HARTZOG’S FANTASIES
(3)
Jerry D. McDonald
Hartzog
continues…
What McDonald doesn't seem to
understand is that the comments section of a YouTube video about biological
evolution is not the place to try carrying on a debate about a supernova that
took place 168,000 years ago.
McDonald
I understand that you cannot
have a full discussion in one comment section on YouTube, but the comment
section is there so people can make comments. As we have already stated, numerous
times, the discussion started out on biological evolution. When this topic had degraded to nothing
more than his accusations about me attacking his personal life though he refused
to tell me where, I decided to go on to another subject. It is about evolution whether he, Rick
or Robert Baty want to admit it.
That is why Chaisson & McMillan referred to both in their book Astronomy Today. I am sure that we can trust these men to
tell us whether or not evolution encompasses stellar evolution. Howbeit when you get right down to it
the comments section on either mine or Todd’s YouTube videos are no place for a
discussion even of biological evolution.
Yet, Todd goes to a lot of trouble to discuss it on the comment sections
of both videos.
Hartzog
For all the comments that have been
posted to the pages of Todd's and Jerry's YouTube videos, NONE OF THEM have
anything to do with showing why "evolution isn't science". No, to the contrary,
the overall effect is of Jerry McDonald showing everyone he doesn't know what
science is in the first place.
McDonald
Again, Hartzog is fantasizing
because we did discuss biological evolution and why it isn’t science. All one has to do is to follow the link
to the Challenge website to see this.
All of the comments that were made on my YouTube comments section are
there for anyone and everyone to see.
Before long that video will be archived there so I can place another one
on it. After a while I will remove
each video and archive it on the Challenge website along with any and all
comments that have been made about the video.
Rick’s charges about my not
knowing what science is have become redundant because I have already shown that
to be false. He has nothing else to
say, but he needs to take up a lot of space to say it. I do know what science is and I do know
how it is testable. See part 2 of
Hartzog’s
Fantasies and you will see that I know exactly what
science is. Apparently Rick doesn’t
because he seems to think that he is some how to be allowed to make assumptions
about evolutionary processes which physical laws won’t allow.
Hartzog
continues…
(Most recently McDonald has posted
this question to the comments section of his own video: "If mammals evolved from
reptiles, why do we still have reptiles?" That is an example of how clueless
McDonald is, and why Todd Greene refused to debate him in public on the subject
of biological evolution.)
McDonald
Yes I did, and I am surprised
(though I don’t know why) that Rick doesn’t understand why I asked that
question. Greene’s response was
that we have Europeans and Americans though Americans came from
Greene refused to debate me on
biological evolution because Greene knows the down side of the subject and he
didn’t want to get caught on stage looking like a fool. That is the only reason he wouldn’t
debate me on evolution. If he even
had a clue that he could have won that debate he would have seen it through
rather than call it off.
Hartzog continues to quote
from my article…
Greene is the one with the college
education, not me. I only attended a two year course in a preacher's training
school, but it seems that I know more about evolution than Greene
does.
No, it doesn't seem that way at all.
How it appears, Jerry, and I'm saying this with all the kindness I can muster
toward you in light of your recent behavior, is that you are simply too ignorant
of what you are talking about to even realize how stupid what you are saying
really is.
Sorry.
And that is putting
it in the very best possible light, because if you are NOT as totally ignorant
of science as what you appear to be, then you are even more dishonest than I
have previously thought. As I have said of certain other young-earth creationist
preachers, some of the stuff they say is so stupid it really makes you wonder
whether it is through ignorance or deliberate intent to deceive that they make
these comments.
McDonald
Rick, you don’t have to pull
back on my account. I have
developed a very thick skin after nearly two decades of dealing with your
kind. I am not totally ignorant of
science, period. I know exactly
what science is, apparently you don’t or you wouldn’t have found yourself in the
position of trying to defend an unscientific position (the universe being 3
billion years old) trying to use scientific arguments. What evidence do we have the universe is
3 billion years old? “O, well we
can see a star 168,000 light years away, and therefore the light must have taken
168,000 years to reach earth.”
