The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Fichori]

"This isn't about evolution. It's about rocks. Nobody is claiming that rocks evolve."

Yes, its about rocks.

Rocks that they claim are millions of years old.

Those millions of years are a philosophical assumption of the Non Empirical Evolutionary Dogma.


If there was as much money poured into YEC as there is being poured into Evolution, YEC would squash Evolution like a bug.

[tacticalogic]

Those millions of years are a philosophical assumption of the Non Empirical Evolutionary Dogma.

Not being more than 6,000 years old is a theological assumpion of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Claiming the other guy is dogmatic doen't mean you aren't.

[Fichori]

"Not being more than 6,000 years old is a theological assumpion of a literal interpretation of Genesis. Claiming the other guy is dogmatic doen't mean you aren't."

Its only a theological assumption if you dogmatically ignore the evidences.

I suggest you read: Evolution: The Anti-science

There is a difference between being dogmatically consistent in the empirical scientific method, and being dogmatic about ignoring evidence.

[tacticalogic]

Its only a theological assumption if you dogmatically ignore the evidences.

The "evidences" are "the Bible tells me so". That's a theological assumption.

[Coyoteman]

Rocks that they claim are millions of years old.

And have evidence to support those claims. There is no scientific evidence to contradict those claims. Only religious belief.

Those millions of years are a philosophical assumption of the Non Empirical Evolutionary Dogma.

Nonsense. Scientists all over the world come up with those radiometric ages. None of them are evolutionists. (Try geologists, nuclear physicists, nuclear chemists and a bunch of other 'ologists. Evolutionary biologists don't do their own dating.)

If there was as much money poured into YEC as there is being poured into Evolution, YEC would squash Evolution like a bug.

Nonsense again. The only thing that would happen is a bunch of dubious preachers would get richer, they would spin even taller tales for their TRVE believers, and even more of them would end up in jail for tax evasion and other dubious adventures.

Look at the RATE Project -- over a million dollars in creationist money and what did they get? They confirmed what scientists had been saying all along (and then they refused to believe their own data). See Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac.

[Fichori]

"The "evidences" are "the Bible tells me so". That's a theological assumption."

Strawman and you know it.

I think this discussion has become, to quote the RM, "Dead horse"

[Fichori]

You’ve made it very clear that in your opinion, anything anyone says that contradicts Evolution is nonsense.

You look like a perfect example of an Evolutionist who dogmatically ignores/denies anything/everything that does not agree with his world view.

[tacticalogic]

Strawman and you know it.

The references you posted explicitly specify a requirement of a biblical framework for science before it can be considered valid.

You're requiring an explicitl and very specific theological test that any scientific theory or evidence must pass before it can be considered valid.

[Tailgunner Joe]

It does not follow that because a new species branches off from another species, that therefore all species share a common ancestor. It's a logical leap of faith.

[Teacher317]

Umm, what is posted is empirical truth that can be verified by anyone. He basically typed that untold numbers of scientists have run similar tests, and gotten similar results. That makes it quite likely that the test results accurately reflect the truth. How can asserting this simple truth be decried as “ignoring everything that does not agree”? What is there that does not agree with those test results on those rocks? What tests or logical suppositions do you have that would counter those test results on those rocks?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Claiming that all species share a common ancestor is claiming something about the origins of life, namely that whatever caused the origin of life only happened once, creating a single simple lifeform which is the ancestor of all living things. Darwinists act like their disinterest in the question of the origins of life is some kind of strength of the theory of evolution. In fact it may be its greatest weakness. The whole theory practically begs the question of origins. If some simple single-celled life form was created out of the “primordial soup” once, then why not twice? Why not many times? If life came to Earth on a comet, couldn't it have come on more than one comet? Could different animal kingdoms not be related at all? If unrelated living things adapted to the same environments, it is not surprising that they could have developed similar traits. Different animals might have similar qualities, but it does not therefore follow that they are all related to one another.

[tacticalogic]

In other words, there were lots of mountains after the flood that did not exist before the flood.

Sorry, I missed that post earlier.

This still appears to be, by your own standards, untestable and unprovable.

Even assuming such a flood did take place, there is no recorded history of the geography of this continent before about 300 years ago, and none on the area in question until Lewis and Clark. By the standards you want applied to empirical evidence, you can posit that there was a volcano there, but you cannot say when it erupted unless you have a record of it being observed.

[LeGrande]

I believe in ID, and the idea behind ID is contradictory to Evolution.

Where is the contradiction?

I also don't believe that God started the 'Evolutionary Process' (I belive that God designed all genetic information, which has, since the fall, Devolved.)

So you believe God screwed up and you believe in devolution? Do you also believe that mankind was created separately from everything else?

BTW, TOE claims a net increase of usable information, TOC claims a net DECREASE of usable information.

Yes I understand that the 'Theory of Creation' disagrees with evolution but the theory of Intelligent Design claims a net increase in usable information too.

So what are you a proponent of Creation or ID?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Claiming that all species share a common ancestor is claiming something about the origins of life, namely that whatever caused the origin of life only happened once, creating a single simple lifeform which is the ancestor of all living things.

No, it's only claiming that all the life that survives has a common ancestor. Maybe life did get started multiple times, but none of the other attempts made it. Maybe life continued to arise even after the common-ancestor life was established, and it didn't survive. There doesn't have to have been one and only one origin of life on earth--just one that survived.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity.

Because there is such regularity in the universe, there are many instances where scientists are able to make successful predictions about the future... Without uniformity in nature, such predictions would be impossible, and science could not exist.

You quote the above with approval, and yet you argue for events in the past that require the complete opposite. You argue that "the universe is designed and upheld by God in a uniform way," but then claim there were all these non-uniform events in the past. You acknowledge that scientists can make successful predictions about the future, based on uniformity, but deny that they can make accurate inferences about the past based on the same principle.

It starts to appear as though you'll argue for whatever you need to support your religious views, regardless of its contradictions.

[Fichori]

"Umm, what is posted is empirical truth that can be verified by anyone." [excerpt]

Well then, lets have a look at an example of what was posted:

"There is no scientific evidence to contradict those claims." [excerpt: 265]

That is a little bit of religious dogma.
Denying the existence of of contradicting evidence is not empirical science.

Another:

"Scientists all over the world come up with those radiometric ages. None of them are evolutionists." [excerpt: 265]

Here, he throws a strawman.
I said that "Those millions of years are a philosophical assumption of the Non Empirical Evolutionary Dogma.", aka, Conjecture derived from Methodological Naturalism, to which he replies that the scientists who do radiometric dating are not evolutionists.
(Even though they use a methodology that is tuned to suit Evolution)

So, tell me, how many 'empirical truths' have you tested yourself?

[Fichori]

Where is the contradiction between random mutation and intelligently designed?

"So you believe God screwed up and you believe in devolution?" [excerpt]

Nope.

The word I actually used was devolved.

"Do you also believe that mankind was created separately from everything else?" [excerpt]

Go read Genesis 1.

"Yes I understand that the 'Theory of Creation' disagrees with evolution but the theory of Intelligent Design claims a net increase in usable information too.

So what are you a proponent of Creation or ID?" [excerpt]

Intelligent Design only stipulates an Intelligent Designer.
Of course there are those who would say that ID is Intelligently Designed evolution, but then they should say IDE.

I believe in an Intelligently Designed Creation.

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Next time you want to accuse me of contradicting myself, first make sure you have the guts to excerpt in context all the contradicting quotes.

I quoted those entire two paragraphs, except for their one example about what can be predicted. Get off your high horse.

What significant difference do you think adding the sentence back in about predicting astronomical events makes? The primary other thing we've been talking about predicting is the stability of Yucca Mountain. Is there a reason you believe astronomy can make predictions but geology can't?

And does highlighting the sentence about diverse conditions mean that you accept the idea that conditions on Earth can change so much in 6000 years as to render the evidence against the Flood unreliable? If things can change that much in that short a time, what possible meaning can "uniformity" have?

Last, please stop staying "strawman" to posts that aren't straw men at all; and what the heck is a "flying elephant"?

[Fichori]

"What significant difference do you think adding the sentence back in about predicting astronomical events makes? The primary other thing we've been talking about predicting is the stability of Yucca Mountain. Is there a reason you believe astronomy can make predictions but geology can't?" [excerpt]

Predicting the orbit of the moon based on current observation is very simple.(most if not all the variables are known)

Predicting the 'orbit' of a mountain is not so simple.(Only a fraction of the variables are known)

"And does highlighting the sentence about diverse conditions mean that you accept the idea that conditions on Earth can change so much in 6000 years as to render the evidence against the Flood unreliable? If things can change that much in that short a time, what possible meaning can "uniformity" have?" [excerpt]

Strawman.
Thats not meaning I, or the writer of the article meant to convey.

"Last, please stop staying "strawman" to posts that aren't straw men at all; and what the heck is a "flying elephant"?" [excerpt]

I say strawman when someone twists something I said.
If you don't like me saying strawman, don't twist what I say or put words in my mouth.