Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 10:58 AM
37 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, edge, jar, JonF, Percy (Admin), Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (9 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,933 Year: 11,969/19,786 Month: 1,750/2,641 Week: 259/708 Day: 34/52 Hour: 15/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 16 of 136 (665239)
06-10-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


In the OP you argue that evolution is based on Uniformitarianism and that Uniformitarianism is invalid. So why would it be improper to reject evolution on that basis.

Second you argue that relaxing the literal 24-hour days makes the Genesis account compatible with evolution. But even if the 6 days were different from 24-hour days, there is still the problem that the order of creation in Genesis is not compatible with the scientific view.

Perhaps you are the one erroneously jumping to a conclusion that religious people and scientists are idiots.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16817
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 17 of 136 (665244)
06-10-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


PaulGL writes:

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.


Scientists discarded the Genesis account because it is erroneous.

Why do people try to reconcile science with the Bible? It's like comparing apples and orangutans.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1900 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 18 of 136 (665256)
06-10-2012 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


The only red herring I see in your OP is equating "evolutionists" with atheists and arguing that they deliberately threw out the Genesis version because of this. If you accept that no science says anything about religion, your red herring in your OP disappears.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 19 of 136 (665259)
06-10-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


Uniformitarianism
Evolution was, in its conception, an applied extension to biology of the school of thought known as uniformitarianism. [...] Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence.

It's not clear what you mean by uniformitarianism, but whatever you mean by it, this is no way to reason.

If evolution is a form of uniformitarianism (whatever that is) then you still need to show that there is something wrong with evolution specifically. Otherwise what's to stop someone saying: "Uniformitarianism is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence, except when it comes to evolution, which turns out to be correct. Darwin caught a lucky break there."

Don't you see that something's gone terribly wrong when all the argument you have against evolution, a proposition about biology, doesn't involve mentioning a single organism, a single organ, a single fossil, a single bone, a single genome, a single gene, a single scrap of a shred of a scintilla of an iota of information about biology?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7971
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


(3)
Message 20 of 136 (665282)
06-11-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by PaulGL
05-27-2012 2:11 PM


Firstly, as we shall see later on in this chapter, the school of thought that gave rise to the theory of evolution- Uniformitarianism? is totally in contradiction to scientific evidence.

There are many ways to define uniformitarianism ("U" hereafter). Lyell described U as sedimentation and geologic structures accumulating at steady rates. This, of course, was thrown out when catastrophic processes were recognized and better understood. This was strictly a geologic term though. Strangely enough, punctuated equilibria is anything but stead rates of evolution, so evolution really doesn't even fit into this loosely defined geologic term.

The second way that U is used is to describe constant physical laws through history. This is no in contradiction to evidence. In fact, all of the evidence we have points to constant physical laws throughout the 13.7 billion year history of our universe.

The second mistake, resulting from the same anti?spiritual motivation as the first, was in the use of evolution as one pillar of a mechanistic explanation capable of circumventing the problem of first cause, i.e., the origination of everything.

That is what creationists do, not scientists. Creationists are the group who constantly conflates evolution with the origin of life and the universe. It is scientists who continually correct them on this error.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account . . .

They didn't discard it. They followed the evidence. If Genesis is true then the evidence would have supported it. It didn't.

In fact, most of the earliest geologists went out into the field looking for evidence of a young earth and Noah's Deluge. They found just the opposite. They found literal mountains of evidence for an ancient Earth (millions to billions of years old) and absolutely no evidence of a recent global flood. A literal interpretation of Genesis could actually be said to be the impetus for much of geology in the late 1700's to early 1800's. It was far from ignored. It just happend to be wrong. By the time Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution a literal Genesis had long been refuted.

Perhaps you could explain to us why a refuted creation myth (when interpreted literally) should be forced into a scientific theory? How does Genesis improve our knowledge of life's history? What creation scientists are using Genesis as the basis for original scientific research? Why don't we ever hear of creationists digging up fossils out in the field? Why is all of their effort put into propoganda and anti-science tracts?

The truth of the matter is that science came to the conclusion of slowly developing life, an ancient Earth, and a lack of a recent global flood by following the evidence. Why is that a problem? That seems like the very definition of science to me.

What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular?

They aren't. I think you are seeing persecution where there is none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by PaulGL, posted 05-27-2012 2:11 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 21 of 136 (665290)
06-11-2012 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
06-10-2012 11:37 AM


Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
AMFTHR: written 2 years ago.

Author's Note: Since my writing of this section, rock specimens have been found in Antarctica that have been shown to have been at one time on the surface of Mars; and also some which had, at one time, been on the surface of the far side of the moon.
Also, within the last decade a complete, detailed planetary topological mapping of Venus was carried out by satellite. Venus has a violent (600 mph) and corrosive (sulphuric acid) atmosphere. Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times. This alone directly disproves Uniformitarianism. When NOVA asked an astrophysicist about this, his reply was: ‘I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain those craters. But I’m not willing to give it up.’
Sir, your answer is the epitome of religious dogmatism and not that of objective, scientific methodology.

Will reply better at future time, when have some time. Very good reasoning and informative input by you. PaulGL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-10-2012 11:37 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2012 4:17 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 23 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2012 5:21 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2012 5:24 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 25 by jar, posted 06-11-2012 5:35 PM PaulGL has not yet responded
 Message 48 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-13-2012 3:39 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5396
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 22 of 136 (665291)
06-11-2012 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulGL
06-11-2012 4:13 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times. This alone directly disproves Uniformitarianism.

