Evolution Again!

[_DrW]

For those who might not remember; in December of 2012, there was an abiogenesis thread especially for Ceeboo. It can be accessed by the hotlink below.

Science vs. Religion and Magic (Abiogenesis for Ceeboo)

Anyone intent on doing another such thread might wish to save themselves some time by having a look back at that one.

[_Nightlion]

The fact that data from all of these various disciplines fit so nicely into a theory of evolution clearly indicates that something must be horribly wrong.

Call the Captain.

Each discipline is forced to validate evolution having to write analyze and expect evolutionary data......that is cooking the books and is acon and a great delusioal fraud all cults depend upon.

[_Bret Ripley]

The fact that data from all of these various disciplines fit so nicely into a theory of evolution clearly indicates that something must be horribly wrong.

Call the Captain.

Each discipline is forced to validate evolution having to write analyze and expect evolutionary data......that is cooking the books and is acon and a great delusioal fraud all cults depend upon.

[_Harold Lee]

I think Ceeboo has found his new avatar.

[Guest]

Morning CB...
Hope you're having a good day...
Luckily no plane has landed on my head yet. (And keeping my fingers crossed for the lottery...!)

"Spot on?"
I thought the story sucked, for what it's worth!

What - no points for artistic merit at least?
...boy - when Ceeboo regulates - he doesn't mess around...

No, my answer would be A.
There seems to be a plethora of challenges and limits on and with C-14 dating and Radiometric dating.

Ahh - ok.
Interesting.

That wasn't the answer I was expecting. Cool - I like getting surprised...

OK. So...

Before we get into some big back and forth evolutionist / creationist google search website battle over dating methods (which is of course fantastic fun for all the family...) I'm actually thinking the hypothetical question I dismissed back in the previous post is worth asking after all.
Or - well - maybe it is. We'll see I guess.

Here's the question:
Assume that - somehow - you were 'convinced' of the following 'facts' from the whale evolution graphic:

* All the creatures shown are 'real' creatures. (i.e. they are reasonable representations of creatures that either exist now, or ones that did exist in the past...)
* The dates assigned to each population of creatures are accurate. (On the scale indicated...)

If you were convinced of the above - I still wouldn't expect you to be forced to the conclusion that the evolution of the whale is 'fact'.
But is the 'probability' of it raised in any way at all? In your mind?

If no, then there's really no point trying to convince you of the reliability of any or all dating methods.
Cos - in the end - it doesn't matter to you anyway... right?

But if yes, then maybe you could clarify how much you think the probability would be raised in your mind? (A lot? A little? Barely?)
...and - well - then we'll see where the rabbit (or raccoon) hole goes...

[_Harold Lee]

Ceeboo, what are the limitations to C-14 and radiometric dating you mentioned?

I want to hear this in your own words, right now and before you have time to google and research it from some lunatic website, so I know this is concern based on your own understanding of the process and not just another excuse you're choosing to look for.

Don't- don't! No! Don't google it. What's the problem with radiometric dating?

[_Bazooka]

I think I dated her once...

[Guest]

Fellow evolutionists everywhere;

We have spared no expense in time and effort describing the water-tight case for evolution to our creationist friends, apparently to no avail. Perhaps we have been going about this in the wrong way.

I say it is now time to turn to an investigation of creationism itself - not some watered down rationalized hybrid version of Tobinism or bcspace creationism, but the original, genuine, bona fide, biblical, old time creationism. You know, the real thing.

The biblical creationism timeline below was put together by a mainstream scientist, Dr. Donald Wise, so that his colleagues everywhere could study and learn from it.



Dr. Wise developed a detailed manuscript describing the many learned and faithful explanations that "creation science" has come up with for the various data sets with which creationists everywhere struggle and for which they need to find alternative explanations.

Ceeboo and the other creationists on this board will find Dr. Wise's paper to be a well referenced, one stop shopping venue for all of their creationist explanation needs. The good Dr. has laid out 24 of the key creationist arguments in splendid detail.

No creationist worth his of her salt can afford not to read this work by a mainstream scientist. This are the best creation science excuses they are ever going to find, all in one place.

Here are a few samples:

Creationists rarely mention the Biblical tale of Joshua keeping the sun from setting (Joshua 10:12-13) while the Israelites took vengeance on the Canaanite kings. Velikovsky (1950) proposed that a few thousand years ago a comet, later to become the planet Venus, was ejected from Jupiter to do a near miss of the earth, stopping the earth's rotation and the sun's apparent motion while Joshua directed the continuing battle. Just how the earth's rotation was restarted is never mentioned. Velikovsky has been so thoroughly debated and refuted that it seems pointless to restate all the arguments and his faulty data. Many of the arguments can be found in Goldsmith (1977), Bauer (1985), and Morrison and Chapman (1990).

This explanation of the stationary sun phenomenon, which sounds a bit like Tobinism, is also offered from a slightly different perspective. Please remember that the author quoted here is a respected creation scientist.

"Since the earth rotates on its axis, the sun could only be made to 'stand still' relative to earth by stopping earth's rotation." ... "This was surely a unique miracle, but not beyond the capabilities of the Creator of the sun and moon and planets. He started their motions,has maintained them through the ages, and is able to change them at will."

Finally, from the conclusions section of the Dr. Wise manuscript, a sobering thought for the non-creationists among us:

Only now is the scientific community coming to recognize that while the battles against Creationism in the last decade may have been won in the courts, the war itself is in serious danger of being lost in the present court of public opinion and media nonsense.

The warnings of the late Carl Sagan (1996) in "The Demon-haunted World" are a clear wake-up call for all of us. The statement by the American Geophysical Union (1994) is unambiguous: "The council of the AGU notes with concern the continuing efforts by Creationists for administrative, legislative and judicial actions designed to require or promote the teaching of Creationism as a scientific theory. The AGU is opposed to all efforts to require or promote the teaching of Creationism or any other religious tenets as science."

Kraus (1996) may have made the best statement in a New York Times Op Ed piece: "The increasingly blatant nature of the nonsense uttered with impunity in public discourse is chilling. Our democratic society is imperiled as much by this as any other single threat, regardless of whether the origins of the nonsense are religious fanaticism, simple ignorance, or personal gain."

Ceeboo, humor and fun aside, beliefs have consequences. The consequences of false beliefs on a society can be, and often are, horrific.

[_Harold Lee]

Not interested. :)

To be honest it wasn't just about Ceeboo (sorry!), it was a chance to talk about things that are interesting and maybe bounce understandings of things around and build on them.

The burden of proof is going to rest on whichever creationist stands by their religious sentiments. If they want to try to overthrow 200 years of science with words on an internet forum without first learning said science, by posting religiously motivated lunatics desperate excuses. It's been enough work just defining the case, presenting examples, and answering questions (often the same ones several times), let the creationists explain their own this time.

[_DrW]

Not interested. :)

To be honest it wasn't just about Ceeboo (sorry!), it was a chance to talk about things that are interesting and maybe bounce understandings of things around and build on them.

The burden of proof is going to rest on whichever creationist stands by their religious sentiments. If they want to try to overthrow 200 years of science with words on an internet forum without first learning said science, by posting religiously motivated lunatics desperate excuses. It's been enough work just defining the case, presenting examples, and answering questions (often the same ones several times), let the creationists explain their own this time.

Harold,

In case you haven't noticed. Ceeboo just asks questions. He does not seem interested in providing any reasonable alternatives to evolutionary theory. Like most creationists when it comes to evolution, Ceeboo just says nah-uh and leaves it at that.

Nothing any of the evolutionists have said, no data they have presented, no logical case they have built, has had any apparent effect on the unfounded views of the creationists.

I say it is time to start talking about creationism. Lay out the ridiculous, illogical, demonstrably false, and delusional tenets of "creation science" for all to see. Show the creationist case for the delusional fantasy that it is, and let the creationists defend it.

On the other hand, perhaps you are right. I can imagine that the response to one who laid out the creationist position in too much detail would be the Tobin maneuver - just hit the "ignore" switch.