12 votes

Dead Horse. Die!

.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

No you do

"He bases much of his belief on this one false assumption, therefore his entire house of cards fails miserably." NO you do and that assumption is the earth is 4 billion years

Most dating methods and there are 100's not just radio isotope dating would say the earth is way way less than 1 million years old, more like 10000 years old. So it is YOUR False assumption that is getting the evolutionaty house of cards to fall

You misunderstand...

the age dating is irrelevant. Let's say I agree for the sake of this discussion that the earth is 6000 years old.

The point is that we have sedimentary layers that were obviously laid down sequentially (that's where GSam is lacking in his argument). Examination of each of those layers shows changes of the species in the layers as you go from layer to layer. You can track the ranges of each fossil through the layers.

The relative position of each fossil in the layer cake of sediments is the same from well to well, or outcrop to outcrop, ALL OVER THE WORLD. This has been shown especially well in the 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, and has become a relatively precise science, hence oil companies paying big bucks to micropaleontologists.

In summary, the age doesn't matter. The obvious and repeated changes are clear proof of evolution.

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

I think a point is being lost here

Namely that the truthfulness of a particular Creation myth has no bearing on whether or not it is Science.

Science is a search for explanations and all Creation myths are based on miracles.

Miracles represent the absence of explanation, they are by definition supernatural, whereas Science consists of discovering the Laws of Nature.

Newton's Theory of Gravity was Science in every sense of the word (and was even very useful in understanding and predicting Nature), yet it is now provably false.

Creationism in all it's forms, by contrast, can never be Science because it relies on miracles. Once we invite miracles into our logic, the journey of understanding we call Science is over, because the Laws of Nature cease to be relevant (or even laws).

GoodSamaritan's picture

Now just substitute

"Evolution myths" for "Creation myths" in another post and you've covered your bases.

See below for a partial list of the miracles that evolution depends upon.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

You're playing with semantics

Myth

noun
1.
a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

That's the definition I was using. One can argue that Evolution is "conjecture" or "theory" or "flat out wrong" or "a scam", but that doesn't make it Myth versus Science. It is an attempt to explain the natural phenomena that we observe using the Laws of Nature without resorting to supernatural intervention.

As for "miracles", no such list has been presented. Instead, what has been presented is doubts about the likelihood of events presented by the theory. (Origin of life from non-life, speciation, age of the Universe, etc.) The validity of such doubts, or lack thereof, doesn't make Evolution any less or more scientific.

Actually it does.

The assertion that cross-species evolution is "proven science" or "scientifically proven" or "established science" or anything of the sort is a MYTH, no different than any other religionist myth.

If that strikes you as odd, it is likely you are a religious believer in scientism, which is religious belief couched in scientific terms, possibly resembling science on the surface, but requiring faith, since it is not based on proven science.

Unfortunately, for believers in scientism, they are programmed to ignore the actual scientific method which requires WITHOUT EXCEPTION repeatable tests (EXACTLY the same test) resulting in EXACTLY the same results each time in order to prove a hypothesis.

Since this is impossible to do, as even Charles Darwin himself recognized, to demonstrate (fish->ape->man style) cross-specie evolution, he himself said his own theory was not scientific.

Does that make me a creationist? LOL, there's your programming again. No, I am not. I believe evolution was possible, perhaps even likely.

However, as a proponent of ACTUAL SCIENCE, not the religion of scientism, I cannot ignore and am required to point out this simple, irrefutable fact of science.

You talk a lot about "my programming"

When I haven't stated anything about what I believe or who I might label "creationists".

I never said anything about "proof" or "established". I didn't even discuss "evidence". Science isn't about "proof". Was Newton a scientist? Obviously he didn't have "proof". So I really don't know where you are heading with this "religion of scientism" construct that you attribute to me.

If you require science to have "proof", then there are no scientists.

Science only constructs models in an attempt to obtain a progressively accurate picture of the mechanics of reality.

The scientific method.

Science absolutely is about proofs, testing and demonstrating hypotheses using the scientific method.

Perhaps you are confusing Science and Math

No one has seen a supernova. Does that mean that someone who is convinced they exist is not a scientist?

Was Newton not a scientist? He obviously didn't have "proof".

If your claim is that Evolution can't be Science because it can't be tested, then your quarrel is with GoodSamaritan, not me, because he claims it HAS in fact been tested, and failed the test. You have to choose one viewpoint, not both.

But what you are saying is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi%C3%A6_Naturalis_Prin...

He obviously did do scientific proofs.

The specific tests he conducted are repeatable. The results the tests show are repeatable. Therefore, the specific hypothesis tested was proven.

One can theorize about supernovae and one may be probably correct, based on scientific PRINCIPLES, whether or not one can PROVE a hypothesis. But don't change the subject. You said science is not about demonstrating proofs of hypotheses and that's absurd on its face.

No he did not do proofs of his Theory of Gravity

If he had, his theory would by definition be correct instead of incorrect.

While he certainly presented proofs of his mathematics, he could only conduct measurements to support his Theory of Gravity.

Similarly, we "measure" theories of the Origins of the Universe by making predictions about such things as what sediment we will find the next batch of trilobyte fossils in or how much radiation of a particular type we expect to find in certain bones or rock, or where we would expect to find iron or iridium if they came from supernovae and meteorites.

Of course, GoodSamaritan would make the minority argument that there is more contrary evidence than supporting evidence, but that is not the point. The point is that we CAN make measurements that help us determine our confidence level in the Theory of Evolution. That it what Science does.

Again, you fail to understand.

Please reread what I ACTUALLY wrote, not respond to what you feel I wrote.

What I said was that the SPECIFIC test, yielding the SPECIFIC results did prove that the SPECIFIC hypothesis being tested was scientifically proven.

Not gravity on Pluto. But the specific subject matter being tested.

You are all over the place.

You know exactly what I mean but pretend not to

I am not interested in some "specific test".

The (obvious) reason I brought up Newton is that his model of Gravity was an excellent predictor for it's time but also, demonstrably incorrect.

As GoodSamaritan and many many thousands of others have demonstrated, Evolution is also testable. Whether it passes the test is not the point.

No Scientist ever has "proof", they simply have evidence. Models are constructed and experiments are conducted and models are measured against the results.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Thanks for validating my argument

This is a very accurate description of Creation science:

"It is an attempt to explain the natural phenomena that we observe using the Laws of Nature without resorting to supernatural intervention."

We don't need miracles when cataloging and analyzing the numerous failures of K-Ar radiometric dating. We don't need miracles when explaining the tranposon mechanism for rapid speciation. We don't need miracles for pointing out that thousands of feet of strata in the Grand Canyon that is supposedly hundreds of millions of years old could not have folded as it did without fracturing unless all the layers were deposited in rapid succession while wet. We don't need miracles to uncover polystrate fossils found all over the world. We don't use miracles to explain the serious problems clastic dikes and turbidites present to uniformitarianism. No need to mention miracles as evolutionists struggle to explain marine fossils on the highest mountains all over the world, including the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. It doesn't take a miracle to show that stratigraphic disorder is a common occurrence in the fossil record. Miracles have nothing to do with the fact that organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record without any evidence of transitional forms.

I could go on like this for hours without ever mentioning or resorting to a single miracle. When a theory, such as evolution, is built upon events with zero probability, then it is nothing but a story without determinable basis of fact or natural explanation - a "myth" that depends on the generosity and blessings of The Flying Probability Monster.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Fascinating definition

You just implied that "Creation Science" involves the Earth being created six thousand years ago without supernatural intervention. I would love to hear your explanation of this event using known laws of physics.

I want to make it clear that I think it's great that Kent Hovind and others dig up challenges to the conventional Evolutionary timeline.

It's not my intention to challenge your claims about fossil X appearing in place Y or what not, I'm sure our resident geologists and paleontologists would have more to say about that. I will say that I am skeptical of your claim of "zero" probability, and I will reiterate my original point that the job of Science is to generate hypotheses that best fit observable data and not to fall back on miracles. There is no young-Earth theory that does not rely, and rely heavily, on miracles, therefore there is no "Creation Science".

GoodSamaritan's picture

I obviously implied no such thing

and I didn't mention the age of the earth. In fact, I never touched any cosmological model. I'd be happy to do that as well if anyone's interested.

Creation science is built on miraculous presuppositions just as evolution science is built on miraculous presuppositions. The science of both moves forward after accepting those presuppositions.

I've never read Hovind's materials. My knowledge on this issue is derived almost exclusively from the work of Ph.D. scientists, many of them world-class and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, who specialize in research of all fields of science relevant to the origins debate. You apparently derive too much of your info from the rumor mill.

To believe that everything came from nothing is a childish fantasy. To believe that the enormously complex information for instructing molecular machinery appears by chance is gibberish. To believe that the simplest self-replicating life-form of about 1,000 genes - made entirely of left-handed molecules - just magically coagulated from random atomic collisions and began reproducing is perverse comedy. It's make-believe.

Moshe Trop, Ph.D., with the Department of Life Sciences, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, among many other scientists, has concluded that, "All calculations made of the probability [that life could evolve by chance, lead to the conclusion that] there could have been no possibility of the random appearance of life."

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

So a handful of Scientists theorize that probabilities are tiny

Good, study and debate should be encouraged. We should always question authority.

That doesn't make Evolution "gibberish" or a "childish fantasy" or a "miracle".

Einstein challenged Newton's theory, that didn't make Newton a non-scientist or his theory non-science.

What Einstein didn't do was claim divine intervention pulls large masses together because he read it in a holy book. That would not be Science, regardless of whether it was true.

Logic

"To believe that the simplest self-replicating life-form of about 1,000 genes - made entirely of left-handed molecules - just magically coagulated from random atomic collisions and began reproducing is perverse comedy."

Why is that so "perversely" comedic? Instead of magically coagulating Adam and Eve out of thin air, he could more easily and logically created that original basic, primitive life form and given it the guidance to evolve into what we have today?

Isn't that more reasonable and all the fairy tale type explanations that defy logic and common sense? A lot less miracles necessary this way! :)

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

GoodSamaritan's picture

There is a historical record

of a personal God who created Man in His image. My presuppositions include an uncaused Cause from which all creation came into existence. An essential part of that narrative is that there was no death before the Fall of Man. That is why I reject an earth that experienced death for hundreds of millions of years along an evolutionary chain of events.

The miracles that undergird the general theory of evolution are what defy logic and common sense. It is far easier for me to believe in an an infinite Creator, than it is to believe that everything came from nothing on its own, with information and molecular complexity increasing without limit out of chaos.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

There is no historical record of Man being created,

in the image of someone else or otherwise. Yet you insist on repeating it.

If this the Science you want taught?

There are historical records of prophets making claims, there are first-hand accounts from people claiming to witness miracles, but that is another thing entirely.

Presupposing an "infinite Creator" (who also "came from nothing") doesn't get one any closer to an explanation than presupposing an "infinite Universe".

Life being generated from amino acids and lightning may be an infinitesimally low probability event, but it does not violate Laws of Physics. And remember there are countless billions of planets on which this low probability dance could play out.

Miracles, like those described in Genesis, are by definition, outside the Laws of Nature and therefore outside the realm of Science (whether true or not.)

GoodSamaritan's picture

Lame

Read my other post where I describe the miraculous presuppositions behind both sides, and then state that the science proceeds from there.

The eternal uncreated God has no beginning and no end so you're in left field right off the bat.

"Life being generated from amino acids and lightning" is not "an infinitesimally low probability event" - it is an impossible event of zero probability because the goo produced from that mashup is equal parts left and right-handed chiral molecules totally incompatible with, and detrimental to, life.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Zero probability" is merely a claim made by a handful of people

Not a fact.

The zero probability claim should be given thorough analysis.

Until it is indisputably demonstrated, the Theory of Evolution remains Science, truthful or not.

Alternative scientific theories should also be taught, however there aren't any. Only scriptural accounts involving miracles. Accounts that may or may not be true but can never be Science.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Using that same analysis

the general theory of evolution should not be taught since it is an alternative scientific theory based upon magic.

No amount of time in a centillion consecutive universes will create information without existing information, or assemble from random atomic collisions a single molecular machine capable of reproducing itself, and do so without existing molecular machinery directed by information designed for that purpose.

Thus the need for a Flying Probability Monster to wave its magic wand.

That so many people in the 21st century would still believe such superstitious nonsense as life from non-life and information from non-information is simply astonishing.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

obviously fake

obviously fake

those who are not honest like those 4th grade test

please stay away from my family! that's why i am a Ron Paul supporter because of his honesty! anyways i have the freedom to call those who believe in that crap are epic idiots and gives me another reason to own several guns!

GoodSamaritan's picture

The Flying Probability Monster

has absolved all evolutionists as a reward for their great faith.

One day, after billions of years of random atomic collisions, it waved its magic wand and, behold, there was suddenly a suite of chiraly left-handed molecular machinery encoded with the instructions for creating the approximately 1,000 genes necessary for a single, self-replicating life form, that eventually would produce every other life form.

And it was good.

No more would evolutionists have to concern themselves with assumptions of how:

- Life comes from non-life
- Information grows without bound from chaos
- All cells contain machines of irreducible complexity
- A single species evolves without genetic limit

And it was very good, because anytime a creationist would point out the impossibility of underlying evolutionary assumptions, the evolutionist would evermore be able to use the cop-out, "you're confusing a theory of origins with abiogenesis".

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

"Creation" put some form of

"Creation" put some form of life here millions or billions of years ago. Likely that could have been single cell form of life, likely plant life that thrived on a very high CO2 atmosphere. As the plant life turned the atmosphere to a higher content of oxygen, other forms of life likely mutated through viral DNA genetic modification. Virus themselves evolve rapidly, and this can be observed in a man's single lifetime, even with in a few years. And so too can man's own DNA be shown to have been alter, in a single lifespan, by a virus. Nature is a survivalist, it evolves and adapts to its surrounding, with some species dying off, while other new species are created. Creation's own natural GMO's.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You're killing me

""Creation" put some form of life here millions or billions of years ago."

There is no "creation" that is capable of doing anything. "Millions or billions of years" have never existed.

"Likely… could have … likely … likely mutated …" There is so much "science" in your post I am underwhelmed.

No King but Jesus, no President but Ron Paul

GoodSamaritan's picture

Still more confusion

between speciation and evolution. Sigh.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

It would be confusing since

It would be confusing since speciation, by definition, IS evolution.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence