HARTZOG’S FANTASIES 4

Jerry D. McDonald

Hartzog continues…

Anybody should be able to tell from Todd's video that it is about biological evolution. It doesn't have anything to do with stellar evolution. When Todd told you that geology doesn't have anything to do with evolution, he was trying to make you understand that geologists do not rig their findings to fit a timeframe that will accommodate biological evolution. He was trying to make you understand that the age of the Earth, as established by geological science, is not dependent in any way on biological processes or presuppositions.

McDonald

If it had nothing to do with anything other than Biological evolution, then why the picture of the book “The Age of the Earth” by Dalrymple? On the website address he had a link to material that discussed subjects like “SN 1987A.” Why, if his Youtube video had nothing to do with anything other than “biological evolution”? The truth of the matter is, that in the video Greene was referring to all phases of evolution. The video was made before we agreed to debate, and the issue didn’t come up until I informed him that I wanted to discuss biological evolution in the debate. He refused to allow me to do that, which is why I brought up his Youtube video which showed books and magazines dealing with all phases of evolution. It was then, and only then, that Greene decided that his pictures of these things was a lazy oversight, an oversight that he has never corrected and never does intend to correct. Why does he not intend to correct it? He says that he would have to remove all the comments on it. So what? I placed all the comments on my Youtube video on my website so that people could read them after I pull that video. He could do the same thing, if he wanted to, but the problem is he knows that his Youtube video did have everything to do with all phases of evolution. His and Rick’s denial of this is nothing but fantasy. This is nothing more than another one of Hartzog’s fantasies.

I would like to note that Hartzog has complained that I am taking so much time and space to respond to everything in his post. Well, I do apologize for that, but I do believe in being thorough in these matters. He would rather I go to the Baty list with this, but I believe I will stay where I am. On this format Rick is by himself and it is one on one. Greene and Baty are not here to help him out by attacking me with their posts. I only have to deal with Hartzog, and with this being the case I can be thorough. If I didn’t respond to everything he said, he could complain that I was not doing that. If it seems that this exchange is dealing with matters other than SN 1987A, it is because it is. It is dealing with other matters because Rick brought these other matters in. Rather than just dealing with my article on SN 1987A, he decided to bring in several other things, things to which I have no alternative other than to respond.

Whatever Greene’s motives were in telling me that Geology has nothing to do with evolution, the fact is that Geology stands on its own without any help from evolution. Evolution, on the other hand, cannot stand without Geology. Geology is science and evolution isn’t. Geology can be tested empirically while evolution cannot. Evolutionary geologist interpret the data that they find from an evolutionary standpoint. However, Rick, Robert and Todd all deny that there are evolutionary geologists. They pretend that these people are just geologists and evolution has nothing to do with their work or their interpretation of their findings. We see this to be true when Rick said that Chaisson & McMillian were not evolutionists that they were astronomers. Yes, they are astronomers, but they are evolutionary astronomers. They collect data from astronomy and interpret it in the light of evolution. Rick can deny this all he wants, but it is the truth and the truth will stand. They even said “all scientists accept the reality of evolution” (Astronomy Today p. 765). If it was true that all scientists accept the reality of evolution then that would mean that all scientists were evolutionists. However all scientists do not accept evolution as reality. As a response to this atheists like Greene and evolutionists like Hartzog (he may not like being called an evolutionists, but he says that there is empirical evidence for evolution) argue that anyone who does not believe in evolution is not a scientists.

I tried to get Greene to tell me if a geologist who did not believe in evolution was a professional geologist and the closest thing to an answer that I got was him asking me what the name of the geologist was that did not believe in evolution. I gave him a name and he wanted to know what “professional journal” he had published work in. By “professional journal” he meant “what evolutionary journal.” I told him that he hadn’t written for any evolutionary journals, but he had written for journals like the CRSQ. Greene considers that journal a religious journal because the writers believe in creation. So the question goes unanswered: Are geologists who believe in creation considered professional geologists? By implication he says “NO!” However, he won’t give a definitive answer because he knows that the minute that he does he admits that he believes that in order to be a professional scientist one must believe in evolution. This is not something that he wants in writing at this point; maybe some time in the future, but not now.

