My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Maksutov »

Franktalk wrote:
Themis wrote:I understand you don't want to supply any evidence, and I am not saying you have to. You don't really have any evidence other then the thoughts that you ponder or maybe sensation experiences you have and interpret the way you want. This is not really good evidence that your ponderings and interpretions are correct about some other realities that might exist. This is why you don't give any details of why you think certain ideas are correct.


I don't think evidence is required. There is no tangible evidence for the scriptures yet many believe. Socrates wrote about his ponderings and they are still read today. So your comments lack a normal world view. Things of worth do not require evidence.

Do you not laugh at jokes? When you hear a sad story do you feel sad? It is all part of the human condition. A condition you appear to reject.


We laugh at your deepities, Frank. They're the biggest joke on the board. Thanks!

"Things of worth do not require evidence." :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: "normal world view" :lol: :lol: :lol:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

Themis wrote:I understand you don't want to supply any evidence, and I am not saying you have to. You don't really have any evidence other then the thoughts that you ponder or maybe sensation experiences you have and interpret the way you want. This is not really good evidence that your ponderings and interpretions are correct about some other realities that might exist. This is why you don't give any details of why you think certain ideas are correct.


Franktalk wrote:I don't think evidence is required. There is no tangible evidence for the scriptures yet many believe. Socrates wrote about his ponderings and they are still read today. So your comments lack a normal world view. Things of worth do not require evidence.

Do you not laugh at jokes? When you hear a sad story do you feel sad? It is all part of the human condition. A condition you appear to reject.


Evidence backed knowledge and emotions are orthogonal Franktalk. As such they are not like conjugate aspects in QM where the more you know about the one the less you understand about the other. You seem to lack this insight, like when you railed on me for cherishing my friendships, claiming that was not possible because I accept the scientific world view.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Franktalk »

spotlight wrote:Evidence backed knowledge and emotions are orthogonal Franktalk. As such they are not like conjugate aspects in QM where the more you know about the one the less you understand about the other. You seem to lack this insight, like when you railed on me for cherishing my friendships, claiming that was not possible because I accept the scientific world view.


Your insight is an opinion. An opinion I do not share. You appear to me as a man standing on a fence. One foot on one side where you say evidence is required. Then you have a foot on the other side where you say evidence is not required. I on the other hand have no fence between the two sides. I see each side as having worth and see no reason to divide the sides. To me they mingle with ease. The fence is a mental construct you have formed in your mind. You desire to separate out the things which are part of the human condition from those things that give you personal worth. Again a construct of your mind. Where you build fences I try and tear them down. I do not want my mind filled with fences. It appears you do.
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

Orthogonal means they are not in some dichotomy with one another. You are the one with a fence if you think that evidence based reality is in conflict with your emotional based reality wherein you find it necessary to deny science and what we know from science about the real world. You just decide we're in a simulation so you can dismiss it. That's a fence Frank, in fact a bit more than a fence really. Instead of fencing it off, you decided to nuke it.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _LittleNipper »

Bill Nye and the Fossil Record

Feb. 12, 2014

On February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, Ken Ham and Bill Nye debated the question, Is creation a viable model of origins?

I already gave you my general thoughts on the debate that took place between Ken Ham and Bill Nye last week. However, I would like to address a few of the particular subjects that Bill Nye raised, because I don’t think Ken Ham did a great job of answering them. Of course, due to the debate structure, neither of the men had much time to address the other’s issues. Nevertheless, I do think they each could have done more than they actually did.

In this post, I want to concentrate on Nye’s contention that the fossil record neatly supports evolution. For example, in his presentation he described the geological column, claiming that the “higher” animals are found in more recent rock layers, while the “lower” animals are found in the older rock layers. Starting at 1:04:15 in the online video, he then says:

You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one…Anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that – one example of that anywhere in the world – the scientists of the world challenge you – they would embrace you. You would be a hero. You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere.

Nye repeated a variation of this claim later in the debate, so it was clearly meaningful to him.

Of course, the fact is that you do find higher animals in rock layers with lower animals. Evolutionists have many ways of dealing with the problem, but none of them involve making the discoverer into a hero.

