Page 2 of 2 [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

28 Aug 2012, 4:43 pm

Jono wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Jono wrote:

Also, if macroevolution is defined as speciation, as it is by evolutionary biologists, then the fact is that it has been observed.


But the underlying process, natural selection, is generally not observed when it happens. It is inferred from the results.

ruveyn


Yes generally, because its mostly an extremely slow process in multicellular organisms but it has been observed in some microorganisms such as bacteria.


Yes. Actually what is observed in micro-organisms is variation or mutation or cross linking. That can be observed in real time in organisms the reproduce rapidly. Even then, natural selection is inferred by observing what variants survive to reproduce themselves.

ruveyn



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,200

28 Aug 2012, 7:36 pm

Creationists really shouldnt argue against speciation anyway. This was listed at Answers in Genesis as an argument that they shouldnt make. They need speciation to occur to explain diversity post-flood. A handful of saved "kinds" have to have led to all of the animal species seen today in just a few thousand years. They need super rapid speciation.

This is one of those things that trips up the "deny everything" types. Like the global warming denialists who say that it isnt warming but anyway the warming is natural. They are just saying random things without thinking.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 41,701
Location: Stendec

28 Aug 2012, 8:01 pm

Creationists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize. For instance, one way of stating the 2nd Thermodynamic Law is: "Thermal energy will eventually reach equilibrium at all points within a closed system." This is also called the Law of Thermal Entropy.

What many creationists fail to understand about this law is that:

(1) As stated, it applies only to closed systems. That is, systems that do not interact with other systems outside the closed system's boundaries. The nuclei of living cells are not closed systems, to cite one example.

(2) As stated, it applies only to the flow of thermal energy. That is, systems that rely on 'heat' to produce action. The nuclei of living cells rely on both endothermic (heat-reducing) and exothermic (heat-producing) chemical reactions, and work best when maintaining a specific level of thermal activity (temperature).

(3) As stated, it has nothing to do with changing genetic information over time (e.g., 'Evolution'). That is, creationists are applying a physical principle inappropriately (e.g., the Fallacy of Irrelevant Principles) -- they criticize non-creationist ideas because those ideas would not operate under principles that were never meant to apply to the idea -- a form of the Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

By analogy, it is like comparing a campfire to a library book, in that one is a thermal system and one is a source of information. Thus, the two are completely unrelated ... unless the creationist is determined to engage in a little book-burning ... which many of them seem to be ...


_________________
 
“I must acknowledge, once and for all, that the
purpose of diplomacy is to prolong a crisis.”

— Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock, in the Star Trek
episode "The Mark of Gideon" (ep. 3.16, 1969)


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

02 Sep 2012, 7:58 pm

Fnord wrote:
Creationists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize. For instance, one way of stating the 2nd Thermodynamic Law is: "Thermal energy will eventually reach equilibrium at all points within a closed system." This is also called the Law of Thermal Entropy.

What many creationists fail to understand about this law is that:

(1) As stated, it applies only to closed systems. That is, systems that do not interact with other systems outside the closed system's boundaries. The nuclei of living cells are not closed systems, to cite one example.

(2) As stated, it applies only to the flow of thermal energy. That is, systems that rely on 'heat' to produce action. The nuclei of living cells rely on both endothermic (heat-reducing) and exothermic (heat-producing) chemical reactions, and work best when maintaining a specific level of thermal activity (temperature).

(3) As stated, it has nothing to do with changing genetic information over time (e.g., 'Evolution'). That is, creationists are applying a physical principle inappropriately (e.g., the Fallacy of Irrelevant Principles) -- they criticize non-creationist ideas because those ideas would not operate under principles that were never meant to apply to the idea -- a form of the Non-Sequitur Fallacy.

By analogy, it is like comparing a campfire to a library book, in that one is a thermal system and one is a source of information. Thus, the two are completely unrelated ... unless the creationist is determined to engage in a little book-burning ... which many of them seem to be ...


I think it's more than that. In fact, I think that professional creationists deliberately lie, while their followers are just misled by them. Professional creationists such as Ray Comfort etc. are simply not interested in facts.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

02 Sep 2012, 8:00 pm

I've found this video of the entire series of AronRa's "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism", which I was referring to at the begging of this thread:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw&feature=plcp[/youtube]

Enjoy.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

04 Sep 2012, 5:54 am

No more replies? I would of thought some people would of at least looked at the series or the video I posted above because other similar threads are still continuing.



