Aron Ra and Kent Hovind: Discussions between DOUBT and DEVOUT LIVE!
The NonSequitur Show | Diffusé en direct le 2 mars 2018
- 1. He accepts microevolution and the change of allele frequency in populations over time.
- 2. He accepts speciation without realising that speciation is macroevolution.
- 3. He accepts Mayr's Law of Monophyly even though he doesn't understand it, because he keeps saying that elephants produce elephants and dogs produce dogs.
Exactly what monophyletic organisms are supposed to do according to both evolution and monophyly.
- 4. He accepts common ancestry because he said that panthers, lions, and tigers come from a common ancestor, which was another cat.
- 5. He accepts cladistics because he at least knows what eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells are, he just refuses to accept the genetic part of phylogenetics.
He basically accepts evolutionary mechanisms and spends most of his time arguing in their favour.
He just doesn't know that's what he's doing, and he doesn't accept that it has anything to do with evolution.
- There is one evolutionary mechanism neither will discuss, and which I reject:
1) increase of number of chromosome pairs.
- Here is one more:
2) mutations adding up to structural improvement (beyond endosymbiosis which cannot add to already multicellular creatures).
Structurally speaking, adding a cornea to the eye is one step.
But making a cornea function takes several genes functioning, about ten, one series of perhaps 8 to make the rods and the other ones there and one series of perhaps two (overlapping in one) to make them properly light sensitive.
So, one damage in two genes only makes cichlea blind. This means, adding a cornea is no chance if Hell freezes over that it takes just one mutation and you have an advantage which natural selection can protect.
Sorry for being bad on details, it was in 2016, when I was new on quora, that I discussed this.
- Here is a third, unlike the other two it can't be proven, but you have so far failed to disprove it:
3) Too little time for all of those improvements.
3.5 billion years worth of evolution seems like plenty.
There's well over 40 different methods of radiometric dating and at least two dozen of them are absolute, there's no assumptions involved.
It's based on known constants that do not change when subjected to heat or pressure, exponential rates of decay, it has scientific laws that back it up, and it's calculated using fundamental physics.
Time is not a belief system.
It is a fact the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
No 40 different methods for any given sample. If one has about 5, that is large.
"It's based on known constants that do not change when subjected to heat or pressure, exponential rates of decay, it has scientific laws that back it up, and it's calculated using fundamental physics."
Constancy of halflife (you forgot to check if it remains constant in a nuke war or near radioactive radiation), is one of the assumptions, the other one, which is NOT backed up by any law of nature is your knowing beyond reasonable dount how many there were of the parent isotope.
Also, the constant halflife beaing measured is an assumption, which carbon 14 has invalidated.
Yes, you got it right. Carbon 14 has invalidated the measuredness of longer halflives. Libby thought he had measured carbon 14 halflife to 5568 plus or minus 30 years. We know, thanks to the crosschecking with historically dated material, the real C14 halflife is 5730 plus or minus 40.
In other words halflives need to be confirmed with datings of crosschecked material, which you don't really have for longer halflives.
How old do you think the planet is, and why do you reject scientific laws and the physics that prove the methods work?
The Libby halflife is not from a creationist source. The Cambridge halflife is not from a creationist source. The story of how Carbon 14 changed the halflife is also not from a creationist source.
My conclusion is not FROM a creationist source, it IS a creationist source.
"How old do you think the planet is,"
The planets are 4 days younger than Heaven and Earth. Heaven and Earth are 7200 to 7500 + some years.
"and why do you reject scientific laws and the physics that prove the methods work?"
Why do you reject the argument I gave in preference to an obvious and blatant strawman?
Most dating methods don't require the original parent/daughter ratios in order to work.
It is impossible for the Earth to be anything other than 4.5 billion years old. There are no isotopes with half-lives of less than 10,000 years; so a young Earth is impossible.
"Constancy of halflife (you forgot to check if it remains constant in a nuke war or near radioactive radiation), is one of the assumptions, the other one, which is NOT backed up by any law of nature is your knowing beyond reasonable dount how many there were of the parent isotope. Also, the constant halflife beaing measured is an assumption, which carbon 14 has invalidated."
As to the rest:
"Most dating methods don't require the original parent/daughter ratios in order to work."
Give one example of one which doesn't on your erroneous opinion?
"It is impossible for the Earth to be anything other than 4.5 billion years old. There are no isotopes with half-lives of less than 10,000 years; so a young Earth is impossible."
Heard that one before, it presumes, wrongly, as a given, that if an isotope with a halflife of 9000 years is mathematically possible, it is either there or Earth is older because it was there and decayed. What if it wasn't created in the first place?
Also, blatantly wrong, since C14 actually has a shorter halflife, as mentioned 5730 years. You could of course argue that is exceptional, since it is continuously being replaced.
Exactly, and that replacement, unlike the halflife, is not a constant in and of itself.
Only creationists are silly enough to argue against scientific laws, fundamental physics, and facts repeatedly confirmed through observations and experiments.
That atmosphere breathed by objects in Göbekli Tepe had 100 pmC is NOT a scientific law, not fundamental physics and not a fact repeatedly confirmed through observations and experiments. You didn't send someone back in a time machine.
So, if the atmosphere instead had sth under 50 pmC, which is possible by scientific laws, possible by fundamental physics, and contradicts no fact repeatedly confirmed, THEN Göbekli Tepe would fit very well the 40 years of Babel, sth less than 5000 years ago.
That a meteorite with U238 and Pb206 originally had only U238 is NOT a scientific law, not fundamental physics, and not a fact repeatedly confirmed through experimentation and observing things.
This means that one cannot used the meteorite to prove U238 has been decaying for 4.5 billion years.
Whether you take me seriously or not is less important.
You can cry argument ad populum if it makes you feel better but that's exactly what YEC is. Creation science is built on lies and ignorance.
I have no time for liars or science deniers.
Hans-Georg Lundahl You don't have to keep quoting my words back to me. This is an informal discussion, not a college exam where you have to show your work, and I am perfectly capable of remembering what has been said so far.
Don't waste my time. Mathematics proves the age of the Earth.
t is the age of the sample, D is the number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, Do is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition (not even needed in most dating methods), N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time + (the present), given by N(t)=NoE^t , and ^ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2.
The only way you can be correct is if the Law of Radioactive Decay is wrong, and physics is wrong.
Neither are wrong, and you certainly can't honestly believe you're capable of debunking scientific laws and mathematical formulas.
The Earth is proven to be 4.5 billion years old.
"Young Earth Creationism is the insane belief that every scientific institute is wrong, all major science organizations are wrong, the American National Academy of Science is wrong, every academy of science worldwide is wrong, all accredited colleges and universities on Earth are wrong, 90% of living scientists are wrong, 98% of living biologists are wrong, and you are right."
Sorry, but that is not an argument.
It is not an ad populum. The people you enumerate constitute less than 1 % of any population.
It is an argument from authority.
Outside theology, and outside raw data, it is not very good, is it.
I notice you didn't solve for t.
You're only making yourself look foolish.
If eucaryotes were a development from a simpler form of life, one could suppose it happened as one mutation or set of such, and they would have a common ancestor.
But we have not observed eucaryotes developing from simpler forms of life, like archaea, we have just observed eucaryotes being eucaryotes. Which they could as easily by a common designer as by a common ancestor, if not easier. Lots easier.
"Observation" in science isn't always having literal eyes on something.
And you just lost all credibility. Magic man poofing things into existence is not science, doesn't explain anything, and in fact goes against all evidence gathered.
Thanks for admitting you sometimes misterm debatable conclusions for observations!
"Magic man poofing things into existence is not science, doesn't explain anything,"
Explains everything you have explained as well as you do, and also explains some more, like language, conscience, morality being objective and logic being universally valid.
"and in fact goes against all evidence gathered."
Goes against none of it, as far as I can tell, but you tell me what "evidence gathered" you refer to ...
Observations are repeatably testable facts determined by scientific inquiry. A fact is not a conclusion in and of itself, and many of the facts of evolution are not contested by creationists.