One of the ways evolutionists deal with the problem is to simply deny what the fossil clearly indicates. For example, in 2006 the journal Science published a paper entitled, “A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China.”1 It discusses several fossils of a bird named Gansus yumenensis. As the title of the article makes clear, the fossils look very much like modern ducks. There are a few features different from modern ducks, such as claws on the wings, but overall, they look like modern ducks. The problem is that they can’t be ducks, because they are supposed to be 105-115 million years old, which is long before ducks were supposed to have evolved. As a result, National Geographic says:

It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.

Because of its supposed age, then, it is considered to be a very primitive ancestor of ducks, despite the fact that it looks nearly modern.

Another way evolutionists deal with the problem of “higher” fossils found in rock layers that should contain only “lower” animals is to simply change the story of evolution to accommodate the new fossils. For example, when I was at university, I was taught as definitive fact that the vertebrates (animals with backbones) first appeared about 480 million years ago, when rock that has been assigned to the Ordovician era was being laid down. Here, for example, is what I read in anthropology class:2

The first vertebrates, which appeared about 480 million years ago, were water dwelling, for life originated in the waters of the earth, and it was only gradually that first plants, and later animals, appeared on land and made their ways inland.

Since then, of course, paleontologists have found vertebrate fossils in Cambrian rock, which is supposed to be older than Ordovician rock. As a result, they have just changed the story of evolution. Rather than appearing 480 million years ago, vertebrates are now thought to have appeared about 525 million years ago.3 If a vertebrate fossil is later found in rock that is supposedly older, that won’t be a problem. Evolutionists will simply say that vertebrates evolved even earlier.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that such hypothesis adjustment is a bad thing. Obviously, if you want to believe that evolution occurred and you find a vertebrate fossil in rock that is supposed to be older than any previously-known vertebrate fossils, you will have to adjust your hypothesis to allow for vertebrates to have evolved earlier. Of course, the question of how such rapid evolution could take place becomes more of an issue, but that’s a separate question. My point is simply that evolutionists will never see a “higher” animal fossil mixed in with “lower” animal fossils to be a problem with their hypothesis. They will simply change the hypothesis to incorporate the new information.

Now, of course, when a fossil is found way out of order, something else must be done. Typically, a fantastic story is told in order to explain around the fossil. For example, not long ago, I discussed some amber that was found in Carboniferous rock that is supposed to be 320 million years old. This amber has all the chemical indications of being produced by a tree that belongs to the group of plants we call angiosperms (flower-making plants). The problem, of course, is that angiosperms weren’t supposed to have evolved until about 180 million years ago. Thus, the amber was found in rock that was 140 million years too old. Did that give evolutionists pause? Not at all.

They simply said that there must have been some kind of gymnosperm (a tree that produces uncovered seeds, like an evergreen) that just happened to produce amber that is chemically indistinguishable from the amber made by angiosperms. Gymnosperms were supposed to be around 320 million years ago, so if this amber came from a gymnosperm, there is no problem. It doesn’t matter that all known gymnosperms produce a resin (the stuff that makes amber) which is chemically quite distinct from the resin made by angiosperms. Because evolution must be true, there must have been a gymnosperm that lived 320 million years ago and made such resin. Of course, that gymnosperm is now conveniently extinct.

In the end, then, it’s not surprising that Nye thinks there is not a single example of a fossil found out of its supposed evolutionary order. When you are willing to ignore what the fossil looks like, redefine your evolutionary timeline, or make up an elaborate story that preserves the evolutionary timeline, you can make any fossil fit the evolutionary tale!

