Monday, July 11, 2022

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine

Consequences of Creationism : Rik Elswit and Matthew Caine · Bob Trent · Marcelus Aurelius · AFB (+ Mike Sweeney) · Peter Tatford · Michael David Griffiths · Jo Wharrier · Paulo Oliveira · The Feasibilian Project

What is the possible impact of the creationism theory to the world?

Rik Elswit
Musician for 60 years. Professional musician for 55.
Get this straight. There is no creationism theory. A theory is a formally structured argument that allows for falsification.

Creationism is simply an objection to the theory of evolution, which actually is a theory and has been proven out over the last century and a half to be the best explanation of the observed facts of speciation over time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
No, creationism is not AN objection, it is several ones and quite a few of them are falsifiable theories - to the extent even that some have in the meantime got discarded (water canopy, for instance).

Matthew Caine
It's nothing but an unsubstantiated claim, and a pretty pathetic one at that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
If any claim is unsubstantiated, it’s …

  • abiogenesis
  • prokaryotes developing into eukaryotes
  • developing sexual procreation
  • developing new cell types
  • ape from fish
  • man from ape (with what that implies for gradualism - an impossible such - of human language getting into place)
  • and a few more.

And as to our claims being unsubstantiated, how about looking at our material for the details, or asking me about things you consider unsubstantiated?

Matthew Caine
IIt is unsubstantiated, because all you have, as you just demonstrated, is s pretty pathetic form of negative evidence whereby all you attempt is to find flaws in the Evolutionary Theory of Modern Synthesis, likely without any knowledge off what it entails. Your only 'claim’ is that your ‘god’ did it, and your only evidence is your own incredulity, and an ancient text that without evidence for the existence of your preferred deity, lacks both credulity and authority.

Prove your claim without any reference to Evolution, which is itself an observed fact, or the associated Theory, since disproving them lends nothing to your own claim which needs to stand on its own two feet.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In each case, I think I have better understanding of what the thing entails, if not than every evolutionist researcher (except development of human language, Pascal Picq never bothered to try to refute my refutation of his claims), definitely than a “Bachelor in Economics & Accounting” or a Mainframe Developer (whatever that is).

Now, for each thing that seems to exist, there are four alternatives :

  • it always was
  • it was made with deliberation
  • it emerged without deliberation
  • it is only an illusion.

So, cutting out “it emerged without deliberation” actually comes fairly close to showing “it was made with deliberation” since there are other weighty alternatives against each of these either “always being” or “being just an illusion.”

The observed fact of genetic change over time is totally neutral between Evolutionists and Creationists and does nothing, absolutely nothing, to solve any of my cases for you.

Matthew Caine
Why do you discount ‘made without deliberation’ which is the most likely and rational explanation. To claim that such deliberation exists, you must first demonstrate that an entity exists that is capable of such. As usual, a Creationist is, as is pretty typical, attempting some form of circular reasoning. You have two unproven hypotheses, yet you try to prove each one by reference to the other.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Why do I discount “emerged without deliberation” for …

  • abiogenesis? - very simple cells need hundreds of genes and genes need very many base pairs in very correct order, besides, of the amino-acids that could be produced in Miller Urey conditions one or two lack for life and those that are there arrive without chirality
  • prokaryotes developing into eukaryotes? - endosymbiosis is still not an option
  • developing sexual procreation? - how would that even work for an organism thitherto just multiplying by division?
  • developing new cell types? - has not been observed and each cell type needs definite specific genes to function and mutations are much better at destroying genes than at creating them
  • ape from fish? - lots of new cell types, see previous
  • man from ape (with what that implies for gradualism - an impossible such - of human language getting into place)? - to put it at its simplest : beast languages have typically up to 500 complete messages in which typically phoneme, morpheme and syntagm coincide, human languages have infinite messages, involving notionality and using a three tier system where the syntagm consists of mostly more than one morpheme and the morpheme of mostly more than one phoneme and where in return the phoneme itself, very far from being a complete message as with beasts, is meaningless.

“To claim that such deliberation exists, you must first demonstrate that an entity exists that is capable of such.”

Not really, there are too many “gaps” where God fits too perfectly for each of these to be dismissed with one needing “first” to demonstrate His existence. With visible explanations, you show the explanation at work in connexion with what is to be explained, but with unobervable explanations, the proof of an explanation is how many things it explains and how many of these have no good other explanation. Thanks for giving the opportunity to debunk that schmuck of yours!

“As usual, a Creationist is, as is pretty typical, attempting some form of circular reasoning.”

You have not pointed out any correctly identified circulus vitiosus in probando. You pretend to identify one by dismissing my actual words in favour of your own fancied structure of my reasoning …

Matthew Caine
Chock full of logical fallacies, and straightout ignorance. I won't waste my time. Bye!

I could not answer this,
I had been blocked, but my answer would have gone sth like "well, that's the safest course you can do to save your face in the face of my actual arguments!"

No comments: