A Challenge for Evolutionists

[Papias]

Sum1sGruj, did you, or did you not, read post #16, where your questions were answered?

Perphaps you can explain each of the answers in post #16, just to show that you did read them and did understand them, and then explain why you don't find those answers adequate?

After all - is it not the mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it?

Otherwise it may look to an objective observer like you are just stubbornly ignoring answers that have been honestly given to your questions.

Papias

 

[sfs]

These have already been answered, but since you're insisting that they haven't, I'll give it another go.

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

Yes. That is, I can prove (in the usual sense of "prove", i.e. provide evidence that show it beyond a reasonable doubt) to those who know or are willing to learn the genetics involved.

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

Of course not. It's impossible to prove that God didn't make the world look old and make species look like evolution were true. It's also impossible to prove that the nation of Norway really exists and that God didn't implant the idea and memory of Norway in everyone's minds, to prove that God doesn't create the illusion of a moon that isn't really there every night, that God didn't create the appearance that Eisenhower was a general in World War II, and that the Bible wasn't written in 1957.

If that's really your standard of proof, then you'd better not claim to know anything about any subject at all. You also might as well stop posting, since you don't even know that we exist.

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

Since fossils were found in particular layers long before they had a "desired location", yes, it's easy to prove that part. As for the rest, are you really calling it an assumption that most fossils are the same age as the rock they lie in?

 

[Assyrian]

What is it about the human mind that can just make itself believe something that is obviously not true?

Quoted for truth

 

[Orogeny]

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

No. Science does not 'prove' things. Science provides us with models and theories that attempt to explain the occurrence of natural phenomenon and the processes behind these phenomenon. These models are built using evidence, and the model that best explains the evidence is the model that is accepted to be most closely fitting reality. One of the best tests of a model is predictive power, that is, we can use a model to predict an outcome or observation that has not yet been made. If the prediction is correct, the model works well. The fact that the theory of evolution predicted a genetic nested hierarchy before this hierarchy was observed speaks to the power of the theory. The fact that ToE was used to correctly predict the location and nature of Tiktaalic is a pretty strong argument for the validity of the theory as well.

Edited to add: Please note that my usage of the word 'prove' is different than SFS's. I read it to mean 'prove as FACT', in which case the answer is no. In SFS's usage (prove beyond reasonable doubt), he is correct in answering yes. Please do not conflate the two.

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

This argument smacks of "Last Thursdayism", as already noted. The only direct evidence of God's creation is creation itself. If that creation is misleading, as you propose, then God must have knowingly mislead us. Is this your proposal? If not, please elaborate on the point you were attempting to make.

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

I'm not sure I understand this question completely. Where is the assumption in looking at a Mississippian-aged limestone and saying 'Look! There's a fossil crinoid stem in this rock! That crinoid lived during the Mississippian.'?

At what point is observing the stratal location of a fossil imparting some 'desire' on the location of the fossil? The fossil is in the rock in which it is found, regardless of whether I desire it to be there or not.

If I see that trilobites are always in Paleozoic strata, and never above, is that a desire of mine? Or is it simply an observation that trilobites are never found in strata younger than the Permian?

If I see that non-avian dinosaurs are always in Mesozoic strata, and never above or below, is that a desire of mine? Or is is simply an observation that non-avian dinosaurs existed only in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous?

If you cannot solve all three of these, then you rationale is obsolete.

Q1: Answered and shown to be based on a misunderstanding of the scientific endeavor.
Q2: Shown to be supportive of a philosophy that requires a deceptive God, which is not Biblical.
Q3: Shown to be based on a misunderstanding of geology and the geologic column.

As a whole, your questions are ineffective because they contain false premises. Please revise them.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

No. Science does not 'prove' things. Science provides us with models and theories that attempt to explain the occurrence of natural phenomenon and the processes behind these phenomenon. These models are built using evidence, and the model that best explains the evidence is the model that is accepted to be most closely fitting reality. One of the best tests of a model is predictive power, that is, we can use a model to predict an outcome or observation that has not yet been made. If the prediction is correct, the model works well. The fact that the theory of evolution predicted a genetic nested hierarchy before this hierarchy was observed speaks to the power of the theory. The fact that ToE was used to correctly predict the location and nature of Tiktaalic is a pretty strong argument for the validity of the theory as well.

Prediction is a double play with ToE. Because we see like organisms, we establish that their genetic makeup is like to.
It doesn't really mean anything, except that the 'double-play serving as a puffery agent to make ToE more appealing.
Can it predict that the world is more then 6000-12000 years old? No. It needs it to be more to be correct. God is the venue, not theory.

This argument smacks of "Last Thursdayism", as already noted. The only direct evidence of God's creation is creation itself. If that creation is misleading, as you propose, then God must have knowingly mislead us. Is this your proposal? If not, please elaborate on the point you were attempting to make.

What point are you making, besides ToE clearly being subjective to it's own hypothesis? God did not mislead us. We did. That is the audacious turn of Christian Deism, to amount God's Word to scientific theory.

I'm not sure I understand this question completely. Where is the assumption in looking at a Mississippian-aged limestone and saying 'Look! There's a fossil crinoid stem in this rock! That crinoid lived during the Mississippian.'?

Word smithing. How about ToE using assumption to base a workable idea into their canon? That is what it is. After all, it is theory, not fact, and many people have dumbed themselves down to thinking it is more. Perhaps out of uncertainty, or maybe even fear of being humiliated by their belief.

At what point is observing the stratal location of a fossil imparting some 'desire' on the location of the fossil? The fossil is in the rock in which it is found, regardless of whether I desire it to be there or not.

The desire lies in thinking it must be part of a system. ToE just provides unrealistic explanations for what it cannot explain and somehow, by which all means hurts my soul as fellow human being, becomes noted as likely just because a bunch of PhD's salaries depend on it.

If I see that trilobites are always in Paleozoic strata, and never above, is that a desire of mine? Or is it simply an observation that trilobites are never found in strata younger than the Permian?

I don't know, can you prove it without assuming the initial conditions of everything that must be exactly compliant for it to work?

If I see that non-avian dinosaurs are always in Mesozoic strata, and never above or below, is that a desire of mine? Or is is simply an observation that non-avian dinosaurs existed only in the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous?

Can you prove that they existed in those times? No. You can only assume that God made everything 'brand new'. That is, we were born in an abyssal of fiery geologic hell.
In other words, dating things cannot determine the actual age of anything. They only gauge the duration of particle movement. It is this kind of logic that has made people ignorant to the Bible.
The fact is, they must exist during those times for ToE to be correct. Those times do not have to exist because they are there.
Circularity. That is what science has inflicted to the average theist.

Q1: Answered and shown to be based on a misunderstanding of the scientific endeavor.
Q2: Shown to be supportive of a philosophy that requires a deceptive God, which is not Biblical.
Q3: Shown to be based on a misunderstanding of geology and the geologic column.

As a whole, your questions are ineffective because they contain false premises. Please revise them.

<staff edit > < staff edit > < staff edit >

 

[Mallon]

Sum1sGruj, can you explain why organisms with similar phenotypes are also similar in non-phenotype coding genetic sequences?

 

[Mallon]

Can you explain how that has any bearing on anything?

Sure. You seem to think that organisms only share similar DNA because they look similar (that is, they share similar phenotype-coding DNA). But most organisms that look similar also share DNA that do not code for phenotype. If this shared non-coding DNA (e.g., endogenous retroviruses) isn't due to descent with modification (evolution), how do you explain it?

 

[Mallon]

Please just answer the question, Sum1sGruj. You talk a lot, but you never respond to anyone's questions.

If shared non-coding DNA (e.g., endogenous retroviruses) isn't due to descent with modification (evolution), how do you explain it?

 

[Orogeny]

Prediction is a double play with ToE. Because we see like organisms, we establish that their genetic makeup is like to.

We OBSERVE that their genetic makeup is similar.

I'm not sure what 'double play' means in this context, but until you define it, I'll work from the theory that it's a brush-off. I predict, based on my theory, that you will fail to define it. I also predict that you will continue to brush-off the predictive power of ToE, even though you've got no evidence to refute this predictive power.

It doesn't really mean anything, except that the 'double-play serving as a puffery agent to make ToE more appealing.

Noting that ToE has proven predictive power is not puffery. Please understand words before you use them.

