15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

Consider the Cambrian explosion (a term introduced by biologists incidentally). The many diverse fossils of quite sophisticated organisms,

The 'Cambrian Explosion' was NOT a 'Creation' event. Probably a time of significant Earth/Ocean/Atmospheric change helping provoke it.

""The Cambrian explosion​

Around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion. In perhaps as few as 10 million years, marine animals evolved most of the basic body forms that we observe in modern groups. Among the organisms preserved in fossils from this time are relatives of crustaceans and starfish, sponges, mollusks, worms, chordates, and algae, exemplified by these taxa from the Burgess Shale.​

[pic]​

Key divergence events occurred in the Precambrian. Precambrian clade diagram after Wang et al. (1999)​

An “explosion”?​

The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of Evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.​

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.".."​

The Cambrian explosion.​

​

`​

 

[ding]

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

 

[ding]

This gives insight into your misunderstanding.

You simply don't grasp the time scales involved.

New species can form in just a few generations, and species can show stasis for millions of years.

This is well known in the scientific arena.

Evolution deniers often make arguments from obsolete ideas. Because your main idea is also obsolete.

So now you are arguing against Darwin's slight successive changes?

Oh my, are you arguing for punctuated equilibrium now?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The 'Cambrian Explosion' was NOT a 'Creation' event. Probably a time of significant Earth/Ocean/Atmospheric change helping provoke it.

""The Cambrian explosion​

Around 530 million years ago, a wide variety of animals burst onto the evolutionary scene in an event known as the Cambrian explosion. In perhaps as few as 10 million years, marine animals evolved most of the basic body forms that we observe in modern groups. Among the organisms preserved in fossils from this time are relatives of crustaceans and starfish, sponges, mollusks, worms, chordates, and algae, exemplified by these taxa from the Burgess Shale.​

[pic]​

Key divergence events occurred in the Precambrian. Precambrian clade diagram after Wang et al. (1999)​

An “explosion”?​

The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of Evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.​

The animals of the Cambrian did not appear out of thin air. Animal fossils from before the Cambrian have been found. Roughly 575 million years ago, a strange group of animals known as Ediacarans lived in the oceans. Although, we don’t know much about the Ediacarans, the group may have included ancestors of the lineages that we identify from the Cambrian explosion.".."​

The Cambrian explosion.​

​

`​

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

I'm an engineer, was once an evolutionist. I'm a professional software engineer and gained my education in electronics, computing and mathematics, I'm no stranger to science or philosophy, I've designed programming languages and other quite sophisticated systems, so I'm very much at home and can smell a problem from far away and trust me, evolution stinks.

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I do, complex life transitioned from single celled bacteria to complex diverse phyla within two minutes, after 21 hours of just bacteria.

Thanks for making my point.

You don't understand.

So none of what you say carries any weight.

Standing there and saying it seems amazing or crazy to you is worthless and not a compelling argument against the truth of it. It just means you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Charlatans convert the large timescales to those small numbers to emotionally appeal to ignorant people. Like children, or uninformed adults. As you are right now. It doesn't compel anyone but ignorant people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is generally taught and therefore believed in the scientific arena.

A very stupid lie. You would accuse the global scientific community of doing what you do in church every Sunday? That's not going to work for you.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Many

A very stupid lie. You would accuse the global scientific community of doing what you do in church every Sunday? That's not going to work for you.

An argument from authority fallacy.

I do not attend church every Sunday, so your ability to infer reliably is clearly not very impressive.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Thanks for making my point.

You don't understand.

So none of what you say carries any weight.

Standing there and saying it seems amazing or crazy to you is worthless and not a compelling argument against the truth of it. It just means you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Charlatans convert the large timescales to those small numbers to emotionally appeal to ignorant people. Like children, or uninformed adults. As you are right now. It doesn't compel anyone but ignorant people.

Then ignore me, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, if your not open to the possibility even, that evolution might be false then that's your problem, when one ceases to have an open mind one ceases to learn anything new of value.

Evolution is a dogma, repeatedly claimed to be absolute truth by the "official" spokesmen, no different the Catholic Church in Galileo's time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An argument from authority fallacy.

False, and I don't think you know what that phrase means.

You just accused scientists of parroting what they've been told.

Because you've run out of any decent talking points.

The fact that you accuse them of doing what you do constantly just added a little bit of hilarious irony to it.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

False, and I don't think you know what that phrase means.

Why do you think that?

You just accused scientists of parroting what they've been told.

Many do, they are humans just like us, they accept things as true without evidence all the time, nothing special about scientists.

Because you've run out of any decent talking points.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

The fact that you accuse them of doing what you do constantly just added a little bit of hilarious irony to it.

There's no call for all this ad-hominem from you, I hoped to discuss these things in a respectful manner but all too often the atheists get personal and fire off insults like "you don't understand" and "you don't know" and so on.

You cannot use those personal attacks to make a sound argument, it's weak. For example you do not know what I understand or know about anything, you try to insinuate that me disagreeing with you must be attributed to stupidity on my part but that's not a scientific argument it leads nowhere - but that's atheism for you, vacuous.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Perhaps the greatest science educator to ever grace our television screens, James Burke has made some incredibly provocative TV shows over the years, I first encountered him when I was a teenager in the 70s, he has a deep grasp of the history of science and what science is and is not, this opening scene from his series The day the Universe changed is masterful, everyone should listen carefully to what he says about Wittgenstein, this is something rarely covered in todays pop-science broadcasts, just listen up to about 2:15 to get the gist of his position:

 

[alang1216]

that's atheism for you, vacuous.

Atheists, are just like everyone else, and believe what they believe for a wide variety of reasons. I don't consider my atheism to be vacuous, on the contrary, I consider it to be reasonable and logical and based firmly on the available evidence. My acceptance of evolution is no different.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Atheists, are just like everyone else, and believe what they believe for a wide variety of reasons. I don't consider my atheism to be vacuous, on the contrary, I consider it to be reasonable and logical and based firmly on the available evidence. My acceptance of evolution is no different.

Well that's the nub, just what exactly do atheists believe? I've argued with many atheists and it's unusual to hear one even admit to "belief" so I congratulate you for that.

 

[Mac-7]

Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Either way it was the Hand of God

 

[alang1216]

Well that's the nub, just what exactly do atheists believe? I've argued with many atheists and it's unusual to hear one even admit to "belief" so I congratulate you for that.

In all my years, I've never encountered anything I could definitely attribute to a supernatural cause. Until I do I'll go with my belief that the natural world is all there is. We may not understand everything in nature but that is fine with me as our knowledge continues to grow.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

In all my years, I've never encountered anything I could definitely attribute to a supernatural cause. Until I do I'll go with my belief that the natural world is all there is. We may not understand everything in nature but that is fine with me as our knowledge continues to grow.

One must be clear though, what would characterize a supernatural agency? if I showed you purported evidence, what would you do with that to verify it was indeed not "natural"?

This is IMHO a common failing in many arguments for atheism, they demand evidence of supernatural yet seemingly have no idea how they would ever recognize such evidence.

This is the deep problem atheists face. They seem to live in a world where no matter what the evidence shown they will always interpret it as natural, always presume a natural cause, this is a form of closed mindedness, the inability to adjust their view, they have no hope of ever perceiving a supernatural agency because they already decided that no matter what they see, it is, it must be natural.

I think that the very presence of a natural world is not natural. By "natural" I mean basically causal, governed by laws in some for or other.

 

[alang1216]

One must be clear though, what would characterize a supernatural agency? if I showed you purported evidence, what would you do with that to verify it was indeed not "natural"?

If what you showed could have a natural cause and didn't appear to violate the natural laws we know of, I would begin with the assumption it is natural and ask that you show why you believe it to be supernatural.

This is IMHO a common failing in many arguments for atheism, they demand evidence of supernatural yet seemingly have no idea how they would ever recognize such evidence.

Show me something that violated natural law and then we'll talk. Got a burning bush maybe?

This is the deep problem atheists face. They seem to live in a world where no matter what the evidence shown they will always interpret it as natural, always presume a natural cause, this is a form of closed mindedness, the inability to adjust their view, they have no hope of ever perceiving a supernatural agency because they already decided that no matter what they see, it is, it must be natural.

I think that is because there is no evidence that can't be explained by natural laws, at least none I've seen. I think it is the believers in the supernatural have have the burden of proof on them. But it is not just atheists that have these problems, do all theists believe in Zeus, Satan, ghosts, leprechauns, zombies, etc.?

I think that the very presence of a natural world is not natural. By "natural" I mean basically causal, governed by laws in some for or other.

Since I don't know what preceded the Big Bang and nor do I understand many aspects of the quantum world, I don't know if they are natural or not, i.e., caused by an intelligence. I will await further information before I make that call.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If what you showed could have a natural cause and didn't appear to violate the natural laws we know of, I would begin with the assumption it is natural and ask that you show why you believe it to be supernatural.

There are two problems here.

The first is that you expect me to convince you, but that's not what I'm asking. How would YOU recognize a supernatural agency if you stumbled upon it, what would you look for if searching for evidence of the supernatural. My inability to convince you is nothing to do with this, you could simply reject whatever I said, over and over, dismiss it.

The second is that even if I did show you something that appeared to violate natural laws, you could and likely would, simply respond that it is nevertheless natural but we don't know the actual law yet.

The flaw here is then that no matter what I showed you, you could always respond that way.

Show me something that violated natural law and then we'll talk. Got a burning bush maybe?

How? I can show you something that I believe does not have a natural explanation and you can do as I described above, simply say that ignorance of nature is not evidence of supernatural.

I think that is because there is no evidence that can't be explained by natural laws, at least none I've seen. I think it is the believers in the supernatural have have the burden of proof on them. But it is not just atheists that have these problems, do all theists believe in Zeus, Satan, ghosts, leprechauns, zombies, etc.?

There are many things we can't explain scientifically and they are always assumed to have a natural, but currently unknown, explanation.

Since I don't know what preceded the Big Bang and nor do I understand many aspects of the quantum world, I don't know if they are natural or not, i.e., caused by an intelligence. I will await further information before I make that call.

Well consider then the presence, they very existence of the material universe. Does that have a natural explanation? Some say yes and that we will eventually discern that explanation. But in this case we cannot really do that, we cannot explain the presence of a material law governed universe, by recourse to a material law governed universe.

In other words we can't explain the existence of laws by recourse to laws, we cannot explain the presence of fields/matter/energy without recourse to those very things.

If there was a "theory of everything" what might it look like? well it could not assume laws or physical processes because these are the things who's existence we seek to explain.

This gives us good reason ponder a non-scientific explanation, not using laws, but something else, that's what I regard as proof that the universe was created by a "will" a non-deterministic sentient agency, the natural world cannot be used to explain the presence of the natural world, it is not logically possible to do so.

 

[alang1216]

There are two problems here.

The first is that you expect me to convince you, but that's not what I'm asking. How would YOU recognize a supernatural agency if you stumbled upon it, what would you look for if searching for evidence of the supernatural. My inability to convince you is nothing to do with this, you could simply reject whatever I said, over and over, dismiss it.

The second is that even if I did show you something that appeared to violate natural laws, you could and likely would, simply respond that it is nevertheless natural but we don't know the actual law yet.

The flaw here is then that no matter what I showed you, you could always respond that way.

Atheists have the same issue. Whenever a question about the Bible or evolution is asked, we get the answer "because God did it and we don't know his plan".

How? I can show you something that I believe does not have a natural explanation and you can do as I described above, simply say that ignorance of nature is not evidence of supernatural.

There are many things we can't explain scientifically and they are always assumed to have a natural, but currently unknown, explanation.

Well consider then the presence, they very existence of the material universe. Does that have a natural explanation? Some say yes and that we will eventually discern that explanation. But in this case we cannot really do that, we cannot explain the presence of a material law governed universe, by recourse to a material law governed universe.

In other words we can't explain the existence of laws by recourse to laws, we cannot explain the presence of fields/matter/energy without recourse to those very things.

If there was a "theory of everything" what might it look like? well it could not assume laws or physical processes because these are the things who's existence we seek to explain.

This gives us good reason ponder a non-scientific explanation, not using laws, but something else, that's what I regard as proof that the universe was created by a "will" a non-deterministic sentient agency, the natural world cannot be used to explain the presence of the natural world, it is not logically possible to do so.

So you're going with the 'god of the gaps' argument? Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we have to accept your assertion that you do. I'm fine with saying, we don't know the answer and leaving it at that. If you look back on history your argument has been used many times, until science discovers a natural cause. The ancients didn't understand disease but we now know about viruses and bacteria.

It may turn out that in the end we discover natural laws that can explain everything, including how God creates and operates.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Atheists have the same issue. Whenever a question about the Bible or evolution is asked, we get the answer "because God did it and we don't know his plan".

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.

So you're going with the 'god of the gaps' argument? Just because we don't know the answer doesn't mean we have to accept your assertion that you do. I'm fine with saying, we don't know the answer and leaving it at that. If you look back on history your argument has been used many times, until science discovers a natural cause. The ancients didn't understand disease but we now know about viruses and bacteria.

It may turn out that in the end we discover natural laws that can explain everything, including how God creates and operates.

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.