August 15, 2008

Logic says the Bible is Supernatural

Why you ask? Because a wicked man wouldn't write such a book, a wicked man wouldn't think of themselves as wicked and wretched. Lofty self abasement thoughts, such as the ones in the Bible, wouldn't prevail in a wicked man. A good man wouldn't write it because it would of been a lie. No one would go through such lengths with such a cohesive prophetically accurate book.

Mathematically it would be impossible to have such a book last this many years, over this many languages, way before there was even a method to copy in mass, of such writings. A book that accurately gets it right throughout the years, proved by the Dead Sea Scrolls, and last over 2000 years altering this many lives and still is relevant to this hour. A book that makes sense still to this hour. A book that has come true to this hour. A Book that has changed me to this hour. His will is perfect.

I obtained permission from Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D to use this, which he wrote:

THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGINS OF THE WORD OF GOD

Chafer (Chafer, Lewis Sperry; "SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY"; Dallas, TX: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947) deals at length with the fact that the Bible had supernatural origins. I have condensed his thoughts into what is presented in this appendix. He presents 15 topics.

1. THE BOOK OF GOD: The book of God asserts this fact for itself many times over. The question some raise is whether it was written by a man or revealed by God and recorded by man. The structure and message of the book demand a divine author.

Man could not set out to write a book of this size. He would not have the ideas of it, nor would man be able to produce the detail and precision of it. It presents God as THE God. It presents God as having a plan. It presents God only as deserving glory. It presents God as the absolute authority.

The unregenerate man could not subdue his own pride to produce such a God, nor could he exalt his talents to a level capable of producing such a book.

2. THE BIBLE AND MONOTHEISM: The Bible presents monotheism - one God, not many. Mankind has always had many gods, be they wood, clay, gold or silver. Idolatry is in every civilization to some extent. The Bible presents a one-God religion. How could man devise such a thought as one God in a world of many gods?

3. THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY: The doctrine of the Trinity is so complex yet so simple as to demand a divine origin for the Bible. The Trinity is three persons in one God. Stated it is simple yet the explanation has evaded man since the subject was undertaken for study. We cannot explain the how of the Trinity only the fact of it.

The work each member of the Trinity is involved in is also very complicated - the Fatherhood of God, or the perfections of Christ. Man cannot adequately explain these things so how could he devise them?

4. CREATION: The creation is the beginning of the content of Scripture. This creation is presented as fact and is described in Scripture. Man's explanation of the beginning of the world is tied up in evolution. Even with the best product evolution could produce, that person could not have produced the Biblical account. Evolution is shot through with problems and gaps. Man could not devise a creation as perfectly presented in Scripture.

5. SIN: Sin is presented in Scripture. Forty authors, are in complete agreement on sin and its existence. Man could not devise such a thing as sin from his own mind. Sin is a divine statement and idea not a man made doctrine.

6. THE CURE OF EVIL ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE: The Bible's cure for sin is so divine as to demand divine authorship.

Man would not devise a plan of salvation because without Scripture he doesn't know he needs it. Even if man knew he needed salvation he could not dream up a plan whereby all could be saved apart from works or vanity.

Man could not devise a plan of salvation where the one redeeming would gain all the glory. Man could not come up with such a beautiful plan aside from having it revealed to him by God.

7. THE EXTENT OF BIBLE REVELATION: The extent of the Bible demands a divine author. It reaches minutely into eternity past as well as eternity future. Human authors aside from revelation could not make up such detail nor such broad perimeters.

8. THE ETHICS OF THE BIBLE: The ethics that the Bible produces have never even been hinted at in man's religions. Purity and holiness of life are the divine standard while in most of man's we find debasement and immorality.

The Bible presents man as an utter failure and unable to help himself. Man in his vanity even today has trouble comprehending such things, much less making them up.

Only a divine author could take a moral system such as Judaism and lay it aside for another system so different yet presenting the same morality as Christianity. Man could not come up with such a moral standard based on the teachings of a book without revelation from God.

9. THE CONTINUITY OF THE BIBLE: The continuity of Scripture declares a divine editor and revealer - 66 books, 40 authors and hundreds of years of history. The authors are separated by time, space and education. They come from all walks of life and most of them never met one another, yet they came together to form one central story of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

He is shown as pre-incarnate. He is shown in prophecy as coming. He is shown as here in His first advent. He is shown as coming again in the future.

One man could produce a work with continuity but this combination of authors and times has to be divinely assembled. Man could not produce such a work.

10. PROPHECY AND ITS FULFILLMENT: Prophecy along with its fulfillment is proof that the Bible is of divine origin. Man can think and project what might happen in the future based on knowledge, history and common sense, but man cannot accurately predict specific occurrences and have those occurrences come to pass. The Scripture is full of prophecies that have been fulfilled and which will yet be fulfilled.

11. TYPES WITH THEIR ANTITYPES: The types of the Old Testament and the antitypes of the New Testament are of such splendor that they must have divine origin. The fact that the type was set to words by a person other than the one setting down the antitype, and this being done hundreds of years apart, shows divine origin. This would require divine intervention!

12. THE BIBLE AS LITERATURE: The Bible is considered great literature even by the unsaved. If a man had been setting these great words down, he most surely would have left some personal opinions and pronouns to let the reader know that it was he that had written the work.

The truths are not from the men but from their God so that they left no opinion of their own or personal pronouns to lay claim to any of the truths.

Many of the church fathers have been prolific writers, however, none of these have even touched the clarity and preciseness of Scripture, nor have they touched the literary quality of the Word.

13. THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE: Science is in constant revision. The world was flat - remember - and now it is round. The scientific world is always redoing and redefining to fit the exposed facts. The Bible on the other hand has always been acceptable in all ages without revision or redefining.

Where the Bible has seemingly contradicted science in the past, the scientists have found that they were in error in later days.

14. THE BIBLE AND TEMPORAL POWER: The Bible is not dependent upon political power, or clout to get its job done. The believer can do the work of the Lord with or without the help of the governmental powers.

Man naturally, when he wants something done, will try any means to achieve his end. They often use political power, or strings with politicians, to achieve their goal.

If man had written the Bible he would not have been able to come up with the idea that man could do the work of the Lord relying on the heart and mind of others rather than political power.

15. THE BIBLE'S ENDURING FRESHNESS: The constant new blessing a person gains from the Word even when he has read, and read, and read a portion there is always something more to be gleaned from its content. No other literature can make this claim to freshness and vitality.


Chafer and Dr. Derickson knows the truth about the Bible. The list collectively speaks the apparent realization the Bible is purely supernatural. When we look deep inside ourselves we see the truth. The awe and majesty of the Bible is very real from the day you pick it up to the day you put it down as read. It will change you forever, or to be more accurate it changed me forever. It is the single greatest literary work of all time forever, we cannot give this credit to 40 men between a thousand year span, it must be to God. We all know deep in our soul logically, the Bible is the Word of God.

tinyurl.com/LogicBible

78 comments:

  1. I don't have the time or energy to go through all these claims, but I'll deal with a couple of things you said. Most of what Chafer said is just lofty uncritical praise, not evidence, anyway.

    You say that a wicked man would not have written the Bible, because he wouldn't have abased himself; and a good man would not have written it, because it would have been a lie. But surely you are aware, Dan, that there are more than two kinds of men, and also that it's possible to believe something is true when it isn't: I suspect that those who wrote the Bible believed what they wrote, but they were mistaken, at least about a lot of it.

    This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' Trilemma, where he claims that when Jesus says he is the Son of God, that there are only three possibilities: He is lying, he is crazy, or he is telling the truth (liar, lunatic, or Lord). But of course there are other possibilities too: Jesus might have been misquoted, or maybe he was being metaphorical, or perhaps he simply didn't exist. It's hard to know what really went on, especially since all the interesting stuff is only documented in the Bible itself and not elsewhere.

    And about the mathematics of the Bible lasting until the present day: you would be surprised how accurate copyists were back before there were printing presses, and Christianity was a great success story, so the demand for copies was very high.

    In any case, there's no reason to think there is anything supernatural about the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. the writers of the Bible were ignorant of their mistaken belief then? that still doesn't give us a positive argument debunking the continuity of the Bible. How can it be that the Bible writers are in harmony with each others writing in respect to God, His plan and etc. given the fact that they are so separated from each other through a number of variables? would not then it be, if there had been no Divine influence over them, a book full of contradicting views of God, His works and purpose instead? 2. next you say Jesus might have been just misquoted,by obviously the writers of the N.T. and yet the very same writers stared persecution and martyrdom in the face without recanting their claim. moreover in this case it is not a matter of, "well,they didn't know that they were misquoting Jesus," because they were they same who walked with Him for three and a half years. maybe He was being metaphorical, if so would He not have explained that to those who set to crucify Him in order to escape His own execution? perhaps He did not exist at all, and along with that perhaps the actual events that transpired, if it be that they transpired were in stark contrast to those found in the Bible, since no other documentation of those things exist outside of the N.T. The only problem here is that there are other documents that affirm that Christ existed and was crucified outside the Bible.... Greek,Roman,Jewish and Pagan historians all testify to the veracity of His existence and Crucifixion.... I actually really enjoyed your debate with the other guy and thought it entertaining how you to went back and forth back and forth...

      Delete
  2. Zilch,

    I don't have the time or energy to go through all these claims

    That's my point when understood entirely one cannot conclude that there is a couple of dudes just making this stuff up.

    I suspect that those who wrote the Bible believed what they wrote, but they were mistaken, at least about a lot of it.

    Nope How can 40 men in different languages cohesively write a mistake? It just isn't logical. Not to mention the other 14 points presented.

    you would be surprised how accurate copyists were back before there were printing presses, and Christianity was a great success story, so the demand for copies was very high.

    I agree, proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls. These men believing the words were from God painstakingly reproduced the Bible with precision accuracy, with exceptions of course. I read it took the copyists an entire year to reproduce just one Bible. Through the spoils of war and pillaging of countries that were going on back then for that one book to survive this long is supernatural in itself. The case is very clear we will all meet our Maker. I just wish it was on better terms for most.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan, of course forty men can write down the same story more or less consistently, if they were told that story over and over. Since we don't come from an oral tradition, it's hard to imagine the amount of stuff people can memorize, if they have to. I have listened to someone recite for five hours in Old English, and have myself learned hundreds of lines of Middle German text by heart word-perfect. This is not to brag- anyone can do it if they put their mind to it and practice.

    And the stories of the Old Testament were surely passed down for a long time orally, and many people knew them, so it's not really surprising that forty different authors put together a pretty coherent tale, especially since the later authors almost certainly had access to the writings of the earlier ones. It's not as if each author was writing completely on his own: it was a tradition they documented.

    And no, just because I don't have the time to go through all this stuff doesn't prove that a couple of dudes couldn't have made it up. After all, I don't have time to read all the Sherlock Holmes stories either, and just one dude made them all up.

    ReplyDelete
  4.      Ah, but a con man can declare himself "wicked but saved" and pretend to be inviting you to serve some god that he is serving when he is really lining his own pockets. I'm sure you can think of several examples (although you will call them "false converts.") The most effective liar is one who spins a tale that looks like a liar would never say it.

         There is no claim that cannot possibly have come from a deceiver. Careful liars do not lie about what you know, that you trust them with the things you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not only that, pvblivs, but a con man can con himself too. Belief is not simple: there are many stages between deliberately lying and saying what one believes to be true. If you read about people such as Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and O.J. Simpson, it becomes obvious that one cannot draw a hard and fast line between believing and not believing in what one says.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I could point out sites like messiahtruth.com which talks about "messianic prophecy" or the bibleandscience.com site which deals with "scientific foreknowledge in the bible" but I just don't care.

    Here is the first of the reports of the Evolution Blog guy about his trip to the International Creationism Conference.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reynold- thanks for the link to the Evolution Blog. Dan- you might want to check it out for a view from the "other side".

    ReplyDelete
  8. Reynold and Zilch,

    I thought you would be able to see the fallacies and bias at that blog. This is like trying to convince a pedophile at a police convention that raping children is wrong. I saw no value in it.

    He said: "If it were really the embarrassment creationists say it is, how do you explain that virtually every paleontologist in the world is an evolutionist?"

    Now come on, you don't see the 'appeal to authority' in that statement? Just no value to the argument. Besides my daughter claims she will be a 'Creation Paleontologist' like Dr. Kurt Wise who received his PhD from Harvard University, Richard Dawkins said about Wise: "Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity."

    I did like the God pharmacy link he provided. He just wrote it off as absurd yet science agrees to the points. There is a ring of truth to the points made. Coincidence? Sure possibly but If you look at life through the lens of God then one can connect the two simply. Of course the sliced carrot looks like an eye, they do help your eyes. God sure loves us enough to reveal Himself to us subtly for us believers.

    The guy you offered as 'another viewpoint' is the same viewpoint we have been facing for quite some time, we call him a scoffer. Nothing new.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan: you are absolutely correct- the argument from authority alone should not be uncritically accepted. The best way of judging something is to look at the facts for oneself. Of course, this is not always possible: we often do need to rely on the opinions of others, and then we must try to find objective standards for judging whom to trust and what to believe.

    In science, the first test test a new experiment or model must often pass is peer review: the publication in a recognized journal, subject to the approval of a board of other scientists. Of course, there are problems with this approach, and new ideas do have high hurdles to cross. But in practice it works pretty well.

    Dr. Kurt Wise is a rare breed: a creationist paleontologist. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the only one with a doctorate. I googled him, but was unable to find mention of a single peer-reviewed paper by him, just popular works with such luminaries as Duane "I can talk faster and change topics quicker than you can" Gish. This does not of course prove that he is wrong, but only that he represents perhaps a hundredth of a percent of the prevailing paleontological opinion about the age of the Earth.

    Now, I know that creationists say that the lack of peer-reviewed papers supporting creationism is the result of the "secular bias" of the scientific community.

    Two things: one, science must be based on evidence, and evidence for science is secular, otherwise we are not talking about science. Any case for a young Earth must be based on actual data from the Earth, not on the Bible. And such evidence has not yet been produced. Two: if there were real evidence for a young Earth, it would not only be published, but would probably be worth a Nobel Prize, because it would be such a radical shift in our worldview.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Zilch,

    Just add information
    Dr. Kurt Wise was a major contributor to
    John F. Ashton's book In six Days

    And I agree with your "Two things:..." I fully admit that I take on the 6 literal days as extreme trust and faith in God. If it wasn't in the Bible there is no way that I would believe such a thing. My err is on the side of caution not to doubt God. It could be hazardous to your health.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought you would be able to see the fallacies and bias at that blog. This is like trying to convince a pedophile at a police convention that raping children is wrong. I saw no value in it.

    The value of the evilution blog might be, Dan, on knowing what evilution is really about instead of the strawmen of evilution that you are used to "debunking."

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  12. G.E.

    Show evidence of large scale evolution (Macro) and it will be considered. Did you catch what Pvblivs just said?

    The jury is still out on the evolution model whether you choose to believe it or not but the line has been drawn in the sand.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dan, I have shown evidence of large-scale evolution. If you want more, you can start here.

    You will have to forgive me if I believe the vast majority of scientific opinion, and my own training and experience. The "jury" that is still "out" on the fact of evolution consists of a very few scientists and a great number of laypeople, nearly all of them with a religious agenda.

    As I said before, although there are still gaps and probably always will be, the evolution model fits the facts very well, with multiple converging lines of evidence. Until such time as all that evidence is overthrown, I will continue to believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You like to talk about Kurt Wise?

    Ok. Here's some context for the quote ("Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity.")you had earlier:

    ------------
    All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific world view were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that . . .

    " . . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science."


    See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise's concluding paragraph:

    "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."

    ----------

    And you do realize that Pvblivs is just one person right? I'd look at the consensus view, and the actual evidence if I was you. I've said the same to pvblivs on his blog.


    By the way, you want to talk about fallacies? Why don't you list them in detail from the EvolutionBlog site then?

    In the meantime, I'll list a fallacy I keep finding on your blog: Ad-hominem or at least poisoning the well (using negative comparisons to try to make those who disagree with you also look bad)

    Examples:
    I thought you would be able to see the fallacies and bias at that blog. This is like trying to convince a pedophile at a police convention that raping children is wrong. I saw no value in it.

    and I applaud your convictions to stick to your beliefs. It reminds me of a conservative postgraduate that has to defend his position constantly to his liberal counterparts. Although disturbingly rare, at least you are genuine.

    Then of course there's Pascal's Wager where you say things like And I agree with your "Two things:..." I fully admit that I take on the 6 literal days as extreme trust and faith in God. If it wasn't in the Bible there is no way that I would believe such a thing. My err is on the side of caution not to doubt God. It could be hazardous to your health.

    As for "appeal to authority" it's only a fallacy when there's no evidence to back them up. You keep ignoring the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reynold:

         It is certainly true that I am only one person. But I would like to point out that if the evidence weren't filtered, you wouldn't ask anyone to look at the consensus.
         We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't it's inconclusive." I have looked at the claims of "easily falsifiable if wrong." Every time it is a case where they determined something would not happen (indepent of large-scale evolution) and then decreed it was a potential falsifier.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Until such time as all that evidence is overthrown, I will continue to believe it."

    It is quite apparent that no one wants to touch the subject of this post. It sure is hard to explain away all the 15 points happening simultaneously, the evidence is so overwhelming we have no choice but to believe the validity of the Bible and that's what we must understand as truth to understand the universe not things that men are guessing at.

    "I will continue to believe it."

    You chose man over God. I get it. There are wild things in the Bible like concubines and rapes and incest. If it were a made up story to convince people to follow, one could think of a better way to sway the people. The entire Bible would of been flowers, love and puppies. That just isn't the case. It's filled with wrath and Judgment and justice. The fact is the Bible is actually truth and no one dared to change it for fear of their own souls. Things cannot just be explained away, the jury or at least the evidence is in as far as the Bible is concerned and the verdict is you will be found guilty for breaking God's Laws on Judgment Day. Please take the wonderful gift being offered to all of you. Cash in that check that was written personally to you. Seek Salvation and Follow Christ because you are so grateful for Jesus saving you.

    We are witnessing a winding down of the earth and things will soon happen very fast; Russia is moving, the Bible said Russia "Rosh" and the "Kings from the East" aka China will move in...and so on. We see this now happening. I don't know if I was the only one freaking out at the opening ceremony of the Olympics, but they kept flashing the symbol for "Harmony" which is inspiring, unless you understand the true meaning in a communistic state, it means something far more sinister. The soldiers performed well and in unison that is for sure. I shiver to think what would of happened to their families if they made mistakes. People are scared of terrorists but terrorist have nothing on China.

    The prophecies from the Bible are coming true to this day. You have been and continue to be warned and the entire world will see the coming of Christ very soon. But of course that is just my opinion... based on fact.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan:

         I addressed it in full. All the points are claiming that no deceiver or set of same would come up with something like the bible so that deceivers could not have written it. That is simply false. But there is also the fact that things that we recognize as atrocities today were not considered so back then.

    ReplyDelete
  18. pvblvs: you claim that the evidence for evolution is "filtered". Do you have any evidence for this claim? You say:

    We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk.

    So, there's a conspiracy behind this? Perhaps the evilutionists are trying to lure us away from the Bible? Evidence, please.

    Dan, you say:

    You chose man over God.

    I choose the real world, men, women, Cowboys and Indians, stars, dinosaurs, and chocolate, over an imaginary Big Guy in the Sky. And no, I'm not touching these fifteen points because they are silly- they can be summed up in one point: "Gee, isn't the Bible great? God musta written it". Sorry, as a member of the reality-based community who believes that bats are not birds, that's not enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zilch,

    Sorry, as a member of the reality-based community who believes that bats are not birds, that's not enough for me.

