Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

No Evidence Could Convince Me Evolution Occured

Recommended Posts

Do you think completely separate fields of science are made up to suit evolution ? Continental drift is well established, we can even measure the rate of movement today. When rock types and fossils match on opposing shore lines thousands of miles separate then that is pretty decent evidence they were once connected.

"Do you think completely separate fields of science are made up to suit evolution ?"

 

You can safely bet your sweet bippy I do..

 

You dont see the circular reasoning inherent in your assertion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of those explanations was why you're wrong about this and the irreducible complexity part of your argument.

 

WHAT "Explanations" ???  :think:

 

Lets try this again shall we?

 

Mans has10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems that have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT.. Which would have been the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third? Liver fourth? Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? Which would be first? A bag of skin with a stomach in it? Whats next? Remember, this is a real discussion about real events, Not Dr. Frankenstein's laboratory.. A bag of skin with a Brain with lungs? Throw in a Liver next? Then a Heart? Pancreas? I am serious about this, please dont just dismiss it, lets try to visualize a plausible pathway to Man.. We are IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX.. (Please dont try to prove me wrong by removing one of your 10 Vital organs..)

 

This stuff should be basic Evolution 101 and the FIRST thing that should have been thought through before even going one step further with the hypothetical hypothesis of Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna!!  :acigar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think completely separate fields of science are made up to suit evolution ?

You can safely bet your sweet bippy I do..

Yeah, it all started with that Galileo fella.  The Inquisition was right not to look thru his instrument of Satan ..... the telescope.  They might have been duped too.

 

Independently, geologists bought into the idea of an ancient earth by the late 1600's. 

 

Finally, the physicists came along and in the 1860's had determined the Earth was (at least) millions of years old, not thousands.

 

Using improved technology such as improvements in Satan's telescope and processes not known in the 1860's (such as radioactive decay) that date has been extended to billions of years.

 

What is most notable is that these multiple estimates made by independent lines of evidence have expanded from thousands, to millions, to billions.  Not one has reverted back toward a few thousand.

 

You dont see the circular reasoning inherent in your assertion?

Where's the circularity in the multiple independent lines of evidence evaluated by different fields of scientific study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it all started with that Galileo fella.  The Inquisition was right not to look thru his instrument of Satan ..... the telescope.  They might have been duped too.

 

Independently, geologists bought into the idea of an ancient earth by the late 1600's. 

 

Finally, the physicists came along and in the 1860's had determined the Earth was (at least) millions of years old, not thousands.

 

Using improved technology such as improvements in Satan's telescope and processes not known in the 1860's (such as radioactive decay) that date has been extended to billions of years.

 

What is most notable is that these multiple estimates made by independent lines of evidence have expanded from thousands, to millions, to billions.  Not one has reverted back toward a few thousand.

 

 

Where's the circularity in the multiple independent lines of evidence evaluated by different fields of scientific study?

"Where's the circularity in the multiple independent lines of evidence evaluated by different fields of scientific study?"

 

Dating rocks by the fossils and then dating fossils by the rock IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF CIRCULAR REASONING..

 

Also, Just INCLUDING "Evidence" that supports your hypothesis and EXCLUDING evidence that doesnt is not honest scientific enquiry..

 

For example, It has been nearly 2 decades that Scientists have provided (2) exampmes of hard data that show dinosaurs are not 100 Million years old but less than 50,000 years old.. Carbon 14 and Red Blood Cells... I have YET to see either one even mentioned in ANY Biology textbook.. I wonder why? No, I am just kidding, I alreadybk ow why.. And so do you.. "We cannot allow a divine foot in the door"

 

 

 

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fjuri said:

mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

It's one of those arguments I hear evolutionists argue, and creationists also. It's that famously touted, ever regurgitated complaint; "no evidence would ever convince you."
 
Fjuri: who It is a charge I for one can accept as I will explain.
Effectively, the conversation is over once you accept that charge. Your closed-mindedness is (although known) still mind boggling. You cannot have any rational conversation of debate with anyone if you state that you cannot be convinced anyway.

But that's exactly what we are doing having an intelligent conversation.

mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

The reason you can never convince me macro evolution occurred is because to my mind, it is rationally absurd. I don't say that as an insult. Yes we know that in theist-atheist debate, we all sometimes say things like; "fairytale for adults" or, "your belief in skydaddy", etc...but I don't mean it in that way, I just mean that I myself can't convince my own mind that it would ever be realistic to entertain the notion that lightning zapped some sludge and later on it gave you giraffes and trees.

Fjuri: Here you faultly represent what the theory of evolution suggests happened. It is then of course only logical that you do not arrive at the right conclusion.

 
"right conclusion?" That's what we are debating. You're assuming you're correct. What a conversation stopper. lol Darwin created the the theory (hypotheis) of evoluttion and claimed it caused all the diverssity we observe. Stop personifying evolution!

mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think this is because the clear facts show a creation. When we look at the creativity of trees, birds, the colour the symmetry, the aesthetics, even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle. These are all clearly invented to be what they are, they just aren't the result of random change. We can clearly see a creative hand at work. An eagle is majestic, a horse is elegant, these are all facts.

Fjuri: Let us see what are facts:
- Superficially, the world show a creation. A more sophisticated view might change that though.
- We can look at the diversity and similarity of trees, birds, the colors, the symmetry, the 'aesthetics', even the famous types of animal, like a horse or an eagle, we see a magnificent diversity indeed.
- These are all clearly what they are. Random change would be a viable (and proven) method to fill in specific needs.

Or not. Here's what I think you are doing: you observe a bird in the present. You wonder how it came to exist? Because you have assumed evolution is true you observe the the bird in the present and then using the process of extrapolation conclude that it evolved from a dinosaur by a number of simple steps. What you are doing is flagging in your ability to accomplish complex tasks by a bunch of small steps. Why? Because that's how you would do any complex task--break it sown into a bunch of small steps. But then. you are intelligent and have a goal. You know where you arre going. Evolution is not supposed to know where it is going. Nor have we any indication that random non-directed steps could cause evolution from a dinosaur to bird. the scientific method hypothesize, test observed and repeat.

The thing is, no one has observed the small steps from a dinosaur to a bird. Because you have the ability to take a bunch of small steps to achieve a goal does not logically mean that evolution and random steps could cause a bird to transition from a dinosaur. So what you are doing is using your intelligence and deciding how you would do it. Sorry! No intelligence allowed in evolution!

Fjuri: The creative hand a work is something we (anthropocentrically) impose on our view.

And it's the same thing you are doing when you impose evolution as causation of a dinosaur to bird.

- The eagle being majestic and the horse being elegant are opinions though. But opinions we more or less agree upon, depending on the definitions.
 
mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

When I think of the eyeball, Darwin's explanation is preposterous to my mind. Not just because I find it unbelievable as that would only be an argument from incredulity, but rather I would find it irrational in the same way you would ask me to believe superman existed.
 
Fjuri: These claims are different. Darwin's explanation is supported by a mountain of evidence. Superman's existence not only lacks evidence, but has evidence going against it.

There you go again! You are personifying
evidence as if it can reason. Humans create ideas and concepts. Evidence is an effect--not a cause. We are debating what the cause of the evidence is. Therefore. we are performing mental acts upon evidence not it on us. This is a fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ (the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath).

That evolution did it requires a conclusion drawn by an intelligent human being. Evidence cannot reason! Evidence is evidence--not what caused it.

mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

That is my example for this thread, a question, and here it is;
 
What evidence would it take to convince you superman existed?
 
The correct answer is, "none", because superman just doesn't exist. In the same way, macro evolution just doesn't exist. yes you can try and make it seem oh so scientific and verified. So what - I'm clever enough to see through that, to the patent truth that it simply did not happen. Why would it? Why would the perfect design of flight feathers just happen to create themselves? It's totally dumb, when the obvious cause is that all of the sophistication is there by clear design.

Fjiri: The correct answer is "A direct interaction with this superman would most likely do the trick, if sufficiently thourough". (Let me test his flight abilities, bulletproof, laser eyes, effect of krypton on him etc..)
Unless you of course are just being a hypocrite here and are simply referring to your interpretation of our "God is magic" statements...

So, have you had such an interaction? Have you observed Superman fly? Obviously not! You are hypothecating.

We do not claim that God dpes magic! We claim he is intelligent like us. So,k how would you bring something that doesn't exist to exististence?

mike the wiz, on 15 Aug 2016 - 3:14 PM, said:

It's all an issue of semantics/question begging epithets.
 
