(February 11, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(February 11, 2014 at 1:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: Ham himself practically acknowledged the existence of evolution when he said that each animal family branched out, he just didn't accept speciation.

That's what I really don't get: How someone can be so completely indoctrinated by their religion that they actually accept the thing they think they're against and don't even realize it, and where this bogus distinction between micro and macro evolution comes from.

Well, okay, I know where the micro/macro thing comes from, it comes from them trying to rationalize their religion with the obvious fact of evolution, what I don't get about this distinction is that they don't understand that if you sting together all the so-called micro evolution examples they do accept, you get so-called macro evolution, and thus there's no distinction and it's all just evolution.

I'm so glad I never had to claw my way out of being indoctrinated to this degree, this makes my brain hurt.

It's the same reason anyone would think the the bible condemns slavery. Supposedly he rescued the isrealites from slavery, but then he said it's fine to own people from other cultures, and even made a way to own their own people by offering a man a wife.

When reality contradicts the bible, and you find you can't ignore it, you just have to twist the words to mean something else. As racist as some people can be, you're unlikely to meet a guy that owns someone, and said he paid his wife's father to marry her after he raped her.

Did Ham mention instant light speed or is even he not stupid enough for that?

(February 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(February 10, 2014 at 12:54 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I don't think he wants indisputable evidence; merely convincing evidence. He comes across as a rational guy.

You mean all the convincing evidence he rejects out of hand because it doesn't line up with his irrationally literal interpretation of the Bible?

I assert the sky is purple, and reject any evidence that contradicts my claim. Provide me convincing evidence the sky is not purple.

Perhaps re-read the exchange which prompted my words, in its correct context. I was referring to Bill Nye.

Never mind, though; accidental strawmen are tastier .

I would like to dedicate this post to Luckie, since she loves long posts.

-SW

(February 6, 2014 at 9:47 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yes, I would have. That's where the evidence led. Of course they got some things wrong, but the scientific method changes according to the evidence people find. The more we search, the more we learn, and the more the world makes sense. It's just a tried and true method of learning about everything around us. Thinking we have all the answers, and should just trust in Vishnu to guide us to nirvanna won't help us grow as a species like the scientific method does.

Sounds like straight up scientism to me. You would have been trusting in something that was completely wrong then. How do you know you’re putting your trust in something that is correct now? I’d rather put my faith elsewhere.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:10 pm)whateverist Wrote: I don't subscribe to any god's nonexistence on an axiomatic level. Instead I take as an operating hypothesis that the causes we find determinative going forward were likewise determinative in the past arriving at the present. I know that may sound wild eyed on the face of it but there you have it. If future discoveries knock a wheel off my operating hypotheses I shall revise and continue.

That’s not wild eyed at all if you believe in a God who upholds His creation in such a manner (per Genesis 8). However, as a materialist I do not see how you can justify such an assumption. Secondly, you do axiomatically adhere to God’s non-existence because you ignore the effects of Biblical events in your inferences about the age of the Earth.

Quote: It is a very different matter than claiming an axiom. I believe you if you say you believe the bible is from god. For the life of me I can't imagine why you think that. From the outside it sure looks as though the wishing and the believing amount to the same thing.

Why would I wish it was from God? I just prefer the epistemological consistency it offers and know that it must be what it claims to be.

Quote: Still it just shows poor judgement to hold up as equal that which you believe axiomatically to what I believe as a working hypothesis.

I do no such thing; axioms are far more powerful than any hypothesis. A hypothesis would be impossible without holding axioms.

Quote: They really aren't the same. My way asks the world what it is, yours tells it what it is. My approach is inquiry, yours is declarative. Apples and oranges.

No, the only difference between you and me is that I explicitly identify my axioms, you pretend yours do not exist- which I think is really dangerous.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:12 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: What don't you follow Waldorf? Creationism's logic? Me neither. Creationists doubt science, I mean "historical" science, because nobody alive today existed 130+ years ago. Instead they trust in the Bible... because nobody alive today existed 130+ years ago.

No, creationists start with the infallible and work their way from there, which makes far more sense to me. For the life of me I cannot figure out why nobody on here gets why they do that.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:14 pm)Asimm Wrote: I see a lot of talk about using junk science to debunk mainstream science. What I don't see is any credible and accepted science to build structure to a YEC view. I'd have no problem switching my view if the findings pointed that way. The truth is that they don't and that gap grows larger and larger. creationist arguments either become more simplistic or try to use new hypotheses that try to fight what they don't believe, instead of presenting sound science for what they do believe.

How do you determine what is “junk” science? By simply appealing to what you refer to as mainstream science you are only pointing to the position that has been wrong every time in the past. Darwin disagreed with mainstream science, Einstein did, Kepler did, Newton did, and the list goes on and on and on. If we all thought like you do science would be static and scientific breakthroughs impossible. I have no problem with believing that mainstream science is wrong yet again; in fact it’d be an incredible first if they were not.

(February 6, 2014 at 10:19 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: What they want have no bearing on the soundness of Sanford’s conclusions. If his premises are false, and the evidence says they are, his conclusions are worthless. Besides it was Sanford who started out with the goal of proving a primary axiom (axioms apply to math not the theory of evolution) of evolution false. He is the one that started with a conclusion then constructed his evidence to fit the conclusion.

Science requires axioms. Secondly, you’ve given me no specific reasons to believe that any of his premises are indeed inaccurate. As for starting with a conclusion, that’s how the scientific method works, you’re testing a hypothesis. His hypothesis was that the genetic entropic rates were too great in higher organisms to sustain the Darwinian paradigm and he does an excellent job supporting this hypothesis.

Quote:Are you even familiar with Sanford’s work? Because it sure doesn’t sound like it. Sanford’s model Mendel's Accountant is no different than any other model in that if you put shit in you get shit out. The evidence says many of the assumptions that Sanford programed into his model are incorrect. That is what happens when you base your work on the decades old work of someone else. Many of Sanford’s assumptions were based on the 1970s work of Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta. Many parts of their nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution has long since been shown to be false by newer research.

Again, you give no specifics and merely make assertions. His initial premise that man is degenerating at an alarming rate is supported by Muller, Neal, Kondrashov, Nachman/Crowell, Walker/Keightley, Crow, Lynch, Howell, and Loewe. In fact, Lynch’s findings were an entropic fitness decline rate of 3-5% per generation, which is far higher than even Sanford’s. Lynch’s work was published in 2010, not the 1970s. You simply do not have your facts straight.

Quote:
I pointed out general areas where assumptions made by Sanford are known to be incorrect. Would you like specific examples? More importantly, if I provide specific examples showing his assumptions to be wrong will you accept that the work is flawed?

I’d prefer specifics over your assertions yes. I have a sneaking suspicion you’re really getting all of this from Scott Buchanan’s article which has already been refuted, but we will see I may be mistaken.

(February 6, 2014 at 11:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Hey Stat, glad your surgery went alright and you're doing okay. You do understand that the age of the earth doesn't speak to a god actually existing, and so you can examine the evidence for it without beginning from a position on the non/existence of god, right?

Thanks bud!

I disagree with you. If God exists there are some things that must be factored into a person’s inferences about the age of the Earth; namely the flood and creation ex nihilo. When a person keeps those in mind, the evidence is very friendly to this timeline. If a person does not keep those in mind the evidence is very friendly to an Earth that is billions of years old. Ham touched on this point briefly in the debate, but I wish he had driven it home more because it is the hinge that everything else swings upon.

Quote: Given this possibility, where the question of divine origins doesn't even enter into the picture, what conclusion would you say one would draw from the available evidence?

Ignoring all of the epistemological shortcomings of a godless universe? I’ll play along because I like you; if God did not exist and if we could somehow still do science and predication without Him existing then the evidence would support an Earth that is millions to billions of years old (depending on the dating method that is used).

(February 7, 2014 at 1:22 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Regulation of a practice by any authority is an indication of acceptance or approval by the authority of the practice.

Really? So the fact that we have laws regulating and pertaining to adultery means we morally accept adultery?

Quote: Conservatives are usually the ones making that point whenever anyone talks of legalizing pot or prostitution.

And Liberals are often the ones arguing against that point…

Quote: This is especially true if said authority had the power to forbid the practice if it chose to do so. All Yahweh had to say is "one man and one woman" and it would be Yahweh's law. Yahweh certainly wasn't shy about laying down the law on sexual matters in great detail on far more uncommon practices, so why not? Instead, Yahweh chose to regulate the practice of polygamy, including how the children of different wives were to be treated.

I’ll even one-up you, not only did Yahweh regulate polygamy but he ordained that it would happen, and yet it was still evil for men to do it. How do you like that?

Quote: David took many wives and the Bible specifically calls him a righteous man who always did the will of Yahweh, save for the matter of Uriah. It doesn't say "save for the matter of Uriah and taking multiple wives."

I’ll need a verse. I get paranoid whenever you try to tell me what the Bible says.

Quote: What evidence can you present that Yahweh disapproved of polygamy, yet somehow allowed it to be common practice by his chosen people?

Matthew 19:3-8 makes it clear that God regulating something does not mean God approves of it (i.e. divorce). One man and one woman is part of the created ordinance in Genesis 1. Deuteronomy 17 says taking multiple wives will lead a man’s heart astray. Noah was righteous and he and his sons each had one wife. David and Solomon were both punished, and Solomon’s wives led him into polytheism. Mark 10 explicitly says marriage is made to be between one man and one woman and that it was that way since creation.

(February 7, 2014 at 1:57 am)Luckie Wrote: I have a question for you: How do you look into the night sky, see the stars, know that the nearest one is 4.4 light years away: and not know that the universe operates the same now as it did in the past?

Hello my friend, I guess that I am not following your question.

Quote:Are you saying that their calculations are wrong?

About distance or age? Distance no, age yes. Age is not an empirically measurable property, it must be inferred.

Quote: What is it exactly that you believe? I'd rather not build a case against an unknown opinion. How old is the earth in your opinion, and how do you explain all of our observable universe through your 'unobserved' proposition? Or are you just saying no one was there, therefore no one can know?

Here’s my position in a nutshell…

1. In order to determine the age of something, certain assumptions must be made and inferences must be made from these assumptions.
2. If the Bible is true we must make a certain set of assumptions, if it is false we must make a different set of assumptions. This will drastically affect our inferences.
3. Therefore, both sides must either assume the Bible is false or true prior to arriving at the age of the Earth.
4. I fall under the latter camp so I arrive at an age in the thousands not in the billions.
5. I believe that secularists do not necessarily make any missteps in their inferences but rather merely start at the wrong starting point.
6. This is why I believe that discussions about the evidence should be used to illuminate the differences in our starting points rather than to try and argue for one conclusion over the other because the merits of our conclusions really come down to the merits of our starting assumptions.

(February 7, 2014 at 2:02 am)Esquilax Wrote: Wow, how did I miss this?

I was waiting for you to find it.

Quote: If you're a young earther, you already believe that there's some weirdness going on with starlight, right?

No, I just agree with the convention where starlight propagates based on one’s position rather than one’s velocity.

Quote: It was either created in transit, or was faster in the past, or some shit.

I believe there are four other cosmologic models that solve the distant starlight problem without changing any of the uniformity we see in Nature in the past.

Quote: And you've got a god whose main communication to mankind is full of accounts of how he suspended or altered the physical laws of the universe to his own whims, and an ancient evil in the form of the devil whose whole deal is finding ways to trick people:

I believe that’s a bit of a mischaracterization, God promises general uniformity in Genesis 8 which is all we need for science. So as a Christian I know that such general uniformity has persisted from creation on and will persist until the end of the age. I still do not see how you can assume such things if it’s all just matter.

(February 7, 2014 at 2:27 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: Are you taking into account radioactive decay rates? That the mutation rate would have to be so much higher to cram millions of years of change into a few thousand, that reproduction simply wouldn't be viable. Same Evidence? I very highly doubt that...

Your response is a bit convoluted, so I am having trouble following what you are asking. Yes, I am well aware of radioactive decay rates and how they fit into my timeline (if that is what you were asking). Secondly, it’s not difficult at all to imagine so much change in only a few thousands of years, in fact it is completely consistent with the high rates of genetic entropy we observe and our observations of rapid speciation in the past. I love the irony of seeing a Darwinist argue against the power of his own mechanism.

Quote: You simply do not appear to know enough about geology, physics, and genetics to actually digest the available evidence. Then again simply reading a story book takes far less work than getting a real science education.

We’re only in the second paragraph of your response and you’re already committing the ad hominem fallacy? If you knew anything about my actual education you’d realize how absurd you sound right now. I do not blame you though; it’s the only card you had in your deck to play.

Quote: Hold on a minute now. Since we've been keeping track of these things, they have not changed. Ever.

How long have you been keeping track of them?

Quote: Science only makes one baseline assumption, and it's an assumption we all make, and that is that the universe is consistent.

To think that you called me scientifically illiterate above and then you proceeded to make a boneheaded statement like this in the very next paragraph? Life is great.

Science actually makes numerous presuppositions. Some of which include; our senses accurately depict reality, mathematical truths exist, our memories are generally reliable, the existence of the laws of deduction, inductive reasoning is valid, other minds perceive reality much like our own mind does, the external universe is knowable, and natural laws are uniform (which you mentioned above).

Quote: It's not that we have direct evidence that the laws of physics were not any different a few thousand years ago, but we have no reason to think that they were, and all of our current evidence points to them being unchanging.

This argument is committing the fallacy of begging the question. You are trying to reason from particular experiences to a general claim about reality. However, this form of induction is only valid if there is uniformity in Nature which is the very thing we are discussing. Care to try again?

Quote: Do you have any evidence to support not only that the laws of nature can change, but that they have changed? Do you have any evidence to doubt the mountains of data science has accumulated that the universe is consistent?

This reminds me of when Christians say, “Well can you prove God does not exist?” It’s funny how you have no issues with using such fallacious argumentation when it is self-serving.
I am sorry but this is entirely your burden to bear. As a Christian I have justification in believing in past and future uniformity. However you are not allowed to use such justification because you do not believe in Yahweh; no, you are going to have to do so in a manner that is consistent with your espoused materialism and I am not going to help you any (If you were not so rude, I may have ).

Quote: Science, it works bitches.

The same science that told us flies spontaneously generate from meat? That the Universe is eternal? Or did that not count?

Quote: Biology prior to Darwin had a far greater penchant for inserting God into everything, and now you try to turn around and blame it's prior mistakes and shortcomings on science? That's rich. It was a different era and Biologist like Richard Owen would attempt to postulate evidence for a divine creator by lying about the evidence. He was debunked and his claims found to be fraudulent by other scientists (like Thomas Huxley) using actual evidence.

Prior to Darwin you would have still been espousing your blatant scientism just like you are now, saying, “Trust me, this time we have it right!”

Quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Owen

Now we are using user-generated sites that disallow the citation of primary sources? Yikes.

Quote: Science is a self correcting and ever improving field.

As is theology.

Quote: You point to the mistakes of history and attempt to use that to discredit science, entirely ignorant that science's ability to change is it's greatest strength. The only way to find and improve flaws in science is with better science.

More fallacious begging of the question I see. “Science works because science tells us that science works.” I’d much rather build my science off of the foundations of something infallible rather than simply more fallible science.

Quote: Can you even name one instance where our understating of the universe has been improved by assuming the supernatural or divine? One instance where a supernatural explanation has replaced a scientific one?

You’re defining the terms natural and supernatural differently than I do so that question is nonsensical to me.

Quote: That's the purpose of the margin of error, in the case of the age of the Earth the margin is 1%.

You’ve certainly got the fallacy of begging the question down sir. You cannot determine your margin of error unless you first knew the actual age of the Earth, of course you are using the method in question to determine that age so that cannot in turn be used to determine your margin of error.

Quote: The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years, meaning that our best current evidence places the Earth to be between 4.39 and 4.59 billion years. Can we tell you the precise day, minute, and hour when the planet formed? No. Do we have enough evidence to make a laughingstock out of a 6000 year old Earth? Yes.

Well forgive me since you claim to be such a scientific expert and all, but you made a bit of a mathematical blunder there sir. I believe you meant 4.49-4.59 billion years. I know that I, being a mere creationist will never amount to anything as great as you O’ Master of Science and all that is Scientific; but anytime you need this creationist to double-check your work (say for example basic arithmetic) I am at your disposal sir.

Additionally-and more importantly- you seem to be operating under a common misconception concerning methodological and instrumental precision. What that actually means is that the method itself is precise to within 0.05 billion years. It does not actually mean the true age of the Earth has to be within that age range because methodological and instrumental precision has nothing to do with whether or not the method itself is actually an appropriate means for dating the Earth. It’s a concept that most lay persons struggle with.

Quote: Simple, an all powerful Genie made the entire universe 25 minutes ago; unfortunately for us this is an evil and deceptive genie. So he created us all with memories and histories prior to 25 minutes ago, he made the entire universe look billions of years old even through it's only 25 minutes old. He created photons mid trajectory between us and the other stars and galaxies. He created all of human history and made it seemingly fit together. Radioactive decay rates that indicate a billion year planet? He created them too. He created suffering in our past and will allow it in our future. Any and all evidence that we could possible find, he molded in such a way as to hide and obfuscate his involvement. He has created everything to merge seamlessly together within his simulation, and there is no possible way within the simulation to detect the Evil Genie or know what he has done. For all intents and purposes, the Evil Genie is unfalsifiable [sic] and the simulation (for those inside it) seems to operate as if he never existed.

Unfortunately, this is not original at all; it’s merely Descartes’ evil demon plagiarized in a not very clever fashion. I did find it amusing however when you claimed the genie and his actions were undetectable but then you also claimed that you somehow knew about this genie and his actions. Moreover, something does not llook old or young because age is not an empirically measurable property of matter.

Quote: Really, if you can't imagine something like this, then your imagination must have atrophied from a complete lack of use. Seriously, have you never seen The Truman Show?

I do not remember any evil genies in the Truman Show; I guess I’ll have to re-watch that one.

Quote: Now just replace Evil Genie with Yahweh and 25 minutes with 6000 years, and that's basically the massive pile of bullshit you ascribe to.

Except it’s not. None of Yahweh’s attributes fit anything you described above, nice try though.

Quote:
But you don't know, you just lack the evidence to have any reason to think it's true.

No, I know.

Quote: Just like there is no evidence for a 6000 year old Earth, which is incidentally about 1000 years after the Sumerians invented glue.

How do you know when the Sumerians invented glue?

Quote: Is there any evidence that the Bible is accurate? Well, the Bible is not proof of the Bible, so you have to look outside of it.

This is a simplistic and unfortunately for you an erroneous understanding of how conceptual schemes work. A person cannot disprove their ultimate authority with secondary and exterior evidences. The Bible has to be what it claims to be or else we could not be having this discussion right now.

Quote: Everything outside of the Bible points to a planet and universe all far older than 6000 years.

Such as?

Quote: Is there reasons to doubt the Bible? Plenty, if you actually care to study the polytheistic pagan origins of your religious texts. Try reading A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong, it's simple enough that even you'll be able to (hopefully) comprehend it. Failing that, here are the Cliff Notes versions.

Karen Armstrong from the Jesus Seminar? Seriously? Considering that she has not a shred of formal education in this field, I’ll pass thank you (and no, honorary degrees do not count as formal education). Could you imagine if I had referenced an ex-Nun with no education on the subject matter to try and support my argument? You’d have an aneurism.

Quote: All of our data points to them being uniform, and even you accept this in your day to day life. If you burn your hand in an open flame on Monday, you're not going to do it again on Wednesday and expect not to burn yourself again, because the universe appears to be consistent. Outside of your Bronze Age book of myths, what reason do you have to think that the rules of the universe were different in the past?

What data points to it?

Yes, I live my life in such a fashion but only because I know we live in a Universe governed by Yahweh who has promised to govern in a predictable and uniform manner (Genesis 8). As an atheist you are not allowed to steal from my conceptual scheme so you are going to have to account for such uniformity in a purely natural and unguided manner. Pointing to the fact that you live your life in any particular manner is not justification for this assumption because you are perfectly capable of living your life in a manner that is inconsistent with your espoused atheism. Good luck.

Quote: Also please explain how a 'lack of belief in gods' (you know, atheism) somehow entails any assumptions about the universe?

The correct philosophical and even etymological definition of atheism is a positive belief in the non-existence of gods. However, even if we use your incorrect revisionists’ definition of the term you still make assumptions about the universe. When you espouse that all that exists is matter it’s going to affect your inferences.

Quote: You cannot a priori assume the Bible's accuracy without outside verification.

According to whom? Well I just did, now what?

Quote: The same reasons you use to disparage scientific dating (not actually being there personally) applies to your Bible as well.

This ignores the important distinction between knowledge built upon deduction and knowledge built upon induction.

Quote: Where you actually there 6000 years ago? No, and thus your own objections are shown to be as worthless as your near insurmountable ignorance.

I do not have to have been there when we have direct revelation from He who was and who cannot lie. Indeed, a great deal of ignorance has been brought to light during this discussion but it has certainly not been on my end.

Quote: Right, quoting the Bible does not prove the Bible. Sorry, but do try harder in the future.

Only if you try harder to actually comprehend what you read. I was pointing out a mischaracterization of my beliefs. Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.

(February 7, 2014 at 2:36 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'd add that Statler has presented a classic case of how the ad hoc hypothesis can be abused, mixed with a dash of argument from ignorance.

DP falsely identifying fallacies again in 3…2..1…

Quote: Paraphrasing slightly:
"The light in the night's sky from Andromeda is 2 million years old."
"Maybe the laws of physics worked differently in the past." (ad hoc)
"What do you base that on?"
"It coulda happened." (argument from ignorance)

Where did I ever say any of this? My point was, as an atheist you have absolutely no justification for your assumption of past uniformity and yet this assumption is completely essential for your espoused beliefs about the Earth and Universe’s past. As a Christian I have reason to believe in past uniformity, but it’s the same reason I have for believing in past uniformity also justifies my belief in a biblical timeline.

As usual, I committed none of the fallacies you asserted that I did.

(February 7, 2014 at 2:37 am)Minimalist Wrote: If there is one thing waldork has in abundance it is ignorance.

You’re so clever…

(February 7, 2014 at 3:10 am)JuliaL Wrote:

(February 7, 2014 at 2:27 am)EvolutionKills Wrote: Simple, an all powerful Genie made the entire universe 25 minutes ago;

Great rebuttal. May I suggest you missed a point:
That the Evil Genie included in its simulation a prevalent though false memeplex represented by a collection of ancient documents. This 'bible' was edited by committed priests and described a creator God who brought the universe into existence 6000 years ago. Coincidentally there is also record that this collection of documents provided thousands and thousands of man-years of gainful employment free lunches for clerics up until the present. Though they've only been real free lunches for the last 25 minutes.

How would you know any of this if this genie is undetectable?

Quote: I guess I'll just stick with reality.

How do you know what reality is?

(February 7, 2014 at 4:10 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Given that I was once a fundamentalist Christian like some the creationists in this thread (creationism was drummed into my brain too) who insist on debating atheists, as I also once did online, I can only hope that everyone's diligent and persistent rebuttals will plant little seeds of doubt into the believers' heads. Maybe it won't sprout for many years but that's okay, something is still better than nothing. More than likely though, you are all wasting your time because their emotional addiction to faith is so strong that heroine fiends probably have a better recovery rate.

I am not a fundamental Christian, nor would I ever appeal to emotionalism, nor was creationism ever drummed into my head. Three strikes…

(February 7, 2014 at 4:18 am)Dragonetti Wrote: The person has to be willing to open their minds to new concepts.

Except concerning the possibility that secular science is wrong about the age of the Earth? Having an open-mind is not allowed then right?

(February 7, 2014 at 4:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: Ah, the debate... personal attacks, moi?

Not so much you, but sadly you’re the exception.

Quote: Actually, it was indeed you... and it was a paper you referenced yourself! I almost forgot about that! look at our exchange back then:

*looking*



I had forgotten about this, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am not sure it is possible to claim that mutations are filtered out in 80 generations in higher organisms since that is over 2,400 years and we simply cannot observe that to be the case. I’d be interested to see how he’s arriving at that since it sounds like a rescue mechanism to me. Sanford’s research indicates that in higher organisms 90 percent of all deleterious mutations are not significant enough to be filtered out. As for the thousands of generations remark, just because Crow has his data correct does not mean he has his implications correct.

Quote: 3-5% per generation?
Are you seriously considering this?
10 generations and you could get 50% degeneration..... 20 generations and total chaos... Tell me, do you accept that humans existed 20 generation ago?... That's about (1 generation every 30 years [high estimate, I know]) ~600 years ago!

It’s not up to me to arbitrarily accept or reject the figure. That’s the empirically measured rate per Lynch in 2010. Crow puts the rate at 1-2%, which is what Sanford agrees more with. Either way, these rates are very friendly to the Biblical timeline and view of history.

Quote: You also said this just yesterday "90% of all deleterious mutations would be un-selectable."... why?
If a mutation is deleterious, it has an impact on the individual's ability to function and survive.

Yes, but not always enough to be selected against. Take for instance color blindness. It’s a fairly significant condition caused by several different mutations and yet it was never filtered out of the population.

Quote: There are some that only show up at a late stage of life and can be easily passed on, like Parkinson's... but 90%? I'm curious to know where you got that number.

I got that number from Sanford’s work; it’s also a number that is supported by Ohta who is the world’s most renowned expert on near-neutral deleterious mutations and their linear preservation.

(February 7, 2014 at 7:03 am)Zen Badger Wrote: You know, where real scientists base their conclusions on the evidence.
As opposed to creation"science" where the evidence is twisted, distorted and generally fucked up by mentally diminutive cretinist morons who've had their chromosomes painted on in order to conform to a Stone Age fairy tale written by goat fucking savages that thought bats were birds. So that they can attempt to give credence to their delusion that the creator of the infinite universe is their special friend.(and incidentally, fleece the gullible masses of even more money in the process)

That objective science.

That’s interesting because I’ve never seen the term objective science used in that way before in scientific literature (which leads me to believe you just made that definition up). What makes someone a real scientist? You do realize that it is logically fallacious to redefine a term in a self-serving manner right? I am feeling very charitable and wanted to give you a little heads up before you answered this question.

(February 7, 2014 at 1:34 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What qualifies The Bible as an infallible source? It says it is

It says it is and it has to be.

Quote: but it's been shown to be an inaccurate source repeatedly.

How? When? And by whom?

Quote: If mundane in origin, an outdated, untrustworthy source, shown to be mistaken repeatedly by empirical observation.

This sentence fragment does not make much sense, perhaps you forgot a word or two? Truth never becomes outdated. Empirical observation is fallible so it is incapable of proving the Bible is fallible.

Quote: #Hashtagging #Godsez onto an assertion doesn't make it reasonable, no matter how strongly you believe it does.

God is infallible so actually it does. Disbelieving an infallible source because of what you’ve learned from fallible sources is what is unreasonable.

(February 7, 2014 at 5:40 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because of the oft-repeated demand by some creationists for a cat giving birth to a dog as an example that would convince them evolution is true. Since hyenas are so dog-like, with Ham's model they shouldn't be convinced of evolution if a cat gave birth to a hyena, while if that occurred naturally it would actually disprove evolution.

I'm sure any funniness that may have been present is completely drained away now, though.

Well ok then.

(February 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Dragonetti Wrote: You know when the YEC do not understand evolution with natural selection with the question "I've not seen a cat give birth to a dog?"

Can you point to a prominent creationist who has said something like that?

(February 7, 2014 at 7:20 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

---

Sorry to drag this back up but:


Now that's a head-scratcher.

---

Well I watched the debate so that’s irrelevant; but you did not answer my question.

(February 7, 2014 at 7:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Can you provide an example of the evidence that proves earth is only 6,000 years old?

Why would you bother quoting me if you obviously never read what I wrote? I clearly stated that this all depends on where you start with your reasoning; neither side has built their position upon the evidence because they both have the same evidence. Secondly, proof is not based upon evidence so your question was nonsensical anyways.

(February 7, 2014 at 11:05 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Can he even provide one example of a materalist who is stupid enough to say the earth is "thousands of years" old?

Sure, many islanders and Native Americans believe the Earth is only thousands of years old even though they are not Christian theists. I saw a survey done a couple years ago indicating a lot of Russian youth believe the Earth is only thousands of years old even though they were not religious. Even though he’s does not believe the Earth is thousands of years old, Thomas Nagel interestingly enough is an atheist who rejects Neo-Darwinism.

(February 8, 2014 at 12:28 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Being an atheist or materialist doesn't mean your [sic] rational about everything.

There’s zero evidence that atheists are more rational about anything over theists. I realize you all love to assert this, but rationality does not require a person to be a materialist or naturalist.

(February 8, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Alex K Wrote: @BadWriter

So far the only evidence is the "there are few if any alternatives and look how many apparently wonderful mathematical coincidences make this work, this must mean something" argument. I don't know whether it would explain the existence of laws of nature per se, but via the "landscape of vacua" it provides a very explicit framework to think about how universes with different laws of nature arise e.g in inflation, which ones those are, and how the anthropic principle figures into this.

It’s all an ad hoc rationale to try and avoid believing in a god, unfortunately such postulates do more damage than good. Especially the concept of multiverses, such a notion undermines our ability to know anything at all and science itself.

(February 10, 2014 at 1:11 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah. Like how he's be willing to believe that evolution didn't happen if there was something that went against it. Like seeing the same fossils in different layers of earth.

Umm…we do see that….all the time. Pine Beetles, are found in numerous layers of strata and even found living today. Did I just refute the entire theory of evolution or are you going to move the goalposts?

(February 10, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You mean all the convincing evidence he rejects out of hand because it doesn't line up with his irrationally literal interpretation of the Bible?

Such as?.....All of these unsubstantiated assertions and personal attacks make my head hurt. Is it really the best you can do?

Quote: I assert the sky is purple, and reject any evidence that contradicts my claim. Provide me convincing evidence the sky is not purple.

The sky was purple last night about 6PM and it was beautiful.

(February 10, 2014 at 1:50 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Ironically, one of the things that WOULD disprove evolution is if a dog gave birth to a cat, as per one of the old creationist canards.

The discovery of the crocaduck would also do the job.

How? Would anything not completely absurd also refute it or was that by design?

(February 10, 2014 at 2:29 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Or they could just recycle the Duckbilled Platypus argument, and pretend it "disproves evolution"

Can you point me to a prominent creationist who used said argument?

Quote: Creationists believe they have all the data, and can twist it any way they like. This ties in with the Lying For Jesus thread:

The same data are available to everyone; you’re conflating that with one’s interpretation of these data.

(February 10, 2014 at 2:48 pm)Chuck Wrote: No, it wouldn't.

It may indicate how our understanding of how evolution may happen at the genetic level is wrong. It says nothing about whether evolution itself happened or not.

Evolution is something that is quite hard to disprove. The reason for embracing evolution is not that it is not been disproven, as theists might duplicitiously try to justify creationism. It is there are strong evidence it did happen. It is much closer to being proven than merely being a undisprovable notion.

Nice! Now the Darwinists are arguing with one another. You see DP, Chuck just has more faith than you do; he’s simply a more religious Darwinist and will therefore get a better seat in Darwin’s heaven. A cat could give birth to a dog and he’d find a way to cram that into the theory.

Audience Member: “Chuck, what would make you change your mind?”

Chuck: “Nothing.”

Sound familiar to anyone?

(February 10, 2014 at 7:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Then you are an even bigger fucking idiot than I thought. I have to lower my opinion of you.

Time to get out my shovel.

I’d be worried if someone like you didn’t think I was an idiot. It’d be like visiting a sanitarium and having the inmates tell you that you’re just as “sane” as they are. No thanks gramps.

(February 10, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Laza Wrote: Nye should have just shown them observed instances of evolution and then walk out.

That would have been awesome! Ham could have then pointed out how speciation through natural selection is a crucial part of the current creation model and thanked Nye for the evidential support. Next, since Nye had run away from the debate, Ham could have then spent the rest of the time sharing his views with the millions watching.

(February 11, 2014 at 1:44 am)Darkstar Wrote: You mean like the transitional species between lungfish and amphibians (which he showed)? Or were you referring to something like antibiotic resistance (which he didn't)? Ham himself practically acknowledged the existence of evolution when he said that each animal family branched out, he just didn't accept speciation.

*Sigh* Ham accepts speciation (so bacterial resistance demonstrates nothing contrary to this position); he does not accept common descent. How can you justify unbelief in a system you are clearly so ignorant of?

(February 11, 2014 at 12:12 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote: That's what I really don't get: How someone can be so completely indoctrinated by their religion that they actually accept the thing they think they're against and don't even realize it, and where this bogus distinction between micro and macro evolution comes from.

Speciation is part of the current creation model; I thought Ham was very clear about that with his orchard analogy. When did Ham say anything about the macro/micro distinction? In fact, if I am not mistaken that argument appears on AIG’s “Arguments Creationists should NOT use” page.

Quote: Well, okay, I know where the micro/macro thing comes from, it comes from them trying to rationalize their religion with the obvious fact of evolution, what I don't get about this distinction is that they don't understand that if you sting together all the so-called micro evolution examples they do accept, you get so-called macro evolution, and thus there's no distinction and it's all just evolution.

The distinction is concerning net information.

Quote: I'm so glad I never had to claw my way out of being indoctrinated to this degree, this makes my brain hurt.

I wish you had at least taken the time to properly represent the belief system.

(February 11, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Chad32 Wrote: It's the same reason anyone would think the the bible condemns slavery. Supposedly he rescued the isrealites from slavery, but then he said it's fine to own people from other cultures, and even made a way to own their own people by offering a man a wife.

Are you really making an appeal to objective morality here? Slavery is always wrong?

Quote: When reality contradicts the bible, and you find you can't ignore it, you just have to twist the words to mean something else. As racist as some people can be, you're unlikely to meet a guy that owns someone, and said he paid his wife's father to marry her after he raped her.

You’re all over the board aren’t you? The Bible treats rape as a capital offense (Deut 22). Do you? Or do you condone rape more than the Bible did?

(February 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Did Ham mention instant light speed or is even he not stupid enough for that?

That’s the position AIG adheres to. It’s not a stupid position at all if you know a thing or two about relativity; which obviously you do not.

Jesus. What a Waldorf Salad. 35 pages of case-by-case "I believe what I want to believe because the bible told me it has all the answers: I don't care to critically examine it, no I don't."

Also, lol@ "speciation is part of the current Creationist Model." Give it up, stop selectively adopting valid theories to convince the uneducated "a magician made the universe, the world, and us" is a valid Scientific theory.

Quote: I’d rather put my faith elsewhere.

Yeah, we know. 2500 year old bullshit. You are right about one thing. It was wrong then and it will never improve which simplifies things for the simple minded.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:01 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Jesus. What a Waldorf Salad. 35 pages of case-by-case "I believe what I want to believe because the bible told me it has all the answers: I don't care to critically examine it, no I don't."

That’s it? Well I am perfectly fine with you allowing my points to go un-refuted.

Quote: Also, lol@ "speciation is part of the current Creationist Model." Give it up, stop selectively adopting valid theories to convince the uneducated "a magician made the universe, the world, and us" is a valid Scientific theory.

Laughing at something does nothing to refute it; unfortunately it seems to be all you have left. It is astonishing the level of ignorance you possess when it comes to what your opponents believe. You really did not know that creationists believe in speciation? I think you are more just frustrated because you have nothing besides speciation to point to, and since that supports both models you now have no justification for ascribing to your model over the other.

(February 14, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

---

Yeah, we know. 2500 year old bullshit. You are right about one thing. It was wrong then and it will never improve which simplifies things for the simple minded.

---

Jesse Ventura calling other people weak-minded? That’s ironic.

Wow, what a post, Waldorf.

Quote:Sounds like straight up scientism to me. You would have been trusting in something that was completely wrong then. How do you know you’re putting your trust in something that is correct now? I’d rather put my faith elsewhere.

Because it's a method that improves over time. I don't have to twist the words around or find some different meaning to make it say what I want it to say. Science improves over time. We are more correct now than we were before. The bible has gone through changes and revisions, but there are people that claim this is the divinely inspired, inerrant word of Yahweh. I don't claim the scientific method has all the answers. That's why things like gravity and germs and evolution are theories. Scientists may debate over how and why they happen, but the vast majority of them know it happens.

(February 14, 2014 at 10:54 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sounds like straight up scientism to me. You would have been trusting in something that was completely wrong then. How do you know you’re putting your trust in something that is correct now? I’d rather put my faith elsewhere.

Well, hold on: the difference is that science continues to search and investigate, and when it finds an inconsistency or error, it corrects for it. At no point are the conclusions of science anything more than tentative, and subject to continued research and review. Compare that to the thing you're putting your faith in, which never changes and presumes to have all the answers irrespective of any other evidence.

Which is more likely to come to an actual understanding of the truth? And I don't even know why I bothered asking that question, because I already know you're just going to answer it by saying the bible is already in possession of the truth...

Quote:No, creationists start with the infallible and work their way from there, which makes far more sense to me. For the life of me I cannot figure out why nobody on here gets why they do that.

Because they recognize that the assertion that something is infallible is not the same thing as actual infallibility, especially when the fallibility of the self proclaimed infallible text is well known?

That really is a terribly glib answer, Stat.

Quote:I disagree with you. If God exists there are some things that must be factored into a person’s inferences about the age of the Earth; namely the flood and creation ex nihilo. When a person keeps those in mind, the evidence is very friendly to this timeline. If a person does not keep those in mind the evidence is very friendly to an Earth that is billions of years old. Ham touched on this point briefly in the debate, but I wish he had driven it home more because it is the hinge that everything else swings upon.

You're mistaking your very specific god as being the only hypothetical creation model. Granted, there are some god claims that can be excluded by an old earth, but creation as a concept? No.

Quote:Ignoring all of the epistemological shortcomings of a godless universe? I’ll play along because I like you; if God did not exist and if we could somehow still do science and predication without Him existing then the evidence would support an Earth that is millions to billions of years old (depending on the dating method that is used).

It's good that you ignored all those shortcomings, because those are nonsense objections made to avoid having to be accountable to evidence. Given that the evidence points to an old earth, I'll take it that this young earth stance is purely a faith thing, then?

Bill Nye was on Real Time with Bill Maher tonight.

Enjoy.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/14/bi...-children/

Quote: Bill Nye tells Maher: America can't afford scientifically illiterate kids

Scroll down for the video.