12 Arguments Evolutionists Should NEVER use! (Apparently)
1:14 That you can't observe an occurrence doesn't mean you can't directly observe evidence of that occurrence. Thank you! You have just made an argument for God. You cannot directly observe God turning the universe around Earth, but you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. You cannot directly observe God how He works when curing a leper, but some have observed God - a k a Jesus - curing a leper. So, just because a story involves a causality which is unobserved, it doesn't mean the evidence of that causality is also unobserved. A v e r y good point!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
"You cannot directly observe God turning the universe around Earth, but you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth."
From observation, the universe does not turn around Earth. In fact, we know that the earth turns around the sun.
"You cannot directly observe God how He works when curing a leper, but some have observed God - a k a Jesus - curing a leper."
NO, some have claimed that they have observed Jesus curing a leper. That is not an observation. That is just a claim.
"So, just because a story involves a causality which is unobserved, it doesn't mean the evidence of that causality is also unobserved."
Based on this reasoning, do you believe in all types of stories?
So there is still no direct observation of the evidence of god.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "From observation, the universe does not turn around Earth. In fact, we know that the earth turns around the sun."
From observation, as it is observed, the universe does turn around Earth.
Your knowledge or pretended such that Earth turns around the Sun is not directly derived from the most obviously relevent observations.
"NO, some have claimed that they have observed Jesus curing a leper. That is not an observation. That is just a claim."
It is not an observation I or you are making. It is an observation I am accepting as an observation due to claims I find trustworthy. Precisely as complete globality of Earth (curvature I could deduce from watching ships a few decades ago a fine day or more of them) from claims I find trustworthy about Geography or about Magellans voyage. Or about day and night in the seasons at Tierra del Fuego.
If I am only stuck with my own observation, so are you with yours, and therefore neither of as can prove that Earth is a complete globe.
If we can prove it due to claims by others, then we can also prove other things by claims by others.
"So there is still no direct observation of the evidence of god."
There is no direct observation of God, but there is observation of the evidence for Him.
You are worse at logic than Alex J. O'Connor, whatever your name might be.
"Based on this reasoning, do you believe in all types of stories?"
If seriously claimed to be true and I find no reason to consider the man making the claim either mistaken or lying, yes. If I disbelieve a story as a whole, often it is because everyone knows from start it is fiction.
1937 no one believed The Hobbit was actual history or biography of anywhere, anywhen or any real Bilbo Baggins having ever lived. (If the Tolkien's did, they kept it a well guarded secret).
If a story is seriously claimed to be factual, before I dismiss even part of it, I want to see at least a possibility of how the man making the claim could be wrong or why he would be lying.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
"From observation, as it is observed, the universe does turn around Earth."
NO, from observation, the universe does NOT turn around the Earth.
"It is an observation I am accepting as an observation due to claims I find trustworthy."
You are accepting a claim of an observation. Therefore, it is NOT an observation.
"There is no direct observation of God, but there is observation of the evidence for Him."
NO, there is no observation of the evidence for god. You haven't provided any observation of the evidence.
You are really very bad in science, reasoning and logic.
"If seriously claimed to be true and I find no reason to consider the man making the claim either mistaken or lying, yes."
Again, believing in a claim is not an observation of evidence.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "NO, from observation, the universe does NOT turn around the Earth."
We can both observe Earth standing still below us.
We can both observe Sun or Moon moving against fixed objects on Earth.
We can both observe Stars turning around North Star, when comparing for instance Orion (or any other recognised constellation) against any fixed object.
I e, we can see Sun, Moon and Stars move around us. These things are observations.
"You are accepting a claim of an observation. Therefore, it is NOT an observation."
Not on my part. Neither are most other things we know or think we know.
"NO, there is no observation of the evidence for god. You haven't provided any observation of the evidence."
I have provided two, Universe moving around us and Miracles. You attack Universe moving around us, you are certainly attacking observation as such. You attack historic miracles, you are attacking history and any observations made by other people than yourself. At least on the grounds you are pretending to now.
"You are really very bad in science, reasoning and logic."
[Feel like eating pop corn]
"Again, believing in a claim is not an observation of evidence."
Believing in a claim of an observation is distinct from doing the observation onself, true. And very banal.
Have you yourself done the geographic observations necessary to proving Earth is a full globe? Or are you believing claims of others to have done so?
Believing in a claim of an observation, implies believing there is an observation someone else made. If you can't believe that, you can't know anything.
So, in order to dismiss miracles, you need to provide specific evidence why the specific claim is not trustworthy. Not just general gas about the claims being about observations you and I did not make ourselves.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
"I have provided two, Universe moving around us and Miracles."
Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago. No miracle has been substantiated.
You are really very bad at science and logic.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago."
Not by direct observation.
"No miracle has been substantiated."
Not by scientists, but by historians (not of the atheistic or Humean schools, obviously)
"You are really very bad at science and logic."
Too bad I have no opportunity to eat pop corn here. You are nearly entertaining with your ad hominems!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
""Geocentricism has been debunked a long time ago." - Not by direct observation."
Yes, it certainly was by direct observation. Have you never heard of retrograde motion of the planets?
You are really bad at science.
""No miracle has been substantiated." - Not by scientists, but by historians"
LOL!!!!! Another word, No miracle has been substantiated.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Yes, it certainly was by direct observation. Have you never heard of retrograde motion of the planets?"
I never said that retrograde motions had not been directly observed.
I said that Earth moving around the Sun has not been directly observed.
Retrograde motions were well known by lots of Geocentrics, they are not a kind of new discovery which somehow invalidated a thitherto fine Geocentrism. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all visible from Earth by the naked eye, they all have retrogrades (unlike the PLANETS Sun and Moon which haven't), and this was never a problem to Geocentrism.
"You are really bad at science."
[Wd like a bit of pop corn to enjoy this comedy a bit more!]
"LOL!!!!! Another word, No miracle has been substantiated."
Baseless allegation, plus you show you are committing a mistake of category.
Btw, medical miracles in Lourdes have been substantiated by medical doctors, i e by scientists.
- You said that you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. There are no observation that the Universe turning around Earth.
As I said you are really very bad at science. Go and attend a basic science class.
"Baseless allegation, plus you show you are committing a mistake of category."
No, it shows that you are really very bad at philosophy.
"No miracle has been substantiated" is a fact.
"Btw, medical miracles in Lourdes have been substantiated by medical doctors, i e by scientists."
Did they investigate amputees growing their legs?
LOL!!! What an idiot
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You said that you can directly observe the Universe turning around Earth. There are no observation that the Universe turning around Earth."
I can at least observe each visible part of it going around Earth.
"As I said you are really very bad at science. Go and attend a basic science class. ... No, it shows that you are really very bad at philosophy. ... LOL!!! What an idiot"
You are on the other hand very good at ad hominem and intimidation ... except you choose the wrong guy.
"'No miracle has been substantiated' is a fact."
"Did they investigate amputees growing their legs?"
There is an example of a man with crooked legs being healed so he could walk. The legs were still crooked afterwards and the bones are on display (he died since then), but bent into a position which allowed him to walk without crutches.
- "I can at least observe each visible part of it going around Earth."
No, you cannot. Which visible part of the universe are you talking about?
You are really very bad at science. LOL!!! What an idiot
"There is an example of a man with crooked legs being healed so he could walk. The legs were still crooked afterwards and the bones are on display (he died since then), but bent into a position which allowed him to walk without crutches."
You really have a very low bar for your miracles. LOL!!!
It must be amazing miracles when you find your car keys or a parking space. It must be amazing miracles for the sole survivor of a plane crash killing hundreds.
"No miracle has been substantiated' is a fact.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "No, you cannot. Which visible part of the universe are you talking about?"
Moon, Sun, Fix Stars, and, with retrogrades, Planets.
Whichever of these is visible can be observed circling the Earth in more or less 24 hours.
"You are really very bad at science. LOL!!! What an idiot"
[Ad hominems make me year for some pop corn!]
"You really have a very low bar for your miracles. LOL!!!"
No. We are talking a miraculous orthopedy which all orthopedists among medical specialists had failed at.
We are talking a crookedness showing original fault and followed up below by straight lower legs allowing a man to walk.
"It must be amazing miracles when you find your car keys or a parking space. It must be amazing miracles for the sole survivor of a plane crash killing hundreds."
Why not add the Jesuits who were neither killed nor irradiated while praying Rosary, while a US Air Force was bombing Little Boy over Nagasaki (or was it Big Boy over Hiroshima, no, Nagasaki is more like a Catholic sancturay in Japan, due to the Nagasaki martyrs).
"No miracle has been substantiated" is a fact-oid.
- "Moon, Sun, Fix Stars, and, with retrogrades, Planets.
Whichever of these is visible can be observed circling the Earth in more or less 24 hours."
LOL!!! You are really a science illiterate and an IDIOT. Bye.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "LOL!!! You are really a science illiterate and an IDIOT. Bye."
Wait, no more ad hominem's from you?
I'll have to reread it next time I come across an opprtunity of both accessing internet and eating popcorn!
[link to this post:]
[End of short debate.]
1:31 Yes, right.
If in the middle of a desert I saw exactly one tree, which is very improbable, since trees in deserts tend to be in oases, and it had leaves of a certain shape and colour and a leaf of same colour and shape were lying under the tree, you could be rather sure that the leaf fell from that particular tree.
At least if it was fresh and of a type which soon dries.
Now, in a real oasis, you would probably be making a hasty conclusion, since other trees of same type would be around. A n d, guess what, the leaf could have come from any of these too.
And we are still supposing a rate of travel which is premodern.
Suppose someone had taken a leaf like that, committed a poison murder with it, taken it away with gloves, and wanted to hide it, where hide it better than under a tree of same type far from the murder? Or what if it was not far from the murder, what if the body had just been found in same oasis?
1:35 Inductive reasoning was not the exact thing you were speaking about, it was more like causal logic and could be formalised as deductive hypothetic syllogisms:
- A - If the leaf could come from the tree by falling and from no other tree, it came from the tree by falling.
- B - But it could come from the tree by falling, since of the same kind as the tree
- AND It could not come from any other tree, since no other tree was around.
- C - Therefore it came from the tree by falling.
1:40 "it goes without saying that nobody was around to observe the creation myth"
If you mean parts of six days prior to Creation of Adam, God and His angels were around to observe them.
If you mean from the creation of Adam on, Adam, the first human, was also around - meaning we have human eyewitness account, if genuine.
All subsequent events - fall, Cain and Abel, Flood, Babel - had human observers to main events (a human observer could not have seen God speaking with God - i e Father speaking with Son and Holy Ghost - about confusion of tongues, but a prophet present could have, it could also have been a good deduction by a Hebrew ancestor of Abraham present, and one confirmed by God to Moses).
1:49 Inductive reasoning is very great for basing scientific laws on - and laws which do not go beyond observations involved in induction.
Water boils when heated. But sometimes not - and then it is less hot.
Water boils when heated to 100° C (whatever that is in Fahrenheit).
But in some places it boils when heated to 90° C - and then cooking takes longer time. These places are high above the sea, like in the Andes or Himalayah.
These are natural scientific laws which can be established by induction, i e by confirming same scenario each time you look.
So ... induction is great for establishing science about what is true always, everywhere, necessarily. It is not so great about establishing "science" about what could have gone otherwise:
- in the past
- in the future
- somewhere else
- about sth hidden.
And guess what evolution is about? Events in the past (and even very distant past) which theoretically could have gone otherwise, with results right now which theoretically could have another explanation (like God did it).
1:52 Is falsifiable?
Here is a somewhat falsifiable prediction from evolution, which so far as I looked has been consistently falsified:
"since life has been around in various shapes differring from each other by a chronological succession, and since this at each point has statistically a certain chance to leave a trace, there is a certain chance that somewhere land vertebrates would leave traces in two layers above each other, like Triassic above Permian"
And before you tell me this prediction has been verified in Karoo, I have checked Karoo already. The Triassic fossils are in geological gobbledigook "stratigraphically above" the Permian ones, since found in "outcrops". But no where did I find even one Triassic fossil being found at one level and a Permian one under it after digging some feet deeper.
Why did I specify land vertabrates? Well, you have found trilobites under elasmosaurs in Bonaparte Basin, and could presumably find trilobites some places below fossil whales as well - but this could reflect where in the water the creatures were living when the Flood struck.
Why did I specify vertebrates? Well, when it comes to invertebrates, you do find Danian / Triassic invertebrates above Maastrichtian / Cretaceous ones in Yacoraite. But you could not tell which ones were which from the look of them, I presume (I asked an Argentinian University and got no answer), and they are presumably diagnosed as Creataceous or Triassic in accordance whether they are below or above an Iridium layer.
Someone also said my prediction is not reasonable, since even one level of fossils is so clearly improbable from any given time (but there is very much time added and accumulated, which would accumulate chances).
I did a model on this:
Creation vs. Evolution : Probabilities in reference to question of finding fossils all three major levels (PMC) a place
[PMC here not pmc as in "percent modern carbon", but "Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic".]
I am not sure the likelihood of my already having falsified evolution is minuscule, but the likelihood of evolutionists admitting I did it is of course very minuscule ;)
2:01 If you did the book experiment in front of me, we were standing close enough, you would not be sure it would drop to the ground, depends on my talent of catching it first!
2:59 I used to be very well educated in precisely evolution, at least for my age, and probably already then for many even adult believers in evolution, before I rejected it in two steps :
- I became Christian
- I saw problems of reconciliation AND other problems, like explaining language, origin of genetic code etc a bit after that (after really trying some to reconcile my older and my more recent learning).
But AiG is making the point that some people who are well educated precisely in evolution are in fact rejecting it.
