Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Meshing and Threshing Advantageously and Arbitrarily


There's an old saying which states that the "winners write the history books." Though this doesn't ring 100% true (or else we wouldn't be able to trust any history--nor would there be "two sides to every story"), it makes the point that the one who's victorious often gets to decide how things "were," are, and will be. It's something along the lines of the philosophy that "might makes right," whether true, just, or not.
However, in the field of science, dissenting views can be the spur to the horse of progress. The earth is round? The earth revolves around the sun? These weren't popular ideas at one time or another, but underdogs barked long enough and loud enough, backing their barks with sufficient evidential "bite," to dethrone reigning theories. Even if the primary theories aren't entirely innaccurate, minority positions can be the "cream" that cures imperfections.

Secularists have largely won the battle over science thus far. Quite frankly, they've been winning the battles for society at large, too. Unfortunately, they've left the battlefield quite damaged. Some of science is in a state of disrepair for the sake of secular domination. Despite what we know about "iron sharpening iron" and "gold being refined by fire" in the scientific fields, creationists and proponents of Intelligent Design are relatively silenced in the public sphere. The ever-spreading infectious Theory of Evolution is a disease that wants no competing virus. It's suspicious, isn't it? If evolutionists were really confident in their belief, they would encourage creationists to publicly make fools of themselves--to be "put to shame" (1 Peter 3:16) if evolutionists had a "good conscience." But they know that creationists are "always being ready to make a defense to everyone..." (1 Peter 3:15) Therefore, silence, not debate, is the preferred method of confrontation. The scientific elite, who wants to tell us "how things were," may cry out that we devious creationists will "deceive people," therefore efforts like the Creation Museum must be shut down. But if the evidence for evolution is so compelling and overwhelming, just show it to all, and creationists should have no answer. ...Still waiting... Speak and listen; don't filibuster and hush, which is essentially what the scientific establishment is doing when they continually point to "experts" and "scientific consensus" and never to cold hard facts and refutations of creationism. Besides, you would think that, if the veracity of Evolution is so irrefutable, creationists would be useful tools in simply polishing and solidifying the theory. That's my perspective, anyways, as a creationist, toward evolutionists. They challenge Christians to think more of God's thoughts after Him. They produce endurance. "Consider it all joy...when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance..." (James 1:2-3)

But, no, that's not the attitude of evolutionists. They decry the private Creation Museum, while controlling virtually every other outlet, including the school system.

Of course, all theories do not hold the same weight and thereby do not require the same level of recognition. If I say that both the earth and moon are made of cheese and only cheese, my voice won't carry very far--and rightfully so. But only the most ardent, arrogant, and ignorant atheists and evolutionists would place creationism in that category.

However, that's the point, isn't it? Those on that side of the spectrum--if not so extreme--do the categorizing, don't they? That brings us to the real gist of this post: Meshing and Threshing... But what do I mean? Simply that the secular, scientific elites artificially, arbitrarily, and advantageously separate and make inseparable what they so please in the fields of science.

In the first place, they collaborate--intentionally or not--historical, origins science and operational, observational science. If you hang around the Creation/Evolution Debate, you may often hear that creationism is unscientific because it "doesn't follow the scientific method." This statement is factual, but it is also inconsequential. It violates the laws of logic with its irrelevance and false dichotomy.

Now, let me clarify that--to believe in creation--one must have faith. Faith is intrical to salvation (Ephesians 2:8) and essential to God's approval (Hebrews 11:6). So I am not denying the faith aspect. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1); they do not prove His existence by the scientific method or prove the Creation Account. Christians have faith that the Bible is inspired by God (1 Timothy 3:16), regardless of what scientists may hypothesize. I have no problem saying that, especially when I consider some of the preposterous theories and "evidences" that have arisen before being debunked.

What I do have a problem with is the proverbial "holier than thou" attitudes of evolutionists--that somehow believers in Evolution are "more scientific" than creationists, or that believing in Evolution or in no God doesn't take faith. Both creationism and Molecules-to-man Evolution fall outside the bounds of the scientific method, beyond the scope of observational science, and faith is a requirement for belief in either.

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
...
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.

