A new creationist at EvC called CrytoGod is now trying his hand at getting them to acknowledge that all they have is speculation /conjecture/ fantasy /imaginative constructs /ad hoc explanations / just-so stories, all stuff made up off the top of the head / off the cuff, whatever synonymous expression you prefer, to explain anything the theory of evolution requires. Are they going to acknowledge that? Of course not.
The subject is why there aren't any intermediate ape-human types wandering around.
Why should there be? was somebody's disingenuous answer. Well, because Darwin for one realized that there had to be for the theory to hold water. LOTS of transitionals with many small gradations as a matter of fact, not just the occasional specimen of a creature that has characteristics of a couple of other species. OK, he was talking about FOSSILS, but the same reasoning implies that there ought to be LOTS of living transitionals as well if the theory were correct. Darwin was clear: you gotta have LOTS of them and LOTS of gradations between them. He tried to get away with explaining their lack by the imperfection of the "fossil record" (one of HIS ad hoc explanations that can't be proved or disproved) but if that fossil record were really a record of evolution down the millions of years you'd nevertheless have to see some evidence of what he had in mind and you don't. ALL we see are complete forms, forms with variations such as occur all the time in living nature too, but not the transitionals the theory requires. And that's just the fossil record. LIVING transitionals are an even more reasonable expectation from the theory as you can't argue "imperfection" of the living record. As CtG says, it's just too too convenient that there aren't any.
What can they do but assert that there aren't any intermediate ape-human types wandering around just because there aren't, because they went extinct, and make up explanations why that might possibly be the case, although CrytoGod specifically asked them to avoid ad hoc explanations and give only scientific explanations. Well, CtG knows as well as I do that there AREN'T any scientific explanations, ONLY made-up stuff that they nevertheless call fact or science. ALL the evos can do is posture and expostulate, insinuate that the creationist's evidence is flawed somehow or other [it's "old"], and denounce him as stupid and ignorant, and aggressively declare whatever they can invent to support the theory as if it were fact, because that's all they ever do and all they CAN do because there IS no science that supports this stuff.
He who has eyes to see...
I cry to God also, that He would open the eyes of these blind.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Just another anti-Flood posturing at EvC mistaking the usual fantasy for science
Just another typical comment on another Flood thread at EvC.
They are awfully certain that the evidence does not support a worldwide Flood, and yet every explanation offered for how the strata could have formed piecemeal over millions/billions of years is far more irrational than what they think they are answering.
And an earlier post shows that as usual it's really all about authority anyway. All those geologists just can't be wrong.
Creationists often don't argue these things very well and even the better ones shouldn't even be trying. But that doesn't change the fact that the evolutionists are deceived from the getgo and the whole debate itself is a big joke.
He goes on to object that the creationist simply doesn't know enough Geology and that his focus on God keeps him from desiring to study it. This may be true of this particular creationist, or it may not be. This is a standard position there but just reading up on basic Geology doesn't tell you much about the issues under debate. So far Dr. Adequate has put up a great deal of basic Geology and so far it doesn't even touch on anything that supports or denies the possibility of the Flood. The only thing that did relate was a post that was more of an aside than a lesson in Geology, in which he gave his own beliefs about buried "landscapes." So I'm still waiting. In other words, one could know a great deal of basic Geology without finding anything of much value in this debate.
===========================
Upthread from this conversation is a post by Coyote who always argues the same line, claiming to have given the evidence that completely does in the Flood claims:
Coyote's argument in fact should be regarded as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) on the evolutionist side because it's certainly been answered over and over.
Of course their timing is wrong to begin with. All settlements that would be studied by archaeology, same as all the great empires including the Egyptian, that science places back before the Biblical time of the Flood, do not go that far back, were all built since the Flood.
"Massive erosion?" -- Try erosion on the scale of entire continents being denuded of their sediments, which were then redeposited in layers all over the earth. You won't find this at a particular depth in an archaeological dig. You're going to have to stand up and survey the entire landscape. You can't dig down to find the evidence, because in reality it's everywhere. ALL the strata are evidence of the Flood, all those layers of sediments that have been given names and time estimates in the millions by modern Geology. That's the evidence for the Flood.
And then the usual argument about the ancient limited floods:
These facts are consistent with the usual Floodist interpretation. After the Flood it should be expected that there would have been standing bodies of water, including those HUGE standing bodies of water, Lakes Missoula, Lahontan and Bonneville in the western USA. Since Floodists also believe that tectonic and volcanic forces were released during and after the Flood, it would make sense that the dams that held back these lakes could have been suddenly broken as the land to the east rose and the Rockies were formed in that area by tectonic movement.
But the scientists insist on their own methods and conclusions, especially their ridiculous timing, instead so what's the point of arguing any of this?
We can tell from your last post that you still believe the geologic record is consistent with a flood, but you ignored all the posts explaining why a flood doesn't deposit sediments in ways that resemble the layers of the geologic record.Well, of course, and I generally ignore them too because it can only be the usual fantasizing in the service of their bias. They can never imagine the Flood properly and only impose their own speculations on it based on their own biases. Why is it so hard for them to honestly recognize that is what they are doing? There can't be the sort of evidence they so aggressively insist be acknowledged because there can't be the sort of similarity between an ordinary everyday flood and THE Flood. Of COURSE we ignore such supposed explanations. All daydreams from the Darwinian presupposition.
How much credit do you think you deserve for ignoring all this information? If what we post to you doesn't matter, why should we bother?Why don't you require of yourselves that you recognize your own methods aren't really scientific but just as speculative as any Floodist's? And the Floodist has the advantage of an ancient revelation against your purely invented theory.
While there are some people who will always be snarky , even normally polite people will become snarky when ignored.No doubt, even though all they've had to offer is just more variations on the usual fantasy.
Debate isn't you talk, I talk, you talk, I talk. Debate is you talk, I react to what you say, you react to what I say, etc. What you've got going here is you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, we react to what you say, you talk, etc. How about responding to the information you've been provided?What, information about how a local flood proves THE Flood didn't happen? Yes, I suppose our creationist should take more care to address the opposition's posts but since all they could possibly be is imaginative efforts at shooting down his points rather than taking them seriously I can understand why he might not. Yes, I know, I could be wrong, this could be one of those threads where the creationist really is out of bounds, but the complaint from the other side just sounds awfully familiar.
They are awfully certain that the evidence does not support a worldwide Flood, and yet every explanation offered for how the strata could have formed piecemeal over millions/billions of years is far more irrational than what they think they are answering.
And an earlier post shows that as usual it's really all about authority anyway. All those geologists just can't be wrong.
In order for there to have been a recent world-wide flood, generations of geologists and their research going back to the late 1700's would have to be wildly wrong. For so many geologists over so long a period of time to be so wrong would require the source of the error to be incredibly well hidden. Yes, it IS well hidden, it's in the basic assumptions of the whole invented fantasy edifice that they keep mistaking for science.
It is unlikely to be found in a blender of dirt and water or anything else so simplistic.True, it won't be found in any one bit of data but even that bit of data might contain truth that simply can't be seen because of the prejudices that prevent it. But more to the point it won't be found in ANY bit of data put forward by a creationist there because of the strong bias against it and the ease with which contrary interpretations can be pulled out of a hat to serve as a rebuttal. [In this particular case the creationist was answering an assertion about how the flood would have left things jumbled and mixed. It's a perfectly decent answer. If you stir up sediments with water in a blender they sort out into layers. It's a good answer. A worldwide Flood would not have left things jumbled but in layers. Instead of accepting it as a good answer they object that such an example doesn't describe the layering actually seen. As if the blender example were meant to account for the whole geo column. No, it was meant merely to demonstrate that swirling water deposits sediments in layers, and it ought to be accepted as a reasonable answer.]
Creationists often don't argue these things very well and even the better ones shouldn't even be trying. But that doesn't change the fact that the evolutionists are deceived from the getgo and the whole debate itself is a big joke.
He goes on to object that the creationist simply doesn't know enough Geology and that his focus on God keeps him from desiring to study it. This may be true of this particular creationist, or it may not be. This is a standard position there but just reading up on basic Geology doesn't tell you much about the issues under debate. So far Dr. Adequate has put up a great deal of basic Geology and so far it doesn't even touch on anything that supports or denies the possibility of the Flood. The only thing that did relate was a post that was more of an aside than a lesson in Geology, in which he gave his own beliefs about buried "landscapes." So I'm still waiting. In other words, one could know a great deal of basic Geology without finding anything of much value in this debate.
===========================
Upthread from this conversation is a post by Coyote who always argues the same line, claiming to have given the evidence that completely does in the Flood claims:
Given the massive amount of contrary evidence in the archaeological and geological record, I can't believe anyone could support the notion of a global flood during relatively recent times, ca. 4,350 years ago. The early creation geologists gave up on that idea just about 200 years ago--and they set out to prove the flood! Evidence showing the global flood never happened during recent times has only accumulated since then, while no credible evidence has been found to support such a flood.Coyote accepts without question the dating methods of today's science. That's the beginning of the problem. They will not consider that methods that deal with the past can't be hard and fast as they claim they are. As usual they talk as if they were fact, as if they could prove their claim in the laboratory, which of course they cannot. Their tone of certainty is unscientific and perhaps would never have been adopted if they didn't feel the need to quell the creationist claims. A creationist cannot and will not accept their dates. What's the point of continuing to debate such things since there will always be this impasse?
In my career as an archaeologist I have tested probably over 100 sites whose time spans included the date most often attributed to the global flood by biblical scholars, ca. 4,350 years ago. I have never found evidence of either massive erosion or sedimentary deposition at that time period.
What I have found instead is continuity of human cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. The things that must have occurred if there was a global flood at that time--discontinuities in all of those areas--are not found.
The same results are reported by my colleagues elsewhere in the United States and around the world.
But lest you think that we are idiots and can't see evidence for floods, I would direct you to various websites on the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Post-glacial floods repeatedly scoured that area as ice dams in western Montana periodically held back and released meltwaters. We can establish the dates of the floods and their extent. Here are a couple of good websites for your edification:
http://www.cr.nps.gov/...logy/publications/inf/72-2/sec5.htm
http://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html
Coyote's argument in fact should be regarded as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) on the evolutionist side because it's certainly been answered over and over.
I can't believe anyone could support the notion of a global flood during relatively recent times, ca. 4,350 years ago. The early creation geologists gave up on that idea just about 200 years ago--and they set out to prove the flood! Evidence showing the global flood never happened during recent times has only accumulated since then, while no credible evidence has been found to support such a flood.Unfortunately the early creationist geologists were looking for the wrong kind of evidence for the Flood, as are the archaeologists Coyote is talking about.
In my career as an archaeologist I have tested probably over 100 sites whose time spans included the date most often attributed to the global flood by biblical scholars, ca. 4,350 years ago. I have never found evidence of either massive erosion or sedimentary deposition at that time period.Of course he can't find evidence of the Flood. He's looking for specifics he's dreamed up that are way too small for such a Flood. Just like those early creationist geologists.
Of course their timing is wrong to begin with. All settlements that would be studied by archaeology, same as all the great empires including the Egyptian, that science places back before the Biblical time of the Flood, do not go that far back, were all built since the Flood.
"Massive erosion?" -- Try erosion on the scale of entire continents being denuded of their sediments, which were then redeposited in layers all over the earth. You won't find this at a particular depth in an archaeological dig. You're going to have to stand up and survey the entire landscape. You can't dig down to find the evidence, because in reality it's everywhere. ALL the strata are evidence of the Flood, all those layers of sediments that have been given names and time estimates in the millions by modern Geology. That's the evidence for the Flood.
What I have found instead is continuity of human cultures, mtDNA, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. The things that must have occurred if there was a global flood at that time--discontinuities in all of those areas--are not found.Not if what you're digging around in all occurred since the Flood. You're looking for paltry "discontinuities" among post-Flood phenomena.
And then the usual argument about the ancient limited floods:
But lest you think that we are idiots and can't see evidence for floods, I would direct you to various websites on the Channeled Scablands in eastern Washington. Post-glacial floods repeatedly scoured that area as ice dams in western Montana periodically held back and released meltwaters. We can establish the dates of the floods and their extent. Here are a couple of good websites for your edification:Yes, they can see THAT evidence, though they misread the timing as usual since they have to conform it all to the Geo Time Table. It's interesting to read about those floods, the draining of massive lakes, and there is no reason to doubt that they are interpreting the data correctly as far as the physical events go. Lake Missoula was rapidly and catastrophically drained, possibly in two days, according to the article, but since that seems a little too fast for them they suggest perhaps it took a month.http://www.cr.nps.gov/...logy/publications/inf/72-2/sec5.htm
http://hugefloods.com/Scablands.html
These facts are consistent with the usual Floodist interpretation. After the Flood it should be expected that there would have been standing bodies of water, including those HUGE standing bodies of water, Lakes Missoula, Lahontan and Bonneville in the western USA. Since Floodists also believe that tectonic and volcanic forces were released during and after the Flood, it would make sense that the dams that held back these lakes could have been suddenly broken as the land to the east rose and the Rockies were formed in that area by tectonic movement.
But the scientists insist on their own methods and conclusions, especially their ridiculous timing, instead so what's the point of arguing any of this?
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
"Sea Monsters" -- antediluvian life forms or creatures evolved over millions of years?
Watching a film at Netflix by National Geographic titled Sea Monsters. (I tried but couldn't get the "embed" function to work for the trailer.)
The film shows some geologists on a fossil hunt in Kansas, finding bones of prehistoric reptilian dinosaurian type sea creatures. They also find the more common ammonite fossil -- and it's interesting to see this as I had no idea what size to picture those creatures, and the fossil is a lot larger than I had visualized, about the diameter of a good sized serving platter I'd say.
It's the ammonite fossils they say tell them when all these creatures in the same vicinity lived, which is of course based on their Geologic Time Table that layers the physical world in time periods, just as Dr. A does as quoted in the post below. They always speak of the time element as fact although it is nothing but an imaginative construct that they impose on the sedimentary and fossil phenomena.
Speaking of it as fact is what I call "word magic." They don't need the actual processes of science to reify an imaginative construct into Reality and enforce it with indignant denunciations as "anti-science" of anyone who isn't convinced. "The poetry of reality" as Dr. A says, although it's just the poetry of fantasy.
Most of the film is animation of the creatures reconstructed from their fossils and shown swimming in the seas that supposedly covered the area for some huge length of time in the "Cretaceous" period, and the "Triassic" and "Jurassic." They do show the sea that bisected the continent of North America at one time, and I have no doubt there is evidence in shorelines that identify such a body of water that stood long enough for such markers to be evident, but of course I don't buy the millions of years explanation for anything.
No, I'm watching this as an interesting imaginative reconstruction of life forms that lived before the Noachian Flood and that were no doubt transported by that Flood to their resting places where they were buried and fossilized and where these geologists now find them.
The "sea" that bisected the continent was of course a temporary stage of the Flood after it had receded or at least begun to recede, as were all the ancient extinct large lakes of western North America such as Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville. Simply large lakes that stood for some time after the Flood and then finally drained away, in some cases suddenly and catastrophically, probably due to the tectonic forces that occurred after the Flood and also built the Rockies. The catastrophic draining of one such great standing body of water is one very plausible explanation for the carving out of the Grand Canyon. Not a feat any ordinary river could have accomplished.
One funny thing: A few large fossils were found with food in their stomachs, one rather "stuffed to the gills" as it were, which prompted the speculation that it must have died of gluttony. Of another the narrator wondered why it would have died so suddenly after a good meal. Of course they conjured an explanation out of a hat as usual, but duh, folks, obviously the most reasonable explanation is that they were all caught in the same catastrophic event at the same time, some having just filled their stomachs.
Same phenomena, different interpretation, just as reasonable, no, really, more reasonable than the establishment interpretation.
The film shows some geologists on a fossil hunt in Kansas, finding bones of prehistoric reptilian dinosaurian type sea creatures. They also find the more common ammonite fossil -- and it's interesting to see this as I had no idea what size to picture those creatures, and the fossil is a lot larger than I had visualized, about the diameter of a good sized serving platter I'd say.
It's the ammonite fossils they say tell them when all these creatures in the same vicinity lived, which is of course based on their Geologic Time Table that layers the physical world in time periods, just as Dr. A does as quoted in the post below. They always speak of the time element as fact although it is nothing but an imaginative construct that they impose on the sedimentary and fossil phenomena.
Speaking of it as fact is what I call "word magic." They don't need the actual processes of science to reify an imaginative construct into Reality and enforce it with indignant denunciations as "anti-science" of anyone who isn't convinced. "The poetry of reality" as Dr. A says, although it's just the poetry of fantasy.
Most of the film is animation of the creatures reconstructed from their fossils and shown swimming in the seas that supposedly covered the area for some huge length of time in the "Cretaceous" period, and the "Triassic" and "Jurassic." They do show the sea that bisected the continent of North America at one time, and I have no doubt there is evidence in shorelines that identify such a body of water that stood long enough for such markers to be evident, but of course I don't buy the millions of years explanation for anything.
No, I'm watching this as an interesting imaginative reconstruction of life forms that lived before the Noachian Flood and that were no doubt transported by that Flood to their resting places where they were buried and fossilized and where these geologists now find them.
The "sea" that bisected the continent was of course a temporary stage of the Flood after it had receded or at least begun to recede, as were all the ancient extinct large lakes of western North America such as Missoula and Lahontan and Bonneville. Simply large lakes that stood for some time after the Flood and then finally drained away, in some cases suddenly and catastrophically, probably due to the tectonic forces that occurred after the Flood and also built the Rockies. The catastrophic draining of one such great standing body of water is one very plausible explanation for the carving out of the Grand Canyon. Not a feat any ordinary river could have accomplished.
One funny thing: A few large fossils were found with food in their stomachs, one rather "stuffed to the gills" as it were, which prompted the speculation that it must have died of gluttony. Of another the narrator wondered why it would have died so suddenly after a good meal. Of course they conjured an explanation out of a hat as usual, but duh, folks, obviously the most reasonable explanation is that they were all caught in the same catastrophic event at the same time, some having just filled their stomachs.
Same phenomena, different interpretation, just as reasonable, no, really, more reasonable than the establishment interpretation.
Dr. A's course in geology finally approaches the controversial questions
I'm still following Dr. A's Geology presentations, though not intensively. Today he added a comment that is really the first time he's brought up anything controversial, so I have to at least note it.
He promised to give the reasons "how we know" this or that as he goes, and he's been doing that but not on anything particularly controversial until now. In this comment he does not even try to say "how we know" about these landscapes, he simply says this is how he now sees it, how he puts it all together, which of course is how the establishment puts it all together.
But not how a Floodist would put it all together, and until he provides us with the logical steps that lead to his conclusion he deprives a Floodist of the necessary material to falsify his claims, just as this kind of "science" always does, always leaping to the imaginative Big Picture, always Telling the Story of past events as they dream them up and letting that stand for Science, while slighting the particular phenomena that led them to their interpretation.
THIS is where you need to tell us "how you know" all this, Dr. A., and of course this is exactly where you DON'T tell us that. Please correct course. Thank you.
There is an inordinate number of different kinds of sediment. This is just how it is. This makes the study of geology different from studying (for example) the theory of gravity. Instead of Einstein's single equation, geologists must study a vast variety of things that happen on the face of the Earth. Dust-storms blow, trees fall, the tide goes in and out, turbidity currents do their thing, glaciers do theirs, peat-swamps form, rivers dposit point-bars, inevitable chemical processes gnaw at the rocks, desert sand is piled up by the wind, coccoliths drift with immense slowness towards the seafloor, the tide makes flaser deposits ... and so on and so on.This synthesis he makes from the great variety of geological phenomena, involving former "landscapes" that span huge periods of time, interpretive scenarios that he places in ancient time periods, is of course the standard Old Earth way of construing it. It's an imaginative construct laid over the phenomena, and of course the most predictable imaginative construct, and it is given without giving the logical steps by which he arrived at it. It's SOME kind of "poetry" but more like the poetry of biased imagination than the poetry of reality.
And you don't quite see it all until you see it all. Before I undertook my own study of geology, I regarded sediment as the dirt one finds fossils in. Now I see landscapes. "Here" (we say) "are the remains of ancient mountains, long gone. Over their cloud-capped heads, the storm broke, and angry torrents flowed down and dwindled into the rain-shadowed desert when dinosaurs walked --- look, here are their footprints around the ancient oases. Vast was that expanse of sand, which the wind sifted for tens of millions of years. It was bordered by a great yet shallow sea ..."
In writing this textbook, I have to deal with this one sediment at a time, one ripple in the mud, one lamina in the sand, but when we look at it all together, we see vanished landscapes, lost worlds. Piece by piece we put it together, until we see the whole.
"Science is the poetry of reality."
He promised to give the reasons "how we know" this or that as he goes, and he's been doing that but not on anything particularly controversial until now. In this comment he does not even try to say "how we know" about these landscapes, he simply says this is how he now sees it, how he puts it all together, which of course is how the establishment puts it all together.
But not how a Floodist would put it all together, and until he provides us with the logical steps that lead to his conclusion he deprives a Floodist of the necessary material to falsify his claims, just as this kind of "science" always does, always leaping to the imaginative Big Picture, always Telling the Story of past events as they dream them up and letting that stand for Science, while slighting the particular phenomena that led them to their interpretation.
THIS is where you need to tell us "how you know" all this, Dr. A., and of course this is exactly where you DON'T tell us that. Please correct course. Thank you.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Which side is "anti-science?"
Saw a mention at EvC of the broadcast of an interview with eight Nobel prize winners --ONLY AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT SEVEN DAYS -- so I listened to it. It was interesting in itself just hearing a bunch of science types talk about their work, until it came around to the familiar assumption that the objections of some Americans to evolution, to global warming and to stem cell research are "anti-science." This sort of "analysis" is stupid, just regurgitated bias that can never be answered. The objection to these particular "science" projects or theories is not an objection to science. There are thousands of scientific projects and achievements to which there is no objection whatever but in fact appreciation, but the bias prevails nevertheless.
The objection to evolution is two-fold: it contradicts God's word and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, it's all an edifice built out of conjecture and imagination that is circular and self-validating, that co-opts a lot of real science to it that is mistaken for validation though it just as well validates creationism instead. Evolution is a theory about past events which can never be positively proved or disproved. To call an objection to evolution "anti-science" is to betray a biased stupidity about the very nature of science, and it gets SO tiresome hearing all the lectures about what science is and does when NONE OF THEM APPLY TO THIS TOPIC. Word magic, not science.
The objection to global warming is that the science for it is extremely fuzzy and unconvincing as well as to a great extent politically motivated with dire consequences contingent on the not-so-scientific conclusions. For myself I don't know how far to accept any of it because the science just does not come across as convincing. The number of variables involved in global-scale phenomena should in itself be a caveat against coming to any glib conclusions. To justify implementing the political restraints on all kinds of human activities that believers in global warming think necessary requires a LOT MORE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY than is presently possible that human activity has much to do with a global warming trend if even such a trend can itself be established with certainty. There is nothing whatever that is "anti-science" about the objections, the whole issue is far more politics than science.
As for stem cell research, this is a moral issue, similar to the atomic bomb issue. Do you create life in order to kill it in order to save other lives? To call this position anti-science is to descend to an abysmal depth of barbarism and moral dementia. Ethics, not science.
The objection to evolution is two-fold: it contradicts God's word and THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT, it's all an edifice built out of conjecture and imagination that is circular and self-validating, that co-opts a lot of real science to it that is mistaken for validation though it just as well validates creationism instead. Evolution is a theory about past events which can never be positively proved or disproved. To call an objection to evolution "anti-science" is to betray a biased stupidity about the very nature of science, and it gets SO tiresome hearing all the lectures about what science is and does when NONE OF THEM APPLY TO THIS TOPIC. Word magic, not science.
The objection to global warming is that the science for it is extremely fuzzy and unconvincing as well as to a great extent politically motivated with dire consequences contingent on the not-so-scientific conclusions. For myself I don't know how far to accept any of it because the science just does not come across as convincing. The number of variables involved in global-scale phenomena should in itself be a caveat against coming to any glib conclusions. To justify implementing the political restraints on all kinds of human activities that believers in global warming think necessary requires a LOT MORE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY than is presently possible that human activity has much to do with a global warming trend if even such a trend can itself be established with certainty. There is nothing whatever that is "anti-science" about the objections, the whole issue is far more politics than science.
As for stem cell research, this is a moral issue, similar to the atomic bomb issue. Do you create life in order to kill it in order to save other lives? To call this position anti-science is to descend to an abysmal depth of barbarism and moral dementia. Ethics, not science.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Design needs a Designer despite evolutionist claims
In a discussion at EvC about logical fallacies a creationist claims it is logically valid to say that biological information must have had a designer, and an evolutionist answered that that's not valid because it leaves out evolution as a cause of anything that looks designed. [I'm paraphrasing because I don't have time to track it all down at the moment, but maybe I can later].
Of course the designer is obvious in most cases where something appears designed, whereas evolution has never ever been shown to produce something that appears designed, it's simply assumed that it must have. They merely assert it, they do not, because they can not, prove it.
Now we have a slightly different twist on the argument:
Silly silly silly Dr. A.
Of course the designer is obvious in most cases where something appears designed, whereas evolution has never ever been shown to produce something that appears designed, it's simply assumed that it must have. They merely assert it, they do not, because they can not, prove it.
Now we have a slightly different twist on the argument:
"Your" genome is not "the" genome. Just because once in operation it goes on reproducing itself is no proof whatever that the whole system in which self-reproduction is part of the design was itself designed without a designer but only by blind evolution. In fact there are many machines designed by human beings that once in operation go on operating without human input but only do so because their ability to go on operating without human input is what they were originally designed by human beings to do.[Creationist Mike the Wiz says] I am not dogmatic, but nobody has shown me any strictly logical reasons to give up the belief in information showing a designer.[Evolutionist Dr. A answers] * coughs *
Yes I have, namely that we often see it being produced without one. When it comes to living things, we invariably see it being produced without one. Who designed your genome? We know that it was produced by reproduction, recombination, and mutation, don't we?
Silly silly silly Dr. A.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
The Puny Fallen Human Mind Wins Against God?
Kirk Bertsche is a physicist, a Christian and a creationist, who posts occasionally at EvC forums. I usually appreciate his thoughtful posts, but he believes in an Old Earth and that is a contradiction with the Bible. (Buzsaw is another creationist at EvC who believes in an Old Earth. In fact I don't think there is a Young Earth Creationist at EvC any more). This is sad. It means he's allowed science to triumph over God's word.
Today he posted on a thread about the speed of light as a challenge to Young Earth Creationism. He gives three possible answers to the challenge and pretty much concludes that the fact of the speed of light does indeed defeat the Bible:
The only right answer to this challenge is that we don't know how God did it -- perhaps one of the current YEC theories is correct for that matter though obviously it's not easy to determine that -- but if we believe God's word it is certain that NOTHING in His universe is going to contradict His Word.
This is only "a good issue to raise with YECs" because we don't have an answer to it, so it gives us the choice of rejecting science, which is cause for endless jeering by the unbelievers, or capitulating as his friend did who became an Old Earth Creationist. So by saying that, Dr. Bertsche shows his bias in favor of science against God. We have these and only these options: Choose against science or choose against God. Why is it that so many choose against God? WAY too much trust in our current state of knowledge and in the fallen human intellect.
No, issues we do not know enough to answer in a way that supports God's word have to be left alone. We have plenty we can answer very well, and if those were taken seriously they should in themselves force an honest person to rethink such claims as converted kbertsche's friend.
Today he posted on a thread about the speed of light as a challenge to Young Earth Creationism. He gives three possible answers to the challenge and pretty much concludes that the fact of the speed of light does indeed defeat the Bible:
1) the simplest answer: God created light in transit. But when one considers the vast amount of information which is contained in the light from a star, this makes God seem deceptive. (The spectrum tells us elemental composition, recessional velocity, rotational velocity, etc.) Thus some YECs have said this argument should not be used.Why isn't it immediately apparent to a generally good head like Dr. Bertsche, who does seem to be a true Christian, that what fallen humanity is able to think cannot be made God's judge?
2) another answer is that the speed of light was much faster in the past. But the main evidence for this is an imaginative analysis of historical data by Setterfield, which has been questioned even by other YECs. Again, some YECs have said that this argument should not be used.
3) Jason Lisle has recently proposed an imaginative theory, that the speed of light moves instantaneously toward an observer, and at 1/2 c away from an observer. He claims freedom to do this because he believes that we can only measure the round trip speed of light, but not the one-way speed of light. But in this he is wrong. We have good measurements of the one-way speed of light, and devices such as particle accelerators and free-electron lasers would not work if the one-way speed of light were not c.
I think the speed of light is a good issue to raise with YECs. I have a YEC friend who became an OEC ("old earth creationist") after thinking about the explosion of SN 1987A.
The only right answer to this challenge is that we don't know how God did it -- perhaps one of the current YEC theories is correct for that matter though obviously it's not easy to determine that -- but if we believe God's word it is certain that NOTHING in His universe is going to contradict His Word.
This is only "a good issue to raise with YECs" because we don't have an answer to it, so it gives us the choice of rejecting science, which is cause for endless jeering by the unbelievers, or capitulating as his friend did who became an Old Earth Creationist. So by saying that, Dr. Bertsche shows his bias in favor of science against God. We have these and only these options: Choose against science or choose against God. Why is it that so many choose against God? WAY too much trust in our current state of knowledge and in the fallen human intellect.
No, issues we do not know enough to answer in a way that supports God's word have to be left alone. We have plenty we can answer very well, and if those were taken seriously they should in themselves force an honest person to rethink such claims as converted kbertsche's friend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