    Yea, that same "reality-based" community that classifies Panda's as raccoons.

    "The Bible is not meant to be a scientific description of modern biological categories. Instead, it is often written from the perspective of what we see. In other words, it makes generic categorizations. In this case, the bat is categorized as a bird because like birds, it flies and is similar in size to most birds. If we did not know that it was a mammal, it would be natural to call it a bird. To the Hebrew of ancient times, calling it a bird was perfectly logical. But, in modern times with our science of being able to categorize animal species, we know that the bat is actually a mammal and not a bird.

    Also, we must be aware that it is modern science that has a different classification system than ancient times. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds. If that is the category that they used, then they were correct. It is not an error. It is a difference of categorization procedures. The critic has imposed upon the ancient text a modern system of categorization and then said that the Bible is wrong." (carm)

    Insert Ace Ventura

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dan- as far as I know, pandas are not classified as raccoons. Exactly how closely they are related to raccoons, or to the bears, is still debated.

    And I don't blame the Hebrews for classifying bats as birds: it's perfectly understandable, given their knowledge and requirements. But as I said, it's not good enough for me: I grew up with all kinds of wonderful knowledge that the Hebrews could have never dreamed of, and so did you: we both know that bats are not birds but mammals, whales are mammals too, and the Earth is a ball of rock ninety-three million miles from the Sun, which is a star.

    Knowledge has moved on in the thousands of years since the Bible was written.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dan,

    Show evidence of large scale evolution (Macro) and it will be considered. Did you catch what Pvblivs just said?

    The jury is still out on the evolution model whether you choose to believe it or not but the line has been drawn in the sand.


    Well, I was not trying to convince you that evilution is true, I was telling you that reading what evolution really is about would be better for you if you are to debunk it. It is you who are supposed to debunk atheism, and it seems like to do so, you assume that evilution is one of your targets. If so, debunking it means debunking what it really is, not he strawmen you have read at AiG and alike. Also, whatever pvblivs has said about falsifiability, I do not care. As I said, I am not here to convince you. (Not now at least.)

    Keep enjoying. Ah, I have not forgotten about posting some questions for you to see if your admiration towards Ray will hold. Should I post that here? Oh, did you see Ray's evilution video at WOTM?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Zilch for you I will clarify my response to :

    "Back in 1992 that same "reality-based" community that classified Panda's as raccoons and used to bleed people (bloodletting) just 140 years ago, some even think that is how George Washington died.

    Even today it is still up in the air though:

    "Some have even argued that we need to revisit the classification of the red panda to see if it is accurately grouped with raccoons. Since the development of DNA technology, scientists have pursued these avenues to answer these questions. Some DNA studies have shown that the giant panda is closer to the bear family while the red panda is indeed closer to the raccoon family.Nevertheless, these results are inconclusive, and the argument remains unresolved."

    Wait a minute doesn't that same community call bats "Flying Foxes"

    You criticize the Bible for calling them birds and yet today they are called flying foxes. What nerve.

    Insert... (OK I am getting obnoxious)

    ReplyDelete
  23. get_education,

    "If so, debunking it means debunking what it really is, not he strawmen you have read at AiG and alike. "

    Prove that claim you made. Prove that I have only read AIG and similar websites. Do you watch my bedroom at night? How can you possibly make such a claim?

    That statement is borderline. Keep the rules in mind when writing "Keep the ad hominems out of the conversation. Personal attacks is unnecessary and wastes our time. "

    I will give you a chance to explain yourself though. God gave me so much grace I will try to do the same for you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan,

    That statement is borderline. Keep the rules in mind when writing "Keep the ad hominems out of the conversation. Personal attacks is unnecessary and wastes our time."

    Come on! I thought we were past that and you already knew me. Didn't we establish what ad hominem meant too?

    You did not even answer my question about R... oh forget it!

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh, I know you do not know about evilution because of your posts on it. That is the proof. But again, see ya. Dan you are too inconsistent.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  26. get_education,

    Was it all in good fun? Fine I will leave it alone. I seem to blur the boundaries myself with the Ace Ventura link. I just like it too much to not use it.

    "Oh, did you see Ray's evilution video at WOTM?"

    The Ray video you were saying. Did you mean this one?

    If not link it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan wrote:
    "Wait a minute doesn't that same community call bats "Flying Foxes"

    You criticize the Bible for calling them birds and yet today they are called flying foxes. What nerve."


    Actually, they call them Pteropus.

    Wikipedia wrote:
    "Bats of the genus Pteropus, belonging to the Megachiroptera sub-order, are the largest bats in the world. They are commonly known as the Fruit Bats or Flying Foxes among other numerous colloquial names."

    Insert Ace Ventura.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Zilch:

         The filter is that even before any "test," all possible outcomes can be classified as "confirm" or "inconclusive." As evidence I point out that it is heralded as a great discovery when they find a fossil for which they are looking. What would be the corresponding negative data. The only potential negative data for that would be to find nothing. But that's not taken as negative data. It's "inconclusive" due to fossilization being rare. Whether deliberate or incidental, a filter is a filter.
         I regard it more as a sacred belief than an organized conspiracy. The people in the scientific community hold the idea so dear that it biases their judgement. They accept the excuses for why nothing can possibly count as negative data. They sheild their belief unconsciously.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Quasar,

    Look how it's worded "heron after her kind," as in all of these after their own kind. Maybe? It just appears to be a list of flying things "after their own kind"

    Deuteronomy 14:18 "And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

    So listing bats inclusive in a list of birds in the Bible isn't a colloquial example?

    Insert...I will delay for the response.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Pvblivs,

    They shield their belief unconsciously.

    Or consciously, don't be too generous.

    Zilch,

    Just like we should not disregard a priest that introduces the Big Bang, we shouldn't disregard what Pvblivs is saying here.

    He is actually speaking common sense and logic. I am quite excited as to what his point is. I am frantically searching the basic tenets of the scientific method to see if this is the case. This is almost an epiphany as to what is the problem these days to find truth.

    Agree?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dan, you say:

    Just like we should not disregard a priest that introduces the Big Bang, we shouldn't disregard what Pvblivs is saying here.

    Who is disregarding priests? While many if not most scientists nowadays are atheists, I don't see any evidence that the science done by believers is generally disregarded: data is data, and models are models, no matter who they come from, and they should be tested on their merits. Of course, there might be individual cases of prejudice- scientists are human too- but given the number of high-profile believing scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind), I don't see how you can make a case for a general pattern of prejudice.

    And I am not disregarding what pvblivs is saying here either. On the contrary, what he says is well worth considering, because he has obviously given a lot of thought to his position, and is able to articulate it clearly. I do disagree with him, however.

    He [pvblivs] is actually speaking common sense and logic. I am quite excited as to what his point is. I am frantically searching the basic tenets of the scientific method to see if this is the case. This is almost an epiphany as to what is the problem these days to find truth.

    Two points. One- I have the sneaking suspicion that you are only saying that pvblivs is "speaking common sense and logic" here because he seems to be agreeing with you in his doubts about evolution.

    Two- you will search the "basic tenets of the scientific method" in vain for a definition of the kind of falsifiability that pvblivs requires of evolutionary theory. In the first place, while there are sets of generally agreed-upon principles, there is no authoritative text, no "Bible" of the scientific method. Why not? Because there is no one "right" way or "wrong" way to do science, and people disagree about exactly what constitutes a "law" or a "theory", and they disagree about how much, and what kind of, data, is enough to "confirm" or "disconfirm" a theory. This is obviously because scientific theories are always imperfect and provisional, so there are no hard lines that can be drawn about how it should be done, and how good the fit of model to data must be to be accepted. That's the best we can do- luckily, it works well enough, usually, to bet our lives on.

    Which brings me back to pvblivs. You say:

    The filter is that even before any "test," all possible outcomes can be classified as "confirm" or "inconclusive." As evidence I point out that it is heralded as a great discovery when they find a fossil for which they are looking. What would be the corresponding negative data. The only potential negative data for that would be to find nothing.

    Not true. The proverbial Pre-Cambrian rabbit would do nicely as negative data, or the birth of a croco-duck. Either one would throw a large, rusty monkey wrench into the works. If these examples seem laughably unlikely, ponder the reason why for a moment: it is because the picture we have of large-scale gradual evolution, while admittedly full of gaps and uncertainties, is so well documented that it seems impossible that something like this could happen. That is testimony to the compelling testimony of the fossil record for our theory of common descent.

    When a new discovery, for instance that of Tiktaalik is heralded, it does indeed count as confirmation of evolutionary theory, and rightfully so: we would expect that there were creatures intermediate between fish and amphibians at around that time, and fossils such as Tiktaalik are evidence for this transition.

    You are right in saying that finding nothing, say in this case no fossils intermediate between fish and amphibians, would not falsify the hypothesis. It is true that the fossil record is incomplete, and we are not ever likely to ever find good records of all the transitions that are hypothesized.

    But that does not mean that, say, the relationship between fish and amphibians could not be falsified. As I've said, there are multiple converging lines of evidence for evolution, and the big picture is compelling. For the close relationship of fish and amphibians, for instance, there are studies in comparative anatomy, DNA, cytochrome c, hemoglobin, and many others, which all confirm the hypothesis that amphibians evolved from fish. If we were to find, for instance, that frog DNA was much more like worm DNA than fish DNA, and that frogs had no homologous bones in common with fish but rather with lobsters, that would pretty much falsify the hypothesis. If you find these potential falsifications laughable, again, ponder why.

    The kind of falsifiability you demand for evolutionary theory is a nice philosophical position, but says nothing at all about the status of evolutionary theory as a science.

    I regard it more as a sacred belief than an organized conspiracy. The people in the scientific community hold the idea so dear that it biases their judgement. They accept the excuses for why nothing can possibly count as negative data.

    Are you sure you are not a closet creationist? I hear from them all the time that evolution is a religion, and that Darwin is a saint. And if the idea of evolution "biases the judgement" of the Darwinists, in what direction does the bias go? You must have a better theory in mind. As I've said, all you have to do is disprove evolutionary theory with one Pre-Cambrian rabbit, or perhaps a fossil of an Allosaurus eating a caveman, and you've cinched yourself a Nobel Prize. What are you waiting for? I promise I won't alert the Church of Darwin so they can thwart your plans...

    ReplyDelete
  32. Pvblivs said...

    Reynold:

    It is certainly true that I am only one person. But I would like to point out that if the evidence weren't filtered, you wouldn't ask anyone to look at the consensus.
    We don't have evidence that large-scale evolution is wrong and we are not going to. Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. It's always always "if we get outcome A it is confirmation and if we don't it's inconclusive." I have looked at the claims of "easily falsifiable if wrong." Every time it is a case where they determined something would not happen (indepent of large-scale evolution) and then decreed it was a potential falsifier.

    We've gone over this on your blog, and I see some others are going over it here. Your accusation that Evidence is not collected in such a way that takes that risk. is nothing more than a "conspiracy theory" on your part, with no basis in fact if you'd actually bothered to look at the tests. Zilch and get_education seem to be doing well with that.

    You're proposing a huge amount of people who, independently refuse to look at all the evidence. I'd advise reading up on how the theory of evolution was first formulated and tested.

    Was there any such "filter" then?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Zilch:

         The examples seem unlikely because if we were going to see them, we would have done so by now. In fact, the pre-Cambrian rabbit wasn't judged to be potentially valid negative data until after it was safe. Indeed, there is nothing in the concept of large-scale evolution that is inconsistent with a pre-Cambrian rabbit. So, had one been found, it would have fit nicely into the "theory."

    Reynold:

         I don't see independence. I see that people are taught early on that evolution is not to be questioned. Later on, normal defense mechanisms protect the idea. Tell you what. If you are a closet creationist, say "conspiracy theory" at me. Because saying "conspiracy theory" is just a way of saying "he must be a crackpot; don't listen. Everyone needs to stay on the bandwagon."

    ReplyDelete
  34. Zilch,

    "One- I have the sneaking suspicion that you are only saying that pvblivs is "speaking common sense and logic" here because he seems to be agreeing with you in his doubts about evolution."

    Valid thought but untrue.

    I am looking for a primer that may show a fault in the process to prove they hypothesis.

    If indeed science uses a "confirm" or "inconclusive." method, then Pvblivs is absolutely right in what is being said.

    It's not a matter of 'a huge amount of people who, independently refuse to look at all the evidence' It's what they do with the data that disagrees with the hypothesis. Do they explore it further to assess why it disagrees or just claim it as 'inconclusive' as Pvblivs poses and the data is lost (or pushed aside).

    Money is a huge factor here, we all agree? To get the grants they must scramble to find the data that supports the granters wishes and desires. People don't donate to the AIDS research to NOT find a cure right? I will contemplate what Pvblivs as well as what Zilch said more. There has to be something in this. It sure would be nice to find the reason why the Creation Model is at odds of so many scientists. Maybe Pvblivs found part of the reason why.

    BTW Zilch that was an interesting "Allosaurus eating a caveman" picture. For all of our sake I hope that sort of thing isn't going on all over the world. To think of all that raw data that get's lost.

    Do you believe unscrupulous behavior is beyond scientists? After all, there is a tremendous amount of ego's that would be crushed after all if evolution is falsified, or even worse that the Creation Model is to be proven! People like Clostridiophile that spend their entire lives and energy to prove evolution would be hit pretty hard. I don't believe "scientist in denial" is considered an oxymoron after all we are all human and fallible. Great job, both of you, for keeping me thinking. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  35. pvblivs, you say:

    The examples seem unlikely because if we were going to see them, we would have done so by now.

    And they would have constituted negative evidence for evolutionary theory. How does the fact that we haven't seen them by now change their status? If homologies didn't exist, if genetic and molecular relationships didn't exist, and the fossil record didn't show progression, that would all have been disconfirmation for evolutionary theory.

    In fact, the pre-Cambrian rabbit wasn't judged to be potentially valid negative data until after it was safe. Indeed, there is nothing in the concept of large-scale evolution that is inconsistent with a pre-Cambrian rabbit. So, had one been found, it would have fit nicely into the "theory."

    Not quite: the pre-Cambrian rabbit would only have fit in evolutionary theory if it had turned out that mammals had evolved before that. The fossil record showed that mammals did not evolve until the Triassic, which is what makes the pre-Cambrian rabbit a monkey wrench: it's not the absolute time frame, but the progression in the record, from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal, that is predicted and would be disconfirmed by the anachronistic bunny.

    And pvblivs, you have yet to answer my question: what is your explanation for the fact that it certainly looks very much like large-scale evolution has happened? And a couple more: why should we accept your standard of falsification in order to consider evolutionary theory a proper scientific theory? Can you show me why your standards for falsification are preferable to the ones employed by evolutionary scientists? Who else, besides yourself, employs such standards?

    Barring an experiment over the lifetimes of thousands of generations of scientists, by your standards, we can forget not only evolutionary theory, but also plate tectonics, as quasar mentioned. After all, we can only see smale-scale movements of the plates- we cannot directly view either large-scale movement, or the flow of magma that allegedly causes the movement: all we have is the correspondence of magnetic strata and fossils (which you would disregard anyway) on the edges of supposedly once-connected plates, and mountains presumably uplifted by the collision of plates. This evidence is subject to exactly the same objection that you make against evolution: if it is not found, it does not disconfirm the theory. Are you also skeptical of plate tectonics? If not, why not?

    Dan, you say:

    It sure would be nice to find the reason why the Creation Model is at odds of so many scientists. Maybe Pvblivs found part of the reason why.

    The reason the Creation Model is at odds with scientists is because it is at odds with the world: in a word, it's wrong. And sorry, pvblivs has not found any such reason.

    And you're most welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh, and P.S. Dan, you say:

    BTW Zilch that was an interesting "Allosaurus eating a caveman" picture. For all of our sake I hope that sort of thing isn't going on all over the world. To think of all that raw data that get's lost.

    I too hope that any real data disconfirming evolution is published. I'm interested in the truth, and if evolutionary theory is wrong in part or as a whole, I want to know about it. After all, it's not as though it's a religion.

    That story about "Onyate Man" is a good example illustrating why it's unlikely that any such coverups are happening. Unless there's a vast conspiracy of heat-packing paleontologists who intimidate or snuff those who stumble upon embarrassing finds like this, it's easy enough to get the story out.

    The "Onyate Man" story was eaten up right away by Kent Hovind and other creationists, and if it had been real, it would have been a big rusty monkey wrench for Darwinism. Of course, it turned out to be a clever photoshopped April Fools' joke, and egg on the face of the good "Dr. Dino". If you are ever tempted to believe what he says, think for a moment about how easily he was duped, because he wanted so much for it to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry, I somehow forgot the quotation marks in the previous comment. Only the first paragraph is from Dan.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Pvblivs said:

    Reynold:

    I don't see independence. I see that people are taught early on that evolution is not to be questioned. Later on, normal defense mechanisms protect the idea. Tell you what. If you are a closet creationist, say "conspiracy theory" at me. Because saying "conspiracy theory" is just a way of saying "he must be a crackpot; don't listen. Everyone needs to stay on the bandwagon."

    No. I am only pointing out that you are making a HUGE overgeneralization with no evidence to back you up.

    You obviously never read my entire post, Pvblvis. Let me repeat some of it:

    You're proposing a huge amount of people who, independently refuse to look at all the evidence. I'd advise reading up on how the theory of evolution was first formulated and tested.

    I've mentioned (I think) that the first people who shot down the global flood, YECism and all that stuff were originally young earth creationists themselves. Read Ronald Number's book The Creationists. Were people taught at that time "from an early age" that evolution was not to be questioned??

    Evolutionary theory had to go through the same kind of testing/examination that any theory does when it's first proposed.

    By the way, do you think that scientists reagard other theories as sacred as evolutionary theory, or are you just singling it out?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sorry, my quote should read --early on-- not --from an early age-- in my third last sentence.

    The point is still the same though.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Zilch:

         No. It was only declared after such things could be ruled out that they would have been negative data for "evolutionary theory." If you can show me where they actually where they actually put it on the line, I will change my stance. But the idea of evolution is so broad that it could have accommodated a pre-Cambrian rabbit. To use your own statement, scientists would simply have stated that mammals evolved prior to that. If there were such a find today, and statistical analysis says there shouldn't be, it would probably be declared an obvoius hoax (has to be more recent) and not worthy of the time of the researchers. If it had been found earlier then the "timelines" would be different; but it still wouldn't be negative data for the "theory."

    Reynold:

         I also think that "string theory" and "grand unification theory" are likely sacred beliefs. Here's a fun fact. Their "grand unification theory" predicted a rate of proton decay. Scientists conducted an elaborate experiment to try to confirm it. As I recall, over the time frame they should have observed a few hundred such decays. They found zero. The "theory" was not taken as disconfirmed. They simply decided that the half-life must be longer.
         "You obviously never read my entire post, Pvblvis."
         No, I obviously tok offence at the "conspiracy theory" claim. You needn't bother repeating anything that bears its stain.

    ------------

         I find it interesting that Zilch says certain things would be negative data and then actually describes an explanation that would be given to show that it was not negative data, if it had occurred. The defense mechanism for the idea is strong.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But the idea of evolution is so broad that it could have accommodated a pre-Cambrian rabbit. To use your own statement, scientists would simply have stated that mammals evolved prior to that.

    pvblivs- as I said, it's not the absolute time frame, but rather the progression of fossils (among other things) that is evidence for large-scale evolution. And a pre-Cambrian rabbit would disconfirm that, by appearing out of sequence. How is that not falsification?

    If there were such a find today, and statistical analysis says there shouldn't be, it would probably be declared an obvoius hoax (has to be more recent) and not worthy of the time of the researchers.

    Why do you suppose that is, pvblivs? Because the progression of evolution has been so well established. If it were not an obvious hoax, do you suppose it would be hushed up?

    If it had been found earlier then the "timelines" would be different; but it still wouldn't be negative data for the "theory."

    Wouldn't matter when it was found: if the fossil record had just this one pre-Cambrian rabbit, and everything else were the same, it would now be negative data for the theory, even if it wasn't when it was found. Evolutionary theory cannot accommodate pre-Cambrian rabbits. If you think otherwise, you might, with all due respect, be well advised to spend some more time reading up on it.

    I find it interesting that Zilch says certain things would be negative data and then actually describes an explanation that would be given to show that it was not negative data, if it had occurred. The defense mechanism for the idea is strong.

    What is this in reference to, pvblivs- the bunny again? I've explained that. And implying that my responses are a "defense mechanism" is pretty rich. How about finally answering my questions: what is your explanation for the sequence of fossils, for the homologies, for the relatedness of DNA, cytochrome c, and hemoglobin? What about plate tectonics- is it suspect too, for the same reasons? Why is your standard of falsification better? Who else is using it?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Zilch,

    Who else, besides yourself, employs such standards?

    Here is the same viewpoint on Big Bang, that Pvblivs holds on evolution: Open letter to Scientists. So the fact that Pvblivs is using common sense as many others to conclude the obvious bias.

    If it were not an obvious hoax, do you suppose it would be hushed up?

    Wouldn't you think there would be a real hesitation? Do you understand tens of millions of scientists that would have to stop all research and start from square one if evolution is found to be falsified? Not to mention all teaching and schooling that all humans would have to reeducate themselves with. Not to mention the distrust that would ensue in the scientific community. Plus all those lawsuits! The chaos would be quite palatable to put it lightly.

    Did they actually take the most plausible or "sellable" story (without God) and went with it?

    Look how quickly the media picked up the "Big Foot's body found" story only to be re plastered as a hoax the very next day. I certainly didn't see anyone in the media publishing the "ONYATE MAN" story, even if it were to be proven to be a total hoax. There is a definite bias you must agree, true?

    This remains to be a brilliant discussion BTW Thanks y'all

    ReplyDelete
  43. Zilch:

         You sound just like one of Ray Comfort's cheerleaders with "what is your explanation for...?" I'll give you the same answer you give them. I don't pretend to have explanations for these things. But I will not latch on to your pseudo-explanation out of convenience.
         Why is "my standard" of falsification better? Actually it is the standard that scientists apply to most fields. A hypothesis is tested based on a prediction that it makes which can be predicted to be false should the hypothesis be false. Essentially it is tested against a null hypothesis. If the prediction fails, so does the hypothesis. With evolution, it is different. Predictions that might fail are given an out, so that nothing constitutes negative data. Claims of "things that would blatently falsify the theory" are attached to things that can be expected not to occur whether or not the hypothesis is true. In the case of the fossil record. They waited until some pattern (any pattern) was established through statistical analysis. Then (and only then) you claim that violations of that pattern would falsify evolution. But any (unknown) natural mechanism could be expected to leave some pattern. And if life sprang up completely haphazardly, we should still see that today. In short, the idea of large-scale evolution was always safe. Your explanation boils down to "the theory is consistent with every possible observation; but whatever we don't happen to find would have falsified the theory."

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Why is "my standard" of falsification better? Actually it is the standard that scientists apply to most fields. A hypothesis is tested based on a prediction that it makes which can be predicted to be false should the hypothesis be false. Essentially it is tested against a null hypothesis. If the prediction fails, so does the hypothesis. With evolution, it is different. Predictions that might fail are given an out, so that nothing constitutes negative data."

    I claim the same thing about gravity. It was established that everything falls due to statistical laws, and only then did the Gravitationists claim that something falling differently would falsify gravity! Predictions that might fail, like the way we can't prove that every body in the universe has gravity, are given an out, so that nothing constitutes negative data.

    Stupid Gravitationists.

    Besides which, Darwin made a number of predictions in Origin and Descent, all of which were later proven true (transitional fossils, for example, or the phylogenic (sic?) "tree of life"). And the flasification schema were all chosen not because they're impossible, but because they flatly contradict common ancestory. Indeed, because creationists continually claim that "Evolution can't be falsified", evolutionists have thought long and hard about what could possibly falsify evolution, and put up everything they could think of.

    So I challange Pvblivs to support his concept that evolutionists are 'picky' about what would falsify evolution, and only put up things that have already been shown don't ever happen, by providing one of the falsification schema's that didn't make it past the filter. What would falsify evolution, but is ignored because there is a chance it might actually happen?

    ReplyDelete
  45. quasar: what you said. Another far-seeing prediction Darwin made, with no knowledge of the fossil record of homonids, was that humans originated in Africa, which has indeed been established.

    pvblivs: you offer no explanation for the findings of evolutionary science, and yet call my explanations "pseudo-explanations". You reiterate your standard of falsification, but you have not demonstrated why a pre-Cambrian rabbit, or all the other possibilities I suggested, would not constitute falsification. You say:

    They [evolutionary scientists] waited until some pattern (any pattern) was established through statistical analysis.

    Does the fact that not one single specimen of a pre-Cambrian mammal has been found constitute "statistical analysis"? You seem to have some misconceptions about what the fossil record shows. The pattern we see is not just "any pattern": it is the Tree of Life, independently constructed from comparative anatomy, molecular analysis, and so forth. The chances that all these studies accidentally show the same structure of the Tree is mindbogglingly small. Barring a God who built the Tree to look the way it did, there's no other rational explanation but evolution.

    Then (and only then) you claim that violations of that pattern would falsify evolution. But any (unknown) natural mechanism could be expected to leave some pattern.

    Oh? Give me an example of a pattern, other than evolution, that can explain the fact that the fossil record, and all the other data from molecular biology, fits the model of macroevolution, and that the microevolution observed in the lab and the field also fits. As I said, there are many points along the way which would disconfirm the model, and none has been found yet.

    And if life sprang up completely haphazardly, we should still see that today. In short, the idea of large-scale evolution was always safe.

    So what you're saying is that perhaps there could well be some as-yet unknown model or pattern, other than macroevolution, that could account for the data, but you don't have any suggestions. Of course this is always true in science: we can never have the kind of certainty we have in formal systems of logic, such as mathematics, and evolution, being partly an historical account, is subject to many kinds of uncertainty. You have seemingly elevated this uncertainty about particulars to the status of questioning the whole well-mapped and well-established structure, just as creationists do, but for presumably philosophical reasons.

    But by these standards, as quasar and I have suggested, you would have to be skeptical of many other sciences as well. Now, everyone has their own standards for what they consider to be scientific theories, but mine include near-perfect fit with the data, no disconfirming evidence, and no rival explanations, all of which modern evolutionary theory fulfills in spades. Please, for the third time: are you also skeptical of plate tectonics? If not, why not?

    Dan, you say:

    Wouldn't you think there would be a real hesitation [to publish evidence disconfirming evolution]? Do you understand tens of millions of scientists that would have to stop all research and start from square one if evolution is found to be falsified? Not to mention all teaching and schooling that all humans would have to reeducate themselves with. Not to mention the distrust that would ensue in the scientific community. Plus all those lawsuits! The chaos would be quite palatable to put it lightly

    No, I don't. Not only because most (I won't say all) scientists are committed to the truth above what they've been taught, but because there would be fame and glory in disproving evolution. Imagine the Nobel Prize and heaps of money from the Templeton Foundation! And what lawsuits? Who would sue whom for what?

    No, Dan, unless God made the world to look as though evolution occurred, or unless Satan is pulling the strings of thousands of scientists worldwide, the most parsimonious explanation, for the moment, is that evolution happened the way it seems to have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Another P.S. Dan, you say:

    Look how quickly the media picked up the "Big Foot's body found" story only to be re plastered as a hoax the very next day. I certainly didn't see anyone in the media publishing the "ONYATE MAN" story, even if it were to be proven to be a total hoax. There is a definite bias you must agree, true?

    There are a couple of differences between Big Foot and Onyate Man. The Big Foot story goes back quite a ways, most famously to a film made in 1967 of someone in a gorilla suit, and has been built up by other hoaxes and stories since then to the point where it's now folklore. Only in 2002, when the original perp, Ray Wallace, died, did his family admit that he had fabricated the story. As with many such stories, it now has momentum of its own, and there are people who still "believe", and claim that the admissions of hoax are themselves hoaxes.

    This is more evidence for the sad fact that some people will believe anything, even when bluntly confronted with the truth. Crop circles are another good example of this kind of head-smacking-desk gullibility, where there are even websites by perps who tell you just how to do it- but that doesn't faze the "true believers", who know in their hearts that aliens are trying to tell us something.

    The Onyate Man story was, on the contrary, a one-time gag, and as far as I know, there was no attempt to get coverage in national media: it was squarely aimed at creationists, and it hit the bullseye. It was also exposed fairly quickly as a hoax, and the perps gleefully admitted as much.

    So again, if there were real evidence for caveman-eating dinosaurs or some such, I can't imagine that it would be up-hushable.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Since we're sort of on the topic, I can't resist posting two more links about dinosaurs: one is a spoof, the other is serious. If you didn't have the context to go by, it would be pretty hard to tell which is which.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Quasar:

         I trust that you are already aware that the assertion "object fall when dropped" is not in any meaningful sense a scientific theory. It is an observational fact. Actual theories of gravity predict, given initial conditions where the object will be at a later time. So, no, to my knowledge no one has ever claimed that anything would falsify gravity as a whole. After all, that is just a shorthand for an observation.
         Large-scale evolution does not have the advantage of being directly observed. (Interestingly, small-scale evolution does, making it an empirical fact rather than a theory. The involvement of genes is a theory.)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Reynold:

    I also think that "string theory" and "grand unification theory" are likely sacred beliefs. Here's a fun fact. Their "grand unification theory" predicted a rate of proton decay. Scientists conducted an elaborate experiment to try to confirm it. As I recall, over the time frame they should have observed a few hundred such decays. They found zero. The "theory" was not taken as disconfirmed. They simply decided that the half-life must be longer.
    "You obviously never read my entire post, Pvblvis."
    No, I obviously took offence at the "conspiracy theory" claim. You needn't bother repeating anything that bears its stain.

    Take offense if you want, the fact it you did not answer my question as to when the theory of evolution was first developed, were people indoctrinated in it at an early age as you claim people are now, which prevents them from truly critically examining it?

    Evolution theory was not always around; it used to be, in the west, I believe, that the biblical view was predominant. Yet that idea was overthrown. If there was truly no evidence for evolution, and that scientists consciously or unconsciously protect it, then how could that have happened back when it was first proposed and not universally accepted?

    At least you're not showing "selective skepticism" by singling it out to the exclusion of other theories.

    Now, as to the "Grand Unified Theory", it seems that the scientists themselves are not above modifying or even thinking of scrapping it altogether.

    In the mid-1970's physicists were excited with the recent success of Steven Weinberg, Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow in creating a unification theory for the electromagnetic and weak forces. By applying what is called 'group theory' , physicists such as Glashow, Georgi and others proposed that you could use the symmetries of 'SU(5)' to unite the weak and electromagnetic forces with the strong nuclear force which is mediated by gluons. This became known as 'Grand Unification Theory' or 'GUT', and quickly evolved into many variants including 'super-symmetric GUTs (SUSY- GUTs)', 'super gravity theory' and 'dimensionally-extended SUSY GUTs', before being replaced by string theory in the early 1980's.

    http://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/grand.html"
    Contemporary work on GUT also suggests new force-carrier particles that could cause the proton to decay. Such decays must be extremely rare; otherwise our world would not exist today. Measurement tells us the lifetime of the proton is greater than 10 to the power of 32 years!

    Notice he says something about "measurement" there.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Reynold:

         You "poisoned the well" with your claim of "conspiracy theory" prior to asking your question. I therefore gathered that it was part of a "not really listening" exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Pvblivs said...

    Reynold:

    You "poisoned the well" with your claim of "conspiracy theory" prior to asking your question. I therefore gathered that it was part of a "not really listening" exercise.

    You gathered wrong. I pointed out that you gave no evidence that scientists are as blind and stubborn as you say they are, and I and several other people here tried again and again to give you evidence to show that your claim of scientists' holding onto theories while ignoring or dismissing evidence is wrong.

    And you still refuse to answer my question! I pointed out to you that it was originally YECs who came up with the old earth and global flood refutation and who later came to accept evolution. This would have had to have been before it got universally accepted.

    At that time, there would be no motive for scientists to ignore any evidence against evolution or to make up tests for it that the theory couldn't fail (which was your assertion).

    I asked you if at that point in time would people have uncritically accepted that theory and have taught people to uncritically accept it.

    Your claim that evolution stood this long because scientists for some reason either ignore evidence against it, or devise tests that evolution can't fail is so far unsubstantiated.

    Bottom line: That theory has stood over 150 years of tests, starting from the time when it was first proposed and not well accepted until now.

    The only one here who's "poisoning the well" is you with your accusation against scientists that you give no evidence for. Back up your claim. While you're at it, why don't you deal with my question?

    What you are proposing is a "conspiracy theory", either consciously or unconsiously on the part of scientists involved. Why? It'd involved a whole lot of people somehow working together to suppress evidence against the theory and to come up with tests that the theory would pass no matter what.



    Your claim that I "poisoned the well" by calling your idea a "conspiracy theory" wouldn't hold if the defense attorny for the accused in a court of law were to make it against the prosecution.

    Your honour, I move for a mistrial. The prosecutor has "poisoned the well" against my client by listing the charges against him.

    Each lawyer has to prove their own case with the evidence.


    It sounds to me like you're one who's already made up his mind about how scientists think and act in general. Your latest post tells me that you're looking for reasons to avoid answering my question so you can keep holding onto your ideas.

    You're acting like you accuse the scientists to be.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Reynold:

         "I and several other people here tried again and again to give you evidence to show that your claim of scientists' holding onto theories while ignoring or dismissing evidence is wrong."
         And it was just as impressive as Ray's "creation implies a creator" schtick.
         "Your claim that I 'poisoned the well' by calling your idea a 'conspiracy theory' wouldn't hold if the defense attorny for the accused in a court of law were to make it against the prosecution.
         "Your honour, I move for a mistrial. The prosecutor has 'poisoned the well' against my client by listing the charges against him."
         Bzzzzt. Wrong. Your claim of conspiracy theory is more like the prosecution claiming the the defense attorney and all his witnesses belong to a space-alien cult and shouldn't be taken seriously. Of course, you know that.
         "Your claim that evolution stood this long because scientists for some reason either ignore evidence against it, or devise tests that evolution can't fail is so far unsubstantiated."
         Not true. The "tests' that they normally use are fossil digs. These can have two outcomes. They either find what they are looking for or they don't. If they find what they are looking for, it is taken as confirmation. If they don't they bring out the fact that fossilization is rare. The hypothesis can't fail that test. Now, I know and others have brought up the "unexpected fossil" as a potential falsifier. But no such fossil qualifies as a falsifier until it can be ruled out without appeal to evolution.
         "The only one here who's 'poisoning the well' is you with your accusation against scientists that you give no evidence for. Back up your claim. While you're at it, why don't you deal with my question?"
         I have backed up my claim. I have shown that the typical tests (the fossil digs) are immune to negative data. But I'll make you a deal. If you seriously want an answer to that question (which I doubt) admit that the "conspiracy theory" claim was entirely without merit and strictly a distraction. You must admit that it is completely indefensible. Otherwise, I will take your question as insincere and only looking for an opportunity to say "see, conspiracy theory."

    ReplyDelete
  54. Pvblivs said...

    Reynold:

    "I and several other people here tried again and again to give you evidence to show that your claim of scientists' holding onto theories while ignoring or dismissing evidence is wrong."


    And it was just as impressive as Ray's "creation implies a creator" schtick.
    Except, unlike Ray, we're able to back up our claims with examples which you for no honest reason, dismiss. Kind of like Ray, really.



    "Your claim that I 'poisoned the well' by calling your idea a 'conspiracy theory' wouldn't hold if the defense attorny for the accused in a court of law were to make it against the prosecution.

    "Your honour, I move for a mistrial. The prosecutor has 'poisoned the well' against my client by listing the charges against him."

    Bzzzzt. Wrong. Your claim of conspiracy theory is more like the prosecution claiming the the defense attorney and all his witnesses belong to a space-alien cult and shouldn't be taken seriously. Of course, you know that.
    The only thing I know is that your analogy is way off base. Mine was accurate: you simply attacked the integrity/ethics of pretty much every scientist out there and then went on to cast doubt on the viabilty of the theory itself since in your head it's impossible to really test it.

    God only knows where you dragged that space alien cult whooey from.


    "Your claim that evolution stood this long because scientists for some reason either ignore evidence against it, or devise tests that evolution can't fail is so far unsubstantiated."
    Not true. The "tests' that they normally use are fossil digs. These can have two outcomes. They either find what they are looking for or they don't. If they find what they are looking for, it is taken as confirmation. If they don't they bring out the fact that fossilization is rare.
    Sure, fossilization is rare: Take the time to ask any paleontologist if they expect to find the fossils that they're looking for on every single dig.

    Sometimes they could be in the wrong area. Do you expect there to be fossils in every square meter of the earth's surface or something?

    There's a reason why when fossils are actually found in an area it becomes popular with fossil hunters.

    By the way, they often do find some of what they're looking for; that's why they say it's "rare", as opposed to non-existant.

    I'd advise you to read a little more about the fossilization process and paleontology. Maybe from the TalkOrigins archive (especially their sources) or even University or General Science websites to see what actual scientists have to say.


    The hypothesis can't fail that test. Now, I know and others have brought up the "unexpected fossil" as a potential falsifier. But no such fossil qualifies as a falsifier until it can be ruled out without appeal to evolution.
    Except the precambrian vertebrate fossils, which is dealt with later in this comment.

    "The only one here who's 'poisoning the well' is you with your accusation against scientists that you give no evidence for. Back up your claim. While you're at it, why don't you deal with my question?"

    I have backed up my claim. I have shown that the typical tests (the fossil digs) are immune to negative data.
    Baloney. You've failed to deal with the problem of precambrian vertebrate fossils.


    Check the link for his reply to you.

    But I'll make you a deal. If you seriously want an answer to that question (which I doubt) admit that the "conspiracy theory" claim was entirely without merit and strictly a distraction.

    It's not a "distration" from anything. I'm trying to figure out why you lie about the thinking processes of scientists so much. The way you're framing it, no matter what predictions and tests the scientists can come up with, you'll say some variant of: "its's rigged so that evolution can't be falsified". If that isn't a conspiracy theory then I don't know what is.

    Quit whining, quit making excuses and answer the sodding question. The way you're going you owe an apology not only to the scientists who'se work ethic and reasoning abilites you've slandered, but you owe me one as well. You're assigning motives to me that I do not have, and it's proving impossible to convince you otherwise.


    What kind of prediction would you accept then, as being one that is not rigged beforehand to protect evolution?


    You must admit that it is completely indefensible. Otherwise, I will take your question as insincere and only looking for an opportunity to say "see, conspiracy theory."
    Bull. Let me try to be more clear: I want an answer! If you can't answer the question than you have to realize that your accusation is baseless.

    Evolution is not now, and most definately was not protected from falsification when it was first forumulated.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Reynold:

         "Except, unlike Ray, we're able to back up our claims with examples which you for no honest reason, dismiss. Kind of like Ray, really."
         No, you give examples where your pet idea is safe. The "potential falsifiers" were not determined to be so until after such a time that if they were going to be found it would already have happened. If you could show me that the discovery of pre-cambrian vertebrates was considered a potential falsifier before any fossils were dug up, it would really be something. If you could show me that the consideration was made while very few fossils had been dug up so that it was still a real possibility (as far as anyone knew) I would agree that it was really being put to the test. Instead you give me that the declaration was made after it was safe; and you think I'm supposed to be impressed. You even go so far as to say my pointing out that the declaration was made after it was safe is dismissing it "for no honest reason."
         "The only thing I know is that your analogy is way off base. Mine was accurate...."
         No, your analogy was off base. When the discussion at hand is whether a particular belief by scientists is a sacred one, I am acting as an advocate for the position that it is. Your claim that I am engaged in conspiracy theory, then, is in no way analogous to a prosecuter reading the charges against a defendant. It is, however, analogous to making an accusation against his counsel. And as "conspiracy theory" is normally a conversation stopper and ear plugger, something similarly extreme needs to be used in the analogy.
         "Except the precambrian vertebrate fossils, which is dealt with later in this comment."
         No such exception. It was not declared a potential falsifier until it was safe. If we were going to find them, we would have done so by now. When that was not the case, it was not considered a potential falsifier.
         "Sure, fossilization is rare...."
         I don't dispute the rarity of fossilization. I only point out that evolution cannot fail. There is only "confirm" and "inconclusive."
         "It's not a "distration" from anything. I'm trying to figure out why you lie about the thinking processes of scientists so much."
         I haven't lied at all. I have stated that I am convinced that they believe in their pet idea. While I believe that the "tests" have all been safe in advance, I also believe the protection to be unconscious. You're the one lying and saying that equals a conspiracy theory.
         "Bull. Let me try to be more clear: I want an answer!"
         You can do all the bold, caps lock, and exclamation points you want. It is consistent with my belief that you are only looking for something to say "see, conspiracy theory." If you really wanted an answer like you pretend to, you would have dropped the slanderous distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Pvblivs said:

    No, you give examples where your pet idea is safe. The "potential falsifiers" were not determined to be so until after such a time that if they were going to be found it would already have happened. If you could show me that the discovery of pre-cambrian vertebrates was considered a potential falsifier before any fossils were dug up, it would really be something. If you could show me that the consideration was made while very few fossils had been dug up so that it was still a real possibility (as far as anyone knew) I would agree that it was really being put to the test. Instead you give me that the declaration was made after it was safe; and you think I'm supposed to be impressed. You even go so far as to say my pointing out that the declaration was made after it was safe is dismissing it "for no honest reason."
    Check out the c-cytochrome example later in this comment.


    No, your analogy was off base. When the discussion at hand is whether a particular belief by scientists is a sacred one, I am acting as an advocate for the position that it is. Your claim that I am engaged in conspiracy theory, then, is in no way analogous to a prosecuter reading the charges against a defendant. It is, however, analogous to making an accusation against his counsel.
    Wrong. You have made the accusation (that scientists are "unconsiously" trying to shield the theory of evolution from scrutiny). All I did was point out that you made an unjust broad-brush accusation.

    And as "conspiracy theory" is normally a conversation stopper and ear plugger, something similarly extreme needs to be used in the analogy.
    The only one plugging his ears here, is you, pvblivs. You refuse to answer the question. Instead you whine and moan about me saying that you're spreading a conspiracy theory. Grow up! That yarn you spun sure sounds like one to me. If you really think that one accusation is a dialogue stopper, you're way off base. If anything, an accusation like that would start a talk!

    All it is, is an accusation. Since you haven't given any evidence that scientists are trying to protect the theory of evolution, I'd say it's so far, an accurate accusation. Deal with it.

    You can do all the bold, caps lock, and exclamation points you want. It is consistent with my belief that you are only looking for something to say "see, conspiracy theory." If you really wanted an answer like you pretend to, you would have dropped the slanderous distraction.
    Then that's another belief of yours that's totally off base.

    If I really wanted an answer, I'd keep asking you the bloody question until you answered it. That's exactly what I'm doing, and I'm not going to stop until you do.

    I asked you more than once and you keep dodging. Then you lie about me, saying that I don't actually want an answer. BS!

    Answer the question or admit that you are full of it. Choose.

    Would scientists have "subconsiously" protected the theory of evolution from being disproven in their "predictions and tests" of it when the theory first came along?

    It had not been universally accepted when it was first proposed, so I'd say that the answer to that is no. Even Pvblivs would have to admit that. Only you won't.

    You're dodging by whining about my charge of him using a conspiracy theory, saying that it's a distraction. Idiotic. You are the only one doing any distracting here.

    Even if you think that they all do it unconsiously that doesn't help.

    Why? There would still have to be some sort of collusion among the scientists in many different fields of science in order for that to happen. How such a thing could happen "unconsiously" is beyond me. I suspect, beyond you as well.

    As an example:
    Here I talk about the cytochrome c test:

    Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence

    Confirmation:

    Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. The "null hypothesis" given above is false. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this probability is less than 10-25.


    Are you going to say that the anthropologists knew that in advance, even "unconsiously"?

    Now, what would have happened if that wasn't the case? One less piece of evidence for evolution. The case for the theory would have been weaker. Maybe a lot weaker.

    I don't dispute the rarity of fossilization. I only point out that evolution cannot fail. There is only "confirm" and "inconclusive."
    Either ignorance or deceit on your part...we've explained to you multiple times how the theory could be shot down. Good grief, if they had found elephant bones in the same rock layers as dinsour bones and human bones, the theory would have been stillborn.

    Something you've never thought of: if the only results that came back were "inconslusive" from the time the theory of evolution was first proposed do you really think that it would have gained any traction?

    Yes, I do want an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  57.      I have dealt with your "conspiracy theory" falsehood. I have concluded that your question is only designed to draw out ammunition for you to say "see, conspiracy theory."
         "Something you've never thought of: if the only results that came back were "inconslusive" from the time the theory of evolution was first proposed do you really think that it would have gained any traction?"
         Nice try, but just about every idea has positive data, even wacky ones like ESP. There is a certain amount expected by chance. If nothing is allowed to be considered negative (and true believers blind themselves to negative data) it looks spectacular.
         If you want an answer, you will withdraw your false accusation. Otherwise, all you really want is ammunition for your false accusation. That is for you to choose. You know (because I have told you) that if you persist in your false accusation (no matter how true you say it is) I will not regard your question. From where I stand, you made a choice, and it was not for me to answer your question.
         "Either ignorance or deceit on your part...we've explained to you multiple times how the theory could be shot down."
         You have given multiple safe predictions So far, everytheing that you say "could have shot down the theory" is something that was so declared after it was safe.
         "Are you going to say that the anthropologists knew that in advance, even 'unconsiously'?"
         No, I don't need to. It's absence would have been considered meaningless, or, rather, not considered at all.
         Incidently, if I'm wrong about your motives, then I'm wrong. But I don't think I am. I have given you my reasons. The only to change my conclusion is what I have told you. My assessment is that if an answer is really that important to you, you will be willing to drop your accusation. If you are not willing to drop your accusation, I may as well be talking to a brick wall. After all, if I'm right, and you are just looking for ammunition, you will say anything short of dropping your accusation, to convince me I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Pvblivs said...

    "Something you've never thought of: if the only results that came back were "inconslusive" from the time the theory of evolution was first proposed do you really think that it would have gained any traction?"


    Nice try, but just about every idea has positive data, even wacky ones like ESP. There is a certain amount expected by chance. If nothing is allowed to be considered negative (and true believers blind themselves to negative data) it looks spectacular.
    Thing is, you refuse to acknowledge stuff like that cytochrome-c study that I had posted twice now. They explicitly say what the chances are of such a thing happening by chance.

    Odds like that are somthing that ESP has never come close to. Then there are all the other evidences that when taken in totality make the case for evolution even stronger. Again, that's more than ESP has ever done.

    If you want an answer, you will withdraw your false accusation. Otherwise, all you really want is ammunition for your false accusation.
    Bull. My accusation is not false. You accused scientists of subconsciously choosing tests that would not threaten the theory of evolution.

    Do you have any conception how difficult that would be? There is evidence for evolution in genetics, paleontology, anthropology, biogeography, etc. How would it be possible for people from such diverse fields to coordinate with each other in order to make sure that no test could possibly disprove evolution?

    You seem to have some kind of unjust mistrust of scientists. While I don't advocate blind faith, you are taking it way too far into, well, conspiracy theories. Only it's all somehow subconscious. Right!

    Even consciously they'd never be able to pull that off. There's over 150 years and way too many people in way too many disciplines to coordinate such a thing.

    That is for you to choose. You know (because I have told you) that if you persist in your false accusation (no matter how true you say it is) I will not regard your question. From where I stand, you made a choice, and it was not for me to answer your question.
    Outright lie from you. You've made a false accusation against scientists and now you've made one about me. Are you that whiny that you won't play until I apologize for calling you out on your actions?

    You made the false accusations against all scientists. I called you on it, yet you are the one playing victim?


    "Either ignorance or deceit on your part...we've explained to you multiple times how the theory could be shot down."
    You have given multiple safe predictions So far, everything that you say "could have shot down the theory" is something that was so declared after it was safe.
    Thanks for lying. Did you even bother to look up the cytochrome-c test that I had posted? Do you think that anthropologists had that data already, then they proposed that test?

    No. There was decades in between them.

    Did you look at the probabilities they gave for humans and chimps of having that same cytochrome-c enzyme by coincidence would be?


    "Are you going to say that the anthropologists knew that in advance, even 'unconsiously'?"
    No, I don't need to. It's absence would have been considered meaningless, or, rather, not considered at all.
    Unless of course, if evolution wasn't true, then all they'd get would be the "absences" and the theory would never have gotten widely accepted in the first place.

    Remember, evolution was not always accepted as true. Something had to happen to change that. A bunch of "disregarded" or "inconclusive" tests would have sunk the theory at the beginning. After all, back then, it was the bible that people wanted to believe in.

    I'll ask again: Did they shield the theory (consciously or unconsiously) when it was first proposed at the time when it was the bible that people wanted to believe in?

    Read Ronald Numbers book The Creationists for more info.


    Incidently, if I'm wrong about your motives, then I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.
    Well, you're last sentence is half right...

    I have given you my reasons.
    No, you've given me nothing but dodges. Now you're blaming me for your refusal to answer.

    The only to change my conclusion is what I have told you. My assessment is that if an answer is really that important to you, you will be willing to drop your accusation.
    Not if it looks like it's true. From what I see it is. Get over your thin skin and buck up.

    If you are not willing to drop your accusation, I may as well be talking to a brick wall. After all, if I'm right, and you are just looking for ammunition, you will say anything short of dropping your accusation, to convince me I'm wrong.

    If I was just looking for ammunition for my "false charge", your refusal to answer the question is providing just that!

    Pathetic. You're still whining. And big surprise you still refuse to answer.

    What, is what I said somehow physically stopping you from answering? You keep making the same baseless accusations against scientists yet you still refuse to answer if evolution would have been such a "protected" theory when it was first proposed, when there had not been time for people to want to "shield" it.

    It's obvious that you have no intention of answering me, but are using your hurt feelings as an excuse. Tough. You've been saying a lot worse about real scientists but I don't hear you apologizing to them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Heh.

    Reynold is right. Pvblivs accused the scientific community en masse of conspiring against any theory, hypothesis, study, or publication which attacks and/or fails to support evolution. This accusation was never backed up by anything remotely approaching supporting evidence, but then, given the scope of the accusation, how could it, really?

    Pvblivs -- get over yourself. You made things abundantly clear regarding your -- that's right, I'll say it -- conspiracy theory. You are more than welcome to retract your charge, or, if you prefer to 'let it ride', you are welcome to provide evidence in your favor. Other than Dan, the rest of us have bent over backwards attempting to show, through analogy and by direct example, how your assertion is unfounded.

    Again, you are welcome to retract it or support it, but if you refuse to do either of these things, you are welcome to go away. You can't very well expect the rest of us -- even Dan -- to befriend you if you're just going to make accusatory assertions and then cry foul when your opponents request proof.

    Oh, and I, too, am curious as to your answer to Reynold's question. While you may have some questionably valid points regarding the treatment of Evolution, your refusal to address this extremely relevant question strikes at your credibility and integrity.

    Again, if you're just going to cry, you can leave any time. If instead you can swallow a couple Midols and utilize a Kleenex, then we may resume listening to you...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yeah, but Stan, remember. He says that they do it "unconsiously".

    Since you've agreed with me, guess what his next move will be. He'll say that I have successfully "poisoned the well" and that you have shut down the dialog or plugged your ears or something.

    I know that in reality you're just trying to get him to answer my question also.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Pvblivs: Please correct me if the following is an unfair summary of your opinion, but I wish to condense things a little.

    Summary:
    -- All of the falsification schema for evolution was invented after it was established (via a different method) that it was impossible.
    -- Evolutionary predictions are made after the event (eg. Tree of Life is observed, supporters claims ToL is predicted by evolution)
    -- Negative evidence is given a mark of 'inconclusive', or otherwise dismissed.
    -- None of the above is a concious decision by the scientists in question: they do it subconsciously.

    If any of those points are contrary to your actual opinions, let me know.

    1) Falsification Schema.
    Ignoring for a second Pre-cambrian rabbits, mosaic creatures or a non-heirachial fossil record, how about this one: a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating.

    We haven't yet discovered one, and there is no reason to assume one, but it isn't "safe" for evolution: we could discover a mechanism any day now if evolution is false.

    2) Negative evidence.
    Lack of evidence is not negative evidence, and Punctuated Equilibrium in combination with the rarity of fossilisation explains why we don't find as many 'transitionals' as we'd hope. Do you have another example of negative evidence being "given an out"?

    3) Subconscious protection
    I find it necessary to add my voise to the chorus: if there was any evidence that large scale evolution doesn't occur, let alone the massive amount of evidence you'd expect if it didn't occur, scientists would be all over it.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I suspect that the simplest way of identifying Pvblivs' error is to recognize the notoriety Darwin has endured as a result of On the Origin of Species, which, as we are all aware, challenged the protected "theory" of creationism (special creation) -- defied it, more like.

    Few scientists are in it for fame and fortune, but virtually all of them crave recognition within their field. Being the guy who shut down Evolution would be the biggest thing since... Darwin proposed the Theory of Evolution. I should think it obvious that success in such an endeavor would be highly profitable in the currency of notoriety.

    As I said, Pvblivs has some valid points, but they are drowned out by his whining about subconscious conspiratorial organization (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

    Seriously, man, everyone here is offering ways in which Evolution could be falsified, and any of them could show up at any time without ever claiming that one's research goal was to discredit Evolution. Standard paleontology could lead to the "Pre-cambrian rabbit", and standard molecular biology could lead to discovery of a mechanism which prevents mutations beyond a certain point. If these sorts of things exist, they will be found.

    If they are found, however, you will not have been vindicated. In order for you to receive your vindication, discoveries such as these would have to be suppressed and remain hidden (read: conspiracy).

    You balk at the label "conspiracy theorist", but your argument is couched in precisely the same way as a UFO-hunter, a holocaust-denier, etc. If you don't like the label, then you should consider changing your strategy. As it stands, you sound like a paranoid delusional:

    Your actions are, in fact, reasonably coordinated with each other. Depending on how loosely you define conspiracy, you qualify.

    No, you're not paranoid -- it's just that everyone is out to get you. Just like I'm not cocky -- I'm just better than everyone else.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well, I've decided to give Pvblivs what he wanted. I hope it was good enough for him.


    I put it all in bolded all-caps so there's no way he can ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Let look at the FACTS.

    1. the Bible is a book (A book is a set or collection of written, printed, illustrated, or blank sheets, made of paper, parchment, or other various material, usually fastened together to hinge at one side.)

    2. Humans write books

    3. The bible is a "historical fiction novel" (Historical fiction is a sub-genre of fiction that often portrays fictional accounts or dramatization of historical figures or events. Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, nominally attempt to capture the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity)

    4. nothing supernatural about humans, paper, ink.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You do know that the trinity isn’t even mentioned in the bible?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Thomas,

    "The Bible doesn’t use the word ‘trinity’ but it does name three persons as God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead is separate and distinct, yet they share power and authority. Each has a separate mission, yet they share a collective mission. Each testifies to the Godhood of the other proving God is triune and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is indeed true."

    Do you need further evidence of this claim of the Triune God? I can go further with links and verses if you wish. I can even dedicate it to a new post if you really want to discuss it at length. Just let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yes, please do so. This may turn out hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Thomas,

    I was going to, but others have done a much better job at it then I have.

    So take a gander and let me know if you have any questions. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  69. I'm an apatheist agnostic about the existence of a deity that created the universe. Divine intervention rarely happens, if at all. The universe constantly debunks literal Biblical inerrancy and YEC.
    If forced to be religious, I'd be Buddhist or Hindu.
    If forced to be Christian, I'd be nondenominational.
    If forced to chooose a denom, I'd choose Catholic or Mainline Protestant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, your apathy to God is consistent with Scripture.

      >> Divine intervention rarely happens, if at all.

      Are you certain about that? If so, how are you absolutely certain?

      >>The universe constantly debunks literal Biblical inerrancy and YEC.

      How do you know your reasoning about this, or anything, is valid without God, or without being viciously circular?

      Delete
    2. Dan. Will you get off that Sye-style dodging bullshit? You want an example of how the universe debunks biblical inerrancy and YEC? Look up the starlight problem.

      Neither you nor Sye have ever shown that biblegod is necessary for reasoning...you've just always asserted it.

      Delete
    3. Starlight is not a problem from this end. You have wild assumptions that you will need to flesh out before you can claim these things. How do you know your autonomous reasoning about starlight problems are even valid, for starters?

      Delete
    4. Dan
      Starlight is not a problem from this end. You have wild assumptions that you will need to flesh out before you can claim these things.
      Read an astronomy textbook...it's already been done.

      How do you know your autonomous reasoning about starlight problems are even valid, for starters?
      The fact that you creationists are still struggling to come up with an answer to the problem? How's about actually reading the links I post...it goes into detail about it.

      Let me spoonfeed you:
      In the 1980s Barry Setterfield of http://www.setterfield.org came up with the idea that at the time of creation about 6000 years ago, the velocity of light was infinite or at least millions of times faster than it is now, then slowed down and conveniently stabilized at the current value at about the same time it could accurately be measured in the 1960s and 70s.
      Why would he bother positing that notion Dan, if the starlight problem wasn't objectively real for you people?

      To continue:
      His argument was that if the velocity of light was much higher in the past, it could get to us from distant objects millions or billions of light years away in less than 6000 years. Here a light year refers to the time it takes light to travel if it is traveling at the modern velocity.

      There are a number of serious problems with this argument, the three most important are:

      Read on for what those are.

      Delete
    5. >>The fact that you creationists are still struggling to come up with an answer to the problem?

      IS that a question? No, I have zero problems in addressing those issues. It is you who struggles with the answers I provide.

      Here is my answer: I trust God to reveal such information to me in the future. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

      Not good enough? IF not, why not?

      Delete
    6. Huh? Are you reading what I give? Are you just ignoring the fact that creationists have been unable to deal with the fact that we see light from billions of light years away (that distance is a fact even they don't dispute, otherwise they wouldn't be bothering to come up with all that crazy shit to explain it away)

      Your verse doesn't even address the issue.

      Delete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>