Richard Dawkins disappoints again

[Job 33:6]

Here is actually a cross section from the region.

siltstones
limestones
siltstones
red-brown fine grained sandstons
conglomeratic sandstone, petrified wood/ above unconformity.
more reddish sandstone, unconformity
cross bedded sandstones
channel sandstone
high angle cross beds
calcareous limestone
evaporite deposits
redbrown silts
more evaporite beds near the top.


This complexity with such fine barriers between layers, could never be created by a global flood. There is just no feasible way to logically explain this from a 6000 year/giant flood view.

And still, high energy flood waters, would not meander.

 

[Job 33:6]

Maybe some part of it is, but anyone with an unbiased mind will know from the looks and the cut away surface (even the layers matches the other bank), that the core of it is the original rock, not deposited sediment, which can't grow as ordinal meander.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UDP89nLl...bend-colorado-river-grand-canyon-arizona1.jpg

huh? I dont think you understand what is being said. The Colorado river that currently flows is not responsible for depositing mesozoic stone. Because the river is far younger than that. The layers are from older, ancient rivers, and many other things.

As others have said, and as I will say, if you look at your picture, you can see deposits from the Colorado river right there in the photo. However, the river is incised, its sediments are being washed down stream and are deposited in the Colorado river delta.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also dcalling, I recommend re reading post #199 regarding the kayenta formation. Short distance lenticular, rounded deposits. These are stream deposits right there cemented in stone. A global flood is hypothetically something of extraordinary high energy. If a global flood happened, You would have more fractured brecciated deposits than rounded short distance lacustrine and stream deposits.

 

[Job 33:6]

But again back to the original point, meanders are the product of low energy stream.

 

[dcalling]

huh? I dont think you understand what is being said. The Colorado river that currently flows is not responsible for depositing mesozoic stone. Because the river is far younger than that. The layers are from older, ancient rivers, and many other things.

As others have said, and as I will say, if you look at your picture, you can see deposits from the Colorado river right there in the photo. However, the river is incised, its sediments are being washed down stream and are deposited in the Colorado river delta.

Does not make sense, as the layers looks uniform so unless there is either a global flood or it is the original shell of the earth, it won't be formed that way.

As you said meanders are product of low energy stream, how did low engery stream form such huge layers?

 

[dcalling]

No, that's very wrong. There are dozens of mutations in humans for almost every gene locus. And since humans are descended from a single pair, anything more than four of those alleles came about by mutation.



There are no biological human races, since there is more genetic variation within any sort of "race" you might define, than there is between "races." However, there are many, many genetic variations in different populations. Would you like me to show you some of them?



Lots of mutations, no population crashes. You likely have a few dozen that didn't exist in either of your parents.



Perhaps you don't know what "assumption" means. Science works by inferences from evidence. As you know, there is abundant evidence for these mutations.

I not sure sure what do you mean by some of those, some of the stuff you talked about we might agree on.

When you say "since humans are descended from a single pair", do you mean adam/eve? Are you agreeing on God created human race?

 

[The Barbarian]

I not sure sure what do you mean by some of those, some of the stuff you talked about we might agree on.

Ask me, and we can talk about it.

When you say "since humans are descended from a single pair", do you mean adam/eve?

Yes. Ironically, the fact of Adam and Eve is a strong argument for evolution.

Are you agreeing on God created human race?

Yep. God created all things. Creationists just don't accept the way He did it.

 

[Mountainmike]

But then Dawkins is not a scientist.
Indeed he is an affront to scientific method.


He takes a faith baised a apriori paradigm " life is a chemical accident, consciousness a chemical process" and then views the entire world through that lens, accepting only evidence that fits his faith in atheism, his conclusions are all " confirmation bias"

He believes in the same folly that Sagan did" extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence" which is the very antithesis of science because extraordinary is subjective, and it allows him to raise the evidentiary bar against evidence he doesn't like, and lower it to things he does like.

He has used the word theory of abiogenesis before now, and that " the theory of evolution is as close to a fact as you can get" etc

But for a real scientist ( I was such) abiogenesis does not even make it as a valid hypothesis even, It does not repeat, it cannot be repeated, and no known model exists for it. So there is no experiment that can test it , which is the very minimum you need to be a hypothesis, and you cannot have a theory until you have a hypothesis. That is the verdict of true scientific method.

So what is abiogenesis? It is pure conjecture. It is actually the name for a gaping hole in a paradigm of life as a chemical accident.

And what of the theory of evolution? No such theory exists I'm proper scientific form. It is the name for a ragbag of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture to paper over cracks that the form the paradigm I gave above , contains theories In such as molecular and mendeleevian genetics, A nd archeology. and wide ranging hypotheses such as Common descent.
So how can it be a true theory , if it is not a single theory?

