Creation Science/Making Headway - Dallas News

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by DriftingSand, Aug 15, 2014.

  1. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,717
    Evolutionary theory has nothing like the evidentiary backing or predictive power of the theories of the hard sciences, let alone the backing of the mathematical and rational proofs of demonstration traditionally applied to the hard sciences as well. Evolutionary theory is a collection of anecdotes and inferences predicated on the unfalsifiable presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, the presupposition that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect. How convenient, given the fact that the evidence actually fits a biological history entailing a series of creative events and extinctions over time as well.

    Mathematicians and engineers are the best informed skeptics. Evolutionary theory just doesn't add up in that regard.
     
  2. BillyP
    Offline

    BillyP Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,167
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +148
    You have nothing so you call me all kinds of name, like a 6 year old schoolboy. That aside, how is our existence EVIDENCE of the creation story?
    And how is god's existence a fact? To whom? Me?
     
  3. PostmodernProph
    Offline

    PostmodernProph ....fully immersed....

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2014
    Messages:
    6,366
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +648
    yes, I refuse to accept it.....because all those leading scientists are aware the evolution of a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism has NOT passed the requirements of the scientific method.....ask any one of them if its falsifiable....
     
  4. BillyP
    Offline

    BillyP Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,167
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +148
    You have to reject what scientists say because otherwise your humans-popped-into-existence theory is null. I get it. How sad.
     
  5. PostmodernProph
    Offline

    PostmodernProph ....fully immersed....

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2014
    Messages:
    6,366
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +648
    you could solve this in a moment, BP.....just provide us an example of a scientific experiment in which a single celled organism evolved into a multicelled organism......then you would be justified in saying the hypothesis has been tested.....
     
  6. BillyP
    Offline

    BillyP Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    1,167
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    50
    Ratings:
    +148
    I already did provide an example, but it was too scientific for you, so you rejected it, as science scares you.
     
  7. PostmodernProph
    Offline

    PostmodernProph ....fully immersed....

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2014
    Messages:
    6,366
    Thanks Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    95
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +648
    lol.....no child, you didn't......
     
  8. M.D. Rawlings
    Offline

    M.D. Rawlings Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    4,123
    Thanks Received:
    927
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Heavenly Places
    Ratings:
    +1,717
    Uh huh. As if in a free society politicians or judges had any legitimate business being involved in such disputes in the first place, as if the state had any legitimate authority to impose the metaphysics of evolutionary theory in violation of the imperatives of natural and constitutional law in a closed system of education in the first place, as if a collectivistic, one-size-fits-all system of education were constitutional. It wouldn't be such an issue if busybodies like you didn't insist on exclusively imposing your religion on everybody in the first place.

    Moving on. . . .

    15 Answer to Evolutionist Claptrap

    This is precisely the sort of games that evolutionists play as they unwittingly expose their ignorance about the nature of the core assertions of creationism and ID. The laymen conformists of atheism and popular culture believe Darwinism (which, historically speaking, took the field virtually overnight, decades before its adherents ever began to assert anything like the evidentiary demonstrations required by the hard sciences of physics, for example, let alone the additional mathematical and rational proofs required by the same) simply because the majority of biological scientists say so. The laymen conformists of atheism and popular culture appeal to a vested authority, and close their minds to the alternative evidentiary, metaphysical, mathematical and rational challenges.

    I, however, am an expert on evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, and have lived on both sides of the debate.

    Answers #1, #4, #5 and #6 are straw men, counterarguments asserted against of the ignorance or confusion of some that learned creationists or ID scientists do not raise against evolutionary theory at all. These counterarguments pertain to the misapprehensions of theistic laymen; hence, we need not waste any time on these irrelevancies.

    Check?


    2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

    Actually, the criticism of learned skeptics rightly observes that what survives, survives is a tautological anecdote that tells us absolutely nothing about life that we don't already know. The learned skeptic doesn't bother with the qualifier survival of the fittest as the broader implications of evolutionary theory are, in truth, irrelevant to the mathematical calculi of allele frequencies relative to baseline traits at the micro level, and the various mechanisms of evolutionary theory—mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow—cannot be directly tested or observed, let alone reliably predicted, in terms of macroevolutionary speciation, in spite of the claim that the processes of microevolution and macroevolution are identical in the theoretical time scales of a supposed common ancestry.

    Check?


    3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

    And this is true because the notion of macroevolutionary speciation is ultimately predicated on the presupposition of the unfalsifiable apriority of metaphysical/ontological naturalism as opposed to the plausible potentialities of a speciation predicated on the presupposition of a mechanistic naturalism relative to the genetic and fossil evidence.