3:09 "Almost unanimously" - do you have precise stats or are you judging from the small media coverage Creation Scientists (not to mention Creation Science Amateurs like myself!) get from the media you look to answers for?
3:22 It is perfectly true that a non-evolutionists knowing the evidence will for instance not allow for Lucretius' Geocentric universe with rotations around Earth happening by accident or everything staying basically the same for all eternity past or future is possible, will be a kind of Theist. Even Pantheists often do favour evolution.
Are you saying that this other thing they have in common totally discredits their conclusions about evolution?
3:33 Isaac Newton died 1727, 131 years before Charles Darwin published Origin of the Species.
Well, instead of "all scientifically educated people accept evolution" you suddenly have "all scientifically educated people after Darwin (or after Darwin + n years of debate) accept evolution".
For one thing, you are not any longer using the exact same argument as AiG told you not to use, and for another, you have just used a worse one : you are saying that progress in sciences eradicates freedom of academic debate.
3:43 "We judge people's intelligence by the standards of the time"
No. We judge them by standards of intelligence. And agreeing with your time is normally not one of them, which means you cannot judge a creation scientist now as stupid - or you would have to judge James Hutton as having been stupid when inventing deep time, since the standards of his time (in the West) were Young Earth.
3:49 "Albert Einstein ... could not even name who the 42:nd president of the US was"
Well, that kind of judgement totally demotes evolution from the kind of facts (if such) you can reason out by good logic any time to the kind of facts you happen to know about if you come across them.
And you can be very sure that if your scenario is true, no Homo Sapiens came across either the démise of the dinosaurs or the rise of the primates! It's as inaccessible to coming to know about, as the six days previous to Adam's creation some time into day six were accessible to Adam's direct observation : he could only know them, by trusting the One who told him about them.
4:23 No, what AiG is saying is not that pre-existing beliefs were adapted to new evidence, it is that evidence already available to creationists (like first Geologist Steno was one) were judged in a new way due to a shift in paradigm which had happened for clearly other reasons.
4:31 For some reason, I never saw visits by Father Christmas (evne when done with a bearded mask) as evidence of Father Christmas.
If Narnia Chronicles had been history and I could talk to Susan Pevensie or her son or daughter, perhaps I could ask how sure she was and why that she met Father Christmas on the way from Beaversdam to the Stone Table.
4:36 "in science" - for one thing, in science, there is no thing as "adult" and "childish" point of view and no "growing out of" an older paradigm.
You can refute some of the older paradigms, but you cannot just grow out of them. Check Phlogiston in history of chemistry!
I think there is some less credibility to Phlogiston after Lavoisier.
But that is not "growing out of", that is deductively refuting Phlogiston.
4:40 "new evidence always supersedes old ideas"
New evidence may certainly supersede an idea which was formed before the evidence came up.
Say, water boils at 100° C everywhere ... supposed by someone who has not checked out the Andes or Himalayah.
But the new evidence did not simply contradict the old idea, it refined it:
"water boils at 100° C if in air pressure of 1 at" (add that considerably lower air pressure in Nepal and Chichen Itza (? or whatever that place is called?) can be verified in support of this refined version of precisely the old idea).
4:48 "I would love to see some evidence for your world view which doesn't rely on the Bible"
Well, take a good look at fossil find places. Fossils being mainly from Flood explains why you don't find Mammoths straight above Brontosaurs straight above Tiktaaliks - so check that out, and don't look into the Bible when checking, look into places where you can find accounts of exact locations where fossils were found!
BUT you said that straight in same breath as just having said "when the old idea and the evidence are contradictory" ... you leaped very closely between evidence of absence (of Biblical story) and absence of evidence (for same).
5:20 "evolution is not historical science"
If you mean "evolution" as in Lenski experiment, or as in dog breeds (ok there is some historic knowledge involved in the science, but there is not a science made to reconstruct a lost history), AiG agree this is not historic science, but operational. They just refuse to term that evolution.
When it comes to goats or men evolving from protists, that is indeed a very long story which has only been - if at all - truly recovered by ... historical reconstruction by means of science, a k a "historical science".
5:25 That evolution is still happening today, on scales of Lenski experiment and dog breeds, we agree, except as to term evolution.
That evolution in the more long term perspective "is still happening today" is an inference which only adds future predictions (like "will men evolve to beardlessness") to the projections into the past which are "historic science".
On the scale of actually observed evolution today, the evolution on the scale of man from amoeba is NOT happing today and cannot be observed.
5:27 "we're just one step along the evolutionary timeline"
In other words, your pseudo-science is futuristic and not just historic ... sorry for snark, but you actually missed the point why the distinction was made.
And your exact words are not an observation which can be scientifically made by induction today, it is a piece of ideology, depending on the historical part of your science.
5:43 "it's a red herring ... and THAT is the context in which the two are compared"
OK, two ideas which have been compared in one context may not be compared in any other one? And if they are, that is a red herring? Sez hoo?
6:00 In actual fact, we can not "observe the results of Newtonian gravity" or "observe the results of Einsteinian gravity" in everyday life, we can only observe the results of "whatever gravity actually ultimately is".
The parallel would be, we cannot observe the results of evolution as those of evolution or of creation as those of creation (except language and mind!) we can only observe the results of "whatever ultimately caused biology and its diversity".
6:15 "all you need to do is observe evidence in favour of its existence"
Or rather "evidence very clearly in favour of its existence", please!
But thank you for bringing up this important pro-God point!
Some people waste their time and mine with saying "you can't use God as an explanation, in science we need observable and repeatable explanations".
While the book falling (I'm not sure I'd so much like to save Jefferson another fall) is very repeatable, gravity, if Newtonian, simply is there, unobserved, so neither observed, nor repeated, neither observable, nor repeatable.
6:18 (or a bit before) "and that is what we have for evolution"
Me and AiG would beg to disagree.
6:54 Any sphere is by definition also circular (several times over).
Take a look at Ancient Texts. Some describe Earth as a surface in the process of being spread out over some presumably flat underlying surface, and therefore as presumably flat itself.
The closest the Bible comes to this is saying Earth is spread out over waters - except that if waters could be spherical, so could Earth. Context is not clear cut enough to establish a flat earth is actually meant.
Some describe Earth as proven to be round.
The Bible doesn't do that either. It is between Phenicians and Greeks saying "earth is spherical" and Kemetistic Egyptians and Mardukistic Babylonians saying fairly clearly "earth is flat".
So, either this item argues it is written by an all knowing God - or it was written by a human people shrewd enough to remain on the hedge when their neighbours disagreed and no direct evidence of Magellan type was available.
In fact, two of the terms used to describe earth in Bible together, but especially one of them only together with modern geographic knowledge, argue the earth is spherical.
If you check modern Flat Earth maps, you might notice they have three corners, unless you very generously make Australia count for two. All of them are also South Corners, centre being North Pole.
But if you check a globe, you will find that Old World, while not flat, has a somewhat rectangular surface, i e has four corners, NW, NE, SE and SW : British Isles/Greenland, Sakhalin, Australia/New Guinea, Cape of Good Hope.
Also, if you have "circle" and "four corners" in same corpus considered as infallible, you will want to harmonised, consider both as true, which is evidently less easy if they describe same flat surface.
7:12 "and orbitting the sun"
Sorry, here I disagree with AiG. Round, yes, orbitting the Sun, no. That is deduced from certain views on how motions like day and night, years and seasons are explained, but it is NOT observed and a Christian may very well not share those views.
7:21 "have you ever been to space"
Good point, but even that would not be enough. Suppose Armstrong did sea Earth from Moon and saw it as turning. I don't believe that is out of the question, I don't believe it is a clear fact either, but for argument's sake, suppose he did.
Would that prove Earth was rotating around itself? Or could it be that Moon rotates around Earth every 24 h 50 minutes, so Armstrong was in fact viewing Earth from different directions?
7:30 Ships disappearing bottom first over horizon proves Earth is some kind of bent, not in itself fulness of globe. Earth's shadow on Moon could theoretically be the shadow of sth else - like Hindoo flat Earth lore says, planet Rahu comes above rim of Earth just in time to produce solar and lunar eclipses, and Rahu is circular (they also believe Meru is a mountain middle/North, which is incompatible with Biblical four corners).
You have to have a complete geographical circumnavigation, which is relying on ... tradition, from observations of other people.
I am not Magellan, I was not in his ship, but I trust those who were. Etc. for other voyages.
7:43 "shooting yourself in the foot here"
Well, not for Biblical History, since most of it (including most of 11 first chapters, excluding days 1-5 and first beginning of day 6, excluding the Divine Conference above Babel) was as accessible to participants then (if any) as Magellan's ship was to one aboard it from beginning to end of voyage. And in both cases, I trust tradition.
8:18 You seem to be misunderstanding the argument.
When a common trait is present in two diverse kinds, evolution argues as if common ancestor were only possible explanation and as if common creator was out of the question.
They were not saying that any specific point of past evolutionary history was predetermined, that is not the point of their argument.
8:30 No, we are not saying we conclude Biblical History from even necessities of Theistic types.
Biblical History is, like Geographic Knowledge, an observation available to men there and then, and therefore not a conclusion from effect to necessary one and only possible cause.
When it comes to excluding materialism when it comes to theory of mind, we do have such arguments too.
It is not about "there is only one way in which mind could arise from matter" (with you offering several other options), it is about "there is no way at all in which mind could arise from matter" (including all offers you give, either not arriving at mind or not starting from mindless matter).
8:39 "you are basing this on the Bible which completely contradicts this many idea"
No, there is such a thing as observed facts superseding a manifold of theoretical options.
4 could indeed come either from 2+2 or from 5-1, but if I saw four packages of ammo in a corner, when I arrived there, the man who was there before I arrived could certainly tell me (supping he wnated to and I was curious) whether he had seen:
- a) first a jeep delivering 2 packages, then another jeep delivering other two
- OR b) first a jeep delivering 5 packages, then a company of men taking one away with them on a motor cycle.
Once that information was given, unless I had reasons to mistrust the informant, I would know exactly how the 4 packages of ammo arrived, despite fact that more then one scenario were possible.
8:39 "again, this shows your complete lack of understanding of"
This comment shows your complete disregard of respect due to people arguing for something different before you start arguing with them.
8:39-42 I don't think AiG are either ignorant of evolutionary biology or of logic law of contradiction, I think you just managed to strawman them. Was it just by accident?
9:24 "natural selection is the process by which evolution takes place"
Place a child on a battle field. Let someone shoot in his direction - OK, don't do it! - and then say "if he doesn't develop the skills of a fighter or a good shelter taker within 15 minutes, natural selection dooms him to death, therefore, I predict he will next 15 minutes develop good skills as a fighter or shelter taker".
Do you find it possible that this prediction will come true of a toddler? I don't (I also don't want Illuminoids to do any practical research on topic!).
So, natural selection is not a process by which a protist will - if natural selection is repeated often enough - ancestral of a man. Natural selection is a process by which protists will rather be eliminated without ever evolving to man.
At least that is how natural selection operates in observable cases, everything you have on natural selection doing opposite in cases between protist supposed ancestors and human supposed descendants is deducted from an evolutionary world view, well above what can be observed about natural selection.
9:26 "if you take natural selection and extend it over a long enough period of time"
You will have death, not evolution. That is the rational prediction.
9:29 "then evolution will be the logical result"
You just failed logic forever!
9:50 God knew environments would be shifting a lot, for instance more salt in seas since Flood (deduced, not Biblically attested) or spreading to lands which had been altered by Flood and so on.
Hence a certain variability. And one can even give a fairly clear cut answer to limits of it.
Organs can be varied if existing in parental population, they can be lost, but they cannot be regained from scratch.
In case of blind fish cross fertilised with other blind fish, eye was dysfunctional in different genes, but it was functional in same genes in opposite populations.
Variability does for instance not involve evolution of eye from scratch.
9:53 "retain the climate entirely"
Not an option with a mankind to punish and safeguard against itself (I suspect nuclear stupidity aligned with evil twice over) with Flood and with Ice age, against Nodian corruption and against Tower of Babel.
10:00 "survival of the fittest, that is deaths of the unsuitable"
Yes, that latter would be the real name of the game - which is why it is not productive to results like those of evolution.
10:10 God is very certainly deciding who lives and who dies.
Or who lives longer and who dies earlier, since all who die have lived, and all who live will die.
He is deciding that by His own standard.
10:17 Random biological factors could explain mainly the kind of variability which involve losses. As in mutations, usually they tend to lose sth.
The variability beyond that would be epigenetic. One could also reason, in cases when mutations or "chromosomal mutations" (not same thing!) are beneficial, God is triggering the right ones in the right moment, rather than having previously given one.
But either of these, random biological factors cannot be responsible for assembling, I will not say "part after part of the eye", but rather "gene after gene IN part after part of the eye" from starting from nothing.
In a study of blind fish, I saw that just one part of the formation of an eye, production of this or that, depended on successive activation of TEN genes having to function correctly (or eight?).
So, in the overall picture (unless you prefer Epicure to Evolution) random biological factors are not slightly more but very much less likely.
10:52 Circular proof is not "subtle circular reasoning". Evolutionists are certainly themselves from time to time using the word or phrase "design features".
So, your first point off.
No, "design features" are not what we are "trying to prove". The text you read was not even trying to prove a designer behind design features. The text you read states, correctly, that a common designer is as logical an explanation for "common design features" or "common features" as a common ancestor is.
Meaning, if you are using these as proof of evolution, you are committing circular proof:
- all living beings evolve from a latest universal common ancestor
- therefore this feature found in two but not in certain other ones argues they had an even more recent common ancestor
- therefore we have a tree of life
- which points back to a latest universal common ancestor (which is where your conclusion touches too incestuously with your premiss)
If that is not how YOU are reasoning, fine, then the argument was not against you.
11:04 OK, you are not considering common features a proof, just an inspiration.
I think I caught AronRa or someone else doing otherwise (but it was a year ago or longer).
Then you are not using the argument they warn against. Are you sure noone else is?
11:20 Not one of them ... perhaps not in Oxford (just checked your site), but perhaps sth else is going on in Texas (check out AronRa's phylogeny challenge, I think I recall someone else too).
11:58 The heaps of indedependent researchers were in our days perhaps very independent from each other - but certainly NOT from their cultural background reaching back to James Hutton.
They share a common background as researchers.
They share more of it than what is minimally needed to be a researcher (compare them to Medieval researchers on natural science, you will notice a difference, and it is thanks to Medievals that optics and corrective glasses exist, so you can't say they were not researchers).
I argue, so does of course AiG, they also share more than is needed to be a researcher taking into account what has been discovered between the Middle Ages and now. AND this common cultural background (lots of it leading back to Russian revolution and via Commies to a certain type of Kabbalah) gives certain misleads in common to this heap of researchers.
As to the question itself, check all this heap if you find one place on earth where they first dug down to a mammoth, then down to a brontosaur - not even walking away a few yards, just digging deeper - and under the bronto a dimetrodon. I checked, I checked in sources you can't suspect of creationist bias, there is no such place, or if there is, it is very well kept secret for such a sensational thing, compared to all the other places.
As I already mentioned a bit earlier.
12:16 Your book falling to the ground can be evidence for any theory of gravitation among those of:
The fossils we dig up are evidence for EITHER of two:
- very long ages
- very drastic conditions in Flood
I actually gave you a challenge which would, if succeeding fit the evolu pattern better then the Flood pattern. So far, you have not succeeded - which you should have done by chance, if it had been the case.
12:19 Fossils are indistinct evidence for EITHER Flood OR "geological long ages".
Traditions all over the world are - like the tradition on geography from Magellan's voyage - evidence of the Flood. If AiG is not providing a list of Flood legends, I think that both CMI (creationist) and TalkOrigins (evolutionist) are providing such lists.
12:25 "evidence to the contrary of a global flood at the time which"
Only if you confuse carbon dated time with real time.
Standard Creationist explanation on carbon dates (those relevant to cultures 2400 - 3200 BC, Flood dates according to several versions of Biblical chronology) seems to be completely ignored by you.
Sure, the archaeological material in Early Dynastic Period of Mesopotamia is dated to 2900—2350 BC, which takes care of Masoretic based Flood dates, while Jemdet Nasr period is dated 3100–2900 BC, taking care of St Jerome's LXX based date (2957 BC) and 4000–3100 BC is Uruk period, taking care of Syncellus and liturgic Byzantine dates of Flood (3258 / 3266 BC).
And yes, this archaeological material is indeed incompatible with a world wide Flood occurring in these times ... that is the times given in names, not dates!
Because, the standard creationist reply, which you seem to ignore, is that Uruk period and all the rest are solidly post-Flood, as is at least Upper Palaeolithic. Meaning that carbon was rising and earlier lower levels are causing a systematic and radically higher misdatng the further you go back.
This I have dealt with in my tables for carbon rise, here are some of the latest, but, with earlier tables more precise on especially later times, close to Troy:
Creation vs. Evolution : On Request : If we were 5777 Anno Mundi
Creation vs. Evolution : What about Ussher and Kent Hovind? Checking with Troy
Creation vs. Evolution : Around Five Thousand Years Ago, There was a World Wide Flood?
Creation vs. Evolution : About 5300 Years Ago There was a World Wide Flood? Iffy ...
The abbreviation pmc [here, as most usually] means "percent modern carbon". Stopping after argument 9.
[Resuming after stop:]
12:51 "peer reviewed studies which all point to the same conclusion"
- 1) You were not there making these studies. So, you are relying on someone else's claim that observations were made.
Check that one out, and compare Maxwell'sDemon's inane comments about Gospel miracles not being observation!
- 2) When you say they all point to the same conclusion - are you relying for conclusion as well as for observations?
- 3) You forgot to mention which specific new functions have been produced before our eyes by mutations.
- 4) Perhaps the load of peer reviewed articles weren't even all concluding that, but most of them just presuming it and concluding other things - or perhaps some were concluding that from evolutionary suppositions about creature x descending from creature y by way of mutations.
13:15 "Note the wealth of evidence and ... examples in presenting the case"
If you want the specific evidence, how about going to pages which Argument 10 links to instead of just reading Argument 10?
13:34 "some mutations are good, some mutations are bad, most mutations" [are neither]
Well, the problem is that EVEN the good mutations are not of the type which the evolutionary scenario would require!
Take mutations observed in blind fish. These mutations are bad. On a VERY general level, you might just possibly imagine the same mutations going in reverse to achieve the good result of seeing fish.
There was just one part of the fetal development process which goes to building an eye, it was building just one part of the retina, and there were ten genes involved.
One or two or even more genes mutating to dysfunctional explain why there are blind fish.
But how would you explain all ten of them mutating into existence?
13:41 "Given enough time, you will start to see changes within a species in relation to their environment"
True! Excellent. Especially the "within a species" part!
Now, how would a Creationist Genetician (and specialist in plant genetics) like Maciej Giertych explain those changes?
- Genetic drift : random culling by sheer chance in propagation of certain genes (in populations small enough for chance to play a role);
- Natural selection : non-random culling by disadvantages certain individuals suffer due to certain genes in a new environment the genes are not adapted to;
- Mutations : I don't think he even mentioned them, but in the case of information, it is mainly about loss. You can lose wings if you are a beetle, you can lose eyes if you are a fish, but we never see any beetles or fish getting wings or eyes from scratch. The best beetles and fish can hope for is more like getting back functions due to crossbreeding with varieties not suffering same bad mutations (you can even cross breed to blind fish and get seeing fish - provided they were blind due to different mutations : cross-breeding in such a case restores original gene pertinent to eye-sight).
What you do NOT get is mutations driving any invention of new organs or organelles.
13:45 Geographical isolation was certainly accounted for by Maciej Giertych and it does NOT invent new organs.
14:19 "A noticeable lack of supporting evidence here."
Look, I actually looked up the original article on their site. On EACH of the 12 arguments they think Evolutionists should not use, they DO link to one or two other articles about that particular aspect.
Here are the relevant links from 10, 11:
Answers in Genesis : Chapter 7
Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?
by Bodie Hodge on February 18, 2010
Answers in Genesis : Monkeying with the Media
A Case Study of the Scopes Trial and the Media's Impact
by Rick Barry on June 7, 2007; last featured July 12, 2009
Answers in Genesis : Inherit the Wind
A Lesson in Distorting History
by Dr. Jerry Bergman on March 31, 2010
So, if you really want to be smart, and not just look smart to those who don't bother to get to originals, how about making new videos adressing the articles linked to?
14:25 "the Scopes trial has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific legitimacy of evolution"
Now, here you showed you have a totally British, not at all American perspective.
You are right.
But that is not how the US American public, including US American atheists and evolutionists see things.
14:32 "You will never see a biologist use etc"
No, but I have seen some internet evolutionists such as yourself use trials that way - BOTH Scopes, which Evolution lost, AND later ones (Kitzmiller vs Dover) which Evolution won.
14:39 "basing arguments on emotion not reason is not a trademark of science, but of faith"
For all that, quite a lot of evolutionists do show that trademark of "faith".
Also, "emotion, not reason" begs the question on how much reason is involved in emotions.
14:52 Flipping the coin is sometimes a good exercise, but you did not do it.
England has in very recent years seen worsened conditions for Creationists.
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Bias of Alice Roberts
I believe, Alice Roberts and her fellows had their way. Even private, even not state financed schools are forbidden Creationism in science classes.
And when it comes to her use of Johnny Scaramanga ... well, I'd say her appeals to emotion were unfortunately exclusive of some good reason which could have weighed in.
15:30 one being that every living thing had a sudden distinct origin less than a few thousand years ago
You are quite sure the diverse European 'edge'ogs are diversified more than 2000 years ago?
I'm not. I am however certain 25 species of 'edge'og all originated from a single couple on the Ark.
15:39 "realise that Genesis is not a literal account even if it was originally written with that intention"
If it was originally written with the intention of being literally true, it is a literal account insofar as it is either living up to intention by being literally true, or failing it by being literally false.
You can't have "well, Moses of Esra or someone thought he was doing a good reconstruction, we know it is not, but we can still use it as edifying moral tales".
For one thing, account of Original Sin is only edifying if thought to be literally true. You can explain man's sufferings and shortcomings by a fall which did occur, but if you say it did not occur, you can no longer use it to so explain the human situation - I think even you or especially you should understand that point!
15:53 "the first thing you have to drop the theology"
If you mean apostasise, I hope that you realise that is over the top.
If you just mean to make a case without directly involving theology in its arguments against evolution, I already did.
Evolution makes a prediction about geological column, which fossil finds are falsifying.
Come on, scroll up the comment thread and refute that if you can!
Considering the last point, perhaps you would be afraid to lose patronage of Robert and some more?
Try asking St Robert Bellarmine for his patronage!