An atheist will never refer to God without appealing to a buz-word such as, "magic" or "invisible unicorn", but they would never refer to the possibility of an intelligent God, by comparing God to another dimension or a higgs boson, or an as of yet undiscovered multi-universe.
 
So you have to think cleverly; why do they only compare God and the miraculous to things that either are false or may be false but never compare God to things which may be true, that we don't know about?
...
I'll add my reply (so we don't have to go into that conversation here)
Fjuri, on 16 Aug 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

Aren’t you being dishonest here Mike? In our last conversation, in the “things that don’t exist†topic, we choose vampires, a belief that is actually commonly held. You were the one that changed that to “invisible pink unicornsâ€. And now you are claiming we are comparing God only to things that are blatantly false!  
 
 
mike the wiz, on 21 Apr 2017 - 09:13 AM, said:

I think on a human level, people deep down, even the evolutionists, know that when they look at what exists on earth it just isn't evolution that done it. They know that this is just the answer science had to come up with so that mankind could follow their own destiny.
 
Why even pretend I am wrong? Come on - deep down you don't believe mud-zapped sludge would lead to giraffes and trees. I know you don't. 
 
You can't kid a kidder.
 
It didn't happen folks, and we all know I'm right. No amount of evidence can force it to be true, because how can it be? Answer; it can't, of course it can't, just like superman can't, which is why it doesn't matter what evidence you show me.
What do we call someone who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice?
A bigot.

The cuckoo calls himself by his own name. LOL

How do we call behavior where someone ignores the evidence and just goes for what he "feels" is right?
Irrational.
 
It seems driewerf was right all along.

You changed the meaning of the word evidence. Evidence is an effect. So, evidence cannot prove what caused itself. Causation is something that we human determine by our reasoning process. In short, we answer the simple question, "Can this cause (evolution) produce this effect? There are brds. So, they evolved. We reason, "Whenever I want to accomplish a complex task, I break it down into small steps. Therefore, it only seems logical that a buch of small steps c oan change a dinosaur into a bird". What you seem to forget is that when you take your small steps, they are guided by intelligence--intelligence that allows you to stay on the goal of doing a big task even if you break it down into small steps. Evolution supposedly has no consistancy of direction. "It" has no mind to make the consistant small steps towards a goal like we can do.
 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Madagascar used to be part of Gondwana but has been isolated for nearly 90 million years. So plenty of time for species to evolve and diverge away from those in Africa and India to which Madagascar used to be landlocked between. Madagascar is a large island with a wide range of habitats that have changed due to topographic and climactic factors over time. Natural selection has therefore acted on isolated populations over this time, driving endemism.

 

With oceanic islands (i.e. volcanic islands that arise from the ocean floor and aren't part of a continental shelf like Madagascar) endemism is driven by their isolation and chance arrival by immigrants. New arrivals find an island full of empty niches which drives diversification (adaptive radiation). Obviously, the closer the island is to a mainland the more frequent the dispersal which lowers the speciation potential which is the pattern we see. For example Madeira has few endemic birds due to proximity with Africa and being on migration routes but the Hawaiian chain, being extremely isolated, has dozens.

 

Does that answer your question ?

sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

the question is, is this what actually happened.

 

judging from all the sheer nonsense surrounding evolution, the outright lies and fraud, i question EVERYTHING about the history of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

the question is, is this what actually happened.

 

judging from all the sheer nonsense surrounding evolution, the outright lies and fraud, i question EVERYTHING about the history of evolution.

Well I have no problem with questioning things but the species we see on islands really are there, there can't be doubt about that. In view of this fact, you just have to ask what has the most explanatory power for this distribution, special creation or evolution.

 

I think your assertion about lies and fraud is bit over the top to say the least, since you seem to extrapolate your whole case from what that Ayala bloke may or may not have said. I googled about him out of curiosity a while ago because you said the issue was plastered all over the internet. It was but pretty much all the hits were of you on various forums banging on about it (under different pseudonyms but your caps lock phobia was in evidence)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your assertion about lies and fraud is bit over the top to say the least, since you seem to extrapolate your whole case from what that Ayala bloke may or may not have said.

there is no "may or may not" about it wibble, none.

out of all the scathing letters science received about this article, NONE OF THEM mentioned ayala.

there are 2 very important things about that:

first, ayala said these words aloud, everyone heard him.

this is the reason NO ONE said anything about how lewin lied about it.

second, what ayala said was apparently old news to these people, or again, someone would have called ayala out on it.

no one did.

