15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

I've studied the Cambrian for years, so thanks for the links but they won't alter the facts....

No, No, I posted "the facts" while you had despicably tried to make the "explosion" sudden enough to be a creation/supernatural event instead of an instance of "punctuated equilibrium"/the fact that some conditions on earth, or an important mutation can greatly speed up Evolution.

If one wants to cling to evolution at all cost then one can, but to pretend these are not huge glaring problems is a bit dishonest. That's one of my main gripes over evolution, the manner in which it is dogmatically asserted despite serious problems, the unwillingness to consider that it might be wrong, that closed mindedness is the biggest problem, bigger even than the disparity between observations and empirical expectations.

There is no "glaring problem" with evolution, just tweaks as Eldredge and Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" I just mentioned. It only makes sense that environmental changes or one more significant mutation can dramatically speed things up.
Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE, creationism None. Evo has withstood 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. All relevant ones (including filling in with intermediate species and millions more fossils in the right layers) help confirm it,

You Dishonest Creationists can play with other/weaker posters for pages.
I end discussion in no more than two posts..
as just happened here.

Gameover part 12,849.

`

 

[alang1216]

Theism is the assertion God exists and in my case that's an evidence based position. Atheism is not a variant of that, it is a general claim that one doesn't hold a belief because they do not recognize evidence for that belief, if you are an atheist then you are making that claim yet cannot clearly articulate what evidence would look like.

Anyone saying "I do not believe in X because I see no evidence for X" must have a method for deciding if something is or is not evidence of X.

Well if you choose to characterize all arguments for God as "God of the gaps" then you have a problem, namely if God does exist and even if there's evidence, you'll never recognize it because you argue that this is simply an absence of knowledge about nature not evidence of non-nature. It's a self defeating argument.

It reduces to the belief that natural explanations suffice for everything and where they don't that because we are simply ignorant of that natural explanation.

This is then no different to "God of the gaps" but instead of attributing the gap to God you attribute it to ignorance of nature.

But you haven't addressed the issue of how to produce a naturalistic explanation in the absence of anything natural. This is not God of the gaps, its better described as God is the only rational option, one cannot invoke laws of nature as the explanation for the presence of laws of nature.

Scientific explanations are always exercises in reductionism, tangible things are explained in terms of other tangible things but how to explain the presence of tangible things in the first place. Any explanation that tries to explain X in terms of X is obviously not reductionist and therefore not scientific.

So my belief in "God" is evidence based, the evidence is that the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist, where could laws come from? If a scientific explanation is not possible (as opposed to not yet known) then we must - if we are truly rational - seek a non-scientific explanation, it really is that simple.

Neither of us can offer proof of our position but I am comfortable with my review of the physical evidence. Your evidence appears to be base on an assumption, "the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist" that is unsupportable. You don't know if those laws were created, "came from" somewhere/someone, at some point in the past or have always existed.

It may well be possible there was an intelligent Creator or creators of our universe, on that point I am agnostic since I don't know how the universe came to be, but, since I see zero evidence that that Creator is the one named in any of the scriptures of man, I consider myself an atheist.

 

[ding]

Neither of us can offer proof of our position but I am comfortable with my review of the physical evidence. Your evidence appears to be base on an assumption, "the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist" that is unsupportable. You don't know if those laws were created, "came from" somewhere/someone, at some point in the past or have always existed.

It may well be possible there was an intelligent Creator or creators of our universe, on that point I am agnostic since I don't know how the universe came to be, but, since I see zero evidence that that Creator is the one named in any of the scriptures of man, I consider myself an atheist.

Here's what you can know... the very structure of matter itself is fine tuned to produce life and intelligence. The laws of nature which describe the evolution of space and time explain the creation of space and time. Thus those laws existed before space and time.

It's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

alang1216 why are you arguing against e=mc^2?

 

[scruffy]

False.



It's the most well supported scientific hypothesis in history.

18 converging lines of scientific evidence, with over 8 million pieces of supporting data.