I will be here when you return to explain that second sentence. And give some citations to the literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2012 6:04 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 23 of 136 (665294)
06-11-2012 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulGL
06-11-2012 4:13 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
Yet craters (with little or no detectable erosion) were found that had to have been formed within recent, perhaps historical times.

A crater on Venus, or any other planet, may have been formed by any number of known and observed mechanisms including impact by a meteor. We also believe that there are no plate tectonics or Venus. Explain how some random feature found on Venus, that may or may not be formed by a catastrophic event, rules out whatever you mean by uniformitarianism as an explanation for other features, either on Venus or on earth.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 24 of 136 (665295)
06-11-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulGL
06-11-2012 4:13 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
When NOVA asked an astrophysicist about this, his reply was: ‘I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain those craters. But I’m not willing to give it up.’

Oh look, an unnamed reference to an unnamed source. Very creationist. It would make it much harder to prove that you made the quote up, except for a couple of minor blunders. You say that this person was an astrophysicist. First of all, such a person would have no more idea than a layman about craters on Venus. And second, as "uniformitarianism" is a term of art in the history of geology, and in creationist propaganda, and absolutely nowhere else, an astrophysicist wouldn't use the word 'cos astrophysicists never use that word and most of them have never heard it either.

Sir, your answer is the epitome of religious dogmatism and not that of objective, scientific methodology.

Well, that was very haughty. But then, it is easy to look down on the imaginary people who live in your head. You may find arguing with real people is more difficult.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 25 of 136 (665296)
06-11-2012 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulGL
06-11-2012 4:13 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
Pretty funny.

Thanks, but what does it have to do with the topic?

Did you read Message 12?

Are you claiming that the processes here on earth are different than in the past, that continental plate collisions did not raise mountains, that erosion and weathering did not break down materials and move them from higher levels to lower levels, that volcanism and floods and storms and winds and freezing and thawing behaved differently in the past, that in the past younger layers were laid down beneath older layers?

Come on.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by PaulGL, posted 06-11-2012 4:13 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 26 of 136 (665301)
06-11-2012 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coragyps
06-11-2012 4:17 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
As a refutation of Uniformitarianism as it applies to geology the surface of Venus is a lot better than the Big Bang, which seems to have been his original argument!

But this little article - although nearly 2 years old - should give a better idea of the state of affairs with Venus Venus crater debate heats up

(It's possible that his "astrophysicist" is David Coppedge - an IT worker who used to work for the Cassini program at JPL.)

You can find a good deal - perhaps all of the book available as a "preview" via Amazon. Believe me, you haven't seen half the crazy yet

A Message For the Human Race


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coragyps, posted 06-11-2012 4:17 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2012 7:29 PM PaulK has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 27 of 136 (665311)
06-11-2012 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
06-11-2012 6:04 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
But this little article - although nearly 2 years old - should give a better idea of the state of affairs with Venus Venus crater debate heats up

In that case, PaulGL has turned the actual scientific question completely on its head. While scientists wonder what explains the absence of the craters that aren't there, PaulGL claims that they're at a loss to explain the presence of the craters that are there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 06-11-2012 6:04 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 06-11-2012 7:47 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 06-12-2012 1:52 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 28 of 136 (665313)
06-11-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2012 7:29 PM


Earth, we are on the earth
and in case PaulGL didn't know that I think it is a point worth making.

We are talking about the geological and biological history of the Earth, not Venus.

The fact is that the various Genesis accounts were abandoned not from some desire to attack the Bible, but because all of the evidence from here on the Earth showed that the Genesis accounts, the Biblical accounts, the Biblical Flood were simply wrong.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin her ---> here


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2012 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Pollux, posted 06-13-2012 2:29 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15204
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 29 of 136 (665329)
06-12-2012 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dr Adequate
06-11-2012 7:29 PM


Re: Sorry, no spare time now. Beg your forgiveness
I think that it is more accurate to say that PaulGL is wondering why there are so many craters while scientists are wondering why there are so few. He is wondering why the craters seen have not been erased, while scientists are wondering why older craters have been erased.

If he had more sense - and didn't rely on creationist sources - he might construct a valid argument against the more extreme forms of uniformitarianism based on the catastrophic resurfacing hypothesised for Venus (although the point of the article was that that view was under question). It would at least be an example of a catastrophic event having a major geological effect. And that would be an improvement over his book.

However, he would still have the massive problem that he still does't have an argument that is remotely valid and still wouldn't even if he DID come up with an example of catastrophic processes on Earth. It is not enough to argue that evolution took ideas from uniformitarianism and uniformitarianism is false. He needs to argue that current evolutionary theory relies on aspects of uniformitarianism that are false. And he doesn't even try to do that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-11-2012 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2012 9:26 AM PaulK has responded

    
Pollux
Member
Posts: 251
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 30 of 136 (665411)
06-13-2012 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
06-11-2012 7:47 PM


Early geologists
Supporting what has been said, the Geoscience Research Institute which has been searching for 50 years for a short age model that fits the evidence (and with no success), had 2 articles in their publication "Origins" confirming that early geologists indeed did look for YEC and Flood evidence and could not find it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 06-11-2012 7:47 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019