Their method is to make people think that these people aren’t evolutionists, that they are just scientists. If they can get people to look at them that way, then they can get people to accept evolution as just another part of science. Now while there are some that are that naïve, not everyone is. Those of us who think clearly are going to continue to show that these people are evolutionary scientists and they are that because they do believe in evolution. However, we are also going to insist that there are creation scientists because they are scientists who believe in creation.



Hartzog continues…

Yes, Jerry, as we all know, there are fossils in the rocks and these fossils were some of the earliest recognized evidence that the Earth's plants and animals do change over time -- periods of time that are *thousands* of times longer than young-earthers can even imagine for the age of the Earth. But you can strip all the fossil-bearing strata completely off the face of the Earth and you will still be left with an ancient Earth. Or just look at the Moon! -- it doesn't have any fossils on it at all, as far as we know, but it is 4.5 billion years old, too. You can take the Earth out of the Universe completely, so that there is no evidence of life anywhere as far as we know, and the Universe will still be much much older than any few thousand years.

McDonald

How do we know that the moon is 4.5 billion years old? What is the data for such a conclusion? When discussing the age of the earth, it would be impossible to discuss it without discussing the fossil record. Greene knew this and when he found out that I had purchased “The Age of the Earth” by Dalrymple, and Astronomy Today, by Chaisson & McMillan, he decided that he had better find a way out of the debate. This is why he started changing the propositions. His excuse was that he didn’t want me discussing evolution, but he said that when I got into the affirmative, I could talk about anything I wanted.



The imaginary McDonald-Greene debate was supposed to have been about the age of the Earth and the age of the Universe, as established by astronomical and geological science and "strictly from a scientific standpoint" (McDonald's own words). The debate was called off because McDonald refused to debate if biological evolution wasn't included in his proposition, and Todd refused to allow a debate that was supposed to be about the age of the Earth get sidelined into the incredible waste of time in trying to explain to Jerry McDonald why cows don't give birth to pigs, and why, if mammals came from reptiles we still have reptiles. It is very unlikely that Jerry McDonald even knows what "allele frequency" means, yet there he was, wanting to debate about biological evolution, when he actually thinks that the fact that we have never seen a cow give birth to a pig is a good argument against macro-evolution!

McDonald

There was nothing imaginary about that debate. I started preparations and spent a lot of money on books so that I could be prepared. As I have already stated, when Greene saw that I was actually preparing for the debate he did the same thing Doug Krueger did, he found a way out. Krueger tried to keep Hedges Rules for controversy out and I told him I wouldn’t even think about debating without them, so he called off the debate. Greene tried to change my proposition and when I refused to allow it, he called of the debate. Now Robert Baty steps up to the arena and I am just wondering what he is going to call of the debate for. If he does, maybe Rick (if he really exists) will do the honorable thing and debate me where his predecessors wouldn’t. O, yeah, I forgot he didn’t like it that this exchange is taking so long to get done. He wouldn’t even allow me to publish his last response on the Challenge website, so I had to put a link where it can be found on the Maury and Baty list.

As far as why the debate between myself and Greene was called off all one has to do is to go to the Challenge website and read it for himself. Every email between myself and Todd Greene is there for all to see. I did not just provide the links, but I put the actual emails there for all to see. I did not put Robert’s emails or Rick’s because they had no business trying to interfere with negotiations that were supposed to be taking place between myself and Greene.

Yes, I know what the Youtube program was all about. While I haven’t archived Todd’s program, I did mine and all anyone has to do to see what actually happened is to just go to the program and read for themselves. Here is the link for Todd’s Youtube program, and the comment section will show what actually took place on his site. It seems strange that Rick would deny something that is so easily verified. I wonder why he does that? I guess for the same reason other atheists that I have debated have denied things that can be easily verified. They don’t think anyone will actually do any investigation, and maybe most won’t, but those who will, can easily see that I am telling the truth here.

