Jump to content


Photo

America's Changing Religious Landscape

religion atheism christianity secular

  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 November 2016 - 04:53 AM

 

 

Goku: Evolution is thoroughly accepted because it has shown to be highly useful as a scientific theory. I know you didn't mean a legal trial in the sense of we should dig up old trials and see what happened, but I do think those trials have useful insights. In a court of law it has been found that creationism is religion and not science. In addition it has been found that ID is creationism re-branded, and that ID refuses to engage the scientific community, and that central arguments of ID have been addressed and dismissed by the scientific community.

 

But Goku, this is all your arguments boil down to - someone. Someone decided by authority, creation is religion. (an authority). Someone decided ID is creationism, the authority of the scientific community "say" ID can be dismissed.

 

We are not talking about judgements based on what misguided individuals have said, we are not talking about a majority opinion, we are talking about formally proving or disproving something, according to logical notation. Clear, objective rules, which are independent of some authority that can go against them. You seem to think that "figuring out" things is something that takes a back seat. That tells me you are a lazy thinker. My argument is that CORRECTNESS is not decided by opinion, but that you have to figure out the correct answer. An opinion is just a belief. You don't seem to understand, a judgement call is only sound if it is correct.

 

It does not matter if the whole world calls creation religion and Id creation, because logically, that would not affect whether creation and ID are a true case. This does not affect the truth-value of creation, which as Stephen Meyer said, is what matters most. He said he doesn't ultimately care about the semantics, that what matters is that intelligent design is true.

 

So nice try there, trying to move the goal posts, but we are discussing whether evolution as a case, is true/correct, versus creation, and it's correctness. I am afraid that logically, an argument is strong or sound based on logical rules, not based on whether it is science or religion. Once again you try and push your predictable false dhichotomy of, "science = sound, religion = false".

 

For example, one very clear example I would give is homology, or similar structures in nature. Homology is perhaps the strongest evidence you can get for evolution, in the sense that two diverse species sharing a trait, or many of them sharing the trait, is absolutely what you would expect logically, as evidence from a common ancestor. Therefore, if you can show two species have the same trait and they were never related according to the macro-claim, then logically speaking, whether 400 legal trials disagree with me, and 4 million scientists disagree with me, that will not change that logically speaking, I have a deductive PROOF that the strongest evidence for evolution, is not that strong, because we have examples of falsification in homoplasies which they re-label from, "homology" so as to name-tag the falsification-evidence with a evolutionary name-tag of, "convergence".

 

This is ASTOUNDINGLY weak conjecture, according to logic, because it guarantees that evolution is unfalsifiable in this regard.

 

So I can by the rules, show that this line of evolutionary evidence/reason is TENUOUS. They used to argue it was strong evidence for whale evolution, with the mesonychids, because of similar structures of anatomy. NOW, in 2016, these are not considered to be homologous features and are considered a side-branching, meaning that logically this is tantamount to saying the following; "this WAS strong evidence of evolution of whales, but now we don't believe they are their ancestors". Well, then how can it be "strong evidence" if you can change the story? How can they still be regarded as having anything to do with whales if they were mammalian, terrestrial quadrupeds? The level of circular-reasoning, is piss poor beyond words. A retard would know why this is weak conjecture for evolution.

 

So logically speaking, you can't avoid there are strong arguments against evolution, because homoplasies very clearly deductively prove that you can have homologous features in animals you simply name-tag, "homoplastic" BUT, logically this 100% proves that a homology does not = evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor, and since that is what evolution is, then homologies as the strongest evidence for evolution, are not very strong evidence of evolution since we have factual examples of them existing without any need for evolution. Correct logic agrees with me. I qualify to understand deductive logic, as this game shows, I have the top score of all time and it has been played 13 thousand times. I don't say it to boast though it may seem like that, but I show it because I would like to prove that I understand what I am talking about, so you don't have to take my word for it;

 

http://www.mindgames...game/Zoobiedoku

 

My point is, I do understand when logic is correct, the game shows I can deduce, which is no big deal admittedly, but then you did say, "I need something more than 'if you disagree with me you don't understand logic'." and since you seem to live from some measure of qualfication or credentials, I hope it will be enough to at least convince you I am not making these rules up. I did not invent non-contradiction, when I use logical terms I have fully studied AND understood what they mean. I don't have a phd for that so how else can I convince you except by performing? (let me know, I'm foxed, for surely a person with ability X can only ultimately prove it by showing it.)

 

what you need to understand is, figuring out that which is correct, should come first in your thinking. Not what Judge Bonehead SAID about creation because a few rudimentary thoughts occurred to him about the issue between brunch and coffee time. Some of us have studied these matters for YEARS. We don't have the title of, "judge" but we have YEARS on the judge.

 

Parsimoniously, I could then give a very good explanation of how these homological features can be explained according to the necessity of survival and have nothing to do with common ancestors. For example, the seahorse has swivelling, chameleon-like eyes but no relation to chameleons, because it needs that type of eye to rove the surface for food and the other eye to look below it because of the type of swimmer it is. Another example is the pentadactyl pattern, which can be shown to be the most useful for grasping. I can also argue that with this argument, we don't need to invoke millions of transitional species that there isn't a scrap of evidence for, but we can neatly show that both a duck and a platypus needs it's beak for the type of life it lives. Both a bat, and an oil bird, require it's echolocation for the type of life it lives. The designer has given the correct designs. The prototype for the vertebrate skeletal plan, is specifically designed, not with the focus of coming up with a unique design for each species because it is only a moving internal chassis, but instead the intelligence of the designer is so great, that the designer WANTED the same pattern for all vertebrates, so designed the best pattern to fit all of them. This is like killing two birds with one stone, or in the case of God, killing hundreds of birds with one stone. For as an achievement of design there is no greater example, for what person could come up with a design of chassis that could be modified slightly to change the design, so that both boats, cars, bicycles, and planes all had that same chassis pattern? The answer is; "it's impossible, the person would have to be three times smarter than the best inventor in history".

 

CONCLUSION: I am saying correctness is never on trial. Correctness is what counts, and it takes a lot of thinking to accurately and acutely attain it. While people in these trials have some manner of education and are even experts in certain fields, ultimately they have to show that their arguments are logically correct. I don't think that happens. I have not heard what was said in these trials, I could very confidently predict, formal correctness would be absent. I think I would bet serious money on that.

 

I do understand why people are convinced by science and the majority view, because it is inconceivable to them that science could be wrong because in their thinking they have given it an almost omnipotent epithetical value. But most people don't study any further. Those who are stubborn like you, study further but take part in selective reasoning and denial, and basically ignore the strongest arguments because they aren't on the side of evolution.


  • Mike Summers likes this

#42 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 08 November 2016 - 01:46 PM

Of course I speak codswallop if I make out I as a one man soldier could defeat evolution theory. Everyone needs help, I would need a scientist of top level knowledge in the EvC debate such as Sarfati, but I think really a team of maybe five top notch swanky boffins could do it. ;)

 

Goku, I am not attacking you personally when I said "you're not qualified" or, "lazy thinking", as that would not affect your worthiness as a person made in God's image. So silly when we think that because person X is not P or has feature P that they as a person are not worthy. I blame the saying; "he isn't good enough", because it is a common phrase. It should be adjusted to; "he isn't good enough.. at maths". I'm sure with a bit of effort you could be on the E-team, so in that sense I am not attacking you.



#43 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 09 November 2016 - 09:33 AM

"but (Science) does deal in levels of confidence based on evidence, logic, and reason.

 

Of course claiming that "In the Beginning either "Nothing" or a "Miniscule Singularity" Mindlessly Expanded very quickly and somehow all of the matter in the universe coming into existence and organizing itself with all of the order and complexity that is FINELY TUNED TO PRECISION is a "Reasonable" Scientific Explanation.. (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:   Read more: http://www.reasonabl...t#ixzz4MecRW5Oj

 

It happened according to the laws of nature. You might as well say when I drop a ball it mindlessly falls to the ground. While not an untrue statement, it is clearly neglecting the fact that it is falling due to gravity which is not random.

 

Where the laws of nature come from, or why they are the values that they are, is something science doesn't have a clear answer for. Regardless of the answer, be it God or random chance or something more fundamental about the properties of existence itself, it doesn't negate what is already established.

 

THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducible complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!!    How did that happen? (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:  

 

Again nature is as nature does. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, or rather the unimportance, of "mindless" in such contexts.

 

Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT..   Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third?  Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:    

 

In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first. The first 'stomach' was probably in some relatively small multi-cellular organism in the water that had a rudimentary nervous system. Then of course you have fish with stomachs and brains, but since they live in water no lungs are needed, but they did have swim bladders which eventually evolved into lungs within the human lineage.

 

Or.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that "Proto" Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE????    (based on Evidence, Logic ,and Reason of course )..  :think:     

 

From its' ancestors.

 

How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 40,000 YEARS!!!!  ... (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:  

 

This was already addressed. Creationists overhype what was actually found. Yes the discovery was shocking and further research is needed. However, we can be confident the dates are accurate to within a few percent. In addition there are many factors that go into the preservation of such structures, and as far as I know the leading idea is that it has to do with high amounts of iron in dinosaur blood along with the right conditions among the many other factors that deal with such preservation.
 



#44 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 09 November 2016 - 02:00 PM

 

 

Goku: In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first. The first 'stomach' was probably in some relatively small multi-cellular organism in the water that had a rudimentary nervous system. Then of course you have fish with stomachs and brains, but since they live in water no lungs are needed, but they did have swim bladders which eventually evolved into lungs within the human lineage.

 

Lol. I love the way you say these things as though they really happened, like you have the fossils on your shelf. What you have is a book right next to Peter Pan and Barny the dinosaur.

 

:P 



#45 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 November 2016 - 12:47 AM

It happened according to the laws of nature. You might as well say when I drop a ball it mindlessly falls to the ground. While not an untrue statement, it is clearly neglecting the fact that it is falling due to gravity which is not random.

 

Where the laws of nature come from, or why they are the values that they are, is something science doesn't have a clear answer for. Regardless of the answer, be it God or random chance or something more fundamental about the properties of existence itself, it doesn't negate what is already established.

 

 

Again nature is as nature does. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, or rather the unimportance, of "mindless" in such contexts.

 

 

In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first. The first 'stomach' was probably in some relatively small multi-cellular organism in the water that had a rudimentary nervous system. Then of course you have fish with stomachs and brains, but since they live in water no lungs are needed, but they did have swim bladders which eventually evolved into lungs within the human lineage.