(Evolution Exposed, Pg. 24)

Really, it's very much common sense that we can't repeat, control, test, or observe the origin of the universe and the things therein, no matter how it happened. It's just not possible. It goes back to the basic premise, "Were you there?" No one was...except God, who told us how it happened in His Word. But, yes, that's my presupposed philosophical point of view, which places this type of science in an entirely different category than, say, technology, yet Lawrence Krauss, an outspoken evolutionist, in a scathing article, called creationists hypocrites for driving cars!!! According to the book Evolution Exposed, three of the most common high school biology textbooks state that it "is not necessary to distinguish between historical and operational science." (Pg. 21) How can this be?

Some may say that we can "see Evolution all around us." But this falls short on a couple of levels. Adaptation/speciation/micro-evolution--observed, observable, and compatible with creationism--are NOT synonymous with Molecules-to-man or Macro-evolution. The former does not prove the latter. Nor does either (micro- or macro-) prove theories such as the Big Bang or the eternality of the universe.

It is obvious that we do not--and will not--see macro-evolutionary changes, even if they do/did occur. Scientists may say that we simply "have not been observing for long enough." It's rather convenient, when you think about it. One can rid oneself of a plethora of bothersome questions about Evolution by this technique. After all, it "takes massive amounts of time." We'll all be long gone before enough time will have elapsed to expect anything dramatic to transpire.

But this very excuse illustrates the point that Evolution cannot lay a legitimate claim to testable, repeatable, observable science. In fact, even if we did observe, say, humans evolve into "extra-humans," it does not necessarily follow that amoebas definitively evolved all the way up to humans. That conclusion would be based upon the belief that the "present is the key to the past," just like a creationist conclusion would be based on the belief that the Bible--or God Himself--is the "key to the past."

Apparently, evolutionists recognize that this approach of stalling--you could even call it filibustering--pushing the problem into unwieldy amounts of time--only works so much and so far. So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence. After all, if missing links were to be found or the universe was demonstrated to be extremely old, it would go a long way towards swaying the debate to the evolutionists' camp.

Here's the catch: digging up fossils and rock layers unearth problems, not solutions, for the evolutionary outlook, unless you accept evolutionary explanations at face value. Carbon-14 dating? Radio-isotope? Fossil layers? Geologic layers? Transitional forms? Missing links? Living fossils? In all these areas, unreliability, insufficiency, bias/closemindedness, imagination/fantasy, or nonexistence plagues any attempts at a truly evidential basis for Evolution. Notice: preconceived notions required. If you already believe (or are brainwashed into believing) in uniformitarianism, in the ape man-to cave man-to modern man drawing, in the fish-to-frogs-to-reptiles-to-dinosaurs-to-birds chain, etc., etc., you probably can reconcile yourself with the problems that present themselves to portions of evolutionary theories--theories that are frequently devised out of not-so-very-thick air. This is what places the Theory of Evolution squarely in the camp of historical science, and mediocre historical science, at that.

And that brings us to the second stage of meshing, along with some threshing: science and naturalism, as well as science and religion. Creationists are accused of having "presuppositional beliefs." That supposedly excludes them from the realm of science. However, that's just not fair. First of all, such a hard stance would force scientists to always search for but never reach conclusions--never "choose a side," but rather be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine..." (Ephesians 4:14) Why would it do that? Well, because, as we've already discussed, neither creationism nor Evolution falls under testable, falsifiable science. Therefore, a concrete conclusion can never be reached without belief, something some people seem to think shouldn't be a part of science. Evidence in the realm of historical science requires interpretations, things that need a foundation. Secondly, it erroneously assumes that evolutionists and secularists in general don't have fundamental worldviews. (Moreover, who can blame Christians if their faith is strong enough in order for them to be skeptical of such things as Nebraska Man, "identified and drawn based on a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig." --Evolution Exposed, Pg. 221)

One of my favorite quotes, in a negative sort of way, is this one:

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." --Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401 (6752) :423, Sept. 30, 1999

That's quite a closeminded creed, especially considering that naturalism is not interchangeable with science itself. Yet, science has been overrun by the "No Divine Foot" philosophy, making there appear to be no differentiation between the two.

Granted, I can see somewhat where naturalists are coming from. Superstititions hinder the progress of science. But naturalism itself becomes a type of superstition when one tries to explain away naturally something entirely un- or super-natural. Moreover, Christianity must not be lumped in with superstitions. Christians endeavor to "think God's thoughts after Him." Although His ways are unfathomable (Romans 11:33), with Christ upholding "all things by the word of His power," (Hebrews 1:3) our God is a God of order (Job 38:4-6, 8-11, 33; Isaiah 40:12; Jeremiah 31:35), who points us to nature (Proverbs 6:6; Matthew 6:26-20; Matthew 10:29), is omnipotent over nature (Job 38:11-12, 23; 41:11; 42:2; Mark 4:41), and is omniscient of nature (Job 38-40; John 16:30). Christians are called to see things as they really are, standing on a Solid Rock foundation (Matthew 7:24-25). "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." (Romans 12:2) "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) The Bible is scientifically accurate, and some discoveries are just recently being made as to the wisdom of God's commands on what and what not to eat. (See Jordan Rubin's book The Maker's Diet.)

To venture into the materialistic assumption that "this is all there is" is to risk missing out incalculably! If a Supernatural Being created nature, nature would naturally reflect back to Mr. Supernature Himself. The Bible says this is so (Job 12:7-9 ; Psalm 19:1 ; Romans 1:20). Belief in this Supernatural Being would unlock doors to otherwise unknown wisdom and knowledge. The Apostle Paul rhetorically asks, "...who has known the mind of the Lord...?" Then he answers his own question, saying, "But we have the mind of Christ." (1 Corinthians 2:16). Christians have access to "the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." (Colossians 2:3) God offers the only worthwhile perspective on everything. "For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" (Matthew 16:26-27)

To say Christianity has no place in science is to assume that God does not exist. To say that only naturalism is acceptable is to assume there is nothing supernatural. To say that Christians or creationists have no place in science, or that they cannot be good scientists, is to deny scientific history. In essence, to reject Christianity's place in science is to claim science for one's own religion.

"Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history." (Evolution Exposed, Pg. 20)

Let's take back science.

~Kingdom Advancer

You can purchase the book Evolution Exposed here.

18 comments:

Jonathan said...

You're exactly right. There is somewhat of a monopoly on science when it comes to these issues. Evolution has been so widely accepted that it's become incredibly difficult to make an opposing voice heard, as you said.

But, Evolution had to fight past Creation when that was the major belief. It can be done. We must persevere in this matter.

Steve said...

Now you're just bloviating to the choir. You make a few good points about some of the founders of the physical sciences being believers, but I wouldn't say that most/many were young earthers. Many of them (and many theologians, including Augustine) believed in an old-earth view. Stop forcing an unnatural divide between YEC and OEC believers. Satan loves that.

Austin said...

Kingdom Advancer,

Yes, let's.

Steve,

It's true that satan loves to divide Christians over these kinds of issues, but don't you think there's a difference between being divisive and correcting incorrect and potentially dangerous beliefs? After all, the same Apostle (namely, Paul) who begged the Corinthians to stop being divisive also urged Timothy to correct false beliefs among Christians and silence false teachers. Correcting does not promote division unless the corrected cannot accept a rebuke (or at least be able to peacefully debate the topic). Reproof is good for the Church, not bad for it.

"He who neglects discipline despises himself, But he who listens to reproof acquires understanding."
-Proverbs 15:32 (NASB)

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"
-2 Timothy 3:16 (NASB)

"As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,"
-1 Timothy 1:3 (NASB)

As for the age of the earth, Augustine may have believed it was older, but Jesus made it pretty obvious that he accepted Genesis as historical. Don't get me wrong - I like Augustine. But I think he reserves the right to be wrong. He would say so if he were here.

nayrb said...

This is a very good post! One point, I might add, is that atheists seem to approach science with idea there is no God, form a theory that excludes him, and then claim that no God exists on the basis of this theory. All in the name of science, which is implied to be undisputable.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Jonathan, that's true about Evolution fighting past Creation. We just have to hope and pray we haven't dug a hole too deep to get out of.

Bryan, you're exactly right. That was my point with what I was saying about "meshing" science and naturalism. They say that any God-theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic.

Kingdom Advancer said...

Steve, I could make the case that you are forcing an unnatural union between the Bible and the world--something I'm pretty sure Satan loves. I would point to Romans 12:2, Ephesians 4:14, and Colossians 2:8.
As Austin pointed out, I'm not trying to divide, but persuade. I feel that this issue is far more important than other denominational differences. It is foundational, which I think can dependently lead to or away from salvation or a proper understanding of and relationship with God.
I've already stated to you that, if you can't be sure that the six days of creation were 24-hour days, that's fine, since the sun and moon didn't even exist early on. But, trying to stretch that to billions of years is...just that, a stretch. But that is not what this post was about. You called "most" theories of macro-evolution "nonsense" in a previous comment. This post was about Evolution, about the ridiculous nature of trying to use the scientific method to determine origins and discredit creationism, and trying to exclude any faith, religion, or God from science.

Kingdom Advancer said...

I should add that, I don't think a person's understanding of the Bible has to be perfect for them to be saved. But we do have to look at underlying principles to why they believe what they believe.

Jonathan said...

Steve, I know I wasn't in the original conversation/debate about young vs old earth, but I don't see how you can accept an old earth view. If you would rather avoid debate on this site, then you can just email me (see my profile) and (if you don't mind) give a quick little explanation as to how and old earth view works.

If you do email me, I may respond, but debate is certainly secondary to a better understanding of your position.

Thanks.

Keith M. said...

Yeah, I agree with you. Just because people are recognized as being 'up there' in society doesn't make there word true, good point.

Jody said...

Let's take back science...

Doing so is fairly simple: prove something.

Formulate a theory, make a prediction, test your hypothesis, publish your data.

It's just that simple

Kingdom Advancer said...

Theory: God created the universe and creatures after their kind a relatively short time ago. I don't really considered this as a "formulated theory," though.

Prediction/Claim: evidence will and does back up that theory, when not fallaciously interpreted through an evolutionary worldview.

"Doing so is fairly simple: prove something...test your hypothesis..." --Jody

This is partly what I was writing about in this post: the erroneous idea of testing creationism (or other theories in the realm of origins science) by the scientific method--and the compounding error of thinking that Evolution is "more" scientific. Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but I think that you suggest that in your comment. Creationists shouldn't be required to jump through impossible hoops in order to receive a voice in the scientific community when evolutionists are not required to do so.

On the other hand, if you consider my hypothesis to be "the evidence backs my theory up," then geology, paleontology, and biology, among other sciences, come into play.

Jonathan said...

Jody, I would ask you to please test Evolution and the beginning of life for me. That is, would you mind formulating an experiment that proves the Big Bang theory, and the culmination of all life through the processes of Evolution?

I don't think you can, and that is the point of KA's last comment. There is no possible way to prove any sort of science that attempts to explain our origins, because we cannot test it nor prove since we were not there to observe.

We can, however, take the available evidence and make a claim (or theory) from that evidence. That is why Evolution remains a theory, no matter how accepted it may be. It cannot be proven through the means of science. The same can be said for Creation.

Unfortunately for Evolutionists, there is far more proof for the Biblical view of Creation, and far too many contradictions against the theory of Evolution.

Oh, and don't forget to let me know how that experiment goes.

Jody said...

...this is partly what I was writing about in this post: the erroneous idea of testing creationism (or other theories in the realm of origins science) by the scientific method...

Quit whining.

With 2700 or so years of development behind it, the criteria for it, the procedures in it, the utility of it and results from the scientific method is firmly established. So, at this point, if you can't test your theory by the scientific method, you aren't doing science.

Speaking of your theory....

God created the universe..

You are going to have a devil of a time getting god to show up for your experiments in support of that theory, KA.

You are welcome to try though. Meantime, those folks who currently do experiments in "geology, paleontology, and biology, among other sciences..." using the scientific method -- that, you seem to think shouldn't apply to your ideas -- are going to go right on doing the hard work of filling in the gaps in our knowledge about how this several billion year old little planet got to be so downright cool.

That is why Evolution remains a theory, no matter how accepted it may be. It cannot be proven through the means of science...

Um, Jonathan, do you know what the term "theory" means in the context of science? Your comment above strongly suggests you don't.

And this comment:

...would you mind formulating an experiment that proves the Big Bang theory...

...also suggests a strong level of ignorance, as Cosmology and Evolutionary Science are two different fields. There is a host of evidences from astronomy, astrophysics and the like that supports the BB, but that's a different topic.