There’s your proof? Do we
see any stars that are 3 billion light years away? Now let’s use a little logic here! Do we have any telescopes that can see
stars 3 billion light years away?
No! We see a star that went
supernova which was detected in 1987 and we have measured it (with our
telescopes) at 168,000 light years away, so we can come to the conclusion that
the universe has been here 3 billion years. That’s another one of Hartzog’s
fantasies!
I am not deliberately or
unintentionally deceiving anyone on anything. I merely pointed out a scientific reason
that we could see a supernova that we detected in 1987 that is measured at
168,000 light years from earth.
Rick didn’t like my article so he responded. When I made a second response he
certainly didn’t like and refuses to allow me to publish his response on the Challenge website. I am looking forward to getting into
Rick’s feeble attempt to answer my defense of my first article, but I have to
wade through all the mud before I get there, but I’ll get to it sooner or
later.
Hartzog
continues…
And here's the WORST part: they are
absolutely INCAPABLE of learning! They REFUSE to overcome their lack of
understanding; they are DEFIANTLY ignorant and have every intention of REMAINING
that way, and of CONTINUING to preach their error while they PROUDLY wear their
incompetence like a badge of honor!
McDonald
We are incapable of learning
what Rick, Greene and other liberals and atheists want us to believe because we
know the truth. We will not change
and, yes, we are proud to be the way we are. We are not going to change simply
because some one like Rick Hartzog comes along and tells us that we are
wrong. No, we are going to make
them prove that we are wrong, and so far Rick hasn’t done anything towards
that. He hasn’t even bothered to
deal with the real issue in this series of articles. He did, finally, near the end deal with
it, but he brought up all kinds of issues to keep the smokescreen up so he
wouldn’t look so bad. He talks
about me not wanting to debate on the Maury_Baty list but this is a more
appropriate format than that is.
Here both sides have equal space and both sides are printed in the
fullness and people can read one article, then read the response to it without
having to get off into what everyone else on the list is saying about it. Here it is between Rick Hartzog and me,
not between Hartzog, Greene, Baty and me, but between Hartzog and me. What is fairer than that? That is debating, and if Rick doesn’t
understand that, he has absolutely no business trying to engage in written
debates.
This type of debating is
nothing new to me because I have been doing it for 27 years. I have also had many discussions on
email discussion lists and one of the pitfalls of formats like that is that,
more than not, (1) several people will jump on the bandwagon and it gets to
where no one knows what is going on or even being said, and (2) the subject gets
changed too quickly. I would rather
have this kind of debate where (1) you have to be civil to one another, at least
to a certain point. (2) You are on
your own and you have to make your own argument and (3) if you don’t make your
own argument and if you don’t meet your own responsibilities the reading
audience will see your failure.
This is why Rick says that my wanting to publish his second response was
a little “out of kilter.” He
doesn’t want to have to do any of these things. He would rather I come on the list and
he, Todd and other liberals and atheists attack me all at once and somewhere
everything I say gets lost in the shuffle.
We will see how that has already happened (on that list) as we continue
to respond to Rick’s article.
Hartzog continues quoting my
article…
No, Greene understands that there are
seven phases of evolution and that biological evolution is but one of them. He
argues that evolution has nothing to do with geology, and for once I would agree
with him, but then he states that the fossil record proves evolution, and
(unless I am way off base) the fossil record is a part of geology. I don't think
I am off base here unless Chaisson & McMillian are off as well because they
stated "the fossil record leaves no doubt that biological organisms have changed
over time -- all scientists accept the reality of biological evolution"
(Ibid).
I had posted the message linked here
well before Jerry McDonald posted this reply to me, so it is his own fault he is
continuing with this same line of argumentation: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/13434
But
Jerry contradicts himself here with his own double-talk; if "planetary
evolution" is a fair topic for the comments section of a YouTube video about
biological evolution, then "evolution" most certainly does have something to do
with geology. So now, Jerry, you are going to have to show that "geology isn't
science" as well. But you RE-contradict yourself again, a little later in this
message.
I could save McDonald a lot of time and heartache and personal
embarrassment here if he would just take a little advice --but I know he won't,
so never mind...
McDonald
I am not some rookie that fell
off the truck yesterday. There is a
difference in saying that evolution has something to do with geology and saying
that geology has anything to do with evolution. I wanted Todd to agree with me that
geology is not evolution. Evolution
depends upon geology, but geology is never dependent upon evolution. This is what I was working towards. Whatever advice that Rick thinks he has
for me (that he thinks will save me a lot of time heartache and/or personal
embarrassment) he can keep to himself.
I don’t need it! I was not
saying that evolution does not depend upon geology because it most certainly
does. Without geology evolution
cannot hold true, but geology can and does hold true without evolution ever
coming into the picture. The two
are not one and the same and that is what I finally got Todd to admit. I have never said that “geology” isn’t
science I have always said that it is.
However, geology isn’t evolution!
Geology is science but evolution isn’t science. Evolution falls into the category of
philosophy, history, and/or religion, but it never EVER falls into the category
of science because it is not scientifically testable. Rick’s feeble attempt to twist my words
here won’t make him look good or make me look bad. All one has to do is to go to my
Challenge website and see just what was said about all of
this.
Hartzog continues to quote my
article…
Now while SN 1987A does not directly
deal with biological evolution, it does deal with stellar evolution which is
another one of those seven phases of evolution. Nowhere on Mr. Greene's video
does he single out "biological evolution."
Except of course that all the journals
Todd references, as well as the webpage on his Creationism site which he refers
to in the video, are ALL about biology or palaeontolgy. NOTHING he referred to
was about "stellar evolution" or cosmology or chemistry or culture or anything
else: http://creationism.outersystem.us/evolutionisscience.html
Check
it out.
Do you see Todd pointing out articles from any astrophysical
journals in his video, or on the above page which his video references? No. But
no matter, have it your way -- you have invalidated your protestations of
Dalrymple's book being included in the video, because you say geology is part of
the evolutionist conspiracy, too.
McDonald
Then tell me, why did Todd say
that his putting the picture of Dalyrmple’s book on his YouTube video a “lazy
oversight”? Why, when I asked him
why he would not correct this “lazy oversight” he said that “the damage has been
done” and that he would have to remove the video in order to do that? If you are going to get into this
discussion you need to know what you are talking about. Geology IS NOT part of an evolutionist
conspiracy. Evolutionists conspire
to say that evolution and geology are one and the same. Geology can and does stand on its own
without one suggestion from evolution, but evolution cannot stand without
geology. Evolution depends upon
geology (as well as astronomy) for its existence, but neither geology nor
astronomy depends upon evolution in any sense of the
word.
Except here is another quote
from Jerry McDonald's YouTube page:
Geology, physics and/or chemistry are
all considered science because they are testable by the empirical senses. Evolution is not testable by the
empirical senses. Therefore it is not science.
In Christ Jesus
Jerry
D. McDonald
Now, Jerry has already referred to his
selected quote (above) from Chaisson and McMillan a number of times, in which
the "seven phases of cosmic evolution" are listed. Geology is "planetary
evolution", and here McDonald says geology is science. Physics is embodied in
"particulate evolution", "stellar evolution" and "galactic evolution", and
McDonald here acknowledges that physics is science. Chemistry, of course, has to
do with "chemical evolution" listed above, and McDonald says chemistry is
science. So of those seven phases of cosmic evolution, McDonald has just
admitted that five of the seven are science, leaving out only biological and
cultural evolution.
McDonald
There is a difference in saying
that physics is science and it is quite another thing to say that stellar and
particulate evolution is science.
Physics stands on its own as science and it does not depend upon
evolution to show that it is science.
Evolution, however, does depend upon sciences like physics in order to
even think that it is science. You
can have physics without ever involving evolution, but you cannot have evolution
(particulate or stellar) without involving physics. Evolution uses physics as a crutch to be
able to even be called science.
Hartzog
But notice McDonald's
misunderstanding here (or, more accurately, deliberate misrepresentation) --
"testable by the empirical senses". This is another example of young-earth
creationist dishonesty. Why would McDonald think that evolution is not testable
by the empirical senses?
McDonald
I think it isn’t because it
can’t be testable by the empirical senses.
One cannot test the big bang by the empirical senses. One cannot test the so-called first
signs of life by the empirical senses.
These are things that allegedly happened in the distant past, and as such
they cannot be tested. No one was
around to write history about what happened, so we cannot even call it
history. The only thing that it can
fall into is philosophy and/or religion.
Hartzog doesn’t want to think about it this way, but it is
inescapable.
Hartzog
Here is a hypothesis: If
species change over time, there must be a means by which changes are passed from
parents to offspring.
McDonald
Where are the kinds that are
changing over time? He calls them
“species” because he can call anything a species. For example there are several species of
wasps, but the fact is that they are all wasps. There are different species of flies,
but the fact is they are still flies.
Where is his proof that one kind can change into another kind? Where is his proof that a cow can change
(over a period of time) into a dog?
Has anything like this ever been observed? No, it hasn’t and the reason that it
hasn’t is because of the fact that kinds cannot change from one kind to
another. The Bible states
“And God said, Let the earth bring
forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit
after his kind, whose seed is
in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Gen. 1:11). The word kind comes
from:
“miyn:
A masculine noun indicating a kind, a species. It indicates an animal or
something that shares common characteristics (Gen_1:11-12, Gen_1:21, Gen_1:24-25; Gen_6:20; Gen_7:14; Lev_11:14-16,
Lev_11:19,
Lev_11:22,
Lev_11:29;
Deu_14:13-15, Deu_14:18; Eze_47:10). It does not equal the modern scientific definition of and the
use of species” (E-Sword Word
Study.)
You will notice that the author
said that the word does not equal the modern scientific definition of species
because the modern definition refers to that which is within a kind. In order to show that evolution can be
verified he needs to show where a species of dogs (for example) could or has
changed (over a period of time) into a species of cattle. What he wants to pass off as evolution
is where one species of cattle can change (over a period of time) into another
species of cattle (by selective breeding).
However, he cannot do this.
He needs to show where a species of monkeys (are now changing over a
period of time) into a species of humans.
This is something that he cannot show. He can show that one race of humans can,
by breeding, change into another race, but this is not what is called
“biological evolution.” This does
not explain our origins. This does
not show how we all started out as a protein and joined with some thing in some
puddle of muddy water and formed the first life form. He knows all this; he isn’t dumb! He, however, wants to hang on to
evolution and at the same time hang on to God’s word. He cannot do this. Either God’s word is true and creation
was done in six literal 24 hour days or evolution is true and there was some
kind of an explosion in space for no reason and we are just an accident of that
explosion. You cannot hold to
both.
Hartzog
And empirical
verification of that hypothesis: Genetics.
McDonald
What verification? Has Genetics verified where a species of
dog has (over a period of time) changed into a species of apes? Where is this great verifiable
result? Has genetics verified that
humans ever came from apes? Has
genetics ever verified that there ever was a creature on this earth that was
neither human nor ape, but something in between? Where is the documentation of this
verifiable experiments?
Here is another hypothesis: If
changes are passed on to offspring, there must be a means of preserving
beneficial modifications in the population.
McDonald
Where is the verifiable
documentation that an ape ever gave birth to something that was even partially
human or even partially non-ape? If
these changes did exist and were passed on to the offspring there must be some
verification of it; some documentation that it happened. Where is such? This is something that Hartzog cannot
answer because it isn’t possible for it to be done. He wants you to think that there is no
difference between macroevolution and microevolution, but evolutionary
scientists understand that there is a difference.
In their book Evolutionary Analysis, Freeman and
Herron wrote:
“The living evidence for change
through time in two forms. First by
monitoring natural populations, we can directly observe small scale changes, or
microevolution. Secondly, if we examine the bodies of
living organisms, we can find evidence of dramatic change, or macroevolution” (p.
36).
Now, if you read that carefully
you can see that we can directly observe microevolution, but in order to find
any evidence of macroevolution we have to examine the bodies of living
organisms. In other words, you
cannot observe it while it is going on; you have to wait until the process is
complete. So where is all this
wonderful documentation showing that macroevolution has taken place? You can see microevolution in progress,
but you cannot do that with macroevolution. In order to find anything resembling
macroevolution you have to examine the bodies of living organisms. Why? Simply because you cannot directly
observe it in progress. Why? Because it isn’t possible to see it.
Therefore it isn’t science.
Microevolution only happens
within a population. Cattle give
rise to cattle. Horses give rise to
horses. Dogs give rise to
dogs. Cats give rise to cats. Cattle don’t give rise to reptiles, or
horses, or dogs, or cats or anything other than cattle. Why? Because everything reproduces after ITS
OWN KIND. With macroevolution you
are supposed to be able to see cattle giving rise to horses or something of that
nature. This is what macroevolution
shows. Microevolution says that
monkeys always gave rise to monkeys (and this is observable), but macroevolution
says that monkeys gave rise to humans (and this is not observable). That is macroevolution is not science
and never will be science. It
cannot be empirically tested.
Microevolution is science because it can be observed, but there never has
been a case in microevolution anything ever gave rise to anything other than its
own kind.
When Spring gets here I will,
once again, plant a garden. When I
do, I don’t expect to sow corn and come up with beans. If I sow corn in four rows, I expect
corn to come in those rows. If I
sow beans in the next three rows I expect beans to come up in those rows. I would be mighty surprised (and
probably rich beyond my wildest dreams) if I sowed nothing but corn and those
seeds yielded a crop of beans. Now
you can engineer different kinds of corn to get a hybrid, but the hybrid is
still CORN. Don’t let Rick snow you
with the absurd thinking that there is no difference between macroevolution and
microevolution because there is.
And empirical verification of
that hypothesis: Natural selection.
McDonald
Natural selection, of
course! Natural selection is how we
verify that apes gave rise to man.
Don’t be fooled, if everything had been left up to nature, there would
nothing. Rick says he is a
religious person, and that he believes that the Bible is true, but I call his
claim into question because everything has to be explained naturally as far as
he is concerned.
There is so much empirical
evidence for biological evolution that
it has been called the "cornerstone of
modern biology". But what
does the lying young-earth creationist preacher
Jerry McDonald
claim? That evolution is not "testable by the empirical
senses"!
How can he *possibly* make such a claim? Because in his
deliberate
pigheadedness he modifies his definition of "empirical
evidence"
to mean that you have to witness, with your own eyes,
the
creationist definition of "macro-evolution" taking place -- a
cow
giving birth to a pig or some such idiocy.
McDonald
Why is that “idiocy”? If macroevolution truly takes place
someone, somewhere along the line ought to be able to empirically observe
it. You ought to be able to see
where some creature gave rise to a creature outside of its kind, shouldn’t
you? I mean they claim that
reptiles gave rise to mammals, but where is the evidence? Has anyone ever seen, heard, touched,
smelled, or tasted such action taking place? No! Why not? Because it cannot
happen
He says that I, in my
“deliberate pigheadedness,” have modified my “definition of ‘empirical
evidence.’” No I haven’t! The word “empiric” means: “relying on experience alone…one who
relies on practical experience” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
p. 408). The word “empirical” means
“1: originating in or based on observation or experience” (Ibid). Now, just where have I redefined
anything at all? The dictionary
defines the word “empirical” as originating in or based on observation or
experience. In order to claim that
there is empirical evidence for macroevolution then someone, somewhere must be
able to observe it in progress; otherwise it is not empirical. Now, if it is not empirical, then it
isn’t science because science has to be testable by empirical senses. The word “science” is defined as “3 a:
knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of
general laws esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method” (Ibid, p.
1112). The words “scientific
method” are defined as: “principles or procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection
of data through observation and
experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypothesis” (Ibid). So, just where am I guilty of redefining
anything? I have merely demanded
that macroevolution (if it is to be treated as science) be tested on the same
grounds that any scientific subject would be tested: through observation and experiment. You cannot test macroevolution in that
manner, which is why it should not be considered science. However, evolutionists (and yes this
includes Rick) have to argue that it is science otherwise it cannot be taught as
science, it would have to be taught as religion, philosophy or maybe history
(although there never has been anyone to ever make a historical document of
it). So he can call me “pigheaded”
all he wants to, but he knows that I am right.
Hartzog continues to quote
me…
He simply says "evolution," and when
you use the word "evolution" without giving specifics it is generally taken that
you are talking about all of evolution beginning with the Big Bang
theory.
Only to a screwed-up young-earth
creationist! Most people, when
they hear the word "evolution", understand it
as having to do
with the way that species change over
time.
McDonald
No, most people don’t think of
biological evolution when they hear the word “evolution.” Rick wants everyone to think that
because he wants to separate stellar evolution from biological evolution. However, Chaisson & McMillan place
them all in the category of “cosmic evolution.” According to Chaisson & McMillan,
biological evolution is just one phase of “cosmic evolution,” and stellar
evolution is another phase of “cosmic evolution.” Rick cannot come to grips with that
because it disproves everything he has tried so hard in his responses to
argue.
Hartzog
But to people like
Jerry McDonald, all of science is "evolution",
but then again, "evolution
isn't science". Huh? Yes, you heard
me right -- to young-earth creationists,
science is evolution
but evolution isn't science. And round and round and
round they
go.
McDonald
I challenge Rick to find one
place where we call “science evolution.”
This is an out right lie and he knows it. It is a lie that is propagated by the
evolutionist to pull the wool over people’s eyes all the while trying to get
people to think that evolution is science.
GET THIS STRAIGHT, IF YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SO, RICK: EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE AND SCIENCE IS
NOT EVOLUTION. Now I have put this
in all capital letters so that even Rick can see it and understand. Science does not have anything to do
with evolution. Evolution depends
upon science to be called science, and to be taught as science, but there is NO
scientific evidence for macroevolution.
Now I hope that Rick is capable of understand this much. I would hate to think that I have
written all that for nothing.
Hartzog continues quoting my
article…
If you go to the comments section of
Mr. Greene's video you will see that I did deal with evolution and that I showed
the relevance that SN 1987A had to the video.
I have been to the comments section of
Mr. Greene's video and
saw no such thing.
McDonald
It is only because he does not
want to see it because it is there for anyone who has working eyeballs to
see. I dealt with the subject on
both Todd’s comment section and on my own.
If Rick doesn’t see it, he just doesn’t want to. Here let me give you the link where you
can find these comments. Go to the bottom
and click on all comments and you will see that we had a very lengthy discussion
of evolution as dealing with his video.
Hartzog continues quoting my
article…
It deals with stellar evolution, and
Todd just uses the word "evolution." Mr. Greene's problem came in when I started
buying books written by evolutionary scientists to use against him. He realized
that I was buying some of the books that he advertised on both his video and his
website. He had to admit that Chaisson & McMillian were professional
astronomers, there was no way that he could deny that, but they teach that SN
1987A does deal with evolution; stellar evolution, which indirectly will lead to
biological evolution. As far as my own Youtube video is concerned, it deals
pretty much with the same material as my video is in direct response to Greene's
video.
More McDonald double-talk. More
McDonald word games. Jerry,
you are habitually
dishonest.
McDonald
What word games and what double
talk? Rick wants to say that I am
habitually dishonest, but he says that because he cannot deal with what I have
said. I challenge the reader to, if
you can afford the book (and if you can’t see if you can check it out from the
library), read what Chaisson and McMillan said on this matter (Astronomy Today, pp. 760, 765). Rick get hold of yourself and deal with
the truth of the matter. Cosmic
evolution deals with seven phases of evolution, one of which is “biological”
evolution and another of which is “stellar” evolution. That’s not double talk that came
straight from the book Astronomy
Today. Deny it if you must, but
it is there for all to see.
I will end here and pick up
later in my next installment.
In Christ
Jesus
Jerry D.
McDonald