It is disgraceful that Dawkins presents as fact to lay people Issues in such as quantum chemistry ( the likelihood of chemical accidents) when all he says radiates he knows nothing about it

In this instance it is extraordinary he uses the speed of dog development, when it was the product of intelligent design! That is man using observation of genetic process to achieve genetic traits, so not random. At all.

The argument that observing progress from small movement explaining long journeys in genetic development is the same intellectual absurdity as saying that walking a mile on the earth gets you closer to the moon, or the sun so walk far enough in the right direction. and you will get all the way to the moon, Any mathematical and physics modeller knows just how silly that is in the general case.

You only have to see Dawkins response to the concrete evidence of ( for example) telepathy way beyond statistical significance , and see him attempt debunk it without even discussing or even looking at the evidence, to know he is not a scientist. He views it all ( in that case) through apriori.faith as consciousness as a chemical process, so for him, it cannot be, so he attempts to debunk it without a single word on the evidence,

The man is a disgrace.

The fact is there is substantial forensic evidence that passes Darwins own stated test, that Darwin himself claims DISPROVES his own ( he calls) theory! That too ought to interest Dawkins. But it won't, it doesn't fit his apriori world view. A subject for another thread.

Atheism is such a strong faith, it blinds those scientists that hold it.

Well, I took to keeping up on my evolution once again and recently (well, last year) purchased a used copy of Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. Dawkins is obviously the well-known evolutionist spouting what he thinks is conclusive proof of evolution when my opinion is that it is not. Dawkins, in one of his chapters, talks about evolution we can observe (the origin of new breeds of dogs, for instance) and everything he talks about can be understood as a change within "kinds" (to use the Biblical phrase) or perhaps change within species, if you like. Then Dawkins nails it down. Dawkins suggests that if we just extrapolate the evolution he believes in will happen. Quoting Dawkins:

"What lessons do we learn from the domestication of the dog? First, the great variety among the breeds of dogs . . . demonstrates how easily it is for the non-random selection of genes – the ‘carving and whittling’ of gene pools – to produce truly dramatic changes in anatomy and behaviour, [sic] and so fast – the difference between breeds so dramatic – that you might expect their evolution to take millions of years instead of just a matter of centuries. If so much evolutionary change can be achieved in just a few centuries or even decades, just think what might be achieved in ten or a hundred million years"

Well, by golly, this evolution is sure impressive. But then again, if you extrapolate anything you are bound to find the evidence you seek. Maybe after millions of years all the dogs will be just different breeds of dogs and not undergo changes wider than that. We wouldn't know from Dawkins who just assumes evolution can produce whatever he demands. How about opera singing unicorns? Betcha evolution can produce that too if we just give it millions of years. Dawkins gives us no reason to think his extrapolate argument is correct other than assuming the fact of evolution.

In my library I have a book by Norman Macbeth who, back in the 1970s, surveys the evolutionist literature and found evolutionist Ernst Mayr who said animals have a resistance to change Mayr calls “genetic homeostasis.” Mayr is further quoted by Macbeth as saying "Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability. . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment.” This book, quoted by lawyer Phillip Johnson in his book Darwin on Trial, should be known by Dawkins but Dawkins doesn't mention any such claims about the limits of evolution. Mayr is not the only evolutionist to point out such limits either. Why? Probably because Dawkins doesn't want to believe such limits exist. BTW Macbeth's book is Darwin Retried.

That's not the only problem with Dawkins, but that should get you going on doubts about Dawkins.

 

[dcalling]

Yes. Ironically, the fact of Adam and Eve is a strong argument for evolution.

Do you mean God created Adam/Eve or God evolved Adam/Eve from something else?

Yep. God created all things. Creationists just don't accept the way He did it.

Or you can't accept some of the ways God did it.

I think you are talking about God designed a code that can self replicate and mutate and God envisoned that the thing He created will eventually evolved to the current forms.

I am curious to know if you think God only kick start the life with one strand of DNA, or multiple strands?

And by the way, if you think God created all things, then you are a creationist as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Does not make sense, as the layers looks uniform so unless there is either a global flood or it is the original shell of the earth, it won't be formed that way.

As you said meanders are product of low energy stream, how did low engery stream form such huge layers?

There's a difference between what is seen by tourists with the naked eye, and what is actually present in the grand canyon. The grand canyon is far more complex than layers of a single flood could ever be. Though nobody would ever know that without something like a cross section.

A global flood could not form the above formations, not by a long shot.


The kayenta formation, among others in this cross section, in part comprise of "lenticular deposits, uneven at their tops and discontinuous within short distances".

You asked "how did low energy stream form such huge layers?".

The answer is that the stream deposits are only responsible for a small portion of the canyon. They are "discontinuous within short distances".

Understand that hundreds of millions of years have passed, recorded at the grand canyon. There are layers in the cross section above that have been deposited by wind, there are lake deposits, there are oceanic transgression and regression deposits, there are cross beds, there are lenticular river deposits, there are evaporites, there are deep marine limestone deposits, there are shallow marine mudstones and shales, conglomerates, ancient forests.

The sequence consist of a wide array of independent, and unique layers, deposited by unique environments over hundreds of millions of years.

The stream post-dates the deposition, cementation and formation of these layers, and so the Colorado river, itself, did not form all of the layers that it runs through.

You might ask, well how do meanders form if the river did not make all layers. The answer is that an incised river doesn't need to deposit 5000 foot tall point bars, as it is uplifted and eroding pre-existing land at excelled rates.

 

[Job 33:6]

And what of the theory of evolution? No such theory exists I'm proper scientific form. It is the name for a ragbag of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture to paper over cracks that the form the paradigm I gave above , contains theories In such as molecular and mendeleevian genetics, A nd archeology. and wide ranging hypotheses such as Common descent.
So how can it be a true theory , if it is not a single theory?

You know someone doesnt know what they're talking about when they bring archaeology to the table regarding evolution and genetics.

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you mean God created Adam/Eve or God evolved Adam/Eve from something else?

Two ways of saying the same thing.

I think you are talking about God designed a code

It's blasphemous to accuse God of merely "designing." Design is what limited creatures do. God is the Creator.

that can self replicate and mutate and God envisoned that the thing He created will eventually evolved to the current forms.

Do you think God envisioned you before your particular set of alleles came to be?

I am curious to know if you think God only kick start the life with one strand of DNA, or multiple strands?

Since God says the earth, air, and waters brought forth life, it would have to be a lot simpler than that.

And by the way, if you think God created all things, then you are a creationist as well.

In common use, "creationist" has come to mean "someone who refuses to accept evolution."

 

[Mountainmike]

You know someone doesnt know what they're talking about when they bring archaeology to the table regarding evolution and genetics.

Now I suggest you read what I said.
You will find nothing but good science in my post.

And since you are seemingly unaware, one aspect of the evidence used for the hypothesis common descent is the fossil record.
I did not conflate that with genetics. I pointed out correctly that the so called theory of evolution is a ragbag of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture drawn from a variety of disciplines, naming a couple, not a single choseive theory,as Dawkins would have you believe.

 

[Job 33:6]

Now I suggest you read what I said.
You will find nothing but good science in my post.

And since you are seemingly unaware, one aspect of the evidence used for the hypothesis common descent is the fossil record.
I did not conflate that with genetics. I pointed out correctly that the so called theory of evolution is a ragbag of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture drawn from a variety of disciplines, naming a couple, not a single choseive theory,as Dawkins would have you believe.

Last I checked, archaeology works predominantly with remains of human history and artifacts. Archaeology hardly operates in the fossil record. At best archaeologists may work with recent hominids and their artifacts. However, paleontology is far more applicable when discussing common descent of life, as it deals with fossil going back to common ancestors of all currently living beings. Yet you made no mention of paleontology, only archaeology. Hence my response.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now I suggest you read what I said.
You will find nothing but good science in my post.

He's quite right; there is nothing in archaeology that speaks to evolution. Physical anthropology, yes. And most all major theories have various subsidiary theories. Darwin's four points, which remain true, have been supplemented by genetics, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theories, and so on.

Quantum theory has pretty much the same situation, as does kinetic theory, which is the basis of modern chemistry.

And since you are seemingly unaware, one aspect of the evidence used for the hypothesis common descent is the fossil record.

You seem to have confused paleontology with archaeology.

I did not conflate that with genetics. I pointed out correctly that the so called theory of evolution is a ragbag of theories

As you just learned, most functional theories are like that. Because they explain as well as predict, they produce a host of new questions that will eventually result in other theories. Would you like some more examples?

 

[dcalling]

There's a difference between what is seen by tourists with the naked eye, and what is actually present in the grand canyon. The grand canyon is far more complex than layers of a single flood could ever be. Though nobody would ever know that without something like a cross section.

A global flood could not form the above formations, not by a long shot.


The kayenta formation, among others in this cross section, in part comprise of "lenticular deposits, uneven at their tops and discontinuous within short distances".

You asked "how did low energy stream form such huge layers?".

The answer is that the stream deposits are only responsible for a small portion of the canyon. They are "discontinuous within short distances".

Understand that hundreds of millions of years have passed, recorded at the grand canyon. There are layers in the cross section above that have been deposited by wind, there are lake deposits, there are oceanic transgression and regression deposits, there are cross beds, there are lenticular river deposits, there are evaporites, there are deep marine limestone deposits, there are shallow marine mudstones and shales, conglomerates, ancient forests.

The sequence consist of a wide array of independent, and unique layers, deposited by unique environments over hundreds of millions of years.

The stream post-dates the deposition, cementation and formation of these layers, and so the Colorado river, itself, did not form all of the layers that it runs through.

You might ask, well how do meanders form if the river did not make all layers. The answer is that an incised river doesn't need to deposit 5000 foot tall point bars, as it is uplifted and eroding pre-existing land at excelled rates.

None of the above can explain how water can cut through all that rock and form a meander like that, specifically not the way how meanders are formed in your video.

Most of the meander is much more likely formed by earth movement, and water just played assistent role, and not the primary role.

 

[dcalling]

Two ways of saying the same thing.



It's blasphemous to accuse God of merely "designing." Design is what limited creatures do. God is the Creator.



Do you think God envisioned you before your particular set of alleles came to be?



Since God says the earth, air, and waters brought forth life, it would have to be a lot simpler than that.



In common use, "creationist" has come to mean "someone who refuses to accept evolution."

I agree with most of what you said (I think we are likely have in common on most of the stuff) except the last sentence.

We both agree that God created all, and that God knows us before we are born (I am going to assume this from what you said).

We disagree on what God created directly and what part God allowed the parameters to change in his design. I can actually accept (with enough evidence) that God created things by allow them to mutate.

However one part I am not sure is, do you think we (the humans) evolved from primates, or God simply used existing DNA libraries to create Adam/Eve. I think (maybe I am wrong) that you hold the first view but I am not sure any more since you said there are only Adam/Even initially.

 

[mathinspiration]

Mister Gould actually stick to science unlike Dawkins who seems to prefer to disapprove God and religion more than actual evolutionary biologist and ethmology. I suppose religion is easier to debate against than the study of life and animal behavior. Finding the reasons for man-eating is too dangerous of topic for him to study.

 

[Mountainmike]

You are of course totally wrong to challenge me,
I mention archeology because the biggest interest of evolutionists is in human development, and genetics from homo erectus, earlier Neanderthal etc and that branch of descent in very recent history, which generally falls under the term "archeology" or if you like anthropology. How humans themselves have developed. , Before that palaeontology for presumed descent of primates, in the same assumed line.


And why all the focus on that one word?
What I said in generality was true?

The prime issue I made was scientific. There is not a single theory of evolution. It is a mush of more or less proven , some hypothetical , others pure conjecture,

Dawkins imprecise language betrays his attempt to perform deliberate sleight of hand, and pretend his " faith" in life as an unguided chemical accident which he misrepresents as a single theory , so to is somehow proven, which he does by grouping his conjecture with other better defined theories of genetics.

I also made the point that Dawkins is stupid to use dogs genetic traits as example since they were the product of intelligent design! Man developed them using genetics and trial and error, from wolves. I suggest all agree, since it is provable from history!

And as for the last mischevious statement I made, that is also true.
Darwin said "if any life was discovered that could be shown to be not the product of small change it would disprove his theory " or similar words.

The demonstrable white cells that accompany myocardium and human blood in Eucharistic miracles - are evidence of life from other than small change, since they are known to lyse and dissolve in vitro. Yet there they are years on, in defiance of science,And there is far more professional forensic evidence of life appearing that way, tixtla, buenos airies, sokolka , legnica etc than there is for abiogenesis, which remains an invalid hypothesis.

So the evidence we have supports darwins repudiation of his own theory, not abiogenesis, which is not even a hypothesis.

It is the duty of a scientist to follow evidenc, not as Dawkins does to force his paradigm on the evidence, ignoring that which does not agree , dismissing it as pseudoscience ( as he does with telepathy)

And Dawkins assertions about chance from quantum chemistry remain as proof that he has no idea what he is talking about, but his sycophants love him for it.

I like precise science which is rare to see on forums,


I suggest all of you study science. Not Dawkins.
What defines a hypothesis and theory, to show Dawkins faith in atheism has blinded him, and see I was right.

He's quite right; there is nothing in archaeology that speaks to evolution. Physical anthropology, yes. And most all major theories have various subsidiary theories. Darwin's four points, which remain true, have been supplemented by genetics, punctuated equilibrium, neutral theories, and so on.

Quantum theory has pretty much the same situation, as does kinetic theory, which is the basis of modern chemistry.



You seem to have confused paleontology with archaeology.



As you just learned, most functional theories are like that. Because they explain as well as predict, they produce a host of new questions that will eventually result in other theories. Would you like some more examples?

 

[Job 33:6]

None of the above can explain how water can cut through all that rock and form a meander like that, specifically not the way how meanders are formed in your video.

Most of the meander is much more likely formed by earth movement, and water just played assistent role, and not the primary role.

Now you are just blaming me for your inability to understand. Somehow you don't seem to be able to understand how water can erode rock, and somehow you perhaps think that earthquakes make meanders.