Learn by choosing a PRATT and posting it for discussion
Again, I want to know the arguments before I start arguing.
One way you could approach this would be take one PRATT (claims "previously {?} refuted a thousand times") at a time, research it, research its refutation (eg, by searching for it on Talk.Origins Archive, starting in their "An Index to Creationist Claims" at An Index to Creationist Claims, and then present it here for further discussion and/or explanation of the refutation. That index's refutations are necessarily cursorary, but links to more complete refutations are usually provided as well.
I advise that you only present one PRATT at a time. If you were to list a dozen of them, then you would be engaging in a "Gish Gallop". The "Gish Gallop" is named after one of the ICR's pioneer master debators, Dr. Duane Gish, who practiced it. The trick is that in your summation, you start spewing one nonsensical, but convincing-sounding, claim after another. The more glib and practiced you are, the more nonsense you can spew within a minute. Not only will it overwhelm an inexperienced opponent, but it will be virtually impossible for even an opponent intimately familiar with every one of those claims to be able to expose them all which the few minutes that he's afforded by the debate format. For example, let's say that it would take at least 10 minutes to refute one creationist claim and you spew forth 10 claims. Your opponent would need 100 minutes to respond, more than 1.5 hours, and he's only given 5 minutes. Even though your claims are pure crap and he knows exactly why they're pure crap, the debate format's time constraints (that the creationists had established) make it impossible for him to explain that to the audience and the audience goes away believing the creationist claim that no "evolutionist" can answer their questions.
Please note regarding debates that while creationists make a show of being ready to debate anyone anywhere (with some exceptions, like Walter Brown explicitly refusing to debate anyone who's not a PhD), Gish has repeatedly refused to debate on specific questions (eg, age of the earth, what the the fossil record really shows) since that would require him to stick to the subject and would prevent him from unleashing the Gish Gallop, which would spell death for his presentation. Similarly, most creationists insist on verbal debates and avoid written debates like the plague, since a written format gives their opponents time to respond to a Gallop.
Most new creationists here start off by posting PRATTs that they copied from some creationist site somewhere. And they get roundly reprimanded for it and rightfully so. So just post one at a time and be ready to discuss it.
Edited by dwise1, : more on debates
Edited by dwise1, : Modified subtitle
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade, Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Yes, my mind is made up. There is a very small chance (I'm talking 1.00*10^-10000000%) of me changing my mind.
Denial of contradictory evidence is not faith, or rational - it is delusion:
A closed mind can only hold a little information.
I do want to know what people's arguments are. I'm here for the information. I want to be caught up in this debate, so I can understand what's going on. I debate to try and draw out more information.
The real question is what is true, what is real, regardless of people's opinions, beliefs, feelings and everything they have been taught. This question then leads to the problem: how do you determine what is true, what is real? This affects everything from evidence that the earth orbits the sun to the age of the universe to the existence of past all events.
This is rather fundamental to the debate isn't it? Your OP talks about having evidence that supports creationism, and you have tried out a few standard creationist items which have been refuted. You say you want to learn more, that you are ill-informed, and want to learn "both sides" (there are many more than two) of the debate - are you planning to (a) to present any more or (b) defend all those that have been refuted? Perhaps when you learn a little more, you will return to these items and recant or revise them.
I'm in a school that doesn't teach evolution, so ...
... so you don't have a single valid opinion on it: you don't know enough to have an opinion, and what you do know - what you have been taught or told - is likely FULL of errors and misconceptions.
My response to your Message 58 (where it was off topic), is still unanswered on Message 71, and it presents some information on what evolution really involves, PLUS it links you to two university sites used to teach courses on evolution to students, so you can see what actual evolutionary biologists are teaching (as opposed to people who are NOT evolutionary biologists).
Let me hit on the basic points again and expand some of the arguments for clarity:
Evolution as FACT
Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.
This has been observed to occur in every population studied, observed and known. That this evolution occurs is a fact.
Well known examples are Galapagos Finches and Peppered Moths. Other examples are Walkingstick insects - where the evolution of wings in on again off again on again, and involves a whole tree of related insect species - and Foraminifera - where change has been observed over 65 million years in an virtually complete fossil record. In fact you cannot talk about a single fossil record of related specimens (horses, man, bears, etc) and NOT talk about change in hereditary traits that have occurred in those specimens.
Evolution as THEORY
The theory of evolution is that the mechanisms that cause evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life that we see in life today, in the historical record, in the fossil record and in the genetic record.
This theory predicts that results of studying the different records will match: that the results of the historical and fossil record of past life and the relationships between different species - resulting in (among other things) a taxonomic tree of life - will match the results of the genetic record and relationships - which results in (among other things) a genetic tree of life. So far this prediction has been the case. We can combine these results into a phylogenetic tree of life.
This theory also predicts that where there are breaks or gaps in a fossil record, that when additional information is found that covers the missing period and appropriate ecology for the gap in question, that fossils can be found that are intermediate in form from between those before and those after. So far this prediction has been the case.
Do these results prove evolution theory? Of course not - no more than validating results prove any theory in science, from gravity to the big bang. All they show is that so far as these results are concerned it is a valid concept.
More to the point, no evidence to date has invalidated the concept that the mechanisms that cause evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - are sufficient to explain all the diversity of life that we see in life today, in the historical record, in the fossil record and in the genetic record.
That makes it a robust theory. Another thing that makes it a robust theory is that it is a synthesis of sub-theories, theories on various different mechanisms and how they operate. This means that some of these sub-theories can be invalidated and replaced with new theories and the overall synthesis is still going strong, and that to invalidate the overall synthesis theory ALL the sub-theories need to be invalidated.
Some may call "foul" here, claiming that it shows that the theory of evolution cannot be falsified, however this is ignoring the facts. In science when a theory is falsified, it is either replaced with a new theory or modified to fit the new facts: in this case the synthesis theory has been modified by the removal and replacement or modification of the sub-theory in question. This has occurred too: several early theories on how new hereditary traits were acquired and passed on to following generations have been falsified, including the theory known as Lamarckism that also was included by Darwin in his "Origin of Species".
This is similar to the "Standard Model" of physics: it too is a synthesis of sub-theories on how physics works, including "mico" - quantum mechanics - and "macro" - relativity - theories.
What is "MACROevolution?"
Simply stated "macroevolution" is the branching of the tree of life, for without the branching the structure we know today would not occur, nor would there be differentiation into the major taxon groups in a nested hierarchy such as we see in the phylogenetic tree of life. Without branching we could not explain the diversity of life we see.
Now let us note that, by definition, all evolution occurs within a breeding population of organisms all of the same species, and that this is often referred to as "microevolution" - often dismissed by creationists as "adaptation within (undefined) kinds.". This kind of evolution can continue within any breeding population of organisms all of the same species for any period of time, even very long periods of time, and it can encompass a remarkable (to us) degree of change. Each generation will still be similar to the ones before and after it: at every stage, all the organisms within the breeding population will still appear to be all of one species, using the "biological definition" of species ("a species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals who are reproductively isolated from other such groups." -UMich).
After many generations have passed the species may no longer look like the original species we started with, and we can (arbitrarily) say that it is a new species due to the noticeable (to us) amount of change that has accrued. We don't know if this population could breed with the original population because they are separated in time, thus we cannot use the "biological definition" of species.
This is called "Arbitrary Speciation" in evolutionary biology, and - as seen here - it occurs by the process of microevolution. Here we need to use a different definition of species, like the "morphological definition" ("members of a species are individuals that look similar to one another." -UMich). This speciation is "arbitrary" because it is dependent on subjective observation of an arbitrary degree of change.
The speciation that is of particular interest here though, is the type of speciation where branching occurs - where one species becomes two (or more) similar species that no longer interbreed. These are called "Non-arbitrary Speciation" or "Speciation Events" in evolutionary biology, because it is not based on some subjective degree of change, but on the physical split of one breeding population into separate populations that don't interbreed. Once they no longer interbreed we can easily see that they will accrue additional differences from each other as they diverge into different ecologies and accumulate further change by microevolution and, with time, arbitrary speciation, within each sub-population, but HOW do they become divided?
All that is needed is reproductive isolation between two (or more) sub-populations of a species, ... and different evolution within each sub-population. This are not difficult conditions, and in fact speciation has been observed, and speciation is a fact. This is not surprising because different evolution is pretty much guaranteed by (a) random mutations must necessarily be different, (b) the ecologies must necessarily be different and (c) natural selection is a opportunistic response to (a) and (b).
Even if the two sub-populations live is similar ecologies (environment plus predator-prey, food sources, etcetera) and even if natural selection tends to keep the populations adapted to those ecologies, there will be differences in the mutations selected and differences in genetic drift, differences that will result in divergence in behavior, appearance, and mating preferences within the populations. This occurs even if the sub-populations are not totally isolated, as in the example of the Asian Greenish Warblers
The two forms are connected by a long chain of populations encircling the Tibetan Plateau to the south, and traits change gradually through this ring of populations. There is no place where there is an obvious species boundary along the southern side of the ring. Hence the two distinct 'species' in Siberia are apparently connected by gene flow. By studying geographic variation in the ring of populations, we can study how speciation has occurred. This unusual situation has been termed a 'circular overlap' or 'ring species'.
Here you end up in the same ecology, but the gene flow between the sub-populations is not sufficient for the two end populations to behave as the same species - there is sufficient difference in song and coloration that they do not recognize each other as mating material.
When two or more sub-populations live in different ecologies (different environments or different predator-prey relationships or different food sources, etcetera) then the forces of natural selection will necessarily tend to enforce change in different directions to adapt those sub-populations to the different ecologies. Similar but non-breeding populations will also tend to evolve away from each other to reduce competition for food and habitat (eco-niche) due to natural selection.
Evolution - the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - continues in each diverging population until the next Speciation Event where the process is repeated, but now we have another branch on the tree of life, and in this way the tree of life is developed by the process of evolution, arbitrary speciation, speciation events and the branching from common ancestors at different times in the past. This provides the taxonomic structure where we arbitrarily make taxon divisions based on some arbitrary degree (to us) of difference between existing species or groups of species and their ancestors - the higher the taxon level the greater time that has passed since the common ancestors.
This is the pattern we see again and again. We see it in Foraminifera, we see it in Pelycodus, horses, bears and man. We see it in the evolution of mammals from reptiles and of quadrupeds from fish.
The differences in features that we see are due to evolution within populations of breeding organisms that at any one time appear to be all of the same species, with each each population of breeding individuals evolving in different directions, taking different paths.
At no time is there anything like a "part this part that" creature: that is a creationist misrepresentation of evolution.
Speciation that results in branching results in two populations that are related by a common ancestor population - and this results in a prediction that all species are related by common ancestors, some of them recent and some of them very ancient. This is actually the place where creationism has a different argument from science - it is not the issue of evolution per se (see creationist comments characterizing "microevolution" as "change within kind" or as "adaptation"). Taken to a logical conclusion, the concept of "common ancestor" predicts that at some remote ancient time there was one original population of life. The creationist prediction on the other hand would be that there would be some (small? Large?) discrete number of original "kinds" - more than one original population.
Re: Learn by choosing a PRATT and posting it for discussion
dwise1 writes:
PRATT (claims "previously {?} refuted a thousand times")
PRATT = Point Refuted A Thousand Times, but your paraphrase gets the main idea just fine.
I will also advise Aquilegia753 to try to discuss things 1 point at a time. It's just easier that way, for both sides and anyone else trying to follow along. Hopefully the discussion can remain as civilized and respectful as the two of you (Aquilegia753 and dwise1) have kept it so far. Impressive for both sides, to say the least.
Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
cleaning up my emails I see this one was missed.
Yes, that would create a time distortion, but we already experiance a time distortion here on earth with something much slower: sound.
If a car is going at, say, a quarter of the speed of sound, away from you and it honks its horn twice, ten seconds apart. Then, the first honk, honk A, will be traveling backward, away from the rapidly receding car. Ten seconds later, the car emits honk B. However, in between, the car has traveled 2820 feet. Both honks are now traveling at the same speed toward you, but 14100 feet apart. therefore, even though Honk B was sent only ten seconds after Honk A, they would arrive 12.5 seconds apart.
Nope, that is not a time distortion at all. Time NOT being distorted explains the phenomena with standard Newtonian physics.
You can think of the light traveling from the supernova as being on a board game, there are two paths, one straight to you with 1000 spaces, and one perpendicular to that line for X spaces and then straight to you with 1000 spaces. You can throw a pair of dice and move a marker along each path the amount shown on the dice, representing a variable light speed, and no matter how you play the game they will arrive at the end X spaces apart. Thus we only need to know the distance between the markers at the end to know the distance between the start and the corner point.
