark, Mark. Science has tried again and again to beat down CF theory, and failed every time. Scientists said the Moon could not be cheese, because cheese has little holes and the Moon has big ones. We replied that a piece of cheese as big as the Moon would naturally have bigger holes. They said a piece of cheese that large would require an enormous cow to provide the milk. We replied that enormous cows may very well live right outside our solar system. They said a piece of cheese that large would emit an odor so strong –

MARK: Scientists never said any of those things! You’re making up arguments just to knock them down!

CARL: Be that as it may, your research has never looked into any of these possibilities! Have you constructed a giant cheese smell-o-meter and sent it into orbit as CF supporters have demanded? Why not? Are you afraid of what such a smell-o-meter might find?

MARK: You’re talking nonsense. Scientists don’t have time to chase down every half-baked theory that gets thrown at them. We work based on what we know. We know that the only materials ever brought back from the moon were rock. Nobody has ever shown evidence of cheese composition. You can’t expect us to take twelve steps backwards just to satisfy your idiotic demands.

CARL: But you don’t know that the whole moon is rock. You can’t be positive. You’ve only studied a tiny fraction of the moon.

MARK: A countless number of separate experiments have all arrived at the same result.

CARL: But you don’t know for sure. It’s possible that the moon is made of cheese.

MARK: It is extremely unlikely. It is so unlikely it doesn’t even warrant consideration.

CARL: But it’s possible?

MARK: Fine, yes, I suppose it’s possible, in the sense that any incredibly unlikely thing is still possible.

CARL: Exactly. And that is precisely why Celestial Foodstuffs Theory should be taught alongside MIMOR theory in school science classes. We just don’t know which is true. Millions of Americans believe firmly that the Moon is cheese, and their views should be addressed.

MARK: You’re talking about teaching something in a science class that no reputable scientist believes.

CARL: Well why should scientists have a monopoly on science? I say, let the public in. Anybody with an idea they feel passionately about deserves to have that idea taught to children in the public schools.

MARK: That’s absurd. Why even have science classes if you’re not going to teach established science?

CARL: All we ask is for our children to learn the truth.

MARK: Whose truth?

CARL: Well mine, of course. The Moon is made of cheese, Mark. It’s about time you stopped arguing and just accepted that fact.

“A liquid is introduced into an apparatus which is rigid and static with no energy-storage devices such as batteries or springs. Part of the liquid volume remains at the bottom and forms a reservoir while part of it is drawn up into the apparatus to a point from which it proceeds to return to the reservoir in a continuous non-stop series of drops”. Is this even possible and if so what is the value of such an invention?

I’m skeptical. Please help me decide. I don’t want to anger my friend, but I’m afraid that I will unless I have an authoritative reason to refuse his offer. As this is over my head. I ask for your help.

Dan Speas

Keep up the good job!

• Evolution Deceit

What a bunch of garbage! If you haven't already trashed this site please do so. What a pile of crap.

Thank you.

Think about it. If reptiles are going to turn into birds, reptiles don't have feathers, birds do, where does the information for feathers(which are complex structions like hair folicules) come from? Its not in the genes of a reptile!

See, you evolutionists have to propose that over millions of years new information keeps being generated from matter and somehow added into the genes.

The problem? It doesn't happen. Its impossible. You know this. So you say "Oh, but mutations."

In High School I was given the example that when bacteria becomes resistant to antibodies thats evolution! Funny thing is when you understand it its actually the opposite of evolution.

Because they lose the ability to do something which can actually cause them to become resistant. Thats the opposite of evolution.

They are actually losing information. Science has never observed information being CREATED to further evolution!

They still can't show me where information is being created. If they did I'd have a lot easier time seeing how a lizard could grow feathers.

There is nothing fundamentally immoral providing any honorary degree a person obtains (which is quite common), but to completely leave out earned degrees is dishonest and manipulative.

Perhaps you might find it of interest to visit:

Science And Religion - Intellectual Honesty & The Origins Debate

Thats right, it's not an organisms internal complexity that proves creationism, its the intracasies of ecosystems and the impossibility of making one from scratch.

--TD

How many layers do the researchers assume were added each year? Our assumptions strongly affect conclusions from data. And our conclusions in one area may affect our assumptions in another. If our assumptions are erroneous, what is the likelihood of our conclusions being correct?

For example, if I assume roughly 20 layers were added each year, on average, and 110,000 is the correct count of layers, then the ice core is about five or six thousand years old. This is about when I already believe God flooded the earth.

Note that what I already believe can influence my assumptions about the Greenland ice core.

David MacMillan III 240 Buffalo Trace Wichester, KY 40391

Can you please comment on the accuracy and validity of C14 dating tests, or any other dating tests? It has been reported that such tests are calibrated before hand and therefore almost always made to produce the expected results.

Thanks in anticipation

Example in point. The supposed fossil link between dinosaurs and birds, a bird-like reptile found in China. Turned out to be yet another fraud on the evolutionist landscape, just like Nananderthal Man, just like the famed "Lucy" which Leaky himself admits he found the leg bone in strata 200 feet deeper a half a mile away. But what is the real tragedy is that evolutionist or bad scientists have managed to teach millions of people around the world that they evolved from primordial goo by chance and natural selection. The biggest hoax of the 20 century. Even worse is the knowledge of the incredible complexity of just one protein matrix let alone DNA with all of its sequencing which is information, PROOF OF INTELIGENT DESIGN. Yet many scientist continue to blatently continue to ignore the obvious physical laws of the universe including the 2nd law of thermodynamics to imbrace some ridicluous theory which is PROVEN to be mathematically impossible anyway you slice it. Derek Boudreau 571-278-0823 cell

I overheard some people (ok, my parents) talking about a "Geneticist in Utah" working on Ancestry who wants to get everyones DNA. Then he will try and determine who is going to go to 'hell' or 'heaven'" <<shrug>>

I would be greatful if you could give me a link if you know of this (its a humerous subject).

Thanks again! And keep up the GREAT site!!!