Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Bradskii]

But you don't really want to know do you? I have seen your posts before, pretending to be interested.

The Bible is not a science book, it isn't outlining everything for testing. It outlines what God wants us to know, enough to get a snapshot.

But lets say you actually are interested, one change would be the vapour canopy.

No, I didn't ask what changes there were. You specifically said that there were different laws - 'We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.' Which I presume might account for the aspects of creationism that don't align with current laws. Such as a vapour canopy. So what were the different laws?

I really hope that you're not going to say that there were things like a vapour dome and that therefore there must have been different laws. Surely not.

 

[Bradskii]

• 100% identical? Or is there a sufficiently similar cutoff percentage? Seems a bit of a stretch to claim demonstrating this would falsify the theory, what's to prevent alternative mechanisms of transmission while maintaining the theory in principle?

If you have a different method then let's hear it.

• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur. Ex post hoc. Mutations were in part a driving observation, so it's improper to include them with possible falsifiers. Padding things?

Mutations are required in order for evolution to proceed. If they do occur, then that fulfills a requirement of the theory. If they don't then evolution could not occur.

• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations. Post hoc again. The theory is derived to explain the appearance of this fact.

No, the theory uses this fact. it isn't designed to explain it. If it doesn't happen then evolution couldn't occur.

• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection. And what possible fact would show this?

Phenotypic changes that could not be produced by any mutation.

• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals. This is almost literally the theory. So if the theory can be shown to be false, it can be falsified? What is the hypothetical fact to show this?

Find something that survives well without the process of evolution being involved. If evolution doesn't exist then this should be exceptionally easy.

• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species. Again, this is a restatement of the theory so all you're saying is if it can be shown false, it can be shown false which begs the question. It's also questionable in its vagueness. What definition of "species" is being used?

You can indicate that speciation doesn't occur. And we can use the ability to reproduce as a marker.

Charles Darwin made the case a little differently when he said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." This is the closest to an actual hypothetical counter fact. And there are proposed candidates like cascades, but ratther than considering them they either get the "we will eventually be able to explain them" treatment or they are simply denied altogether without explanation.

It's not that they didn't. It's that they couldn't.

And if you want to question any of that, then please do it one at a time. I'm not a fan of posts with umpteen questions and answers. I'll respond to one at a time.

 

[Fervent]

And if you want to question any of that, then please do it one at a time. I'm not a fan of posts with umpteen questions and answers. I'll respond to one at a time.

Considering it is 2 restatements of the theory, 3 post hoc hypotheticals(as in the facts were observed prior to the theory so it is improper to postulate them as possible defeators) let's go with the only possible candidate. If the proposed fact were found to be true, what's to stop the maintenance of the theory while jettisoning the proposed mechanism? What's to stop the theory from simply being tweaked to follow a different mechanism from DNA, remaining essentially in tact?

 

[dlamberth]

Without a doubt and with 100% convection I absolutely do believe that creationist beliefs encourages anti-intellectualism. I see it in my own family members.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, you're missing the bullet point I don't know how to put on there, where I have one item on my list, that, in my opinion, needs explaining.


Nononono! It's your theory. Explain the numbers. Don't ask me to prove the negative. I have no idea how it could happen. Doesn't make sense to me.

Do I ask you to disprove first cause?

Okay, let me take a shot. But I want you to clearly state your question.

Do you think that there was not enough time for evolution to occur? To support my case I will probably have to pick a couple of species that we know are related. Will that be good with you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you don't really want to know do you? I have seen your posts before, pretending to be interested.

The Bible is not a science book, it isn't outlining everything for testing. It outlines what God wants us to know, enough to get a snapshot.

But lets say you actually are interested, one change would be the vapour canopy. Originally it didn't rain, but water came up from under the ground to water the surface and the world was surrounded in a canopy. The canopy mostly came down at the flood. That is the snap shot, no details. The details about it are what people have come up with. This doesn't mean they are correct, they are simply ideas. Because creation science also only has access to this world. You can't exactly test something properly that has completely changed and not here to test.
https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=icc_proceedings

Spell check is trying to turn me into an American. :/

Do you realize that we have fossilized raindrops hundreds of millions, if not billions of years old? Wouldn't that refute your "vapor canopy" hypothesis?

 

[coffee4u]

No, I didn't ask what changes there were. You specifically said that there were different laws - 'We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.' Which I presume might account for the aspects of creationism that don't align with current laws. Such as a vapour canopy. So what were the different laws?

I really hope that you're not going to say that there were things like a vapour dome and that therefore there must have been different laws. Surely not.

Not a dome, a dome would indicate a flat earth and the scripture does not teach that. The canopy would have surround the world.

One doesn't have to study science to know of the existence of things like gravity. I don't have to fully understand gravity or be able to explain it to you. Because I couldn't, not unless you are happy with "when we throw something it falls back to the earth" How is that for you? Just because I wouldn't know the scientific details doesn't mean I don't know of its existence.
I don't study science or even creation science beyond a quick read now and then, just highlights of an article; I study scripture. If you want scientific details ask someone who follows creation science.

 

[coffee4u]

Do you realize that we have fossilized raindrops hundreds of millions, if not billions of years old? Wouldn't that refute your "vapor canopy" hypothesis?

And tell me, just exactly how are you determining that the age of those raindrops is millions or billions of years old?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And tell me, just exactly how are you determining that the age of those raindrops are millions or billions of years old?

By a combination of stratigraphy and radiometric dating. I like to remind some creationists that if God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be interpreted literally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a dome, a dome would indicate a flat earth and the scripture does not teach that. The canopy would have surround the world.

One doesn't have to study science to know of the existence of things like gravity. I don't have to fully understand gravity or be able to explain it to you. Because I couldn't, not unless you are happy with "when we throw something it falls back to the earth" How is that for you? Just because I wouldn't know the scientific details doesn't mean I don't know of its existence.
I don't study science or even creation science beyond a quick read now and then, just highlights of an article; I study scripture. If you want scientific details ask someone who follows creation science.

Actually the scriptures are far more Flat Earth friendly than Spherical Earth friendly.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know what you mean by 'there was only that amount of time for it to happen'. It's not an event. It's a process. It's continuous. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

I'm talking about something that you say happened. Process, of course. Up until today, and into tomorrow etc. Let's say, 4.5 billion years ago, life began somehow, and evolution happened right up until today (and, you expect, will continue. So, there was 4.5 billion years for life to reach its current evolutionary state, since that's all the time available for it to do that. Do you have any information on how many mutations were needed, or how long it takes for beneficial and reproducible mutations to take place? You aren't even willing to answer the question? Makes me think maybe you aren't able.

 

[Bradskii]

Considering it is 2 restatements of the theory, 3 post hoc hypotheticals(as in the facts were observed prior to the theory so it is improper to postulate them as possible defeators) let's go with the only possible candidate. If the proposed fact were found to be true, what's to stop the maintenance of the theory while jettisoning the proposed mechanism? What's to stop the theory from simply being tweaked to follow a different mechanism from DNA, remaining essentially in tact?

The theory worked in the first instance without knowing the mechanism by which changes were passed on. In other words, the mechanism itself isn't part of the theory. But if a different means is used (it's now obviously dna), it would need to be shown that it didn't pass on the traits in a way that allows evolution to proceed.

Bear in mind that to show evolution is false, something needs to be shown that shows it doesn't happen. Not simply proposing a different method by which it happens. Changes to the methodology simply means changes to the theory.

A Nobel prize, fame and fortune waits for anyone who can show that it doesn't happen.

 

[Fervent]

The theory worked in the first instance without knowing the mechanism by which changes were passed on. In other words, the mechanism itself isn't part of the theory. But if a different means is used (it's now obviously dna), it would need to be shown that it didn't pass on the traits in a way that allows evolution to proceed.

Bear in mind that to show evolution is false, something needs to be shown that shows it doesn't happen. Not simply proposing a different method by which it happens. Changes to the methodology simply means changes to the theory.

A Nobel prize, fame and fortune waits for anyone who can show that it doesn't happen.

And none of that addresses my question, in fact as you re-iterated my point you demonstrated that your proposed defeator is not an actual defeator. So you have eliminated one possible means of falsifying evolution, as the counterfactual would only falsify the current proposed mechanism but not the theory. So why did you present it as a means of falsification?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, let me take a shot. But I want you to clearly state your question.

Do you think that there was not enough time for evolution to occur? To support my case I will probably have to pick a couple of species that we know are related. Will that be good with you?

Make human one of them. I don't care what other one.

I have no doubt evolution occurred. What I'm asking is if there was enough time in the few billion years after primordial soup, for that life formed in the primordial soup to become a human present day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Make human one of them. I don't care what other one.

I have no doubt evolution occurred. What I'm asking is if there was enough time in the few billion years after primordial soup, for that life formed in the primordial soup to become a human present day.

It is easy for me to show that our evolution from a shared common ancestor with a chimp is possible. I do not know enough biology to show that it is possible from the first life to what we see today. So I will not be able to meet your challenge. Others probably could.

Do you also accept the fact that all of the scientific evidence supports the theory of evolution. Creationists are like a toddler that wet their pants in comparison. They cannot even come up with the most basic of testable hypotheses that support their beliefs. Which of course means that they cannot find any scientific evidence at all for their beliefs.

 

[coffee4u]

By a combination of stratigraphy and radiometric dating. I like to remind some creationists that if God cannot lie then Genesis cannot be interpreted literally.

stratigraphy and radiometric dating, okay.

So do you agree with this?

That Stratigraphy dating is based on rock layers.

And radiometric dating is based on known rates of radioactive decay?

And as I like to remind evolutionists those are both assumptions. You don't know if the decay rate has always been the same nor were you there to see those rock layers being laid down. You have assumed these things are true and that they have always been this way since the beginning of the world. You then take those assumptions and use them to date the raindrops. If your assumptions about the rocks or radioactive isotopes are wrong this in turn makes the dates wrong.

known rates of radioactive decay can only can be tested on the current world, not the past world. If the decay rate changed at either the fall or flood or both, then current decay rates are only good for relatively young items.

 

[coffee4u]

It is easy for me to show that our evolution from a shared common ancestor with a chimp is possible.

No you can't, again you have nothing but assumptions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

stratigraphy and radiometric dating, okay.

So do you agree with this?

That Stratigraphy dating is based on rock layers.

And radiometric dating is based on known rates of radioactive decay?

And as I like to remind evolutionists those are both assumptions. You don't know if the decay rate has always been the same nor were you there to see those rock layers being laid down. You have assumed these things are true and that they have always been this way since the beginning of the world. You then take those assumptions and use them to date the raindrops. If your assumptions about the rocks or radioactive isotopes are wrong this in turn makes the dates wrong.

known rates of radioactive decay can only can be tested on the current world, not the past world. If the decay rate changed at either the fall or flood or both, then current decay rates are only good for relatively young items.

Incorrect. You are the one making assumptions. Decay rates have been tested. They do not change. No assumption there. If you want to propose a change the burden of proof is upon you. Please note all of the proposed changes by creationists are not only not supported by any evidence. They all tend to have severe drawbacks. Most of them being that they are proposing cooking the Earth.

In fact when you make the claim of "assumptions" you take on a burden of poof. You have to show how what they accept is an assumption. You do not just get to claim that it is one.

So do you have anything more than "assumptions"? It appears that you are guilty of what you accuse others of.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm talking about something that you say happened. Process, of course. Up until today, and into tomorrow etc. Let's say, 4.5 billion years ago, life began somehow, and evolution happened right up until today (and, you expect, will continue. So, there was 4.5 billion years for life to reach its current evolutionary state, since that's all the time available for it to do that. Do you have any information on how many mutations were needed, or how long it takes for beneficial and reproducible mutations to take place? You aren't even willing to answer the question? Makes me think maybe you aren't able.

It's possible to get a rough idea. In fact, Dawkins book 'An Ancestors Tale' might have mentioned it. But it's years since I read it and I couldn't find my copy when it came up in discussion on another thread.

...what one could do is note (as he does in his book) the major changes that took place from us back to bacteria. If you took each of his stages, estimated how long they existed in their specific species before branching off into the next ancestor, you'd have a list of all previous ancestors (well, best guess at the major ones) and the length of time they existed. I did find a rough compilation that someone had done from the info in the book.

Monkeys and apes: 40MY(3M)
Mammals: 180MY(120M)
Reptiles: 310MY(170M)
Ray finned fish: 440MY(195M)
Sharks, hagfish and lampreys: 530MY(240M)
Lancelets and all chordates: 560MY(270M)

Multiply each length by the time it took any given species to reach maturity so you'd have the number of generations. Add them all up and you'd have a very rough idea of the number of generations between you and your earliest common ancestor. Someone here Can we make a rough estimate of the number of generations since the origin of life? estimates it to be 1x10^12 generations.

How many generations does it need to produce a beneficial mutation? Well, now we have the same problem as the Drake equation for estimating the number of alien civilisations. You don't have exact figures with which to work. But you can plug in something that sounds reasonable and see what it gives you.

Bear in mind that there may be a few large mutations that give an evolutionary benefit or there may be very many that give small incremental benefits.

It's an interesting question but not one that's going to get you a very accurate answer.

 

[coffee4u]

Actually the scriptures are far more Flat Earth friendly than Spherical Earth friendly.

So much bunkum. Not a single scripture proclaims the earth to be flat.
But I know you atheists want to propagate that silly idea.