 

 

From its' ancestors.

 

 

This was already addressed. Creationists overhype what was actually found. Yes the discovery was shocking and further research is needed. However, we can be confident the dates are accurate to within a few percent. In addition there are many factors that go into the preservation of such structures, and as far as I know the leading idea is that it has to do with high amounts of iron in dinosaur blood along with the right conditions among the many other factors that deal with such preservation.
 

 

"This was already addressed. Creationists overhype what was actually found."

 

Oh, OK, Here is some more for you, BTW, since when do Raw DATA become "Overhype?  LOL

 

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

 

Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.  It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically.  The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore.  He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.  That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.  Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs.  "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.  These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years.  The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years.  If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Many dinosaur bones are not petrified.  Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.  She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone.  Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone.  Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies.  Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make.  In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters.  Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded.  That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs.

However, it has been hard to reach the public with the information.  Despite being simple test results without any interpretation, they were blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals.  Fortunately, there is the internet.

 

 

The data: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones (download details)

 

Dinosaur
(a)

Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)

C-14 Years B.P.

Date

USA State

Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Allosaurus
Hadrosaur #1
Hadrosaur #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #2
Triceratops #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #3
Apatosaur

GX-15155-A/Beta/bio
GX-15155-A/AMS/bio
AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings
UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow
UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio
KIA-5523/AMS/bow
KIA-5523/AMS/hum
GX-32372/AMS/col
GX-32647/Beta/bow
UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col
GX-32739/Beta/ext
GX-32678/AMS/w
UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio
UGAMS-01936/AMS/w
UGAMS-01937/AMS/col
UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio
UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio

>32,400
25,750
+ 280
23,760
+ 270
29,690
+ 90
30,640
+ 90
31,360
+ 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890
+ 200
33,830 + 2910/-1960
24,340
+ 70
39,230
+ 140
30,110
+ 80
22,380
+ 800
22,990
+130
25,670
+ 220
25,170
+ 230
23,170
+ 170
37,660
+ 160
38,250
+ 160

11/10/1989
06/14/1990
10/23/1990
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
05/01/2008
10/01/1998
10/01/1998
08/25/2006
09/12/2006
10/29/2009
08/27/2008
08/27/2008
01/06/2007
04/04/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
11/29/2011
11/29/2011

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
AK
AK
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
CO
CO

 

(a)  Acro (Acrocanthosaurus) is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose TX by C. Baugh and G. Detwiler; in 108 MA Cretaceous sandstone - identified by Dr. W. Langston of Un. of TX at Austin.

Allosaurus is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1989 by the J. Hall, A. Murray team.  It was found under an Apatosaurus skeleton in the Wildwood section of a ranch west of Grand Junction CO in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) sandstone of the Morrison formation.

Hadrosaur #1, a duck billed dinosaur.  Bone fragments were excavated in 1994 along Colville River by G. Detwiler, J. Whitmore team in the famous Liscomb bone bed of the Alaskan North Slope - validated by Dr. J. Whitmore.

Hadrosaur #2, a duck billed dinosaur.  A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in clay in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4 of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.  It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #1, a ceratopsid dinosaur.  A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in Cretaceous clay at 47 6 18N by 104 39 22W in Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.  It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #2, a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in 2007 in Cretaceous clay at 47 02 44N and 104 32 49W in Montana by the O. Kline team of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. Outer bone fragments of a femur were tested for C-14.

Hadrosaur #3, a duck billed dinosaur.  Scrapings were taken from a large bone excavated by Joe Taylor of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton TX in Colorado in Cretaceous strata.

Apatosaur, a sauropod.  Scrapings were taken from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in CO, partially excavated in 2007 and 2009, in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) strata by C. Baugh and B. Dunkel.

(B)  GX is Geochron Labs, Cambridge MA, USA; AA is University of Arizona, Tuscon AZ, USA; UG is University of Georgia, Athens GA, USA; KIA is Christian Albrechts Universitat, Kiel Germany.

©  AMS is Accelerated Mass Spectrometry; Beta is the conventional method of counting Beta decay particles.

(d)  Bio is the carbonate fraction of bioapatite. Bow is the bulk organic fraction of whole bone; Col is collagen fraction; w or ext is charred, exterior or whole bone fragments; Hum is humic acids.

Bioapatite is a major component of the mineralised part of bones.  It incorporates a small amount of carbonate as a substitute for phosphate in the crystal lattice.

Charred bone is the description given by lab personnel for blackened bone surfaces.

Collagen: Proteins that are the main component of connective tissue.  It can be as high as 20% in normal bone but decomposes over time so that there should be none after ~100,000 years.  Yet it is found in four-foot long, nine-inch diameter dinosaur femur bones claimed to be greater than 65 million years old.  The "Modified Longin Method" is the normal purification method for bone collagen.  Dr. Libby, the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner, showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages.

Click to see a YouTube video of the conference presentation

Click to see the conference schedule for presentation of abstract BG02-A012 at 17:00



#46 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 10 November 2016 - 01:21 AM

It happened according to the laws of nature. You might as well say when I drop a ball it mindlessly falls to the ground. While not an untrue statement, it is clearly neglecting the fact that it is falling due to gravity which is not random.

 

Where the laws of nature come from, or why they are the values that they are, is something science doesn't have a clear answer for. Regardless of the answer, be it God or random chance or something more fundamental about the properties of existence itself, it doesn't negate what is already established.

 

 

Again nature is as nature does. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, or rather the unimportance, of "mindless" in such contexts.

 

 

In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first. The first 'stomach' was probably in some relatively small multi-cellular organism in the water that had a rudimentary nervous system. Then of course you have fish with stomachs and brains, but since they live in water no lungs are needed, but they did have swim bladders which eventually evolved into lungs within the human lineage.

 

 

From its' ancestors.

 

 

This was already addressed. Creationists overhype what was actually found. Yes the discovery was shocking and further research is needed. However, we can be confident the dates are accurate to within a few percent. In addition there are many factors that go into the preservation of such structures, and as far as I know the leading idea is that it has to do with high amounts of iron in dinosaur blood along with the right conditions among the many other factors that deal with such preservation.
 

 

THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducible complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!!    How did that happen? (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:  

 

"Again nature is as nature does. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, or rather the unimportance, of "mindless" in such contexts."

 

Do I..?  It seems like your posited causation of "Nature" is virtually indistinguishable from an Intelligence agent.. :dono:

 

 

snapback.png

"but (Science) does deal in levels of confidence based on evidence, logic, and reason.

 

Of course claiming that "In the Beginning either "Nothing" or a "Miniscule Singularity" Mindlessly Expanded very quickly and somehow all of the matter in the universe coming into existence and organizing itself with all of the order and complexity that is FINELY TUNED TO PRECISION is a "Reasonable" Scientific Explanation.. (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:   Read more: http://www.reasonabl...t#ixzz4MecRW5Oj

 

"It happened according to the laws of nature. You might as well say when I drop a ball it mindlessly falls to the ground. While not an untrue statement, it is clearly neglecting the fact that it is falling due to gravity which is not random."

 

 

 

So here again we get a sorry and pitiful analogy between a ball falling due to the established principles of Gravity,

 

AND

 

In the Beginning either "Nothing" or a "Miniscule Singularity" Mindlessly Expanded very quickly and somehow all of the matter in the universe coming into existence and organizing itself with all of the order and complexity that is FINELY TUNED TO PRECISION......

 

 

 

Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT..   Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third?  Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:    

 

"In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first."

 

 

Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it? Or a Brain to Control it? or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste? Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away? Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!! (Atheists HATE that phrase dont they)    THIS IS NOT DR. FRANKENSTEINS LABORATORY!!   

 

Wow, The Name of this Blog keeps on hitting us square in the face again and again..


  • Mike Summers likes this

#47 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 10 November 2016 - 03:25 AM

Blitzking, you are highlighting a good example of non-contradiction with your example of man not being able to create life or DNA.

 

Life, having all of the features of intelligent design (specified complexity, info, irreducible complexity, contingency planning, etc..) and having superior design in hundreds of examples as proven by men plagiarizing those designs (biomimetics), is argued to have come about randomly without intelligence, but man, whom has produced intelligent designs with all those design features, is unable to come close to creating life in a lab.

 

It's obvious that as mankind increases in knowledge, he gets closer to creating an ALMOST artificial life. Robots are becoming more sophisticated, proving that an increase in knowledge leads to a more sophisticated design. I call it a line-of-progression. For example, in the 1950s we wouldn't be able to create internet, in the 1990s we could but we didn't have the ability yet to create wireless or mass storage devices, now we can but we don't have the ability to create things that solve the problems we now have. This logically proves that as knowledge grows, more intelligence is put into it, the level of design increases, we get closer, not to creating life but to creating the maximum artificial robots that we are capable of creating. 

 

Nobody would argue for example, that a robot has it's best chance of being created in 1924 or that the best medical care you could ever have would be in 1903, because that would be to go in the wrong direction. So evolution is the wrong direction, as it requires zero intelligence

 

I wrote a blog entry about this a while back, it's only short; I know I'm preaching to the choir but I'll put it out there;

 

http://creationworld...rue-part-1.html


  • Mike Summers likes this

#48 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,507 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 10 November 2016 - 08:53 AM

Unfortunately Goku just can't seem to accept that he is an intelligent being and has created a story of how things happened that he did not observe. Nor can he demonstrate their fesability in a laboratory.
Goku has created a work of fiction rivaling Star Trek. Entertaining but full of fiction he and others created--a neurtotic agreement with others who "want" to believe the same.

Goku et al has used creative abilities to create the idea that creativity is not viable. Ignor the computer, the automobile, the television, the telephone, space travel--things that not even the most died in the wool evolutionists would not claim evolved and yet these things exist born of intelligence and creativity.
What alternative for their existence is there?

 

Intelligence is the only thing we know that can be used to create complex things out of matter.



#49 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 10 November 2016 - 09:28 AM

Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it? Or a Brain to Control it? or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste? Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away? Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!! (Atheists HATE that phrase dont they)    THIS IS NOT DR. FRANKENSTEINS LABORATORY!!

I'm not sure what part of "they all co-evolved" you interpreted to mean that you'd get a stomach without skin.