That's what I'd call a "mountain" of evidence.

Fossils and "species" are largely irrelevant in the discussion. Evolution is biophysics, it has very little to do with what a particular organism happens to look like.

Mutation followed by selection is a fact of life. It's hard to argue against it, given the mountain of evidence.

 

[scruffy]

It's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Nuh uh. Leftards prove that statement wrong every single day.

 

[scruffy]

Here's what you can know... the very structure of matter itself is fine tuned to produce life and intelligence. The laws of nature which describe the evolution of space and time explain the creation of space and time. Thus those laws existed before space and time.

It's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

There is no law that describes the evolution of time.

Sorry.

 

[ding]

There is no law that describes the evolution of time.

Sorry.

Space and time (one thing).

 

[alang1216]

alang1216 why are you arguing against e=mc^2?

I didn't think I was since, though it may not be complete, it is correct as far as it goes.

 

[ding]

I didn't think I was since, though it may not be complete, it is correct as far as it goes.

It's been verified in a myriad of ways and is the basis for the amount (i.e. mass) of the paired particle production necessary to produce the radiation (i.e. e) of the CMB.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, No, I posted "the facts" while you had despicably tried to make the "explosion" sudden enough to be a creation/supernatural event instead of an instance of "punctuated equilibrium"/the fact that some conditions on earth, or an important mutation can greatly speed up Evolution.



There is no "glaring problem" with evolution, just tweaks as Eldredge and Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" I just mentioned. It only makes sense that environmental changes or one more significant mutation can dramatically speed things up.
Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE, creationism None. Evo has withstood 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. All relevant ones (including filling in with intermediate species and millions more fossils in the right layers) help confirm it,

You Dishonest Creationists can play with other/weaker posters for pages.
I end discussion in no more than two posts..
as just happened here.

Gameover part 12,849.

`

Well we will have to simply disagree, but you do not make a good impression on a neutral open minded reader here. Your rapid adoption of ad-hominem does not an argument make. Using emotive and inflammatory terms like "despicably" and "dishonest" is unwarranted, if you cannot disagree with someone without disparaging them then you shouldn't take part in these kinds of discussions.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Neither of us can offer proof of our position but I am comfortable with my review of the physical evidence. Your evidence appears to be base on an assumption, "the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist" that is unsupportable. You don't know if those laws were created, "came from" somewhere/someone, at some point in the past or have always existed.

Well at least you understand what I'm arguing, many do not grasp the argument.

You said it was "unsupportable" but it is self evident, if there are no laws, matter, fields then nothing can happen (in the scientific sense) that's not something that needs "support" any more than any other truism.

If anything did happen (in the scientific sense) then that would mean something already exists and so we haven't explained what we sought to explain.

Until something exists material processes cannot take place, only by recourse to something non-material, not laws, can let us escape from this.

It may well be possible there was an intelligent Creator or creators of our universe, on that point I am agnostic since I don't know how the universe came to be, but, since I see zero evidence that that Creator is the one named in any of the scriptures of man, I consider myself an atheist.

You say "since I see zero evidence that that Creator" but that's what I've been trying to explain, the material universe is evidence of a creator, it is evidence that something other than itself, must have been the cause of it existing.

What other explanations might there be? the only one is "it has always existed" but if one is willing to accept that then one is willing to accept a non-scientific explanation because that is clearly not an explanation at all, it is less meaningful than God.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

18 converging lines of scientific evidence, with over 8 million pieces of supporting data.

That's what I'd call a "mountain" of evidence.

Newtonian mechanics is supported by a mountain of evidence but it stands falsified. The volume of supporting observations does not compensate for falsifying observations. All it takes is one clear falsifying observation and we have to admit the theory is wrong. The Cambrian is just one example of a blatant falsifying observation.
Until I see clear evidence of common descent fossils in the Cambrian I will remain skeptical.

Fossils and "species" are largely irrelevant in the discussion. Evolution is biophysics, it has very little to do with what a particular organism happens to look like.

Mutation followed by selection is a fact of life. It's hard to argue against it, given the mountain of evidence.

But it is the evolutionists who make a big deal of fossils, it is always cited as compelling evidence for evolution by evolutionists! You can't say that and then turn around and say the fossil record is irrelevant just because it doesn't fit your expectations, look it is the first thing mentioned here, yet you say it is irrelevant!

I understand the role of genetic mutations and natural selection, yes these are observable, it is the capacity for that to account for what we see that is being questioned, the fossil record is inconsistent with the claims made about mutations etc.

The mutation of DNA cannot be sufficient to explain the fossil record.

Your line of reasoning is typical too, emphasizing the importance of this or that observation when it meets expectations then the downplaying of that when it doesn't.

For evolutionists the only observations that are important are those that are consistent with the empirical expectations of the theory, observations that do not fit are sidelined, called "irrelevant", so the fossil record is important when it contains what you want it to and irrelevant when it does not.

That's a form of pseudo-science.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nuh uh. Leftards prove that statement wrong every single day.

What is a "leftard"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's what you can know... the very structure of matter itself is fine tuned to produce life and intelligence. The laws of nature which describe the evolution of space and time explain the creation of space and time. Thus those laws existed before space and time.

It's the nature of intelligence to create intelligence.

Speaking of fine tuning, this is indeed a deeply mysterious thing, one that theoretical physicists grapple with. The late John Barrow had much to say about this from theoreticians standpoint, if you don't know him here's a little about what he does (did) followed by a seriously thought provoking lecture on the constants of nature:

 

[ding]

Speaking of fine tuning, this is indeed a deeply mysterious thing, one that theoretical physicists grapple with. The late John Barrow had much to say about this from theoreticians standpoint, if you don't know him here's a little about what he does (did) followed by a seriously thought provoking lecture on the constants of nature:

Thanks. This is a great discussion on the fine tuning of matter/energy for life.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks. This is a great discussion on the fine tuning of matter/energy for life.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

I stumbled upon Barrow quite accidentally last year, probably on Youtube. Turns out he's written several fascinating books, one that I found very compelling is this one, pretty deep but not too mathematical, not a pop-science book either, goes very deep into the nature of reality:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's no call for all this ad-hominem from you,

There is absolutely 100% call for pointing out that you are most guilty of that of which you accuse others.

 

[alang1216]

Well at least you understand what I'm arguing, many do not grasp the argument.

You said it was "unsupportable" but it is self evident, if there are no laws, matter, fields then nothing can happen (in the scientific sense) that's not something that needs "support" any more than any other truism.

If anything did happen (in the scientific sense) then that would mean something already exists and so we haven't explained what we sought to explain.

Until something exists material processes cannot take place, only by recourse to something non-material, not laws, can let us escape from this.

1 + 1 = 2
That is true today just as it was before the universe existed. The laws of nature probably pre-date our universe.

You say "since I see zero evidence that that Creator" but that's what I've been trying to explain, the material universe is evidence of a creator, it is evidence that something other than itself, must have been the cause of it existing.

What other explanations might there be? the only one is "it has always existed" but if one is willing to accept that then one is willing to accept a non-scientific explanation because that is clearly not an explanation at all, it is less meaningful than God.

You completely missed my point. What I said was that there is zero evidence that the Creator of the universe was the one who spoke to Moses. Was there only one Creator and how would we know? How would the Creator know?

 

[ding]

Neither of us can offer proof of our position but I am comfortable with my review of the physical evidence. Your evidence appears to be base on an assumption, "the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist" that is unsupportable. You don't know if those laws were created, "came from" somewhere/someone, at some point in the past or have always existed.

It may well be possible there was an intelligent Creator or creators of our universe, on that point I am agnostic since I don't know how the universe came to be, but, since I see zero evidence that that Creator is the one named in any of the scriptures of man, I consider myself an atheist.

It seems to me that you believe the universe existing and intelligence arising is just happenstance, right? What evidence do you have for that?