Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A question about evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 3 of 70 (798298)
02-01-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:19 PM


Sorry, but I had written responses to the original OP.
this is a topic that i've been bouncing around my whole life, always losing my faith then gaining it back again.
Why? I mean, if repeatedly having your YEC beliefs disproven causes you to lose your faith, then shouldn't you be asking yourself the real questions?
  1. Why do I keep losing my faith?
  2. Does my faith really have to depend on the contrary-to-fact claims of YEC?
  3. Why should my faith have to depend on the contrary-to-fact claims of YEC?
  4. What does it really mean when YEC turns out to be false, which it always does?
Those are the real questions that you should be asking.
Here's a hint: many of the opponents of YEC here used to be YECs themselves. I'm sure that they could help you with those questions.
As for myself, yes, I do happen to be an atheist. I have been one for over half a century having left Christianity because I had started to read the Bible and quickly realized that I just couldn't believe what I was reading. Then half a decade later (c. 1970) the "Jesus Freak" movement exploded on the local scene centered at Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel and I learned a lot about their beliefs as a "fellow traveller". That knowledge informed me that I really couldn't believe that stuff, thus strengthening my atheism immensely. At the same time I encountered YEC claims for the first time and they were so blatantly false that I knew that there was nothing to YEC -- one of the claims was that a NASA computer in the mid-60's had found Joshua's Lost Day; see a Christian's essay on that, Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day" by Dr. Allan H. Harvey.
You may also want to read Dr. Harvey's other essays which I link to at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/links.html#HARVEY (I just put that anchor in the page, but won't be able to upload it for two days, so if that takes you to the top of my links page all you need to do is to search for Harvey). Science and Christian Apologetics is pertinent since it discusses how "creation science" both robs Christians of their faith and creates unnecessary obstacles for non-believers keeping them from ever considering Christianity. I would also highly recommend his A Personal View of the Evolution Issue, especially the last section, "Relating Science and Faith". He discusses "God of the Gaps" in that last essay and in another one, What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean?, which is also pertinent since I have seen "God of the Gaps" used many times in "creation science" and "intelligent design" is based firmly on that false theology -- basically, it's "We don't know therefore goddidit. Oops! Now we do know so that disproves God."
When I encountered "creation science" again a decade later, I was surprised that it was still around. Assuming that there might be something to it after all, I started to study it. I very quickly learned that it was all false claims and deception. Then I learned that it causes many Christians to lose their faith. Even professional creationists at Answers in Genesis warn of the dangers of using false YEC claims, though they don't realize that all YEC claims are false (see Dr Jonathan Sarfati and Dr Don Batten on my quotes page). In the nearly four decades I've been studying and discussing "creation science" I have encountered such horrific creationist dishonesty, immorality, and hatred that I thank God {grin} every day that I'm an atheist and have been saved from the insidious corrupting influence of "true Christianity". My creation/evolution web site at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/ is dedicated warning Christians about the corrupting influence of "creation science" and in which I say the same things that those professional creationists say, for which "true Christians" have flamed me mercilessly with their "Christian love" in "drive-by" hate emails.
For a more complete telling of my tale, refer to my essay, How I got started and why I oppose "creation science". I wrote and posted it to CompuServe nearly three decades ago at someone's request.
Please stick around. There is a lot for us to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:19 PM Micah8294 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 4 of 70 (798300)
02-01-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:19 PM


Your original questions:
1. couldn't a lot of geology theoretically point towards a worldwide flood
No. When geology started out that is exactly what they were looking for, evidence of Noah's world-wide flood. They couldn't find any such evidence. It simply does not exist. The evidence does show a long and complex geological history.
The closest thing we have to a world-wide flood is the rising of sea level by about 200 feet due to the melting of the ice sheets when the last ice age ended about 13,000 years ago. That has caused several land bridges to become submerged along with a lot of coastlines; eg, the Persian Gulf, which is about 100 feet deep at most, used to be dry land. And thanks to climate change, we're seeing that happen again.
2. how do evolutionists overcome the issues about the age of the earth (i'm sure you've heard the arguments)
We have no problem with the age of the earth. How do YECs overcome the issues about the age of the earth? Oh yeah, they either go into extreme denial or lose their faith.
I actually find this topic to be the most fun as well as the easiest to refute, plus the refutations are much more clear and undeniable. Unfortunately, I have found that creationists will avoid young-earth claims like the plague, which tells me that they also have realized that it is the weakest part of their claims. For example, I had been carrying on a twenty-year correspondence with a local creationist activist who is most definitely a young-earther (that was even the reason he had converted in the first place), but in all that time despite my repeated attempts to discuss young-earth claims with him he has steadfastly refused to engage.
I have also found that if I suggest a particular young-earth claim for discussion, the YEC will immediately claim that he doesn't believe in that claim or has never heard of it before. Frankly, I think I'm being lied to. So I have learned to ask the YEC to present a young-earth claim for us to discuss -- though again they will twist and squirm as they avoid even that.
So then, hoping for a different experience, I hereby ask you to present a young-earth claim for us to discuss.
3. why is it that animals living in cold environments evolved thick fur to keep them warm, but people (such as Eskimos) have not?
Could you please explain how your particular understanding of evolution and how it works would lead you to think that there's any problem there? At the very least, please outline the sequence of events that you imagine to have taken place in the arrival of humans to the Arctic and the arrival of other mammals along with their evolving thick fur.
A very basic statement about evolution is that it involves changes within a population over many generations. Every generation requires a finite amount of time, t, so if a particular change takes n generations to establish itself in a population, then the amount of time required would be nt. Generating an example via argumentum ex culo (ie, pulling the numbers out of a body orifice), if a change takes 1000 generations and a generation takes 20 years, then it would take 20,000 years (100020) for that change to evolve.
So, what would be needed for non-human mammals to adapt to the Arctic? Thicker fur, of course, along with some other adaptations. So what would that take? Well, to start with, almost all mammals have fur, though there are some exceptions. Even though humans do not have fur, we are still covered with body hair, though most of it is often too fine to be seen by the casual observer. So as non-human mammals migrated farther north towards the Arctic they were already adapting to periods of cold that got longer and colder as they migrated farther north. It shouldn't take much for fur that already exists to become thicker; it even happens to individuals as the seasons change.
But humans evolved their relative hairlessness in tropical Africa where that hairlessness allowed them to cool off through their most of their surface area. That is why people can run long distances but other mammals with fur cannot -- and why you should not take your dog jogging on a hot day. Furthermore, as humans migrated out of Africa into other climates, they adapted to those new climates through their technology instead of having to evolve new traits. Of course, humans in those new climates have adapted in various ways, most notably in skin color (ie, high levels of melanin protect the skin from the tropical sun, but are not needed farther north where the sun is not as strong and where high levels of melanin would be detrimental by preventing the production of vitamin D). As I understand it, the Eskimos' general body shape is shorter and rounder which reduces the ratio of surface area to volume thus making it better at retaining body heat (a tall skinner person would experience hypothermia more readily and in less time).
Also, humans in the Arctic are relatively recent, dating back about 10,000 years. Too little time for a fairly radical change such as switching from hairlessness to sporting a fur coat to evolve. Nor would there be any selective pressure for such a change, since technology provides humans with that fur coat; ie, clothing made from animal furs.
Non-human mammals in the Arctic are also relatively recent arrivals, having been blocked by the ice cap during the ice age. However, in their case they already had fur coats so evolving thicker coats was a relatively minor adaptation. In addition, they lack technology so evolving adaptive traits is their only recourse.
I am looking forward to you suggesting a young earth claim for us to discuss. I believe that you should propose a new topic for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:19 PM Micah8294 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 16 of 70 (798316)
02-01-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:55 PM


Forum Orientation:
To reply to a message, click on the Reply button in the lower right-hand corner of the message. When you post your reply, it will have a link in the upper right-hand corner back to the message you replied to. Far better for everybody than using the general reply.
The forum uses both HTML and dBCodes, a mark-up language which is very similar to HTML in concept. There's a reference somewhere on the forum. In the meantime, if you see something in a message and you want to know how they did it, then click on the Peek button in the lower right-hand corner of that message. That will open another browser tab displaying that message with all its mark-up tags. In addition, one of the members here will greet each newcomer with a quick reference explaining the common tags.
Thank you for the honest response and thanks for not bashing my faith like most atheist have in the past.
It's never my intention to bash someone's faith, though if the believer is doing something very questionable, especially if it goes against what he claims to believe, I will address it.
Please note that my creation/evolution website is dedicated to keeping "creation science" from destroying Christians' faith. I don't want to destroy your faith, but rather to keep it from being destroyed. I recommend that you follow those links to Dr. Allan Harvey's essays, because he addresses those same things -- he is also a practicing Christian.
What do most people in the evolutionist community accept as the most "solid proof" for evolution and against creation?
It's never a question of "against creation", but rather against the false claims of "creation science". Part and parcel of those false claims is how "creation science" misrepresents evolution, so a more basic question to start with would be what do you mean by "evolution"? And also what do you mean by "creation"? Does it have to be only YEC (young-earth creationism)? The problem with YEC is that the evidence disproves it. But there is no evidence disproving creation itself. Also, there is no conflict between evolution and creation, so long as "evolution" mean actual evolution and not the YEC misrepresentations and "creation" means actual Divine Creation and not YEC's misrepresentation of it.
I'm sure you all know who Kent hovind is, he has a lot to do with my faith in God
So sorry to hear that, because you have built your house upon quicksand. To give you an idea how bad he is, back in 2002 Answers in Genesis, a YEC organization, published an article listing claims that they wish creationists would stop using because those claims are wrong and using them only does damage. Hovind replied in their feedback section with a nasty letter attacking them; turns out that some of the claims that Hovind would use were on that list. Dr. Sarfati replied to Hovind's attack; I quote from it on my quotes page (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#AiG -- that is a link).
Mr. Hovind's "PhD" is phony, bought from a diploma mill, as was his masters degree. His bachelor's is from an unaccredited Baptist college. The degrees in ascending order are in BA Religion, MA Religious Education, PhD Religious Education. Before the college, he had attended a community college for two years which is where he got almost all his schooling in science. Then for about 13 years he taught science and math in a Christian high school that he operated and I think owned.
Hovind is a convicted felon having served 10 years in federal prison for tax fraud. He just got out about a year ago; there's a topic on this forum that followed that. His shenanigans also got his wife arrested, though I think she just got probation and then a divorce. His son took possession of their operations while Dad was locked up and I think that he's not letting the old man back in.
I've tried to request information from Hovind about one of his claims. He proved to be dishonest and very evasive. He uses the worst claims which have been refuted thousands of times (PRATT means "point refuted a thousand times"; we use that acronym a lot here).
Are you familiar with Hovind's claim about the earth's rotation slowing down? That a million years ago it would be spinning extremely fast. In the time of the dinosaurs, impossibly fast. Here's the text from a transcription:
quote:
Another factor. The earth is spinningwe are turning around. How many knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day." Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal." We will have to have a "leap second." A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? Now kids this is going to be kind of complicated so listen carefully. The earth is spinning but it is slowing down. So that means that it used to be going faster. How many can figure that out with no help? Okay several. Well, now if the earth is only 6,000 years old that is not a problem. It was probably spinning a little faster when Adam was here. Maybe they had 23 and 1/2 hours in a day. They would not notice, they did not have a watch anyway. Some of these folks want you to believe that the earth is billions of years old. Now that would make a problem. If you go back a few billion years, the earth was spinning real fast. Your days and nights would be pretty quick! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! You would never get anything done. And a centrifugal force would have been enormous, would have flattened the earth like a pancake. The winds would have been 5,000 miles an hour from the Coriolis effect. You think the dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago? I know what happened to them? I know what happened to them... they got blown off! No they did not live 70 million years ago, folks; it simply cannot possibly be true.
What do you think of that claim?
Are you familiar with his claim about the sun losing mass as it "burns its fuel" at the rate of 5 million tons per second? That the sun 5 billion years ago would have been so massive and huge and its gravity would have been so great that it would have sucked the earth in. Transcription from a seminar video downloaded in 2003:
quote:
All you got to do is step outside and look up. Obviously the Sun is burning. It's losing 5 million tons every second. You can't just keep losing 5 million tons a second, pretty soon you start to lose weight. And so the Sun is losing this mass -- 5 million tons every second -- which means it used to be larger. And it used to be more massive. If you increase the mass of the Sun, going backwards in time for several billion years, you start to create a problem with the gravitational balance between the earth and the Sun. It's going to suck the earth in and destroy everything.
What do you think of that claim?
But the bottom line is that you really need to base your faith and support your faith with something solid and true, not with Kent Hovind and not with YEC, for therein lies spiritual death.
Edited by dwise1, : Added text of Hovind claims.
removed some ambiguity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:55 PM Micah8294 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 30 of 70 (798516)
02-03-2017 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
02-02-2017 7:26 PM


Caffeine--You said essentially the same thing I did.
So it must have been good enough to bear repeating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 7:26 PM Coyote has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 31 of 70 (798520)
02-03-2017 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
02-02-2017 4:22 PM


Re: A little bit hairy
It is truly an occupational hazard when you try to deal with creationists. I've been doing it since the mid-1980's; what about you? We have seen so much creationist dishonesty and deception that every time a new creationist shows up we see it all again. Kind of like the trap that cops can fall into (my son is a cop) in that they see so much of the dregs of society and the worst of the worst that they look for it in everybody they meet. That is a very heavy burden.
On my site, I had tried to analyze creationist behavior. Now mind you, that can be very difficult when you are never able to get any feedback from creationists, so there's not much chance to test your hypotheses. I tried to look at their experience level as an indicator. Most creationists have had little to no experience outside of their religious community, so they are still very nave. They actually think that their claims and arguments are valid. Experience teaches them otherwise. The inexperienced ones will be more candid, while the more experienced ones will be more guarded, cagier. That is because the less experienced creationists still believe that their claims are true while the more experienced ones know that they are not, so they have to lie more and avoid actually discussing their claims. Needless to say, the more experienced the creationist is, the less likely that he would enter a forum such as this. An experienced creationist would be much more interested in avoiding any discussion of his claims, since he knows that his claims are false -- though theologically he could never actually admit that to himself. Therefore, the most likely new creationists that we would expect to join our forum would be the inexperienced ones. The experienced ones know to steer far clear of us.
Frankly, I think that Micah is genuine. He appears to be very young, maybe high school or early college. He appears to still be mainly immersed in his fundamentalist nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2017 4:22 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 02-03-2017 9:45 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 39 of 70 (799130)
02-07-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 5:15 PM


Micah, you want to debate. We want to oblige you.
Yes, I am looking for a debate. But as far as my question goes it's pretty reasonably been anwered.
I just think that human interaction and dialogue helps me understand better than a Google search. That's the whole reason I joined the forum.
And yet we haven't heard anything from you for six days, nearly a week. For that matter, none of your three responses said anything about our responses to your question except your final "Thank you all for your answers". No reaction, no further questions, no request for clarification on anything. It is as if you actually had absolutely no interest in your question nor in answers to your question. Curious.
And then given your love of Hovind, I presented you with two of Hovind's claims, copied verbatim, and asked what you thought of them. You completely ignored them. Quite curious.
There is a lot that we'd like to discuss with you. You claim to be "looking for a debate." I would very much rather have a discussion, but if all you want to do is argue then that's your choice and I will engage with you.
We offer you want you say you want, yet you are suddenly completely disinterested. Curiouser and curiouser.
So let's talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 5:15 PM Micah8294 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2017 4:08 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 43 of 70 (799196)
02-08-2017 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Theodoric
02-07-2017 4:08 PM


Re: Micah, you want to debate. We want to oblige you.
I have to admit that Micah's appearance here certainly smells that way. Which raises a few questions in my mind about those assignments:
  1. Does their teacher coach them on what to ask? I assume he gives them a list of questions to choose from, but does he also warn them what not to post, such as most PRATTs?
  2. Does their teacher also warn them what questions of ours to not answer? Does he warn them against posting PRATTs, knowing full well how false they are? Does he warn them to avoid our own questions?
  3. What is their teacher trying to accomplish with these assignments? On the surface it appears that he is trying to create a new generation of trolls.
One of our greatest problems is that we get next to zero feedback from creationists. That means that virtually everything we know about creationists is what we can observe of their actions, of their behavior. Extremely little of that is at all favorable.
I really want to be able to engage young-earth creationists in some kind of dialog. So far that has proven to be impossible.
I would really like to engage Micah in a discussion. Whether that could possibly happen is entirely up to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Theodoric, posted 02-07-2017 4:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024