Dogmatism

[Justatruthseeker]

Well... yes. One of the fundamental axioms of science is that all "truth" is to be held tentatively. Matt Dillahunty, for one, rejects absolute certainty as unattainable and ultimately rather useless. Not really controversial, that. The problem is people who take the step from "nothing is absolutely certain" to "we cannot know anything". We're constantly forced to draw conclusions based on incomplete information. However, just because we're not completely certain doesn't mean it's a good idea to, say, inject oneself with a virus that all available information implies is lethal on the off chance that every single scientific source is lying.

Nor would I accept a theory that is contrary to what is observed, when every time something predicted is studied in depth the theory turns out to be wrong. It doesn't mean it's a good idea to, say, accept any theory just because it is popular, when every discovery comes as a complete surprise, because the theory never predicted any such thing. In our cosmological and physical sciences people constantly ignore that the data is contrary to the basic observations - and only has a semblance of fit because first one must assume 95% ad-hoc assumptions and ignore the data that falsified almost every little part of it individually. Simply because science is in modern times segregated into specialties. These specialties prevent the rigorous cross-checking of science as in the past when a scientist knew enough about science to know if a theory was sound, not just one piece of it.

There can never be certainty in science. If we were absolutely certain, we would have a theory of everything. As long as there remains unknowns, or problems within the theory - there is always a possibility that the unknown can upset everything now believed. For example, we once believed the Milky-Way was the entire universe - it's those unknowns that have yet to be discovered that prevent anything from being a certainty.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nor would I accept a theory that is contrary to what is observed, when every time something predicted is studied in depth the theory turns out to be wrong.

Let's see what creationism predicts:

1. A lack of a nested hierarchy.

2. All rocks will date to near 0 years old when using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating.

3. There will be a worldwide sedimentary layer that dates young by those same techniques.

4. No fossils with a mixture of features from humans and apes.

I could name more. Each and every predictions made by young earth creationism is wrong, and yet you cling to it.

 

[The Cadet]

Let's see what creationism predicts:

1. A lack of a nested hierarchy.

2. All rocks will date to near 0 years old when using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating.

3. There will be a worldwide sedimentary layer that dates young by those same techniques.

4. No fossils with a mixture of features from humans and apes.

I could name more. Each and every predictions made by young earth creationism is wrong, and yet you cling to it.

Actually, it makes no such predictions. Rocks dating older than they are? God made them that way. Fossils with a mixture of features? God put them there. This is the problem with theism, as Sean Carroll so famously pointed out - it is ill-defined. It's trivially easy to reform the hypothesis to any set of conditions. It makes exactly zero testable predictions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, it makes no such predictions.

Sure it does. Creationists only started coming up with excuses after their predictions turned out to be wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's see what creationism predicts:

1. A lack of a nested hierarchy.

A nested hierarchy is an express prediction of creationism, since each kind and all the subdivision into breeds originated from an original pair. Who you trying to convince, yourself with that strawman?

All you got to is stop ignoring how animals reproduce, breed mates with breed and produces a new breed after a momentary period of flux, before it too becomes set.

2. All rocks will date to near 0 years old when using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating.

Why would all rocks date to zero unless they were created right this minute?

3. There will be a worldwide sedimentary layer that dates young by those same techniques.

Except sedimentary rocks can't be dated and you know this, but still choose to throw in a strawman.

4. No fossils with a mixture of features from humans and apes.

And that's why there isn't any - unless you want to consider Piltdown man one.

I could name more. Each and every predictions made by young earth creationism is wrong, and yet you cling to it.

And each and every one would be the same strawman as these were.

 

[The Cadet]

And that's why there isn't any - unless you want to consider Piltdown man one.

How 'bout Lucy? You know, the bipedal ape?

 

[Loudmouth]

A nested hierarchy is an express prediction of creationism, since each kind and all the subdivision into breeds originated from an original pair.

Then why would the kinds nest together if they don't share a common ancestor?

Why would all rocks date to zero unless they were created right this minute?

Why would any of them date to billions of years old? That wasn't predicted by creationism.

Except sedimentary rocks can't be dated and you know this, but still choose to throw in a strawman.

Igneous rocks above and below fossils can be dated. Do you really think that dinosaurs dug through layers of solid basalt in order to bury themselves as they die? Or do you think that the lava flows happened after the dinosaur was buried? If the lava flow came after, then the fossils are necessarily older than the lava flow, and would be younger than the lava flows below them in the geologic column.

And that's why there isn't any - unless you want to consider Piltdown man one.

Which one of these is Piltdown Man?

And each and every one would be the same strawman as these were.

None of them are strawmen. Creationism predicted exactly the opposite of what we discovered in science.

 

[USincognito]

2. All rocks will date to near 0 years old when using K/Ar, U/Pb, and Rb/Sr dating.

Why would all rocks date to zero unless they were created right this minute?

Another Dunning-Kruger moment from Jats. I'm shocked. Shocked!

Not that I think you'll understand, but U/Pb for example is used to date rocks 1 million years and older. If those rocks were 4,000 years or 6,000 years old then, when subjected to U/Pb testing, the results would be less than the reliability percentages or effectively 0.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then why would the kinds nest together if they don't share a common ancestor?

They don't - that is where you begin the imaginary gap game and missing link game, because you won't accept real life. Breed mating with breed producing a new breed. Not species mating with species producing new species.

Why would any of them date to billions of years old? That wasn't predicted by creationism.

Says who - those with pre-conceived beliefs when they translated the Bible into English? See attachment.

Igneous rocks above and below fossils can be dated. Do you really think that dinosaurs dug through layers of solid basalt in order to bury themselves as they die? Or do you think that the lava flows happened after the dinosaur was buried? If the lava flow came after, then the fossils are necessarily older than the lava flow, and would be younger than the lava flows below them in the geologic column.

Nope, but I sure believe in the time between their destruction and the present - many things happened. Remember - it is you that insist the earth is 6,000 years old - not me. It's not my fault radiocarbon dating is based upon Fermi's theory which was found to violate parity. It's not my fault they revised the weak theory into the electroweak theory, but left dating untouched - still under a theory known to be wrong.

Which one of these is Piltdown Man?

None of them are strawmen. Creationism predicted exactly the opposite of what we discovered in science.

All are strawmen, because all are classified incorrectly.

They are all human, or all apes - but none of them are ape-humans. Just different breeds of the same Kind that you mistake for different species - just like you still do with Darwin's Finches, even if we understand they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are one species. Don't try to blame me for your inability to distinguish between breeds and species, when you can't even distinguish between the same species.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

[/QUOTE]

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't -

They do. You don't get to ignore the evidence just because it is inconvenient.

Says who - those with pre-conceived beliefs when they translated the Bible into English?

You have never heard of young earth creationism?

Nope, but I sure believe in the time between their destruction and the present - many things happened. Remember - it is you that insist the earth is 6,000 years old - not me.

Show me a single post where I insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

It's not my fault radiocarbon dating is based upon Fermi's theory which was found to violate parity. It's not my fault they revised the weak theory into the electroweak theory, but left dating untouched - still under a theory known to be wrong.

None of which has to do with the radiometric dating of rocks.

All are strawmen, because all are classified incorrectly.

Evidence please.

They are all human, or all apes - but none of them are ape-humans. Just different breeds of the same Kind that you mistake for different species -

In your opinion, what features would a real transitional fossil have that these fossils lack? Until you answer the question, you have nothing but denial.

Don't try to blame me for your inability to distinguish between breeds and species, when you can't even distinguish between the same species.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

You just proved my point. None of those skulls were classified as H. sapiens. They were all classified as part of the transitional species H. erectus.


Which of those are dinosaurs?

 

[HitchSlap]

That world is the spirit world.

Hmm... I thought it was Neverland.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They do. You don't get to ignore the evidence just because it is inconvenient.

What evidence? That breed mates with breed and produces a new breed? That never does a new species enter into the equation?

You have never heard of young earth creationism?

What's that got to do with what we discuss, since I neither hold to that belief nor believe it has any Biblical support?

Show me a single post where I insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old.

You just asked have I never heard of YEC. If you are not implying the earth is 6,000 years old, why bring it up? Especially when you should know I don't follow that viewpoint at all.

None of which has to do with the radiometric dating of rocks.

If you say so. You continue to believe that being based upon a theory known to be wrong is still ok if you want.

Evidence please.

Just gave you evidence where you misclassified H. Erectus skulls. Misclassified baby dinosaurs as seperate species. And then showed you Darwin's Finches that each and every one interbreeds with the other. You just refuse to let yourself see the evidence, because then you might start to question your beliefs.

In your opinion, what features would a real transitional fossil have that these fossils lack? Until you answer the question, you have nothing but denial.

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil, so the question is moot. Just as there exists no transitional species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. When are you going to stop denying what is before your eyes in favor of something never observed?

You just proved my point. None of those skulls were classified as H. sapiens. They were all classified as part of the transitional species H. erectus.

Except H. Erectus is just another breed of human, just as H. Sapiens is. Just as Neanderthal is. Just as Chinese, or African or Caucasian is.

All depends on how the artist chooses to render such things.

Be that Neanderthal or H. Erectus.

Again, it's not my problem you can't distinguish between humans and apes. You still can't even get the same species correct when you got living breeding specimens in front of you.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence?

The morphological and genetic evidence. They form an objective nested hierarchy, and the same one at that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

That breed mates with breed and produces a new breed? That never does a new species enter into the equation?

Where did you show that a new species was never formed in the history of life?

If you say so. You continue to believe that being based upon a theory known to be wrong is still ok if you want.

14C is not used to date rocks that are millions of years old.

Just gave you evidence where you misclassified H. Erectus skulls.

None of which are H. sapiens skulls, all of which are transitional. 3 transitional skulls is 3 transitional skulls, no matter what name you put on them.

There is no such thing as a transitional fossil, so the question is moot.

This is yet another example of you running away from the facts. It is a fact that there are fossils with a mixture of features from two divergent taxa, which makes them transitional by definition.

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Just as there exists no transitional species between the Husky or Mastiff and the Chinook. When are you going to stop denying what is before your eyes in favor of something never observed?

What about between the wolf and the Husky? Where did the Husky come from? Why can you never answer this question?

Except H. Erectus is just another breed of human, just as H. Sapiens is.

It is a different SPECIES of human. It is a transitional species. Another breed of human would be H. sapiens, not H. erectus.

All depends on how the artist chooses to render such things.

I gave you the fossils, not artistic renderings.