Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified?

Well let's answer your points 1 by 1.1) Your argument was not FOR creationism. Secondly all you were arguing was that your hypothesis was not ruled out by thermodynamics - you were not even trying to make a scientific case FOR it. Thirdly you never adequately dealt with my criticism that your assumptions did require a net decrease in entropy contrary to the Second Law.
If your best claim to have a scientific argument was that you had a speculation that could not be refuted on thermodynamic grounds then that would be sufficient to prove my point. But you don't even have that.2) We have threads discussing ID so that its claim to be science can be exposed as false (and don't you know that the ID party line is that it IS NOT creationism ?).3) None of the things you list are scientific arguments for creationism and therefore the fact that you drag them up is more evidence for my point. That some of the arguments are downright silly (linking the supposed power of two future prophets to control rain to global warming !????!!!) only empahsises how little case you have.4) I'm not sure what thread you are talking about. Is it the Ron Wyatt silliness ? Another fine example of YEC ignorance and arrogance - in place of science.So plenty of examples of YECs failing to produce scientific arguments for creationism - so thanks for proving my point.So what it comes down to is that you and Faith are upset because we won't pretend that you have valid scientific arguments. Well I'm sorry but this IS a debate board. We don't have to pretend that your position really has scientific support just because you don't like the fact that you don't. We're not obligated to to give your side undeserved credit just to keep you on board. Just as we are not obligated to accept Faith's claims that jumping to conclusions based on a superficial assessment of the evidence is a valid argument just because she says so. It isn't and no matter how much the truth upsets Faith it never will be.The rest of it is more claiming to have evidence that you don't have. I suppose that can;t admit how often you;ve been shot down in flames even to yourself but that's just a further demonstration of the very attitude that hampers YECs on boards like this.

I'm not sure if we're supposed to respond to specific arguments in this thread, or what. Still, though, I have a problem with this logic: Much in the same way, wouldn't we be forced to conclude that Santa Claus actually exists and can fly around the world in just one night, because the alternative to explain why all those children recieve presents under the Christmas tree - multiple smaller-scale acts of gifting by their individual parents - is too "Rube Goldbergish?" (I mean, hell, what are the odds that so many parents would choose to give presents on the exact same day? Must be Santa Claus.)But just as we can dispense with the Santa Claus model by the simple, neutral observation that reindeer can't fly, we can dispense with the Flood model with the simple, neutral, non-evolutionist-in-any-way observation that there are way, way too many organisms represented in the fossil record for all of them to have been alive at once.

quote:

---

doesn't constitute evidence. Statements made without evidence and reasoning to back them up remain statements. For example, a court wouldn't find someone guilty of murder just because a member of the public phoned the court and said "He's guilty" and when asked why, replied "He simply is".

---

... except that the Evo's do not hold themselves to this standard. Exactly this sort of nonsense has been bandied about in mutlile threads in regards communism for example, and is not only tolerated but generally supported - and this is despite multiple admissions that the topic has not in fact been investigated by those making the claim.You are quite right to say that statements are not evidence. Unfortunately the Evo side is manifestly hypocritical about sticking to this principle - and indeed, at least on of those guilty of this has been subsequently made an administrator so that they can exercise their hypocrisy with greater reach and power.Then of course there are also the absurdist and outright insulting accusations of "anti-americanism", a direct adoption of the theistic argument that atheists are not really atheists but have some personal beef with god.Hardly inspiring of confidence, is it? There is much cleaning up of acts required, and not exclusively on the creo side by a long way.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-23-2005 05:04 AM

I agree that, when it comes to political / non-scientifiic issues, some people here seem to lose their evidenced-based approach, and go off previous experiences and biases. And I don't really like that either. But when it comes to scientific issues, I haven't seen the problem that you say. For people such as me who haven't seen it, it helps to give the evidence / examples of this. I'm interested to know who I'm dealing with on this board, so if you can provide evidence / examples for this strong accusation, I'd find it useful.Thanks,
Ben