Doctor
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

11 Sep 2012, 12:45 pm

Fnord wrote:
Creationists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize.


This is, on the majority, true. Also true of the majority is that evolutionists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize either.

Look around general forums and you'll find many evolutionists arguing that carbon dating proves various things are millions of years old - despite this being impossible for carbon dating due to the short half-life of carbon-14 (as I have explained in length to 2 or 3 evolutionists today). You'll find many evolutionists claiming that a theory in common usage only means a guess but in science it means an explanation for some observations - seemingly unable to understand that 'theory' always means an explanation for some observations (so when people say it's just a theory, they mean that it's just an explanation for observations - not necessarily the correct explanation because a different explanation may be the correct explanation for those observations! i.e. don't confuse the theory with the facts.) And you'll see them presenting as evidence things that nobody questions (i.e. evidence that evolution can happen), and then failing to address the actual argument - whether there is evidence that evolution rather than design (both processes that are known to occur in the world around us) was actually responsible for the life we see around us on earth.

Jono wrote:
No more replies? I would of thought some people would of at least looked at the series

We can see the titles and see that they're rehashes of tired non-arguments we've heard a hundred times before, which would be OK if it was one 5-minute video, but not something to spend waste 3 hours of our lives on, even if we would then have the space or time to address them all. Why not cite any particular arguments that you're particularly interested in?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

11 Sep 2012, 3:39 pm

Doctor wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Creationists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize.


This is, on the majority, true. Also true of the majority is that evolutionists seem to understand little of what they claim or criticize either.


Really now? Or perhaps most "evolutionists" understand a lot more than you do and thats why they don't believe creationist crap.

Doctor wrote:
Look around general forums and you'll find many evolutionists arguing that carbon dating proves various things are millions of years old - despite this being impossible for carbon dating due to the short half-life of carbon-14 (as I have explained in length to 2 or 3 evolutionists today).


Take it from a guy who actually has a degree in physics. The fact that you know absolute sweet bugger-all about nuclear physics and radiometric dating is surely not my problem. However, as a small gesture, I'll let you give me your best shot.

Doctor wrote:
You'll find many evolutionists claiming that a theory in common usage only means a guess but in science it means an explanation for some observations - seemingly unable to understand that 'theory' always means an explanation for some observations (so when people say it's just a theory, they mean that it's just an explanation for observations - not necessarily the correct explanation because a different explanation may be the correct explanation for those observations! i.e. don't confuse the theory with the facts.)


:lol: You, a non-scientist get's to define what "scientific theory" means? Plus, it also seems like you define it differently from the way scientists define it. A scientific theory is not "just" an explanation of some observations. It is an explanation who's predictions have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment i.e. an explanation that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be correct. So yes, what we mean by a scientific theory does necessarily mean the correct explanation for those observations. My guess is that you don't know what science is. Every single fossil found, observation made and fact discovered supports evolution while not a single piece of evidence whatsoever has supported creationism. This is partly because creationism, for the most part, doesn't even make falsifiable predictions but also because out of the few that it has made, every single one of them has been proven false.

Doctor wrote:
And you'll see them presenting as evidence things that nobody questions (i.e. evidence that evolution can happen), and then failing to address the actual argument - whether there is evidence that evolution rather than design (both processes that are known to occur in the world around us) was actually responsible for the life we see around us on earth.


Ah, the old creationist macroevolution vs microevolution non-argument. Care to define exactly where the barrier is, in which microevolution crosses over into macroevolution? Out of every single creationist who uses this argument, I have never seen a single one who has given such a clear definition.

Doctor wrote:
Jono wrote:
No more replies? I would of thought some people would of at least looked at the series

We can see the titles and see that they're rehashes of tired non-arguments we've heard a hundred times before, which would be OK if it was one 5-minute video, but not something to spend waste 3 hours of our lives on, even if we would then have the space or time to address them all. Why not cite any particular arguments that you're particularly interested in?


"Non-arguments", heh? That is quite ironic from someone who thinks that creationist arguments are actually arguments. What I find even funnier is that you seem to think that most people in this forum are creationists.

As for which arguments, you could start with the first three if you want. They are the videos posted at the beginning of the thread and are only 10 minutes each. not 3 hours. All the rebuttals given in the video series probably hammer any possible argument you could make anyway but if you have a problem with any of them, then post why right here. Come on, I dare you!



Doctor
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 19

12 Sep 2012, 6:30 am

Jono wrote:
As for which arguments, you could start with the first three if you want. They are the videos posted at the beginning of the thread and are only 10 minutes each. not 3 hours. All the rebuttals given in the video series probably hammer any possible argument you could make anyway but if you have a problem with any of them, then post why right here. Come on, I dare you!


OK. But watching the first video, I must say I'm wondering when the rhetoric is going to stop and the actual evidence is going to begin.

Of course, the first thing that becomes clear is the poisoning the well arguments, and the appeal to authority arguments. Example,
Quote:
Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.

Wow - they sure seem to know everything! Which is strange, seeing as most drunks I speak to seem to accept it. But I'm sure his statistic of 'most' is based on an accurate survey, and not just the fact that his mates know those things.

Quote:
But to believe in creationism, you don't have to know anything about anything, and it's better if you don't, because creationism relies on ignorance, it is not honest research, it is a scam, a con job

I could substitute the word evolutionism for creationism here and the point would be exactly as valid (i.e., it would still be an claim presented with no supporting evidence, just poisoning the well.

Actually if I pointed out all his personal attacks that are unsupported by evidence then I'd be here forever, so lets just look for where he gets round to presenting any evidence, shall we?

OK, it turns out the evidence he presents in this video is that many who claim to be Christian accept evolution.
That's true, but let's also remember that many who claim to be Christians (including the Pope, who he cited as an authorite) accept idolatry, praying to people other than God, that Jesus is God - all teachings that the Bible strongly condemns. So the fact that some people accept these things wouldn't be much of an argument, even of there were an argument to be made.

Which there isn't - it seems a bit of a strawman argument really, because I don't remember anybody ever making the claim that he's arguing against.

I do however remember Richard Dawkins stating that his belief in evolution caused him to reject God, so it certainly can be true. And the argument does work the other way - atheism can imply evolution, and be a motive for people to accept evolution even in spite of evidence against it.

And then he claims that to reject it is to reject science - his own foundational falsehood. The scientific method remains, but individual theories come and go. This process has happened throughout history. He said evolutionists knew a lot about history - shouldn't he know how many scientific theories have had to be rejected over the centuries, and that rejecting a scientific theory has to happen sometimes for science to progress, and that it isn't the same as rejecting all science?



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

13 Sep 2012, 6:17 am

Doctor wrote:
Jono wrote:
As for which arguments, you could start with the first three if you want. They are the videos posted at the beginning of the thread and are only 10 minutes each. not 3 hours. All the rebuttals given in the video series probably hammer any possible argument you could make anyway but if you have a problem with any of them, then post why right here. Come on, I dare you!


OK. But watching the first video, I must say I'm wondering when the rhetoric is going to stop and the actual evidence is going to begin.

Of course, the first thing that becomes clear is the poisoning the well arguments, and the appeal to authority arguments. Example,
Quote:
Most people who accept evolution also tend to know a whole lot about cosmology, geography, history, sociology, politics, and of course, religion.

Wow - they sure seem to know everything! Which is strange, seeing as most drunks I speak to seem to accept it. But I'm sure his statistic of 'most' is based on an accurate survey, and not just the fact that his mates know those things.


Actually, they don't necessarily know everything but most people who believe in evolution come to that conclusion by looking at the facts as presented by scientists. So yes, they are probably well read in many of those topics.

Doctor wrote:
Quote:
But to believe in creationism, you don't have to know anything about anything, and it's better if you don't, because creationism relies on ignorance, it is not honest research, it is a scam, a con job

I could substitute the word evolutionism for creationism here and the point would be exactly as valid (i.e., it would still be an claim presented with no supporting evidence, just poisoning the well.


Really? I'd like to offer you a little challenge:

1. Name one evolutionist who has lied about the evidence to promote evolution (Ernst Haeckel doesn't count because he was not promoting evolution over creationism).

2. Name one professional creationist who has not lied to promote creationism.

We'll see if you can meet both these challenges without being rebuked and then let's see which one's the scam.

Doctor wrote:
Actually if I pointed out all his personal attacks that are unsupported by evidence then I'd be here forever, so lets just look for where he gets round to presenting any evidence, shall we?