REFERENCES

1. Hai-lu You, Matthew C. Lamanna, Jerald D. Harris, Luis M. Chiappe, Jingmai O’Connor, Shu-an Ji, Jun-chang Lü, Chong-xi Yuan, Da-qing Li, Xing Zhang, Kenneth J. Lacovara, Peter Dodson, and Qiang Ji, “A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China,” Science 312:1640-1643, 2006
Return to Text

2. Victor Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology, Dorsey Press 1971, p. 44
Return to Text

3. D-G. Shu, H-L. Luo, S. Conway Morris, X-L. Zhang, S-X. Hu, L. Chen, J. Han, M. Zhu, Y. Li, and L-Z. Chen, “Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China,” Nature 402:42-46, 1999
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _LittleNipper »

spotlight wrote:LittleNipper,

Why is it that the fossil record (all due to a single flood) has two kinds of dragonfly fossils? The larger Meganeura that lived in an oxygen rich environment which allowed them to grow to 75cm in size and the more familiar dragonfly that lived in a normal atmosphere with less oxygen that only got to 15cm in size? How is it possible that two separate oxygen levels existed in one atmosphere allowing two different kinds/sizes of dragonflies to exist pre-flood?


Could it simply be that both forms of dragonflies existed together and that after the Flood the larger dragonflies simply died out. It might also be that the "normal" sized ones are actually younger, and that as man, the dragonfly once lived to far older ages due to the environment growing larger accordingly.
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

LittleNipper wrote:Bill Nye and the Fossil Record

Feb. 12, 2014

On February 4th at the Creation Museum in Kentucky, Ken Ham and Bill Nye debated the question, Is creation a viable model of origins?

I already gave you my general thoughts on the debate that took place between Ken Ham and Bill Nye last week. However, I would like to address a few of the particular subjects that Bill Nye raised, because I don’t think Ken Ham did a great job of answering them. Of course, due to the debate structure, neither of the men had much time to address the other’s issues. Nevertheless, I do think they each could have done more than they actually did.

In this post, I want to concentrate on Nye’s contention that the fossil record neatly supports evolution. For example, in his presentation he described the geological column, claiming that the “higher” animals are found in more recent rock layers, while the “lower” animals are found in the older rock layers. Starting at 1:04:15 in the online video, he then says:

You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one…Anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that – one example of that anywhere in the world – the scientists of the world challenge you – they would embrace you. You would be a hero. You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere.

Nye repeated a variation of this claim later in the debate, so it was clearly meaningful to him.

Of course, the fact is that you do find higher animals in rock layers with lower animals. Evolutionists have many ways of dealing with the problem, but none of them involve making the discoverer into a hero.

One of the ways evolutionists deal with the problem is to simply deny what the fossil clearly indicates. For example, in 2006 the journal Science published a paper entitled, “A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China.”1 It discusses several fossils of a bird named Gansus yumenensis. As the title of the article makes clear, the fossils look very much like modern ducks. There are a few features different from modern ducks, such as claws on the wings, but overall, they look like modern ducks. The problem is that they can’t be ducks, because they are supposed to be 105-115 million years old, which is long before ducks were supposed to have evolved. As a result, National Geographic says:

It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck, but Gansus was no duck.

Because of its supposed age, then, it is considered to be a very primitive ancestor of ducks, despite the fact that it looks nearly modern.

Another way evolutionists deal with the problem of “higher” fossils found in rock layers that should contain only “lower” animals is to simply change the story of evolution to accommodate the new fossils. For example, when I was at university, I was taught as definitive fact that the vertebrates (animals with backbones) first appeared about 480 million years ago, when rock that has been assigned to the Ordovician era was being laid down. Here, for example, is what I read in anthropology class:2

The first vertebrates, which appeared about 480 million years ago, were water dwelling, for life originated in the waters of the earth, and it was only gradually that first plants, and later animals, appeared on land and made their ways inland.

Since then, of course, paleontologists have found vertebrate fossils in Cambrian rock, which is supposed to be older than Ordovician rock. As a result, they have just changed the story of evolution. Rather than appearing 480 million years ago, vertebrates are now thought to have appeared about 525 million years ago.3 If a vertebrate fossil is later found in rock that is supposedly older, that won’t be a problem. Evolutionists will simply say that vertebrates evolved even earlier.

Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that such hypothesis adjustment is a bad thing. Obviously, if you want to believe that evolution occurred and you find a vertebrate fossil in rock that is supposed to be older than any previously-known vertebrate fossils, you will have to adjust your hypothesis to allow for vertebrates to have evolved earlier. Of course, the question of how such rapid evolution could take place becomes more of an issue, but that’s a separate question. My point is simply that evolutionists will never see a “higher” animal fossil mixed in with “lower” animal fossils to be a problem with their hypothesis. They will simply change the hypothesis to incorporate the new information.

Now, of course, when a fossil is found way out of order, something else must be done. Typically, a fantastic story is told in order to explain around the fossil. For example, not long ago, I discussed some amber that was found in Carboniferous rock that is supposed to be 320 million years old. This amber has all the chemical indications of being produced by a tree that belongs to the group of plants we call angiosperms (flower-making plants). The problem, of course, is that angiosperms weren’t supposed to have evolved until about 180 million years ago. Thus, the amber was found in rock that was 140 million years too old. Did that give evolutionists pause? Not at all.

They simply said that there must have been some kind of gymnosperm (a tree that produces uncovered seeds, like an evergreen) that just happened to produce amber that is chemically indistinguishable from the amber made by angiosperms. Gymnosperms were supposed to be around 320 million years ago, so if this amber came from a gymnosperm, there is no problem. It doesn’t matter that all known gymnosperms produce a resin (the stuff that makes amber) which is chemically quite distinct from the resin made by angiosperms. Because evolution must be true, there must have been a gymnosperm that lived 320 million years ago and made such resin. Of course, that gymnosperm is now conveniently extinct.

In the end, then, it’s not surprising that Nye thinks there is not a single example of a fossil found out of its supposed evolutionary order. When you are willing to ignore what the fossil looks like, redefine your evolutionary timeline, or make up an elaborate story that preserves the evolutionary timeline, you can make any fossil fit the evolutionary tale!

REFERENCES

1. Hai-lu You, Matthew C. Lamanna, Jerald D. Harris, Luis M. Chiappe, Jingmai O’Connor, Shu-an Ji, Jun-chang Lü, Chong-xi Yuan, Da-qing Li, Xing Zhang, Kenneth J. Lacovara, Peter Dodson, and Qiang Ji, “A Nearly Modern Amphibious Bird from the Early Cretaceous of Northwestern China,” Science 312:1640-1643, 2006
Return to Text

2. Victor Barnouw, An Introduction to Anthropology, Dorsey Press 1971, p. 44
Return to Text

3. D-G. Shu, H-L. Luo, S. Conway Morris, X-L. Zhang, S-X. Hu, L. Chen, J. Han, M. Zhu, Y. Li, and L-Z. Chen, “Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China,” Nature 402:42-46, 1999


The elephant in the room that you are ignoring is the fact that whether it is in fact 480 or 525 million years old the biblical account is proven false.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Maksutov »

With cut and paste Nipper can have his own Gish gallop. Sigh.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _spotlight »

LittleNipper wrote:
spotlight wrote:LittleNipper,

Why is it that the fossil record (all due to a single flood) has two kinds of dragonfly fossils? The larger Meganeura that lived in an oxygen rich environment which allowed them to grow to 75cm in size and the more familiar dragonfly that lived in a normal atmosphere with less oxygen that only got to 15cm in size? How is it possible that two separate oxygen levels existed in one atmosphere allowing two different kinds/sizes of dragonflies to exist pre-flood?


Could it simply be that both forms of dragonflies existed together and that after the Flood the larger dragonflies simply died out. It might also be that the "normal" sized ones are actually younger, and that as man, the dragonfly once lived to far older ages due to the environment growing larger accordingly.


Well here's your chance to do some science LittleNipper. Take a terrarium and seal it up and maintain an interior atmosphere of 50% more oxygen than exists in our present atmosphere and grow some dragon flies inside and tell us how it goes. I await your findings. If your hypothesis is correct, you'll get Meganeura in your Terrarium and maybe get hired at the Discovery Institute. Good luck.
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

Post by _Maksutov »

I have to say something in defense of LittleNipper. He appears to be taking subjects more seriously, devoting more effort to discussion than Frank or MG. I give him points for effort.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply