Jump to content


Photo

Critique My Argument Against Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#81 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 11 February 2018 - 01:07 AM

 

I've answered every point of your "overwhelming evidence" for the flood that you've come up with so far.


If you explained how all those chalky animals that make up the white cliffs of Dover came to die with no intervening mud layers, I missed it.
Or how the complete whale skeletons ended up in deserts, and not a few.
Or how the marine fossils got on the top of high mountains, including Everest.
Or why history starts 5000 years ago.
Or why the Mississippi's silt deposits measure out the appropriate distance.
Or why there is so much coal, oil and gas, with so much of the coal contiguous as if a huge forest was suddenly knocked down and put under pressure.
Or why there are fossils which captured animals fighting, eating and giving birth as if calamity came so fast they couldn't react.
Or why there are so many accordion rock layers that look like they were bent while they were soft, even though we're told those fifty to hundreds of feet of rock layers took millions of years to lay down. (Surely the bottom layers would have been too hard to bend so smoothly.)
Or why there's no record of the advanced technology obviously needed to build the polygonal megalithic walls in Peru and elsewhere.

I know answers are given for these, but the flood just seems like the most plausible answer.

 

 

 

WIBBLE..."Amazing how turbulent events managed to neatly stack different sediment types with millions of perfectly separated fossil assemblages, even the microorganisms....

 

 

 

CREATIONIST...   If they were so "Perfectly Separated" why the need to invent "Living Fossils" which asserts that over "500 million years" some creatures "evolved" ZERO while others "evolved" from a Microbe to a Microbiologist?

 

AND  If they were so "perfectly separated" Why do we see trees running through "millions of years" of strata??

 

 

 

 

Processes

 

 

 

250px-Transported_quartzite_block_in_lay
 
From the Grand Canyon, a transported quartzite block in Cambrian sedimentary strata, identical to quartzite found in the Precambrian layer hundreds of feet below, which flood geologists argue most likely came to rest there by means of large-scale flowing water. Note how the sediments flow smoothly around the upper left corner of the block.

 

Processes

 

If the global flood actually occurred, then it would have had a radical effect on geology, and traces of that flood would be observable today, making flood models falsifiable.

80% of the Earth's crust is covered by sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are formed by deposition by water, wind or ice, precipitation from solution, and /or growth in position by organic processes (e.g., carbonate reefs). Layered rock strata are understood to have formed as suspended sediments settled out of moving water. Some flood geologists have proposed that a global flood is the most reasonable explanation for the means by which sedimentary layers came to cover so much of the continents.

Strata formation Rapid deposition by mudflow

Flood geologists believe that rock strata are best understood as being rapidly deposited during the Global flood. They document their position with observations made at catastrophic events such as the eruption of the Mt. St. Helens volcano. During the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flows, mudflows, etc. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Given the total inability of radiometric dating to date rock strata (see radiometric dating problems), documented instances such as Mt. St. Helens to support a catastrophic interpretation of rock strata, and the inability of uniformitarianism to explain fossilization (as discussed below), flood geologists have concluded that rock strata are best interpreted as having been laid down rapidly in a massive catastrophe such as the Global flood of Noah.

Liquefaction

Sandstone_plume.jpg
 
A plume of sandstone, identical to a layer of sandstone several hundred feet below the surface, which flood geologists argue is most reasonably explained by liquefaction during the flood compression event, cementing, and subsequent erosion.

Liquefaction, a phenomenon commonly seen in quicksand and earthquakes, is the process by which water pressing up from underneath sand or soil converts the sand into a suspension. Some flood geologists have argued that during a global flood, liquefaction would have occurred on a massive scale. They argue that in a global flood scenario, the tides would be unhindered by continents, creating enormous waves circling the globe. This, in concert with tsunamis from underwater earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and landslides, would cause wave loading: alternating periods of high and low downward pressure on subterranean water. The resulting periods of liquefaction and non-liquefaction would cause the sediments to layer into strata. Geological action while the sediments were still liquefied would cause the strata to bend smoothly in places, while earthquakes would cause radical discontinuities in others.

These flood geologists argue that massive liquefaction can explain phenomena such as transported blocks, sand plumes, coal and limestone deposits, the near total purity of the 500,000 sq. mile St. Peter Sandstone, smooth bending rock strata, and aquifers, and which remain inadequately explained by mainstream geology.[1]

In contrast, recent plume experiments by creationist geologists at Creation Evidence Museum at Glen Rose, Texas, have shown that moving water always creates sedimentary layering and liquefaction always destroys layering. Given the vast amount of sedimentary layers around the world, liquefaction is argued to have played a very minor part in the geologic record. (See the video below.)

Crossbedding

Sigmoidal shaped crossbed forms, commonly found in sandstone formations, are usually attributed to aeolian desert "sand dune" conditions. The high angle of the cross bedding is consistent with sub-aerial sand dunes. However, heavily loaded, high energy water currents flowing into ponded water also deposit high angle subaqueous sigmoidal cross beds. The size of the sigmoidal cross beds is determined by a combination of water depth and velocity.[2] The Coconino and Navajo sandstones from Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico are consistent with formation beneath floodwaters.

Canyon formation Submarine canyons

As the continents divided and the flood subsided, the water would flow into the new low-lying areas, which would fill to become seas, leaving the sediments to dry out of their liquefied state. The runoff during this period predicts the creation of extensive submarine canyon extensions to rivers, as the level of the sea would be much lower during this time, so that the rivers would remain rivers far out into today's "seas." Such extensions are found in the Congo, Amazon, Ganges, and Hudson rivers. They extend for thousands of miles underwater, thousands of feet under the sea; they are as deep as the Grand Canyon in places, and although not well understood by the mainstream scientific community, they are generally understood to have developed when sea-levels were significantly lower than today. Flood geologists argue that such submarine canyon extensions were formed as the floodwaters receded from the continents.

Land canyons

Flood geologists also conclude that land canyons such as the Grand Canyon were most likely formed during catastrophic hot mud slides such as those observed during the eruption of Mt. St. Helens. One particular hot mud slide at Mt. St. Helens carved a canyon 140 ft. deep and 17 miles long in a single day. Only a thin creek remains at the bottom of the canyon today, which would likely be interpreted as having carved the canyon "over millions of years," if it were not known first-hand that the canyon was carved in a single day.

Loess formation

Loess is a geologic term that refers to deposits of silt (sediment with particles 2-64 microns in diameter) that have been laid down by wind action (aeolian activity to geologists). As Genesis records:

As the wind blew and the flood waters receded, the mountain tops would have been the first to be exposed. The hydrologically sorted sediments from the land areas first exposed would then be carried by the wind and deposited elsewhere. We would thus expect loess deposits to be associated with high altitudes as we find in the Loess Plateau, China.

300px-Loess_Plateau_China.jpg
 
Loess Plateau in mainland China.

The loess in China is not very far away from the Tibetan plateau[3], which is known as the 'roof of the world'. The Ordos Desert, the Loess Plateau's current source of sediments, is just north the Loess Plateau, however the Tibetan plateau could have been an earlier source of sediments. While the Loess Plateau is 300 m thick, the deposits consist of different types of material, and there is red clay underlying the upper layers of loess. While the upper layers (162.5 m[4]) do show evidence of being deposited by wind,[5] the underlying red clay does not show such a pattern, suggesting the possibility that the red clay may be flood deposits while the loess is post-flood, with most of it deposited during the early post-flood period by massive post-flood sand storms.

Fossilization

The flood provided an excellent environment for the required quick burial of fossils. Preservation of complete animal or plant remains requires quick burial by sediments. Dead animals or plants which are not buried quickly decompose or are eaten before they can become preserved. Fossils are often found buried in hundreds of feet of solid, unbroken rock strata. Flood geologists infer that those rock strata were laid down in a relatively quick period, burying the organisms before they had time to decompose.

Flood geologists point to the existence of large oil deposits as the result of the accumulation of large amounts of dead plant and animal matter during the flood which were subsequently compressed below the surface. They argue that there is no evidence of fossil fuels being formed today, or any clear mechanism for how it could occur without catastrophe. They argue that the flood provides the necessary catastrophe.

Fossil pattern mechanisms

A major aspect of flood geology is attempting to describe and explain the distribution of fossils throughout the rock strata. Because the uniformitarian model dismisses outright any fossils which conflict with their model,[6] no quantification of such fossils is possible. Creationists have proposed numerous mechanisms able to produce fossil patterns during flood conditions. See flood mechanics for further explanation of this.

Ecological zonation

Organisms living in the same habitat would tend to get buried in similar rock at similar depths. Those in the same area and habitat would tend to be found in the same rock, while those near by in a different habitat would tend to be found in different rock. Also organisms living on the bottom of a body of water would tend to be found lower than those living on hills on land, with shore dwellers being in the middle.

Hydrological sorting

The remains of animals, particularly invertebrates, would tend to sort like any other form in moving water. Buoyancy, size and shape would all be factors. Buoyancy is one factor that cannot be determined from fossils.

Nsp.gif

Hydrological sorting in flowing water results in stratification moving horizontally as seen above rather than vertically. A typical cross section of such deposits is the same as is seen in the strata seen in rocks.[7][8]

Differential Escape

More mobile and faster organisms would tend to seek higher ground.[7] This separates organisms based on motility and at least in part intelligence. This would tend to separate men from trilobites, amphibians, and dinosaurs.

Biogeographic zonation

Animals which lived in the same area would tend to be found together. Those from other parts of the world would not be found with them. For example if a global flood occurred today, one would not expect to find elephants and opossums buried together.

Tectonic activity

By itself tectonic activity would not affect fossil order. But it could have pushed some strata over others before the sediment hardened. There is evidence of this at the Ghadames Basin.

Puzzling fossils explained Layered rock

Concrete3.jpg
This is a chip of concrete with visible layers, evident by edge chipping.

Standard concrete can provide a good model for how layered rock has formed, such as those of the Green River Formation. The picture at right shows a slab taken after a concrete spill occurred. Several layers of concrete formed as a result of the spill, which resemble the layers observed in slabs from Green River Formation.

200px-Fish1.jpg
 
Slab from the Green River Formation

The image at left is a fossil fish in a slab from the Green River Formation, which has multiple visible layers. Such specimens are often found as polystrate fossils, passing through many layers. Furthermore this fish has been flattened indicating that it was exposed to significant pressure before it was fossilized. These conditions strongly argue in favor of catastrophic burial.

200px-Fish2.jpg
 
Same type of edge chipping

The same type of edge chipping can be seen in the slab as in the concrete. This strongly suggests that the Green River Formation resulted from liquefied material resembling concrete, such as massive mud slides. This may have been a post flood lake that had large mud slides dumped into it, rather than the annual deposits claimed by evolutionists. The mudslides could have been from the break up of other large post flood lakes.

Mud Cracks

150px-Concrete1.jpg
 
Desiccation Cracks in Concrete
150px-Concrete2.jpg
 
Subsurface Desiccation Cracks in Concrete

Desiccation cracks are usually formed by drying mud. Since such cracks usually form only at the surface, subsurface desiccation cracks have been used as a claim against flood geology. However, at the concrete spill mentioned above dried desiccation cracks formed in concrete, which closely resemble those found in the fossil record. Interestingly subsurface cracks were also found to have formed in drying concrete as shown in the image at left.

100px-Dsc_013.jpg
 
Click on image to see similar cracks in a natural rock.

This illustrates a mechanism for the formation of dessication cracks following liquefaction. It is also a clear example of how fossil subsurface "mud" cracks as it dries. The cracks formed in the lower layer without it being on the surface.

Fossil burrows

The first assumption is that fossil burrows are actually burrows rather than some other types of structures. This assertion is moot.

The other assumption is that fossil burrows are dwellings but there is evidence suggesting that they are attempted escape routes of buried organisms. If a burrowing organism is suddenly buried it won't accept death passively. It will try to dig its way out. Fossil burrows are consistent with this.[9]

Fossil footprints

There are at least five possible explanations for fossil animal tracks. It needs to be noted that none of these are mutually exclusive and none explain all fossil tracks, but together they seem to do a good job of explaining them all.

  • Misinterpretations are features in rocks such as air bubbles, that happen to cause a track like pattern. These probably account for only a small portion of fossil tracks and then only those attributed to small animals.
  • Post-flood disasters are cases where tracks are covered by sediment layers that were laid down by disasters that followed the flood.
  • Post-flood tracks in soft flood sediment include cases in which the tracks were made post flood on exposed sediment, that had not yet hardened into rock. It could also occur in places where small pieces of rock came loose and were liquefied by rain or another source of water into a concrete type mixture, that hardened after an animal crossed it. This second type would be found separate from the main formation, but would be of the same type of rock.
  • Small buried animal trapped in an air bubble is when an animal is caught in an air bubble and was able to move some before it died.
  • Early flood tracks are footprints that were made while their habitats were being buried. Many animals would not have been killed instantly, but could have survived much of the early part of the flood. During the early stages tides and other fluctuations in water levels would expose portions of sediment. Animals would tend to seek exposed land. Those that made it to such places would leave tracks. In places where the water came and went several times, the same animal could have left several layers of tracks.

Some of the observations which support this hypothesis are:

  1. Dinosaur tracks[10] at Utah and Colorado are associated with coal mines, which suggest that the tracks were made while their forests were in the process of being buried.
  2. McKee and later researchers[11] discovered that the Coconino sandstone below the footprints of the Hermit Trail consisted of coarser grains, while finer grains were above these footprints. This is expected from hydrologic sorting.
  3. Gilmore (1927)[12] pointed out that of the hundreds of trackways that have been observed, almost all of them are going up the slopes of the cross bedded layers. This is expected from animals seeking higher ground.[13]

High-altitude marine sediments

Marine sediments[14] have been found on top of Mount Everest, implying that the flood covered the highest mountains, though this does not imply that Everest was at its current height at the beginning of the flood, if it existed at all.


  • Calypsis4 likes this

#82 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 13 February 2018 - 01:51 PM

It is clearly obvious that poor Natalie suffers from a form of Stockholm Syndrome where the brainwashing and indoctrination using lies suggested by Zinovic worked like it was intended to... It worked on you as well also.. It appears that you still claim to believe in it on a website called Evolution fairytale where your religion of accidental apes has been completely demolished in hundreds of different ways..

There's not really any way to argue against the idea that anyone who disagrees with you only does so because they've been brainwashed.

Slightly inaccurate but instructional analogies are how a lot of early education works. Explaining evolution using the designs of Mickey Mouse over time is "brainwashing and indoctrination using lies" in the same sense that showing kids balls and sticks to represent molecules to teach them about chemistry or telling them "i before e except after c" to teach them spelling are.
 

No, no. A single attempt or all at once would violate everything that Darwin taught us. He insisted there would be "numerous, successive, slight modifications."

First, he didn't insist on only slight changes. He proposed that slight changes and natural selection could explain the diversity of life. That doesn't require that those slight changes are the only kind that's possible.

Second, it wouldn't matter if he did insist such a thing. Darwin isn't the final authority on evolution. If larger changes turn out to be possible, it would be perfectly fine to say "Welp, guess Chuck was wrong about that one" and revise the theory to include that new information.

#83 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 13 February 2018 - 02:27 PM

First, he didn't insist on only slight changes. He proposed that slight changes and natural selection could explain the diversity of life. That doesn't require that those slight changes are the only kind that's possible.


OK. Good. Big changes are easier to refute. The bigger the change, the more incredible the odds. There are 10130 permutations of a 100aa protein, 10260 for a 200aa protein and if that's not enough, 10651 for a 500aa protein.

Yes, these numbers are meaningless because the most adverse probability that's still remotely plausible would be well below 1 in 10130.

#84 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 13 February 2018 - 03:22 PM

OK. Good. Big changes are easier to refute. The bigger the change, the more incredible the odds. There are 10130 permutations of a 100aa protein, 10260 for a 200aa protein and if that's not enough, 10651 for a 500aa protein.

Yes, these numbers are meaningless because the most adverse probability that's still remotely plausible would be well below 1 in 10130.

I think I found the problem with this whole thread:
 

Yes, these numbers are meaningless


Wibble's point seems to have been that assigning probabilities to proteins forming as if the amino acids were being pulled out of a hat one (or a hundred) at a time isn't valid if that's not actually how they're supposed to have originated.

#85 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:20 PM

Wibble's point seems to have been that assigning probabilities to proteins forming as if the amino acids were being pulled out of a hat one (or a hundred) at a time isn't valid if that's not actually how they're supposed to have originated.


Right. This has been a point of frustration. What mechanism can I propose? An amino acid added per generation? Duplication of a gene which is subsequently mutated one base pair per generation? A whole gene inserted at once (from where)? Nothing is plausible. Every suggestion is unrealistic. And why? I'm pretty sure the real reason why is because there is no evolution. But I'm trying to propose a realistic scenario to start with so I can try to calculate realistic odds.

Any suggestions?

#86 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 13 February 2018 - 07:43 PM

It is clearly obvious that poor Natalie suffers from a form of Stockholm Syndrome where the brainwashing and indoctrination using lies suggested by Zinovic worked like it was intended to... It worked on you as well also.. It appears that you still claim to believe in it on a website called Evolution fairytale where your religion of accidental apes has been completely demolished in hundreds of different ways..

There's not really any way to argue against the idea that anyone who disagrees with you only does so because they've been brainwashed.Slightly inaccurate but instructional analogies are how a lot of early education works. Explaining evolution using the designs of Mickey Mouse over time is "brainwashing and indoctrination using lies" in the same sense that showing kids balls and sticks to represent molecules to teach them about chemistry or telling them "i before e except after c" to teach them spelling are.

No, no. A single attempt or all at once would violate everything that Darwin taught us. He insisted there would be "numerous, successive, slight modifications."

First, he didn't insist on only slight changes. He proposed that slight changes and natural selection could explain the diversity of life. That doesn't require that those slight changes are the only kind that's possible.Second, it wouldn't matter if he did insist such a thing. Darwin isn't the final authority on evolution. If larger changes turn out to be possible, it would be perfectly fine to say "Welp, guess Chuck was wrong about that one" and revise the theory to include that new information.
"There's not really any way to argue against the idea that anyone who disagrees with you only does so because they've been brainwashed"

Well.. If you have a better explanation for why people believe that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" OR that self replicating DNA molecules encoded with millions of base pairs of SPECIFIED genetic information could have created themselves out of dirt heat air and water OR while some jelly fish were evolving into humans, it's brothers were evolving into jellyfish..
Etc etc etc.. I could go on for many pages...

THEREFORE, PLEASE TELL US...

If the term "Brainwashed" DOESNT apply.. Please tell us what DOES!!!

Does the term "Indoctrinated" sound better to you? Take your pick.


"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults."

(Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#87 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 14 February 2018 - 08:59 AM

Well.. If you have a better explanation for why people believe that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" OR that self replicating DNA molecules encoded with millions of base pairs of SPECIFIED genetic information could have created themselves out of dirt heat air and water OR while some jelly fish were evolving into humans, it's brothers were evolving into jellyfish..
Etc etc etc.. I could go on for many pages...

The better explanation is that people have looked at the evidence from a different persepctive than yours and come to a different conclusion. I'm sure many of them find it just as implausible that you honestly believe that the universe is ~6,000 years old and that one time a guy hitched a ride across the Mediterranean inside a giant fish, but I think they're also somewhat in the wrong to dismiss the idea that you came by those beliefs honestly.

Do you at least recognize the logical dead end in saying that they must be brainwashed, and that any insistence to the contrary is still more evidence of said brainwashing?

#88 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,051 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 14 February 2018 - 02:06 PM

The better explanation is that people have looked at the evidence from a different persepctive than yours and come to a different conclusion.

an even better explanation is that this stuff (chemistry) follows rules and laws.
for example, we will NEVER have a compound called "helium uranium", i don't care how hard you pray or wish or hope or talk in tongues it won't happen.

OTOH, i cannot fathom how the cell ever came to be here, and apparently no one else can either.
science claims that the RNA world is a partial solution, but so far it has failed to produce results.
you can be sure that science has thrown its best engineering minds, and devoted enormous resources, to the task.

#89 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 14 February 2018 - 05:19 PM

Well.. If you have a better explanation for why people believe that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 million years" OR that self replicating DNA molecules encoded with millions of base pairs of SPECIFIED genetic information could have created themselves out of dirt heat air and water OR while some jelly fish were evolving into humans, it's brothers were evolving into jellyfish..Etc etc etc.. I could go on for many pages...

The better explanation is that people have looked at the evidence from a different persepctive than yours and come to a different conclusion. I'm sure many of them find it just as implausible that you honestly believe that the universe is ~6,000 years old and that one time a guy hitched a ride across the Mediterranean inside a giant fish, but I think they're also somewhat in the wrong to dismiss the idea that you came by those beliefs honestly.Do you at least recognize the logical dead end in saying that they must be brainwashed, and that any insistence to the contrary is still more evidence of said brainwashing?



"The better explanation is that people have looked at the evidence from a different persepctive than yours and come to a different conclusion"


So pretending that DNA can create itself is a "Different Conclusion"? Based on WHAT exactly?

Pretending that over "500 million years" while SOME Jellyfish were "Evolving" ZERO, OTHER Jellyfish were "Evolving" into a human" is a "Different Conclusion"? Based on WHAT exactly?

Pretending that Dinosaur red blood cells can last for "100 Million Years" is a "Different Conclusion" Based on WHAT exactly??

Pretending that all 10 Vital organs from Microbe evolving into a Microbiologist somehow happened without anyone even being able to EVER PROVIDE A PLAUSIBLE ORDER, is a "Different Conclusion"? Based on WHAT exactly??


Ah... We know what the different conclusion is based on, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with scientific rigor....

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."


R Lewontin
  • mike the wiz likes this

#90 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:17 AM

Based on WHAT exactly?

Based on an extremely successful method for making explanations and predictions about the natural world.

Whether that method is correct or even plausible is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether believing in that method is the product of brainwashing. People honestly believe a lot of weird things. It's not actually correct that having a rabbit's foot on your person will change unrelated events in your favor, but such a belief isn't the product of brainwashing or indoctrination.

Ah... We know what the different conclusion is based on, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with scientific rigor....

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."

R Lewontin

There is no such thing as "scientific rigor" if supernatural explanations can't be disregarded.

The very next sentence after what you quoted offers some insight as to why:

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


That aside, that still doesn't have anything to do with indoctrination or brainwashing.

#91 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 February 2018 - 08:17 PM

 

Based on WHAT exactly?

Based on an extremely successful method for making explanations and predictions about the natural world.

Whether that method is correct or even plausible is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether believing in that method is the product of brainwashing. People honestly believe a lot of weird things. It's not actually correct that having a rabbit's foot on your person will change unrelated events in your favor, but such a belief isn't the product of brainwashing or indoctrination.

Ah... We know what the different conclusion is based on, and it sure doesn't have anything to do with scientific rigor....

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, FOR WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR."

R Lewontin

There is no such thing as "scientific rigor" if supernatural explanations can't be disregarded.

The very next sentence after what you quoted offers some insight as to why:

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


That aside, that still doesn't have anything to do with indoctrination or brainwashing.

 

 

"Based on an extremely successful method for making explanations and predictions about the natural world." :laugh_point:

 

 

Ah, Yes.. The "extremely successful method" for making explanations and predictions" 

 

 

"Evolution" is able to "predict" 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" 500 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

 

So evolution can be "predicted to happen"....

 

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

 

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

 

Sometimes it can be tough to distinguish between "Evolution"

and God Almighty himself!!  :worship:

 

 

"It’s impossible by micro-mutation to form any new species."

 

Richard Goldschmidt..Dr. Evo and  inventor of "Hopeful Monsters"



#92 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 16 February 2018 - 04:46 AM

There is no such thing as "scientific rigor" if supernatural explanations can't be disregarded.

The very next sentence after what you quoted offers some insight as to why:

 

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.


That aside, that still doesn't have anything to do with indoctrination or brainwashing.

 


The above statements seems ignorant in light of modern day philosophy and historical evidence. The above statements might make one believe that you just bought into the philosophy of methodological naturalism or something similar.

1 - It's not that the theists believe miracles may happen (even if they do). It's rather that they believe miracle has happened. Jesus resurrection is one of the more known example. So what philosophical reason would there be (for a theist) to believe that it is (in principle) impossible for miracles to occur? That is the first question that needs to be addressed.
2 - The second question that needs to be addressed is whether miracles (if they are possible in principle) has anything to do with science or scientific rigor. In order to answer that question we have to understand the philosophy of science, which is not an easy task.
3 - And finally modern philosophers are arguing wether it is the theistic worldview that has problem with science, or if the problem with science is more related to the naturalistic worldview.

The whole idea that there is some sort of conflict between a theistic worldview and science is just an old myth. And when it comes to belief in methodological naturalism it needs an epistemology that rests on empirical philosophies of pragmatism or logical positivism, which seems utterly unfounded.

So do you popoi actually know what you believe in and why you believe in that?



#93 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 16 February 2018 - 09:04 AM

The above statements seems ignorant in light of modern day philosophy and historical evidence. The above statements might make one believe that you just bought into the philosophy of methodological naturalism or something similar.

1 - It's not that the theists believe miracles may happen (even if they do). It's rather that they believe miracle has happened. Jesus resurrection is one of the more known example. So what philosophical reason would there be (for a theist) to believe that it is (in principle) impossible for miracles to occur? That is the first question that needs to be addressed.

It doesn't, actually. The question isn't whether there's reason to believe miracles are impossible. It's inherent to the idea of a "miracle" that there can't be such a reason. The question is whether science can get done without setting aside miraculous explanations. If you can't assume you aren't looking at a miracle when you observe something, you can't have any confidence that your data means anything. If you can't assume that other people in the past weren't looking at miracles when they observed that thing, you can't have any confidence that their data means anything with respect to the present. If you can't assume that a miracle won't happen to the thing as soon as you turn away, you can't have any confidence that anybody's data means anything with respect to the future. That isn't necessarily incompatible with a theistic view, but I think you do have to at least assume that no entities are running around messing with things on a regular basis.
 

The whole idea that there is some sort of conflict between a theistic worldview and science is just an old myth. And when it comes to belief in methodological naturalism it needs an epistemology that rests on empirical philosophies of pragmatism or logical positivism, which seems utterly unfounded.

Feel free to present some counter arguments if you want. I'm not terribly impressed with "some philosophers disagree".

#94 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 16 February 2018 - 10:16 AM

If you can't assume that a miracle won't happen to the thing as soon as you turn away, you can't have any confidence that anybody's data means anything with respect to the future. That isn't necessarily incompatible with a theistic view, but I think you do have to at least assume that no entities are running around messing with things on a regular basis.


True. But I'm not aware that anyone is proposing that miracles are done on a regular basis.

If we accept the Lord God of the Bible as the intelligence that did the design, then we know he created everything and then rested. He's not "running around messing with things on a regular basis." The Miracles that have been done since then have been very few and very specificly for the purpose of glorifying God so they're not hidden.

We can say that life itself is a miracle but if we do, it's an extremely consistent and repeatable miracle.

#95 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 February 2018 - 08:30 PM

The above statements seems ignorant in light of modern day philosophy and historical evidence. The above statements might make one believe that you just bought into the philosophy of methodological naturalism or something similar.1 - It's not that the theists believe miracles may happen (even if they do). It's rather that they believe miracle has happened. Jesus resurrection is one of the more known example. So what philosophical reason would there be (for a theist) to believe that it is (in principle) impossible for miracles to occur? That is the first question that needs to be addressed.

It doesn't, actually. The question isn't whether there's reason to believe miracles are impossible. It's inherent to the idea of a "miracle" that there can't be such a reason. The question is whether science can get done without setting aside miraculous explanations. If you can't assume you aren't looking at a miracle when you observe something, you can't have any confidence that your data means anything. If you can't assume that other people in the past weren't looking at miracles when they observed that thing, you can't have any confidence that their data means anything with respect to the present. If you can't assume that a miracle won't happen to the thing as soon as you turn away, you can't have any confidence that anybody's data means anything with respect to the future. That isn't necessarily incompatible with a theistic view, but I think you do have to at least assume that no entities are running around messing with things on a regular basis. 

The whole idea that there is some sort of conflict between a theistic worldview and science is just an old myth. And when it comes to belief in methodological naturalism it needs an epistemology that rests on empirical philosophies of pragmatism or logical positivism, which seems utterly unfounded.

Feel free to present some counter arguments if you want. I'm not terribly impressed with "some philosophers disagree".

The problem with your assumption of "Miracles" being "Unscientific" is.. Just what is the definition of a "Miracle"? Why wouldnt Self replicating DNA emerging uncaused from dirt heat air and water be considered a "Miracle"? Unless you believe in Panspermia... As an Atheist you MUST believe that that is what had to have actually happened.. Which sounds easier to you? Walking on Water? OR DNA Encoded with millions of base pairs of specified complexity creating itself by accident for no reason..?

Here.. I think we can merely replace the word "Magic" with the word "Miracles" instead and it changes nothing...


I thought it might be a good idea to set the record straight on who REALLY believes in "Magic".. (Miracles)

Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..


Accidentalists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What must be considered Hypocrisy on Steroids..


It goes something like this..


In the beginning, NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded (Or suddenly "Expanded) and created all of the matter in the known universe.. no "Magic" needed LOL..


THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of base pairs with specified / irreducibly 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,!!!! No "Magic" there ..LOL


Or the fact that Man's (Or his "Ancestor(s)) 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?? No "Magic" Required" LOL


Oh.. 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 (Or it's FIRST "Egg Laying" Ancestor) GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE???? No.. No magic Needed huh??


Or


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 10,000 YEARS!!!! Noo... No Magic required there....

Or

How about the European Green woodpecker that has a tongue that wraps around the back of its head, over the top of its brain and through its right nostril, We OBSERVE that WITHOUT that special tongue, The bird CANT EAT and DIES,,,, How did that tongue "Evolve" over millions of years? Nice MagicTrick HUH??

Or

The hummingbird has wings that flap at up to 100 times per second so it can hover at eat. Without those special wings, It CANT EAT and DIES, According to the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth, That hummingbird supposedly evolved over 20 million years from a Tree Swift (Common glider) Who has enough Imagination to believe THAT level of Magic???

Or

How did the Bombardier Beetle manage to somehow "Evolve" the Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems AT THE SAME TIME in order to be able to perfectly control his defense system YET not blow himself up? No"Magic" Necessary right? LOL

I could go on and on about "Magic" but I hope you get the idea..

I suggest you Atheists / Accidentalists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..