This demonstrates that the diameter of the ring measured by the time differential and the speed of light when the observations were made is the real physical distance from the star to the ring. Simple geometry then gives us the real physical distance from the star to the earth.
Likewise the spectrum of the light shows element bars (cobalt-56 and others) in the same locations(when adjusted for a little red shift over 168,000 light-years) as light from the sun and from experiments here on earth. These are frequency dependent functions that would be different if light traveled at a different speed at the start.
Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Doppler shifts are well understood. In my software career, I've had occasion to work on radar systems. Radar systems routinely use the Doppler shift of returns off of targets (a "radar return" is the radio-wave signal that the radar set had transmitted having bounced off a target and has now returned to the radar antenna) are used to determined the velocity at which the target is moving toward or away from the radar set. The speed at which the return is travelling is the same as the transmitted signal; the Doppler shift is in the signal's frequency, not in its speed.
The person whom you quoted is only demonstrating ignorance of physics. As was stated by Saint Augustine, if we observe them making such false statements about things we know quite well, then we're certainly not going to believe them about things that we cannot check them on.
When will they ever learn?
{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy. ("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
And we who listen to the stars, or walk the dusty grade, Or break the very atoms down to see how they are made, Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand. The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand. Deep in flower and in flesh, in star and soil and seed, The truth has left its living word for anyone to read. So turn and look where best you think the story is unfurled. Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world. (filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
dwise1 writes:
When will they ever learn?
See, the most valuable thing I learned while in college was the fact that there are vast amounts of information out there that I am not aware of. Having the know-it-all attitude would certainly make a fool out of me one of these days.
This is what people like Aquilegia753 need to learn. The more things I know, the more things I know I don't know. But instead of having this attitude, people like Aquilegia753 remember a few sentences from their physics text book and assume those few sentences represent the limits of human knowledge.
When I first read that supposed time distortion with the car honking thing he was talking about, I felt a sharp pain. I just find it astonishing that people could show such willful ignorance and contempt for true human knowledge while proclaiming to be speaking for an all-knowing god. But the really sad thing about all of this is Aquilegia will probably ignore RAZD's response after having read it and continue to believe that he knows all there is to it.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic rant, people.
Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
quote: Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) along with the lack of neccesary mass to counter the effect with an equally strong gravitational pull towards the center means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Because they are still intact and still spinning, either the galaxies must have more mass, and therefore more gravity (the theoretical 'Dark Matter'), or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.
Then when they pull apart wouldn't they all be spinning in the same direction, Dr.Hovind has a great example of this. If you get 10 of 12 grade schoolers on a mary-go-round and have the highschool foot ball team spinning them around when they stop they will fly off and will all be spinning in the original direction of the mary-go-round. This is off topic, but I've always wondered about that.
Well that dosn't really make sence does it. It has the same amount of energy but it's just being broken up into diffrent peices, so if the big bang is correct then wouldn't all the planets be spinning the same way?
...if the big bang is correct then wouldn't all the planets be spinning the same way?
Not at all.
If I may make a suggestion, as someone who has studied physics: don't rely on Hovind for information. He is almost always wrong. He really doesn't understand basic science.
Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
It has the same amount of energy but it's just being broken up into diffrent peices, so if the big bang is correct then wouldn't all the planets be spinning the same way?
It makes perfect sense. When you jump off the merry-go-round, you're not spinning at all; you're moving in a straight line tangental to the point where you jumped off.
It's funny that Hovind, ostensibly the holder of a degree in education, doesn't know what happens when kids play on a merry-go-round. I guess he doesn't see a lot of children in his jail cell?
Well I thank you for your sugestion but I think that it makes total since that it would all spin in the same direction. But I don't know how to justify it.
Probably because it's not true. I'm telling you; my major was physics, and that not only included learning the mathematical theory behind this, but also observing and doing experiments that verify this.
But you don't have to believe me.
Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein
Well I thank you for your sugestion but I think that it makes total since that it would all spin in the same direction.
If this was true there would be no such thing as centrifugal force. But since this is trivial to demonstrate - say, with a centrifuge - we know that angular momentum is not conserved in the way you describe.
™ Version 4.2