Jump to content


Photo

Wibble's Cmi Disgruntlement


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 26 December 2017 - 05:54 AM

Wibble and some others but mostly him (and in most of his posts) seems to claim that anyone that places any credence in CMI articles is automatically taking a die-hard position of dogma, perhaps because of their statement, which the CMI scientists sign.

 

Obviously in the EvC debate, obscure topics arise. If it is palesols or flat gaps or erosional remnants, or whatever, largely these things aren't going to be discussed by main websites. We also have to remember that a lot of the things creationist scientists themselves come up with, models and so forth, are going to only be found at the big three sites, CMI, ICR or AIG.

 

However, does this mean like Wibble seems to think, that my view of CMI and every little thing they argue, is 100% agreement?

 

No, but because we only discuss things we do disagree on, it may well give the appearance that I accept everything they say.

 

In other words, at forums like this it's not that likely that I will get an opportunity to say, "this CMI article I read was terrible to me, intellectually it was poor."

 

But that does happen. Recently an article about giraffe and an alleged evolutionary intermediate, that CMI put forward, basically as a counter-argument, they only seemed to repeat the oft touted, "but this is change is fine within kinds". Now while as a creationist I agree that argument has to be considered true generally, the article should have argued something much more specific, rather than just stating the obvious creationist position. 

 

I would say a fair portion of CMI's material falls under the category of, "disappointing", for me. Perhaps 30% of what they put forward. Partly the problem is that they aren't writing scientifically detailed articles, but as part of apologetics they are writing articles for layman which basically give the layman an understanding of the issue, so I would say a good deal of the problem is because of that, so I don't really have any blame to put on them in that regard.

 

As for CMI's infamous statement of loyalty to God's word no matter what the facts show I am not entirely sure that's what it means. I myself wouldn't sign that statement I would put it differently. I would definitely sign something like this; "I believe that there are no scientific facts which truly contradict the bible in any meaningfully provable way". But I would only make that statement because the bible isn't a science book. If it turns out that my view of the bible was wrong for example, or that events in the bible God allowed to be exaggerated because He accepted using imperfect men as His tool, or something like that, but also because obviously the bible doesn't actually come out and explicitly say things scientific. It also contains non-scientific miracles meaning we have to accept that science can also be broken if God is the inventor of the scientific laws and so forth.

 

Also by analogy, I don't think evolutionists are innocent, scientific, objective robots because they don't have a statement of loyalty. When you believe in God sometimes you have to make known that loyalty but there is no such obligation with an unbelief in God. So then by analogy, if we have two perverts and one comes out and says, "I have abused people" but then is arrested, but the other pervert remains silent for fear of arrest, does that mean logically speaking that the one that did not speak out is not a pervert?

 

In the same way, evolutionists don't come out and say, "no facts against evolution will divert me from the conclusion that it is true." But let's face it, we all know from their attitudes that that is the position they take, despite not vocally declaring it. So it seems to me that when the creation sites put that statement up, they're just putting their cards on the table.



#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 January 2018 - 03:25 PM

Wibble and some others but mostly him (and in most of his posts) seems to claim that anyone that places any credence in CMI articles is automatically taking a die-hard position of dogma, perhaps because of their statement, which the CMI scientists sign.

However, does this mean like Wibble seems to think, that my view of CMI and every little thing they argue, is 100% agreement? No, but because we only discuss things we do disagree on, it may well give the appearance that I accept everything they say.


It’s good that you don’t regard some of the CMI output particularly highly but as it is almost exclusively your go to website for your counter arguments I think it is a bit naïve of you to think that any of their articles have credibility or integrity. It is a propaganda website and as such distort facts and skip over the problems that destroy their argument on any particular subject. For example, as you know, they have an article on Siccar Point, written by Taz Walker, that makes no mention of the local paleotopography which makes a mockery of their claim that floodwaters planed flat the contact between the vertical turbidite and horizontal red sandstone layers. Walker even has the gall to claim the boundary conglomerate layer as evidence for the flood but doesn’t explain how you would erode hard blocks out of recently deposited saturated sediment. That’s just a sample of the problems with that article. Why do they not mention these things ? It's either dishonesty or bad research and logic.

Also, as a mirror image to your dependency on CMI, imagine if any evolutionist here just went to Talk origins to rebut every creationist argument that came up, I don’t think that would go down too well here.
 

I don't think evolutionists are innocent, scientific, objective robots because they don't have a statement of loyalty. When you believe in God sometimes you have to make known that loyalty but there is no such obligation with an unbelief in God.

In the same way, evolutionists don't come out and say, "no facts against evolution will divert me from the conclusion that it is true." But let's face it, we all know from their attitudes that that is the position they take, despite not vocally declaring it. So it seems to me that when the creation sites put that statement up, they're just putting their cards on the table.


Creationists like yourself are tied to a literal reading of Genesis (ok you are more ambivalent to the age of the Universe but are YEC in relation to life) so by definition you are compelled to dismiss any science that contradicts that dogma. In contrast, secular scientists do not care how Genesis is understood, it is irrelevant, they draw conclusions based on scientific evidence, if that evidence is overwhelming in favour of deep time and progressive change in life on Earth through that time then so be it. But evolution could be overturned at a stroke if we were to find a fossil that could not be plausibly accounted for, such as a whale in the Cambrian or a sloth in the Carboniferous (for example).

Evolutionists therefore do not hold to an unstated equivalent to CMI, AiG’ etc. statement of faith.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 January 2018 - 03:44 PM

 

 

Wibble: Also, as a mirror image to your dependency on CMI, imagine if any evolutionist here just went to Talk origins to rebut every creationist argument that came up, I don’t think that would go down too well here.

 

Well that's a distortion of the truth anyway, first of all for every argument that comes up most of the time I rely on my own arguments but for those of which I do cite CMI, they are only one of a few places to go to, to read alternative arguments given by non-conformist scientists. So the key difference here is that you don't only have talk origins to go to but potentially hundreds of mainstream websites. If I am to get into a specific science argument, it makes sense to read those who have knowledge in that area so it seems your complaint doesn't really offer a solution anyway.

 

 

 

Wibble: I think it is a bit naïve of you to think that any of their articles have credibility or integrity. It is a propaganda website and as such distort facts and skip over the problems that destroy their argument on any particular subject.

 

Again I think a key point here which overturns this argument is that I am the one who has read a large portion of their material whereas it's likely you have read a lot less. As you know from my critical thinking test scores which shown objective evidence I can evaluate arguments, in fact there are many articles that are very cogent, with powerful argumentation. Powerful argumentation is something missing from a lot of the evolutionary literature. For example if you read the CMI article about the Bombardier beetle, you basically can't get a stronger argument for miraculous design, basically is so close to proof it's almost as good as proof. I doubt you have ever read it.

 

 

 

Wibble: Creationists like yourself are tied to a literal reading of Genesis (ok you are more ambivalent to the age of the Universe but are YEC in relation to life) so by definition you are compelled to dismiss any science that contradicts that dogma. In contrast, secular scientists do not care how Genesis is understood, it is irrelevant, they draw conclusions based on scientific evidence,

 

I don't accept this reasoning and see it as a false dichotomy you are suggesting, that secularists are objective robots without worldviews and Christians object to facts. Firstly, I haven't found any real genuine facts which contradict the bible, and I am not a literalist in that I don't believe all of the bible is to be taken literally. The bible is a spiritual book which doesn't make any distinctly specific science-statements, and first it must make them in order for science to contradict it. This logic is easy to see with an example;

 

Johnny is an english man, he wrote a book about life in England and mentions many countries and beliefs.

Claim; "There may be geographical facts which contradict his book."

Now we look in his book and it doesn't really make any specific statements about Geography which can't be taken to necessarily mean something specific about Geography.

Ergo how can geography facts contradict a book which doesn't say anything about them?

 

It's like saying, "I don't find anything in Wibble's diary about attending creationist seminars, therefore what was said in those seminars contradicts Wibble's diary and what it says."

 

 

Conclusion: Read over your post again and look how many assertions you make which I am supposed to take as granted by mere utterance. For example, implying peoples' motives are poor when there is no reason to grant such cynical assumptions. Are you saying you have access to people's minds? It's amazing how many arrogant atheists think they are telepathic. As Christians we have a mandate to stand for truth and integrity, but upon you evolutionist non-Christians, there is no such obligation, so if anything it is a safer assumption to see evolutionist websites as dishonest. 



#4 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 January 2018 - 04:33 PM

The bible is a spiritual book which doesn't make any distinctly specific science-statements, and first it must make them in order for science to contradict it.


So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago ? There is no evidence that is the case, that stance relies on a literal belief in Genesis.

#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 02 January 2018 - 04:51 PM

 

 

Wibble: So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago ? There is no evidence that is the case, that stance relies on a literal belief in Genesis. 

 

Are you going for a bare-assertion world record?

 

To find evidence consistent with a world flood and other youthful geochronomoters, according to logic you just have to genuinely qualify a correct consequent, of which there are many such examples. Off the top of my head some evidence consistent with this particular scenario;

 

Planation

Fossils found in various positions buried while living

Fossils of every kind found, and the bible says all life perished.

Paraconformities. (flat gaps)

Erosional remnants such as the Buttes outside of Grand Canyon

Water gaps

A record generally that fits with animal kinds, (not any evolutionary history but the same forms, see my list of unchanged organisms)

The tremendous miraculous designs in nature which are beyond any random evolution such as the sea anemone dart eating slugs or Bombardier beetle, or metamorphosis, ontogeny, the Archer fish, with all of the programmed software. The whole field of biomimetics which is deductive proof that design in nature is superior in cleverness to our own)

Lack of any proper soil layers in the rock record.

Various soft tissues which are scientifically proven to not be able to last more than a million years based on experimental data.

The recent evidence for BEDS (briefly exposed diluvial sediments) which show at about 100,000 years of strata, hastily laid eggs for a particular dinosaur, and we would have to believe the same species had eggs buried over that time for that period of time.

Human remants and remnants of other dead things, don't fit with the numbers, it's more realistic that we have thousands of years worth of human history from the remains we find.

No evidence of any evolution of apes or any of the missing links, scant evidence of the evolution of anything, "modern".

 

 

Like I have told you before there are also geochronomoters which might fit with eons of great time. The true problem is with your inability to see things on a grey-scale rather than in black and white. Note you deal with extremes, such as, "no evidence" at all for creation, and all in favour of evolution. But that is because you psychologically dismiss all of the evidence that goes against evolution and concentrate on trifles which your mind magnifies and puffs up as proves which can't be denied when in reality it's easy to explain most of them without relying on evolution.

 

 

 

Wibble: So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago 

 

Well first of all I don't insist it, I believe it.

 

See, with you it's all about attacking the person. What does it matter what I believe? Is it unacceptable if I believe something you don't? Perhaps in my own personal life I have very great reasons to believe God's history, did you ever consider that possibility? The alternative is that life evolved over millions of years which to me personally makes a laughing stock of God's overt creation, and takes the piss out of the factual design we see in nature, which is so over-qualified I regard it as actually PATHETIC that anyone could deny it.



#6 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 January 2018 - 04:55 PM

Powerful argumentation is something missing from a lot of the evolutionary literature. For example if you read the CMI article about the Bombardier beetle, you basically can't get a stronger argument for miraculous design, basically is so close to proof it's almost as good as proof. I doubt you have ever read it.

 

Of course I'm aware of the creationist argument of the bombardier beetle.

 

Are you referring to this little article based on an argument from personal incredulity ? That hardly constitutes "proof".

 

https://creation.com...mbardier-beetle

 

Here's a better short article I'm sure you'd like to read, which gives a plausible evolutionary pathway.

 

https://bombardierbe...on--origin.html

 

 

 



#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 02 January 2018 - 05:15 PM

 

Wibble: So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago ? There is no evidence that is the case, that stance relies on a literal belief in Genesis. 

Are you going for a bare-assertion world record?
 
To find evidence consistent with a world flood and other youthful geochronomoters, according to logic you just have to genuinely qualify a correct consequent, of which there are many such examples. Off the top of my head some evidence consistent with this particular scenario;
 
Planation
Fossils found in various positions buried while living
Fossils of every kind found, and the bible says all life perished.
Paraconformities. (flat gaps)
Erosional remnants such as the Buttes outside of Grand Canyon
Water gaps
A record generally that fits with animal kinds, (not any evolutionary history but the same forms, see my list of unchanged organisms)
The tremendous miraculous designs in nature which are beyond any random evolution such as the sea anemone dart eating slugs or Bombardier beetle, or metamorphosis, ontogeny, the Archer fish, with all of the programmed software. The whole field of biomimetics which is deductive proof that design in nature is superior in cleverness to our own)
Lack of any proper soil layers in the rock record.
Various soft tissues which are scientifically proven to not be able to last more than a million years based on experimental data.
The recent evidence for BEDS (briefly exposed diluvial sediments) which show at about 100,000 years of strata, hastily laid eggs for a particular dinosaur, and we would have to believe the same species had eggs buried over that time for that period of time.
Human remants and remnants of other dead things, don't fit with the numbers, it's more realistic that we have thousands of years worth of human history from the remains we find.
No evidence of any evolution of apes or any of the missing links, scant evidence of the evolution of anything, "modern".

 

 


I've been through most of those things with you before and shown they don't stand up to scrutiny and remaining ones have been dealt with by others so there is no bare assertion on my part.
 
 

Like I have told you before there are also geochronomoters which might fit with eons of great time.


Better than might fit. I assume that's a typo
 

Wibble: So why do you insist that all life was created at the same time circa 10,000 years ago 

Well first of all I don't insist it, I believe it.

 


Yes but why ? There is no reason to, scientifically.
 

See, with you it's all about attacking the person. What does it matter what I believe? Is it unacceptable if I believe something you don't? Perhaps in my own personal life I have very great reasons to believe God's history, did you ever consider that possibility? The alternative is that life evolved over millions of years which to me personally makes a laughing stock of God's overt creation, and takes the piss out of the factual design we see in nature, which is so over-qualified I regard it as actually PATHETIC that anyone could deny it.


Where have I attacked the person ? On the other hand you launch an ad hominem by shouting the word pathetic to describe people with a different belief to you.

To everyone on here it must matter what is believed, else there would be no debate on this debate forum.

What in your personal life has provided you with such clarity that a 10,000 year ago instant creation is the truth that just happens to agree with a literal reading of the Bible ?



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 January 2018 - 05:04 AM

 

Wibble: Of course I'm aware of the creationist argument of the bombardier beetle.

 

Are you referring to this little article based on an argument from personal incredulity ? That hardly constitutes "proof"

 

No it's not based on incredulity, it's based on the inductive argument that 100% of all things we find with such hyper-specific placement of particular parts, correct parts, are 100% of the time placed there on purpose. Think of it this way, if I had to prove to you I designed something but could only show you the object, are you saying that if all of the parts were created so as to create something, say a walking toy, which walked viably, you are saying as evidence this isn't close to proof of design? You are saying that if a specific type of chemistry is needed to get a particularly required effect that provides something useful, that it isn't the strongest possible evidence of design?

 

If something is designed we can show it by the fact everything is done on purpose, which means if you come across a sign saying, "Wibble is an evo", you wouldn't believe it wasn't done on purpose but such a sign is simplistic compared to the probability of design in things much more sophisticated. This you haven't studied. For example you don't know that such a sign wouldn't have contingency planning if it was just markings on sand. It wouldn't have the correct materials, as no material would be there. It wouldn't contain a level of specified complexity that is that high, because of only a few symbols, and there are no parts required, for specific functions. So then if even such a simple sign can only be designed, how much more probable is something with all of the features of sophisticated design? basically from the point of view of deductive logic, the study of the Bombardier beetle presents TOTAL evidence of design. I define total evidence, as the highest possible evidence of P. Which means rationally, you can't ask for more evidence or it would be fallacious.

 

Example; show me more evidence you are human.

 

Answer; Fallacious, the evidence is total, in that logically a person can only provide evidence he is human up to a point, if you then ask for more evidence beyond it, you are going beyond 100%, it is like saying this; "show me more evidence a plane can fly."

 

There is actually no difference logically, between finding the correct parts to do a particular job such as particular chemicals, finding them in such a beetle, and finding the correct materials in a vehicle or other artificially designed thing.

 

So then from a logical point of view, it becomes ABSURD to argue otherwise, to the point where we can use reductio ad absurdum to flush out the special pleading evolutionists plead, by offering a conjectural scenario using imagination, for how it could have evolved, which is 100% psychology as far as I can see.

 

So then, if you found a watch or a car in a field in a post-apocalyptic world, would you infer that such overt, precise design was created by process? No, that is ABSURD, for even if you could conjecture as to a way as to how metal could have came from the ground and somehow arranged itself, you would never do it.

 

So then since the design in life, by standard, is much higher, meaning the cleverness of the designs is even greater, to argue there is no such cleverness in those designs even when we observe the cleverness, is even greater folly. 

 

But yes, the Bombardier beetle should for any rationalist, having read such an article immediately create in them a correct incredulity which isn't the same as an argument from incredulity fallacy.

 

That fallacy is committed when you argue, "I don't believe it therefore it is false", but in this case, we are not arguing evolution, we are observing the facts of design in a beetle and correctly inferring the only realistic option which is that it is designed overwhelmingly.

 

But if it was solely a matter of not believing evolution and dismissing it, this would be a rational incredulity. Rational incredulity is something non-fallacious, it occurs when someone states X is true despite all of the facts of the real world showing it can't be possible. To ask me to believe all of the parts in an eyeball were not constructed on purpose when the very set up and problem-solvers and software and systems are all congruent, and SCREAM design to a level which bursts the ear drums, is akin to requesting that despite all of the evidence there is to support that a man reached the top of a building by the stairwell, that instead I should believe he flown to the top like superman.

 

That is rational incredulity. The rational dismissal of that which is obviously false and silly, (a man flying). In the same way it is false and silly to believe DNA and protein, the protein which requires the dna and the dna which requires the protein, are better explained by coming about randomly, when all of the parts are purposefully made and have goals we observe them carry out. That is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence of design-on-purpose and you can't reduce such chicken-and-egg scenarios, you can't decrease them any further, so it is like a cherry on the cake of design. To believe all life created itself is absurd, rationally, there is no ordinary reason to accept this.

 

Deductive reason is on my side, as well as induction. Every example in our world of things with such specified complexity, correct materials and contingency planning, all have designers. To say without any direct experimental proof, that instead of it being design in life it is evolution by which you offer a conjecture for how it occurred, is basically ridiculous. Also, I can show on a scale how absurd this is against deductive reason by showing that the more simple a design is the less intelligence is needed and the greater the design the greater the intelligence. 

 

For example, the simplest level of design, because it depends on so little intelligence, can be hard to differentiate from natural process. If I take a tree which has been blown over, and me and my friends hurl it over a stream to get across, arguably as a bridge, it is conceivable to argue that it happened naturally. Why? Because a more sophisticated design contains all of the features of design which this simple example doesn't BECAUSE no intelligence is put into it. Proving, (yes I said proving, because deduction deals in proof even if science doesn't) then the way to improve the bridge by making it last long, so you can't fall off, provide a smooth flat surface, etc...is to use intelligence, because all superior bridges you find, aren't created by natural process, and cannot be argued to be.

 

I wrote more about it in message one here, it takes a lot of explaining and a high understanding of logic as I mentioned;

http://evolutionfair...or-peer-review/

 

(note CMI were not involved, all of my arguments I formulated myself, according to the strict rules of formal validity)

You may say, "who says you know when something is formally valid? Here is my evidence I do;

http://www.think-log...ly.co.uk/lt.htm

 

 

Attached File  valid.jpg   9.76KB   0 downloads

 

I also have the highest score on this logic game which has been played 30 thousand times. I can likely be beaten but the point is I don't think you can argue that my arguments aren't going to be logical;

 

 

 

FINAL COMMENT;

 

My final comment is that you are opening a can of worms in this thread, and trying to use it as a launchpad for all of your arguments for evolution. If I am to nominate an example of a CMI article I think is an example of a good article it would be this one for example;

 

 

 
 
or this one;
 
 
but this one is better;
 
 
Then there are all of the journal of creation Thursday articles which you wouldn't likely understand, nor I, therefore how can you judge?


#9 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 January 2018 - 07:33 PM

Wibble and some others but mostly him (and in most of his posts) seems to claim that anyone that places any credence in CMI articles is automatically taking a die-hard position of dogma, perhaps because of their statement, which the CMI scientists sign.
However, does this mean like Wibble seems to think, that my view of CMI and every little thing they argue, is 100% agreement? No, but because we only discuss things we do disagree on, it may well give the appearance that I accept everything they say.

It’s good that you don’t regard some of the CMI output particularly highly but as it is almost exclusively your go to website for your counter arguments I think it is a bit naïve of you to think that any of their articles have credibility or integrity. It is a propaganda website and as such distort facts and skip over the problems that destroy their argument on any particular subject. For example, as you know, they have an article on Siccar Point, written by Taz Walker, that makes no mention of the local paleotopography which makes a mockery of their claim that floodwaters planed flat the contact between the vertical turbidite and horizontal red sandstone layers. Walker even has the gall to claim the boundary conglomerate layer as evidence for the flood but doesn’t explain how you would erode hard blocks out of recently deposited saturated sediment. That’s just a sample of the problems with that article. Why do they not mention these things ? It's either dishonesty or bad research and logic.
Also, as a mirror image to your dependency on CMI, imagine if any evolutionist here just went to Talk origins to rebut every creationist argument that came up, I don’t think that would go down too well here.
 

I don't think evolutionists are innocent, scientific, objective robots because they don't have a statement of loyalty. When you believe in God sometimes you have to make known that loyalty but there is no such obligation with an unbelief in God.
In the same way, evolutionists don't come out and say, "no facts against evolution will divert me from the conclusion that it is true." But let's face it, we all know from their attitudes that that is the position they take, despite not vocally declaring it. So it seems to me that when the creation sites put that statement up, they're just putting their cards on the table.

Creationists like yourself are tied to a literal reading of Genesis (ok you are more ambivalent to the age of the Universe but are YEC in relation to life) so by definition you are compelled to dismiss any science that contradicts that dogma. In contrast, secular scientists do not care how Genesis is understood, it is irrelevant, they draw conclusions based on scientific evidence, if that evidence is overwhelming in favour of deep time and progressive change in life on Earth through that time then so be it. But evolution could be overturned at a stroke if we were to find a fossil that could not be plausibly accounted for, such as a whale in the Cambrian or a sloth in the Carboniferous (for example).
Evolutionists therefore do not hold to an unstated equivalent to CMI, AiG’ etc. statement of faith.


"But evolution could be overturned at a stroke if we were to find a fossil that could not be plausibly accounted for, such as a whale in the Cambrian or a sloth in the Carboniferous (for example)."

LOL.. No way.. Even YOU dont believe that..

It is amusing to see you assert that people who think that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" (when we have KNOWN decay rates that demonstrate otherwise by a factor of 100) and all the dinosaur bones being loaded with carbon 14 is not a problem would suddenly stop the biology textbook presses and become anti evolutionists based on Whale in the Cambrian or a Sloth in the Carboniferous...

Please dont insult your own intellegence..

But you are on the right website to cure what ails you.. Just keep hanging out here.. Some of the truth will rub off on you eventually...

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton,
  • mike the wiz likes this

#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:30 AM

 A well spotted inconsistency BK, that would have got you 2 points from judge mikey, in our trial. I didn't spot that inconsistency but it is clearly there, we are so often told that we just have to throw a dice with 7 dots on it, by Wibble, he repeats this mantra but as you have shown, we have already thrown one with 20 dots on it.

 

 

Wibble: "Now throw one with 8." 

Wibble; "Now throw one with 9."

Wibble "now throw one with 10"

 

Until my arm swells with the throwing because we both know he deceives himself by pretending any evidence could change his mind. If he can read the Bombardier beetle article and think such evidence is better evidence of evolution then I can only laugh.

 

 

 

:get_a_clue: 


  • Blitzking likes this

#11 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 04 January 2018 - 12:39 PM

 A well spotted inconsistency BK, that would have got you 2 points from judge mikey, in our trial. I didn't spot that inconsistency but it is clearly there, we are so often told that we just have to throw a dice with 7 dots on it, by Wibble, he repeats this mantra but as you have shown, we have already thrown one with 20 dots on it.
  
Wibble: "Now throw one with 8." 
Wibble; "Now throw one with 9."
Wibble "now throw one with 10"
 
Until my arm swells with the throwing because we both know he deceives himself by pretending any evidence could change his mind. If he can read the Bombardier beetle article and think such evidence is better evidence of evolution then I can only laugh.
 
:get_a_clue: 

It's more like you've been repeatedly told that an apple is needed, but you keep throwing grapes and declaring victory. Not only are you overestimating the impact of what you have, what you have is a fundamentally different thing than what is called for.

The presence of unexpected evidence of blood cells or carbon-14 may require revision of some theories, but that revision is along the lines of "blood cells can be preserved for longer than we thought", not "this changes everything we know". Even if we take them at what creationists assert is their face value, neither addresses evolution directly. Both are claimed to demonstrate a young earth, which leads to there not being enough time for evolution to operate. A whale in the Cambrian is different in both respects, because it directly contradicts the possibility of a coherent evolutionary explanation of the fossil record or the nested hierarchy of life.

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 January 2018 - 01:33 PM

 

 

Popoi: It's more like you've been repeatedly told that an apple is needed, but you keep throwing grapes and declaring victory. Not only are you overestimating the impact of what you have, what you have is a fundamentally different thing than what is called for.

The presence of unexpected evidence of blood cells or carbon-14 may require revision of some theories, but that revision is along the lines of "blood cells can be preserved for longer than we thought", not "this changes everything we know". Even if we take them at what creationists assert is their face value, neither addresses evolution directly. Both are claimed to demonstrate a young earth, which leads to there not being enough time for evolution to operate. A whale in the Cambrian is different in both respects, because it directly contradicts the possibility of a coherent evolutionary explanation of the fossil record or the nested hierarchy of life. 

 

But the point is that it's a red-herring, a point I make time and time again. As I have explained before but perhaps you didn't read my explanation even if it seems to me Wibble needs to be told it perhaps a dozen times and even then it doesn't sink in, is that the record itself, it's patterns and what it means, were already there before evolution theory came along meaning that technically speaking the pattern that is there is not an evolutionary pattern but is claimed to be that of a general order of evolution. meaning that technically I don't have to break the pattern if the pattern isn't really an evolutionary pattern.

 

So then to say, "if the pattern can't be broken, you can't break evolution" is essentially to state a tautology, which is something which is defined as always being true, (as opposed to a contradiction which is defined as something always being false.)For it is always true that if the pattern in the rocks can't be changed and you call it an evolution pattern, that the pattern will always remain unbroken if it cannot physically change.

 

So then, if they create the story of evolution based on that pattern, since the pattern generally already exists in the rocks, and they have joined/conflated it with evolution theory, then to say, "break the pattern" is to say, "change existence/reality". (throw a dice with 7 dots please.)

 

Do you see the point? It's like if I thrown coins on a table and for whatever reason, there is a general pattern but let us pretend nobody knows if they were thrown there so technically nobody knows how the pattern occurred. So then if a theory comes about that someone deliberately created the pattern and that theory and the pattern become conflated so it is called the, "deliberate pattern" like it is called the "evolutionary pattern" in the rocks, then to say, "break the pattern in order to show it wasn't deliberate", is impossible and isn't necessarily correct if it truly wasn't deliberate. As long as the coins can't be moved and they have glued them in place in order to preserve the pattern let us say, then how can I show something which doesn't exist if you have married the theory to the reality?

 

Instead the correct falsification of evolution would instead be to say, "break the pattern they claimed was evolution, when they insisted that they found specimens which definitely counted as that evolution, according to their claims."

 

EXHIBIT A; (message one)

http://evolutionfair...kus-fishy-tale/

 

Wibble countered this by saying that it would be better to show something existed before it's clade existed, meaning showing a human 7 million years old, wouldn't predate all primates so at least technically it might still be feasible for evolution, so I shown an ICR article proving they have found clades of angiosperms before they existed. There are also fossil push backs, which somewhat break the pattern. This might not seem such a big deal but they have in the past argued vociferously for some types of evolution such as tik-tall-tale-ik, so it is a big deal when they find a tetrapod lizard way before that evolution they insisted was such a strong example of a transition from fish to tetrapod.

 


  • Blitzking likes this

#13 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 04 January 2018 - 03:37 PM

But the point is that it's a red-herring, a point I make time and time again. As I have explained before but perhaps you didn't read my explanation even if it seems to me Wibble needs to be told it perhaps a dozen times and even then it doesn't sink in, is that the record itself, it's patterns and what it means, were already there before evolution theory came along meaning that technically speaking the pattern that is there is not an evolutionary pattern but is claimed to be that of a general order of evolution. meaning that technically I don't have to break the pattern if the pattern isn't really an evolutionary pattern.[/font]

That doesn't seem to have been your point at all. Whether you can actually break the pattern or not is immaterial to whether such a break would be accepted by scientists, or whether the stuff you have been able to do is equivalent to or better than such a break.
 

Do you see the point? It's like if I thrown coins on a table and for whatever reason, there is a general pattern but let us pretend nobody knows if they were thrown there so technically nobody knows how the pattern occurred. So then if a theory comes about that someone deliberately created the pattern and that theory and the pattern become conflated so it is called the, "deliberate pattern" like it is called the "evolutionary pattern" in the rocks, then to say, "break the pattern in order to show it wasn't deliberate", is impossible and isn't necessarily correct if it truly wasn't deliberate. As long as the coins can't be moved and they have glued them in place in order to preserve the pattern let us say, then how can I show something which doesn't exist if you have married the theory to the reality?[/font]

That a non-trivial pattern can be married to the reality of the coins in the first place would be suspicious. If it continued to fit when more and more coins were found that would be even more suspicious. Technically it's still possible that any supposed pattern is the result of random noise, but it's pretty basic hypothesis testing to figure out how likely (or unlikely) that is in a simple case like coins.

More to this discussion, it's extremely clear what it would take to disprove a theory like "the coins were arranged in ascending date order". Coins that aren't in that order would quickly disprove that theory. It's possible that the real cause is something different and not necessarily true that there will be evidence to conclusively demonstrate that fact, but as I said continuing to find evidence that doesn't falsify a theory gets more and more suspicious.

What wouldn't be as convincing a falsification is presenting something like a lack of fingerprint smudges on the coins as an indication that they couldn't have been individually inspected and placed, because it doesn't address the pattern directly.
 

EXHIBIT A; (message one)
http://evolutionfair...kus-fishy-tale/

That thread contains another pretty good example of a creationist (Sleepy House) overstating the significance of a particular find (400k year old spears), and backing down when asked to explain what specific parts of evolution were contradicted (turns out: none).
 

There are also fossil push backs, which somewhat break the pattern.

I think the fact that you used the word "somewhat" is a handy demonstration of my point.

#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 January 2018 - 04:51 PM

 


Mike the argument from design which your typically drawn out post condenses to is one of the better arguments for a designer deity but doesn’t really help your claim that all life was created with a wave of his hand a few thousand years ago because that deity could equally have used evolution to arrive at the diversity and complexity of life that we see today. In fact it must have happened this way with or without the guidance of a deity given that the YEC position has been overwhelming shown to be absurd given what we know about the age of the rocks and the fossils contained therein (of course you deny that thousands of experts know what they're talking about that but only because you have to).

I say one of the better arguments but still not a good one when you scratch under the surface. It is comparing something we know has not arisen naturally but has been designed by humans (like Paley’s watch) to something that has not been designed by humans (an organism such as the Bombardier beetle) so it is not comparing like with like. Watches and bridges and buildings are not biological entities and are not capable of producing variant copies of themselves to be subject to selection and modification of form. We have direct observational evidence that a watch is designed, not so for a supernatural being. You are assuming a conclusion based on an analogy, nothing more. It’s just an assertion, you are saying it looks designed so therefore it is but this assumption falls down if there are two different ways of producing functional complexity in the universe – artifacts made by beings with adequate intelligence (such as humans) – which is demonstrated - and a completely different class of objects (lifeforms) that arise through descent with modification – which has not been demonstrated to require an intelligent designer, you just want it to be.



#15 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 January 2018 - 05:13 PM

"But evolution could be overturned at a stroke if we were to find a fossil that could not be plausibly accounted for, such as a whale in the Cambrian or a sloth in the Carboniferous (for example)."

LOL.. No way.. Even YOU dont believe that..


Find one and try me then. Not just a whale or sloth, any modern mammal, or bird from those periods. Quite a gamble on my part don't you think since we've only examined a tiny proportion of the corresponding strata.  I could be left with Carboniferous ostrich egg on my face.
 

It is amusing to see you assert that people who think that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" (when we have KNOWN decay rates that demonstrate otherwise by a factor of 100) and all the dinosaur bones being loaded with carbon 14 is not a problem would suddenly stop the biology textbook presses and become anti evolutionists based on Whale in the Cambrian or a Sloth in the Carboniferous..

.

Why do you need to use hyperbole to make your case look plausible ? I wouldn't describe 1 to 4% (which has been explained to you ad nauseum) of modern C14 levels "loaded" and you never bother explaining why all organic remains are not indeed loaded with C14 given that you think none of it is more than 4500 yrs old when there should be significantly more than 50% given the 5700 yr half life. That and the absence of detectable C14 in Pleistocene bones as I have mentioned multiple times with no answer.

 

Also amusing how you continue to dismiss the KNOWN and FIXED radioisotope decay rates and persist with a claimed known rate for red blood cells which you merely assert and have never demonstrated...
 

Please dont insult your own intellegence..


The irony of incorrectly spelling intelligence ;)



#16 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 January 2018 - 08:38 PM

A well spotted inconsistency BK, that would have got you 2 points from judge mikey, in our trial. I didn't spot that inconsistency but it is clearly there, we are so often told that we just have to throw a dice with 7 dots on it, by Wibble, he repeats this mantra but as you have shown, we have already thrown one with 20 dots on it. Wibble: "Now throw one with 8." Wibble; "Now throw one with 9."Wibble "now throw one with 10" Until my arm swells with the throwing because we both know he deceives himself by pretending any evidence could change his mind. If he can read the Bombardier beetle article and think such evidence is better evidence of evolution then I can only laugh. :get_a_clue:

It's more like you've been repeatedly told that an apple is needed, but you keep throwing grapes and declaring victory. Not only are you overestimating the impact of what you have, what you have is a fundamentally different thing than what is called for.The presence of unexpected evidence of blood cells or carbon-14 may require revision of some theories, but that revision is along the lines of "blood cells can be preserved for longer than we thought", not "this changes everything we know". Even if we take them at what creationists assert is their face value, neither addresses evolution directly. Both are claimed to demonstrate a young earth, which leads to there not being enough time for evolution to operate. A whale in the Cambrian is different in both respects, because it directly contradicts the possibility of a coherent evolutionary explanation of the fossil record or the nested hierarchy of life.
"The presence of unexpected evidence of blood cells or carbon-14 may require revision of some theories, but that revision is along the lines of "blood cells can be preserved for longer than we thought",

LOL.... At NO POINT does the thought ever even enter your realm of conceivabilty to invoke occams razor does it...


"Even if we take them at what creationists assert is their face value, neither addresses evolution directly."

Oh Really? So Young Dinosaurs doesnt affect "Evolution" directly?

No worries, we are already aware of that.. No reason to conform what is obvious..


THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

By Jim Thinnsen



"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

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

Richard Dawkins

#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 January 2018 - 09:28 PM

"But evolution could be overturned at a stroke if we were to find a fossil that could not be plausibly accounted for, such as a whale in the Cambrian or a sloth in the Carboniferous (for example)."
LOL.. No way.. Even YOU dont believe that..

Find one and try me then. Not just a whale or sloth, any modern mammal, or bird from those periods. Quite a gamble on my part don't you think since we've only examined a tiny proportion of the corresponding strata. I could be left with Carboniferous ostrich egg on my face.

It is amusing to see you assert that people who think that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" (when we have KNOWN decay rates that demonstrate otherwise by a factor of 100) and all the dinosaur bones being loaded with carbon 14 is not a problem would suddenly stop the biology textbook presses and become anti evolutionists based on Whale in the Cambrian or a Sloth in the Carboniferous..

.
Why do you need to use hyperbole to make your case look plausible ? I wouldn't describe 1 to 4% (which has been explained to you ad nauseum) of modern C14 levels "loaded" and you never bother explaining why all organic remains are not indeed loaded with C14 given that you think none of it is more than 4500 yrs old when there should be significantly more than 50% given the 5700 yr half life. That and the absence of detectable C14 in Pleistocene bones as I have mentioned multiple times with no answer.

Also amusing how you continue to dismiss the KNOWN and FIXED radioisotope decay rates and persist with a claimed known rate for red blood cells which you merely assert and have never demonstrated...

Please dont insult your own intellegence..

The irony of incorrectly spelling intelligence ;)


"I could be left with Carboniferous ostrich egg on my face."

Which would mean ZERO as you would still cling to the Myth of "Evolution" as being true (Somehow)

"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses."

(Dr. Norman Macbeth)

#18 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 04 January 2018 - 10:56 PM

LOL.... At NO POINT does the thought ever even enter your realm of conceivabilty to invoke occams razor does it...

What do you think that's going to do to help your case? Taken at what you claim is face value the blood decay rate is in direct conflict with quite a few other dating methods that are based on factors that are known to have significantly less variance than organic decay. If the blood is right, we must assume that those other things are wrong in a consistent matter because of some as yet unknown factor.

That aside, the only thing I can think of that's less parsimonious than your desired conclusion of "Earth was created 6000 years ago by an omnipotent being" is "Earth was created 6000 years ago by two omnipotent beings". I'm starting to seriously question whether anyone else on this forum actually understands what parsimony means.
 

Oh Really? So Young Dinosaurs doesnt affect "Evolution" directly?

As I said in the very next sentence after the one you quoted, dinosaurs being younger than we thought is an issue for the time span available for evolution to operate. It doesn't address the actual mechanisms of evolution directly.
 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

By Jim Thinnsen

"I have to be honest.. I DONT Understand how Evolution "Works" Do YOU think it is because I am Stupid? Maybe so.." -Jim Thinnsen

I'd take that guy's opinions on evolution with a grain of salt if I were you.

#19 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 January 2018 - 12:28 PM

LOL.... At NO POINT does the thought ever even enter your realm of conceivabilty to invoke occams razor does it...

What do you think that's going to do to help your case? Taken at what you claim is face value the blood decay rate is in direct conflict with quite a few other dating methods that are based on factors that are known to have significantly less variance than organic decay. If the blood is right, we must assume that those other things are wrong in a consistent matter because of some as yet unknown factor.That aside, the only thing I can think of that's less parsimonious than your desired conclusion of "Earth was created 6000 years ago by an omnipotent being" is "Earth was created 6000 years ago by two omnipotent beings". I'm starting to seriously question whether anyone else on this forum actually understands what parsimony means. 

Oh Really? So Young Dinosaurs doesnt affect "Evolution" directly?

As I said in the very next sentence after the one you quoted, dinosaurs being younger than we thought is an issue for the time span available for evolution to operate. It doesn't address the actual mechanisms of evolution directly. 

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHINGBy Jim Thinnsen

"I have to be honest.. I DONT Understand how Evolution "Works" Do YOU think it is because I am Stupid? Maybe so.." -Jim ThinnsenI'd take that guy's opinions on evolution with a grain of salt if I were you.

"If the blood is right, we must assume that those other things are wrong"

YES SIR! Except we also have the Corraborating hard data of Carbon 14 content found in Dinosaurs as well..

Remember Mikey the Whiz and his anology of a sunken ship with coins found in its trasure chest with dates on them? I applies here as well..

#20 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 January 2018 - 02:32 PM

"If the blood is right, we must assume that those other things are wrong"

YES SIR! Except we also have the Corraborating hard data of Carbon 14 content found in Dinosaurs as well..

Remember Mikey the Whiz and his anology of a sunken ship with coins found in its trasure chest with dates on them? I applies here as well..


Do you think repeating the same refuted points endlessly, ignoring the pertinent questions asked of you and refusing to back up your claims with evidence is a creditable way to take part in a discussion ?
 

Why do you need to use hyperbole to make your case look plausible ? I wouldn't describe 1 to 4% (which has been explained to you ad nauseum) of modern C14 levels "loaded" and you never bother explaining why all organic remains are not indeed loaded with C14 given that you think none of it is more than 4500 yrs old when there should be significantly more than 50% given the 5700 yr half life. That and the absence of detectable C14 in Pleistocene bones as I have mentioned multiple times with no answer.
 
Also amusing how you continue to dismiss the KNOWN and FIXED radioisotope decay rates and persist with a claimed known rate for red blood cells which you merely assert and have never demonstrated...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1)