Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Bradskii]

If it could be shown that mutations beneficial to survival in forms that can reproduce occur at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

I think you're describing evolution. Am I missing something..?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Well let's start with the rate, and how do you know this?

Ah! But see, the ball's in your court. You need to show how the rate was sufficient to do all that, since your theory implies it was.

 

[Bradskii]

We believe the world at creation had very different laws in place.

So let's use them as see where it gets us. What were they?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Ah! But see, the ball's in your court. You need to show how the rate was sufficient to do all that, since your theory implies it was.

We are here. Back to you, evidence that there are insufficient mutations for the theory to be viable?

 

[Bradskii]

Ah! But see, the ball's in your court. You need to show how the rate was sufficient to do all that, since your theory implies it was.

Look out of the window. Can you see any life forms? If you can then that indicates that mutations beneficial to survival for those forms reproduced at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

You can't see anything when that did not occur. Because they went extinct.

 

[Sabertooth]

OK, care to elaborate?

Believing in a literal Genesis 1 going forward does not prohibit me from embracing

• atomic theory;
• spheroid Earth;
  
• heliocentrism (with the Sun, itself, orbiting the center of the Milky Way);
• observable physics;
• DNA;
  
• observable biology; etc.

Even if any of these things are later proven to be on the same level as phlogiston or the "theory of impetus," my spirituality will not have been jeopardized for entertaining these models.

My spirituality is, however, immanently dependent on a literal

• Original Breeding Pair (Adam & Eve),
• the Garden of Eden, specifically
  
• the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil,
• the consequence of them eating its fruit, and
• God's Rescue efforts that followed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you're describing evolution. Am I missing something..?

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.

We are here. Back to you, evidence that there are insufficient mutations for the theory to be viable?

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?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Look out of the window. Can you see any life forms? If you can then that indicates that mutations beneficial to survival for those forms reproduced at a rate sufficient to produce the completed current form in the time available to do so.

You can't see anything when that did not occur. Because they went extinct.

If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were serious. Is this example of confirmation bias / circular reasoning to demonstrate something I do? Argumentum ad absurdum or something?

Kind of reminds me of the University Prof who tried to tell me that once in a while, Evolution takes a great leap forward. The reason he knew this is because that is how there was enough time for the mutations, and what's more, he had fossil evidence that demonstrated exactly that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

THEORY theory - Dictionary Definition

noun
a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena

Funny how you skip the definition that includes a mention of science for one that comes later on the same web page:

a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena

 

[Mark Quayle]

Funny how you skip the definition that includes a mention of science for one that comes later on the same web page:

Yes, I did. And my opponent skipped many other uses of 'theory' too. But, conveniently enough, I have been reprimanded concerning this deviation from the OP.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, I did. And my opponent skipped many other uses of 'theory' too. But, conveniently enough, I have been reprimanded concerning this deviation from the OP.

If we're talking about science, then the definition I quoted is the *only* one that matters.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

name them

Sigh...here are just a few examples of many. I hope this satisfies your skepticism.
Francis S. Collins
Michael Reiss
Alexis Carrel
George R. Price
Allan Sandage
Sarah Salviander
Hugh Ross

 

[Mark Quayle]

If we're talking about science, then the definition I quoted is the *only* one that matters.

You must be right, since lines of logic are no longer permitted in schools, and since by scientific fiat, laws of physics and natural principles no longer apply.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The smart and honest ones will respond: "Which God?"

And a smart response is "It doesn't matter". Any evidence that suggest the possibility of the existence of any God is evidence that suggests atheism is false.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism? Of course they do as do religious beliefs in general.

Perhaps a more interesting question: does anti-intellectualism encourage creationist beliefs?

It seems like a vicious circle.

 

[Bradskii]

If I didn't know you better, I'd say you were serious. Is this example of confirmation bias / circular reasoning to demonstrate something I do? Argumentum ad absurdum or something?

Kind of reminds me of the University Prof who tried to tell me that once in a while, Evolution takes a great leap forward. The reason he knew this is because that is how there was enough time for the mutations, and what's more, he had fossil evidence that demonstrated exactly that.

But that's literally the time needed. The time it took. There's no equation you can use, plug in a few variables and work out how long it should take to get from here to there. Depending on conditions, some things may not evolve at all for millions of years. Other organisms might evolve significantly in a few hundred.

Your prof wasn't saying that evolution from this point to this point only had X amount of time to work therefore there was a great leap forward. He was saying that there was a great leap forward and therefore we know how long it took.

You can't predict the time that evolution will take to get from A to B. But if something has moved from A to B then we can work out how long it took.

 

[Mark Quayle]

But that's literally the time needed. The time it took. There's no equation you can use, plug in a few variables and work out how long it should take to get from here to there. Depending on conditions, some things may not evolve at all for millions of years. Other organisms might evolve significantly in a few hundred.

Your prof wasn't saying that evolution from this point to this point only had X amount of time to work therefore there was a great leap forward. He was saying that there was a great leap forward and therefore we know how long it took.

You can't predict the time that evolution will take to get from A to B. But if something has moved from A to B then we can work out how long it took.

Confirmation bias, then. Seriously. You assume Darwinian Evolution, because this is what we now have and since there was only that amount of time for it to happen, there was enough time.

 

[Fervent]

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.

• 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 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?
• 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.
• 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? The hypothetical situation seems overbroad.
• 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?
• 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?

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.

 

[coffee4u]

So let's use them as see where it gets us. What were they?

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. :/

 

[Bradskii]

Confirmation bias, then. Seriously. You assume Darwinian Evolution, because this is what we now have and since there was only that amount of time for it to happen, there was enough time.

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.