 

there is corroborating evidence too.

the fact that gould emphasized the fallacy of gradualism and gould was one of the paleontologists there.

sepkoski was another one there, and his son uses the very same quote in a memoir to his dad. (yes i have the memoir).

 

i have no problem at all in saying that ANYONE that support NAIG in this matter is an outright liar.

the webmasters themselves are probably right at the very heart of this.

i recently found out NAIG folded. HURRAY ! ! !, and i say that because they tried to defraud the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i have no problem at all in saying that ANYONE that support NAIG in this matter is an outright liar.

the webmasters themselves are probably right at the very heart of this.

i recently found out NAIG folded. HURRAY ! ! !, and i say that because they tried to defraud the public.

NAIG ? ? ?

 

The only thing I found was the North American Indian (or alternatively "Indigenous") Games ... for some reason, I don't think that's what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the circularity in the multiple independent lines of evidence evaluated by different fields of scientific study?

Dating rocks by the fossils and then dating fossils by the rock IS THE VERY ESSENCE OF CIRCULAR REASONING..

 

Here's the comment you said was circular reasoning:

Do you think completely separate fields of science are made up to suit evolution ? Continental drift is well established, we can even measure the rate of movement today. When rock types and fossils match on opposing shore lines thousands of miles separate then that is pretty decent evidence they were once connected.

Notice, nothing at all was said about the age of those fossils.  In other words, you have quite nicely demolished a straw man.

 

In fact, even creationist flood models (Brown's "Hydroplates" and Baumgardner's "Runaway subduction") hold, for example, that South America and south Africa "were once connected" based on the exact same evidence.... that we find the same fossils in the same strata in both places.  The difference being that the creationists claim unverified velocities of tens of kilometers (or miles) per hour while mainstream science bases its evaluation on measured velocities on the order of centimeters (or inches) per year.

 

Yet you hold that "such completely separate fields of science" as geology, physics, and astronomy have been "made up to suit evolution."  These are areas of study that have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.  Their conclusions of great age are based on different independent lines of direct empirical observational lines of evidence.  They have nothing at all to do with some "mindless mud to man MYO myth."

 

Now, where's the circularity of basing a conclusion on multiple lines of evidence by different fields of scientific study?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Just INCLUDING "Evidence" that supports your hypothesis and EXCLUDING evidence that doesnt is not honest scientific enquiry..

For example, It has been nearly 2 decades that Scientists have provided (2) exampmes of hard data that show dinosaurs are not 100 Million years old but less than 50,000 years old.. Carbon 14 and Red Blood Cells... I have YET to see either one even mentioned in ANY Biology textbook.. I wonder why? No, I am just kidding, I alreadybk ow why.. And so do you.. "We cannot allow a divine foot in the door"

Textbooks spend little time or space on speculative claims.  For example, the biology text I taught from had a unit of five chapters on evolution, but less than a half page on the origin of life.  Don't expect to see either one until they are accepted science.

 

Textbooks are largely written with an eye toward the largest markets.  In the case of high school science texts (which I think you're probably referring to) that would be the public schools of California and Texas.  That alone is sufficient reason to the publishers, if no one else, to leave out a "divine foot."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NAIG ? ? ?

the website "no answers in genesis".

the above site is where ayalas alleged "retraction" originated from, and nowhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Textbooks spend little time or space on speculative claims.  For example, the biology text I taught from had a unit of five chapters on evolution, but less than a half page on the origin of life.  Don't expect to see either one until they are accepted science.

 

Textbooks are largely written with an eye toward the largest markets.  In the case of high school science texts (which I think you're probably referring to) that would be the public schools of California and Texas.  That alone is sufficient reason to the publishers, if no one else, to leave out a "divine foot."

 

"Textbooks spend little time or space on speculative claims."

 

Unless of course they favor the Myth of "Evolution" in which case they remain in the textbooks for many decades after they have been proven false.... You know... The old Double Standard of Intellectual Fascism dont you? Outright myths and frauds like "Horse Evolution"

Haekels Embryonic Drawings, Geologic Column, Vestigial Organs, Lucy, Archeopteryx, Tree of life, etc etc etc Stay cemented in those textbooks as long as they can keep them there....

 

YET

 

HARD DATA like Dinosaur Red Blood Cells and Measureable C14 Content... Not a word....

 

Stop playing your little games with us and just admit the obvious..

You guys are very deceptive sometimes..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the comment you said was circular reasoning:

 

Notice, nothing at all was said about the age of those fossils. In other words, you have quite nicely demolished a straw man.

 

In fact, even creationist flood models (Brown's "Hydroplates" and Baumgardner's "Runaway subduction") hold, for example, that South America and south Africa "were once connected" based on the exact same evidence.... that we find the same fossils in the same strata in both places. The difference being that the creationists claim unverified velocities of tens of kilometers (or miles) per hour while mainstream science bases its evaluation on measured velocities on the order of centimeters (or inches) per year.

 

Yet you hold that "such completely separate fields of science" as geology, physics, and astronomy have been "made up to suit evolution." These are areas of study that have nothing at all to do with biological evolution. Their conclusions of great age are based on different independent lines of direct empirical observational lines of evidence. They have nothing at all to do with some "mindless mud to man MYO myth."

 

Now, where's the circularity of basing a conclusion on multiple lines of evidence by different fields of scientific study?

"They have nothing at all to do with some "mindless mud to man MYO myth."

 

"These are areas of study that have nothing at all to do with biological evolution"

 

 

These statements are Baloney on Steroids...

 

The Mindless MYO Mud to man Myth DESPERATELY NEEDS "Conclusions of Great Age" in order to remain in the textbooks and NOT be relegated

to the trash heap where it belongs.. That is why HARD DATA like Dino red blood cells and Carbon 14 are COMPLETELY IGNORED..

 

INCIDENTALLY

 

Many other examples that support a Younger Earth are ALSO COMPLETELY IGNORED / CENSORED / RIDICULED.... I guess those are very good methods of ensuring that "Conclusions of great age" Are GUARANTEED..

 

Save your sales pitch for gullible and naive high school science students who you can keep on indoctrinating into believing your Secular Humanistic cult of Metaphysical Naturalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet you hold that "such completely separate fields of science" as geology, physics, and astronomy have been "made up to suit evolution."  These are areas of study that have nothing at all to do with biological evolution.  Their conclusions of great age are based on different independent lines of direct empirical observational lines of evidence.  They have nothing at all to do with some "mindless mud to man MYO myth."

 

Now, where's the circularity of basing a conclusion on multiple lines of evidence by different fields of scientific study?

These statements are Baloney on Steroids...

 

The Mindless MYO Mud to man Myth DESPERATELY NEEDS "Conclusions of Great Age" in order to remain in the textbooks and NOT be relegated

to the trash heap where it belongs..

For someone who claims to be a genius you certainly are confused.

 

Evolution does need long ages. 

 

The geological evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The nuclear physics evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The astronomical evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

Three completely independent lines of evidence for long ages that stand whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

There was no circular argument.

 

A circular argument would be something more like; "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true." 

 

Who has made that argument recently?

 

That is why HARD DATA like Dino red blood cells and Carbon 14 are COMPLETELY IGNORED..

They are not ignored.  I can probably find hundreds of papers on each of them. 

 

Your rejection of the findings does not mean the discoveries have been ignored.

 

INCIDENTALLY

 

Many other examples that support a Younger Earth are ALSO COMPLETELY IGNORED / CENSORED / RIDICULED.... I guess those are very good methods of ensuring that "Conclusions of great age" Are GUARANTEED..

 I've seen some of those lists and many of their examples deserve ridicule.

 

Some creationist ministries publish lists of arguments creationists shouldn't use .... and I still see them on this forum.  In fact, you've used a couple of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution does need long ages.

why?

The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly* and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization.

- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

 

keep in mind that koonins original phrase was "ready made".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution does need long ages. 

why?

OK.... I'll rephrase it.

 

Under the standard scientific models, evolution needs long ages.

 

My point stands, there are at least three different and independent lines of evidence for long ages that stand on their own merits whether evolution is true or not.  The "circular argument" Blitz claimed Wibble made does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know whar you mean, Mike. I look at the awesome majesty and beauty of creation and cannot accept that it is the result of blind chance. As Romans 1 says, those who reject belief in a Creator are "without excuse", because God's existence is obvious from his creation.

 

And as science advances the more the mind-blowing complexity of living organisms is revealed. Still, atheist insist it's all just a happy accident! ... I suppose if you tried really hard, you could think of something equally as absurd as that, but it would be impossible to think of something more absurd!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who claims to be a genius you certainly are confused.

 

Evolution does need long ages. 

 

The geological evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The nuclear physics evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The astronomical evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

Three completely independent lines of evidence for long ages that stand whether biological evolution is true or not.

I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face Piasan?

 

We just had a long and interesting debate about the nuclear physics evidence of long ages in another thread and showed that at best it is a really weak argument, and at worst it doesn't say anything about ages.

 

We could have the same discussion about geological and astronomical evidence for long ages. The thought of long ages is not some irrefutable facts, it's paradigmal thinking. It's science that are trying to interpret and test facts so that it will fit into the current old age paradigm. That's probably the main reason these 3 things don't contradict, since if they did it would not be allowed into science today due to the current paradigm. So the lines of evidence aren't independent, they all adhere to the same paradigm which says something about the scientists objectivity in the matter. A theory that would not fit the lines of evidence for long ages would simply not be published today, since it would not be "scientifically correct" (here I'm making a parallel with the term "political correct" in which scientist would try to avoid offense or disadvantage from other scientist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.... I'll rephrase it.

 

Under the standard scientific models, evolution needs long ages.

again i ask, why?

koonin stated what the "standard model" is.

 

My point stands, there are at least three different and independent lines of evidence for long ages that stand on their own merits whether evolution is true or not.  The "circular argument" Blitz claimed Wibble made does not exist.

and you know these to be factual?

 

thanks to evolution, i distrust a lot i hear in regards to certain things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as science advances the more the mind-blowing complexity of living organisms is revealed.

this is an understatement.

it's been said that 2 pounds of e. coli DNA would be enough for the WORLDS data storage needs.

you need to step back and think about that for a second.

every webpage, youtube video, streamed video, television program, every library, everything ever said or printed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who claims to be a genius you certainly are confused.

 

Evolution does need long ages. 

 

The geological evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The nuclear physics evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

The astronomical evidence of long ages is independent of evolution and stands whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

Three completely independent lines of evidence for long ages that stand whether biological evolution is true or not.

 

There was no circular argument.

 

A circular argument would be something more like; "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true." 

 

Who has made that argument recently?

 

 

They are not ignored.  I can probably find hundreds of papers on each of them. 

 

Your rejection of the findings does not mean the discoveries have been ignored.

 

 

 I've seen some of those lists and many of their examples deserve ridicule.

 

Some creationist ministries publish lists of arguments creationists shouldn't use .... and I still see them on this forum.  In fact, you've used a couple of them.

 

That is why HARD DATA like Dino red blood cells and Carbon 14 are COMPLETELY IGNORED..

 

"They are not ignored. I can probably find hundreds of papers on each of them."

 

 

So those DATA are included in the Biology Textbooks now are they? NO THEY ARE NOT AND I PREDICT THEY NEVER WILL BE EITHER..

Because that is SPECIFICALLY what I was talking about and you KNEW that old tricky one...

 

 

You dont need to show IQ envy..Trying to bring me down to your level of ignorance wont make you any smarter.. Like I mentioned, there are MANY people who have very high IQs who are REALLY Stupid.. Remember Hawking and Guth? All the matter in the universe came from nothing uncaused for no reason?

 

THAT is the HEIGHT of Stupidity..

 

 

Read Tirians post.. It will help you..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you can say this with a straight face Piasan?

 

We just had a long and interesting debate about the nuclear physics evidence of long ages in another thread and showed that at best it is a really weak argument, and at worst it doesn't say anything about ages.

 

We could have the same discussion about geological and astronomical evidence for long ages. The thought of long ages is not some irrefutable facts, it's paradigmal thinking. It's science that are trying to interpret and test facts so that it will fit into the current old age paradigm. That's probably the main reason these 3 things don't contradict, since if they did it would not be allowed into science today due to the current paradigm. So the lines of evidence aren't independent, they all adhere to the same paradigm which says something about the scientists objectivity in the matter. A theory that would not fit the lines of evidence for long ages would simply not be published today, since it would not be "scientifically correct" (here I'm making a parallel with the term "political correct" in which scientist would try to avoid offense or disadvantage from other scientist).

 

I don't know, Tirian.  Unless you have any real information to back this up, e.g., know real scientists and their efforts, etc., it just sounds like wishful thinking to me or, at the very least, a good excuse to ignore scientific findings that don't jive with your faith....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, Tirian.  Unless you have any real information to back this up, e.g., know real scientists and their efforts, etc., it just sounds like wishful thinking to me or, at the very least, a good excuse to ignore scientific findings that don't jive with your faith....

 

What exactly in my text is wishful thinking?
 
Because most of what I have written is based on Kuhn's paradigm theories on how science actually works, rather than how people might think that science works. I don't believe in everything Kuhn says, but he has good points in what he writes. And these points actually changed how philosophers thought about science. In a paradigm it's not that scientist lie or are dishonest, it's just that they (like many other people) aren't always capable of thinking outside the box. 
 
Do you know what a paradigm is? Or do you have some sort of naive notion that scientist are always objective, or that the current paradigm doesn't actually affect science in both what is acceptable answers and how one 'should' do testing and research?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why HARD DATA like Dino red blood cells and Carbon 14 are COMPLETELY IGNORED..

They are not ignored.  I can probably find hundreds of papers on each of them. 

 

Your rejection of the findings does not mean the discoveries have been ignored.

So those DATA are included in the Biology Textbooks now are they? NO THEY ARE NOT AND I PREDICT THEY NEVER WILL BE EITHER..

Because that is SPECIFICALLY what I was talking about and you KNEW that old tricky one...

Lots of things are ignored in the textbooks.  The things you complain about are not ignored as there is much active research going on about them.  As I stated, such research is seldom, if ever, mentioned in textbooks.

 

Creationists seem to think we go into much more depth and detail in introductory classes than is actually the case.  For example, here is the entire discussion of radiometric dating in a 1200 page biology textbook:

Radiometric dating uses the decay of radioactive isotopes to measure the age of a rock.  Recall that an isotope is a form of an element that has the same atomic number but a different mass number.  The method requires that the half-life of the isotope, which is the amount of time it takes for half of the original isotope to decay, is known.  The relative amounts of the radioactive issotope and its decay product must also be known.

One radioactive isotope that is commonly used to determine the age of rocks is Uranium 238. Uranium 238 (U238) decays to Lead 206 (Pb206) with a half life of 4510 million years.  When testing a rock sample, scientists calculate the ratio of the parent isotope to the daughter isotope to determine the age of the sample.

Radioactive isotopes that can be used for radiometric dating are found only in igneous or metamorphic rocks, not in sedimentary rocks, so isotopes cannot be used to date rocks that contain fossils.  Igneous rocks that are found in layers closely associated with fossil bearing sedimentary rocks often can be used for assigning relative dates to fossils.

Materials, such as mummies, bones, and tissues, can be dated using carbon-14 (C-14).  Given the half-life of carbon-14, shown in Figure 4, only materials less than 60,000 years old can be dated accurately with this isotope.  (Emphasis in original because they are vocabulary terms being introduced for the first time.)

Source:  Biology, published by McGraw-Hill, 2016.

 

Notice, that is a pretty superficial discussion of radiometric dating and it is about a third of a page in the entire 1200 page book.  That's about 0.04%.  Carbon-14 was covered in two sentences.

 

You dont need to show IQ envy..Trying to bring me down to your level of ignorance wont make you any smarter.. Like I mentioned, there are MANY people who have very high IQs who are REALLY Stupid.. Remember Hawking and Guth? All the matter in the universe came from nothing uncaused for no reason?

 

THAT is the HEIGHT of Stupidity....

IQ envy?  Hardly.  I don't feel a need to brag about my IQ.  Let's just say that in the population, there is less than a half percentile between us.  

 

I'm not envious of you, I'm embarrassed for you.  The embarrassment is due to the fact that a self-proclaimed genius would try introducing arguments that even a 9th grade science student would see have serious problems and the creationist ministries have said you should stay away from.

 

You have pointed out there are some who have very high IQs who "are REALLY Stupid."  With that I agree.  My comment that what you do with the IQ is much more important than the IQ score stands.....  

 

Read Tirians post.. It will help you..

I have.  

 

The discussion Tirian mentions was probably a couple dozen extensive posts each with considerable research (at least by me).  His post above is much less than a summary of that previous discussion.

 

It's safe to say his arguments weren't persuasive to me and mine weren't persuasive to him.  Nothing he said in that post is going to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms