Evolution versus Creationism is a 'Red Herring' argument

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

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.

quote:

---

Did even the old discarded versions of uniformitarianism ever imply that no features on earth were formed during catastrophic events such as volcano eruptions and meteor impacts?

---

No. It would take something much bigger than an ordinary volcanic eruption to count. That's why a geologically rapid replacement of an entire planetary surface - if that's what happened on Venus - would be a good example.

quote:

---

Secondly, what story is PaulGL using to explain Venus craters?

---

You'll have to ask him. He's not been clear enough about it to tell.

quote:

---

Thirdly, is this thread just a plug for a book?

---

Since the book only came up when Percy mentioned it, I don't think so. It might have turned into one, but I doubt even that. A plug for the ideas in the book perhaps.

The first mention of the book that I can see is message 7. I don't see any particular reason for reading it, unless you want to know just how bad it is.

quote:

---

I cannot 'prove' the Bible. Nor can a superficial understanding of it justify concluding that it is false.

---

I would think that more than a superficial understanding of it should be required to justify concluding that it is true. Perhaps you should investigate it further rather than preaching.

quote:

---

Fact of the matter is, it predicts certain events which have not yet transpired.

---

Certainly there are failed predictions in the Bible. This is not a reason for thinking that it is true.

quote:

---

And indications are favorable that most people here now will see, experience, and witness many of them. And when your own life is at stake, it will be hard even for the most dubious of skeptics to assert with 100% conviction that it is merely coincidence.

---

I do not know what you mean by "favourable indications", but I very much doubt that it is true. Or even justifiable based on the Bible. But I will save further comment until you actually tell us what those "indications" are.

quote:

---

2. In order for the first such entity reaching such a threshold level of intelligence to be able to produce 100% of their offspring with the same level, they must have a mate with the identical genetic characteristic. Mating with a entity without such would produce the requisite characteristic in (at best) only 50% of their offspring.

---

The fundamental problem here is that there is no requirement for 100% of the offspring to have the same level of intelligence, nor evidence that this was the case. (ABE: If one of the genes involved is recessive it is also, in principle, possible without cloning).

quote:

---

4. Not only so, the first entity would have to be male, and the cloned entity female.

---

Presumably you refer to the fact that it is possible to clone a female from a male but not vice-versa. However, this is simply a limitation of cloning and not a reason to suppose that the first being to reach your "requisite level of intelligence" was male. (It is also a limitation that could in principle be overcome by introducing a Y chromosome from elsewhere.)

quote:

---

5. If the Bible is true, then there should be a correlation to this in its record. Do not the particulars of the account of the 'creation' of Adam & Eve correspond? Coincidence?

---

No - but only because you have constructed your account to agree with Genesis 2 in those respects. You have offered no evidence that your account is actually true. Nor have you dealt with other aspects of Genesis 2.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As an arbitrary illustration: Presume that you are the first specimen of your particular species to evolve to the threshold of speech. Would it not be highly desirable that all of your children be able to speak with you

---

That illustrates only the irrationality of your thinking, Whether it may be desirable or not makes no difference to the question of whether it actually happened.(And I note that it would be undesirable to have offspring suffering from genetic diseases, which a cloned mate would make significantly more likely.)

quote:

---

..Introducing a Y chromosome from another entity might result in offspring not having the requisite level of intelligence

---

Is there any reason to think that is true ? Bear in mind that the more likely it is, the more likely that the first human or human ancestor having the requisite level of intelligence was female, not male.

quote:

---

The first surviving entity possessing a genetic mutation produced trait would initially be unique among their species. If it was a male, then cloning to transmit the characteristic using only its genetic coding in 100% of its offspring is possible. If a female, no. ...This is Genetics 101, NOT something I had to manipulate to fit the Genesis record.

---

I find it amazing that you think that agreeing with me is a significant point against my arguments.The fact remains. You have no evidence that this cloning ever occurred. The Genesis story does not suggest that Adam evolved or even had parents. Cloning requires only a small amount of genetic material nothing like a rib. I could go on, but the point is clear enough.

Look, we know it would be convenient, but that is NOT a reason to think that it happened. Now, do you have any evidence that such an event actually occurred ?

quote:

---

We are all descendants of, and genetically contained in, Adam. What he did, and its results in effect on human nature, are passed to all od his decendents.

---

The psychological effects of actions are not passed on genetically.

quote:

---

Pick up a newspaper: is man's basic nature good? Hardly. Could that be a result of what happened because of the Fall, which is written allegorically?

---

It's not exactly likely. It's far more likely to be the natural state of humanity.