And your other comment:

the beginning of life for me...

again suggests a profound ignorance on what Evolution is vs. what the study of the Origin of Life is. Though related, the two fields are distinct.

And as long as we're dealing with definitions, this comment

..there is far more proof for the Biblical view of Creation...

would only be true if one were allowed to swap the definitions of "disproof" and "proof." Unless I missed a newsflash, that hasn't happened. I doubt it will. But you never know.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Quit whining." --Jody

Whining? Let's see: logic/clarification = whining? Wow...

"...if you can't test your theory by the scientific method, you aren't doing science. "

Thanks for letting me know. Oh, by the way, then neither are your evolutionist friends. Unless, of course, they've observed, repeated, controlled, and tested the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of said life.

"You are going to have a devil of a time getting god to show up for your experiments in support of that theory, KA." --Jody

I'm not doing any experiments to determine the origin of the universe, am I? At least, not in the way that you mistakenly think origins science should be conducted, or in the way that you mistakenly think evolutionists DO conduct it.

"Meantime, those folks who currently do experiments in "geology, paleontology, and biology, among other sciences..." using the scientific method -- that, you seem to think shouldn't apply to your ideas -- are going to go right on doing the hard work of filling in the gaps in our knowledge about how this several billion year old little planet got to be so downright cool." --Jody

And how did they determine that the earth is so old? By ASSUMING the truth of the premise of uniformitarianism and ASSUMING the truth of Macro-evolution, therefore REQUIRING the antiquity of the earth, thus INTERPRETING evidence as billions of years old.
Where do you prove your case? Fossil record? I wouldn't go there if I were you. Geologic record? Nope. Carbon dating? Radio-isotope dating? Don't think so. Transitional forms? What transitional forms? Observed Macro-evolution? There's no such thing.
You show your bias when you speak of the quest to discover how the earth "got so downright cool." It just couldn't be the God of the Bible, right? It just had to be chance, a chance that is 1 in 1+ too many zeros to mention.

"...also suggests a strong level of ignorance, as Cosmology and Evolutionary Science are two different fields." --Jody

You misinterpret Jonathan's statement. What you are really saying is that there is a double-standard between creation theories and evolutionary ones. Why does God have to "show up" for my experiment if the Big Bang does not have to be shown in an experiment?

Evolutionary Science is bad science. In fact, it's more Science Fiction than anything else. That is, of course, unless you don't comprehend the differentiation between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution, between Genetic Mutations LOSING information and Macro-Evolution, between Adaptation/Speciation/Limited Variation and Molecules-to-man Evolution. If you believe all those things to be essentially the same, I can see how you would think that there is much evidence for the Theory of Evolution. But the fact is, more than half of those things are completely compatible with biblical creation and prove nothing in the way of the Theory of Evolution.

Jody said...

Whining?

Yes, whining. I've scrolled back through several of your posts, and mostly what you do is whine about how Creationism should get a special pass on the whole theory/prediction/test/observation thing.

Whining.

Unless, of course, they've observed, repeated, controlled, and tested the beginning of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of said life.

[Runs Web Search.]

Hmm, KA. I don't see your "Free Everyone Convicted By Forensic Science" blog. You know do know what forensic evidence is, KA? The science of figuring out what transpired in the past through present experimentation? Where different pieces of a theory are tested, predictions made, and overlapping lines of evidence reveal what transpired?

Believing the only way to test the validity of theory is through direct observation o is a sign of your own ignorance of how science works. Direct observation in the lab is the best way, but there are hosts of other indirect methods that can be utilized.

I'm not doing any experiments to determine the origin of the universe, am I?

You proposed a theory that requires a "god" to make it work. Provide your god for suitable lab work, or provide some directions for its location in nature. So far, all of the indirect observations that would support a god at play behind the scenes hasn't turned anything up.

And how did they determine that the earth is so old...

Theory, testing, observation....

We may not be able to go back to the formation of the Earth, but we make a host of predictions about what we'd expect find in Nature if the Earth was several billion years old.

Guess what we found?

That is, of course, unless you don't comprehend the differentiation between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution...

There is no difference. Evolution doesn't get pulled over by the police and cited for getting too big, too speciated, or too varied.

"But officer! I was only one gene different---"

"Here's your ticket for too much speciation. Tell it to the judge.


between Genetic Mutations LOSING information...

I'll be sure to remember that the next time I get off my horse, pet my dog, or chow down on a banana.

"Sorry, little Lassie, KA says genetic mutations loose information! Therefore you can't really exist! Off to the pound with you."

You enjoy the benefits of our understanding of the real world KA, while ignorantly propounding a fantasy.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"I've scrolled back through several of your posts, and mostly what you do is whine about how Creationism should get a special pass on the whole theory/prediction/test/observation thing." --Jody

Yes, that's what I've been focusing on lately. But why do I think that? Because THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ALREADY GETS THAT PASS, albeit getting credit for the scientific method!

I just wonder how many other instances of someone decrying unfairness, injustice, or hypocrisy which you would consider "whining."

"Believing the only way to test the validity of theory is through direct observation o is a sign of your own ignorance of how science works. Direct observation in the lab is the best way, but there are hosts of other indirect methods that can be utilized." --Jody

So maybe this line of mine comes into play: "So, they turn to geology and paleontology as some of the best substitutes for "hands-on," "eyewitness" scientific evidence." But what do those things come with? Presuppositional ideas, such as uniformitarianism and Evolution itself (thereby yielding to circular reasoning). The fact is, the mixed-up fossil record, existence of "living fossils," an utter lack of transitional forms, etc., provides a plethora of problems for evolutionary theory, even using the methods you espouse.

"Provide your god..." --Jody

Well, since your standing on such confident, scientific high ground, why don't you provide your Big Bang first? I mean, since that supposedly ACTUALLY happened (and "God is just religion"), it should be a lot easier for you just to show us all the Big Bang. Right?

"So far, all of the indirect observations that would support a god at play behind the scenes hasn't turned anything up." --Jody

So, I can show you that we have no evidence that Evolution happened, yet that's no evidence for God. But you can say that we can make predictions "about how we'd like to imagine the earth might be if it were billions of years old," and that somehow constitutes evidence for your theory?

" Theory, testing, observation....

We may not be able to go back to the formation of the Earth, but we make a host of predictions about what we'd expect find in Nature if the Earth was several billion years old. " --Jody

Wait. That was a rhetorical question. Allow me to answer it again: "By ASSUMING the truth of the premise of uniformitarianism and ASSUMING the truth of Macro-evolution, therefore REQUIRING the antiquity of the earth, thus INTERPRETING evidence as billions of years old."

As for the second part of your statement:

I can make predictions about how we'd expect to find the earth if it was only several thousand years old, too. You are on no firmer footing than I. You say "slow erosion." I say, "Great Flood." Etc.

"Guess what we found?" --Jody

Based on what? Radio-isotope? Carbon? Geologic layers? Fossil layers? Transitional forms? Or just those things interpreted through the lens of your naturalistic, evolutionary, uniformitarian preconceived worldview?


"There is no difference. Evolution doesn't get pulled over by the police and cited for getting too big, too speciated, or too varied." --Jody

And you're calling ME scientifically ignorant? Macro-evolution ("all life on eaerth has come about through descent with modification from a single common ancestor") is NOT speciation ("the process of change in a population that produces distinct populations which rarely interbreed due to geographic isolation or other factors") or variation. Macro-evolution is the process of one kind of animal changing into a completely other kind through some (unknown) mechanism of adding intelligent, useful genetic information. This is a theory of change entirely unsubstantiated.
The fact is, you'd have a point if you had ANY evidence. But all we have is evidence of speciation/variation, completely compatible with the theology of biblical creation, while all YOU have (for Macro-evolution) is a bunch of contrived (a.k.a., made-up fantasies) drawings, charts, and graphs.

" "Sorry, little Lassie, KA says genetic mutations loose information! Therefore you can't really exist! Off to the pound with you." You enjoy the benefits of our understanding of the real world KA, while ignorantly propounding a fantasy." --Jody

I'd love to see all the boatloads of evidence I'm sure you have that horses evolved from dogs which evolved from....and so on....and so on. By my reasoning, Lassie can't exist? How so? Because Evolution MUST be true for Lassie to exist? Therefore, since I say Molecules-to-man Evolution didn't happen, Lassie can't exist in my world? Whoa! I'm getting dizzy from all of the unbacked circular reasoning.

Jody said...

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ALREADY GETS THAT PASS, albeit getting credit for the scientific method!

Yes, KA, Darwin's powers of mental manipulation are indeed legendary. Over a century ago, with the wave of his hand, tricked the entire scientific establishment into believing in Natural Selection instantly. Why, there was no outcry, no nay-sayers, an no 100 plus years of experiment and observation that solidified Darwin's idea in general, and refined and reshaped its specifics, into the breakthrough explanation that it was.

Like Einstein's work, Darwin's ideas are simply fluff, the product of slick marketing, intellectual credulity, and specious reasoning that bear no relation to the real world itself.

Presuppositional ideas, such as uniformitarianism and Evolution itself (thereby yielding to circular reasoning). The fact is, the mixed-up fossil record, existence of "living fossils," an utter lack of transitional forms, etc., provides a plethora of problems for evolutionary theory, even using the methods you espouse.

Yes, KA, the past past 2500 years of scientific advancement has been one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetuated on Humanity. Indeed, the Enlightenment, which launched an unprecedented wave of scientific advancement across the globe, was neigh more than a great slight of hand trick.

Why that computer you are writing your missive on, the product of all that "circular reasoning" and problematic methodology, really doesn't work as advertised. No microchips, flash memory or protocols are involved in it. It's elves you see, tiny, tiny elves, painting really, really fast on an infinite number of blank canvases slowly unfurled across your display...

Well, since your standing on such confident, scientific high ground, why don't you provide your Big Bang first?

I refer you to your local astronomy and astrophysics department at your local community college. They can provide you with a nice reading list of evidences pointing the way back to the BB. You are free then to repeat the various experiments and methodologies involved, double checking the work of tens of thousands of scientists scattered across the planet and stretching back the what, 50 years since the idea was first advanced, to your satisfaction.

ut you can say that we can make predictions "about how we'd like to imagine the earth might be if it were billions of years old," and that somehow constitutes evidence for your theory?

I said the scientific method can be used to make predictions on what data we'll find, out there, in the real world, if that real world is several billion years old.

We can also use that scientific method to make predictions about what we'd find if the world was say 100 or a 1000 or 10,000 years old.

Guess which theory the data supports?

By ASSUMING the truth of the premise of uniformitarianism...

Do you really think no one bothered to ever test the hypothesis of uniformtarianism until you came along?

ASSUMING the truth of Macro-evolution...

Do you really think no one bothered to ever test the assumptions of evolution? Oh, wait, we're back at the whole Darwinian Mind Control again.

I can make predictions about how we'd expect to find the earth if it was only several thousand years old, too

As the data doesn't support that prediction, you're still wrong.

Or just those things interpreted through the lens of your naturalistic, evolutionary, uniformitarian preconceived worldview?

Well, as naturalism and uniformitarianism are two assumptions that underlay science, and as evolution grows out of those assumptions, yes, I would stand behind those. So, yes, that is how I, and the scientific community, interprets the data. Since you are using a computer to type your reply, you implicitly do too. If you are going to reject Uniformitarianism, fine, but at least have the courage of your convictions and proffer your objections without resort to your laptop.

I'd love to see all the boatloads of evidence I'm sure you have that horses evolved from dogs which evolved from...

I didn't say horses evolved from dogs, though they do share a common ancestor -- we all do, if you go back far enough. What I did do was point out that genetic mutations don't always lose information, if so, we couldn't have modern dogs, modern horses or modern bananas, all cultivated mutants.

And you're calling ME scientifically ignorant?

No, I'd never limit myself to referring to you as just scientifically ignorant.

Kingdom Advancer said...

"Over a century ago, with the wave of his hand, tricked the entire scientific establishment into believing in Natural Selection instantly." --Jody

You probably won't believe me, and you'll probably have fun shooting chocolate milk out your nose when you read this, but natural selection itself is not incompatible with the biblical view of creation. In fact, it generally falls under variation/speciation/adaptation--not Macro-evolution. Unless, of course, you can point out where Darwin proved observationally in his "Origin of Species" that the fish became the frog...and so on.

"Like Einstein's work, Darwin's ideas are simply fluff, the product of slick marketing, intellectual credulity, and specious reasoning that bear no relation to the real world itself." --Jody

The fact is, Darwin had virtually no knowledge of genetics. Therefore, for instance, he said, "Look, different beaks," and pathetically used that as one of the evidences of his theory, when it proves nothing in the way of Molecules-to-man Evolution.
Also, Darwin made the claim that his theory would fall apart if it could not be shown that changes were made gradually over extensive periods of time. Well, intelligent design arguments show that.

"They can provide you with a nice reading list of evidences pointing the way back to the BB." --Jody

Ah, so God has to "show up" for my theory; I have to "provide" Him. But all you have to do is point to a list of "evidences" for the Big Bang. No Big Bang demonstration? But I have to exactly show you God, can't just show the probability of His existence? Hmmm....there's no double-standard there. Oh, wait... Yeah, there is.

If I actually thought you cared about a dissenting view in science, I'd point you to a link.
But I don't. Please surprise me.

"...the work of tens of thousands of scientists..." --Jody

You love your logical fallacies when debating, don't you? First, circular reasoning. Secondly, stacking the deck (a different standard of measure for creationists then evolutionists). Now, bandwagon and appeal to authority arguments. Who needs real evidence, right?

"Guess which theory the data supports?" --Jody

By what standard of measure? Uniformitarianism or catastrophism? Of course the earth can't be only 10,000 years old if the Grand Canyon had to develop entirely on little trickles of water carving an inch of depth every million years or so (hyperbole). But what about a Great Flood? What about other meteorological events?


"Why that computer you are writing your missive on, the product of all that "circular reasoning" and problematic methodology, really doesn't work as advertised. No microchips, flash memory or protocols are involved in it. It's elves you see, tiny, tiny elves, painting really, really fast on an infinite number of blank canvases slowly unfurled across your display..." --Jody

Wow, you're almost as smart as Lawrence Krauss, who called creationists hypocrites every time they get in cars! You should be proud of yourself. Of course, you and he both completely lack a grasp of creationism, the branches of science, the difference between operational and historical science, and the intrical presence of Christianity in science in the past. He's clearly blinded by his vitriol for creationists. You: I'm not so sure.

"Do you really think no one bothered to ever test the hypothesis of uniformtarianism until you came along?" --Jody

Uniformitarianism itself is based on its own presupposition: "the present is the key to the past." If, indeed, we watch a river erode its niche, and say, "That's how everything must have happened!" Well, yeah, you'd come to a certain conclusion. But if you want to call that simple- and close-mindedness the scientific method, be my guest...

"Do you really think no one bothered to ever test the assumptions of evolution? Oh, wait, we're back at the whole Darwinian Mind Control again." --Jody

Why don't you show me where they tested it? Why don't you show me one animal turning into a completely different kind? Huh?
Hey, I'm feeling generous today: why don't you just show me some transitional forms? Some reliable missing links? No?
Okay, I'll go easy on you: why don't you show me an observed instance of a genetic mutation resulting in a net gain of genetic information?

"Well, as naturalism and uniformitarianism are two assumptions that underlay science, and as evolution grows out of those assumptions, yes, I would stand behind those. So, yes, that is how I, and the scientific community, interprets the data." --Jody

Thank you. You finally conceded something. So, by your presuppositional beliefs, you interpret the evidence so that it fits into that belief system. You don't give catastrophism a second look, though there is significant evidence for its potential.
Here's what (I think) you won't concede: naturalism IS a belief system. Please surprise me, again.

"What I did do was point out that genetic mutations don't always lose information, if so, we couldn't have modern dogs, modern horses or modern bananas, all cultivated mutants." --Jody

Which, by the way, are not results of Macro-evolution. They are results of variation, which do not produce net gains in genetic information, but rather, are products of already present information in, say, an ancient canine's genetic potential.

"No, I'd never limit myself to referring to you as just scientifically ignorant." --Jody

I must admit, Jody, I appreciate your sarcastic humor. That line almost got a chuckle out of me, but, for some reason, I rarely burst out laughing when I'm reading. So, actually, when I say "LOL," I'm amused, but not really laughing OUT LOUD.
What's really amusing, though, is how you answer MY rhetorical questions as if you are refuting a point I made.