How creationists distort science

The response would be that all of those tests depend upon "uniformitarian assumptions" as well, so they're worthless.

Of course that's absurd. In the first place, the "assumptions" of science aren't of the same kind as the assumptions of the creationist, because science "assumptions" are nothing but conservative, while creationist assumptions are speculative in the extreme. Science does start out assuming no deviation--because it can only build upon the evidence. We've never had warrant to assume deviation, while we see apparent uniformitarianism now, and, at least tentatively, in the past. If you can show deviation, interventionism, or singularity, then do so.

The baseline is uniformitarian--because that's all that we have in the beginning, certain regularities to establish a baseline. Of course there could be evidence of some great deviation (like in physical "laws," not an asteroid strike, for instance) in the past, there simply hasn't been any such thing. If there were evidence of deviation, it would greatly complicate matters, but we'd see what we could do with it, find out when it ended, or, indeed, if it did completely end.

And that's why the complaint that uniformitarianism is only tested against uniformitarianism is off the mark, to say the least. Of course it could be that all of the aspects of nature changed at one time in such a way that everything looked like nothing deviated in the least--but we simply can't test for that. We can only start with regularities, and see if the various regularities cross-correlate with each other as they would if uniformitarianism holds. It's a model, and not claimed to be absolute truth, and we can do science with it. All of the ad hoc miracles invented to preserve the flood story could be true, for all that we know, but there is absolutely no way to show that they fit together in any way except as an apologetic for "literalism."

The fact is that we can do biology and paleontology because everything fits together as if uniformitarianism holds true. There is nothing that allows science to proceed if we assume that uniformitarianism does not hold true, rather, everything is thereby ad hoc speculation. We can't find oil with ad hoc speculation, we can with uniformitarianism as understood today (constancy of physics since at least soon after the Big Bang), and evolution predicts long-term change roughly consistent with what is found in the geologic column and in genomes today.

Anything else never gets past the stage of meaningless speculation.

Glen Davidson

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said: Anything else never gets past the stage of meaningless speculation.

This is exactly what Ken Ham did in the debate. He was dead wrong and Bill let him get away with it. The assumptions of models used in science are testable. IN general they have been tested and they have been confirmed. IN the case of radio carbon dating they have been conformed by independent data sets and calibrated back nearly 50,000 years. Even AIG admits that they give reliable relative dates. The thing is that they just can't admit that they give reliable absolute dates a as well. But this is because of their presuppositions and untested assumptions, not those of science.

Creationists -

I do, by necessity, tend to make certain basic assumptions, which lead me to accept science as the best way to study physical reality.

Here are the assumptions I make, tell me which you disagree with and why.

1) I exist.

2) Other people exist.

3) My senses, when not interfered with by state of consciousness, intoxication, or pathology, give me accurate information about the universe around me.

4) The method of thinking which we call "logical", which is intuitive but can be formally defined, gives correct answers.

5) Other people perceive the same external universe as I do and they can help me by making their own observations, demonstrating things to me, helping me see my biases, and making logical inferences which I had not thought of on my own.

(I do NOT make an assumption that the most basic physical principles of the universe have been the same since the big bang. Modeling that they have seems to produce consistent results. Trying to claim that they haven't, in a post hoc effort to falsely claim that parts of the Book of Genesis are "literal", does not produce results that make any sense.)

I realized that I make these assumptions many years ago, actually during a freshman philosophy class.

Creationists, which of them do you disagree with, and why?

Creationists have taught me why America is "divided".

You can't have a reasonable conversation with someone who denies physical reality and logic.

Creationists, and many other people, operate in a different way than I do.

If something challenges what I wish to be true, I take the challenge seriously.

Creationists are, at a deep level, intensely cynical, in fact outright nihilistic. The ones that aren't stop being creationists. If something challenges what they wish to be true, they simply deny and attack it, evidence and logic be damned.

Creationists begin with a usually unconscious commitment to pushing their own social and political agenda. Because parts of it are too inflammatory to openly push, they push "Biblical literalism" as dog whistle code. They think others are fooled by this, because they use it to fool, or at least assuage themselves. I know that because I've asked them questions like "what should happen to gay people" directly, and seen that they literally, I mean literally, can't answer the question. I've had a creationist literally beg me to stop asking that because the answer he would have to give sounds "too brutal". They're like Dr Strangelove half-trying to suppress the nazi salute and half trying to do it (no comparison to nazis intended; it's the psychological state I refer to). Their self-serving bias, which is actually incorrect, but powerful, is that they themselves benefit if "Genesis is literally true" (or in the ID bastardization, if "evolution is somehow false but we can't say what's true, wink, wink").

As nihilistic authoritarians, they set out to advocate that what they wish to be true, is true. Any trick that can work for a few seconds, on themselves or others, is employed. I mentioned above that they focus on science denial, while the real agenda is a harsh social and political ideology. When "defending" science denial, they routinely use straw man misrepresentations, quote mining, arguments from authority, non sequitur arguments, ad hominem fallacy, false accusations, false analogies, censorship of their critics wherever possible, and repetition of arguments proven false elsewhere in front of naive audiences.

It doesn't matter because their goal is not to convince anyone with reason. It's to "win".

They can't understand that the rest of us are any different. They have no fear that "evolutionists" might be saying something that is true, because they project their own behavior onto others. At some level, perhaps not conscious, they know that they will say any self-contradictory, factually untrue, or illogical thing to deny science, if they think they can get away with it. So they assume we are the same, but on the opposite side - just saying anything, however false or illogical, to deny their claims.

They have total disrespect for others. If you stand in the way of their wish fulfillment, you must just be a rival authoritarian. No need to even consider your arguments. Just use every verbal trick in the book, most or all taken from the lexicon of con men, most or all observable in slight variation in ads for rip-off products, to try to shut the other guy down.

I comment here to try to enlighten third party readers. The deeply committed science deniers can't be reached by comments.

hi sorry for my english.about the creation argument -the watch argument:. the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch (with dna)we need to say that is made by itself ?

scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U

and we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small and organic.

what you think? have a nice day

dcscccc said: hi sorry for my english.about the creation argument -the watch argument:. the evolutionist always says that a watch need a designer because it cant self rplicat. so if we will find a self replicat watch (with dna)we need to say that is made by itself ? scientist even find a motor in bacteria called bacterial flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-j5kKSk_6U and we know that a motor is evidence for design. even if its very small and organic. what you think? have a nice day

dcscccc, you might find Berkeley's Evolution 101 page a helpful way to address some of your misunderstandings.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

BTW, calling a bacterial flagellum a motor is a metaphor, or sometimes an equivocation, depending on the honesty of the source. It is just the result of a bunch of proteins doing what proteins following the laws of chemistry and physics do. It is not a known mechanical contrivance like a watch. If the video you sourced is any indication, you may have been equivocated to.

KP

harold said: I know that because I’ve asked them questions like “what should happen to gay people” directly, and seen that they literally, I mean literally, can’t answer the question. I’ve had a creationist literally beg me to stop asking that because the answer he would have to give sounds “too brutal”.

Asked what he would do about Wiccans, he said, in all seriousness, “I would burn them. Pile them up and burn them.” I got out of the car at the next stoplight.

harold said: "Biblical literalism" as dog whistle code.

TomS said:

harold said: "Biblical literalism" as dog whistle code.

A lot of what they say as no Biblical backing to it: Noah's Flood carved the Grand Canyon; "kinds" with super-evolution producing all the modern species; ... While they ignore the clear Biblical geocentrism. The Bible is only a tool for which to silence others.

Actually a question for David M.

When you were a fundamentalist creationist, had you read the Bible all the way through, Genesis to Revelation?

Were you or members of your group encouraged to do that?

Just Bob said:

TomS said:

harold said: "Biblical literalism" as dog whistle code.

A lot of what they say as no Biblical backing to it: Noah's Flood carved the Grand Canyon; "kinds" with super-evolution producing all the modern species; ... While they ignore the clear Biblical geocentrism. The Bible is only a tool for which to silence others.

And a vanishingly tiny percentage of them have actually READ the thing, cover-to-cover. It's all perfectly true, and the very words of their god, but somehow they rarely seem motivated to actually READ those holy words.

Just Bob, your story reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother, who, knowing that I'm an atheist, had informed me that "the truth" was available if only I were willing to accept it.

I told him that among the reasons I was not willing to accept "the truth" that he was talking about (i.e. his Christian god his bible) was the fact that this deity orders genocide and promises a person numberless progeny and territory based on his willingness to kill his own son.

Of course he responded with the usual nonsensical apologetics on the matter, so I asked him if he, too, would be willing to participate in genocide if his god ordered him to do so, and if so, how exactly he would be different than the Muslim terrorists we love to hate so much. He replied that yes, he would.

Unfortunately, it's a bit more difficult to get out at the next stoplight when it's your own brother.

harold said: Creationists have taught me why America is "divided".

“We'll have more to say about Cosmos after we've seen the first episode on Sunday.”

... forgot to mention. The genocide and Abraham/Isaac verses had always been my trump card til then. No one that I had put the question to in that way had ever answered yes.

Just Bob said: Actually a question for David M. When you were a fundamentalist creationist, had you read the Bible all the way through, Genesis to Revelation? Were you or members of your group encouraged to do that?

TomS said: As it is the Word of God, one would be driven to read it in the original languages.

CP: You shared before that you grew up in a Christian household and went through a period of struggling with your faith. Of course, you are no longer struggling, so how would you describe where you are now? Ehrman: I am an agnostic. This kind of scholarship, when I first confronted it as a seminarian at Princeton Theological Seminary, I reacted against it the way a lot of people reading The Huffington Post have reacted. I simply didn't accept what scholars were saying, until I started digging deeper and deeper and deeper into the evidence. Then, I finally, reluctantly, started getting convinced that Paul, for example, didn't write 1 Timothy. That ended up making me turn away from my evangelical form of Christianity, and for a large number of years I was a liberal Christian. I accepted what the findings of historical scholarship were, but I continued to be a believer in a kind of a liberal sense.

david.starling.macmillan said: I have read every book of the bible at least two or three times, mostly while I was still YEC. I've read the New Testament cover to cover and individual sections of the OT in the same way. It was and is strongly encouraged by most of the fundamentalist circles. Every January, churches hand out numerous "read the Bible in a year" schedules.

Another fantastic article, David! Thank you for your contributions

Robert Byers said: A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

Robert Byers said: Why not just see things as they really are. A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

Robert Byers said: Oh no. This ice core thing is a failing of you guys. Your testing your ice core hypothesis by carbon dating of ash in the ice thing AND THEN saying you proved the annual layering by snow. Give me a break already. Your can't confirm a dating method by another unconfirmed dating method. Why not just see things as they really are. A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Robert Byers said: A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

It's not terribly unlikely, you see, because that's exactly what we observe every year in the present. A new layer, every year, from snow accumulation. Like clockwork. BUT we are NOT so foolish as to assume that just because we see it in the present, it must have always been this way. No, that would be fallacious presuppositionalism, and science doesn't work that way, nosiree-Bob. Instead, we set out to do a test and see whether it has always been that way. If it has always been this way -- if every layer really is annual accumulation -- then, by golly, we should see spikes in temperature markers every 100,000 layers. And, by golly, we do. See how neatly that works?

david.starling.macmillan said:

Robert Byers said: A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

It's not terribly unlikely, you see, because that's exactly what we observe every year in the present. A new layer, every year, from snow accumulation. Like clockwork. BUT we are NOT so foolish as to assume that just because we see it in the present, it must have always been this way. No, that would be fallacious presuppositionalism, and science doesn't work that way, nosiree-Bob. Instead, we set out to do a test and see whether it has always been that way. If it has always been this way -- if every layer really is annual accumulation -- then, by golly, we should see spikes in temperature markers every 100,000 layers. And, by golly, we do. See how neatly that works?

Just Bob said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I have read every book of the bible at least two or three times, mostly while I was still YEC. I've read the New Testament cover to cover and individual sections of the OT in the same way. It was and is strongly encouraged by most of the fundamentalist circles. Every January, churches hand out numerous "read the Bible in a year" schedules.

Excellent (and I mean that seriously). Now I have to ask if any of your careful and thorough reading give you qualms about the factuality or morality of any parts of the Bible. Or was your 'deprogramming' strictly a result of discovering real science?

david.starling.macmillan said: 3. "Wait a minute, the Bible doesn't actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily."

TomS said:

david.starling.macmillan said: 3. "Wait a minute, the Bible doesn't actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily."

You suggest that there are other steps needed before 3. Are they needed? Maybe one can see that there is no Biblical warrant for a lot of is being taught in YEC, but people may be making stuff up? Because the Bible doesn't concern with matters that science treats, so people make up stuff up to address matters that science treats (and "making stuff up" does not stand a chance with science).

The roots of creationism are in the abuse of children by immersing them in fundamentalism.
How to put a stop to that and give the poor kids a chance to think for themselves?

Robert Byers said: Oh no. This ice core thing is a failing of you guys. Your testing your ice core hypothesis by carbon dating of ash in the ice thing AND THEN saying you proved the annual layering by snow. Give me a break already. Your can't confirm a dating method by another unconfirmed dating method. Why not just see things as they really are. A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

Robert Byers said: Oh no. This ice core thing is a failing of you guys. Your testing your ice core hypothesis by carbon dating of ash in the ice thing AND THEN saying you proved the annual layering by snow. Give me a break already. Your can't confirm a dating method by another unconfirmed dating method. Why not just see things as they really are. A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem. The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

david.starling.macmillan said:

Just Bob said:

david.starling.macmillan said: I have read every book of the bible at least two or three times, mostly while I was still YEC. I've read the New Testament cover to cover and individual sections of the OT in the same way. It was and is strongly encouraged by most of the fundamentalist circles. Every January, churches hand out numerous "read the Bible in a year" schedules.

Excellent (and I mean that seriously). Now I have to ask if any of your careful and thorough reading give you qualms about the factuality or morality of any parts of the Bible. Or was your 'deprogramming' strictly a result of discovering real science?

I assume you meant to say "gave you qualms" rather than "give you qualms". As a fundamentalist, there was a host of defenses used to great effect against the less savory bits in the Bible. First and most important was "description is not endorsement". In other words, just because the Bible describes events (e.g. the dismemberment of the gang-raped concubine from Judges 19) doesn't mean it's endorsing those events. Of course, we used this approach even when the text did seem to be literally endorsing things ("blessed is he who dashes your children against the rocks"). But when this approach couldn't be exploited, it was a steady progression of "well, times were different then" and "God had reasons we might not understand" and "who are we to question God anyway??!!". Which works, as long as you're continually surrounded by other Christians who are saying the same thing and no one wants to look like the apostate who is asking too many questions. A few years ago, I heard someone argue that even if God was fully in control of what did and didn't end up in the Bible, there's no reason to think that everyone in the Bible who claimed to be speaking for God actually was telling the truth. There's nothing (in theory) to prohibit God from including examples of what happens when religious leaders claim to speak for God but aren't. At the time, I was incredulous, but it does make a good deal of sense. Nowadays, I view the Old Testament as a constant back-and-forth tug of war between God revealing himself and the Hebrew people trying to mold that revelation into something more palatable to themselves. My deprogramming from creationism occurred in the following steps: 1. "Wow, now that I am more familiar with the scientific method, I can see that evolution and long ages are really useful for making predictions. I wonder how that can be. Maybe I can figure out my own model to explain why they're so useful even when they're wrong." 2. "Not only do evolution and long ages make useful predictions, but they actually explain everything really well. Huh. I mean, I don't believe them, but I can see why someone would." 3. "Wait a minute, the Bible doesn't actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily." 4. "Hold on, these pieces of evidence are TOTALLY inconsistent with the YEC view. No way they can fit. I can't believe I didn't see these before." Step 3 was definitely informed in part by my shifting perspective on the Bible, which certainly depended on my view of the less savory bits. Of course, step 4 could have never happened without steps 2 and 3 already being firmly in place. That's the problem with debating creationists; we like to jump straight to step 4 when our targets haven't even begun to grasp step 1.

Robert Byers said: A layer of ice was created from freezing water. Not from yearly snow on top of a lower layer that then turned to ice. Its easily explained as a freezing rain episode and these episodes happening several times a day or during a week during a special climate problem.

David MacMillan said, "That an assumption exists at the beginning of an explanation does not mean that assumption is presuppositional."

May I offer another example? Some creationists love to criticize, and belittle, Albert Einstein. Some go so far as to imply that his Relativity theories were meant to destroy Absolutes (i.e. God). Other creationists insist that the speed of light was not constant in the past.

It is a common misconception that his Special Theory of Relativity 'proves' the constancy of light speed. But his seminal paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" posits the constant speed of light axiomatically. Then he goes on to show such an axiom allows explanations of observable phenomenon (unipolar induction, for one) that cannot be explained satisfactorily with older, non-relativistic, theory (Maxwell's equations).

There's much more to it, of course. But the constancy of the speed of light is not a "lucky guess presupposition" so much as a foundational axiom that explains what we observe, and makes new predictions against which we can test this new theory.

And the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity have passed every test put to them.

For enlightenment in the ways of the wicked, go to Conservapedia.com and read Schlafly's entries for Einstein and Relativity. It is a rewriting of history, a la Orwell's 1984. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, and dangerous.

It’s what the ID people would (or should) call “specified complexity”. All of those ice cores from all over the world have the made things happen to them, and something happens to all the other methods to give the same results. Coincidence, or design?

prongs said: David MacMillan said, "That an assumption exists at the beginning of an explanation does not mean that assumption is presuppositional." May I offer another example? Some creationists love to criticize, and belittle, Albert Einstein. Some go so far as to imply that his Relativity theories were meant to destroy Absolutes (i.e. God). Other creationists insist that the speed of light was not constant in the past. It is a common misconception that his Special Theory of Relativity 'proves' the constancy of light speed. But his seminal paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" posits the constant speed of light axiomatically. Then he goes on to show such an axiom allows explanations of observable phenomenon (unipolar induction, for one) that cannot be explained satisfactorily with older, non-relativistic, theory (Maxwell's equations). There's much more to it, of course. But the constancy of the speed of light is not a "lucky guess presupposition" so much as a foundational axiom that explains what we observe, and makes new predictions against which we can test this new theory. And the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity have passed every test put to them. For enlightenment in the ways of the wicked, go to Conservapedia.com and read Schlafly's entries for Einstein and Relativity. It is a rewriting of history, a la Orwell's 1984. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, and dangerous.

co said:

prongs said: David MacMillan said, "That an assumption exists at the beginning of an explanation does not mean that assumption is presuppositional." May I offer another example? Some creationists love to criticize, and belittle, Albert Einstein. Some go so far as to imply that his Relativity theories were meant to destroy Absolutes (i.e. God). Other creationists insist that the speed of light was not constant in the past. It is a common misconception that his Special Theory of Relativity 'proves' the constancy of light speed. But his seminal paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" posits the constant speed of light axiomatically. Then he goes on to show such an axiom allows explanations of observable phenomenon (unipolar induction, for one) that cannot be explained satisfactorily with older, non-relativistic, theory (Maxwell's equations). There's much more to it, of course. But the constancy of the speed of light is not a "lucky guess presupposition" so much as a foundational axiom that explains what we observe, and makes new predictions against which we can test this new theory. And the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity have passed every test put to them. For enlightenment in the ways of the wicked, go to Conservapedia.com and read Schlafly's entries for Einstein and Relativity. It is a rewriting of history, a la Orwell's 1984. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, and dangerous.

Remember that Maxwell's Equations are Lorentz covariant, and are totally compatible with SR in a locally-flat spacetime. (I may have misread the implication of your parenthesized comment following the sentence about older, non-relativistic theory.)

By using Faraday's induction law in the "way in which it is usually understood," Einstein next demonstrated in the relativity paper [7-13] that the Maxwell-Lorentz theory "leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena."

Whenever creationists attempt to do 'real' science, it's a prescription for fiasco.

David has detailed the failures of the creationist canards "The present is not the key to the past" and "Just a different set of pre-suppositions."

Consider these other creationist epic failures:

Flood Geology

Hydrological sorting

c-decay

Canopy Theory (apologies to all true Theories, for using their name inappropriately here)

White Hole Cosmology

But one of my favorites is the particular Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) of Andrew Schlafly of Conservapedia.org.

He insists that anyone who continues to believe that the exponent of the distance between gravitational objects (in Newton's gravitational force equation) is precisely 2, is "closed-minded."

Schlafly thinks it could be 2.0000001 instead of exactly two. He insists this is an "open-minded" position that mainstream scientists don't have.

Never mind that Newton didn't arbitrarily choose 2. Never mind that Newton derived that exponent, and it exactly equals two. Never mind that if it's not exactly two, you don't have Newtonian Dynamics any longer - not even modified Newtonian Dynamics. Because any deviation from the theoretically derived value of 2 requires a theoretical justification for same. And Schlafly doesn't have that justification. At least not a theoretical one.

His justification is that he doesn't want to accept that Godless General Relativity, just like Gish. If Relativity is General, then there are no Absolutes, and thus no God. He must fight against GR at all cost.

His ad hoc change of exponent allows him to support Newton (though Newton himself would not accept it), whom he perceives to be a staunch Creationist (never mind all that spiritualism at the end of his life). And the Devil take the Jew and his godless Relativity.

I have sent the link to this article to the presuppositionalists at Answers in Genesis. I expect that the response by them will be silence both here and on their website.

Robert Byers - I believe he is trying to use the thing that has been rebutted in order to 'rebut' the rebuttal :)
I expect he will get brownie points from Jesus though.

ashleyhr said: Robert Byers - I believe he is trying to use the thing that has been rebutted in order to 'rebut' the rebuttal :) I expect he will get brownie points from Jesus though.

3. “Wait a minute, the Bible doesn’t actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily.”

FL misses the point. His link is to an article that argues from Hebrew usages that "day", as in the days of Creation, doesn't mean "some period of time greater than a day", and hence, we'll have none of this namby-pamby nonsense about day=age. The meaning is six consecutive days, each twenty-four hours long, and anyone who says different is some kind of pagan. That is, this is a bunch of creationists disputing with another bunch of creationists about how literal they have to be.

But day=age creationism is no more viable than young-earth creationism. It, too, contains too many anomalies with the known history of Earth and life. For instance, the sun and the moon existed long before there was any liquid water on the Earth, and even longer before there were any green plants, but Genesis puts the sea first, and plants before the sun and moon. "Creeping things" existed on the Earth long before there were any birds, but Genesis puts them the other way around. And so on.

The point, which FL and his essayist have comprehensively failed to understand, is that the Bible itself does not ever say that the usage, as opposed to the literal definition, of the word "yom" ("day"), or any other word in Genesis, need be literal. Sure "day" means, literally, a period of twenty four hours. But any word, and any narrative, may be read metaphorically, and nothing in scripture says that Genesis cannot be so read.

Read metaphorically, "day" in Genesis doesn't mean "a literal period greater than twenty-four hours", any more than it means "a literal twenty-four hour period". It isn't to be read as literal. What it means is something more like "once upon a time".

And in the face of the overwhelming evidence for an ancient Earth and the common descent of all living things, that's how it must be read, because it's either that or simply ignore it altogether. And there's some things in Genesis that I think are worth retaining.

Robert said: The ice age was from freezing rain episodes all happening quickly. Within biblical boundaries. then a big quick melt. No need for annual snow accumulation. Thats a lack of imagination and unlikely.

BUT - don't for get that the best, the absolute BEST way to get famous and well-respected in science is to overturn an established paradigm. Scientists are always trying to undercut each other and overturn well-established ideas or scientific theories.

FL said:

3. “Wait a minute, the Bible doesn’t actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily.”

Patently false. Here's just one example. https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf FL

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmSOoisp2Oqk5_gBhZFwlSisb7SMhyTjFs said: This reads as though the Enlightenment never happened (except for the spurious reference to Adam's DNA). Is that the problem? Have sizable parts of the US populace turned their backs on it, or are they ignorant of it?

As it is the Word of God, one would be driven to read it in the original languages.

Ah, but we all know what happened to Bart D. Ehrman when he did that!

(1) Paul, (author's name clearly identified) an apostle of Christ Jesus (see Paul's conversion/commission in Acts chap. 9) by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, (2) To Timothy my true son in the faith (directly identified by Paul as his "fellow co-worker" in Rom. 16:21) Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (the signature Pauline opening salutation, see 1 Cor, Gal, Eph, 1 Thess, etc) 3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, (see Acts 16:9-10) stay there in Ephesus (where Paul preached, see Acts 19:1) so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer.

Typo correction: it should read,

"So now you have an idea why Pauline authorship was so widely accepted by the early church."

FL

And here I thought FL would inform us that Pauline authorship was widely accepted in the early church on account of God told them so.

Could it conceivably be that FL is telling us that maybe the authenticity of Biblical texts is a matter of opinion?

Sure “day” means, literally, a period of twenty four hours.

Could it conceivably be that FL is telling us that maybe the authenticity of Biblical texts is a matter of opinion?

A balloon can take flight impelled by hot air. We see that principle in action, in the post immediately above.

There is, of course, no connection at all between the “Yom (day) + Ordinal Number + Evening and Morning Formula” and whether the Genesis account of creation is to be read metaphorically. It's like saying that Columbus had ships made out of wood, which proves that the world is round. Ridiculous.

Ah, but the opinion of the early Church fathers was invoked, as if that were important.

I don't know, and nobody knows, whether Paul wrote the Pastoral letters. Possibly. There are explanations for all of the objections to Pauline authorship: vocabulary; theology; assumption of authority; implications of Church structure that didn't exist before about 90 CE; provenance. FL even mentions one problem himself: in Romans, Timothy is "fellow-worker", but in 1 Timothy he has become "our son in the Faith", which is certainly a lower status.

But that's the point. Nobody knows if Paul actually wrote them. FL doesn't. I don't. But FL attributes infallibility to them anyway. The only way that that can work is if he thinks that God dictated them. But if he thinks that, why bother with this palaver about church authorities and evidence? He don' need no steenking evidence!

By the way (and I'm not trying to belabor anything),

when scholars like Bart Ehrman or D.A. Carson use terms like "authenticity", they are referring to issues like "Did Paul really write 1 Timothy", does that book really belong in the biblical canon, etc.

It's in that sense that I'm saying "it's a matter of evidence."

FL

Timothy is “fellow-worker”, but in 1 Timothy he has become “our son in the Faith”, which is certainly a lower status.

FL said: For example, you don't get from "In the beginning, God..." to "In the beginning, naturalistic evolution..." by switching from the English text to the Hebrew text.

The meaning of common English words, like the point, also eludes FL.

A fellow-worker is a colleague, putatively your equal. A son must be junior to you, and this was especially the case in ancient Greek and Roman society, where fatherhood had a mystical and sacerdotal aura, as well as an assumption of authority.

ashleyhr said: Robert Byers - I believe he is trying to use the thing that has been rebutted in order to 'rebut' the rebuttal :) I expect he will get brownie points from Jesus though.

And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years; and he died. --- Genesis 9:29

So days are years, or is “yom” used here figuratively?

Once again, everyone who thinks FL is qualified in any way to read, understand, or translate ancient Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, please raise your hands.

Anyone?

Anyone?

Buehler?

FL said: (2) the word "days" is used here, but it's NOT the unique and specific "Yom + Ordinal Number + Evening-Morning Formula".

FL said: (In fact, according to Strong's Concordance,

FL is wrong. "Shawnah" (various transliterations) means "years". The word at Genesis 9:29 translated "days" is "yomeh" which is the standard plural of "yom", day.

Yes, the repeated refrain "the morning and the evening of the (ordinal number) day" appears in Genesis 1. A repeated verbal refrain is absolutely standard for all text that was transmitted initially orally. Read Homer, or the Mabinogion, or the Tan Bo Culleagh. It's completely unexceptional. FL's claim that this is unique in ancient literature couldn't be more wrong. The words of the formula might be, but that means nothing. The device is commonplace, practically universal.

But it really doesn't matter that the refrain is repeated, and it wouldn't matter even if it were unique to Genesis. It manifestly doesn't mean "this text is to be read literally".

"Enough Hebrew and Greek to be able to crawl through the Bible by using lexicons …"

Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry", chapter 17

Just Bob said: Once again, everyone who thinks FL is qualified in any way to read, understand, or translate ancient Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, please raise your hands. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

Doc Bill said:

Just Bob said: Once again, everyone who thinks FL is qualified in any way to read, understand, or translate ancient Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin, please raise your hands. Anyone? Anyone? Buehler?

I am certain that FL is fluent in Dingbat.

Dave Luckett said: FL is wrong. "Shawnah" (various transliterations) means "years". The word at Genesis 9:29 translated "days" is "yomeh" which is the standard plural of "yom", day. Yes, the repeated refrain "the morning and the evening of the (ordinal number) day" appears in Genesis 1. A repeated verbal refrain is absolutely standard for all text that was transmitted initially orally. Read Homer, or the Mabinogion, or the Tan Bo Culleagh. It's completely unexceptional. FL's claim that this is unique in ancient literature couldn't be more wrong. The words of the formula might be, but that means nothing. The device is commonplace, practically universal. But it really doesn't matter that the refrain is repeated, and it wouldn't matter even if it were unique to Genesis. It manifestly doesn't mean "this text is to be read literally".

Yes, the repeated refrain “the morning and the evening of the (ordinal number) day” appears in Genesis 1.

FL said: Looking up the Hebrew text will only confirm that Genesis 1-11 can never be reconciled either with the theory of evolution and/or long-age uniformitarianism. FL

Keelyn said:

FL said: Looking up the Hebrew text will only confirm that Genesis 1-11 can never be reconciled either with the theory of evolution and/or long-age uniformitarianism. FL

Well if that’s the case, Floyd, we should just dispense with G1-11 as a lot of ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that does not even remotely reflect reality. In the event we are under the observation of any space-faring aliens, it doesn’t behoove us as a race to have the appearance of an entire segment of society looking like a bunch of Bronze Age throwbacks living in the middle of an otherwise highly technological world. They must be laughing their alien asses off! No wonder they don’t make contact – it would spoil all the fun.

harold said:

Keelyn said:

FL said: Looking up the Hebrew text will only confirm that Genesis 1-11 can never be reconciled either with the theory of evolution and/or long-age uniformitarianism. FL

Well if that’s the case, Floyd, we should just dispense with G1-11 as a lot of ridiculous mumbo-jumbo that does not even remotely reflect reality. In the event we are under the observation of any space-faring aliens, it doesn’t behoove us as a race to have the appearance of an entire segment of society looking like a bunch of Bronze Age throwbacks living in the middle of an otherwise highly technological world. They must be laughing their alien asses off! No wonder they don’t make contact – it would spoil all the fun.

The key words being "if that's the case". FL believes that only FL can interpret Genesis correctly. Others, including almost all other Christians, are inclined to differ. I interpret it as something very valuable. A compiled version of ancient tales, probably set down in early "Classical" times, even though the roots of the tales are much older. While directly intended as an official religious text, it's also preservation of culturally important folklore and folk history.

Keelyn said: My objection, and I think the objection of all the rational people I read posting here (including you), is with Biblical literalists like Ham and FL who delusionally insist that these allegories are a record of actual historical events – that it happened as and in the order described

so is there anyway that i clude contact Dan Phelps? thanks

harold said: Feeling abandoned by the old "respectable" churches, they co-opted, distorted, and manipulated the evangelical tradition. To which they added harsh Dickensian economic ideas which had not previously been a part of it. If some guy is a creationist because he was simply taught, in a politically neutral atmosphere, that creationism is correct, a science education will set him right. However, if someone is a creationist because their real agenda is commitment to the post-modern, reality-denying, self-image-dominating, lowest-urges-enabling radical right wing "conservative" movement, and has adopted creationism because that is the religious plank of the platform, the fig leaf or ethical justification for a program of nihilistic selfishness, irresponsibility, and bigotry, they aren't going to change, because it's one of the cards in a house of cards. It would be like trying to get a thoroughly brainwashed Soviet communist to give up Lysenkoism. It's not just the appeal of Lysenkoism that would make them hang on, it's the fact that if you start questioning that, it implies questions about an entire authoritarian belief system, perceived, correctly or incorrectly, as strongly self-serving. The problem we have in the US is that political creationism, which seeks illegal outcomes like religious favoritism in public schools, and promotes basing public policy on denial of scientific reality, is driven by a dystopic social/political agenda, which is much more widespread than pure evangelical fundamentalism ever was.

prongs said: Whenever creationists attempt to do 'real' science, it's a prescription for fiasco. David has detailed the failures of the creationist canards "The present is not the key to the past" and "Just a different set of pre-suppositions." Consider these other creationist epic failures: Flood Geology Hydrological sorting c-decay Canopy Theory (apologies to all true Theories, for using their name inappropriately here) White Hole Cosmology

ashleyhr said: I have sent the link to this article to the presuppositionalists at Answers in Genesis. I expect that the response by them will be silence both here and on their website.

FL said:

3. “Wait a minute, the Bible doesn’t actually teach YEC-style creationism at all. It can be harmonized with evolution pretty easily.”

Patently false. Here's just one example. https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2000/mccabe.pdf FL

Looking up the Hebrew text will only confirm that Genesis 1-11 can never be reconciled either with the theory of evolution and/or long-age uniformitarianism. And the unique Hebrew setup "Yom (day) + Ordinal Number + Evening and Morning Formula", which is not only unique to the Bible but to all ancient literature, absolutely identifies the days of the Genesis Creation Week as literally 24-hours each.

"These six things the Lord hates; yes, seven are an abomination to him." "There are three things which are too wonderful for me; four which I do not understand." "He shall receive a blessing from the Lord; and righteousness from the God of his salvation." "Lift up your heads, O gates; and lift them up, O ancient doors." "The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars; yes, the Lord breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon." "He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep."

Can one of you geniuses, Dave or Matt or anybody, answer this question?

In Genesis, when God tells Adam "If you eat the fruit of this tree then on that DAY you will die," and Adam eats the fruit and lives 900 years, which "day" is it and why should anyone take it literally?

diogeneslamp0 said: Can one of you geniuses, Dave or Matt or anybody, answer this question? In Genesis, when God tells Adam "If you eat the fruit of this tree then on that DAY you will die," and Adam eats the fruit and lives 900 years, which "day" is it and why should anyone take it literally?

diogeneslamp0 said: Can one of you geniuses, Dave or Matt or anybody, answer this question? In Genesis, when God tells Adam "If you eat the fruit of this tree then on that DAY you will die," and Adam eats the fruit and lives 900 years, which "day" is it and why should anyone take it literally?

SWT said: I find a couple of things interesting about the situation. First, the person/people who completed the final draft of the Genesis 3 narrative almost certainly wrote the Genesis 2 narrative as well. Second, Genesis 2-3 isn't a haphazard compilation of campfire tales, it's a crafted and considered narrative. Third, the author wasn't an idiot and would have noticed something as weird as putting a lie in God's mouth. Fourth, the serpent, who is billed as being "more crafty than any of the wild animals HaShem Elohim had made" doesn't seem terribly crafty in the translations I've read. This suggests to me that there's more to the story than has been discussed here. My conclusion (tentative, of course) is that there is some subtlety in the original Hebrew that's lost in translation. I don't read Hebrew, but I spent a little quality time with an interlinear text (and Google, naturally). Back in Genesis 2, we're told that "HaShem Elohim commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'" The original for "you will certainly die" is muth thmuth ("dying you-will-die" or "to-die you-will-die"). The Complete Jewish Bible translates this as "it will become certain that you will die.” Skip forward now to Genesis 3, where the woman tells the serpent "about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden Elohim said, ‘You are neither to eat from it nor touch it, or you will die.'" The original for "you will die" is phn-thmthu.n ("lest you shall die"). Note also that the woman adds to the command ("nor touch it"). So, the woman appears to have misunderstood the command a bit. The serpent responds "You will not surely die because Elohim knows that on the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like Elohim, knowing good and evil.” Here, the original for "you will not surely die" is la-muth thmuth.n (not-to-die you-shall-die"). There is a line of thought that muth thmuth might better be translated in this context as, in essence, "you're doomed." As in: "The day you eat the fruit, you're doomed." When the woman responds to the serpent, she says "Elohim told us that we'll die if we eat the fruit" using a verb form that suggests immediate death. The serpent then deceives her by saying that "you won't surely die", trading on the woman's misunderstanding, and wraps in it truthiness (by using HaShem Elohim's very words) and a truth ("your eyes will be opened"). So -- the serpent was deceptive and HaShem Elohim was truthful (since the man and the woman and their descendents were indeed doomed to die when they were denied access to the fruit of the tree of life). There's no need to make an argument about "spiritual death" (which goes beyond the text) or an argument that a day is like a thousand years to HaShem Elohim so the man and the woman died "in that day" from the divine perspective. Quite simply, the narrative teaches that the man and the woman lost the opportunity to live forever when they ate the forbidden fruit.

Dave Luckett said: And there's a third reflection: who is this "us", anyway?

Several prominent epithets of the Bible describe the Jewish God in plural terms: Elohim, Adonai, and El Shaddai. Some scholars take these names to represent an early stage in Jewish religion when God was still seen as a council or family of deities; others note that the present Biblical text always employs grammatically singular verb forms and argue that they represent a majestic plural.

I think the Majestic plural is a cultural export to the text. The Kings of Israel don't use it, for instance, when speaking only of themselves. I lean to the pagan relict explanation myself. As for prefiguring the Trinity, that construction is certainly Christian, and about as opposed to Jewish ideas of the nature of God as it's possible to be.

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one"

prongs said: David MacMillan said, "That an assumption exists at the beginning of an explanation does not mean that assumption is presuppositional." May I offer another example? Some creationists love to criticize, and belittle, Albert Einstein. Some go so far as to imply that his Relativity theories were meant to destroy Absolutes (i.e. God). Other creationists insist that the speed of light was not constant in the past. It is a common misconception that his Special Theory of Relativity 'proves' the constancy of light speed. But his seminal paper "On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies" posits the constant speed of light axiomatically. Then he goes on to show such an axiom allows explanations of observable phenomenon (unipolar induction, for one) that cannot be explained satisfactorily with older, non-relativistic, theory (Maxwell's equations). There's much more to it, of course. But the constancy of the speed of light is not a "lucky guess presupposition" so much as a foundational axiom that explains what we observe, and makes new predictions against which we can test this new theory. And the Special Theory of Relativity and the General Theory of Relativity have passed every test put to them. For enlightenment in the ways of the wicked, go to Conservapedia.com and read Schlafly's entries for Einstein and Relativity. It is a rewriting of history, a la Orwell's 1984. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, and dangerous.

diogeneslamp0 said: Can one of you geniuses, Dave or Matt or anybody, answer this question? In Genesis, when God tells Adam "If you eat the fruit of this tree then on that DAY you will die," and Adam eats the fruit and lives 900 years, which "day" is it and why should anyone take it literally?

This is the book of the generations of Mankind. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Adam in the day they were created.

david.starling.macmillan said: For a really really thoroughly indoctrinated creationist, like I was, there's a whole suite of ideas that need to be progressively dismantled. There was hyper-capitalism, patriotic exceptionalism, historical revisionism in dozens of areas, apocalyptic tendencies, skepticism toward the scientific consensus, racism, misogyny, homophobia, supernaturalism, religious superiority, presuppositionalism, and more. All the various -isms tend to buttress each other so thoroughly that it's really hard to change anything.

From Wiki: [footnotes and links excluded] Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews. It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian. … Presuppositionalists compare their presupposition against other ultimate standards such as reason, empirical experience, and subjective feeling, claiming presupposition in this context is: a belief that takes precedence over another and therefore serves as a criterion for another. An ultimate presupposition is a belief over which no other takes precedence. For a Christian, the content of Scripture must serve as his ultimate presupposition… This doctrine is merely the outworking of the lordship of God in the area of human thought. It merely applies the doctrine of scriptural infallibility to the realm of knowing. Critics of presuppositional apologetics claim that it is logically invalid because it begs the question of the "truth" of Christianity and the non-"truth" of other worldviews.

Presuppositionalists assert that many of the classical arguments [of apologetics] are logically fallacious, or do not prove enough, when used as arguments to prove the existence or character of God.

Which leads to a couple of thoughts.

[ David, forgive me for talking in the abstract about the young YEC David. No offense is intended. I'm just talking through some ideas here. ]

First, it [Presuppostionalism] seems explain the YEC fixation on "world views". That "Science" just uses an assumption of materialism. That YEC simply uses a different set of assumptions about the world. At first, it seems an absurd notion. But (if I understand it correctly), it's just a case of Projection. That is the way that they think, the way that they reason about the world, so they naturally assume that is the way that everyone else must reason about the world too. "Reason" and "logic" to the Presuppositionalist is premised on a set of assumptions. The only way to come to a different conclusion about the world is that everyone else simply has a different set of assumptions, which are (by definition) not only incorrect but invalid. They simply cannot imagine the concept of questioning one's beliefs, of actively testing one's assumptions, of constantly doubting one's conclusions.

Second, it explains the evident difficulty of making any dent in the YEC armor of ignorance. We in turn also make the error of Projection. We assume that the YEC can reason about evidence, because that's what we do. In fact, it seems that simply isn't possible for the YEC (in general).

David, you are refreshingly enlightening. Unlike FL, you can not only explain the YEC position, you can explain why the YEC would hold such positions, why it makes sense to them. Having made the transition yourself, you seem to be able to bridge that divide and explain things in ways that we can understand.