I imagine most of the distaste for "irreducible complexity" is that it's usually nonsense, particularly when applied to biology. We can easily point out small changes to biological systems that would reduce functionality but still be functional, in other words do evolution in reverse.

There's already a thread about this if you want to see someone else do a better (though still unsuccessful) job of arguing your point.

#50 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 11 November 2016 - 01:31 AM

But Goku, this is all your arguments boil down to - someone. Someone decided by authority, creation is religion. (an authority). Someone decided ID is creationism, the authority of the scientific community "say" ID can be dismissed.

 

We are not talking about judgements based on what misguided individuals have said, we are not talking about a majority opinion, we are talking about formally proving or disproving something, according to logical notation. Clear, objective rules, which are independent of some authority that can go against them. You seem to think that "figuring out" things is something that takes a back seat. That tells me you are a lazy thinker. My argument is that CORRECTNESS is not decided by opinion, but that you have to figure out the correct answer. An opinion is just a belief. You don't seem to understand, a judgement call is only sound if it is correct.

 

It does not matter if the whole world calls creation religion and Id creation, because logically, that would not affect whether creation and ID are a true case. This does not affect the truth-value of creation, which as Stephen Meyer said, is what matters most. He said he doesn't ultimately care about the semantics, that what matters is that intelligent design is true.

 

So nice try there, trying to move the goal posts, but we are discussing whether evolution as a case, is true/correct, versus creation, and it's correctness. I am afraid that logically, an argument is strong or sound based on logical rules, not based on whether it is science or religion. Once again you try and push your predictable false dhichotomy of, "science = sound, religion = false".

 

I just thought that the conclusions of a court were interesting and worth noting, especially since you brought up how you would like to take evolution to court. Creationism is inherently religious due to the nature of the paradigm; they start with the a priori assumption based off of an ancient text that a magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity supernaturally created the universe, Earth, and all life 6,020 years ago (using Bishop Usher's model) and then try to shoehorn scientific data to fit such a paradigm. In addition creation science institutes say that by definition any fact, real or perceived, that is in conflict with their world view is by definition false. In essence it is a branch of apologetics for a specific religious ideology. I don't know how it could be more inherently religious.

 

ID is creationism with a rhetorical upgrade to appeal to the modern person that values science but is also ignorant of science. In court they discovered that ID textbooks took the exact wording of creationist textbooks, including the definitions of creationism and ID, and simply replaced the words "creationism" and "creator" with "intelligent design" and "designer". Sure I referenced the court as an authority, but it is how and why the courts reached their conclusions that is so telling. There is also the Wedge Strategy/Document put forth by the ID think tank the Discovery Institute. In it they describe the goal of the ID movement to replace methodological naturalism and evolution with a Christian world view and redefine science to include supernatural explanations.

 

ID is dismissed within the scientific community because it is classified as a pseudo science due to invoking supernatural claims that cannot be tested through the scientific method. On philosophical grounds it doesn't even get out of the starting gate under a scientific paradigm. Everyone knows this "designer" is God, specifically Yahweh. The 'theory' is meant to compete with ToE not enhance or build on its' structure. So while you can say that on the surface the designer could be aliens, despite the logistical questions raised, if the theory is meant to replace ToE and more broadly any natural mechanism for the formation and evolution of life, then the question becomes how did the aliens come about since natural mechanisms are inadequate as determined by ID 'theory' - another mysterious alien race?

 

Before you go off on the 'science vs. faith' dichotomy, I brought those things up because you seem to disagree that ID is creationism or inherently religious. Not to say that those things are inherently false.

 

Of course the truth value of a claim doesn't come from authority (I wish you could understand that when we talk about morality but that's a discussion for another time). I brought up court cases because you talked about proving your case in a court of law several times, and I think it is instructive to see what actual court cases dealing with creationism and ID have unearthed.

 

For example, one very clear example I would give is homology, or similar structures in nature. Homology is perhaps the strongest evidence you can get for evolution, in the sense that two diverse species sharing a trait, or many of them sharing the trait, is absolutely what you would expect logically, as evidence from a common ancestor. Therefore, if you can show two species have the same trait and they were never related according to the macro-claim, then logically speaking, whether 400 legal trials disagree with me, and 4 million scientists disagree with me, that will not change that logically speaking, I have a deductive PROOF that the strongest evidence for evolution, is not that strong, because we have examples of falsification in homoplasies which they re-label from, "homology" so as to name-tag the falsification-evidence with a evolutionary name-tag of, "convergence".

 

This is ASTOUNDINGLY weak conjecture, according to logic, because it guarantees that evolution is unfalsifiable in this regard.

 

So I can by the rules, show that this line of evolutionary evidence/reason is TENUOUS. They used to argue it was strong evidence for whale evolution, with the mesonychids, because of similar structures of anatomy. NOW, in 2016, these are not considered to be homologous features and are considered a side-branching, meaning that logically this is tantamount to saying the following; "this WAS strong evidence of evolution of whales, but now we don't believe they are their ancestors". Well, then how can it be "strong evidence" if you can change the story? How can they still be regarded as having anything to do with whales if they were mammalian, terrestrial quadrupeds? The level of circular-reasoning, is piss poor beyond words. A retard would know why this is weak conjecture for evolution.

 

So logically speaking, you can't avoid there are strong arguments against evolution, because homoplasies very clearly deductively prove that you can have homologous features in animals you simply name-tag, "homoplastic" BUT, logically this 100% proves that a homology does not = evolutionary divergence from a common ancestor, and since that is what evolution is, then homologies as the strongest evidence for evolution, are not very strong evidence of evolution since we have factual examples of them existing without any need for evolution.

 

No one says that shared traits is proof of common ancestry; its one reason why every credible biology 101 class goes over the difference between homologous traits and analogous traits. Overall, homology is evidence for evolution, but not every instance of 'homology' is. For example the homology between two ape chromosomes and their analogue in our single chromosome that appears to be a fusion of the two (due to homology and extra telomeres and inactive centromere) is considered strong evidence that we have a common ancestor with the (rest of the) apes. The echolocation genes between bats and whales is an example where 'homology' is not evidence of a common ancestor, and of course scientists don't call it homology but analogous traits instead. There are ways to distinguish whether or not the gene patterns or phenotype patterns are the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution. In the case of bats and whales the historical timeline of their evolutionary histories would preclude common ancestry as the explanation of their shared echolocation abilities, and as I recall their total genes for echolocation are not identical either, just some genes. You can also look at things like ERV's which have a very low probability of being transferred through other means (e.g. mosquito bites) besides common ancestry.

 

The point is that you have to look at the entire context, and not simply whatever tunnel vision you think is necessary to refute evilution and affirm your a priori belief.

 

I also think you are mistaking direct ancestry with evidence for evolution with your mesonychids to whales example. That scientists determined that mesonychids are a closely related side branch to the ancestors of modern whales is not evidence that evolution is false, non sequitur, rather it speaks to the ability for scientists to distinguish between direct ancestry and side branches based on the known evidence.

 

Correct logic agrees with me. I qualify to understand deductive logic, as this game shows, I have the top score of all time and it has been played 13 thousand times. I don't say it to boast though it may seem like that, but I show it because I would like to prove that I understand what I am talking about, so you don't have to take my word for it;

 

http://www.mindgames...game/Zoobiedoku

 

My point is, I do understand when logic is correct, the game shows I can deduce, which is no big deal admittedly, but then you did say, "I need something more than 'if you disagree with me you don't understand logic'." and since you seem to live from some measure of qualfication or credentials, I hope it will be enough to at least convince you I am not making these rules up. I did not invent non-contradiction, when I use logical terms I have fully studied AND understood what they mean. I don't have a phd for that so how else can I convince you except by performing? (let me know, I'm foxed, for surely a person with ability X can only ultimately prove it by showing it.)

 

I don't think being good at Sudoku means that you are therefore qualified to speak about formal logic and subjects such as evolutionary biology. Sure you seem to have an inherent gift if you will at certain intellectual pursuits, but each argument must be evaluated by its own merit and when I evaluate yours regarding evolution I do not find them convincing. I do not think you invented the basic rules of logic, but I disagree with your application of them. When I said I need something more than unless you agree with me you don't understand logic, I was specifically referring to your ability to evaluate scientific claims and not your overall ability to solve puzzle problems with logic.

 

what you need to understand is, figuring out that which is correct, should come first in your thinking. Not what Judge Bonehead SAID about creation because a few rudimentary thoughts occurred to him about the issue between brunch and coffee time. Some of us have studied these matters for YEARS. We don't have the title of, "judge" but we have YEARS on the judge.

 

Parsimoniously, I could then give a very good explanation of how these homological features can be explained according to the necessity of survival and have nothing to do with common ancestors. For example, the seahorse has swivelling, chameleon-like eyes but no relation to chameleons, because it needs that type of eye to rove the surface for food and the other eye to look below it because of the type of swimmer it is. Another example is the pentadactyl pattern, which can be shown to be the most useful for grasping. I can also argue that with this argument, we don't need to invoke millions of transitional species that there isn't a scrap of evidence for, but we can neatly show that both a duck and a platypus needs it's beak for the type of life it lives. Both a bat, and an oil bird, require it's echolocation for the type of life it lives. The designer has given the correct designs. The prototype for the vertebrate skeletal plan, is specifically designed, not with the focus of coming up with a unique design for each species because it is only a moving internal chassis, but instead the intelligence of the designer is so great, that the designer WANTED the same pattern for all vertebrates, so designed the best pattern to fit all of them. This is like killing two birds with one stone, or in the case of God, killing hundreds of birds with one stone. For as an achievement of design there is no greater example, for what person could come up with a design of chassis that could be modified slightly to change the design, so that both boats, cars, bicycles, and planes all had that same chassis pattern? The answer is; "it's impossible, the person would have to be three times smarter than the best inventor in history".

 

CONCLUSION: I am saying correctness is never on trial. Correctness is what counts, and it takes a lot of thinking to accurately and acutely attain it. While people in these trials have some manner of education and are even experts in certain fields, ultimately they have to show that their arguments are logically correct. I don't think that happens. I have not heard what was said in these trials, I could very confidently predict, formal correctness would be absent. I think I would bet serious money on that.

 

I do understand why people are convinced by science and the majority view, because it is inconceivable to them that science could be wrong because in their thinking they have given it an almost omnipotent epithetical value. But most people don't study any further. Those who are stubborn like you, study further but take part in selective reasoning and denial, and basically ignore the strongest arguments because they aren't on the side of evolution.

 

Again I brought up the trials because you indicated multiple times that you wanted to put evolution on trial. Of course the conclusions of the trials by themselves are not logically binding, but I think the reasons for why they conclude such things should be acknowledged.

That different organisms have similar features that are known to be non-homologous, yet so integral to survival also demonstrates that there was a severe environmental pressure for those organisms to develop such traits. It is thought that eyes independently evolved some 40+ times because being able to 'see' such electromagnetic wavelengths was that beneficial to survival. The same gross skeletal pattern is observed in vertebrates because each species must work with what came before it.

 

The creationists were intellectually beaten up at the Dover Trial. It was an American trial so I am not too surprised you aren't familiar with it, but you should look into it when you have the chance. There are multiple articles written about it including a pbs film documentary that runs about 2 hours long - whenever you have some time to spare.



#51 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,731 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 November 2016 - 07:38 AM

ID is creationism with a rhetorical upgrade to appeal to the modern person that values science but is also ignorant of science. In court they discovered that ID textbooks took the exact wording of creationist textbooks, including the definitions of creationism and ID, and simply replaced the words "creationism" and "creator" with "intelligent design" and "designer". Sure I referenced the court as an authority, but it is how and why the courts reached their conclusions that is so telling. 

Part of the "smoking gun" that a creationist book had been changed to an ID book by merely replacing references to creation with ones citing "design" was where "creationists" had been changed to "design proponents" but someone messed up and came up with "cdesign proponentsists."

 

An examination of the drafts of the book documented the changes and showed they took place at about the time of the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision by the US Supreme Court.

 

This chart shows the change:

Forrest_chart1.png

 

Notice the "evolution" of the title.  Can you say "cdesignproponentists?"

 

The difference is that England has no constitutional restriction on teaching religion in the public school classroom.



#52 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 11 November 2016 - 01:51 PM

 

 

Goku: I just thought that the conclusions of a court were interesting and worth noting, especially since you brought up how you would like to take evolution to court. Creationism is inherently religious due to the nature of the paradigm; they start with the a priori assumption based off of an ancient text that a magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity supernaturally created the universe, Earth, and all life 6,020 years ago (using Bishop Usher's model) and then try to shoehorn scientific data to fit such a paradigm. In addition creation science institutes say that by definition any fact, real or perceived, that is in conflict with their world view is by definition false. In essence it is a branch of apologetics for a specific religious ideology. I don't know how it could be more inherently religious.

 

"I just thought" and then you give a rant about how creation is not worthy because it is inherently religious. "I'm just sticking this knife in you Mike, it doesn't mean I am killing you I just thought I would see if blood would come out of you if I stuck it in you".

 

In case you struggle with basic memory, the issue was determining the logical correctness of a claim, not the red-herring of, "is creation science". What creationist institutes say and do has no relevance to creation itself, those people share the conclusion the world is created, the claim God created everything in and of itself has nothing to do with those who have various flavours of argument pertaining to that such as the side-issue of creation and whether it is science. Since I haven't claimed it is science, saying my claims would be proven wrong in court because I share a conclusion with those institute is Argumentum Ad Logicam. I only share a conclusion with those institutes. I specifically said the issue is the truth-value of a claim not whether it is science, or the motives of some of it's adherents. (nice try though) :P

 

 

 

Goku: No one says that shared traits is proof of common ancestry; its one reason why every credible biology 101 class goes over the difference between homologous traits and analogous traits.

 

That's right, no one is saying it, including me, for I never said it. (strawman allusion at least). I specifically said homology is probably the best type of evidence you could hope for, for evolution. Oh well, I guess the little dig about biology 101 can be crammed right back up your arse then. :) Never mind Goku, we all shoot ourselves in the foot from time to time when trying to look superior but failing miserably. 

 

 

 

 Goku: Overall, homology is evidence for evolution, but not every instance of 'homology' is

 

This is the problem, there is no real way to distinguish between the two for sure, of analogue or homology. The reasons you appeal to are only stated, meaning you believe by faith that X research determines homology.

 

 

 

Goku: I also think you are mistaking direct ancestry with evidence for evolution with your mesonychids to whales example. That scientists determined that mesonychids are a closely related side branch to the ancestors of modern whales is not evidence that evolution is false, non sequitur, rather it speaks to the ability for scientists to distinguish between direct ancestry and side branches based on the known evidence.

 

red: begging the question fallacy. (your favourite) First you have to prove they are "direct ancestors", which homologous features do not prove, because, and I quote for the benefit of the jury, " No one says that shared traits is proof of common ancestry",....nor does any appeal to scientists somehow being able to distinguish. So then how can you have an ability to distinguish something that is not proven to begin with? Your "distinguishing" could be 100% conjecture, like it was with the mesonychids, remember.

 

In case you need the actual facts of what happened, it was this; Gingerich said that Rhodocetus probably had a tail fluke and scientists ran with that story of whale evolution but in the end even Gingerich admitted it was a land mammal because they found the rest of the anatomy. Later on they then claimed others to be the ancestors.

 

If scientists can, and I quote, can "distinguish between direct ancestry and side branches", then why couldn't they determine that the mesonychids were not direct ancestors?

 

The reason they changed their minds, had nothing to do with an ability to come to a correct knowledge of the ancestors, it was because their bullzhit story didn't add up. You really walked straight into that one. If there is some "ability" they have to determine the direct ancestors from the not directly related (begging the question, as it assume there is such thing as a directly related ancestor) then what is that ability? Show the evidence of your claim that there is some science which can reveal the true and direct ancestor and explain why they argued the mesonychids were the direct ancestors given they have that ability.

 

This is why logic is critical to analysing claims and arguments. Like I said, it's not about solving a puzzle, it's about revealing errors in reasoning, like I did just now with your post.

 

The fact there is direct proof that scientists can say X organisms are direct relatives, then change their minds later on, is 100% logical proof that there can't be a strong case when they say that, otherwise they could not change their minds later on if the case was strong.

 

Now you say it is testament to their abilities, but the fact is the same scientists of evolution said other organisms were the direct relatives, to logically speaking there is no reason to believe what their present claims are either. That they changed their minds, well, you don't seem to understand it seems why this is a basic logical proof, it's a proof that scientists are not performing some mysterious experiments with abilities to come to a knowledge of direct ancestors, but rather that they jump to the conclusion that consistent evidence with evolution therefore = evolution.

 

I'm sorry Goku, but in a court I would have shown that "direct ancestor" claims are not strong if they can be overturned. If it can happen once it can happen again, but in reality it has happened many, many, many times. They used to claim all kinds of creatures were the relatives of X only to later change their minds. So the reason isn't an, "ability" because that, "ability" has had them change their minds dozens of times over, about ancestors. So this is a really weak hand you are playing, especially since the abandoning of the mesonychids actually means there are no longer any whale intermediates. If you google, "mesonychids" and go to images, you get images of rhodoectus, a drawing of a dophin-like whale, even though they now know it was a land mammal and Gingerish admitted it was on video. LOL! (I can show you the video if you want).

 

Here is a link talking about the abandoned transitionals evolutionists used to believe were ancestors, but that amazing "ability" they have to infer direct none-existant ancestors such as the missing whales-ones, eventually led them elsewhere. Man you are funny in your rhetoric sometimes; "Mike, losing those 40 chess matches really does show your ability to win the right matches given you won in the final match against Dave Retard back in 86. What an amazing ability you have to win the right matches...and Mike, look at all those holes in your socks, what a great ability you have to create ventilation for your feet." :rolleyes: (Really Goku?.....THAT is your argument, that evolutionists were wrong so they were choosing their victory?)

 

...OH....MY....GOODNESS....is my answer to you.

 

Read more about evolutionists brilliant ability here;

 

http://creation.com/...nsitional-forms

 

 

 

CMI: Indeed, 150 years of vigorous searching by evolutionists through millions of tonnes of fossils has failed to produce even one clear ‘chain’ of such transitional forms, let alone the multitudes of chains required by Darwinism. Over the years, only a tiny handful of ‘candidates’ claimed to be ‘transitional’ has been produced. These have usually been announced in a blaze of publicity to showcase evolution and indoctrinate everybody. However, when with time the weight of contrary evidence has indicated error, recantation (if any) has usually been whisper quiet, and the next generation of scientists promotes its own contenders

 

Look what it also says, look at this statement, which sounds identical to your confidence about the newly posited "direct ancestors" but obviously this is proof that such confidence about evolution is based on nothing but smoke, therefore every time an evolutionist says such things we know by logical proof their case isn't strong just because they argue it, and even use scientific investigation to support the claim; (and that is what I am talking about, evaluating the true correctness of claims, not just buying them because of faith in the scientists)

 

 

 

CMI:It was proclaimed to the world on the cover of Science magazine of 22 April 1983.10 The Science editor wrote: “Pakicetus provides the first direct evidence of an amphibious state in the evolutionary transition of whales from land to sea.”

 

 

Goku:  That different organisms have similar features that are known to be non-homologous, yet so integral to survival also demonstrates that there was a severe environmental pressure for those organisms to develop such traits. It is thought that eyes independently evolved some 40+ times because being able to 'see' such electromagnetic wavelengths was that beneficial to survival. The same gross skeletal pattern is observed in vertebrates because each species must work with what came before it.

 

Bad logic again, I also have a need for food on a daily basis, so does a starving African, does that mean the starving African will develop a macdonalds in the desert, and 40 independent starving people throughout that country will also develop a macdonalds? 

 

Of course, eyes get the job done but first you need the eye to be designed. The complexity is incredible, way better than any design of mans, to say eyes evolved 40 times separately is a desperately weak position for evolution, logically. Are you seriously telling me that is the evidence evolution would predict when logically it is the direct falsification evidence of evolution that would be expected? The correct evidence was that a common ancestor would have existed that gave rise to the evolution of the eye, the post-hoc, "convergence" excuse, is 100% speculative, since there is no direct evidence for convergent evolution, only hypothetical fluff that depends on circumstantial, inconsequential evidence.

 

Watching some trial where you say creation took a whoopin' also proves little, if correct logical inferences were ignored in favour of evolutionary conjecture.

 

That is the problem with your arguments, they all depend on conjecture of evolution but notice you can never explain or provide evidence for what you state about evolutionists having mysterious abilities. 

 

Most of your post was bare-assertion again, you get a great kick out of saying things as though by saying them that makes them true.

 

 

 

Goku: I don't think being good at Sudoku means that you are therefore qualified to speak about formal logic and subjects such as evolutionary biology. Sure you seem to have an inherent gift if you will at certain intellectual pursuits, but each argument must be evaluated by its own merit and when I evaluate yours regarding evolution I do not find them convincing

 

But why should I value your opinion that my arguments aren't convincing? Objectively speaking, I am saying as the creator of my arguments that you need to be good at deducing in order to understand them. Since you can't match or come close to my soduku score, this indicates to me that your opinions about my arguments don't count. If my arguments aren't convincing that's tantamount to saying that my arguments are wrong. But you have never shown they are wrong. Making bare assertions about evolution doesn't make my arguments wrong. Showing the logic is wrong would make them wrong.

 

Example:

 

"where you say X therefore P, here is an example of X without P", and that sort of thing.

 

Please make no more mention of trials or religion or religious trials or what creationism or ID is, for that is a direct red-herring. If you "were only mentioning" those things for innocent reasons then you won't mind dropping any talk of them, if your motive isn't propaganda.

 

You see, that's the problem when you try and pull the wool over my eyes, I'm never going to be dumb enough to take the bait. Desist from any red-herring about what creation is now, because I have told you that we are discussing the logical correctness of any claims, be it claims of how well cakes are baked or claims of chemical evolution or claims someone murdered Elvis, your whole RANT against creationism and ID is an attempt to move the goal posts. Since you're so very innocent, you won't mind not mentioning words like, "the judgment about creationism" or, "id is X" or, "creation is religion". Right?  :dono: 

 

As for your attempt to downplay my scoreby usage of "puzzle" as an epithet, ....when you think about it a puzzle is a problem, and a problem can be many things, detectives solve problems, so do scientists, so then the ability to solve puzzles is the ability to solve problems, and science problems too, despite your attempt to be derogatory with the epithet usage of the term, "puzzle" as though I can only solve a silly game. The fact is a puzzle of that kind is just a test of deductive ability. You can make fun if you want but the game is designed to test that ability. Yes it doesn't prove I have knowledge of formal logic but it means I know how to think and evaluate logically. I will also be happy to be tested in any formal logic test.



#53 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 November 2016 - 10:50 AM

I'm not sure what part of "they all co-evolved" you interpreted to mean that you'd get a stomach without skin.

I imagine most of the distaste for "irreducible complexity" is that it's usually nonsense, particularly when applied to biology. We can easily point out small changes to biological systems that would reduce functionality but still be functional, in other words do evolution in reverse.

There's already a thread about this if you want to see someone else do a better (though still unsuccessful) job of arguing your point.

 

So ALL 10 of man's Interdependent organs and their systems "Co Evolved"???  Wow, Sounds like your "Evolution" is virtually indistinguishable from God...

 

You see, Man has 10 VITAL organs... Take one away and you DIE and guess what happens to your sacred Darwinism when you Die?  Bye Bye "Evolution"

Is that one of the reasons why Goldschmidt decided that the best explanation for it was "Hopeful Monsters"?  http://prophets-see-...d.com/46906.htm

 

Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it? Or a Brain to Control it? or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste? Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away? Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!!

 

What goods is a Heart without Blood,? What good is blood without lungs to oxygenate it? What good are lungs without a Brain to control them? what good is a brain without an immune system to prevent meningitis or encephalitis?  Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!!  You know that I could go on and on right??

 

http://beforeitsnews...dy-2742148.html

 

 

"I imagine most of the distaste for "irreducible complexity" is that it's usually nonsense, particularly when applied to biology"

 

Is it REALLY "nonsense"??

 

 

The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God"

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

R Dawkins
 



#54 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 12 November 2016 - 11:46 AM

 

 

Blitzking: Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it? Or a Brain to Control it? or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste? Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away? 

 

Haven't you heard from Goku's answer? It proves selection pressure apparently. :rolleyes: That's right, no matter what the need is, that proves there must have been a selection-pressure;

 

" if evolution were true, it would select advantageous traits...and here we have millions of things advantageous for survival proving there was a selection pressure for all of them because of evolution, after all these traits exist, therefore evolution must have came up with them because it would have selected them according to the theory."

 

Now here is an analogous example of this circular reasoning;

 

" I believe the jolly green giant planted peas and vegetables, and hey look, here are the peas and vegetables, meaning the jolly green giant must have planted them because there was a need for them, and jolly green giant theory says if there is a need for them, the jolly green giant will plant them."

 

Don't you enjoy being laughed out of court, Goku? ;) :P

 

"Don't you know a kid always wins against two idiots?" (Piasaint and Guru) - Macaulay Culkin, Home - alone. :D

 

(yes I'm only kidding....for the obtuse ones who are silly enough to take this last part of my post seriously.)


  • Blitzking likes this

#55 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 November 2016 - 12:42 PM

"I just thought" and then you give a rant about how creation is not worthy because it is inherently religious. "I'm just sticking this knife in you Mike, it doesn't mean I am killing you I just thought I would see if blood would come out of you if I stuck it in you".

 

In case you struggle with basic memory, the issue was determining the logical correctness of a claim, not the red-herring of, "is creation science". What creationist institutes say and do has no relevance to creation itself, those people share the conclusion the world is created, the claim God created everything in and of itself has nothing to do with those who have various flavours of argument pertaining to that such as the side-issue of creation and whether it is science. Since I haven't claimed it is science, saying my claims would be proven wrong in court because I share a conclusion with those institute is Argumentum Ad Logicam. I only share a conclusion with those institutes. I specifically said the issue is the truth-value of a claim not whether it is science, or the motives of some of it's adherents. (nice try though) :P

 

I talked about how creationism is inherently religious because you seem to disagree that it is based on your statements (it is only what someone says). I even explicitly said last post the reason why I brought it up was because you seem to disagree that creationism is inherently religious, and not to say that this means it is inherently false.
 

I never said your claims would be proven wrong in court either. I said that it was worth noting what such court trials have unearthed, and again I brought it up because you talked about court trials multiple times. Again I understand that you don't mean taking it to a literal court of law, but again I think it is instructive and worth noting what such courts have found.

 

That's right, no one is saying it, including me, for I never said it. (strawman allusion at least). I specifically said homology is probably the best type of evidence you could hope for, for evolution. Oh well, I guess the little dig about biology 101 can be crammed right back up your arse then. :) Never mind Goku, we all shoot ourselves in the foot from time to time when trying to look superior but failing miserably.

 

What else am I supposed to take away from your posts when you continually talk about how 'homology doesn't prove common ancestry' other than you think the evolutionary argument is that homology proves ancestry?

 

This is the problem, there is no real way to distinguish between the two for sure, of analogue or homology. The reasons you appeal to are only stated, meaning you believe by faith that X research determines homology.

 

In the sense of it being 100% proved that is correct. However, science doesn't deal in proof but levels of confidence. Homology is one tool scientists have to draw up evolutionary relationships between organisms. I don't know what statements you are referring to. The example I gave was that we can use the homology between our chromosome and two apes chromosomes in conjunction with our chromosome having extra telomeres and an extra inactive centromere in the middle of the chromosome as evidence that our chromosome was the result of two ape chromosomes fusing together after the human-chimpanzee split. It isn't mere 'faith', unless you think all the scientists are lying about the evidence itself - I haven't personally done the experiments myself for example, but we can all read and understand the basic reasoning behind their conclusions.

 

red: begging the question fallacy. (your favourite) First you have to prove they are "direct ancestors", which homologous features do not prove, because, and I quote for the benefit of the jury, " No one says that shared traits is proof of common ancestry",....nor does any appeal to scientists somehow being able to distinguish. So then how can you have an ability to distinguish something that is not proven to begin with? Your "distinguishing" could be 100% conjecture, like it was with the mesonychids, remember.

 

In case you need the actual facts of what happened, it was this; Gingerich said that Rhodocetus probably had a tail fluke and scientists ran with that story of whale evolution but in the end even Gingerich admitted it was a land mammal because they found the rest of the anatomy. Later on they then claimed others to be the ancestors.

 

If scientists can, and I quote, can "distinguish between direct ancestry and side branches", then why couldn't they determine that the mesonychids were not direct ancestors?

 

The reason they changed their minds, had nothing to do with an ability to come to a correct knowledge of the ancestors, it was because their bullzhit story didn't add up. You really walked straight into that one. If there is some "ability" they have to determine the direct ancestors from the not directly related (begging the question, as it assume there is such thing as a directly related ancestor) then what is that ability? Show the evidence of your claim that there is some science which can reveal the true and direct ancestor and explain why they argued the mesonychids were the direct ancestors given they have that ability.

 

This is why logic is critical to analysing claims and arguments. Like I said, it's not about solving a puzzle, it's about revealing errors in reasoning, like I did just now with your post.

 

The fact there is direct proof that scientists can say X organisms are direct relatives, then change their minds later on, is 100% logical proof that there can't be a strong case when they say that, otherwise they could not change their minds later on if the case was strong.

 

Now you say it is testament to their abilities, but the fact is the same scientists of evolution said other organisms were the direct relatives, to logically speaking there is no reason to believe what their present claims are either. That they changed their minds, well, you don't seem to understand it seems why this is a basic logical proof, it's a proof that scientists are not performing some mysterious experiments with abilities to come to a knowledge of direct ancestors, but rather that they jump to the conclusion that consistent evidence with evolution therefore = evolution.

 

I'm sorry Goku, but in a court I would have shown that "direct ancestor" claims are not strong if they can be overturned. If it can happen once it can happen again, but in reality it has happened many, many, many times. They used to claim all kinds of creatures were the relatives of X only to later change their minds. So the reason isn't an, "ability" because that, "ability" has had them change their minds dozens of times over, about ancestors. So this is a really weak hand you are playing, especially since the abandoning of the mesonychids actually means there are no longer any whale intermediates. If you google, "mesonychids" and go to images, you get images of rhodoectus, a drawing of a dophin-like whale, even though they now know it was a land mammal and Gingerish admitted it was on video. LOL! (I can show you the video if you want).

 

I don't mean the "ability to distinguish from X and Y" to mean "100% proof", as I keep saying science doesn't deal in proof but levels of confidence.

 

If scientists do not have the ability to distinguish between direct ancestors and side branches, how did they determine that the mesonychids are not the direct ancestors of whales but a side branch? It is true at first they thought they were the direct ancestors due to things like unique dental patterns, but then they discovered new fossils and upon subsequent analysis of all the evidence determined that mesonychids were not the direct ancestors of whales but a closely related side branch.

 

Of course scientists get things wrong and make the wrong conclusions. Science is all about continual progress; finding the faults of your conclusions and making them better. I do not see this as a negative but a positive. It is indicative that science's conclusions are the most reasonable given the empirical data for that particular time. I don't really know of a better way to determine what is true than to evaluate the evidence available to you. It is kind of hard to evaluate evidence that you haven't discovered yet. Because you can't evaluate evidence you don't have, and you can never truly know what evidence you have yet to discover entails, this is one reason science never claims absolute proof.

 

I am not saying scientists have some mysterious ability; they are simply looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions based off of it. As time goes on we find new evidence and subsequent analysis may reveal that previous conclusions were wrong and so scientists revise their thinking. This is a common occurrence in science. The key is that this is based off of known data. Sure it isn't some logical proof, and again science does not deal in 100% logical proof of theories, but the success of science and the success of ToE means that it is on the right track. Notice that even with the mesonychids it was a slight modification saying that they are closely related relatives of the ancestors to modern whales, rather than a direct ancestor. The distinction is really not as big of a deal as you are portraying it.

 

Here is a link talking about the abandoned transitionals evolutionists used to believe were ancestors, but that amazing "ability" they have to infer direct none-existant ancestors such as the missing whales-ones, eventually led them elsewhere. Man you are funny in your rhetoric sometimes; "Mike, losing those 40 chess matches really does show your ability to win the right matches given you won in the final match against Dave Retard back in 86. What an amazing ability you have to win the right matches...and Mike, look at all those holes in your socks, what a great ability you have to create ventilation for your feet." :rolleyes: (Really Goku?.....THAT is your argument, that evolutionists were wrong so they were choosing their victory?)

 

...OH....MY....GOODNESS....is my answer to you.

 

Read more about evolutionists brilliant ability here;

 

http://creation.com/...nsitional-forms

 

There is so much wrong with that article. One of the big problems is that they fail to recognize that a transitional fossil does not have to be a direct ancestor to a modern species. Sure you can pull up some introductory material or introductory definition stating that a transitional fossil is a direct ancestor of two species separated by time, and ideally that is the case, but that is simply not how transitional fossils are actually classified in academia or in the field due to how hard (even impossible) determining direct ancestry can be. So transitional fossils like Tiktaalik and Archeopteryx are well known not to be direct ancestors to modern tetrapods or birds, but we still classify them as transitionals for being closely related to the direct ancestors of modern tetrapods and birds while retaining transitional-like features. Creationism requires you to be ignorant, otherwise they can't push their half-truth codswallop on you.

 

If you want to talk about something specific in the article write about it.

 

Look what it also says, look at this statement, which sounds identical to your confidence about the newly posited "direct ancestors" but obviously this is proof that such confidence about evolution is based on nothing but smoke, therefore every time an evolutionist says such things we know by logical proof their case isn't strong just because they argue it, and even use scientific investigation to support the claim; (and that is what I am talking about, evaluating the true correctness of claims, not just buying them because of faith in the scientists)

 

I never said scientists have found direct ancestors; I said you are "mistaking direct ancestry with evidence for evolution". Don't tell me this whole rant of yours about direct ancestry is based off of a strawman.

 

Bad logic again, I also have a need for food on a daily basis, so does a starving African, does that mean the starving African will develop a macdonalds in the desert, and 40 independent starving people throughout that country will also develop a macdonalds?

 

That is an incredibly poor analogy. Eyes come in all sorts of varieties. It would be more accurate if the analogy was that since we all need food on a daily basis many countries will develop things like restaurants and food markets. A McDonalds would be like a very specific eye for a specific species, say a human eye. But a dog's eye would not be like a McDonalds but something else since it has a reduced ability to see color but greater night vision. Then you have other eyes like that of a fly with a compound eye which would be different from either a human or dog.

 

Of course, eyes get the job done but first you need the eye to be designed. The complexity is incredible, way better than any design of mans, to say eyes evolved 40 times separately is a desperately weak position for evolution, logically. Are you seriously telling me that is the evidence evolution would predict when logically it is the direct falsification evidence of evolution that would be expected? The correct evidence was that a common ancestor would have existed that gave rise to the evolution of the eye, the post-hoc, "convergence" excuse, is 100% speculative, since there is no direct evidence for convergent evolution, only hypothetical fluff that depends on circumstantial, inconsequential evidence.

 

Watching some trial where you say creation took a whoopin' also proves little, if correct logical inferences were ignored in favour of evolutionary conjecture.

 

That is the problem with your arguments, they all depend on conjecture of evolution but notice you can never explain or provide evidence for what you state about evolutionists having mysterious abilities. 

 

Most of your post was bare-assertion again, you get a great kick out of saying things as though by saying them that makes them true.

 

I don't know about "predict", but that is what the evidence indicates. This is an article saying that while squid and human eyes have similar structure, analyses of the Pax-6 gene indicate that the two eyes evolved into their modern form independently: http://www.iflscienc...olved-same-eye/

 

This is the Nature article they are referring to: http://www.nature.co...icles/srep04256

 

From the abstract: "Our study suggests that cephalopods acquired Pax-6 splicing variants independent of those in vertebrates and that these variants were similarly utilized in the development of the squid eye."

 

Another classic example are bird and bat wings; while they perform the same basic function their wings evolved independently of each other. There is no law in evolution that disallows similar structures to evolve independent of one another when there is an environmental pressure that would favor such structures. It's like you focus on one aspect of evolution, and chase it down the rabbit hole with tunnel vision ignoring any and all context that contradicts your 'need' of evolution to be false.

 

But why should I value your opinion that my arguments aren't convincing? Objectively speaking, I am saying as the creator of my arguments that you need to be good at deducing in order to understand them. Since you can't match or come close to my soduku score, this indicates to me that your opinions about my arguments don't count. If my arguments aren't convincing that's tantamount to saying that my arguments are wrong. But you have never shown they are wrong. Making bare assertions about evolution doesn't make my arguments wrong. Showing the logic is wrong would make them wrong.

 

Example:

 

"where you say X therefore P, here is an example of X without P", and that sort of thing.

 

Please make no more mention of trials or religion or religious trials or what creationism or ID is, for that is a direct red-herring. If you "were only mentioning" those things for innocent reasons then you won't mind dropping any talk of them, if your motive isn't propaganda.

 

You see, that's the problem when you try and pull the wool over my eyes, I'm never going to be dumb enough to take the bait. Desist from any red-herring about what creation is now, because I have told you that we are discussing the logical correctness of any claims, be it claims of how well cakes are baked or claims of chemical evolution or claims someone murdered Elvis, your whole RANT against creationism and ID is an attempt to move the goal posts. Since you're so very innocent, you won't mind not mentioning words like, "the judgment about creationism" or, "id is X" or, "creation is religion". Right?  :dono: 

 

As for your attempt to downplay my scoreby usage of "puzzle" as an epithet, ....when you think about it a puzzle is a problem, and a problem can be many things, detectives solve problems, so do scientists, so then the ability to solve puzzles is the ability to solve problems, and science problems too, despite your attempt to be derogatory with the epithet usage of the term, "puzzle" as though I can only solve a silly game. The fact is a puzzle of that kind is just a test of deductive ability. You can make fun if you want but the game is designed to test that ability. Yes it doesn't prove I have knowledge of formal logic but it means I know how to think and evaluate logically. I will also be happy to be tested in any formal logic test.

 

I understand your arguments perfectly well, however most of them are fundamentally flawed.

 

LOL, so because you are better than me at Sudoku that means your arguments regarding evolutionary biology are therefore correct and my analysis is wrong. Impeccable logic on your part.

 

LOL, the very first sentence of sudoku.com is "Sudoku is one of the most popular puzzle games of all time." Everyone and everything calls it a puzzle, and by the way calling it a puzzle is not a derogatory term; 'there are many puzzles in science' and 'science itself can be viewed as one giant puzzle', for example. You need to get out of this mindset that any and every word choice that isn't singing your praise is a devious plot to persecute your beliefs or intellectual abilities. However, being good at a puzzle game like Sudoku does not directly translate to someone's ability to evaluate technical subjects, especially when the person is extremely emotional about a topic which you clearly are.



#56 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 November 2016 - 06:39 AM

 

 

Goku: You need to get out of this mindset that any and every word choice that isn't singing your praise is a devious plot to persecute your beliefs or intellectual abilities. However, being good at a puzzle game like Sudoku does not directly translate to someone's ability to evaluate technical subjects, especially when the person is extremely emotional about a topic which you clearly are.

 

There's a difference between being emotional, and being full of zeal because you know something is true but it can't be proven. For example, a man in prison, KNOWS he is innocent, but people judge based on limited evidence, that he is guilty and even pompously conclude why he is guilty, and think because they went with the objective evidence they are something special, because they obeyed a scientific method, but that method did not enable them to arrive at the truth.

 

All I am saying is, that a soduku puzzle relies on the ability to deduce, and if you have the highest score out of 13,000 goes, this is at least an indicator that you are able to deduce accurately and in the case of that game, quickly. Though it depends not just on quickness and logic, but the ability to solve a problem. 

 

 

 

Goku: LOL, so because you are better than me at Sudoku that means your arguments regarding evolutionary biology are therefore correct and my analysis is wrong. Impeccable logic on your part.

 

I wouldn't put it like that. I would say that my clear ability to deduce accurately puts me in a position to judge the logic of the arguments and forms of arguments put forward by evolution/ists. If you had read what I said earlier on, I said that every claim in life uses reasoning/argument. Nothing at all in science, including evolution, can be without reasoning and argument; example; "this evidence here, therefore X, and if P over there then we can strongly suggest Y because it is peculiar and unique to Y".

 

So then, it is not the biology itself that I question, it is the arguments FROM the biology, I would say I am qualified to assess.

 

I apologise for getting hot and saying, "stick it up your arse", I admit frustration is something I am a long way off dealing with fully, but the Lord will deal with my sinful weaknesses in the end I hope. I only said that out of frustration, that was a hot post but we all have a bad post from time to time when we are tired.



#57 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,375 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 November 2016 - 09:44 AM

Of course one of the reasons a LITERAL court wouldn't be the best arena for an objective, totally neutral debate is because in that setting they would see science itself as neutrally valid, but the EvC debate is obviously a dispute of evolution which is considered to be science by the mainstream, meaning the most obvious logical mistake such a court will make is to side with science because of a generalisation fallacy.

 

Strictly and technically speaking, the matter of the universe being created does not depend on Genesis belief or the bible, in the sense that I myself as a creationist, would still believe in the creation, that it is a creation, even if I was to not believe in a strictly inerrant bible. Because the matter pertains to the creation of things that were created BEFORE the bible, then the bible itself was something that came AFTER the posited creation. Even if the bible did not exist, butterflies still do exist. So then like Romans says, the visible testifies to the invisible. We know there was a Mona Lisa painting because there is a Mona Lisa. The construction of the eyeball isn't up for debate, all of it's parts are designed to see, and are the usual specified complexity, even if the bible did not say so.

 

So really the kind of court room examples you refer to wasn't my initial idea Goku. My idea was more like the kind of courtroom experience where there is a jury of objective people, or a referee that doles out true neutrality, and acknowledges and understands why the sweeping generalisation fallacy cannot be regarded as a valid argument;

 

"Science is neutral and objective.

Evolution is science,

therefore evolution is neutral and objectively validated."

 

The form of that argument is a valid form but the fallacy is to conflate the group with the individual. An overt example of the mistake can be shown here;

 

"Children aren't allowed sweets in school.

Johnny is a child

Therefore Johnny isn't allowed sweets".

 

But the reason this argument is wrong is not explicit but implicit, Johnny has cancer and has three days to live. Thus an exception to the rule is not always special-pleading if and only if there is a genuinely good reason for the exception. Example;

 

"All people are equal.

The queen is a person

therefore the queen is equal".

 

You may object if I were to say, "nevertheless we must treat her like the queen since she is." But let us be honest, there is an exceptional circumstance, it would therefore be appropriate to call her, "your majesty".

 

In the case of evolution, evolution itself though treated as any other theory, must be objectively scrutinised if there is the slightest chance it has not been objectively treated because of unique or obscure factors. One of those factors is that evolution is the sole explanation it seems, for a scientific cause of life. It also allows atheists and non-religious people, more freedom, and there are motivations at play because if evolution is false the consequences would be disastrous to the scientific community, and to a non-religious position about the universe's existence.

 

There is quite a difference between what science regards as valid or verified, and what logical notation as a separate tool, regards as valid and sound, also, and logic itself as a neutral and sound subject, must be heeded, and it's rules must be met, so if I/we can show that evolution as a theory, disregards logic which is arguably more solid than science in it's proves, then evolution must be guilty as charged.

 

Logic for example, tells us provably true things, meaning it is greater than science. There isn't one example of any contradiction in nature because of the law of non-contradiction yet evolution participates in contradictory reasonings where in some areas there is no possibility to falsify evolution. For example, if homology is evidence of evolution, then "not homology" is the only way to falsify evolution in this particular area of the debate. So then if a feature such as eyes, show homology that is not evolutionary, then this should logically count as falsification evidence, and any post-hoc excuses for why the evidence is still evolutionary somehow, must be regarded as astonishingly WEAK reasoning. For if homology is evidence of evolution but non-homological, "homological" features, are also evidence of evolution, then how according to non-contradiction, am I able to neutrally, logically and scientifically falsify evolution? In such an example, my hands are tied scientifically and logically, for the obvious falsification would be a whole host of homological features that could not have evolved, meaning the ones they posited to have evolved, also may not have evolved, since they are identical as evidence. So then the conjectural reasons evolution gives as to why evolution says some are homological and others are name-tagged, "homoplastic" to be coloured an evolutionary flavour, can only be regarded as conjectural excuses/storytelling, of evolution. Just because evolution explains away with weak reasons, it's faults, doesn't mean evolution can be let off the logical hook. Calling features that don't fit with the story of evolution, which is divergence, "homoplastic results of evolutionary convergence" is most laughable, logically, since convergence is 100% posited BELIEF in evolutionary miracles.

 

Let's be GENEROUS TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY and say the chances of eyes evolving once are 1 in 2. Since they evolve seperately 40 times, according to the fictional story, that would mean 1 in 240.

 

Yet we KNOW (by 100%) that the cause of intelligently designed things is intelligent design, from billions of known examples, meaning the chances of those eyes being designed on purpose is either 100% or something like 99.99999999999999999999999999%, yet because Goku asserts that evolution-did-it, we are supposed to go with the astronomical improbability, that somehow evolution sent 40 kinds of animals eyes for vision, according to their particular, catered needs, all of which they stumbled upon because they needed them. Logically this is akin to believing that because 40 people were all hungry, they all stumbled upon a macdonalds. (like they all stumbled upon eyes, given we are discussing the same feature, so you misunderstood my analogy).

 

They also, ALL of them, also developed eyes in the best place on their heads, another miracle of improbability, for why did these light sensitive spots only occur on their heads? Or did they occur all over and only the head-ones were selected, I mean, how any intelligent human being can entertain such WAFFLE will forever be beyond me, when the explanation is RIGHT THERE - that the intelligent designer simply gave them all eyes according to their need. If it was down to random chance, the light-sensitive patches would occur randomly, wherever they occurred, in at least a few examples. (logically) but to reason circularly is to say, "since they all are in the right place on the head, that means evolution selected them in the right spot" (reasoning in a circle, because it is a posteriori argument. If they had all occurred on the toes, you could say the same thing, such is the magic of circular reasoning.)



#58 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 November 2016 - 12:22 AM

So ALL 10 of man's Interdependent organs and their systems "Co Evolved"??? Wow, Sounds like your "Evolution" is virtually indistinguishable from God...

You see, Man has 10 VITAL organs... Take one away and you DIE and guess what happens to your sacred Darwinism when you Die?

It sounds like you don't understand what we mean when we talk about organs co-evolving.

Here's a hint: It's not like 9/10 organs evolving to their current state and then starting on the 10th.
 

Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it?

Does it still break down food? I'm not sure why you think evolution would predict a stomach without skin. A distinction between inside and outside seems like it would have been one of the first things that evolved after replication.

Or a Brain to Control it?

Does it still break down food? A stomach that is constantly in digestion mode would almost certainly be less efficient and probably more prone to lethal failure than one that can be controlled, but it could still be functional.

or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste?

I would think openings are a more basic trait than the stomach.

Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away?

Which perfect enzymes/acids are you referring to? Which animal has it right, and how are the others getting by with imperfect acids/enzymes? (or like the platypus, none at all)

What goods is a Heart without Blood,?

Depends on what you're working with instead of blood. An internal muscle to pump fluid around (see animals with an open circulatory system) would be an improvement over using external muscle movement to move that fluid around.

What good is blood without lungs to oxygenate it?

Depends on what you're working with. Smaller insects apparently get by almost entirely on passive diffusion rather than respiration.

What good are lungs without a Brain to control them?

See again passive respiration, but I would expect that brain (in the sense of a nervous system that could control muscle) would have evolved before respiration.

what good is a brain without an immune system to prevent meningitis or encephalitis?

Does it still work before the inflammation happens? Having a means to prevent/recover from that inflammation means it works better and the organism dies less easily/often, but it seems like it would still provide at least some function without that.
 

Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!!

Are you sure? All of the complexity you've listed so far seems to be pretty reducible.
 

You know that I could go on and on right??

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcom, you're preoccupied with whether or not you could, but I don't think you've stopped to think if you should.
 

Is it REALLY "nonsense"??

Yes.

#59 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 November 2016 - 01:06 AM

"This was already addressed. Creationists overhype what was actually found."

 

Oh, OK, Here is some more for you, BTW, since when do Raw DATA become "Overhype?  LOL

 

http://newgeology.us...entation48.html

 

Carbon-14 is considered to be a highly reliable dating technique.  It's accuracy has been verified by using C-14 to date artifacts whose age is known historically.  The fluctuation of the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere over time adds a small uncertainty, but contamination by "modern carbon" such as decayed organic matter from soils poses a greater possibility for error.

Dr. Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany, gave the presentation in Singapore.  He said that his team and the laboratories they employed took special care to avoid contamination.  That included protecting the samples, avoiding cracked areas in the bones, and meticulous pre-cleaning of the samples with chemicals to remove possible contaminants.  Knowing that small concentrations of collagen can attract contamination, they compared precision Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) tests of collagen and bioapatite (hard carbonate bone mineral) with conventional counting methods of large bone fragments from the same dinosaurs.  "Comparing such different molecules as minerals and organics from the same bone region, we obtained concordant C-14 results which were well below the upper limits of C-14 dating.  These, together with many other remarkable concordances between samples from different fossils, geographic regions and stratigraphic positions make random contamination as origin of the C-14 unlikely".

The theoretical limit for C-14 dating is 100,000 years using AMS, but for practical purposes it is 45,000 to 55,000 years.  The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years.  If dinosaur bones are 65 million years old, there should not be one atom of C-14 left in them.

Many dinosaur bones are not petrified.  Dr. Mary Schweitzer, associate professor of marine, earth, and atmospheric sciences at North Carolina State University, surprised scientists in 2005 when she reported finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones.  She started a firestorm of controversy in 2007 and 2008 when she reported that she had sequenced proteins in the dinosaur bone.  Critics charged that the findings were mistaken or that what she called soft tissue was really biofilm produced by bacteria that had entered from outside the bone.  Schweitzer answered the challenge by testing with antibodies.  Her report in 2009 confirmed the presence of collagen and other proteins that bacteria do not make.  In 2011, a Swedish team found soft tissue and biomolecules in the bones of another creature from the time of the dinosaurs, a Mosasaur, which was a giant lizard that swam in shallow ocean waters.  Schweitzer herself wonders why these materials are preserved when all the models say they should be degraded.  That is, if they really are over 65 million years old, as the conventional wisdom says.

Dinosaur bones with Carbon-14 dates in the range of 22,000 to 39,000 years before present, combined with the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, indicate that something is indeed wrong with the conventional wisdom about dinosaurs.

However, it has been hard to reach the public with the information.  Despite being simple test results without any interpretation, they were blocked from presentation in conference proceedings by the 2009 North American Paleontological Convention, the American Geophysical Union in 2011 and 2012, the Geological Society of America in 2011 and 2012, and by the editors of various scientific journals.  Fortunately, there is the internet.

 

 

 

The data: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones (download details)

 

Dinosaur
(a)

Lab/Method/Fraction (b,c,d)

C-14 Years B.P.