"Explains everything you have"
It doesn't qualify as an explanation.
"what "evidence gathered""
This opens the door for including conclusions.
"A fact is not a conclusion in and of itself,"
"and many of the facts of evolution are not contested by creationists."
Some are not contested by me either.
Now, I was saying: we have not observed eucaryotes developing from simpler forms of life, like archaea; will you admit eucaryotes developing from procaryotes is in the order of conclusions rather than observed facts?
"It doesn't qualify as an explanation."
Doesn't explain is one thing. You didn't say that. Doesn't "qualify as an explanation" is another thing, and according to whose rules?
My dear, as to link, talk origins is a site mixing facts and their evidence and supposed facts and what supposedly evidences them, so it does not answer the question I posed.
But the way you do it is spoof, and that doesn't quite match Aron.
If he made one on cytochrome C, another on another gene, a third on a third one, and the phylogenetic trees agree, there is some point to it.
I'd explain it from a common designer using similar features of gestation "recipes" (that is what genes are, at one level) to achieve similar results.
French rolls and sponge cake don't bake at same temperature. So, if I wanted a type of sponge cake, I'd involve the sponge cake temperature. If I wanted a french roll, I'd involve the french roll oven temperature.
French rolls don't and sponge cake does contain whipped egg yolks in the dough. If I wanted a typ of french roll or a type of sponge cake, I would chose the recipe accordingly.
That is why cytochrome C would agree with some other genes.
I'd ask CMI or ICR if there are genes with a different and conflicting phylogeny.
Paraphyletic organisms can produce polyphyletic and monophyletic organisms.
Monophyletic organisms can only produce more species in the monophyletic clade.
I think I may have misunderstood the term.
I thought it meant sth like all eucaryotes being monophyletic. You meant sth like all monophyletic clades remaining as they are even in face of future speciation events - sounds a bit like an Evolutionist version of fixity of species - unless you simply mean, the ones which remain the same are the ones which haven't changed, Eucaryotes are defined as the common core remaining after all speciations leading to new clades within the Eucaryote clade.
On a Young Earth Creationist view, Eucaryotes are in fact polyphyletic, and I was asking "how do you prove all eucaryotes are monophyletic?" Or do you have anything backing up that Eucaryotes cannot be polyphyletic?
If you mean Eucaryotes have too many traits in common for it being coincidence, we agree.
On a Classic Greco-Roman atheist view, pine trees would have been pine trees and elephants elephants for all eternity, neither descending from other or common ancestry and neither created by any God or gods.
On that view of Democritus, Epicure and Lucrece, probably shared by Julius Caesar, we would be dealing with polyphyletic clades without any kind of common origin.
That is very solidly refuted by both elephants and pine trees being Eucaryotes.
But polyphyletic with a common creator, creating pine trees on day three and elephants on day six before creating man also on day six, no, Eucaryotes being Eucaryotes and sharing Eucaryotic traits does not refute that.
So, how would you prove to any kind of Creationist, except Theistic Evolutionists who accept your conclusions on blind faith, that Eucaryotes need to be monophyletic rather than have a common Creator?
He is not drunk, that is the argument you should have studied in advance.
To some 19th C creationists, each Linnean species was a Biblical kind.
To some baraminologists, sheep and goats are same kind, but not same species.
To Aron Ra, each being is several kinds, and one of them is for most beings the Eucaryote kind.
Within that you have a divergence between Fungi, Green plants, Animals (perhaps some more), each then being an Eucaryote and Fungus, and Eucaryote and Plant, an Eucaryote and Animal.
And so on. If you did not expect to hear this from AronRa, you came unprepared. And I saw the video on which you said you were letting AronRa prepare.
There are very probable answers to this, especially with a young earth and especially as the common origin for all Eucaryotes could be as well a common creator as a common ancestor.
But before you answer, you need to hear what he is saying.
It could be I am wrong and chipmunks and squirrels are two separate kinds.
My mistake could be because chipmunks don't exist in Europe, I could be as wrong as in a moment in very young childhood taking porcupines for hedgehogs.
I am also on two minds on whether moonrats are a separate kind or belong to the hedgehog kind - that makes a difference of 1 or 2 couples on the Ark for what today is 25 species in several genera and two subfamilies (formerly families) of a family (formerly order or suborder).
It is more elastic and more useful than a rigid system ranging from kingdom to species via ... taking the ones for chipmunk:
Why would each creature have gone through 6 major speciation events (affecting its classification) and neither more nor less, since the first animal?
What you need to prove is that not only Tamias, Marmotini and Sciuridae, but also Rodentia, Mammalia, Chordata and Animalia have single common ancestors. Sciuridae is as far as I would push the kind for chipmunks, supposing they are a kind of squirrels. Squirrels/chipmunks are no way the same kind as rats and mice.
There is even a karyotypic hurdle for Mammals having a common ancestor.
Mammals don't do triploidy and tetraploidy. All recorded cases of human tetraploidy in medicine have ended their life well before puberty : most on early fetal stages but one boy was born tetraploid and very weak and died within a year.
Chrosomome splitting or fissioning into two and both of them having two telomeres and a centromere is geometrically impossible. I took that up with Myers' proposed explanation, in which he conveniently leaves out perhaps even centromeres but certainly telomeres on diagram.
Chromosomes fusing or fusioning is possible, but can only reduce chromosome numbers.
For mammals to have a common ancestor, that one would have needed to have very high chromosome numbers.
Sounds like a contradiction in terms.
Or would "is still a eucaryote", "still an animal", and so on mean "still all the clades we resume as eucaryote, all the clades we resume as animal"?
Would even so all the animals belong to all of these clades before belonging to any of those which constitute sth within animal? Or could first clade of phylum x be a common ancestor to all animals before last clade of animal, and phylum x retained and other phyla did not retain characteristics of that clade?
[Note, convinced life is a fluid dynamic, as he is, he forgot about chromosome numbers, which are not.]
It seems they were wrong.
Hares have two chromosomes or chromosome pairs more than rabbits.
In Europe, they cannot interbreed either directly or indirectly. In North America, there is a species between them, having one chromosome pair more than the rabbit and one less than the hare. It can interbreed with both.
The original lagomorph had the chromosomes the hare has, and the two other species, of which one is not represented in the wild in Europe, came through fusion of chromosomes.
The opposite process, fission of chromosomes, is not feasible.
If one mouse has 40 chromosomes or pairs and one 22 (I am not sure whether it was 1 mouse type having 2n=40 and other 2n=22, or if it was 2n=80 and 2n=44), arguably the one with 40 has priority over the one with 22 - which also is known from an insular and isolated population. They are the same kind, perhaps also with rats and perhaps not.
[Another time infinity730 misses answering on chromosome numbers]
"Rodents" isn't a kind in the sense of Genesis 6 and 7, population of couples on the Ark, mouse (perhaps with rat) and squirrel (perhaps with chipmunk) is.
There used to be a time when even lagomorphs, hares and rabbits, were counted as "rodents". Obviously they are neither the same kind as squirrels, nor as mice.
Elephants and pine trees are "both eucaryotes" like mice and squirrels are "both rodents".
25:50 We do not know if God actually created a primordial pair of squirrels on day 6 or a wider population reduced to one through the Ark.
26:47 If AronRa is asking "is it species, genus, family, order or what" the answer is "usually varies between genus and family, sometimes suborder too".
If you say "that is flawed because it is imprecise" well, your own terminology is that too, since lagomorphs used to be rodents and since the family of hedgehogs and moonrats was previously a suborder.
26:56 Speciation rates are obviously faster in small and inbreeding populations than in big populations with lots of "exogamy" if that can be used as a term outside man.
One of the fastest speciation events is, fusion to two pairs into one. I don't believe man evolved from apes, which were "not yet man or chimp or gorilla", but if man had done so, the origin of chromosome 2 would not be the major problem.
Here the mice of Madeira are considered as a chromosomal race of mice, not as a separate species, but I am not sure they haven't reached reproductive isolation from mice with more chromosomes.
