Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
227 online now:
AZPaul3, candle2, dwise1, ICANT, nwr, PaulK (6 members, 221 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,089 Year: 3,735/14,102 Month: 40/315 Week: 40/131 Day: 40/27 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge
Member (Idle past 13 days)
Posts: 1295
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 586 of 1385 (851544)
04-28-2019 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Stile
04-24-2019 8:23 AM


Stile writes:

Fifth time: "medicine."

You keep repeating this claim, but hitherto have failed to explain how the theory of common descent (ie, the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestor) has provided a practical use in medical science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Stile, posted 04-24-2019 8:23 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 602 by Stile, posted 04-29-2019 8:37 AM Dredge has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1249
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 587 of 1385 (851546)
04-28-2019 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by Dredge
04-28-2019 1:42 AM


Oh, so you think I should place my trust in evolutionary scientists? 

Yes.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:42 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15482
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 588 of 1385 (851547)
04-28-2019 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Dredge
03-07-2019 11:53 PM


Any Practical Alternative Theories?
Tanypteryx, responding to Dredge writes:

One of the interesting things about knowledge, it doesn't disappear if you can't find a practical use for it.
Another interesting thing is when humans study things they learn things that may be practical and things that may not be practical. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.
Scientists are by nature curious and the mysteries of how life works and how life originated are interesting subjects that scientists want to understand. Creationism and religion do not give any useful details, so we have to rely on scientific methods if we want to really understand anything.

This is factually true and makes a lot of sense. My question to Dredge, if I had any, would be this:
  • If we were to throw out the basic theories of evolution...among which you assume is a "Universal Common Ancestor" hypothesis...praytell what would you replace these theories with??!!
    Dredge, replying to Stile writes:

    Er, try reading the OP again. Which part of it asks for uses "within evolutionary theory"? I'm almost certain the OP is confined to only practical uses in applied science.

    OK...lets limit my question to applied science. What specifically would we use as the basis for our new hypothesis as to how applied science works and what commonality, if any...humans specifically have that supplants the UCA?

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

    You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

    Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
    In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
    ~Stile


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 89 by Dredge, posted 03-07-2019 11:53 PM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 680 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 3:57 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 345 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 589 of 1385 (851548)
    04-28-2019 8:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 577 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 1:55 AM


    does a species from one genus evolve into a species from another genus ... yes
    RAZD writes:

    Such classifications are basically arbitrary names used to identify the evidence. What is clearly documented is that the nomenclature was changed because the species was seen as sufficiently different from the original Pelycodus ralstoni species to warrant a new genus name


    I realize that - like I said, a species from one genus evolved into a species of another genus.

    It would be more accurate to say "a species from one genus evolved into a species of a new genus." The genus did not exist before this new nomenclature was applied.

    Hey, that's a very impressive graphic - but you forgot to mention that it's all based on the ASSUMPTION of common ancestry - all those branches are inferred from a BELIEF, not fact.

    Nope.

    It's inferred from the evidence showing common ancestry. You can access the abstract HERE, but the article is behind a pay-wall.

    Enjoy

    Edited by RAZD, : .


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 577 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 1:55 AM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 681 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2019 4:02 AM RAZD has responded

      
    JonF
    Member
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: 06-23-2003


    Message 590 of 1385 (851549)
    04-28-2019 9:01 AM
    Reply to: Message 583 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 2:29 AM


    Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
    Name some and quote their complaints.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 583 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 2:29 AM Dredge has not yet responded

      
    JonF
    Member
    Posts: 6174
    Joined: 06-23-2003


    (2)
    Message 591 of 1385 (851550)
    04-28-2019 9:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 582 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 2:27 AM


    Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
    When you have to declare you've won the debate in a pathetic attempt to duck issues...

    You haven't won.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 582 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 2:27 AM Dredge has not yet responded

      
    edge
    Member (Idle past 646 days)
    Posts: 4696
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    (2)
    Message 592 of 1385 (851551)
    04-28-2019 10:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 578 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 2:05 AM


    Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
    The OP asks for practical uses for the theory of common descent, not for ToE.

    So, does this mean that you accept the existence of practical uses for the theory of evolution, just not for common ancestry?

    Actually, in this thread there has been a lot of mixing of the two concepts, even by yourself IIRC.

    Thank you, but I'm aware that a scientific theory is not proven.

    Are you also aware the 'proof' is not a criterion for a theory? Are you also aware that , as scientists, we consider 'scientific proof' to be the weight of the evidence for a theory? A common mistake among YECs.

    1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case.

    Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. I do not "know" (your sense of the word) nor do I "prove" anything. See above. It would seem that "proof" applies to YEC and alcohol, which may not be a coincidence.

    2. You cannot demonstrate (prove) that the inner-ear of a mammal is even capable of evolving from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. (This is like saying, "I know the Pope is controlled by aliens", but you can't so much as prove that aliens exist.) It seems to me that your claim to scientific knowledge consists of taking a gigantic gap in the fossil record and filling it in with your blind faith in evolution.

    See above. Once again, I do not attempt to "prove" anything, at least not in the sense of absolute proof (200, I would guess) that you require.

    As for your comment about the Pope and aliens, I would like to see your evidence before I consider "knowing" anything about the subject.

    3. The fact of the matter is, you don't "KNOW" it happened - you merely BELIEVE it happened.

    I believe that it is the best explanation of the data.

    You really have no idea what scientists think or believe or do; and yet you cant sit at your keyboard and attribute all kinds of nonsense, innuendo and outright falsehoods about them.

    4. The only reason you claim to "KNOW" it happened is that you believe there is no other possible explanation ...

    Once again, I do not "know" anything in your sense of the word, but AFAIK, you have provided no evidence for any other possible explanation.

    ... - thus your claim to Knowledge is actually nothing more than an example of a Fallacy of the False Alternative.

    If I were a YEC, I don't think I'd delve into the realm of logical fallacies for supporting argument.

    5. What selection pressures could have possilbly caused the jaw-bones of a reptile to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a reptile and how did each evolutionary step (mutation) confer a survival advantage? Evolutionists can't even begin to answer such questions, of course; they simply do what they've always done ... pull out their "evolution done it (somehow)" card and bluff their way through.

    The problem you have is that this evolutionary event is supported by evidence.

    Is it any wonder increasing numbers of evolutionary theorists (such as Gerd Muller) are calling out current evolutionary theory for its lack of explanatory power viz-a-viz macroevolution?

    All we have is the data and some known mechanisms. Unlike anti-evolutionists, we do not claim to "know" everything and there are disagreements as we learn more about evolution.

    I'm not sure how someone who is a proponent of the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis" can be considered as a source to support your anti-evolution arguments.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 578 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 2:05 AM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 597 by RAZD, posted 04-28-2019 2:04 PM edge has not yet responded
     Message 763 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 4:50 PM edge has responded
     Message 766 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:04 PM edge has responded

      
    edge
    Member (Idle past 646 days)
    Posts: 4696
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    (1)
    Message 593 of 1385 (851552)
    04-28-2019 10:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 579 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 2:14 AM


    Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
    Since there are different definitions of ToE, I hesitate to say that the Cambrian explosion contradicts it.

    You should have stopped there ...

    Rather, I would say the Cambrian explosion contradicts the theory of common descent, which is included in some defintions of ToE.

    (3 quotes snipped for the sake of brevity)


    Oh, now that's just wonderful. You 'dredge' up three quoted from edited, anti-evolution sources.

    How convincing!

    Edited by edge, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 579 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 2:14 AM Dredge has not yet responded

      
    edge
    Member (Idle past 646 days)
    Posts: 4696
    From: Colorado, USA
    Joined: 01-09-2002


    Message 594 of 1385 (851553)
    04-28-2019 10:48 AM
    Reply to: Message 585 by dwise1
    04-28-2019 2:40 AM


    Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
    Bullshit! You presented a YEC claim, so you are responsible for that claim.

    Some how it doesn't seem odd at all to me anymore that someone who complains about being labeled a YEC has no problems reading all kinds of fallacious and nefarious motives into what scientists do and think. It's all very trollish if you ask me.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 585 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2019 2:40 AM dwise1 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 600 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2019 8:55 PM edge has not yet responded

      
    caffeine
    Member
    Posts: 1800
    From: Prague, Czech Republic
    Joined: 10-22-2008


    (3)
    Message 595 of 1385 (851554)
    04-28-2019 12:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 513 by Dredge
    04-19-2019 2:35 AM


    Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
    The fact you must deny is that all the novel organisms that appeared in the Cambrian explosion have no evolutionary history. In the Ediacaran, marine worms, jelly-fish and spongs existed and then, oh dear ... fish and trilobites and insects (for example) appear out of nowhere. Goodbye ToE.

    What is the evolutionary link between a fish and the worms, jelly-fish and sponges of the pre-Cambrian?

    An old post, but no-one seems to have responded to this bit directly yet.

    There are no known jellyfish from the Ediacaran. Kimberella (below) has been described as a jellyfish, but this is generally rejected now. It's more commonly associated with molluscs (one of the phyla you think has no evolutionary history) but that too is controversial. It's not uncommon for the classification of Ediacaran fossils to bounce all over the place. Partly that's due to preservation, but of course if different animals do all have a common ancestor; it would make sense that, for animals close to the split between different groups, it would be difficult to figure out in which group they belong.

    There's not really much in the way of worms, either. It's odd that you bring up worms in the connection with the idea that bilaterian phyla have no pre-Cambrian evolutionary history, though. Lots of the bilaterian phyla are worms, and their common ancestor is presumed to be some kind of worm. If you want to look for the evolutionary history of bilaterians in the late pre-Cambrian, worms are exactly what you'd be looking for.

    On the other side of the explosion, there are neither fish nor insects in the Cambrian. The oldest fishes are known from the Silurian; though there are fossils from the Ordovician that have been interpreted as fish scales. If that's correct there were presumably fish that they came from. No sign of fish in the Cambrian though.

    As for insects, there are no sign of them till about 90 million years after the Cambrian.

    It may help to learn something about the fossil record before making conclusions based on it.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 513 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 2:35 AM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 774 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:25 PM caffeine has not yet responded

      
    caffeine
    Member
    Posts: 1800
    From: Prague, Czech Republic
    Joined: 10-22-2008


    (1)
    Message 596 of 1385 (851555)
    04-28-2019 1:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 551 by Faith
    04-21-2019 1:53 PM


    Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
    I've defined it functionally many times as exemplified by how breeds of, say, dogs, run out of variability the closer they get to being purebred. But you also can't find alleles/genes in the genome of a species for features outside the species: Is there an allele for a flat black chimp nose in the human genome?

    You like to complain a lot about people not understanding your arguments or ignoring them. And yet when someone tries to explain why questions like the above do not make sense (like I did here), you tend to ignore them and go and find an insulting post to respond to and complain about instead.

    May I suggest that more progress might be made if you do things the opposite way around - address the substantive posts and ignore the insulting ones?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 551 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 1:53 PM Faith has not yet responded

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 345 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    (1)
    Message 597 of 1385 (851556)
    04-28-2019 2:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 592 by edge
    04-28-2019 10:31 AM


    Scientific theory and "proof" vs validation/s
    (Dredge): 1. You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. This could mean you observed it happening ... but somehow I doubt that's the case.

    Actually, I say that it is the best explanation for the evidence. ...

    A scientific theory is built on existing evidence to explain that evidence, and then predict possible new evidence. This is tested by finding new evidence that either validates or invalidates (disproves) the theory. Theories can be "proven" false but not true (see Karl Popper, Falsifiability)

    quote:
    ... My proposal is based upon an asymmetry between verifiability and falsifiability; an asymmetry which results from the logical form of universal statements. For these are never derivable from singular statements, but can be contradicted by singular statements.
    — Karl Popper, Popper 1959. p 19

    When a theory passes such testing it is said to be validated rather than "proven" and the theory is a valid explanation of all the evidence known, including the original evidence and the new evidence from the testing.

    ... You say you can't "prove" that the inner-ear of a mammal evolved from the jaw-bone of a reptile, yet you "know" it happened. ...

    We know that all the evidence known to date is consistent with the theory of evolution explanation for the various intermediate stages of development of the mammal ear from the reptile ear, and that the theory of evolution provides the best known available explanation for this evidence. The evidence is not only consistent with the theory, it is consistent within the restrictions of the temporal/spacial matrix on the theory of evolution -- that it must occur in close proximity in both time and space between ancestral populations and descendant populations.

    Enjoy


    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand
    RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 592 by edge, posted 04-28-2019 10:31 AM edge has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 777 by Dredge, posted 05-06-2019 5:35 PM RAZD has responded

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 4644
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 4.6


    (3)
    Message 598 of 1385 (851561)
    04-28-2019 3:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 582 by Dredge
    04-28-2019 2:27 AM


    Re: Wrong by definition, no wonder you're confused
    I've already won the debate.

    quote:
    "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
    (Scott D. Weitzenhoffer)

    Though it's very telling that you are going for debate instead of discussion. Discussion entails listening to each other in order to exchange ideas and learn about the other's position while presenting yours, and offering and receiving and dealing with critiques and criticisms of each other's position (as such, it serves the useful function of testing your own position in order to correct errors). Debate means winning at all costs, making the other side lose regardless of what lies, deceptions, and dirty tricks you need to use.

    We are here to discuss. Creationists only come to debate (and to merely assert). We want to learn through discussion; creationists only want to "disprove" their "evolution model" (a caricature based on their misunderstanding of evolution and other sciences). You are clearly playing the role of creationist here.

    Please engage in discussion.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 582 by Dredge, posted 04-28-2019 2:27 AM Dredge has not yet responded

      
    herebedragons
    Member (Idle past 672 days)
    Posts: 1513
    From: Michigan
    Joined: 11-22-2009


    (4)
    Message 599 of 1385 (851566)
    04-28-2019 8:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 514 by Dredge
    04-19-2019 3:15 AM


    I accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth ... but what a pity it's not a very good explanation.

    But you think that adding "God did it" anywhere there are gaps in our knowledge improves our ability to explain things scientifically? Scientists are always open to new theories or modifications to existing theories that better explain the data and provide a more effective framework with which to work in. Special creation doesn't offer a suitable scientific answer. We would be better off just saying we don't know.

    If creationists or ID proponents would spend their time developing explanations that helped move our understanding of diversity forward, they would be much better off. Instead, all they do is disparage evolutionary theory. They think that if evolutionary theory is false, then creation is true by default. But what you don't seem to get is that even if evolutionary theory was actually a terrible theory, we would still continue to use it until a better theory came along - simply because it IS the best theory we have regarding the diversity of life on earth.

    what chance does puny science have of explaining the miracle of creation?

    On a philosophical level, I agree. But as a scientist, it is the best we got... so that's what we use.

    What is the difference between inherited traits and derived traits?

    Sorry, Typo. It should have been: shared and derived traits

    What is this - an appeal to authority? But I'll play along - No, I don't work in the biological sciences ...

    No, this is not an appeal to authority. But you can makes all kinds of claims about what biologist do and do not need to do, because you never actually have to put your claims to the test. For example:

    As a biologist you don't need to think of common ancestors of genera. You don't need to "root the tree" beyond the genus you're studying. It's a waste of time because it's useless information.

    You can make the claim since you never need to actually do anything that requires this type of study. You never have to test your claims. Same way Faith makes wild claims about genetics... she never has to put those claims to the test. Do you think I am going to go to work next week and apply your claims to my work? No, I am going to go with what has been proven to work.

    I have no need to ask such questions (other than ones relating to common ancestry within a genus, which might prove useful).

    How could you possibly know if all members of a genus shared a common ancestor? How could you know if several genera shared a common ancestor. For example: in the cat family, Felidae, there are at least 14 extant genera. Are each of these separate creations? or is each of the 8 lineages a separate creation? Or is the whole family descended from a common ancestor - as most creationists claim? What is your criteria for determining the answer?

    I don't believe you ... and no one needs to explain the diversity of life on earth - certainly, no biologist needs such an explanation in order to be competent and productive.

    There is a lot of things you could argue we don't "need", but we do it anyway. We are a curious sort. We want to understand our planet and our universe. But beyond that, understanding diversity helps us understand how to preserve diversity, a problem we are increasingly confronted with. Understanding how organisms adapt and change can help us predict how creatures will be affected by our changing world. Understanding diversity helps us develop food crops and medicine.

    If you are disparaging basic research in general, sure, often times basic research has no application in applied science. But that building block will be added to by another basic researcher and another until something useful does come from it. Just because it doesn't have a useful application (in the view of a non-biologist) doesn't make it wrong. That's where you argument fails (despite your false claim of victory).

    HBD


    Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

    "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

    Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 514 by Dredge, posted 04-19-2019 3:15 AM Dredge has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 739 by Dredge, posted 05-05-2019 8:14 PM herebedragons has responded

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 4644
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 4.6


    Message 600 of 1385 (851567)
    04-28-2019 8:55 PM
    Reply to: Message 594 by edge
    04-28-2019 10:48 AM


    Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
    Some how it doesn't seem odd at all to me anymore that someone who complains about being labeled a YEC has no problems reading all kinds of fallacious and nefarious motives into what scientists do and think. It's all very trollish if you ask me.

    Well, there are of course different kinds of creationists, including both young- and old-earthers, so of course "YEC" doesn't serve as an overall label. But it was the YEC school which created the deliberate deception of "creation science", which the other kinds of creationists draw from for claims, arguments, tactics, etc., so then we could say that in their hearts they are all YECs.

    My point was that if you use a claim or argument, regardless of its source, then you are responsible to support and discuss that claim or argument. Dredge tried to dodge his responsibility purely on a technicality by objecting to being called a YEC -- a typical creationist tactic for avoiding having to support his claims.

    I started discussing "creation science" circa 1986 after having started studying it in 1981. Before that, I was a "fellow traveller" of the Jesus Freak Movement c. 1970. I learned the Jesus Freak hard-sell proselytizing tactics at that time and I still see them being used to this day by creationists, including Dredge.

    I have also seen instances of someone putting on the act of not being a creationist but he just had a few questions, but then after you've answered all his questions and countered all his objections he suddenly reverts to full-blown YEC mode. So then creationists have no scruples against posing as something that they are not (yet another morality argument against them).

    Similarly, we have Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) which set the legal precedence that "creation science" is purely religious and hence has no place in the public schools and cannot be used to bar the teaching of evolution (as had earlier been established by Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), which struck down the "monkey laws" of the 1920's and motivated the revival of the anti-evolution movement and its creation of "creation science" as a legalistic deception to circumvent that decision). In response to Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), creationists dropped the now-tainted "creation science" (AKA "The Game of 'Hide the Bible'") and quickly adopted a parallel school of thought, "Intelligent Design", in an effort that has been characterized as "The Game of 'Hide the Creationism'." The archetypal example of that was the "smoking gun" in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005) which revealed that ID was nothing more than yet another smoke-screen for biblical creationism. Central to the case was the ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, which was being written around the time of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). The "smoking gun" was a misapplied word processor change, the infamous "cdesign proponentsists", which demonstrated that the original drafts of the book used the term "creationists" and after the US Supreme Court decision that term was superficially replaced with "design proponents", except where the editor had munged it up.

    Nowadays when we encounter YECs, they will almost never ever have anything to do with young-earth claims, but rather they will concentrate on IDist complexity claims. I gave Dredge an example of my 20-year correspondence with a staunchly young-earth creationist who loudly proclaims that he converted because of young-earth claims, yet in all that time he voided all my attempts to discuss young-earth claims with him, every single time. Apparently, the extreme weakness of young-earth claims are so very clear even to YECs that they avoid ever using them against anyone who could possibly know better. Sure, the newbies will naïvely blunder into harm's way, but then they learn very quickly to practice deception instead, and start traveling along the path to the Dark Side.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 594 by edge, posted 04-28-2019 10:48 AM edge has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 603 by Theodoric, posted 04-29-2019 9:36 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021