Date

USA State

Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Acro
Allosaurus
Hadrosaur #1
Hadrosaur #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #1
Triceratops #2
Triceratops #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #2
Hadrosaur #3
Apatosaur

GX-15155-A/Beta/bio
GX-15155-A/AMS/bio
AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings
UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow
UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio
KIA-5523/AMS/bow
KIA-5523/AMS/hum
GX-32372/AMS/col
GX-32647/Beta/bow
UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio
UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col
GX-32739/Beta/ext
GX-32678/AMS/w
UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio
UGAMS-01936/AMS/w
UGAMS-01937/AMS/col
UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio
UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio

>32,400
25,750
+ 280
23,760
+ 270
29,690
+ 90
30,640
+ 90
31,360
+ 100
31,050 + 230/-220
36,480 + 560/-530
30,890
+ 200
33,830 + 2910/-1960
24,340
+ 70
39,230
+ 140
30,110
+ 80
22,380
+ 800
22,990
+130
25,670
+ 220
25,170
+ 230
23,170
+ 170
37,660
+ 160
38,250
+ 160

11/10/1989
06/14/1990
10/23/1990
10/27/2010
10/27/2010
05/01/2008
10/01/1998
10/01/1998
08/25/2006
09/12/2006
10/29/2009
08/27/2008
08/27/2008
01/06/2007
04/04/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
04/10/2007
11/29/2011
11/29/2011

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CO
AK
AK
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
CO
CO

 

(a)  Acro (Acrocanthosaurus) is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1984 near Glen Rose TX by C. Baugh and G. Detwiler; in 108 MA Cretaceous sandstone - identified by Dr. W. Langston of Un. of TX at Austin.

Allosaurus is a carnivorous dinosaur excavated in 1989 by the J. Hall, A. Murray team.  It was found under an Apatosaurus skeleton in the Wildwood section of a ranch west of Grand Junction CO in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) sandstone of the Morrison formation.

Hadrosaur #1, a duck billed dinosaur.  Bone fragments were excavated in 1994 along Colville River by G. Detwiler, J. Whitmore team in the famous Liscomb bone bed of the Alaskan North Slope - validated by Dr. J. Whitmore.

Hadrosaur #2, a duck billed dinosaur.  A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in clay in the NW 1/4, NE 1/4 of Sec. 32, T16N, R56 E, Dawson County, Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.  It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #1, a ceratopsid dinosaur.  A lone femur bone was excavated in 2004 in Cretaceous clay at 47 6 18N by 104 39 22W in Montana by the O. Kline team of the Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum.  It was sawed open by the O. Kline, H. Miller team in 2005 to retrieve samples for C-14 testing.

Triceratops #2, a very large ceratopsid-type dinosaur excavated in 2007 in Cretaceous clay at 47 02 44N and 104 32 49W in Montana by the O. Kline team of Glendive Dinosaur and Fossil Museum. Outer bone fragments of a femur were tested for C-14.

Hadrosaur #3, a duck billed dinosaur.  Scrapings were taken from a large bone excavated by Joe Taylor of Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, Crosbyton TX in Colorado in Cretaceous strata.

Apatosaur, a sauropod.  Scrapings were taken from a rib still imbedded in the clay soil of a ranch in CO, partially excavated in 2007 and 2009, in 150 Ma (late Jurassic) strata by C. Baugh and B. Dunkel.

( B)  GX is Geochron Labs, Cambridge MA, USA; AA is University of Arizona, Tuscon AZ, USA; UG is University of Georgia, Athens GA, USA; KIA is Christian Albrechts Universitat, Kiel Germany.

©  AMS is Accelerated Mass Spectrometry; Beta is the conventional method of counting Beta decay particles.

(d)  Bio is the carbonate fraction of bioapatite. Bow is the bulk organic fraction of whole bone; Col is collagen fraction; w or ext is charred, exterior or whole bone fragments; Hum is humic acids.

Bioapatite is a major component of the mineralised part of bones.  It incorporates a small amount of carbonate as a substitute for phosphate in the crystal lattice.

Charred bone is the description given by lab personnel for blackened bone surfaces.

Collagen: Proteins that are the main component of connective tissue.  It can be as high as 20% in normal bone but decomposes over time so that there should be none after ~100,000 years.  Yet it is found in four-foot long, nine-inch diameter dinosaur femur bones claimed to be greater than 65 million years old.  The "Modified Longin Method" is the normal purification method for bone collagen.  Dr. Libby, the discoverer of Radiocarbon dating and Nobel Prize winner, showed that purified collagen could not give erroneous ages.

Click to see a YouTube video of the conference presentation

Click to see the conference schedule for presentation of abstract BG02-A012 at 17:00

 

If you look at the charts and compare when they were tested to when they were found the difference is several years. This means that each sample was heavily covered in preservatives, which means the dates mean nothing. They aren't dating dinosaur bones but the preservatives on and in them.

 

I looked up Hugh Miller who seems to be the lead researcher on the project, and he is known for lying to universities and museums to get dinosaur bones, and then lies about the research being done to universities and labs testing them. He is told that the dinosaur bones he has are covered in shellac preservatives (which are organic) rendering any subsequent carbon dating useless, but he doesn't care and does the dating anyway.

 

I found this article telling (excerpt in blue): http://www.fleming-g...osaur Bones.pdf

 

"James King, Director of the Carnegie Museum, says Hugh Miller and his party identified themselves as chemists who wanted to do some analyses of the chemical composition of the fossils. King says that small “bits and pieces” which had spalled off the surfaces of various specimens were offered to Miller with the explicit warning that the fossil bones had been “covered heavily in shellac” and other “unknown preservatives.” Miller accepted the fragments and indicated that the coatings posed no problems for the analyses they were considering. Subsequently, several of the bone fragments were submitted to the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry for radiocarbon dating. CRSEF “also arranged the Arizona testing by not revealing its origins” (Lafferty 1991:2B). Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless."

 

 

Simply put I have good reason to believe that any date from a group headed by Miller regarding dinosaur bones were acquired incorrectly either due to total incompetence or desired deception on the part of the creationists. Those that denied them time to speak at conferences and whatnot probably got wind of their deception and didn't want to reward them or waste the time of everyone else who would be listening to them.

 

So you are correct, this isn't an "overhype", this is dishonesty.

 

As for soft tissue found in dinosaur bone, there is a good article from Biologos, a Christian organization, that deals with it (excerpt in blue): http://biologos.org/...ence-really-say

 

"After dissolving away the mineral portion of the bone with weak acid, various types of flexible structures were recovered. They conform to the microscopic pores of the bone in which they had resided, so they are mainly viewed under a microscope. These structures include transparent, branching hollow vessels corresponding to the blood vessels found in modern animals (e.g. ostriches), and also what look like modern osteocyte (bone) cells. Various biochemical tests have indicated that these structures are composed of animal protein, showing that they derive from the original dinosaur tissue, as opposed to being merely biofilms produced by microbes which invaded the bone pores.

 

The proteins which have been identified include collagen, actin, and tubulin. These are known to have structures which are resistant to degradation, especially when they are crosslinked. Tests indicate that these proteins from the dinosaur bones are indeed highly crosslinked, which appears to be a key aspect of their longevity.

 

Iron from blood hemoglobin can be highly effective in promoting this crosslinking and in general passivating the reactive groups on the proteins.... The osteocyte cell remnants from dinosaur fossils are essentially coated with iron-rich nanoparticles.

 

Beside the effect of iron, being in contact with the mineral walls of the pores, and being sealed in tiny pores, away from the enzymes and other body chemicals, can act to preserve remnants of the original proteins. Also, if soft tissue is initially dried out before it decays, it undergoes changes that make it more stable even if it is later rehydrated. Thus,  several plausible mechanisms are known to help explain the preservation of these flexible tissues, and there are likely other factors yet to be discovered."



#60 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 November 2016 - 02:34 AM

THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducible complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!!    How did that happen? (based on Evidence Logic and Reason of course )..  :think:  

 

Ignoring your oversimplification, in essence, yes.

 

This 10 minute video that summarizes one plausible way this could have happened, "mindlessly", without intelligence. Start at 2:45 to skip the intro.

 

 

 

"Again nature is as nature does. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance, or rather the unimportance, of "mindless" in such contexts."

 

Do I..?  It seems like your posited causation of "Nature" is virtually indistinguishable from an Intelligence agent.. :dono:

 

Yes, you do. I suppose if your explanation of an intelligent agent is indistinguishable from a set of phenomena that behave in a systematically predictable way, then sure it is "indistinguishable" from nature, but that would make an intelligent agent a non-parsimonious explanation.

 

So here again we get a sorry and pitiful analogy between a ball falling due to the established principles of Gravity,


AND

 

In the Beginning either "Nothing" or a "Miniscule Singularity" Mindlessly Expanded very quickly and somehow all of the matter in the universe coming into existence and organizing itself with all of the order and complexity that is FINELY TUNED TO PRECISION......

 

Granted the entire cosmos is more complex than dropping a ball and watching it fall due to gravity, but the analogy is perfectly sound in describing how a "mindless" universe could give rise to what we see; namely it is the forces of nature at work. This is why your "mindless" motif is ultimately inconsequential.

 

Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT..   Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third?  Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? (based on Evidence, Logic, and Reason of course )..  :think:    

 

"In a sense they all co-evolved. Your order of stomach, brain, and then lungs is probably accurate, but do try to take into account that this was done over many intermediate organisms where each organ underwent many stages itself and it wasn't a fully modern human stomach with no brain or lungs developing first."

 

Hmmm, What good is a Stomach without Skin to hold it? Or a Brain to Control it? or a Mouth to Feed it? Or a Tract to Expel waste? Or Perfect Digestive Enzymes / Acids to process the food yet not eat the stomach away? Again we are talking about Irreducible Complexity!! (Atheists HATE that phrase dont they)    THIS IS NOT DR. FRANKENSTEINS LABORATORY!!   

 

Wow, The Name of this Blog keeps on hitting us square in the face again and again..

 

An outer layering of some sort (your skin is composed of epithelial cells, and epithelial cells also line your organs) was probably developed before any truly distinct internal organs came about. If we look at one of the simpler animals, the hydra, we can see that it has a stomach but no real brain. I don't hate the phrase irreducible complexity, although I don't think it is as sound an argument as creationists believe.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: religion, atheism, christianity, secular

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users