Can it predict that the world is more then 6000-12000 years old? No. It needs it to be more to be correct. God is the venue, not theory.

No, because geochronology is not part of the theory of evolution. However, there is a mountain of geologic evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the theory of evolution fits well into this framework.

Building strawmen isn't as effective in debate as it is in corn farming.

What point are you making, besides ToE clearly being subjective to it's own hypothesis? God did not mislead us. We did. That is the audacious turn of Christian Deism, to amount God's Word to scientific theory.

The point I am making is that unless God is deceptive, earth is old and the universe is older. You understand this, you simply don't like it. That portion of my response did not deal with ToE, so your insertion of it into your response is a pretty feeble red herring. Address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.

Word smithing.

Where, specifically? What did I build?

How about ToE using assumption to base a workable idea into their canon? That is what it is. After all, it is theory, not fact, and many people have dumbed themselves down to thinking it is more. Perhaps out of uncertainty, or maybe even fear of being humiliated by their belief.

Again, this portion of my response in no way addressed or is reliant upon ToE. It deals exclusively with the geologic column. Please try to address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.

Now, please tell me how observing crinoid fossils in Mississippian limestone, and making note of this, involves an assumption.

The desire lies in thinking it must be part of a system.

At what point does walking up to a rock, finding a shell encased in that rock, and saying 'Yo dude, come check out this shell!' require the assumption of a system? Observation is simply that: observation.

ToE just provides unrealistic explanations for what it cannot explain and somehow, by which all means hurts my soul as fellow human being, becomes noted as likely just because a bunch of PhD's salaries depend on it.

This portion of my response in no way addressed or is reliant upon ToE. It deals exclusively with observing the physical location of fossils in sedimentary rocks. Please try to address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.

I don't know, can you prove it without assuming the initial conditions of everything that must be exactly compliant for it to work?

Yep.

Can you prove that they existed in those times? No.

Non-avian dinosaur bones and trace fossils indicative of non-avian dinosaur activity are found it terrestrial and marine deposits from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. Their existence in these strata is the proof that they existed when these strata were deposited. Is this difficult to understand? You're basically asking me to prove that a refrigerator with a gallon of milk in it contains milk.

You can only assume that God made everything 'brand new'. That is, we were born in an abyssal of fiery geologic hell.

I'm not at all certain what you mean by this, but it doesn't appear to be grammatically or conceptually coherent. Could you please clarify?

In other words, dating things cannot determine the actual age of anything. They only gauge the duration of particle movement.

This argument is nonsensical. Even so, when we 'gauge the duration of particle movement', we get 'durations' that are consistent with an ancient earth and universe.

BTW, geologic ages are a relative dating system, and were defined well before absolute dating was developed. Their validity in no way depends on the accuracy of absolute dating, so your entire argument is a strawman built either from dishonesty or ignorance. I won't ask you which it is.

It is this kind of logic that has made people ignorant to the Bible.

False.

The fact is, they must exist during those times for ToE to be correct. Those times do not have to exist because they are there.

Still false.

Circularity. That is what science has inflicted to the average theist.

Provide an example of circularity in a scientific argument, and cite the source you drew this argument from.

Lie to yourself if you will, but you failed completely at all the questions. All you did was give a visualization of someone observing things. Quite the ridiculous argument, actually.

How many times do I have to say it? I did not expect that people would actually try to answer those questions . Is it not clear that they cannot be answered in light of Deism?

Your questions are based on a wholesale misunderstanding and mischaracterization of science and its postulates. This has been pointed out to you by more than one scientist, yet you continue to trumpet these questions as being the ultimate refutation of science.

You're boxing with a strawman but acting like you're beating up Manny Pacquiao. Nobody's falling for it.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

-Can you prove that the DNA 'hierarchy' that ToE shows to be evidence of evolution is not just similar coding for similar organisms and nothing more?

This has already been answered far better than I could with my limited biological knowledge. Just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean you can just brush it off. Do some Google-ing on what you don't recognize.

-Can you prove or provide a rationale that God would or wouldn't initially make something 'old' form the start, as in He wouldn't create an ore of uranium already turning into lead?

No, because I can't prove a negative. As already stated, this is last-Thursdayism. If you use this argument, you also can't prove that God created the world 6000 years ago instead of three seconds ago.

-Can you prove that fossils being aged are more then base assumption on their desired location in the fossil record and the rock they are found in?

Ah, the classsic "The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks! Zomg! Circular!" argument.

Allow me to debunk:
First, we need to talk about the concept of index fossils. An index fossil is a fossil that is widespread (found in many outcrops all over the world), easily recognizable, and is only found in a very narrow band of the geologic column. They are used to correlate rock formations across the globe. If rock formation A in Kansas has a certain known index fossil, and rock formation B in China has the same fossil, then we know that the rocks are approximately the same age. However, we don't know what that age is yet because we haven't established an age of the index fossil.

Ok, so now suppose that rock formation C in Germany has the same index fossil, but above and below the beds containing that fossil, there are volcanic lava flows. These lava flows can be dated using isotopic dating techniques, which have nothing to do with fossils, in order to establish an upper an lower bound for the age of the index fossil. Ideally, you would find several instances of this in different areas of the world in order to make sure that parts of the section haven't been removed via erosion between phases of deposition.

So now, after finding lava flows associated with the index fossil in dozens of locations around the world, you feel comfortable giving it an age. Lets just say that in the case of this particular fossil, based on radiometric dating, it existed between 200 and 205 million years ago. Now, you can look at any rock with this fossil and say that it is almost definitely between 200 and 205 million years old.

In short, the rocks used to date the fossils are not the same ones that the fossils are used to date. The fossils can be used to check the results of radiometric dating (and vice versa), but index fossils will never be as reliable a dating method. Whenever possible, geologists try to find a way to date the rocks using isotopic methods.

 

[Incariol]

I like how my answering the OP questions in post #2 of this thread has been completely ignored.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

We OBSERVE that their genetic makeup is similar.

I'm not sure what 'double play' means in this context, but until you define it, I'll work from the theory that it's a brush-off. I predict, based on my theory, that you will fail to define it. I also predict that you will continue to brush-off the predictive power of ToE, even though you've got no evidence to refute this predictive power.

Double-play,, as in 'Hey those houses are similar. Lets look at the bricks their made of and show how one is a cousin of the other'.
Double-play, meaning you observe something twice and somehow it becomes more then it what it is.

I just did it, and alas, it is the same conclusion.

Noting that ToE has proven predictive power is not puffery. Please understand words before you use them.

Puffery. You examine something twice, nothing really changes. But that does not stop anyone from drawing other conclusions.
Maybe you should simply just understand theory.

No, because geochronology is not part of the theory of evolution. However, there is a mountain of geologic evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the theory of evolution fits well into this framework.

Building strawmen isn't as effective in debate as it is in corn farming.

It seems OEC's are the kings of straw men. That is what the entirety of the thread is. A straw man, OEC's greatest tool to hide their circularity.
Geology is obsolete. There simply is no way of knowing period the way the world formed, and so it's depths and strata are purely guesswork, fixed to what makes sense to other sciences. But that will not stop scientists from concluding the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that life formed relatively soon after Earth was newly capable of supporting it.
I can see the shadiness of that, given the mathematical likeliness of life even forming. But that doesn't stop the religious from saying 'Goddidit' and putting together an ugly theology between this ridiculous take on science and God.

That's one nail to the coffin of OEC right there in a nutshell, if you want to know.

The point I am making is that unless God is deceptive, earth is old and the universe is older. You understand this, you simply don't like it. That portion of my response did not deal with ToE, so your insertion of it into your response is a pretty feeble red herring. Address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.

Please., that is a fabricated idea by OEC's to defend their trembling theology. It's laughable. There is nothing in the Bible that saves your theology from the sharks, that is an observed truth as well. Where you may have a verse or two, I have a mountain more.

Now, please tell me how observing crinoid fossils in Mississippian limestone, and making note of this, involves an assumption.

There is no assumption in seeing it, but when and why. This is where you do the dancing around and saying that dating techniques do this and that and so on,, that is OEC logic. Circular.

At what point does walking up to a rock, finding a shell encased in that rock, and saying 'Yo dude, come check out this shell!' require the assumption of a system? Observation is simply that: observation.

When atheists wanted to find out how this godless reality works.

This portion of my response in no way addressed or is reliant upon ToE. It deals exclusively with observing the physical location of fossils in sedimentary rocks. Please try to address the content of my posts, not the content you'd like my posts to have.

Good luck with that. just know that your theology requires it all.
Why don't you address the core issue instead of bringing up a bunch of vain gibberish and masqeurading it as some kind of effective dismantling of YEC?

Non-avian dinosaur bones and trace fossils indicative of non-avian dinosaur activity are found it terrestrial and marine deposits from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous. Their existence in these strata is the proof that they existed when these strata were deposited. Is this difficult to understand? You're basically asking me to prove that a refrigerator with a gallon of milk in it contains milk.

Or, with YEC's idea, a flood wiped them out, cracked the plates, causing an increase of salinity after it's initial drop from the flood, mountains rose higher, pressure caused fossil fuels, and well, fossils. And so on and so on. Science has selfishly claimed evidence for it's own ideas, pretty much playing a game with creationists that the evidence cannot be for our theory.
After gaining appeal, it's just 'crazy' for YEC to have anything to with it, because OEC's have indirectly admitted that nature is their god, and it would find it extremely funny one day when somebody finds a direct, undeniable evidence that can simply not go ignored by the scientific theory like the hundreds of other things it brushes off and OEC's end up looking like fool's to their own religious people.
I think that is a very important idea that OEC's forget altogether. Some do not understand that that is actually a possibility (not that ToE is as solid as people make it out to be anyways)

Addressing the rest of your post would only be repetitive to what I have already stated. So, marinate on it before you decide you are going to continue with this gibberish.
As it will otherwise go ignored because I am not here to repeat the same things over and over.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I like how my answering the OP questions in post #2 of this thread has been completely ignored.

Because be honest with yourself: Your argument is the same as everyone else on here. And it is completely obsolete, to boot.
Maybe you should read the rest of Timothy and see what it says about your theology_

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Just as an fyi, when you continue to repeat positions that have already been addressed - in this very thread even - you lose credibility and prove that either you're so set in your beliefs that you are unable to even consider anything else (despite the quote in your signature) or that you just have zero understanding of the subject matter. Both pretty much destroy any reason to continue this discussion.

 

[Incariol]

Because be honest with yourself: Your argument is the same as everyone else on here.

And?

And it is completely obsolete, to boot.

Yes, we all know what Creationists wish for. Doesn't make it true, necessarily.

Maybe you should read the rest of Timothy and see what it says about your theology_

I have.... And?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Just as an fyi, when you continue to repeat positions that have already been addressed - in this very thread even - you lose credibility and prove that either you're so set in your beliefs that you are unable to even consider anything else (despite the quote in your signature) or that you just have zero understanding of the subject matter. Both pretty much destroy any reason to continue this discussion.

Really? Sounds kind of conceded to me. I hold no credibility from OEC's, and they have none from me. So that is a moot point.
The way I see it, it's five on one thus far so your post just makes you a giant hypocrite. This was challenge for evolutionists, and yet the challenge was never met. It's been about circularity, straw men, and ad hominems.
Anyone bound to ToE has this common trait. It makes wonder what the hell is the matter with some people, to be honest.

 

[Incariol]

This was challenge for evolutionists, and yet the challenge was never met. It's been about circularity, straw men, and ad hominems.

Except for me, who actually answered your three questions. But you just randomly claim that my answers are "obsolete" (whatever that means) and ignore them. So meh.

Anyone bound to ToE has this common trait. It makes wonder what the hell is the matter with some people, to be honest.

Cute. Negative dispositional attributions.

 

[Mallon]

This thread reminds me of the Hovind $250,000 Challenge.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's been about circularity, straw men, and ad hominems.

Yes you have been a busy bee with these things.

If you know little to no science how can you argue against it?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Really? Sounds kind of conceded to me. I hold no credibility from OEC's, and they have none from me. So that is a moot point.
The way I see it, it's five on one thus far so your post just makes you a giant hypocrite. This was challenge for evolutionists, and yet the challenge was never met. It's been about circularity, straw men, and ad hominems.
Anyone bound to ToE has this common trait. It makes wonder what the hell is the matter with some people, to be honest.

If OECs hold no credibility with you, then why make this thread? This just makes it sound like you were looking for an excuse to rip on OECs.