The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Five: The Revenge of Mike Shermer

classical_hero said:

But that does not follow, since there are some areas in the world, such as Australia that was not touched by the Ice Age and yet there are Aborigines flood myths, heck there are even Tower myths that have spread across the world and these cultures were separate for a long time, so there is more to what you are thinking than w=you want to believe.

Click to expand...

Well sea-level change affected the whole world, Australia included.

However, I think the idea that these flood myth accounts in general stem from the ice age ending is a little bit goofy. I think the explanation of creationist flood myth lists are far more mundane.

They include:
Counting related myths as separate independent myths despite evidence that the cultures communicated
Many early civilizations arose in flood plains, in which we should expect plenty of flood myths
Presuming that the accounts of the culture's beliefs were not introduced by Christian missionaries, etc.
Basing their statements on questionable accounts (how do you know that some preachers account in 1843 was accurate?)

In the end the scientific case I've seen is pretty bleak.

A sort of related post on this is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9296325&postcount=470

I haven't heard anything about tower myths but I imagine my objections would be similar. If you want to discuss that further, you certainly are welcome to!

classical_hero said:

Wrong, it was Edward Blyth that was the first to use it, but he used to in a Creationist perceptive. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm

Click to expand...

Well, there were precursory ideas to Blyth too, the big thing is Darwin formulated natural selection in the context of evolution as we know it today. So you're both wrong.

classical_hero said:

I will call that a cop out, since evolution is not possible with a credible explanation of how the first cell came to being. You need to show that it possible for the first cell to come into existence by itself first. It is vital step. Because all things are done naturally, then there has to be an explanation of how the first cell cam into being.

Click to expand...

El_Machinae said:

I'm not arguing that we don't need an abiogenesis theory. It's very much needed and will probably be a hot topic for some time. But evolution can stand on its own. Consider, for example, if panspermia is true. If it's true, then no abiogenesis theory will ever be a fact (even if the theories are robust), but the evolutionary explanation would still work for explaining post pan-spermia events. If we find seeded life on Mars, for example, it's going to cause real headscratching about where life actually started.

Click to expand...

Well, if panspermia is true, abiogenesis still happened, just not on Earth.

It certainly would be nice to have a detailed account of how exactly abiogenesis happened, but in absence of it we still have the massive evidence of evolution. To argue that just because we don't have an account of how exactly abiogenesis happened evolution is incorrect is rather ridiculous!

Now, one might argue abiogenesis couldn't occur, but I haven't seen anything convincing from Creationists on that.

El_Machinae said:

Thanks for posting, I know what a dogpile this is.

Click to expand...

Let me second the sentiments!

I recall awhile ago I was asked about Carbon 14 Dating. I now have an answer. The thing about Carbon 14 Data is it assumes the Carbon all started out as not Carbon 14, but the other element. This logic fails, because there is no scientific reason there may have been some Carbon 14 and some of another substance at the world's beginning.

I acknowledge this post doesn't KO evolution, just one means of proving it. ATM however, I haven't seen valid proof of Evolution.

What level of education do you have in science, then? Because any evidence will have to be tailored to what you know.

El_Machinae said:

What level of education do you have in science, then? Because any evidence will have to be tailored to what you know.

Click to expand...

Very little actually. However, I can see a fallacy and realize it. I really don't understand much in the way of science. How is this on topic?

Well, to provide evidence, the evidence needs to be tailored in a way that you'll understand. Talk about Carbon 14 might be completely inappropriate, for example. It might be a waste of time, or only lead to misunderstanding. Carbon 14 is only useful for recent history, anyway.

El_Machinae said:

Well, to provide evidence, the evidence needs to be tailored in a way that you'll understand. Talk about Carbon 14 might be completely inappropriate, for example. It might be a waste of time, or only lead to misunderstanding. Carbon 14 is only useful for recent history, anyway.

Click to expand...

I'm not an idiot, but any such nonsense such as "The Square of X times the Square of Y Plus the Square of X equals the Square of Z means that Evolution must be accurate" I will ignore.

Note, the above was basically a joke making fun of Higher Algebra and science. However, I'm not scientifically that smart. I know you can't prove Evolution as fact though.

Well, understanding the preponderance of evidence for evolution helps create a more literate society, and a greater understanding of biology and history. There're lots of good things that need to be done using the biological sciences, and knowing history is pretty important for anyone who wants to help inform policy.

No one can prove any scientific theory 100%. It's not mathematics.

No one has ever said X is true therefore Y is proven.

Except Euler of course He was joking I think, and it may have been an urban myth:

There is a famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was later informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced, "Sir, (a + b^n)/n = x , hence God exists—reply!". Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress. However amusing the anecdote may be, it is apocryphal, given that Diderot was a capable mathematician who had published mathematical treatises.

What is the point of this thread? Just to gloat to each other about how stupid creationists are? I mean is there anyone seriously arguing for creationism on this forum?(haven't read topic other than first and last page)

While I see many arguments about specifics of certain evolutionary histories and such, the general concept is pretty damn impossible to deny.

Ulyaoth said:

What is the point of this thread? Just to gloat to each other about how stupid creationists are? I mean is there anyone seriously arguing for creationism on this forum?(haven't read topic other than first and last page)

While I see many arguments about specifics of certain evolutionary histories and such, the general concept is pretty damn impossible to deny.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are people arguing seriously for Creationism/creationism. Some more politely and logically than others.

This thread is also useful to discuss creationism for people who do not actually argue creationism, and also for people who want to discuss evolution itself to get a better understanding of it or to clear up misconceptions and things they don't understand.

Perfection started these threads because he (and others) got tired of repeating themselves in all the threads that popped up and was quickly forgotten again. Of course, the same topics can - and do - still come up in these threads, but at least it is now all contained in one thread, instead of having several similar threads at the same time.

Domination3000 said:

I recall awhile ago I was asked about Carbon 14 Dating. I now have an answer. The thing about Carbon 14 Data is it assumes the Carbon all started out as not Carbon 14, but the other element. This logic fails, because there is no scientific reason there may have been some Carbon 14 and some of another substance at the world's beginning.

Click to expand...

Just because you don't know any scientific reasons why this might be so, doesn't mean there aren't any.

¹⁴C dating is only applicable to ages to about 50000 years. As we know that the earth is far older than that by other methods (various radiometric methods, solar life cycle, necessary geological timescales...), the initial distribution of ¹⁴C at the formation of the earth is irrelevant: All of that has decayed to ¹²C anyway. Thus only the steady state is relevant and that is only determined by the incoming cosmic radiation (and a bit by emission of fossil carbon, but I don't think the cave people drove around in SUVs). As the incoming cosmic radiation is fairly constant, it is very reasonable to assume a quite constant ¹⁴C concentration. Of course, if you want good accuracy you need to account for the small fluctuations, but for a good estimate that's not necessary.

One could argue, that the cosmic radiation was higher in the past, because the universe was closer together, but that would make the samples to be younger than they really are and not older. (And the effects are probably close to not measurable anyway.)

DNA can be used to reconstruct about 6.000 generations back in time. It can be used for instance to track how humans spread out over the world.

How can this be possible using a young earth?

Domination3000 said:

I'm not an idiot, but any such nonsense such as "The Square of X times the Square of Y Plus the Square of X equals the Square of Z means that Evolution must be accurate" I will ignore.

Note, the above was basically a joke making fun of Higher Algebra and science. However, I'm not scientifically that smart. I know you can't prove Evolution as fact though.

Click to expand...

Of course we can't prove on a message board, it's too involved! The Origin of Species is 502 pages, it's not that long because Darwin was overly verbose or stuffed it with filler. It's that long because it needed to be to get his points across.

I can recommend some books if you like, but I don't think that's the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is you're simply rejecting science, as if it was something you can just discard as nonsense. It is quite difficult for me address how absolutely terrible an idea that is without getting into personal insults.

The scientific community brought you such wonderful things as plastic, non-germy food, electronics, medicine, cars, etc. etc. etc. why are rejecting what they all agree upon?

I'm not an idiot, but a talking snake told Adam's rib to eat an apple and that's why Jesus had to be crucified.

Perfection said:

Of course we can't prove on a message board, it's too involved! The Origin of Species is 502 pages, it's not that long because Darwin was overly verbose or stuffed it with filler. It's that long because it needed to be to get his points across.

I can recommend some books if you like, but I don't think that's the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is you're simply rejecting science, as if it was something you can just discard as nonsense. It is quite difficult for me address how absolutely terrible an idea that is without getting into personal insults.

The scientific community brought you such wonderful things as plastic, non-germy food, electronics, medicine, cars, etc. etc. etc. why are rejecting what they all agree upon?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that. And I don't reject science, I reject the parts that disagree with a book that has been around for thousands of years, has always been correct, and is scientifically accurate. Evolution is just a hypothesis, it has never been seen, and even Darwin only took it as a theory and not a fact.

You've been told over and over again that all scientific theories cannot be taken as fact.

Gravity is just a theory. We told you that already.

Domination, if the bible is perfect, then how come Ecumenical Councils have changed parts of it? How can you change something that is already perfect? Remember, if something is perfect it can no longer change.

Just as a pre-emptive argument, watch this video and tell me why the literal word of God can have so many contradictions:

Link to video.

Domination3000 said:

Yeah, I get that. And I don't reject science, I reject the parts that disagree with a book that has been around for thousands of years, has always been correct, and is scientifically accurate.

Click to expand...

There is no such book!

Domination3000 said:

Evolution is just a hypothesis, it has never been seen,

Click to expand...

Sure it has. One of many examples: antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.

Domination3000 said:

and even Darwin only took it as a theory and not a fact.

Click to expand...

How the heck did you get that idea?

Ajidica said:

Domination, if the bible is perfect, then how come Ecumenical Councils have changed parts of it? How can you change something that is already perfect? Remember, if something is perfect it can no longer change.

Just as a pre-emptive argument, watch this video and tell me why the literal word of God can have so many contradictions:

Click to expand...

When it was orignially written, it was perfect. The councils interpreted it, not changed it. Yes, the interpretations can error on a word or two. Yes, some versions (The NKJV included) have one mistake that I know of, a 40 where there should have been a four. No, the story of creation was not such a mistake.

Domination3000 said:

When it was orignially written, it was perfect.

Click to expand...

How do you know that?

Domination3000 said:

The councils interpreted it, not changed it. Yes, the interpretations can error on a word or two. Yes, some versions (The NKJV included) have one mistake that I know of, a 40 where there should have been a four. No, the story of creation was not such a mistake.

Click to expand...

How do you know it isn't a mistake?