I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that "Evolution" is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because...


"Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins

#96 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:25 PM

Nice bit of elephant hurling BK.

By the way, have you got any evidence that this stated belief of yours is correct, or is it merely a faith position ? I hope you understand that 'faith' is just a wild stab in the dark, proffered in the absence of, or indeed in contradiction to any evidence.
 

Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..



#97 popoi

popoi

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2018 - 05:27 PM

The problem with your assumption of "Miracles" being "Unscientific" is.. Just what is the definition of a "Miracle"?

There’s probably a lot of nuance to worry about to come up with a robust definition, but off the top of my head I’d say “an event that could not occur through the consistent operation of natural laws”
 

Why wouldn’t Self replicating DNA emerging uncaused from dirt heat air and water be considered a "Miracle”?

Because it’s not such an event.
 

Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..

So “magic” by your definition, sure.
 

Accidentalists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What must be considered Hypocrisy on Steroids..

Here’s where you lose me. There is no hypocrisy at work here. Methodological naturalism is very consistent on this subject. If a thing happened, there is a natural cause for it. If may be the case that we don’t know specifically what that cause is or how it worked, and we may get in to a situation where previous evidence led us down the wrong path, but it is axiomatic that there is a cause and it is within the realm of consistently operating nature.

What isn’t consistent is your application of such explanations. You’re perfectly fine invoking science when it suits your purpose, as when you talk about “known decay rates” meaning evidence of blood cells in dinosaur bones can’t be old. (Leaving aside that this is a conflict between two different lines of evidence that hasn’t been resolved yet) But when it comes to things like distant starlight indicating that the sources are too far away for a young universe, you start talking about ways that evidence could be confounded by miracles. If dinosaur bones didn’t seem to be inconsistent with an old earth I’m sure you’d do your best to find some reason to disregard that evidence too.

 

No "Magic" there ..LOL

There isn’t any point in addressing most of this. You have no argument other than that you find those things implausible, which is largely based on your assumption that the bible is true and anything that disagrees with it must be false.
 

How about the European Green woodpecker that has a tongue that wraps around the back of its head, over the top of its brain and through its right nostril, We OBSERVE that WITHOUT that special tongue, The bird CANT EAT and DIES,,,, How did that tongue "Evolve" over millions of years? Nice MagicTrick HUH??

I did want to call this out specifically because there was a long discussion about it in a previous thread. The tongue evolved by getting longer. There is no special impossible thing that needed to happen. The main thing that’s different about woodpeckers is that the hyoid horn at the back of the tongue where the muscles attach is longer. Most creationist sources I saw talking about the woodpecker got the anatomy wrong, which I think leads to a lot of people thinking this argument is way better than it is. I also think that’s a much more common situation than people realize.

#98 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 February 2018 - 06:05 PM

There isn’t any point in addressing most of this. You have no argument other than that you find those things implausible, which is largely based on your assumption that the bible is true and anything that disagrees with it must be false.

 

This is the crux of BK's position. He will never get involved in any scientific discussion because he has no knowledge or desire to learn, in place of that he argues from personal incredulity. Closed and impenetrable.

Top 0.001% on origins, who's he trying to kid ?
 



#99 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 February 2018 - 08:20 PM

There isn’t any point in addressing most of this. You have no argument other than that you find those things implausible, which is largely based on your assumption that the bible is true and anything that disagrees with it must be false.


This is the crux of BK's position. He will never get involved in any scientific discussion because he has no knowledge or desire to learn, in place of that he argues from personal incredulity. Closed and impenetrable.
Top 0.001% on origins, who's he trying to kid ?


I DID Try ti have that discussion.. Remember when your "Expert" on the Evolution of Organ systems chickened out and avoided the topic with me? You must remember.. Prof Andreas Rheasa Schmidt? Yeah.. He DECLINED to get involved... Are you telling me that the "Order of Vital Organs" is NOT SCIENTIFIC?

BTW..

I keep on correcting you.. It is closer to .00001% Why do you keep on with the insults?

#100 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 February 2018 - 09:43 PM

I keep on correcting you.. It is closer to .00001% Why do you keep on with the insults?

 

Just to be clear, 0.00001% of the population is roughly 760 individuals. Let's make it an even thousand for simplicity. Are you saying you are in the top 1,000 people on the planet when it comes to knowledge of origins?

 

What exactly is covered under "origins"? Is this only abiogenesis, or does this extend to other fields from evolutionary biology to astrophysics that deals with various types of origins that have caught the eye of creationism?
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users