Geoff Botkin's EOY Letter: Semper Bullshit

[GenerationCedarchip]

"ETA: I find no business entity listing for T-REX Arms on the Tennessee Secretary of State's website. Interesting. " - @Marian the Librarian

I got curious and did some digging, too.  I did find a mention of David Noor being the contact person for the company. However, I did a nationwide search and cannot find any record of T.Rex Arms being filed anywhere, though there is an unrelated dealer in PA called T-Rex Arms Company, that has been around for a number of years.  Couldn't find a business license in either Noor or Botkin names as well.

[fiery redhead]

On December 20, 2015 at 5:38 PM, meda said:

Looking at the pictures, I'm struck by the plethora of offspring. Ben & Audrey have 3, David & Nadia have 3, and Isaac managed to relax  long enough to sire 1. Seven grandkids in what, 4 years? Let us hope that all of them will be "Homeschool Dropouts"

Also, the way Anna and Elizabeth are clinging to their younger brothers in the family group photo is unsettling.

Look at Elizabeth's arm, that looks so weird! I thought some mystery hand was grabbing her boob, but I think it's her dad's hand holding the tree. That sounds wrong...

22 hours ago, Marian the Librarian said:

Amazingly, it is!

http://web.archive.org/web/20150516165513/http://visionarydaughters.com/2010/10

 

She's cracked

[enigmata]

7 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

3. No one has gotten the joke yet?  They sell Small Arms!

Creationists call them 'missionary lizards' http://creation.com/sue-the-t-rex-another-missionary-lizard

That's one bad joke!!!!!eleventy!!  I'm a creationist to a degree but not in the strictly 6000 years camp (my Mum's family are fundy-lite and I find their very literal interpretation of Genesis fascinating).  Still find it funny that the Botkins use a T Rex as their company logo (and it's refreshing to see a sense of humour among all the hell, fire and damnation we so often see coming from fundie lips).

(and yes, the pic does look photoshopped).

[Columbia]

Once upon a time wasn't Geoff's 200 year vision published somewhere online? I seem to recall seeing a link to it recently, but I can't find it.

[CyborgKin]

1 hour ago, Columbia said:

Once upon a time wasn't Geoff's 200 year vision published somewhere online? I seem to recall seeing a link to it recently, but I can't find it.

I haven't found it yet.  But Geoff and DPiaT did a talk about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-200-Year-Plan-Multi-Generational/dp/1933431474

I wonder how Doug's 200 year plan is going, hmmm?

1 hour ago, enigmata said:

I'm a creationist to a degree but not in the strictly 6000 years camp (my Mum's family are fundy-lite and I find their very literal interpretation of Genesis fascinating). 

That's interesting.  The young-earth creationists tend to view any sort of old-earthers as 'compromising'.  Though they (at least the ones I'm familiar with) are quick to say that creation / young earth is not necessary for salvation.

Sometimes I wonder whether creationists and evolutionists have any idea what points they actually disagree or agree on.

[enigmata]

1 hour ago, CyborgKin said:

I haven't found it yet.  But Geoff and DPiaT did a talk about it: http://www.amazon.com/The-200-Year-Plan-Multi-Generational/dp/1933431474

I wonder how Doug's 200 year plan is going, hmmm?

That's interesting.  The young-earth creationists tend to view any sort of old-earthers as 'compromising'.  Though they (at least the ones I'm familiar with) are quick to say that creation / young earth is not necessary for salvation.

Sometimes I wonder whether creationists and evolutionists have any idea what points they actually disagree or agree on.

I find the whole subject fascinating.  I think, as a child, I was probably much more literal in what I believed but now  I just believe that God created the earth but don't have strong opinions on the how and when.  It seems foolish to just totally ignore science and I guess I'm just not interested in the subject enough to get all burned up about it.

I'm glad they 'allow' me salvation   That's very good of them!

[CyborgKin]

1 hour ago, enigmata said:

I find the whole subject fascinating.  I think, as a child, I was probably much more literal in what I believed but now  I just believe that God created the earth but don't have strong opinions on the how and when.  It seems foolish to just totally ignore science and I guess I'm just not interested in the subject enough to get all burned up about it.

I'm glad they 'allow' me salvation   That's very good of them!

The creationists I'm most familiar with would disagree with the notion that they ignore science.

Example: http://creation.com/just-accept-what-scientists-say (response to a reader's feedback, which is in brown)

Quote

God and Scripture do not require that believers ignore sound science.

Of course not

Or here http://creation.com/its-not-science they say creation is better at predictions:

Quote

What about the predictions of evolution vs creation? The track record of evolution is pretty dismal. See How evolution harms science. On the other hand, modern science rides on the achievements of past creationists—see How important to science is evolution? and Contributions of creationist scientists. For one clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model, see Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation.

Many ‘predictions’ of evolutionary theory have been found to be incompatible with observations; and yet evolution reigns. For example, there is the profound absence of the many millions of transitional fossils that should exist if evolution were true (see Are there any Transitional Fossils?). The very pattern in the fossil record flatly contradicts evolutionary notions of what it should be like—see, for example, The links are missing. The evolutionist Gould wrote at length on this conundrum.

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, none of the cases of antibiotic resistance, insecticide resistance, etc. that have been studied at a biochemical level (i.e. operational science) have involved de novo origin of new complex genetic information. In fact, evolutionists never predicted antibiotic resistance, because historically it took the medical field by surprise—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?

Contrary to evolutionists’ expectations, breeding experiments reach limits; change is not unlimited. See the article by the creationist geneticist, Lane Lester. This matches what we would expect from Genesis 1, where it says that God created organisms to reproduce true to their different kinds.

Another failed evolutionary ‘prediction’ is that of ‘junk DNA’. Evolutionists long claimed that 98% of the human DNA is junk, mere leftovers of our supposed evolutionary ancestry. This has hindered the discovery of the function of this DNA, now known to be at least 80% functional, and probably 100% is functional. See Dazzling DNA.

It's a polar opposite perspective if the entire debate!

Hmm maybe this should be a separate thread.

Maybe I should get the Botkin newsletter forwarded to me so I can share some of the pics here. (they're in a picassa album iirc)

[AmazonGrace]

JMOO but even if evolutionary biologists failed to predict antibiotic resistance it doesn't mean that creationists predicted it... and anyway, antibiotic resistance imo falls under the general prediction of evolutionary theory that when the environment of the organism changes the organism may in time develop adaptations.

 

How does creationism explain antibiotic resistance anyway? God thought, "6000 years from now people will invent antibiotic X, I'll just put some DNA in here that helps the bacteria to develop resistance so people will think the drug works at first but then it doesn't..." It's a big nyah nyah from God...? 

[Marian the Librarian]

Isaac has updated his blog (isaacbotkin.com) with a Christmas message conveniently doubling as a plug for his "Spread of the Gospel" map. Buy more Western Conservatory swag, everyone!! 

The good news is, he and Heidi are celebrating in Colorado - which means she apparently still gets to see her family, and he gets some time away from the Botkin compound and the T-Rex Arms bunker. 

[salex]

17 hours ago, fiery redhead said:

Look at Elizabeth's arm, that looks so weird! I thought some mystery hand was grabbing her boob, but I think it's her dad's hand holding the tree. That sounds wrong...

She's cracked

Pretty sure the bottom hand of the three on the tree is proof this photo is photoshopped, because I can't figure an angle that Dad's hand would work like that while he is in the position he's in.  

 

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

3 hours ago, salex said:

Pretty sure the bottom hand of the three on the tree is proof this photo is photoshopped, because I can't figure an angle that Dad's hand would work like that while he is in the position he's in.  

 

I really don't think it looks photoshopped at all lol. The right side looks odd because they're the only people wearing white/cream. The bottom hand on the tree is Geoff's, the top hand is Elizabeth's and the hand on Elizabeth's arm is Noah's around her. I really don't mean to sound rude, I just don't get what looks odd about the hands on the tree....zoom up and it's very clear 

[CyborgKin]

8 hours ago, AmazonGrace said:

JMOO but even if evolutionary biologists failed to predict antibiotic resistance it doesn't mean that creationists predicted it... and anyway, antibiotic resistance imo falls under the general prediction of evolutionary theory that when the environment of the organism changes the organism may in time develop adaptations.

 

How does creationism explain antibiotic resistance anyway? God thought, "6000 years from now people will invent antibiotic X, I'll just put some DNA in here that helps the bacteria to develop resistance so people will think the drug works at first but then it doesn't..." It's a big nyah nyah from God...? 

Creationists believe in environmental adaptation too, so pointing out environmental adaptation doesn't phase creationists at all.

Here's a slightly technical article about the subject http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution

abstract:

Quote

The development of antibiotic and pesticide resistance is often presented as a modern example of evolution by mutations and as clear evidence for Darwinism. A literature review found that most examples of the acquisition of resistance are not due to mutations, but in nearly all cases are a result of complex, built-in genetic and molecular biological defence systems. The extant literature indicates that those few examples that are due to mutations are in all cases so far due to loss mutations and do not result in a gain of genetic information.

skipping over most of it to the end:

Quote

Another evidence that antibiotic resistance does not lend support to evolution is that the rise of antibiotic resistance as a result of mutations have been extremely rapid because the mutations need only to reduce or damage the function of pre-existing systems (i.e. reduce protein binding effectiveness, damage cell transport systems, or disrupt regulatory control). It usually requires only a single mutation (i.e. a point mutation) to reduce or eliminate a system that already is present in the cell. These mutations are easily acquired, and this is why the resulting new phenotypes are produced rapidly. Within a decade or less after a new insecticide is introduced, many insects are resistant to it. The same is true for bacteria and many other organisms. For example, DDT was discovered in 1939 but, ironically, resistance to it was reported in house flies even before its developer, Paul Muller, received the Nobel Prize for his work.⁵²

Conversely, mutations that add new systems or information, such as a new regulatory system, a new synthetic system, a new energy-generating system, or a new transport system, have never been convincingly documented. Even Darwinists posit cons for them to occur, and they have never been shown to happen. Mutations increasing enzyme affinity are not clearly beneficial, but may occur rapidly. For example, mutations in the hemoglobin-oxygen affinity system help their hosts acclimatize to high altitude but they also cause polycythemia (an increase in the red blood cell count or the concentration of hemoglobin in the red blood cells as a means of adapting to the low level of oxygen).

Conclusion

The recent development of bacterial and insect resistance does not support neo-Darwinism classically defined as the natural selection of mutations. Evolution requires information-building mechanisms that add new information to DNA. In virtually all cases, bacteria or insect resistance is a result of the exploitation of existing systems, or is due to a transfer of genes. In the rare cases where a mutation is involved, development of resistance involves only a loss mutation such as one that produces a deformed ribosome. This is confirmed by the fact that resistance is acquired very rapidly, in far too brief a period for the evolutionary emergence of complex biochemical or physiological systems. Mutation caused resistance results in less viability in the wild, and as a result the resistant stains cannot compete.

The multi-drug resistance problem is not small—-and now results in tens of thousands of deaths annually. Human uses and abuses are the major cause, not Darwinian evolution. The acquisition of antibiotic resistance does not provide evidence for microbe-to-man evolution but rather for intelligent design and only by understanding the mechanism involved can the resistance problem be solved.

Creationists like to talk about "loss mutations" and how the changes we observe don't involve a "gain of genetic information"

Or they talk about "Coded Information Systems" like this http://creation.com/cis-1

[Sobeknofret]

Where can one see this wondrous piece of writing that Geoff Botkin has blessed us with, in this, our darkest hour?

'Scuse me, I have to go throw up now.

[nausicaa]

On 12/20/2015 at 6:24 PM, anjulibai said:

Thanks!

I wonder if Geoff ever looks at his daughters and wonders what went wrong. Or is just not that self-aware? My inclination is to the later, but I really hope he does from time to time. 

I honestly think he believes they are too good for any of the mere mortal men they have met so far (and to be fair, I'm not sure of the quality of men they have met so far.)

I'm actually glad this is his take on it. I'd prefer this to his criticizing them and making them feel like failures every day while they're stuck there with little ability to make their own way. (They could of course, but it would be difficult after the decisions their parents have made.)

On 12/21/2015 at 1:25 PM, FormerlyFundyLite said:

This is disgusting. Perhaps the Russian families did ask for some tips about homeschooling, but to phrase it that they begged the Botkins to help them learn how to think like free people?! Что за фигня?! (What the crap?!) Do they mean "freedom to think" as some sort of code for "being enlightened by the Holy Spirit"? Perhaps they missed the many faithful Orthodox believers in Russia. The alternative is even worse in my mind: the assumption that the Russian people are so completely brainwashed (by the government?! The media?! The schools?!) that they are incapable of forming an independent thought. Talk about demeaning.

I completely think he means the latter. They are brainwashed former Commies who now are naively misled by the despotic Putin. They are desperate for those blessed few who were deemed fit to be born and raised in the Promised Land to explain freedom and critical thought to them. They are begging for it (hands and knees?)

It is one of the most condescending things I have ever seen Geoff Botkin write. And that is saying something. 

[AuntCloud]

My original field of work was evolutionary biology. I've long since left academia and now work in a completely different field, but still find it physically painful to read pseudo-scientific blathering of Those Who Have No Clue. They don't even know what they don't know, which make my time refuting their argument a write-off. As for " In virtually all cases, bacteria or insect resistance is a result of the exploitation of existing systems, or is due to a transfer of genes. In the rare cases where a mutation is involved, development of resistance involves only a loss mutation such as one that produces a deformed ribosome. This is confirmed by the fact that resistance is acquired very rapidly, in far too brief a period for the evolutionary emergence of complex biochemical or physiological systems. Mutation caused resistance results in less viability in the wild, and as a result the resistant stains cannot compete. " I have a course paper I wrote about this very topic - very rapid, seemingly unexplained evolution in fish, not even bacteria. Spoiler: expression of transcription factors is involved, and very different phenotypes not have necessarily different genotypes. Over and out now. 

[nickelodeon]

Geoff seems to harbor a lot of anti-Russian sentiment; recall his video condemning the Winter Palace as effeminate frippery. His rhetoric is pretty steeped in Cold War-era jingoism where Russia is still the "Evil Empire," the ultimate enemy figure.

[CyborgKin]

2 hours ago, AuntCloud said:

 I have a course paper I wrote about this very topic - very rapid, seemingly unexplained evolution in fish, not even bacteria. Spoiler: expression of transcription factors is involved, and very different phenotypes not have necessarily different genotypes. Over and out now. 

Different transcription of existing genetic material as a rapid response to environmental pressures plays directly into the creationists' story.

[anjulibai]

3 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

Geoff seems to harbor a lot of anti-Russian sentiment; recall his video condemning the Winter Palace as effeminate frippery. His rhetoric is pretty steeped in Cold War-era jingoism where Russia is still the "Evil Empire," the ultimate enemy figure.

That's an interesting perspective. When I think of the Russian emperors, effeminate is not the word I'd go with....including the women that held that title. The whole point of palaces like that was to project strength, power and wealth. I assume Geoff does not understand the distinction between ornate and effeminate.

[AuntCloud]

1 hour ago, CyborgKin said:

Different transcription of existing genetic material as a rapid response to environmental pressures plays directly into the creationists' story.

Nowhere in the many, many papers I have read, and nowhere in the one I wrote, did the word "God" come up... Instead there are many variants, of which we only see the ones who were successful enough to procreate. 

[formergothardite]

On 12/22/2015 at 5:33 PM, CyborgKin said:

Creationists believe in environmental adaptation too, so pointing out environmental adaptation doesn't phase creationists at all.

 

They don't want to admit it, but most creationists have "evolved" to match science. When I was a child most of the creationists were against the idea of environmental adaption. I was told that everything that exists now existed at creation exactly like it is now. 

[Marian the Librarian]

I've unearthed some pics of a few Botkin family members on Facebook, takes at a music recital last June. Audri and Nadia Botkin, Ellen and Gari Vernier (Audri's sister and mom), and Victoria Botkin all apparently teach at the sponsoring music studio. Scroll down past the kid pics to find the adults.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.789389927848083.1073741830.655970457856698&type=3

[laPapessaGiovanna]

9 hours ago, anjulibai said:

That's an interesting perspective. When I think of the Russian emperors, effeminate is not the word I'd go with....including the women that held that title. The whole point of palaces like that was to project strength, power and wealth. I assume Geoff does not understand the distinction between ornate and effeminate.

Honestly I'm more Impressed by Catherine the Great than by Putin.

[Petrel]

I'm mesmerized by the three hands in the top left. Took me a minute to find out where the third came from.

[CyborgKin]

On 23/12/2015 at 10:15 AM, formergothardite said:

They don't want to admit it, but most creationists have "evolved" to match science. When I was a child most of the creationists were against the idea of environmental adaption. I was told that everything that exists now existed at creation exactly like it is now. 

Odd, I've always heard that the idea of fixity of species that you describe there was a totally unbiblical idea that hasn't been held by anyone in a long time.

Actually I have a quote for that.

http://creation.com/genetic-engineers-unwind-species-barrier#r9

Quote

The belief that species were fixed at creation has not been held by informed creationists for a very long time but they are frequently misrepresented by evolutionists as believing it. This ‘straw man’ (i.e. an argument that misrepresents a person’s beliefs) is easily demolished by the evolutionist, thereby discrediting Bible-believing scientists.

I'm curious which bunch of creationists you've encountered, as there are multiple different camps, with varying levels of thoughtfulness.  My bunch (CMI) has no shame in listing off 'arguments creationists should not use' http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use some which they may have used themselves in the past.  (They also have a corresponding article http://creation.com/arguments-evolutionists-should-not-use which kinda explains what they think evolution is/isn't)  I don't think they would be afraid to admit changing ideas based on scientific advances. They say as much here: http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind

Quote

We would therefore suggest that one of the greatest strengths of any creationist organization or individual would be a willingness to keep up with new information, and to discard or modify one’s favorite arguments in the interests of the highest standards of integrity and accuracy.

All this raises a legitimate question; however, namely that if everything is tentative, and all of us are fallible, should one simply accept that ‘anything goes’ in terms of theories and explanations? We think not; we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to ‘write off’ creation.

So what mechanisms can be used to make proper judgments? How can one help the Christian public to make wise and discerning choices, without setting up some sort of ‘elitist’ mentality?

Over the years, our ministry has had a deep burden to maintain the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in the vital creation ministry the Lord has entrusted to us. Recognizing the fallibility of all individuals, we recognize that there is an obvious need for continual peer review and ‘iron sharpening iron’ interaction between people with a high level of science understanding who are also totally committed to the truth of Biblical history.

To this end, our ministry has sought to develop a network of scientists, theologians and others to provide the checks and balances needed to try to ensure that our speaking, research and writing are as accurate as possible. Some of that network is internal within the organization; in addition, we network with talented people outside CMI, who may be employed in private research, for example.

Maybe this is a more honest/clever bunch than yours.

On 23/12/2015 at 10:10 AM, AuntCloud said:

Nowhere in the many, many papers I have read, and nowhere in the one I wrote, did the word "God" come up... Instead there are many variants, of which we only see the ones who were successful enough to procreate. 

Not sure what the absence or presence of God in scientific papers has to do with anything, and creationists (other than those like formergothardite's bunch) have no problem with natural selection.

Since you seem to have missed the point, I'll try to explain better.  Creationists (or at least CMI) love things like 'multiple phenotyoes from the same genotype due to different expression of transcription factors'.   They would say that a genetic structure that has multiple possible uses for the same sequence, with a switching system to determine what version is transcribed and expressed, based on external stimuli,  is harder to evolve (that is, it's much less likely for the entire system to arise unintentionally) than something conforming to 'one phenotype per genotype, one protein per gene'.  Because sequences that can be used in multiple ways are constrained more than sequences with a single use.

 

Whatever past creationists may have said, these ones have nothing against mutations, natural selection, adaptation, speciation, and all that observable stuff.  It's the ideas of 'all life has a common ancestor' and 'biological systems are strongly self organising and self improving, given a deep enough timescale' they have a problem with.  (Also they don't like chemical evolution, the idea that chemicals can and have spontaneously assembled into some kind of life (which is our ancestor).   Which is separate from biological evolution, but a related topic.)

[AmazonGrace]

At least some creationists I'm familiar with reasoned that since God saw everything he made and it was good, that meant God wouldn't change things any more. But obviously it's a position that is hard to hold on to in the face of all the evidence of things changing, and when faced with something that can't be denied they like to say it's evidence of decay after the Fall. Originally everything was perfect the way God wanted but now things are changing and it's usually for the worse. 

 

Edit: some seem to think that evidence be damned, it's probably from the devil anyway and if you don't read about it it doesn't threaten your faith.