July 2013

How can we assert the great American novel The Right Stuff has near 100% sequence similarity with Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary? Simple, take the words in the dictionary and find identical words in the novel, and you’ll find the spelling is 100% identical in most cases! Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish. Apparently Darwinists are quite willing to do exactly that. Consider this recent paper: The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution which concludes: Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods. The paper goes on and on about how closely related we are based Read More ›

Did a creationist actually say this? phylogenetic methods as they exist now can only rigorously detect sister-group relationships, not direct ancestry, No, it was Nick Matzke at Panda’s thumb 🙂 But a creationist did say: you get sister groups with no parent explicitly shown. Platonic forms do not suggest we evolved from fish 😯 Not much difference between what Matzke said and I said! I’ve been telling him that since 2006, and now he finally acknowledges it publicly. I’ve said that it was creationists (like Linnaeus) before Darwin’s time who lumped humans along with the primates, and the primates along with the mammals, etc. The creationists perceived the “sister groups” with no physical ancestor (which suggests the “parent” was an Read More ›

In my last post, I discussed the problem of split-brain cases, which was first raised by KeithS in a post over at The Skeptical Zone titled, Split-brain patients and the dire implications for the soul (June 22, 2013). I began by distinguishing three varieties of dualism (leaving aside property dualism, whose inadequacies from a theistic standpoint have already been ably exposed by Professor William Dembski – see here and here), which I referred to as substance dualism, thought control dualism and formal-final dualism. I then examined the six assumptions used in KeithS’s split-brain argument from the perspective of each of these versions of dualism. What is a split-brain operation? Before I go on, I’d like to provide a brief scientific Read More ›

BA 77 has found another vid on the Slaughter of the Dissidents that reminds us of what the sort of evo mat promotion stunts we see going on in and around UD can all too often end up as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_nh0zDMwJA A couple of stills can help us understand what Darwinist agit-prop enabling behaviour by spreading false accusations and willful misrepresentations, demanding a ‘right’ to defame as if that is a part of free speech and the like can all too easily end up as; through, creating a toxic and deeply polarised, destructive climate in our civilisation and especially in key institutions: Something to ponder, for those who imagine there is a ‘right’ to directly participate in or enable falsely accusing Read More ›

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence. – Nikola Tesla