Ever the Expert

[USincognito]

Now hold on there, you can't account for all observations in the evolution area either.

Could you cite a few?

Note that it isn't enough to point to a handfull of observations which support it; if observations falsify the theory, then it is wrong and will never be plausible.

Which is what the PRATT list is all about. The arguments presented by creationists in an attempt to falsify evolution tend to be either:

- Quote mining, which doesn't effect the evidence.
- Misunderstandings, like the 2LoT argument.
- Wrong, like claims of mammoths with fresh daisies in their mouths.
- Irrelevant, like Cosmological or Astrophyical issues.

The same applies to their few observations that supposedly evidence YEC (the most egregious being the fossils on mountains proves the Flood).

Of course there are areas of incompleteness. Xeno's paradox aside, we could always use more fossils to help fill in the gaps. There remain questions about the precise mechanisms of evolution, and whether views like gradualism, punctuated equillibrium or a third option are correct, but the basic theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin remains unfalsified.

 

[michabo]

Now hold on there, you can't account for all observations in the evolution area either.

Not all possible observations may be accounted for by evolution, but that comes with falsifiability. However, to my knowledge, all observations that have been made, have supported and not falsified evolution.

If you can think of examples of observations which are incompatible with evolution, then I would like to hear of them.

 

[Aron-Ra]

the bible is the only evidence we need , it is GODS PERFECT WORD, however I will refrain from making this post too long and detailed since I seem to offend everyone and break the rules I guess. All the evidence is in GOds Word.
i dont trust sources from mans fallible thinking becuase tis non christian and naturaly because of our sin nature.
it is anti-God and atheist. If the evidence contradicts the bible, it is false. Simple as that, I wish people were more unbias and open minded to this possibility. We must approach the evidence with an open mind and the possiblity that God created the universe useing Creationism

Is there any wonder why I say that creationism/faith = insanity?

Sanity: (n.) s

n

-t

1. soundness of judgment, logic, or reason.
2. reasonable; having the ability to reason, and to be reasoned with.
3. having a rational mental state.
4. unimpaired perception, free from delusions or other mental disorders.
5. Sensible, capable of understanding / objective rationale.
6. mentally sound; neither mad nor raving.
7. Coherent; consistent, intelligible, free from contradiction.
8. Capable of analytical deduction or logic, and of making sense.
9. especially : able to anticipate and appraise the effect of one's actions.
[this applies to comments too, folks]

I see none of the above in the previous post.
If anyone else does, please point it out to me.

 

[Vance]

And would you look at it with an open mind?

Actually, I approached from the YEC perspective. This meant that I had to take the time to undo the damage that teaching had been done in order to accept the overwhelming nature of the evidence.

Of those YEC's who truly approach the evidence afresh with an open mind, 88.34% end up abandoning YEC.

[entirely made up statistic]

 

[Dragar]

1. soundness of judgment, logic, or reason.

Sure there is.

Logic only works on premises. If you take your literal interpretation of the Bible as 'true', due to whatever - religious experience, perhaps? - then you're always going to come to the conclusion that evolution is false - no matter what evidence is brought to the table.

There are an infinite number of explanations for the data, after all, which can be logically coherent.

 

[HRE]

Actually, Vance said what I was thinking but hadn't said yet. I was a gung-ho YECist, but I wound up dropping it like a hot potatoe when I started to debate it. I don't like feeling like my position is made of quickly eroding sand when I debate.

OnceDecieved, why don't you show me some evidence for YECism, or even just a global flood that cannot be more simply and adequately explained by evolution and an old earth. We'll go from there.

 

[Aron-Ra]

1. soundness of judgment, logic, or reason.

I see none of the above in the previous post.
If anyone else does, please point it out to me.

Sure there is.

Logic only works on premises. If you take your literal interpretation of the Bible as 'true', due to whatever - religious experience, perhaps? - then you're always going to come to the conclusion that evolution is false - no matter what evidence is brought to the table.

There are an infinite number of explanations for the data, after all, which can be logically coherent.

Then let me hear one. Try explaining why we are apes? Or try to join meteorology or cosmology or whatever evidence you can to what the Bible says the firmament is. Perhaps you could explain to me, coherently and consistently, the concept of death as it relates to the story of the Garden of Eden; or perhaps you could explain how Genesis is somehow more accurate than Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the collection of other much more ancient pagan fables of Canaanite, Chaldean, and Hebrew polytheism, the very ancestors of the Biblical authors. And whatever explanation you give, for whichever subject, remember that to be coherent and consistent, it must be able to withstand close inspection and a bit of scrutiny. I'd like to see you do it. Because in all my years of debating this topic on this and other forums, no one has ever given me an example of any one of this "infinite number", regardless of the subject of discussion. For instance, in your example here, I remind you that taking any position as 'absolutely true' no matter what, ...deciding in advance to lock into your preconceived and apriori notion, ...defend that from a position of ignorance, ...and never change your mind, regardless of what unknown facts may be brought to bare... -is already an unsound judgment, literally against both logic and reason.

You can't seek the truth if you can't admit that you don't already know it.

 

[Deamiter]

Um... I think you just fell into a bit of a trap there -- there ARE an infinite number of explanations that are logically consistant with any evidence. That naturally stems from the fact that there are an infinite number of assumptions you can make about the universe. The tricky part is making assumptions that fit with the data which THEN lead to conclusions that are logically consistant...

 

[Norseman]

the bible is the only evidence we need , it is GODS PERFECT WORD, however I will refrain from making this post too long and detailed since I seem to offend everyone and break the rules I guess. All the evidence is in GOds Word.
i dont trust sources from mans fallible thinking becuase tis non christian and naturaly because of our sin nature.
it is anti-God and atheist. If the evidence contradicts the bible, it is false. Simple as that, I wish people were more unbias and open minded to this possibility. We must approach the evidence with an open mind and the possiblity that God created the universe useing Creationism

Do you think God magically penned the Bible himself, or do you think there were some fallible humans along the way who were inpsired by him?

 

[Mistermystery]

Actually, I approached from the YEC perspective. This meant that I had to take the time to undo the damage that teaching had been done in order to accept the overwhelming nature of the evidence.

Of those YEC's who truly approach the evidence afresh with an open mind, 88.34% end up abandoning YEC.

[entirely made up statistic]

58% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Kripost]

58% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Heehee... I appreciate irony.

 

[Dragar]

Then let me hear one. Try explaining why we are apes?

God wanted things that way, obviously.

Or try to join meteorology or cosmology or whatever evidence you can to what the Bible says the firmament is.

Could be lots of reasons. God might have changed things around. Perhaps the Bible was speaking figuratively in that passage.

Perhaps you could explain to me, coherently and consistently, the concept of death as it relates to the story of the Garden of Eden; or perhaps you could explain how Genesis is somehow more accurate than Enuma Elish, Atrahasis, and the collection of other much more ancient pagan fables of Canaanite, Chaldean, and Hebrew polytheism, the very ancestors of the Biblical authors.

The theist could easily respond with personal, mystical experience which gave them reasons to think the Bible was the divine revelation of God.

And whatever explanation you give, for whichever subject, remember that to be coherent and consistent, it must be able to withstand close inspection and a bit of scrutiny. I'd like to see you do it. Because in all my years of debating this topic on this and other forums, no one has ever given me an example of any one of this "infinite number", regardless of the subject of discussion. For instance, in your example here, I remind you that taking any position as 'absolutely true' no matter what, ...deciding in advance to lock into your preconceived and apriori notion, ...defend that from a position of ignorance, ...and never change your mind, regardless of what unknown facts may be brought to bare... -is already an unsound judgment, literally against both logic and reason.

That's right. Most people do this. The problem is that you can't alter someone's view by presenting contradicting observations, because there's always some ad hoc justification. Heck, we can even posit unknown reasons.

Let's take the example (which I think I first read in something of Zoot's, but works quite well to illustrate my point - so I'm borrowing it, and giving him the credit) of the belief that everyone in the world is happy. If I take this as true, and I come across someone crying, what might I think? Well, they must be tears of joy, obviously. If they tell me they're sad, what might I think? Oh, they're joking! It's just the sort of joke a happy person would be playing. Or maybe they're happy but they don't realise!

I can probably explain away every observation, eventually. Or at the very least, say 'I don't know, but there must be some reason. I just don't know.' And the problem with that one is, nobody can criticise the reasons - since nobody knows what it is!

You don't challenge the belief that everyone is happy by pointing out unexplained observations. You challenge how they reached that belief in the first place.

You can't seek the truth if you can't admit that you don't already know it.

Totally agree.

 

[JohnR7]

Perhaps others (even myself) are guilty of doing the same, however the difference I notice with the evolutionists, is that we tend to put forth a significant amount of evidence and analysis of the evidence, and this is something I think is lacking from the creationist side.

I don't think so, I put in huge amounts of research time, I present tons of scientific evidence. But time and again evolutionists skim over the data and reject it because it does not fit into their pet theory.

Also, creationists tend to look at the things that have been falsified or were just plain nonsense to begin with. Evolutionists tend to look at the things that have not yet been falsifed, but of course it is just a matter of time before evolutionary theory is thrown away and replaced with something else.

Like tissue and toilet paper, modern evolutionary theory is disposable and easy to replace.

 

[JohnR7]

Try explaining why we are apes?

Actually, we keep trying to explain to you what the difference is between man and the apes. But evolutionists do not seem to think there is a difference. This is where so many evolutionists deny God, because the difference between man and the ape is the relationship they have with God.

Of course for those that do not have a relationship with God, then maybe they are right, they are little more than any other animal. Still, fallen man has a potention of being more than a ape, because they have the potential of having a living, walking, talking relationship with their creator. This is something the ape will never have.

 

[h2whoa]

Actually, we keep trying to explain to you what the difference is between man and the apes. But evolutionists do not seem to think there is a difference. This is where so many evolutionists deny God, because the difference between man and the ape is the relationship they have with God.

Of course for those that do not have a relationship with God, then maybe they are right, they are little more than any other animal. Still, fallen man has a potention of being more than a ape, because they have the potential of having a living, walking, talking relationship with their creator. This is something the ape will never have.

I understand what you are saying John. And I think that there are very few people, theists and atheists alike, who would argue that humans do differ from all other creatures in terms of abstract thought etc. However, this becomes a philosophical question.

The question at issue, in its simplest form, is morpholical and anatomical in nature. It is hard not to classify humans as apes when you look at it in these terms.

h2

 

[JohnR7]

The question at issue, in its simplest form, is morpholical and anatomical in nature. It is hard not to classify humans as apes when you look at it in these terms.h2

Again, that is the main point of contention. Creationists are trying to show that man is more or at least has the potential of being more than a brute beast. Evolutions far to often want to reduce man to being nothing more than an ape.

Also, creationists know that we live in a fallen world. They know we have to look at God's origional plan and purpose and His desire to redeem and restore this world to His purpose. Evolutionists far to often totally disregard that this is a fallen world and in need of redemption.

 

[Mistermystery]

I don't think so, I put in huge amounts of research time, I present tons of scientific evidence.

Oh you mean like the ice-core thing where you investegated your claim soooo well? Were I even gave you the oppurtunity to mail to a person at that insititute to get your pictures, and you refused to mail him?

Oh yeah, huge amount of time and research.

 

[Tomk80]

John, do you agree that humans are mammals? If you do agree, why do you not agree that humans are also apes. We are classified as apes because we share characteristics with other apes, like chimps, bonobos and gorillas. We also have a number of characteristics which set us apart from chimps, bonobos and gorillas, just as gorillas have a number of traits which set them apart from chimps, bonobos and us. That is why we are humans, and apes, and mammals and eukaryotes. What is so hard to understand about this.

 

[JGMEERT]

I don't think so, I put in huge amounts of research time, I present tons of scientific evidence. But time and again evolutionists skim over the data and reject it because it does not fit into their pet theory.

Also, creationists tend to look at the things that have been falsified or were just plain nonsense to begin with. Evolutionists tend to look at the things that have not yet been falsifed, but of course it is just a matter of time before evolutionary theory is thrown away and replaced with something else.

Like tissue and toilet paper, modern evolutionary theory is disposable and easy to replace.

JM: What sort of research do you conduct? What data have you presented and in what journals might I be able to read about your research? What has been the response to your research in the published scientific literature? What is the focus of your research at the moment?

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Tomk80]

What is disstressing to me is that the number of creationists who react exactly as predicted by the OP. Are they really blind?

However, I've seen the same in another thread started by oncedeceived, where he complained about being put in a box. In stead of people asking why he thinks he does not belong in the box, or explaining why they put him there in the first place, they started demarcating the box oncedeceived was put in and asserting why he was wrong (without knowing at that time what his specific problem with the box was). To me, the reaction looked remarkably similar.