• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

7djengo7

New member
Evidence is the arbitration. Consensus is the agreement on the best explanation for the evidence. New contrary evidence will overturn the consensus, as I have explained several times in this thread.

Ah, you're still sticking with your unmitigated stupidity of saying that evidence can be contrary to evidence, eh? What would you say is "the arbitration" between evidence that you say is contrary to evidence, on the one hand, and the evidence to which you say it is contrary, on the other?

"the best explanation for the evidence"?? What? You don't consider evidence, itself, to be explanation? You consider evidence something in need of explanation?

Take a look at the first couple of things that were presented when I googled "explanation":
  • "a statement or account that makes something clear": So, when you say "explanation for the evidence", by "evidence", do you mean something that is not clear--something that needs to be made clear?
  • "a reason or justification given for an action or belief": Does this latter item not make out evidence and explanation to be one and the same? In other words, by your phrase, "explanation for the evidence", are you not saying "[evidence] for the evidence" and "explanation for the [explanation]"?
Of course, you've entirely cowered away from all the questions I've asked you, thus far, concerning the nature of evidence, and you're not going to do otherwise, here. This is because, whenever you call something "evidence", and whenever you call something "not evidence", you're speaking wholly out of sheer whimsy, with absolutely no rhyme nor reason to what you're saying. Purely emotive on your part--wholly motivated by your likes and your dislikes. So much for the phony-balogna "lack of bias" and "objectivity" of the joke you call "the scientific method".
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What makes you claim a global flood happened?

What does it matter what makes me believe something? :idunno:

Isn't that exactly the wrong way round to do science? Occam's razor is pretty clear: the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is the best. You're assuming a flood and then choosing what fits that, or rather denying everything because nothing fits.
And of course you have some posts of mine to point to that show exactly where I do this, right?

66 million years ago something global happened. We know this because there is a thin layer of iridium all the way round the earth in that stratum.
Nope.

This is assuming the truth of your idea and asserting it as fact. We find higher iridium content in some layers that show some connectivity. There are multiple ideas surrounding how this might have happened.

We know that global events leave global evidence.
Billions of dead things buried in rock the globe over.

If we had ice cores with massive deposits of sediments and frozen animal and plant remains 4000 layers down, no bristlecone pine had more than about 4000 annual rings, and that all species of plant and animal showed the genetic evidence of a severe recent population bottleneck, that would demand investigation of some 4000 year old global catastrophe.
This is all parsed in the language of the ideas you hold to. In a rational discussion, you need to present things in terms that both sides can agree to, not assert the primacy of your beliefs.

There is nothing global from 4000 years ago that demands an explanation. Over to you.
Billions of dead things buried in rock the globe over.

I've given you a rigorous analysis of all fundamentalist christian global flood models: they are all alt-knowledge for the alt-worldview.
:yawn:

They have nothing to do with science.
Then quit the conversation. :up:

Mr. Brown appears to be very resistant to discussing religion in his 'debates'.
Therefore, something. :idunno:

You might say this is a scientific attitude, but it is motivated by the creationist ideal: get creationism recognised as science in the United States.
:AMR:

Where are you getting this stuff? You know I'm a Kiwi living in Taiwan, right? I've spent all of six hours in the US and hate schools.

Tell me what is wrong with that legally-supported, evidence-based analysis.

It's bigoted, unsupported by law and anti-science.

My idea of what fossils are is irrelevant.
OK, we can safely ignore your contributions.

I don't know what you mean by primacy.
It's a word indicating that the thing being discussed is to be considered ahead of all else. You have access to a dictionary, right?

Evidence is the arbitration.
Then stop insisting that consensus has any part to play.

I appreciate that this is why you are so intensely opposed to the concept of consensus: the consensus disagrees with creationist views. I bet if the consensus agreed with your view you would trumpet your enthusiasm for scientific consensus.
Guess what. The consensus is on your side. :idunno:

There is no single creationist view.
Therefore, something. :idunno:

There is no single Darwinist view.

What is veracity in a scientific context, would you say?
Irrelevant rabbit trail. Consensus never has any say in the veracity of an idea.

I feel sad not being allowed to tag an alternative discussion on the end. It was nice to end on a friendly note. :(
 

Stuu

New member
What does it matter what makes me believe something?
The question wasn't about beliefs. It was about a claim that there was a global flood. What makes you claim that?

And of course you have some posts of mine to point to that show exactly where I do this, right?
Not on me at the moment.

Nope...This is assuming the truth of your idea and asserting it as fact. We find higher iridium content in some layers that show some connectivity. There are multiple ideas surrounding how this might have happened.
There is only one idea about how a layer of iridium appeared around the earth because we know where and when the asteroid impact happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/science/dinosaurs-extinction-meteorite-volcano.html

Stuu: We know that global events leave global evidence.
Billions of dead things buried in rock the globe over.
What, in the 4300 ybp layer, and nowhere before that?

This is all parsed in the language of the ideas you hold to.
Funny that, eh? That's what happens when you decide to base your worldview on things that can reasonably be said to be true, regardless of how it makes you feel. But then that is not going to make sense to religious fundamentalists who would believe that it is special creation that makes a puddle fit its pothole so perfectly.

In a rational discussion, you need to present things in terms that both sides can agree to, not assert the primacy of your beliefs.
So you would rather have the alt-facts for the alt-worldview, the facts that you feel you will be able to agree to? Your beliefs and mine are irrelevant. Mr.Brown made up some alt-facts for you. They might make you feel better about something, but they are wrong. The ice cores don't care that your beliefs are being upset. The trees haven't grown their rings out of spite for you. The universe doesn't have to suit what we would like to believe, it just is.

Stuu: They have nothing to do with science.
Then quit the conversation.
I am interested in science, and this thread is supposed to be about real science. Who first mentioned Mr. Brown's book? Not me!

Where are you getting this stuff? You know I'm a Kiwi living in Taiwan, right? I've spent all of six hours in the US and hate schools.
Well since you are apparently an advocate for Mr. Brown's hydroplates, I feel you should know why he invented them. That doesn't necessarily count as an argument against his ideas, but it would be an explanation for why a man would devote so much time and energy to producing a body of work that is dismissed as a joke by science generally.

There is a niche in the political ecosystem, if you will forgive the analogy, for those who can produce and popularise so-called alt-facts. These days it tends to be populist politicians and commentators on the far right of politics who will make up lies then deny they are lies, but call them the alt-facts. Everyone is allowed to have their own set of facts, and these lies are their 'facts'. Why do you need facts that aren't facts? Because if you are the one who has the facts, whether they are true or not, you can pretend to win arguments and gain influence. The current US president is your prime example, and the UK Prime Minister is your second. So much for Exodus 23:1-3, if this is a bible-believing president.

But this is not just a recent thing. In the 1960s the US government put a very large amount of money into science education as part of its push to achieve a moon landing. If you are of the right age, this spending had an influence on your education in science too, in any English-speaking country into the 1970s and even 1980s. My contention is that during the 1960s fundamentalist christians didn't like the fact that all the biology and geology that contradicts scripture was being given more prominence than in the past, so 'creation science' was invented as a religious counter-culture.

Thus sprang up an industry of alt-science, one that started with the premise that, come what may, scripture must be right. If the science contradicts scripture then the science needs to come to different conclusions. Well I hope that you can see this isn't science. There was an early creation scientist, an Adventist called George McCready Price, but the modern version began with John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, and continued with Mr. Brown in the 1980s, although his version seems to have only limited appeal amongst fundamentalist christians.

An important objective of creation science to come up with arguments that appear plausibly scientific so they can push them into schools then try to win court cases brought against them on the Establishment Clause. Such court cases in Arkansas in 1982 and in the US Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that creation science was not to be taught in public schools because its sole purpose was to promote a religious view. In 2005, Intelligent Design was ruled against for the same reasons. You may have heard of the Wedge Document. It gives you everything you need to know about why Intelligent Design creationism was invented. It's political ideology.

While you appear to be a fan of Mr. Brown, his creationism is really about attempts at political leverage and influence over school curricula to favour religious teaching, for whatever motives he might have. The alt-facts for the alt-worldview is his gift to fundamentalists. You may be interested in good science yourself, but that would not put you Mr. Brown's target demographic. He works for the fundamentalists in the US who want more god in schools. The global flood, which clearly is not relevant to natural history, has nothing to do with science but is almost entirely about American politics.

There is no single Darwinist view.
There is a neo-Darwinian synthesis. It's almost universally agreed as a 'single view' amongst biologists. Not that there aren't points of contention within it, of course.
Now because you appear unwilling to accept what scientific consensus is, I will not be going through what a synthesis is in this context, ok? If you want to know, look it up.

I feel sad not being allowed to tag an alternative discussion on the end. It was nice to end on a friendly note.
Cricket was bigger in the United State than in England in the 19th Century. The ToL mods may not appreciate the significance of what they gave away when they turfed all that tea into the harbour. Or something.

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
Still assuming the layers are long periods of time. Silly.
No assumption needed. Different methods of dating agree.

How would you describe assuming they're not long periods of time because of sums done on a book of genealogies in which people supposedly lived for hundreds of years? That's not silly, I guess.

Stuart
 

Right Divider

Body part
No assumption needed. Different methods of dating agree.
Those dating method ALL make many ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be validated.

Different bogus methods agreeing is meaningless.

How would you describe assuming they're not long periods of time because of sums done on a book of genealogies in which people supposedly lived for hundreds of years? That's not silly, I guess.
No, it's not silly. It's called accurate history.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The question wasn't about beliefs. It was about a claim that there was a global flood. What makes you claim that?
That's a semantic difference that holds no meaning. If I claim it, I obviously believe it and vice versa.

Either way, what use would my answer be?

Not on me at the moment.
Great. When you find one, let us know. :up:

There is only one idea about how a layer of iridium appeared around the earth.

Even if there were only one idea — there isn't — what would that prove?

What, in the 4300 ybp layer, and nowhere before that?
You need to quit asserting the truth of your assumptions.

Funny that, eh? That's what happens when you decide to base your worldview on things that can reasonably be said to be true, regardless of how it makes you feel. But then that is not going to make sense to religious fundamentalists who would believe that it is special creation that makes a puddle fit its pothole so perfectly.

You're the one who is constantly phrasing things in anti-science terms. :idunno:

So you would rather have the alt-facts for the alt-worldview, the facts that you feel you will be able to agree to?

No. Try reading what I said with your motivation being to understand. If you truly believe that I am as you characterize me, there's no point in a discussion.

Unless, as you've said numerous times, you're only here for the laughs.

I am interested in science.
Then talk the language.

Well since you are apparently an advocate for Mr. Brown's hydroplates, I feel you should know why he invented them. That doesn't necessarily count as an argument against his ideas, but it would be an explanation for why a man would devote so much time and energy to producing a body of work that is dismissed as a joke by science generally.

Anti-science babble.

There is a niche in the political ecosystem, if you will forgive the analogy, for those who can produce and popularise so-called alt-facts. These days it tends to be populist politicians and commentators on the far right of politics who will make up lies then deny they are lies, but call them the alt-facts. Everyone is allowed to have their own set of facts, and these lies are their 'facts'. Why do you need facts that aren't facts? Because if you are the one who has the facts, whether they are true or not, you can pretend to win arguments and gain influence. The current US president is your prime example, and the UK Prime Minister is your second. So much for Exodus 23:1-3, if this is a bible-believing president.

Anti-science babble.

But this is not just a recent thing. In the 1960s the US government put a very large amount of money into science education as part of its push to achieve a moon landing. If you are of the right age, this spending had an influence on your education in science too, in any English-speaking country into the 1970s and even 1980s. My contention is that during the 1960s fundamentalist christians didn't like the fact that all the biology and geology that contradicts scripture was being given more prominence than in the past, so 'creation science' was invented as a religious counter-culture.

Anti-science babble.

Thus sprang up an industry of alt-science, one that started with the premise that, come what may, scripture must be right. If the science contradicts scripture then the science needs to come to different conclusions. Well I hope that you can see this isn't science. There was an early creation scientist, an Adventist called George McCready Price, but the modern version began with John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, and continued with Mr. Brown in the 1980s, although his version seems to have only limited appeal amongst fundamentalist christians.

Anti-science babble.

An important objective of creation science to come up with arguments that appear plausibly scientific so they can push them into schools then try to win court cases brought against them on the Establishment Clause. Such court cases in Arkansas in 1982 and in the US Supreme Court in 1987 ruled that creation science was not to be taught in public schools because its sole purpose was to promote a religious view. In 2005, Intelligent Design was ruled against for the same reasons. You may have heard of the Wedge Document. It gives you everything you need to know about why Intelligent Design creationism was invented. It's political ideology.

Anti-science babble.

While you appear to be a fan of Mr. Brown, his creationism is really about attempts at political leverage and influence over school curricula to favour religious teaching, for whatever motives he might have. The alt-facts for the alt-worldview is his gift to fundamentalists. You may be interested in good science yourself, but that would not put you Mr. Brown's target demographic. He works for the fundamentalists in the US who want more god in schools. The global flood, which clearly is not relevant to natural history, has nothing to do with science but is almost entirely about American politics.

Anti-science babble.

When you've got something that is not psychobabble, let us know.

There is a neo-Darwinian synthesis. It's almost universally agreed as a 'single view' amongst biologists. Not that there aren't points of contention within it, of course.
Now because you appear unwilling to accept what scientific consensus is, I will not be going through what a synthesis is in this context, ok? If you want to know, look it up.

Yeah. It boils down to the non-statement "things change."

Cricket was bigger in the United State than in England in the 19th Century. The ToL mods may not appreciate the significance of what they gave away when they turfed all that tea into the harbour. Or something.
:chuckle:

And you're probably banned now. :D
 

Stuu

New member
Either way, what use would my answer be?
Why is a global flood under consideration at all? What prompted that?

You need to quit asserting the truth of your assumptions.
Why?

You're the one who is constantly phrasing things in anti-science terms.
For one who doesn't seem to know what scientific consensus means, that would be hypocritical.

No. Try reading what I said with your motivation being to understand. If you truly believe that I am as you characterize me, there's no point in a discussion.'
How do you come to a global flood date of about 4300 years ago?

Stuart
 

Stuu

New member
scientifically speaking, what is the defining characteristic of gay and lesbian people?
Maybe we should ask whether there is a genetic basis to people becoming religious fundamentalists and abusing others for whatever choices they make for their own private lives. Is that something of scientific interest to you?

Stuart
 
Top