In your experience, did you ever encounter the converse? Did you ever encounter a convert to Young Earth Creationism who was able to explain why the "Scientist" or "Materialist" held the views that they did? Or at least was able to explain to another YEC why they used to hold the non-YEC views that they did?

I ask, in order to explore the notion of how the YEC views the "materialist". It seems that with enough explanation, it's possible for us [in general, the "Materialist"] to understand why a YEC would hold such views. Does the converse appear to be true? From our perspective, it seems that the only way a YEC can think about (or express) the views of a non-YEC is to misrepresent those views. Are we, in turn, misrepresenting their views in our frame of reference? It doesn't seem like it, but then their language does not appear to be our language. The words simply don't mean the same things.

At least, it seems that way based on what FL parrots back to us. Some of the same words are there, but there appears to be no understanding of what those words actually mean to the rest of us. He has an "obvious" inability to see the obvious. "Logic" and "reason" mean nothing to him. Yet, that very perspective might itself be a "projection" of our own notion of "rational" thought onto the Presuppositionalist mind.

Could a YEC even ask such questions?

Scott F said: They have managed to construct an hermetically sealed conspiracy theory, impervious to question or error. (Well, not completely, as David has demonstrated.)

Returning to the topic of the OP...

At the Nye debate IIRC, Ham said the bomber "Glacier Girl" had been found 270 feet under the ice of a Greenland Glacier. This is a popular YEC rejection of ice cores. We know that coastal region of Greenland has a far higher snowfall rate than the interior ice cap. But isn't it also true that the plane was never 270 below the ice? They melted a 270 foot tunnel to get to the plane but the tunnel was horizontal. Anyone have a source for the correct depth of the plane?

C. S. Lewis wrote: It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.

Scott F said: Presuppostionalism seems explain the YEC fixation on "world views". That "Science" just uses an assumption of materialism. That YEC simply uses a different set of assumptions about the world. At first, it seems an absurd notion. But (if I understand it correctly), it's just a case of Projection. That is the way that they think, the way that they reason about the world, so they naturally assume that is the way that everyone else must reason about the world too.

They simply cannot imagine the concept of questioning one's beliefs, of actively testing one's assumptions, of constantly doubting one's conclusions. Second, it explains the evident difficulty of making any dent in the YEC armor of ignorance. We in turn also make the error of Projection. We assume that the YEC can reason about evidence, because that's what we do.

In your experience, did you ever encounter the converse? Did you ever encounter a convert to Young Earth Creationism who was able to explain why the "Scientist" or "Materialist" held the views that they did? Or at least was able to explain to another YEC why they used to hold the non-YEC views that they did?

It seems that with enough explanation, it's possible for us [in general, the "Materialist"] to understand why a YEC would hold such views. Does the converse appear to be true? From our perspective, it seems that the only way a YEC can think about (or express) the views of a non-YEC is to misrepresent those views. Are we, in turn, misrepresenting their views in our frame of reference? It doesn't seem like it, but then their language does not appear to be our language. The words simply don't mean the same things. Could a YEC even ask such questions?

Mike Elzinga said: From what I have seen of the way leaders of those fundamentalist churches – as well as people like Ken Ham – go after and work on youth, one should also add the elements of fear, guilt, and paranoia. Youth are particularly susceptible to feelings of guilt and paranoia if they are repeatedly hammered with the terrors of burning for eternity. They are going through both physical and emotional development and can be made to be ashamed of their bodies and their thoughts. It is a well-known fact that many preachers in fundamentalist movements want to get at the youth as early as possible; that is precisely Ham’s game. And once trapped in that hermetically sealed and paranoia filled bottle, young people will have a very hard time forming the habits of questioning the “authority” of their church leaders and learning the templates provided by science.

diogeneslamp0 said: Returning to the topic of the OP... At the Nye debate IIRC, Ham said the bomber "Glacier Girl" had been found 270 feet under the ice of a Greenland Glacier. This is a popular YEC rejection of ice cores. We know that coastal region of Greenland has a far higher snowfall rate than the interior ice cap. But isn't it also true that the plane was never 270 below the ice? They melted a 270 foot tunnel to get to the plane but the tunnel was horizontal. Anyone have a source for the correct depth of the plane?

Query answer: yes

david.starling.macmillan said: The real problem emerges when the presuppositionalist projects the same extent and complexity of axioms that he holds onto his opponent. The presuppositionalist creationist holds several tremendously weighty axioms...particularly the axiom that the "historical-grammatical" interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be true. Because his axioms are so massive and dictate practically everything he believes, he erroneously concludes that his opponents also hold massive axioms that dictate everything they believe. Challenge them on this, and they subconsiously regress to "soft" presuppositionalism...the "everybody has axioms" argument. Yes, everyone has axioms, but not everyone has axioms of the same size. But they insist everyone's axioms are huge and far-reaching.

P. S. We should make a comprehensive list of epistemological statements made by creationists and other Xian apologists.

It is usually trivial to demonstrate the epistemological vacuity of creationist epistemological statements.

However, you must understand that creationists are not interested in proving their epistemology. They are merely interested in justifying their acceptance of their epistemology...showing that it's as good or better as any other approach.

david.starling.macmillan said:

It seems that with enough explanation, it's possible for us [in general, the "Materialist"] to understand why a YEC would hold such views. Does the converse appear to be true? From our perspective, it seems that the only way a YEC can think about (or express) the views of a non-YEC is to misrepresent those views. Are we, in turn, misrepresenting their views in our frame of reference? It doesn't seem like it, but then their language does not appear to be our language. The words simply don't mean the same things. Could a YEC even ask such questions?

I'm not sure it's possible for a YEC to understand the theoretical and evidential basis of evolution while still remaining a YEC, if that's what you're asking. It's difficult to reach lay creationists because they're sold on the argument from authority. Even if you can challenge it, you're just substituting your authority for the authority they formerly followed...and they'll bounce right back once they hear a different authority offer a seemingly plausible answer.

Scott F, I don't know. I think there has been that most-overworked event, a paradigm shift. It consists of a changed understanding of what the sources of knowledge are, and it is encapsulated in that most thorny of questions: "How do you know that?"

For rationalists, the answers must be 1) I believe it, but I don't know it, because there is no absolute knowledge, just as there is no absolute truth. My belief is subject to 2) The evidence. Only the evidence explains why I believe it.

But if you actually get a straight answer from a non-rationalist, it will be composed of some admixture of 1) faith and 2) authority. Oh, and what is this nonsense about not knowing? Of course I know. So do you, except you deny it.

I've previously commented on the curious dichotomy of their minds, though. I don't know why, but most religious YECs seem to want to have material evidence and physical theory on their side, too. They don't have it, of course, but just look at the lengths they will go to, to bash facts into the shape they require.

But this paradigm shift. It requires a transfer of sovereign authority from a single source - book, teaching, person - to a huge number of different sources. To evidence from all the sources in the Universe. Not merely to admittance of it; that's the point. To acceptance that the objective evidence, and nothing else, is sovereign. That it rules, and any other knowledge from any other source must make way.

That's a hard shift to make. Some minds can't manage it. Some people don't want to. Some can, and do. It began to happen somewhere about four hundred years ago, but the shift isn't complete yet, and may never be. But to attempt argument with a mind that hasn't made that shift is to shout across a gulf, and to know the words will be reduced to a meaningless babble of random sounds in the passage.

Scott F said: Are we (the "materialists") making a similar frame-of-reference error? That is, are we in our discussions misrepresenting the views of the YEC, perhaps because of our own biases? For example, not having understood quite the level of disconnect with the Presuppositionalist, are "we" capable of understanding the YEC point of view accurately? I'm thinking that it is possible, but can be corrected with more education into their beliefs. My point, and concern, is that without a better understanding of what actually motivates them, it reduces the chance of "reaching" them, in some sense. Second, having asked that question about our understanding of them, I'll turn it back around again, and ask if it is even possible for a YEC to ask such a question about their own beliefs of us? I'm guessing that it is not possible, except in rare circumstances, such as yourself.

A matter of history. Several of the contributors to the non-Flood explanation of geology were Christians.

Buckland is an example of one who changed his mind because of the evidence.

TomS said: A matter of history. Several of the contributors to the non-Flood explanation of geology were Christians. Buckland is an example of one who changed his mind because of the evidence.

MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic.
First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth.
Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps.
Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption.
Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates.
All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

phhht said:

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

Ya know, HT (may I call you HT?), you guys could end all this acrimonious back-and-forth with a single stroke. You say gods exist. Show us one. Tell me how I can detect a god. Tell me why I should believe anyone who says that gods are real, when there isn't the slightest bit of empirical evidence to back up that claim. Tell me why I should not assume that anyone who asserts the existence of an invisible, intangible superman with magical powers who hears your thoughts and grants your wishes is delusional. See, HT, you could win the hearts and minds of virtually every atheist on earth. All you gotta do is show us a real god.

htspringer said:

phhht said:

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

Ya know, HT (may I call you HT?), you guys could end all this acrimonious back-and-forth with a single stroke. You say gods exist. Show us one. Tell me how I can detect a god. Tell me why I should believe anyone who says that gods are real, when there isn't the slightest bit of empirical evidence to back up that claim. Tell me why I should not assume that anyone who asserts the existence of an invisible, intangible superman with magical powers who hears your thoughts and grants your wishes is delusional. See, HT, you could win the hearts and minds of virtually every atheist on earth. All you gotta do is show us a real god.

I have made a logical scientific deduction. Intelligent design is the only PROVEN force in the universe capable of creating complexity. If you deny a superior intelligence, you are denying scientific observation...that random forces have no observable capacity to create complexity. I'm not suggesting that I can scientifically prove "an invisible superman with magical powers"... Do you think a conclusion of intelligent design means that I believe in "magic"? I conclude that science points to (demands) that an intelligence was required to create life. You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to argue that life can be created by random forces... The problem with atheists is that they demand evidence according to their own predetermined criteria. Why isn't the evidence of the complexity of nature sufficient to convince you that a higher power exists? What sort of "evidence" are you looking for? What would convince you that there is a God?

htspringer said:

phhht said:

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

Ya know, HT (may I call you HT?), you guys could end all this acrimonious back-and-forth with a single stroke. You say gods exist. Show us one. Tell me how I can detect a god. Tell me why I should believe anyone who says that gods are real, when there isn't the slightest bit of empirical evidence to back up that claim. Tell me why I should not assume that anyone who asserts the existence of an invisible, intangible superman with magical powers who hears your thoughts and grants your wishes is delusional. See, HT, you could win the hearts and minds of virtually every atheist on earth. All you gotta do is show us a real god.

I have made a logical scientific deduction. Intelligent design is the only PROVEN force in the universe capable of creating complexity. If you deny a superior intelligence, you are denying scientific observation...that random forces have no observable capacity to create complexity. I'm not suggesting that I can scientifically prove "an invisible superman with magical powers"... Do you think a conclusion of intelligent design means that I believe in "magic"? I conclude that science points to (demands) that an intelligence was required to create life. You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to argue that life can be created by random forces... The problem with atheists is that they demand evidence according to their own predetermined criteria. Why isn't the evidence of the complexity of nature sufficient to convince you that a higher power exists? What sort of "evidence" are you looking for? What would convince you that there is a God?

htspringer said: I have made a logical scientific deduction. Intelligent design is the only PROVEN force in the universe capable of creating complexity. If you deny a superior intelligence, you are denying scientific observation...that random forces have no observable capacity to create complexity.

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/

The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored.

Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi...

http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683

The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature.

Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

1) Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter…another scientifically illogical assumption.

2) God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps.

3) Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years…another scientifically baseless assumption.

4) Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless…as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates.

5) All theories of evolution presume an old earth… something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists.

6) Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

phhht said:

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

So no, you cannot say how to detect design. You can't even define "design," much less say how to measure it. Suppose we do a simple example. Suppose we take a rack from a pool table. How can I tell that the rack is designed - if it is? Must I simply take somebody's word for that? Somebody's word like yours? If a thing is "designed", is that a binary property? Is it a scalar? Or some sort of field? How does "designedness" work when the thing you want to test for design is actually composed of lots of highly designed elements? You cannot answer any of these commonsense questions. All you can do is to tell little stories which, you claim, prove something or other all god-of-the-gapsy and incredulous.

Keelyn said:

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

Oh wow. They look so pretty - ergo, they could only have been "designed" by ...??? An "intelligent designer?" A chew toy with a different stripe.

You guys are nothing but garden-variety atheist stooges. I've heard all of your canned rhetoric before. You cannot address scientific challenges. Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God. Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design.

Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern.

First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe.

Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored.

Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature.

Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

Beauty is a manifestation of complexity…and random forces cannot create complexity. (eleusis as original)

(MacMillan) assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless…as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates.

htspringer said: You cannot address scientific challenges.

Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God.

Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

htspringer said:

Keelyn said:

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

Oh wow. They look so pretty - ergo, they could only have been "designed" by ...??? An "intelligent designer?" A chew toy with a different stripe.

I don't fall for your unsophisticated tripe.

Explain to me how and why natural selection produced those predictable patterns...

Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

Oh joy! More than just a new chew toy for Keelyn (FL is getting stale, and well, losing his flavor), we now have a Mirror Troll - "One who takes mainstream objections to, and arguments against, creationism and turns the wording around and represents it as though it is a creationist objection to, or argument against, mainstream science and rational thought."

How clever are these creationists - completely oblivious to the existence of evidence, and what real evidence is, as Dave has shown repeatedly of FL.

htspringer said: You guys are nothing but garden-variety atheist stooges. I've heard all of your canned rhetoric before. You cannot address scientific challenges. Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God. Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

FOR a detailed discussion of the possible functions of the butterfly fish coloration pattern see here:

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/FieldCourses00/PapersMarineEcologyArticles/EyeCamouflageandFalseEyes.html

Contrary to creationist claims, the color patterns actually serve several functions, and are undoubtedly selected on. The pattern is definitely not an "artistic design" and even if it were, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter at all to the fish if anyone finds it attractive, indeed it would probably be better of if were perceived as ugly. Bud how it is seen by other fish, potential predators and potential mates is critical to survival and reproduction. Hence the eye camouflage, the false eye spots, the disruptive coloration, etc.

Before you go claiming that something could not evolve, it is best to find out what it is used for.

Keelyn said:

htspringer said: You cannot address scientific challenges.

What scientific challenges?? All I notice is that you didn't (or won't? or can"t) answer a single question I asked you in my first post.

Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God.

Where did you get the silly notion that anyone can "explain the whole of nature" (with or without imaginary deities)? Anyone who could do that would put science out of business? [Admittedly, imaginary deities do make the work a lot easier - it's just not productive]

Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

It works quite well for me, yes. One person's putrid stench is another person's sweet smelling rose.

htspringer said: You guys are nothing but garden-variety atheist stooges.

I've heard all of your canned rhetoric before. You cannot address scientific challenges. Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy.

You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God. Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

I have no idea what is meant by "developmental genetics", which is a compound I have not seen before, but I do know that natural forces acting from natural law produce enormous complexity, as a cascade emergent from their interaction. Landscapes. Starscapes. Rainbows. The aurora. Galaxies. Life. The diversity of life.

Random mutation there may be, within what is possible for the genome and the naturally-caused effects on it, but the selection from these mutations is not random. The false attribution of randomness is what lies at the heart of the creationist misapprehension; for an effect may be non-random, and yet not be purposeful, and they confuse the two.

htspringer said:

Keelyn said:

htspringer said: You cannot address scientific challenges.

What scientific challenges?? All I notice is that you didn't (or won't? or can"t) answer a single question I asked you in my first post.

Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God.

Where did you get the silly notion that anyone can "explain the whole of nature" (with or without imaginary deities)? Anyone who could do that would put science out of business? [Admittedly, imaginary deities do make the work a lot easier - it's just not productive]

Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

It works quite well for me, yes. One person's putrid stench is another person's sweet smelling rose.

Developmental genetics does not tell us that random mutations can produce complexity. What you are doing is blindly parroting dogma.

htspringer said:

Keelyn said:

htspringer said: You cannot address scientific challenges.

What scientific challenges?? All I notice is that you didn't (or won't? or can"t) answer a single question I asked you in my first post.

Instead, you resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy. You close your eyes to the obvious and imagine that your idiotic bedtime stories can explain the whole of nature without God.

Where did you get the silly notion that anyone can "explain the whole of nature" (with or without imaginary deities)? Anyone who could do that would put science out of business? [Admittedly, imaginary deities do make the work a lot easier - it's just not productive]

Does it feel good to be wallowing in the putrid stench of atheism?

It works quite well for me, yes. One person's putrid stench is another person's sweet smelling rose.

Developmental genetics does not tell us that random mutations can produce complexity. What you are doing is blindly parroting dogma.

One thing which I think is so often misunderstood: random mutations.

htspringer said: Developmental genetics does not tell us that random mutations can produce complexity. What you are doing is blindly parroting dogma.

htspringer said: If you deny a superior intelligence, you are denying scientific observation...that random forces have no observable capacity to create complexity.

htspringer said: Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

Well htspringer, I see that you have no desire to actually look at evidence. With one broad sweep you dismiss evidence without even looking at it. Beauty is not a manifestation of complexity…and random forces can create complexity. You don’t even know how to mathematically define elements of design… but you still think you do "no" that the patterns seen if reef fish could not evolve. THis is simply “god-of-gaps” logic… that is what you do…you embrace “god-of-the-gaps” logic. You cannot imagine a scientific explanation for the observations. You assume by default that everything in nature cannot be explained without God. When presented with evidence, you resort to your faith that goddidit with pixie dust. How typical.

htspringer said: First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd.

prongs said:

htspringer said: MacMillan makes several grave errors of scientific logic. First, he assumes that by disproving the earth to be 10,000 years old he has proven evolution... that is absurd. Intelligent design cannot be assumed to be confined to only a 6,000 year old earth. Second, he assumes that if God created the earth he did not start with pre-existing matter...another scientifically illogical assumption. God might have organized this earth from a planet with pre-existing ice caps. Third, he assumes radiometric carbon-14 dating to be accurate for 30,000+ years...another scientifically baseless assumption. Finally, he assumes that volcanic ash can be accurately dated when it has been scientifically proven to be worthless...as documented in blind tests of lava flows of known dates. All theories of evolution presume an old earth... something that cannot be scientifically proven, regardless of all of the wishful thinking promoted by atheists. Ultimately, all theories promoted in the name of evolution, as evidenced in this worthless article, are based on philosophical assumptions that conform to an a priori commitment to atheism.

David, Can you recognize this rhetoric as one of your former compatriots at AiG? It makes sense to me that they are very aware of your apostasy, and seek to fight it with every fiber of their being. It's just my hunch, but I think this comes directly from AiG. And I believe your previous creationist posts are slowly being wiped clean from creationist websites, including AiG (keep watch).

htspringer said: You guys are nothing but garden-variety atheist stooges. You resort to your unalterable FAITH in the almighty evo-fairy.

htspringer ironically and conveniently provides examples of "how creationists distort science" in a thread titled How creationists distort science.

Thanks, chew toy.

david.starling.macmillan said: Is he gone? I think he's gone. Too bad.

Perhaps I was too hasty. Maybe ht is reading the reference I provided. Maybe he will be back to admit that he was wrong. Maybe.

DS said: Perhaps I was too hasty. Maybe ht is reading the reference I provided. Maybe he will be back to admit that he was wrong. Maybe.

Mortenson rides again (in a forum where he cannot be questioned):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2014/03/24/was-darwin-right

http://forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3473

With regards to that link, it is truly hideous to watch the degradation of scientific argument into a series of flat assertions, made without the faintest hint of evidential support. Tiktaalik was so not a transitional form, because Mortensen says so. The fossil record doesn't support evolution, because Mortensen says so. It confirms Genesis because Mortensen says so.

Of course he's preaching to the choir. But the choir in his case numbers in the millions, and they send money, and Mortensen knows what moves them. Forget evidence. Forget argument. Authority and repetition is the go. And he provides them.

Probably long gone, never to be seen again, but...

Pretty fish? Yeah? Well, then, 'splain why most fish aren't especially pretty--just sort of plain. And then for every fish you think is surpassingly beautiful, and therefore HAD to have been created, I'll offer one that is surpassingly UGLY.

Now what does that prove about your designer? That he finds things beautiful that you find hideous? That he didn't care about most fish? That he was too lazy to bother painting all of them to please you?

Or... wait a minute... maybe Somebody Else designed all those deep ocean monstrosities!

Bob is correct. If pretty fish are evidence for design, then ugly fish are evidence for evolution. And man are there some ugly fish out there:

http://www.chicagonow.com/lists-that-actually-matter/2011/02/10-ugliest-species-of-fish-ugly-week-continues/#image/12

When it comes to fish, beauty is in the eye of the bait holder.

DS said: Bob is correct. If pretty fish are evidence for design, then ugly fish are evidence for evolution. And man are there some ugly fish out there: http://www.chicagonow.com/lists-that-actually-matter/2011/02/10-ugliest-species-of-fish-ugly-week-continues/#image/12

Not all people who believe in God are in the exact same mind as "Creationists". This is what this particular people who believe in God say about the beginning. Facility to read and listen at the same time.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/

htspringer said: I have made a logical scientific deduction. Intelligent design is the only PROVEN force in the universe capable of creating complexity. If you deny a superior intelligence, you are denying scientific observation...that random forces have no observable capacity to create complexity. I'm not suggesting that I can scientifically prove "an invisible superman with magical powers"... Do you think a conclusion of intelligent design means that I believe in "magic"? I conclude that science points to (demands) that an intelligence was required to create life. You have no scientific evidence whatsoever to argue that life can be created by random forces... The problem with atheists is that they demand evidence according to their own predetermined criteria. Why isn't the evidence of the complexity of nature sufficient to convince you that a higher power exists? What sort of "evidence" are you looking for? What would convince you that there is a God?

Marilyn said: Not all people who believe in God are in the exact same mind as "Creationists". This is what this particular people who believe in God say about the beginning. Facility to read and listen at the same time. http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201403/untold-story-of-creation/

IANscientist, but I think that there are several different meanings of "random".

In discussing evolution, there is the statement that natural selection operates on random changes. What is means is that the changes are not determined by their effect on their effect on the living thing that will be produced. It isn't as if there is a some way that changes were directed toward making a "better", or even just a "survival" thing. When the change has made its effect on its product, then "natural selection" (or anything else which can do selection) operates on the product. This does not mean that "anything is possible", or "anything is as likely as anything else". It does not mean that there are no natural laws which determine the results.

When changes are produced by radioactivity, then they are random in another meaning. Radioactivity means that the changes are governed by the strange laws of quantum mechanics which mean that there is no determined, only one outcome.

In the case of mathematical theories, such as information theory, there is still another meaning which I would not pretend to understand, but it's worth mentioning because (1) It does not mean that every outcome is equally probable. There are all sorts of functions which describe the different probabilities. (2) In information theory, the signal which is produced by the equally probable random function has the most information.

As far as being concerned with the appearance of random in evolutionary being atheistic:

A) There is a long tradition of orthodox theology which is accepts random acts of nature being consistent with Divine Providence.

B) If there is randomness in the science of evolution, the same is so in genetics and the science of reproduction. Evolution is no worse than reproduction

htspringer said: Here is my evidence for intelligent design. First, study the copper banded butterflyfish... http://www.flickr.com/photos/wildsingapore/427626109/ The symmetrical vertical stripes on its skin, with one band squarely traversing the eye, shows evidence of deliberate artistic design. Now look closer. Note the ornamental outlines of the fins with color coordinated stripes. Finally, note the central five banded stripe in the midline of the head which extends toward the beak. Think of the genetic instructions to produce such a NON-RANDOM pattern. First, the genetic instructions to produce the vertical skin stripes had to coordinate perfectly with the instructions to create the matching eye stripe. Second, the symmetrical patterns of stripes on each side of the fish were presumably derived from one set of genetic instructions...hence, the symmetry. That being the case, why is there a five banded stripe where the two halves of the fish join, that matches perfectly the lateral stripes? If one set of genetic instructions produced the symmetrical patterns, then one would expect a "seam" as would be created in Photoshop when two halves are mirrored. Contrast the many species of ornamented reef fish with the koi... http://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/koi-fish-max/656683 The koi is a carp that has been selectively bred for color. If evolution produced colorful reef fish, then those fish would look like koi and would not display the aesthetic embellishments that are seen in nature. Also, remember that in any attempts to ascribe these patterns to natural selection, it must be remembered that every creature on earth is blind to aesthetics except man.

Dave Lovell said: Are you claiming that random mutation could not have produced the genetic instructions required to generate the symmetry, or that the genetic instructions, created by the Designer, are insufficient in themselves to produce the symmetry? That is, the designer has to sprinkle a little magic onto each and every butterfly fish.

TomS said:

Dave Lovell said: Are you claiming that random mutation could not have produced the genetic instructions required to generate the symmetry, or that the genetic instructions, created by the Designer, are insufficient in themselves to produce the symmetry? That is, the designer has to sprinkle a little magic onto each and every butterfly fish.

I am interested in whether your question would be consistent with the kind of question that I ask about many of the complaints against evolution: Does this complaint apply with at least as force if directed against reproduction?