The fact that a cow cannot give birth to a pig is a good argument against evolution. He says that he doubts that I even know what allele frequency is, like this is going to prove his point. Wikipedia says:

“The frequencies of all the alleles of a given gene often are graphed together as an allele frequency distribution histogram, or allele frequency spectrum. Population genetics studies the different "forces" that might lead to changes in the distribution and frequencies of alleles -- in other words, to evolution. Besides selection, these forces include genetic drift, mutation and migration” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency).

This is nothing more an another attempt to circumvent real life by theorizing on paper what might happen. If you go to the website (from the link that has been provided) you will see the formula written out of what might happen if such and such were to happen. This deals with mutation, which is caused by “chance.” Here is a word that maybe Rick can tell us about “Endogenous Retroviruses.” How does this work in evolution? One of the big problems for this is that “endogenous retroviruses” cannot be here by accident. There has to be a reason for it. Evolution happens by chance and therefore anything that happens in evolution happens by chance, random mutation. Now, many people seem to think that “endogenous retroviruses” are all bad, but that is not true. Some of them are bad, such as “HIV” and those that cause certain forms of “Leukemia,” but there are endogenous retroviruses that are good and are part of our immune system.

“Research has shown that the ERV design prohibits the mother’s immune system from damaging the child’s body. These retroviruses cannot fully replicate, only expressed in local immune cells (such as macrophages) of the placenta, thereby preventing them from initiating a full-blown immune response (Gillen and Sherwin, 2005, Liu 2007). Thus the mother’s immune system remains competent to respond to other infections but is specifically prevented from mounting an immune response to the developing embryo (Gillen and Sherwin, 2005, Liu 2007)” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/contents/379/Microbes-and-the-Days-of-Creation.pdf).

These endogenous retroviruses had to be designed, there is no way that they could have happened by chance. There is no way that they could have come about because of random mutation.

Now the evolutionist tells us that chimps and humans have the same ERV’s and dogs and cats have the same ERV’s, and that whales and hippo’s have the same ERV’s and therefore humans and chimps must have had a common ancestor.

Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if you impregnated a dog with feline sperm? Well, if they had a common ancestor then nothing should happen except you would have a cross between a dog and a cat. But what happens? Chances are the dog’s immune system would mount and full-blown immune response to the embryo growing inside the dog.

If humans and chimps have the same ERV’s and the same genetic code then there ought to be successful scientific experiments showing where humans and chimps have mated and had a successful offspring. Are there? Well, Stalin tried to do that to make super-soldiers, but his experiments failed miserably. As far as we know, every time that this kind of experimentation has been done, the experiment has been a dismal failure. If you were to put human semen inside a female chimpanzee the chimpanzee’s immune system would mount a full-blown immune response and kill the sperm. Why? Because the immune system would recognize that the semen did not belong there and it would treat it as an infection and kill it.

It is hard enough to transplant a human heart into another human being because unless the two genetic codes are a match then the person’s immune system will seek to destroy the heart that has been transplanted. This is why the person who receives a heart transplant must have his/her immune system put to sleep.

When I went though my cancer treatment, I received a stem cell transplant with the stem cells donated by my sister, Carolyn. Now my system and Carolyn’s system were as perfect a match as could be possible. The only way that it could have been more perfect is if Carolyn and I had been identical twins. My immune system was killed during the treatment of the cancer. When Carolyn’s immune system woke up, it found that it was not in the body that it was born in, and so it mounted a full-blown immune attack against my body and tried to kill me. From that point on we had to keep the immune system asleep so that I could live. Over time they started allowing it to wake up a little at a time so it could get used to my body. However, they were never able to fully restore my immune system. Even though it won’t attack me, it also won’t help me from infections. This is why I end up in the hospital at least a dozen times per year with pneumonia and such like infections.

Years ago they tried implanting the heart of a baboon inside a little girl known as Faye. They had to do this to keep her alive. The idea was to leave the baboon heart in her until a human donor could be located and then it would be replaced with a human heart. They had to keep her immune system asleep during this time. When a human heart became available the parents wanted the human heart implanted in their daughter, but doctors talked them out of it, telling them that if Faye could live with the heart of a baboon that this would be a great scientific discovery. Well, we all remember how that turned out. The parents agreed and they had to allow Faye’s immune system to wake up because she was wide open to infection, and when it did it found the baboon’s heart and killed it which killed little Faye with it. All this by chance? I don’t think so.

The following website shows all the attempts to transplant animal organs into humans and how they have failed. The thing that really bites evolution is the fact that evolutionists say that chimps and humans are the closest living relatives, but actually they have had better luck cross-transplanting pigs and humans than they have humans and chimps. As a matter of fact this publication states that AIDs is a result of retroviruses from African chimps when organs have been transplanted into humans. Hmmm…I wonder why that is if humans and chimps have the same ERV’s?


Mr. Hartzog continues...


| But Jerry McDonald promised us that he was working on a
| "scientific" explanation to the problem of how, if the
| Universe is only 6,000 years old, we can see the light from
| SN 1987A, 168,000 light-years away.
|
| What Jerry has now posted to his website is itself light-years
| away from being any kind of scientific explanation, but I think
| it is a very fitting demonstration of Jerry McDonald's
| incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science and
| what is not science.


Of course he doesn't think that my explanation is not scientific.


Oh, yes I do, McDonald. I KNOW your explanation is not scientific.

It is fantasy based on NOTHING. Where is your evidence? You
presented NOTHING in your last article and you present more
NOTHING in this article. You claim a MASSIVE gravitational time
dilation event in the vicinity of the Earth a few thousand years
ago. Based on WHAT? There is NO evidence for it and ABUNDANT
evidence against it. You are proposing, as a "scientific
explanation", something that is absolutely not supported by any
science, or even a modicum of common sense.

McDonald

I presented plenty of scientific evidence in my first article. I showed that gravitational time dilation is a scientific fact. Even men such as Stephen Hawkins understand it to be factual. Yet, because Rick doesn’t know how to deal with what I have said, he finds it easier to pretend that I haven’t said anything at all.

There is a center of the universe, is there not? If the universe continues to expand it has to have some place from which it can expand. While the earth is not the center of the universe it is in the vicinity of the center. My argument about the stellar heavens opening up and the waters (above the stellar heavens) coming down to the earth and the gravitational pull that this had on star light as well as the water brought the light from SK 69o 202 close enough to earth that when the heavens were closed the light would then resume traveling at its normal speed. To all of this Rick simply brushes aside as if there was no scientific value to it at all. In order to perform a scientific experiment there has to be a hypothesis which is defined as “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical and empirical consequences” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, p. 613). This assumption will either be upheld by the evidence or it won’t. If it doesn’t then it has been falsified, if the evidence upholds the assumption then it is provable. So if we look at it in this manner, we can see that the assumption is that during the days that the stellar heavens were open that gravitational forces were so strongly at work that it took the water to the earth in order to flood it. Gravitational forces that strong would be strong enough to disrupt the normal speed of light as well. Now, is there anything in this that would necessarily falsify the model that Dr. Humphreys made? If so, what it is? How would it falsify his model? It is one thing to simply say that there is no scientific evidence for this and it is quite another to show that it is scientifically unsound. It is not enough just to say that it is unsound, Rick needs to show that it is unsound and that it has been falsified by the evidence.


Hartzog continues…


He says that this is a very fitting demonstration of my incompetence to make any judgments as to what is science and what is not. All right, maybe he would like to show us why my explanation is not scientific.

You will show that yourself, and show it abundantly, before the end of this message.

McDonald

Again, why doesn’t Rick just come right out and show where my explanation is not scientific? What makes it unscientific? Where is the evidence that shows that this could not have happened and/or that it did not happen? You cannot just say it is unscientific, you have to have a reason why it won’t pass as a scientific theory. This is what I am trying (and have been trying) to get Rick to see. He may not be able to see that it is a scientific theory, but until he can come up with the evidence why such is not possible, he cannot objectively deal with the argument.


Hartzog continues…

Is it because time dilation is not scientific? Notice what he says about time dilation?


| Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it,
| and Jerry is so incompetent that he thinks that means what
| Humphreys is saying makes any sense. Well, it doesn't.
| Time dilation is a relativistic effect related to gravity
| and/or velocity, i.e., when it is observed it is observed
| for a *reason*. There is no *reason* for Humphreys to call
| on time dilation as one of the effects of the Flood -- if
| he wants to just claim outlandish miracles as the reason we
| can see distant starlight, just call it a miracle, withdraw
| from the creation-science game, and let that be that.


The actual order of who came up with the time dilation in my article is different from what Mr. Hartzog tells us. He says "Faulkner mentions time dilation, Humphreys agrees with it...." Actually it was Dr. Humphreys who first mentioned time dilation on the CRSnet. Someone had asked whether time dilation was a theory or if it was factual. Mr. Faulkner responded with his post that it is an observable fact, and Dr. Humphreys added to that when he wrote about the GPS systems in our vehicles.


Maybe so, but that's not the way you presented it in your article. You quoted Faulkner, and then you quoted Humphreys' agreement with Faulkner's comment. And it doesn't matter who brought the subject up; "time dilation" is nothing but relativity. Einstein told us
about it a hundred years ago. Is relativity scientific? Yes, it is. Is Humphreys' use of a "time dilation" scenario during the Flood year scientific? NO, IT IS NOT!

McDonald

I presented it exactly the way that it came in on the list. Dr. Humphreys sent out copies of his time dilation model. I had written something about it and someone else had asked if time dilation was a scientific fact. Dr. Faulkner then said that it was and Dr. Humphreys agreed with him. However, it was Dr. Humphreys who came out with it on the CRSnet. I am sorry that Rick doesn’t have access to that list so he could see what really took place, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the subject at hand.


Hartzog continues…
Jerry thinks that all that is needed is for "time dilation" to be a scientific fact, and that means Humphreys nonsense is believable.

Well, goats are a scientific fact, too, and so are dandelions. I
can say the local galaxy used to be full of dandelions until a
giant cosmic goat came through and ate them all up, and that is
*just as scientific* as Humphreys' claim, has just as much evidence
to support it, and merits Jerry McDonald believing it just as much
as Humphreys' claim does.

McDonald

No I don’t think that all that is needed is for time dilation to be a scientific fact for Humphreys’ model to be believable. However, the model is based upon gravitational time dilation. That is the basis for it, so it holds a very important position in the argument. In order for Rick to prove that Dr. Humphreys’ model is not scientific he is going to have to show why it doesn’t work with gravitational time dilation. He is going to have to show that it has nothing to do with gravitational time dilation. This is something that he cannot do. I can show that his goat argument with the dandelions have nothing to do with the formation of the galaxy. He cannot show that gravitational time dilation has nothing to do with Dr. Humphreys’ model. If he could, he would have done so in his first rebutting article. Instead he spent most of his time discussing my Youtube discussion with Todd Greene.


Hartzog continues…
Humphreys' claim is FANTASY based on NOTHING. There is no
supporting science, no evidence, just wild imagination. My cosmic
goat ate the dandelion that was going to become Russell Humphreys'
"time dilation" mechanism, before any time dilation occurred.

So there.

McDonald

I say that Dr. Humphreys’ claim is not based on fantasy and that there is supporting evidence, that it is not just imagination. So there! So what does that prove? Nothing at all. He thinks he can make a claim and say “So there” and that proves his point. If Rick doesn’t know how to rebut a point he would be much better off to stay 0ut of the debating arena, especially on my website because my website gives enough space to look at a person’s position and pick it to pieces.

Hartzog continues

The "giant cosmic goat theory" explains the total lack of any
evidence for Humphreys' "white hole" or for any massive
gravitational field within the vicinity of the Earth a few
thousand years ago, and as for the goat, after it ate all the
interstellar dandelions around here, it just wandered off.

So there.

McDonald

Mr. Hartzog’s replies are so elementary that he really needs to sit down and think about what he says in these responses. How does the “giant cosmic goat theory” explain the total lack of evidence for Humphreys’ “white hole” or gravitational time dilation theory? Let him show how, not just say it does. Where is the scientific proof that it does?

I will have to go for now and post this part of the article. I will return to finish as time allows.

In Christ Jesus

Jerry D. McDonald