OK, it turns out the evidence he presents in this video is that many who claim to be Christian accept evolution.
That's true, but let's also remember that many who claim to be Christians (including the Pope, who he cited as an authorite) accept idolatry, praying to people other than God, that Jesus is God - all teachings that the Bible strongly condemns. So the fact that some people accept these things wouldn't be much of an argument, even of there were an argument to be made.


The main claim he was arguing against in that video is the equating of belief in evolution to atheism. So yes, the fact that many, scratch that - most, christians believe in evolution is sufficient evidence to rebuke that claim. Also, take note that you have just used the "no true scotsman" fallacy with your claims of idolatry there.

Doctor wrote:
Which there isn't - it seems a bit of a strawman argument really, because I don't remember anybody ever making the claim that he's arguing against.


Actually, quite a few creationists do make that claim. The Discovery Institute is even on record for releasing a document making that claim. So there is no strawman. Proof:

http://www.theropps.com/papers/Winter1997/CharlesHodge.htm#What%20is%20Darwinism

Doctor wrote:
I do however remember Richard Dawkins stating that his belief in evolution caused him to reject God, so it certainly can be true. And the argument does work the other way - atheism can imply evolution, and be a motive for people to accept evolution even in spite of evidence against it.


Yes, Richard Dawkins is an atheist but that doesn't mean every christian who accepts the facts of evolution will become an atheist. Richard Dawkins even says that you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution.

Doctor wrote:
And then he claims that to reject it is to reject science - his own foundational falsehood. The scientific method remains, but individual theories come and go. This process has happened throughout history. He said evolutionists knew a lot about history - shouldn't he know how many scientific theories have had to be rejected over the centuries, and that rejecting a scientific theory has to happen sometimes for science to progress, and that it isn't the same as rejecting all science?


First of all, that is not a falsehood. Given that all the evidence provided by the fossil record, DNA and even actual observation in a laboratory, denying evolution entails denying all the evidence we see and therefore entails denying science.

Scientific theories are accepted on the basis of the evidence found to them and the ones supported by mountains of evidence do not just get discarded and become obsolete, though they may be superseded by more general ones. As an example, you still learn Newton's law of gravitation in school because it is still correct for weak gravitational fields even though we now know that Einstein's general relativity is needed to explain gravitation in strong gravitational fields. The need to extend existing theories to incorporate new facts does not invalidate the old facts.



Exploronaut
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 180
Location: Norway

29 Sep 2012, 12:38 pm

:!: Comment to Doctor: I wasted 3 hours of my life on watching the video, and it was certainly not a waste of time.
:?: Question to Jono: How long does it actualy take for Carbon 14 to decay?
:?: Question to whoever it is that knows the answer: Does it exist an explanation on the dinosaur footprints and human footprints which does not involve the possibility that humans and dinosaurs existed at once?


_________________
Reality is an illusion.


Last edited by Exploronaut on 29 Sep 2012, 1:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

29 Sep 2012, 1:00 pm

Exploronaut wrote:
:!: Comment to Doctor: I wasted 3 hours of my life on watching the video, and it was certainly not a waste of time.


He's a creationist, so I think he doesn't want to know any facts. Also, he hasn't posted anything for a week, so I doubt he'll reply.

Exploronaut wrote:
:?: Question to Jono: How long does it actualy take for Carbon 14 to decay?


Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5730 years and carbon-dating can be used to date materials to between 58000 and 62000 years. Yes, there is a limit, however there are other radiometric dating techniques, other than carbon dating, that have been used to date rocks to millions of years old. Clair Patterson used uranium-lead dating to estimate the age of the Earth to be about 4 billion years old.



Exploronaut
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2012
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Posts: 180
Location: Norway

29 Sep 2012, 1:29 pm

Thanks Jono :D


_________________
Reality is an illusion.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

25 Sep 2015, 2:32 pm

With the latest threads about creationism in PPR, I've decided to dig up one of my older threads about creationism vs evolution. This one was about AronRa's excellent video series. Since, the videos in my original post unfortunately don't show up due to the change to the new Wrong Planet site, I'll repost the first video here:



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,466
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

10 May 2017, 10:43 am

Ahh, the good old days. Just looking through my old threads. I forgot that I bumped this one up once before.