[Also, infinity730 had nothing to say on fast speciation by reducing the number of separate chromosomes by fusion, nor of Madeira mice.]
Some diversification could have happened before the Ark. Suppose moonrats are hedgehogs having lost the capacity to form spines, than it is possible that moonrats diversified from hedgehogs before the Flood.
If there is a clearly pre-Flood separate occurrence of hedgehogs and moonrats in fossils, well, they were already two kinds before Noah. And could have diversified, by loss of spine forming capacity in moonrats, in the 2242 years from Creation to Flood (in Hovind's case that would be 1656 years). Naturally or by evil pre-Flood transgenics experiments.
They could also be originally two separate kinds.
But if fossile hedgehogs and moonrats do not occur in layers clearly tied to Flood, the diversification can have taken place since the Flood, by moonrats loosing capacity to form spines.
28:02 Squirrels are a point for Hovind!
28:40 Similarily with "cats" even if his examples are taken from the pantherines rather than felines.
I am not sure I agree with pantherines having a common ancestor with felines on Ark or earlier.
I don't know any cross breeds across that divide. Cat and lynx, or jaguar and lion, fine.
Obviously, the diversity within pantherines or within felines is a very much less problematic one.
28:53 With chicken, I would even consider they could be the Indian version of what in Europe is in wildlife known as feasants.
I think partridges support my point on feasants:
However, molecular research suggests that partridges are not a distinct taxon within the family Phasianidae, but that some species are closer to the pheasants, while others are closer to the junglefowls.
The one described with less accurate human history and wildly inaccurate theology in a few other traditions (about 100 or 200 around the world).
The one which covered a Jurassic or Triassic - Triassic, since Norian - Pterosaur in Tyrol, a few Palaeocene marine mammals in Vienna and Linz, a few biotopes classified as Permian, Triassic and Jurassic in Karoo, and a few more things like that.
I hope this was sufficiently precise?
Science has conclusively disproved a global flood.
Soroka and Nelson demonstrated that a global flood would require 4.4 billion cubic km of water, enough for the latent heat of vaporisation to have heated the planet to over 1,000 degrees centigrade.
Thereby boiling the Earth and killing everything instantly.
That's before we even talk about limestone precipitation, air pressure reacting according to the rising sea level, Eolian wind ripple in sediment that should have been thousands of feet underwater, the impossibility of thousands of animals speciating into millions of species in only 4,400 years, or the overwhelming scientific consensus that there's no evidence whatsoever of a global flood.
Didn't AronRa already do a video on that one?
How Meteorology Disproves Noah's Flood
AronRa / Ajoutée le 29 déc. 2016
And, you know, commenting on it and assembling my comments (with link) on a blog post of mine, I so to speak commented here:
On Flood with AronRa Referring to Soroka and Nelson
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
I also discussed the debunking with one of his patreon patrons, here:
With Alan Whistler / Alan the Atheist on AronRa's Video
Tuesday, 17 January 2017
"the impossibility of thousands of animals speciating into millions of species in only 4,400 years"
Not if many species are breeds or band species.
Also, even in vertebrates of land type, you don't get millions of species. Fish and insects did not depend on the Ark.
"Eolian wind ripple in sediment that should have been thousands of feet underwater,"
Leaving that one for now to Creationist expertise, one solution being not all of the earth was covered with water all of the time and another being eolian is a mistaken classification, the formation was underwater in fact.
"air pressure reacting according to the rising sea level,"
Why would it and how?
Note, we are not talking a rise to the present level of Mount Everest, only to the highest pre-Flood mountain tops however high that was and 15 cubits more.
Also, some of the oxygen of atmosphere on my own theory would have reacted with hydrogen above atmosphere and formed part of the water we now think of as in very deep Oceanic ridges.
"or the overwhelming scientific consensus that there's no evidence whatsoever of a global flood."
Grammatically, you abuse language. A consensus is consensus, not just a majority, even if actual consensus is overwhelming, you don't call it so.
A majority can be overwhelming, but it is still not a consensus.
Majority and consensus are not evidence about the facts. They are evidence about someone's assessment of facts. That is the philosophical problem.
"That's before we even talk about limestone precipitation,"
Which would have bound part of the carbon dioxide of previously in atmosphere then in Flood rain ... right?
A Serbian considered that the acidity needed was such it must have happened quickly or it would have made all the seas so sour no fish would have survived.
Get over it.
There's no reason to trust creationist's judgment when your own peers are obligated to lie and ignore evidence they don't like.
Everything I wrote was correct.
There's no evidence of a global flood, and multiple independant lines of evidence all converge on the same conclusion that no global flood ever happened.
According to your view of the past ...
"and even creationist organizations won't let anyone work for them unless they sign a contract that includes the words "no evidence, including history and chronology, can possibly be true if it contradicts scripture". It's in AiG's Statement of Faith, section 4:General."
Which is only wrong if there is evidence that is real and contradicts Scripture, there isn't.
I am not affiliated to AiG even if I appreeciate them and CMI even more, and your twist on it shows a reversed dogmatism of the same kind : to you, no evidence can possibly contradict evolution. Or so it seems from your even refusing to look at mine.
I didn't refuse to even look on AronRa's.
"There's no reason to trust creationist's judgment"
How about looking at the arguments in the links to my work, whether you trust me or not?
" when your own peers are obligated to lie and ignore evidence they don't like."
You are misconstruing what the statement of faith says. It said nothing about lying.
"Everything I wrote was correct."
In your own view and I have so much reason to trust you, right?
"There's no evidence of a global flood,"
Except the ones I gave and you ignored. You most especially refused to look at whether the evidence from Karoo fits millions of years or a global Flood better.
"and multiple independant lines of evidence"
In your interpretation of them.
"all converge on the same conclusion that no global flood ever happened."
And I answered every one of them myself except one where I referred to creationist expertise. Eolic traces between layers.
And such that the structure above cell level is sometimes simple as in mushrooms and sometimes absent as in yeast cells.
I wonder if AronRa thinks this ancestral eucaryote had chlorophyll and fungi and animals lost it, or, like fungi, lacked chlorophyll and how a yeast like cell gained an ability which is present in plants and some bacteria. That of turning water and carbon dioxide into nutrition via sunlight or light of equivalent strength. (I am not a hash smoker, but one biologist who once was and who described four plants as masters in survival of the fittest, he took cannabis sativa as example for the human desire "intoxication" after classifying apples including cider and applejack as "sweetness" and he described plants of cannabis sativa growing fast and getting more THC because they grew in cellars in Amsterdam where lamps were keeping their photosynthesis going around the clock).
"There was no point when they stopped being what they were"
Fine ... this poses more than one problem.
- 1) Supposing a common ancestor has 20 typical "survival skills" and it diversifies so each new clade looses one of them, either living without or replacing it with another, and one of the clades (within clades even) has no longer any one of the 20 "survival skills" - is it still the same kind as its ancestor?
- 2) The plants are eucaryotes. The ancestral eucaryote was not becoming instead a cyanobacterium. How did plants gain the capacity for photosynthesis?
Or do eucaryotes and cyanobacteria have a common ancestor, and fungi and animals lost the capacity for photosynthesis?
- 3) On your view, this would mean clades become more and more specialised - but the oldest clades on your view, those from Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian, they seem specialised enough.
This is a check that Edgar Andrews got to your challenge. His example would be, fish, quadrupeds, pennates and bipeds are four specialised types of provective system in animalia. We don't find any ancestral clade which is unspecified between these.
So, what would a proto-eucaryote look like which was neither yet green plant nor yet fungus nor yet animal?
Has a fossil candidate been found?
Is that still your version of common ancestor?
Did previous carnivores go like feliform or like caniform?
If either, doesn't it make either feliforms a caniform clade or caniforms a feliform clade, doesn't it make either feliforms or caniforms paraphyletic?
33:45 I have looked that playlist up.
[The one in which AronRa describes what happened so some Eucaryotes became animals and so on. See comments on those ones.]