Thanks, I think you have an excellent writing style. I wish I was as clear and straightforward in my writing. As it happens I think some of my lack of clarity resulted in some misunderstandings... My apologies for not making my point clearer. You are correct with the above assessment. The ToE and geologic timelines are products of the scientific process and not the process itself, nor necessary for the continued function of the process. Let me start again...There are many possible methods for gaining "knowledge" about the world. Whether knowledge equals coherent models for practical understanding/control, or having absolute truth, is a debatable issue. Over time methods have been refined and even the idea of what knowledge is has shifted.Modern science is the process or method of gaining "knowledge" (as coherent model, favoring accuracy over absolute truth) which has been developed over centuries, making its greatest gains and solidification during the last 3 centuries. Thus I am talking about the rules of how theories are constructed and investigated.It is this process which has resulted in many advancements, two being the industrial and information age. Thus there is a basis for trusting the techniques this process contains.Two other products of this process's application are the ToE and the current Geologic Timeline. Evos are generally consistent (in EvC debates) of arguing from and for the process, and expecting opponents to do the same.I think this is a major sticking point as it seems to me creos are coming from a different assumption of what science is and what its processes should be. This is supported very well by the frequent attacks by creos on methodological naturalism, as well as IDist attacks on the same as well as calling for returns to inductive reasoning and rejection of staples such as Occam's Razor.To be honest, there is no inherent problem to using a different method of gaining knowledge, and while the successful history of the modern scientific method gives it some advantage in discussing its merits, does not mean it is the only or best method of reaching a conclusion (especially if one has a different idea of knowledge).I think creos need to step back and assess what they really think of science, or methods of gaining knowledge, and even what knowledge is, and perhaps admit to themselves that they are approaching the debate not to attack the ToE within the framework of modern science (which unfortunately is the claim going on right now) but the very process of how science works.Given that the EvC debate is generally occuring within the context of what children should be taught in science class, this is why evos have a valid expectation that when arguments are brought forward, that they are from the framework of modern science... the current [i]process[/].If we are asking what should children be taught what is the product of scientific method as applied to life history, the ToE is the best model that has been established and if it is going to be attacked must be done through the established rules of modern science. Only if we are asking what should children be taught science is and how it functions, do we raise the ability to attack the ToE through alternate methods, though modern science itself must first be rejected.See, right about now I wish I had your or Sylas's clarity in writing. I hope the above made sense. Actually this is not wholly accurate. I don't want to get into a huge debate on any of the specific issues of ToE or OE (old earth) timelines. That is for internal threads. But I did want to point out that this was not the way it occured, and the scientific process later discovered other techniques which coincidentally found more corroborating evidence (that is it matched the expectations based on earlier models). Its that kind of stuff (and I realize you gave a nod to the significance od radioactive dating) that adds to the strength of the prevailing model. But this is inaccurate. I am an evo and I am giving creos all the credence I give everyone else. I have even defended creo positions, especially those outside the strict EvC debate. There are others who give them credence, and I believe Percy does or he wouldn't have started this site at all.If we want to be honest, I know of no creo site which grants any credence to evos such that they can even become or remain members for long. This is not to cast a shadow over all creos, but to make a point that this site at the very least holds a number of members that give creos credit at the beginning and are hoping for a dialogue.If you want an admission that no evo thinks a creo is going to win the debate, you are probably right. I don't think you'll win, especially within the framework of the modern scientific process. This is not to say the process was designed to slight creos, or any religious doctrines about material existence, only that the process seems to have generated enpugh products that are inconsistent with one specific doctrine.Yet this belief does not mean I reject a creo stance out of hand and right off the bat.I mean I assume you think you'll win, but are willing to see what comes of debate.Oh yeah, let me say I am not saying all evos will be fair. I have seen enough bad evos all over the place, much less at EvC, to readily admit some will be as dogmatic as the stereotypical bible-thumping preacher. Its just that this does not apply to all and we should go in with the assumption it won't be the average conduct displayed. It is this statement in specific which makes me believe that we are discussing different concepts of science, scientific method, and knowledge. You appear to be arguing that science has operated by deductive reasoning, rather than inductive reasoning, as well as exhibitin one of the problems I mentioned which is stating that a few unconnected logical possibilities form a coherent attack against ToE or OE.This makes you wrong from within the framework of the modern scientific method, which is why many evos will rush to criticize each point, but not wrong in an objective sense. Science is a man-made process. I will be one to argue the merits of modern science over alternative methods, but I will recognize there are issues with its use that means it is not the only possibility.Thus several debates are formed.1) What is knowledge?
2) What is the proper (ie best or most worthwhile) method of seeking knowledge?
4) What method should children be taught?
5) What products of the method should be taught to children?
6) If the products have ramifications on religious doctrine, can or should these be ameliorated through some instructional tool?Hope this all made sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would disagree that there are no inherent problems in rival methods. It is not necessarily the case that a rival method need be worse - but epistemology is a difficult subject precisely because problems are hard to avoid. (I would even suggest that it would be reasonable to hold that ALL epistemologies have inherent problems and that the main goal of the epistemology is to minimise those problems).While science is prepared to accept models which do not fully cohere this is viewed as an undesirable state to be rectified - and it is accepted that it is an inadequacy of the models. For instance QM and GR are accepted as good models within their respective domains but it is acknowledged that they are not adequate to deal with extreme situations where both become important. Let us be clear that it is accepted that at least one is no more than a (usually very) good approximation within a delimited domain for this reason alone. (But it should also be noted that GR is more accurate than we need - or can even usefully use - for many applications, which is why we still use Newtonian Mechanics instead).An epistemology that does not place an equal weight on consistency has essentially abandoned logic and this destroys any chance of knowledge as it is usually thought of - indeed, it arguably abandons any reasonable understanding of truth. And the apologetic view often used by creationists does implicitly reject consistency as it focusses almost entirely on conclusions without paying adequate attention to the evidence or arguments by which the conclusions are reached.Epistemologies that evaluate an argument by the consistency of the conclusions with "Revealed Truths" have other problems, too. For instance if you view the quality of a (relevant) argument largely on whether it supports the Flood - rather than, say, on its use of evidence and reasoning (for instance if one were to consider an argument which took a vague, superficial, generalisation and jumped to the conclusion that the Flood was the best explanation to be good) then you have effectively ruled, or at least strongly biased, the debate in favour of the Flood conclusion. Which in itself undermines any claim that that epistemology can usefully be used in regard to the Flood by any argument other than those used to establish it as a "Revealed Truth" in the first place. The methodology so strongly biases the conclusions that the conclusions have to be considered a product of the methodology rather than anything else. Using such an epistemology in an argument for the Flood from the empirical evidence is effectively circular for that reason.