    But evolutionists never directly address the actual essence of the skeptic's challenge in this regard as that would open the door to the real problem and reveal precisely why creationism/ID have an equally valid claim on the evidence. Instead, they prattle nonsense like the following from the article:

    False. Learned creationists and ID scientists make no such "blanket dismissal" on that basis whatsoever, as the author goes on to contradictorily acknowledge, albeit, in such a way as to suggest that evolutionists informed us or as if skeptics have ever seriously resisted the obvious exigencies of genetically driven morphological variations within species relative to changing environmental conditions. On the contrary, the efficacy of morphological variations within species have been observed by naturalist philosophers for centuries, long before Darwin came along. In fact, it was due to the observation of these kinds of variations that prescientific naturalists, like Aristotle, for example, proposed the now falsified notion of spontaneous generation.

    And, as acknowledge by the author of this article himself, what does it all come down to:

    Yep. Macroevolution as well as the post-historical "predictions" presupposed in the theory's premise are ultimately predicated on the presupposition of the unfalsifiable apriority of metaphysical/ontological naturalism of a common ancestry.

    From my blog:

    The evolutionist assumes that the paleontological record necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation. There's nothing necessary about it. And given the complexity of life and the fact that the paleontological record overwhelming reflects, not a gradual appearance of an ever-increasingly more abundant and varied collection of species, but a series of abrupt appearances and extinctions of fully formed biological systems, it's not unreasonable to argue that we are looking at a series of discrete, creative events orchestrated by an intelligent being.

    . . . The arrows that evolutionists scratch on charts between illustrations of species that are alleged to be directly related are not found in the paleontological record. They're the gratuitous additions of a theoretical model. To characterize my interpretation of the evidence as an "error" begs the question and mistakes the arrows for something they're not, i.e., the artifacts of observable empirical phenomena.

    . . . Pointing to a small handful of groupings of allegedly related lineages consisting of an equally small handful of intermediate forms, which is the best that evolutionists have ever been able to come up with out of millions of fossils, does not impress me. . . . The number of necessarily overlapping and simultaneous changes required, for example, in the enterprise of transforming a land animal to a sea animal, or vice versa, are immense. Just how many transitional forms are we talking about here? Such a splash didn't take place in one dive. It involved every system—skeletal, respiratory, digestive, reproductive, circulatory, integumentary, lymphatic . . . the transitional migration of a snout into a blowhole on the top of the head!

    Are we talking about thousands of transitional forms? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Multiply that by millions of species. The evidence for intermediate forms in the fossil record should be overwhelming! —M. D. Rawlings

    Check?


    7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

    Followed by this absurd claim:

    Biochemists, as the leading lights of abiogenetic research know, have learned no such things. It's not even close. In fact, the more we learn, the more obvious it becomes that life could not have arisen via the processes of mere chemistry, and the origin of the prebiotic precursors doesn't resolve the real problems. This pseudoscientific crap permeates the Internet due to the gullibility of atheist know-nothings and the research-grant-fueled hype in academia, which irritated the likes of Miller, Shapiro, Orgel, Levy and others.

    Here's a dose of reality from an expert on abiogenesis, namely, me:

    http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/abiogenesis-unholy-grail-of-atheism.html

    Check?


    8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

    What learned creationists and ID scientists actually challenge on the basis of mathematical improbability does not so much pertain to evolution proper as much as it pertains to abiogenesis. Hence, tossing in a fully formed living organism of any cellular size is misleading. Indeed, #8 is straw man akin to #1, #4, #5 and #6, really, but I'm going to address it because it mangles a number of important distinctions that will not be apparent to the average laymen.

    We know from abiogenetic research that proteins, for example, let alone nucleic acids (or even nucleotides), do not and cannot spring up by mere chance or by mere chemistry alone for complex reasons discussed in my article in the above, so let's get back to evolution proper, eh?

    Under #8 the author writes:

    Insofar as the conventions of post-biotic evolution are concerned, learned creationists and ID scientists know this. The suggestion to the contrary is bogus.

    The author continues:

    Again, learned creationists and ID scientists know this and agree insofar as microevolution is concerned, but when it comes to macroevolution, the creation of entirely new species, the inference of Darwinism's unfalsifible apriority, that which is not demonstrable or observable, we're talking about mathematical probabilities on an entirely different scale than the risible analogy provided by the author:

    Natural selection is mindless. It doesn't begin with a targeted outcome "in mind;" i.e., it doesn't anticipatorily preserve "correctly placed" information as if it were operating from some definitively preconceived blueprint. The computer was programmed with a target in mind, namely, the definitively preconceived blueprint in the mind of an intelligent being who instructed the computer what to look for and preserve. The mathematical realities of an open-ended matrix entailing a series of synchronously overlapping and virtually limitless factors are something else altogether. Mathematicians and engineers know the difference; apparently some evolutionary biologists don't.

    But allow this mathematician do drive the point home from my blog:

    [E]volutionists are playing a game of conceptual hide-and-seek when they claim that the classical construct of irreducible complexity in and of itself has been debunked. Refuting Behe's ill-considered application of it to biochemistry—a half-baked version that fails to anticipate the obvious possibility of degraded systems or their isolated components performing less efficient or alternate functions—is of no consequence.

    (Incidentally, I wrote Behe about that possibility back in '96 after reading his book. . . .)

    Properly rendered, irreducible complexity does not dispute the plausibility of diminished systems, it illustrates the implausibility of complex systems arising within open-ended matrixes. That has not been debunked by anyone. Behe should have paid more attention to the essential quality of Paley's formulation and the prerequisites of Kant's.

    In other words, the classical model of irreducible complexity obtains to the rise of organization from chaos, not to any potential degradation of function. The former entails an uphill battle in the midst of a chaotic collection of precursors vying against conservation. It has to do with the problem of anticipatorily formulating the overarching function of an interdependent system of discretely oriented parts, each contributing to the sum of a whole, that could not have orchestrated its own composition from the ground up.

    Further, and now comes the slight-of-hand that impresses no one but bleating sheep, evolutionists themselves do not refute Behe's straw man with the paper biochemistry of evolutionary theory. The theoretical mechanism of natural selection does not compose complex machines by systematically stripping them of their parts. Instead, it must build them or alter them without a blueprint and do so in a sea of competing precursors, once again, vying against conservation. It's not the other way around. Miller can illustrate the alternate functions of degraded mousetraps all he wants; that does not demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolutionary theory are the cause of the comprehensive functions of complex integrated systems.

    . . . Debunked?

    What kind of scientific term is that anyway? The matter cannot be resolved syllogistically or analogously. It's a matter of experimentation and falsification.

    . . . In other words, ultimately, it's not even a matter of morphology. It's a matter of accumulating information, not only against a tidal wave of difficulties that rebuff conservation, but against the whims of a genetic material whose sequences are not arranged by any chemically preordained bonding affinity, but by extraneous forces. . . . —M. D. Rawlings​

    Check?


    That's all I have time for today. More tomorrow.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2014
  9. Hollie
    Offline

    Hollie Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    28,145
    Thanks Received:
    2,574
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +8,856
    It’s actually comical to read the ranting of a devout thumper, utterly unschooled in the science he hopes to vilify.

    The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism. Were he able to see the results of his theory today, I have to believe that Darwin would be quite surprised at the many fields of science now brought into service that support his theory.
    Invoking your religious fundamentalism to attack science providing answers to the natural world is fine as a matter of religious faith. But it is not science in any sense. In science, there is no allowance for making appeals to divine intervention. Miracles of religion are not allowed for science to remain science. Miracles are not verifiable, testable or falsifiable. They are not repeatable, they do not conform to any laws of nature, and they’re not even understandable. Science can never confirm the magic of gawds. They are not a matter for science. Science looks for testable and repeatable observations in nature that can be explained without appeals to gawds. Once you have used a miracle as an explanation, you have left the realm of science, and you’re simply waving the magic wand of religion.

    Creationism exclusively concerns itself with the efforts to refute evolution. Creationism should be renamed to "anti-evolutionism". It simply is not the offering of Biblical Creation as science. All creationism debates and lectures are along the lines of: “Come and hear how we've discovered that evolution couldn't have happened!”
    But their refutations are a nonsense. Their claims are based on misconceptions, poor science, outdated information and discredited data, scripture, faulty logic, lies, hearsay-- all driven by a need to protect their dogma. Consider how much they have to lose, if they insist on sticking to biblical literalism. For the biblical literalist, if evolution is true, then there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. As you can see, they will fight tooth and nail, to the bitter end, using any means necessary to protect their dogma. Creationism is like a wild, cornered animal that has no way out, clawing and snapping at everything it can.
     
  10. Rikurzhen
    Offline

    Rikurzhen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    6,145
    Thanks Received:
    1,291
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +2,871
    Judges and politicians have every right to intervene with respect to the teaching of evolution in public school science classes and to prevent creationism from being offered as an alternative viewpoint because faith has no business masquerading as science.

    I used to battle against guys like you when I was an undergrad and in grad school studying all of which you dismiss and then I realized it's a fool's game and I actually had better things to do - like using evolutionary principles in my work.

    My proposed solution to creationists is to go out and do their science and submit the results for public review and more importantly go out and USE the "science" they develop in the marketplace - develop new drugs using "creation science," make new discoveries using "creation science." Go forth and DO IT. Make your "creation science" real. Sophistry isn't science and I'm not interested in investing the effort here - others are doing fine.

    I've moved onto bigger battles - liberal creationists are actually causing more harm to society than you religious creationists. I'm frankly surprised that you're one of these guys because your comments on other topics were well argued but here you're far off the mark.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

dallas scientist trying to prove biblical creation

,
which scientists proposed ideas that were incorect but still made headway in science