quote:

---

They invented it when they invaded Europe? really?

---

Well, apart from claims to it being invented in India, yes the timning is roughly right. In that it appears in the 700's I understand, which is very close to the Islamic conquest of Spain.Trivia: I recently learned that the region "Andalusia" comes from "Al-Andalus" which was the Islamic term for the Vandals who had settled there.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-23-2005 09:39 AM

Whoops whoops whoops... I did not mean there are no inherent problems to any method. What I meant is that there was no inherent problem to having a rival method, or arguing for it.Yes, arguments must be made to work out problems and get to a preferable theory and set of mechanisms. That is why #1 and 2 on my list of debates regard getting that squared away.I do agree that every method toward knowledge is flawed in some way and we are trying to overcome those flaws. Methodological naturalism certainly has some. But I feel the trade of (flaws vs gains) are immense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As a relatively new poster, I am probably less qualified than many here to comment, but my experiences in the one thread in which I have thus far made a substantial contribution may have some relevance.I exchanged several posts with Hydroplate Hippie in the Geomagnetism and the rate of Sea-floor Spreading thread. He had burst in claiming the physical impossibility of magnetic reversals; my posts tried to focus on understanding where his problem was with the current models — a ‘pin him down’ approach that had the added bonus of letting me explain what the current models actually said. I’m not going to claim that I was ‘winning’ a debate, in that Hippie was showing signs of acknowledging that he was mistaken in some of his views. But, our discussion was quite friendly (I can now add the Ozarks to my global ‘able to scrounge beer’ database it seems), and I think he was at least trying to respond to some of the points I raised, even if he did hide it behind excess repetition. And hopefully other readers also got some value out of having these things explained.I did notice that amongst other posts at the same time a number of comments of the ‘you’re wrong, and you’re a fool to boot’ variety, which did seem to increase before his triumphant (at least in his eyes) departure. I don’t mean to sound critical here - this board is one of the few I’ve found where you could reasonably claim that the Evo/Creo interactions actually approximate a debate, as opposed to calling the other side names. It is also no surprise that when confronted with the two-hundredth variation on a theme of personal incredulity, the first temptation is to roll the eyes. I am certainly not immune to being fairly caustic when confronted with what I consider to be studied ignorance (‘pedantic git’ is almost a nickname). But unfortunately, when we’re already suspected (and often accused) of being dogmatic defenders of the atheist creed, any time we lose patience and just say, you’re wrong, without trying to explain why, we lose the argument as well — at least in Creo eyes.The reason that I’ve actually become interested in this whole Evo/Creo debate has been my growing awareness over the past couple of years that it is not confined to a small region of the USA. I have had some quite disturbing discussions with family and several good friends who have a lot of sympathy for the Creo point of view, mainly because they think science leaves no room for God. This feeling that you have to choose between God and Science is (in my mind) obviously wrongheaded when you know what science actually is, and what it actually says. But if your idea of science is based on the false misconceptions fed you by Johnson and his ilk, then the choice is there and it is no surprise that many people of faith do choose. And it is wrong as well as counterproductive, in my opinion, to denigrate that choice. Perhaps ‘examine the argument, don’t attack the worldview’ would be a good guideline?

The first comment is that this is a very general and superficial answer, which sadly lacks a basic understanding of the view it argues against.Let's look at a famous example of such a bed
Requested Page Not Found (404)
Requested Page Not Found (404)Now the first thing to consider is that the main deposits of dinosaur bones come from dinosaurs that lived in the Jurassic period - in the conventional view the extinction of the dinosaurs is around 80 million years after these dinosaurs lived and died. So theories of dinosaur extinction can't be assumed to be relevant.Nor is it clear that the all the dinosaurs even in the main bed died at the same time - the first link offers an alternative explanation, that the river flooded every year, and when it did it picked up some dinosaur remains and washed them down to a point where they all collected. (Of course it doesn't have to be EVERY year - just often enough over a long period of time)Now if we look at the geology (in the second link) we see that before the dinosaurs were buried the area was sea. It contains marine fossils such as belemnites and ammonites.By the time of the dinosaurs the rocks indicate a dry environment, watered by rivers - including the river responsible for collecting the dinosaur bones. Fossil evidence shows river life - including pollen and spores from the plants.Later formations also contain dinosaur remains - yet in the Cretaceous strata we see Cretaceous, not Jurassic dinosaurs. If the dinosaur deposits represent a Flood then this is another problem since surely all must have died at around the same time.Before the periods where conventional paleontology places the extinction of the dinosaurs the sea returned and we find marine fossils again.So we see some obvious problems for a Flood explanation.If we start with the dinosaur remains and assume that the opening stages of the Flood overwhelmed them then how do we explain the underlying geology which shows the area was sea before then ? Our initial assumption has ruled out a Flood explanation for those strata and the fossils they contain.But if we say that when the Flood started the area was sea then how do we explain the geology of the area where the dinosaurs were found, which shows dry land with rivers flowing through it ? How, indeed, does fossil pollen end up in that geology when hydrodynamics would make it one of the last things to be deposited ?The marine fossils in the later strata are less obviously a problem for the Flood but they do present a real problem - where did all the shellfish come from ? Shellfish are not known for great mobility and surely they must have been largely wiped out in the early stages of the Flood by burial in the huge deposits of sediment. So why do we find oysters in the Mowry Shale, above the dinosaurs ? And more shellfish in the Frontier Sandstone above that ? The Flood year doesn't allow time for shellfish to recover from the huge disaster, let alone massively expand their range and numbers.The conventional view doesn't have these problems - it allows time for environmental change and for species to move in and occupy areas opened up to them by that change. And the river deposits are not a problem - they are a key part of the explanation.And just to make it clear, this is the very sort of area which Faith claims as support for her position - if the Flood doesn't do well here then the whole argument falls apart. But a more detailed look at the geology of this area raises serious problems for the Flood, while offering an alternative explanation consistent with the conventional view. And that is why arguments like Faith's are not valid. They don't go into the necessary details.

PaulK, Faith - Please cease covering that theme here, and please see my message here.There's also probably other good, but misplaced themes running in this topic.Adminnemooseus

This is good and appropriate advice, but I confess I've been wrestling with the problem of what arguments to consider appropriate here. I originally raised this issue in a very general way as an example of unscientific Creationist thinking. Faith responded with specific examples and rebuttals, and I responded that we could debate these in other threads. But in Faith's posts to Holmes she has made it clear that she believes her replies had some scientific merit, and that can only because no one has corrected her as yet.And so PaulK's most recent post is actually necessary to this discussion, because it should help Faith understand that her armchair speculations, rather than being good scientific thinking that highlights the tenuous nature of evolution, are actually excellent examples of Creationist bad science.I don't think this should be allowed to become a significant digression in this thread, but I think occasional diversions like this are going to be necessary.--Percy

Yup, after they arrived. And there are some who claim that it was more the interaction with the culture of Christianity they conquered that inspired it. But I don't know the particulars of that claim, so I'll give you Muslims invented it, after the conquest.

The Admin have opened the Great Debate Topic about sedimentation to me and you. I have started off by respoinding to one of your post. I wan't sure how much attention you had been paying to the discussion about the GD topic so I though I would give you a heads up here.Please respond here: Message 80If you wish to participate in the what is for now a one on one discussion between me and you.

---

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Jazz, I already bowed out of that thread. What it would take to engage me again I don't know. I saw that you wrote quite a long post but since I just struggled through THIS entire thread and have had to save a few posts here to read later as it is, I doubt I'm going to even be able to read yours for a while.I'm also thoroughly discouraged with this entire enterprise, as I've said many times in THIS thread, which is on-topic here but wouldn't be on the GD thread. Reading through the posts of the last couple of days that I wasn't able to get to until now just piles on the discouragement.I'd like to write a satire of my experience here if I ever have the motivation for it. It's indescribable. Kind of like I say "The sky is very blue on this planet" and the answer is "Another mistake to be corrected" and "All you do is repeat yourself" and "Can you prove that? What is your evidence? Are you unaware of the ninety-six different sky colors we here on planet Evo have established to be at least the tentative range?" Yes that's an absurd caricature -- although probably true enough that somebody here will decide to question each word in it. Sure FEELS like something that absurd. I saw the invitation to you earlier and visited long enough to see that you'd answered just now. It doesn't look hopeful. Sorry I can't promise anything. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe.