A favourite and fashionable argument for God is the argument from a fine-tuned universe. The argument is that, were it not for many aspects of our universe being “just right” for us to exist, then we wouldn’t be here, therefore [and that “therefore” is the big leap] the universe must have been fine-tuned to produce us.
Such an argument is advanced by theologians such as Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, while Francis Collins has even gone so far as to claim that Richard Dawkins has admitted that he is troubled by the argument (this led to a witty response by Dawkins).
However, this argument is not just flawed, it actually contains six major flaws. The argument is one of those that is so unconvincing that it never leads anyone to believe in God, it only bolsters the faith of those who already believe, in which state their credulity renders them unable to examine the argument objectively.
The essence of the flaw is that the argument depends on regarding humans as “special”, as though a universe without humans would be improper in some way. Thus the argument is simply anthropocentric hubris, and takes as an axiom (the specialness of humans) what it aims to prove (the specialness of God-created humans).
Yes, we may be special to ourselves, but that doesn’t mean we matter especially to the universe. Theists often err by assuming that what matters to humans must matter in an absolute or universal sense. And without that “specialness” assumption the argument from fine tuning falls apart.
Entities that are peculiar to and characteristic of their environment are exactly what you would expect from non-intelligent, natural processes. Intelligent design could produce either outcome: inhabitants that are well-fitted to their environment or inhabitants that are not (as in zoos). Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism. Thus the fine-tuning argument actually argues for an atheistic universe.
So here is a reasonably succinct summary of those six flaws, in reply to the theologians.
(1) Who says the universe is tuned for life? As far as we know, intelligent life occurs in only one million-billion-billion-billionth of the universe around us. It’s not the case that the universe is teeming with life, is it? If someone intelligent were going to design a universe to host life, they could do it a heck of a lot more parsimoniously than by inventing our universe.
Tell you what, pick a random cubic kilometre of our universe; now try making a case for theism given only the contents of that cube. If you object that you want instead a highly particular, specially chosen chunk of universe (Earth) on which to base your case, then that’s anthropocentric special pleading. If your case had merit it could still be made without carefully selecting your data inputs. Afterall, without Earth, you’d still have 99.999999999999% of God’s creation to work with.
(2) So what if the universe were different? Yes, it wouldn’t be as we know it, and wouldn’t produce the sort of life forms that we know, but do you really know that it wouldn’t produce just as much or more life as our universe? Do you really think you know enough about the various possible types of life, and about the consequences of fiddling with fundamental constants, to work that out? We have a hard enough time figuring out and understanding our own universe, even though it is right here under our noses available for study.
(3) Of course the universe is “just perfect” for producing us. In the same way — and here Douglas Adams’s analogy is unsurpassed — a puddle thinks that the shape of the hole in the road is just perfect for producing its own shape. “Only if the hole were exactly as it is in every detail could my shape have come about! So clearly an Intelligent Designer must have carefully designed that hole in exquisite detail in order to produce me!”
Isn’t it obvious that the things that come to be in a universe will be things that are highly characteristic of that universe? Things fitting exactly to their environment is exactly what you expect in a NON-intelligent situation — in the same way that puddles of water fitting their hole is the obvious consequence of a non-intelligent process like gravity.
(3b) The occurrence of things for which their environment was NOT “just right” would be a far better indicator of intelligent intervention. For example, an animal in a zoo is indicative of intelligent intervention; an animal that fits perfectly into its ecological niche is not an indication of intelligent design, but instead is amply explained by non-intelligent processes such as evolution. Thus, if we found ourselves in a universe that was not suited to creating us then that would be far better evidence for intelligent intervention!
(4) If the universe is one of myriad different universes, then intelligent life will only appear in those suitable for intelligent life. So the act of an intelligent life-form asking “why is the universe like it is?” will pick out those universes, even if they are a tiny, tiny faction of the total collection of universes. If there were 101000 universes then there needn’t be anything special about parameters that lead to life in order for there to be sentient life-forms asking that question, somewhere.
For comparison, life as we know it can only exist on planets in the “habitable zone” range of distances from a star. Yet we don’t say that some intelligent agent must have ensured that Earth-like planets are only placed within that zone. Instead, we now know that planets are abundant around stars, and that these planets are strewn around with a whole range of distances. Thus some fraction end up, by chance not design, in the habitable zone.
(5) Even if the universe were a one-off, so what? The things present in that universe would still be specific to that universe. In the same way, if you throw one dice a thousand times you create a highly improbable number (with a likelihood of only 1-in-61000, which is 1-in-10778). Would you argue that the universe had to have been fine-tuned to produce the number you’ve just got? Nope, there could simply have been some other number. The outcome would only be remarkable if there was something special about that number.
So do you want to claim as an axiom that there is something special about intelligent life? You need to claim that, but if you do you’ve created an entirely circular argument. You start off with the axiom that there is something special about intelligent life — and guess what, you end up with the conclusion that the universe possesses the special property of intelligence (which you want to be the creator you are hankering after). But you’ve just assumed your conclusion in your axiom! Try repeating the argument without making any assumption that intelligent life is special — then you’d get nowhere.
(6) And above all: your “creator” explanation gets you nowhere! It explains nothing. All it lands you with is something even harder to explain, even more remarkable, even more improbable. And trying to pretend that your creator god is not, actually, all that remarkable and doesn’t, actually, need an explanation, is a preposterous evasion.
coelsblog 
Oh my, you have an amazing ability to cut through the BS and knock down arguments using rationality and simple language. My new favourite blog!
Very well put!
Wonderful. You might also add that there are scientists running simulations of artificial universes on supercomputers right now, with different combinations of fundamental constants and the results are pretty much that some combinations are more favourable to life than the others. It is not just this one set that we have. It is one of many. And if the M-theory actually throws up experimental support; sorry Creationists.
Do you have a reference for this work? Sounds interesting.
This is fabulously humorous. Universes, supercomputers and simulations – all of which were created.
This is fabulously humorous. Universes, simulations, supercomputers – all of which were created.
Fantastic!!! Nothing more to add. Where were you all these days!!
My new fav. blog
Excellent. This is the most succinct response to the creationist-IDer claims I’ve thus far encountered. I’m especially gladdened that you’ve distilled out those six flaws (arguments) in your summary. It’s about time someone did, and I’m glad it was done by someone capable of clarity and economy.
Pingback: The fine tuning argument | sarah.geek.nz
Pingback: Hitler’s Ideology was Religious, Creationist and Opposed to Darwinism « Mormonism Scam or True Blog
Pingback: Reason and Science « Mormonism Scam or True Blog
Pingback: Atheism: Fine-Tuned Universe « Mormonism Scam or True Blog
Pingback: A fine-tuned universe argues for atheism | coelsblog « Leucippus Today
Reblogged this on Baron d'Holbach.
94 million miles to the sun- no life on planet earth. 92 million miles to the sun- no life on planet earth. Why is it that the earth is the only planet in our solar system that orbits the sun on 23.5 degree angle. Why an angle at all? What is “tidally locked”? I am sorry to state that as we learn more about our Universe and more about who we are at a sub-atomic level, the more we study quantum physics, the more and more that a fined-tuned Universe makes more and more sense. Atheism is dying! Ans more scientists are moving towards that paradigm everyday.
Hi Adam,
No one disputes that our environment and ourselves are very closely matched to each other, just as the shape of a hole in the ground and the shape of the puddle of water that fills the hole are very well matched, but as I argued in the post this fact is predicted by and best explained by atheism, and does not point to intelligent intervention — just as, in the case of the puddle, the cause is un-intelligent gravity. In your reply you do nothing to rebut any of those arguments.
On your specific points, the habitable zone around our sun is much wider than 2 million miles, and is nearer 20 million miles wide. If you assigned orbits in the inner Solar System at random to the four rocky planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars) the chances are good that one of them would be in the habitable zone.
Yes, the axial tilt of Earth is 23.5 degrees; that of Mars is 25.2 degrees, and that of Saturn is 26.7 degrees. So what? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make from this.
The rest of your post is just assertion; the fact is that atheism is in good health and that science is thoroughly atheistic these days, with no sign of that changing (given the total lack of evidence for any gods).
Adam Higdon wrote
In fact, in its elliptical orbit the distance from the earth to the sun ranges from 91,445,000 miles to 94,555,000 miles annually, Life does just fine over that range.
Pingback: Science can indeed answer “why” questions | coelsblog
I love this post. I’ve always used arguments 5 and 6 in the past but, re-reading this, argument 3 is so strong and powerful, it’s my new number 1!
If you’re going to use #3, drop the “Things fitting exactly to their environment is exactly what you expect in a NON-intelligent situation” bit. Given the context, it’s a tautological argument — a logical fallacy. It’ll undermine your usage.
Sorry, why is it fallacious? I don’t follow.
Mostly just speculative imagination, and propaganda. Why not use science to refute the arguments?
With regards to #1 — Atheists are always saying that anything without evidence should not be given serious consideration. What is Hitchen’s line? “Anything that is presented without evidence can be discarded without evidence”? What evidence do we have that there is a million, billion, billion other universes? Nothing beyond hypothesis. I discard the notion of other universes. As far as we can tell from the available evidence, there is one universe. Everything else is speculation. Ergo, you can’t use the multiple universe argument without looking entirely hypocritical. We should be basing the argument on evidence, no?
Further, regarding: “if someone were going to design a universe, they would…” This fails horrifically! What do you know of a potential designer’s nature, motivations, restrictions, etc., etc., Nothing. You have NO IDEA what a potential designer would or wouldn’t do, or why. I’m sitting not three feet away from a fairly large computer tower that is probably around 80% devoid of anything but air and dust particles. It’s facilitating this very communication, however. I can assure you that its state of being mostly empty does NOT, in any way, call into question whether or not it was intelligently crafted. It’s absurd to think that it likely wasn’t intelligently designed because, if it were, a designer would have made more efficient use of the available space. There are reasons for its emptiness. Reasons I wouldn’t understand if I didn’t know the hows and whys regarding the construction of such computer systems.
“Tell you what, pick a random cubic kilometre of our universe…” — logically fallacious. It’s a non-sequitur. If you can find a portion of something which doesn’t seem to suit its imagined purpose, it does not follow that none of it does, or that it has no such purpose on the whole.
Pick a random cubic micrometer of my computer tower mentioned above. Now try making a case that its purpose is to facilitate mathematical calculation. If you can’t, it means absolutely nothing. If you object that you want instead a highly particular, specially chosen chunk of computer tower (the CPU) on which to base your case, then that’s compu-centric special pleading. If your case had merit it could still be made without carefully selecting your data inputs. Afterall, without the CPU, you’d still have 99.999999999999% of Hewlett-Packard’s creation to work with. Well, guess what: If you a pick random cubic micrometer of my computer tower and are unable to show from it that the computer’s purpose is to facilitate mathematical calculation, it means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
You should drop #1. The entire thing is a parade of logically fallacious reasoning.
The principle of parsimony is actually about the amount of information needed to specify something. Thus: “take one universe, duplicate a billion times, assign physical constants at random” is actually more parsimonious than “take one universe, assign a specific value to G of 6.67E+11 and to e of 1.6E-19 and to h of 6.6E-34 and et cetera et cetera for another 30 or so constants”.
The “multiverse” model is really just saying that there is more of the same out there, it stretches beyond what we can observe, it’s just that distant regions have different physical constants. One could call the whole thing the “universe” and the different regions “domains”, instead we call it “multiverse” and “universes”. Whichever terminology we use, it is actually the more parsimonious option.
If you started randomly knocking out 1 per cent chunks of your computer, you’d fairly quickly encounter knockouts that stopped your computer working. If you tried the same on the known universe, *vastly* fewer knockouts would eliminate known life, since a vastly smaller fraction of it is critical to that known life.
Coel – Your false statement and assumption of the “given the total lack of evidence for any gods”
We both know science has been wrong many times for various reasons; corruptible man, incorrect data, new discoveries etc. The Bible on the other hand has never been proven wrong. It was written over 1500 years by over 40 different authors – yet not one contradicts the other. It claims to be the Word of God. Now with that kind of impossibility and claim it either is or it isn’t. Now I know you will look up some atheistic website and quote contradiction after contradiction. If you spend a few minutes in research you will find they are false, but if you read the Bible for yourself you would see that its claims are true and life changing. So the Bible is a testament that there really is a God who cares and wants to have a relationship not a religion.
Hi Rick,
A list of where the Bible got something right would be vastly shorter than a list of where it got something wrong!
“The Bible on the other hand has never been proven wrong. It was written over 1500 years by over 40 different authors – yet not one contradicts the other……….Now I know you will look up some atheistic website and quote contradiction after contradiction. If you spend a few minutes in research you will find they are false…………”
Genesis 1:25-27 God creates animals, then man
Genesis 2:18-19 God creates man, then animals
didn’t even need a false atheistic website…….just a false book.
This is in response to Coel’s and Gary Hill’s comments.
The event in Genesis 1 is the original creation of the land-dwelling lifeforms. The event spoken of in Genesis 2 is a secondary event. The reasoning for it is even explained in the verses you gave.
If you are going to try and use the bible against itself, then try relying on a source that actually understands the text. Relying on anything else is doomed before it even starts. Honestly, you guys would do this for information about astronomy, physics, biology, etc. So please, do the same for the biblical texts.
Who gets to say what the correct understanding is? The claim that these are a primary and a secondary event sounds like an excuse. Most scholarship suggests that Genesis 1 and 2 are two different creation myths, from slightly different traditions, brought together in the compilation of Genesis. Anyhow, trying to analyse them like this is rather pointless, since they have no factual basis (Genesis 1, for example, has grass and fruit trees arising before the sun, moon and stars, which is bonkers).
It only sounds like an excuse because you are not aware of how the manuscripts are pieced together. They are from two different texts that have been compiled into one. They are about the same people. What they are not about is the same event.
You have ventured off into the realm of speculation with your statement that the Genesis record has no factual basis. But, since you have placed your head on the chopping block, prove it.
How do you know they are not about the same event (other than the circular, they can’t be of the same event, otherwise they’d contradict each other, so therefore they are not about the same event)?
Anyhow, I already gave (reply just above) one example of why the account is not factual. Most early peoples had creation myths that were mythological and allegorical, rather than factual, and this is one of them.
The only possibly way a person could seriously think the two events are speaking of the same event is because they were intentionally looking for a way to fabricate contradictions within the text. They both even have explanations in the text. What you are proposing is, if God has already created animals earlier in the day, He could not possibly do it a second time OR…..for any other reason. Seriously!? He already proved He could do it, so the design format was already there. All that would have been necessary was to replicate the procedure that had, earlier in the day, proven successful. The stories do not conflict with each other in any capacity. You are intentionally fabricating contradictions based on your desire to find contradictions.
So, please….prove it wrong. No more speculation.
“try relying on a source that actually understands the text.”
Such as…..?
If I were to round up 100 equally qualified and experienced theologians and get them to interpret some passages from the Bible I am confident I would get a dataset made up of a continuum ranging from literally true/completely inerrant to absolute metaphor/analogy all the way to Tillichian existentialist mysterianism. I could then simply consider those theologians whose interpretation suited my needs, ignore the rest, and then point knowledgeably to the unfeasibly high degree of agreement among Bible scholars. Any outstanding issues are easily dealt with via some imaginative post-hoc rationalisations accompanied by a touch of epistemic circularity such as patronising appeals to “rely on a source that understands the text”.
Such as one that has an in-depth understanding of the original texts, and cultures….and has spent a good deal of time analyzing the science involved to see whether the evidence agree or not. The majority of theologians you are talking about have fatal flaws in their understanding of most of these areas……which is where you come up with the impression that you would get a huge array of differing opinions. Further, I am not talking about theology. I am talking about science. Because of this, all those that I have studied, that fit my criteria, agree with each other in virtually every aspect.
Seriously, would you go to a psychologist for information on astro-physics? Of course not. So why would ever consider doing the same when dealing with ancient historical records? We are not looking for professional speculation on the topic. Only what best fits the facts.
If you would like a specific reference to see what all they have to say on the topic, I think Dr. Chuck Missler would be a good person to begin with.
Hopefully you now understand what I mean by my statement, “rely on a source that understands the text.”
Yes, you mean “rely on a source that agrees with me and my theology”. By the way, Chuck Missler has no standing in science whatsoever. Why would we listen to him if we are “talking about science”?
In reply to TheGuizer:
“Hopefully you now understand what I mean by my statement, “rely on a source that understands the text.”
OK, the problem is that you have merely given a generic description of such a source person, viz. “an in-depth understanding of the original texts………spent a good deal of time analyzing the science” and then gone on to generically describe the attributes of someone who does not meet your chosen description, viz. “have fatal flaws in their understanding”. But how have you determined that your sources actually fit the description? How have you determined that others have ‘fatal flaws’ in their understanding – is it because what they have to say is unpalatable to you? You’re simply making assertions. What methodology, other than ‘fit-to-belief’ have you used to make these determinations?
The scientific method is a dispassionate investigation into the mechanisms underlying the universe and, as such, we use it to challenge and test our hypotheses. Science is not an endeavour designed simply to find evidence that supports your attitude to particular propositions and assertions. Which brings me to the quite delicious irony of commending us to Chuck Missler, a guy who, as Coel rightly points out, has no standing in science (and from what I have seen has fatal flaws in his understanding of even the most basic science, including confusing chemical abiogenesis with biological evolution). So in what specific ways does Coel’s post on fine-tuning demonstrate flawed understanding while Missler’s assertions don’t? Bearing in mind Coel’s qualifications compared to Missler’s……..
“You have ventured off into the realm of speculation with your statement that the Genesis record has no factual basis. But, since you have placed your head on the chopping block, prove it.”
Actually the onus is on you to provide evidence (not proof: the concept of proof does not exist in science) – you’re the one making the material claim, you’re the one with the hypothesis. I’ll just note this: The Bible is not ‘ancient historical records’. Many of the events in the Bible never took place – they are pure mythology. There is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, for example. There is no evidence of any kind for a worldwide flood (and it would be physically impossible in any case). We know for certain that Homo sapiens have never experienced a genetic bottleneck of 8 individuals. This is not speculation. This is tried and tested science, observable today in any, for example, organ transplant procedure.
Missler might be knowledgeable about middle-eastern mythology, granted, but if he’s an example of your ‘go-to’ guy on science, you are being terribly and, I suspect, deliberately misled. In what way is he testing his assertions? What methodology is he using, other than ‘fit-to-belief’?
And please don’t tell us you’ve given the Missler’s or their organisation any money. They hang out with some very disreputable white supremacist friends.
Gary, what you fail to realize is, all that you believe is based on untestable, unverifiable speculation, that does not align with the evidence we have. I only believe the Genesis record because it is the best fit to the evidence we have. Don’t believe me, then go and look at all your proof, strip away all the speculation, and look at what is left. You will find that it is a bunch of evolution believing scientists that are saying, “We have all these facts, but they do not fit any of the theories we currently believe in.” But you will only find this if you are honest about it. And if you continue choosing not to be, then you will feel pretty stupid when the mainstream finally gives up on it.
@TheGuyzer, as a professional biologist who started life as a Creationist and has studied evolution for at least twenty years, I can say without fear of contradiction that you are utterly wrong about your claims regarding evolution. It is thoroughly supported by all the evidence. We do not know the fine details – particularly when it comes to *specific* past events – but the broad picture is there and very solid. If you want a “God of the gaps” then go for the origin of life a few billion years ago. We know that humans never went through a recent bottleneck as described in Genesis. We know that a global flood is totally inconsistent with geology, palaeontology and biogeography, whilst all of these things are consistent with – and best explained within – a framework of biological evolution. If you cannot accept evolution then there is no wonder you cannot accept other scientific challenges to your worldview. (And I am not going to be dragged into yet another “prove it” conversation with a Creationist – the evidence is all over the internet if you really wanted to find it. Just fact check your Creationist propaganda before believing it – in my experience, it is riddled with lies and deception, much of which has been debunked but is still repeated.)
I have read the Bible and even used to believe in it but there are contradictions aplenty – and much more that is historical nonsense, including most of Genesis and Exodus. The gospels are a prime example – events reordered and facts added to meet the theological position of the author. As it’s almost Christmas, you can have fun comparing and contrasting the utterly different (and historically wrong) nativity accounts as a starting point.
You are not the first working biologist, or professional in any field for that matter, that has claimed decisively, evolution is fact. Unfortunately, I have done the research and know that your knowledge base is built on a great many suppositions. Maybe you are not not aware, but there is recent research that decisively locks down the human genome to a definite bottleneck. When realistic metering is used, the bottleneck coincides with the timeline portrayed in Genesis. I was taught evolution all through grade school, high school, and college. I completely believed evolution was how it happened. Then I started analyzing the facts and stripping away the speculation. At this point is when I arrived at the conclusion that evolution does not work as an explanation for origin. You are free to continue believing in evolution. I prefer to believe whatever the facts align with the best. That is why I was forced to change my worldview.
As for the biblical texts contradicting each other, they do not. Thus far, I have yet to see an actual contradiction in the entire set of books. Every supposed contradiction I have seen thus far has ended up being a misunderstanding on the part of the reader. This is what I found when I consulted Jewish historians/scholars on the subject. And to prove my point, Christmas is not now, nor has it ever been, a Christian holiday. At best, it is a Catholic holiday. And Catholicism is not a Christian religion. But of course you are fully aware of this since you have read and used to believe the Bible, correct? If not, then you may understand this point I am making about people not actually understanding the biblical texts. There is a reason why only a few people will be saved. Only a few care enough about absolute truth to fight for it, and dig for it,.until they have it.
Since you brought up the Gospels, if you would like to see a technically correct alignment/translation of those books, read the book “The Chronological Gospels”. It will likely resolve the majority of the misunderstandings you have with these books.
For God so loved the world that he hid his message in riddles that only “a few” would understand and be saved and then buggered off to leave all the rest to be doomed despite their best intentions. If that’s your God then I’m glad I don’t think it exists.
As for the “correct metering”, I’d be interested to see the explanation that shifts both the population size and the time of the bottleneck by several orders of magnitude – plus, of course, the independent evidence that this “metering” is actually right. A simple “oh, well obviously mutation rates were 1000 times faster back in the day” on the basis of the times/numbers being out does not cut the mustard.
If you take the Bible as inerrant fact then obviously you can conjure up any number of post hoc rationalisations to make anything fit to it but only at the cost of abandoning reason and evidence (i.e. making stuff up). If you start with the evidence, the conclusion is not the Biblical accounts – far, far from it. Your choice, of course, but I know which approach I favour – and, on the basis of past experience, works. I’d be interested to see how many modern advances in biology or medicine were derived from the Bible or prayer, versus those derived from following the evidence (including evolution). Happily, the scientists trying to develop cures for cancer and infectious disease do so on a foundation of evolutionary biology and not wishful thinking.
Not so only a few would understand. The implication is that only a few will care enough about finding the truth to persist until they have it.
Considering the background, most all of our scientific advancements were made possible because of what the bible has revealed. But that is an entirely different matter.
Now, if you are speaking of technological advancements, then I would attribute that to an evolutionary process. Engineers perform enhancements on designs regularly. As has been proven an uncountable number of times, designed things do not sporadically evolve by themselves. Heck, the entire food industry relies on evolution not working. With the amount of chemicals, and gamma radiation applied to organic material, over billions of times, if evolution was going to work, it should have produced a new lifeform by now. But it hasn’t. And it won’t. Just more of the same. Maybe slightly degraded, but still nothing new.
Do you ever find it odd to see that evolution is supposedly constantly at work, and has been postulated to have created a multitude of new lifeforms, but now that people have actively been studying it, but now has become strangely silent? Why no new lifeforms? The answer is pretty simple. Evolution is not how all the current lifeforms came to be.
About the white papers detailing the genome, if you just read all the info about them, you quickly find out that the original, unbiased report, based on the raw data, gave “far too short” a timespan……and had to be “increased to fit evolutionary expectation”. It wasn’t the data that made the projection to be a a hundred thousand years. It was the “fitting the data to the evolutionary prediction” that stretched it out. The truth is in the details.
Well, no. That is not what I mean at all. When I first analyzed what Dr. Missler had to say, I disagreed with him. Then I started checking his facts. Turns out I was wrong and he was right. So, I now agree with him.
I think the major problem is that you have decided you know everything, and thus have something to defend (your reputation). So you cannot admit you are wrong and will refuse to look into it with serious consideration.
TheGuyzer:
You’re right, nearly all biologists have said that, because it is true. The only people who tend to doubt it are people who regard Genesis as inerrant, rather than knowing about science or judging on the evidence.
You’re right that evidence points to a human population bottleneck, but of about 5000 people and 50,000 years ago. Anyhow, to emphasize my early point, Genesis 1 has seeding grasses and fruit trees before the sun, moon and stars. The sun and moon are of order 4.5 billion years old yet seeding grasses are only about 50 million years old, a factor of a hundred less. Genesis really doesn’t pass the elementary hurdle of even being something to take seriously as an attempt at a factual account.
I assume that by “new lifeform” you mean new species? Well, evolutionary change producing clearly different species generally takes million of years. We simply wouldn’t expect it on the few-decades timescale of the modern food industry. And anyway, biologists have indeed seen new species arise in the wild, just as expected (the talk.origins speciation FAQ lists examples).
As expected, you immediately use speculative information to support your view. Speculating that the sun and moon are orders of magnitude older than they actually are doesn’t make them billions of years old. This is not even addressing the fact that the current gravimetric model of the universe cannot even account for…..well….actually it cannot account for anything we observe in the universe.
As it turns out, when strictly looking at the observable, measurable evidence, there are universe models that explain virtually everything, as it exists, without the need for invoking any miraculous circumstances that the current gravimetric model requires for virtually every observable element in the universe. The question arises, “Why has the scientific community not moved on to the better model?” The answer to that is simple. It doesn’t play as well with deep time as it does with the Genesis record. What is a further slap in the face to the other theories is, this one is testable in a laboratory, and has been multiple times. And we have been able to make predictions based on it, which after having gathered the data and analyzed it…..the evolutionary model’s predictions utterly failed, and the electric model’s predictions were spot on. No massaging of the figures required.
As for what I mean by a “new lifeform”, you would be entirely wrong in assuming I mean new species. Species is a modern classification system. It has virtually no relevance to what I am talking about. The term I would use would be the term used in the Genesis record, “kind”. I don’t tend to use it much though, primarily due to a failure in most evolutionist being incapable of understanding the concept without trying to replace the meaning with a modern substitution. Effectively, any lifeforms that can procreate to produce offspring, without the use of modern technology, are the same kind. It has no bearing on whether or not they naturally do in the wild, only if it is possible.For example, If a terrier and a wolf interbreed, they would not produce an entirely new “kind”. A new species maybe, but not an entirely new “kind”. Further, no matter how long mixed interbreeding of the canine “kind” were to go on, they will never produce anything that is not of the canine “kind”.
As for new species occurring, that is not a big deal. Natural selection is not in question. Creationists proved natural selection was a real thing a long time ago.
You continue to hide behind the “it takes millions of years” argument. Since you cannot prove the it requires millions of years, it has no validity. Further, if it did take millions of years, by YOUR word, there has already been billions. This means, by YOUR standards, we should be constantly encountering completely new kinds of lifeforms everyday…..but we haven’t been, and we won’t. So far as I have seen, the only way a “kind” has arisen, via the evolutionary paradigm, is in textbooks via an “artists representation”. On the other hand, the creation model predicts what we observe in the real world.
The Creationist model predicts nothing – certainly not the observed patterns of fossils, biogeography, the genetic code, bacteria, viruses, plate tectonics, coal, gas, volcanoes, eathquakes… in fact, just about all of biology and geology as we know it. The best it can do is try and shoe-horn things in very convoluted and often amusing ways. (Particularly when the flood and trying to explain patterns of fossils is concerned.) The reason that science moved away from a Young Earth and global flood is precisely BECAUSE the data do not fit!!
Furthermore, your Biblical “kinds” have no biological meaning whatsoever. None. Evolution does not predict their emergence popping into existence willy-nilly all over the place – that is *Creation* – it predicts an unbroken line of ancestral descent: precisely what we observe in the real world. Evolution has not stopped and we see precisely the kinds of change that are consistent with it. Stop trying to school evolutionary biologists when you clearly no nothing about the subject.
As for your genome “white paper” versus population bottleneck nonsense. Huh? You clearly do not remotely have a clue about the things of which you write.
Geological time is not a speculation but a conclusion based on multiple lines of independent are corroborating evidence, including dating techniques, plate tectonics (which can be measured), geological patterns, the fossil record, biogeography. Looked at objectively, all the evidence points to an old earth and shared ancestry of all life on earth via evolution. Can we be 100% sure that it is fact? No. A trickster deity could be having a big joke (and clearly hates dinosaurs). Is it a *scientific* fact? Demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt? Absolutely. Is there any point me even telling you this? Of course not.
Have fun believing what you will. Do not interpret future silence as an inability to counter your fantastical claims – just a recognition that it is utterly futile and a waste of both our time.
You have not done your research. The reason science moved away from creation on to evolution is entirely due to fabricated proof for evolution, and an extensive (and ongoing) propaganda campaign. The evidence fits the creation model prediction to exact expectations. But you would only know this if you had seriously researched it.
OK. Just for kicks… fabricated by whom? And where? Do you have any concept how many highly intelligent – and honest – people have studied this in depth for decades?! (And, yes, I count myself among their number.) What is possibly in it for us to maintain some kind of lie via a propaganda machine? The service of our non-god? A deal with our non-devil? That makes SOOO much more sense than an honest and open attempt to make sense of the Natural World. The data is there to be analysed by anyone. The stuff is in museums. With a few trivial exceptions such as Piltdown Man – discovered and brought to light by SCIENCE – there was no fabrication of fossils and genomes or rock strata and radiometric dating or biogeography or plate tectonics or the magnetic “bar code” of the North Atlantic ridge or tree rings or ice cores etc. etc. (I don’t think oil companies would employ geologists if it was all made up!)
Like your arguments, your paranoid position makes no sense. If I debunked evolution, I’d be more famous than Darwin! I, and other scientists, continue to support (and use) evolutionary theory because it works. Scientific publishing and popular science are not “propaganda”. Lying for Christ, on the the other hand…
Anyway, go to go, my irony meter just exploded. “You have not done your research.” Ha ha. Nice one.
What you are not seeing is, most people do not care to such an extent that they never question the system. They just assume that the “professionals” are correct. This is in spite of the fact that science has a long history of being wrong.
If you actually looked into it, you would already know that all these examples you brought up have been thoroughly debunked. To top it off, your radiometric dating is based on circle logic, and cherry picking of dates. Yes, that is correct. When the dates don’t agree with the expectations of the evolutionary paradigm, they are either discarded, or when none match the expectations, are dismissed entirely. Not to mention the proven extreme inaccuracy radiometric dating has on record. Oh, but those don’t count because they don’t fit the theory of evolution’s expectations. Good science does not do this.
And no, you would not be famous in any capacity if you debunked evolution. If this were so, there are many people how would already be famous for it. The reality is, creation acceptance is highly frowned upon, and if you try to even seriously go against the evolutionary paradigm, you are attacked for it. Not because you would be wrong, but because evolution is a religion, and it is being defended by religious fanatics.
And by listing all the supposed evidence that supports evolution that you are basing you belief on, I now know for sure you have not done you research. All those items of evidence are far better support for creation. But, as I said earlier, you wouldn’t know this because you haven’t seriously researched it.
By all means, seriously dig into any of them and prove me wrong decisively. It can’t be done and I know because I have already done said research with just such intent.
TheGuyzer:
We seem to be way too far apart for it to be sensible to discuss this. You dismiss science that is supported by masses and masses of overwhelming evidence, you just say it is “speculation” and that if anyone “looked into it” they would see it is false, and you claim that you are the one who has “done the research” to know about such things.
To us you just seem to be a Biblical-literalist creationist who knows nothing of science or evidence or of actual research, and just dismisses science in order to cling to a Biblical literalist view.
(I’m also dubious about your claim that you once accepted evolution, until you looked into it. More likely you were brought to a creationist Christian and always have been one. The claim of a past as an “evolutionist” or an atheist is a common apologetic debating tactic.)
The stars are indeed of the ages I gave; nearly all of science would need to be overturned to make them many orders of magnitude younger, as you want to. Radiometric dating is solid, reliable and well-understood. Your claims of malpractice in this area, and that the science is refuted, are simply wrong.
You also have colossal misunderstandings of how science and evolution work. To give one example:
Saying that substantial evolutionary change takes millions of years does NOT mean that for millions of years little happens, and then suddenly a new “lifeform” pops up. It means that each generation is very similar to the ones preceding it and the ones succeeding it. The large long-term changes are the accumulation of small and gradual changes. In the short term you only see very small changes.
We are indeed seeing lots of species evolve as we look at them. But the change takes millions of years. Your misunderstanding is that this change would happen on human-lifetime timescales — it doesn’t. If you had a video-tape speeded up by a billion times, then you’d see the change.
I can understand your point, because to me, you seem to be an anti-Biblical atheist who knows nothing of science or evidence or actual research, and just dismisses science in order to cling to an anti-biblical worldview.
And I never said I was an Atheist at any point, just a hardcore evolutionist. I think the idea that there is no outside intervention is totally idiotic, and always have thought that. I have personally seen one of the largest UFOs that I have ever heard anyone talk about. So, convincing me that there is no outside intervention is beyond the realm of possibility.
And yes, nearly all of what the “mainstream science community wants to be reality” would need to be overturned, and should be. They are wrong. Just because something is popular has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. The popular science community has effectively proven that repeatedly by being wrong often.
And radiometric dating is only solid because the speed of light, and the units used to measure the distance, were redefined to be directly locked to each other. I have personally reviewed the research on this issue, and the speed of light has definitely been observed as slowing down. This nasty fact ruined several of my airtight theories and caused me quite a bit of annoyance for a while. The facts have not changed though, so after I was done trying to rationalize my way around them, I decided to look and see if the prediction models that take this into account are any better than the current models. It turns out that they are significantly better. So, I changed my opinion to fit the facts.
All to often I see articles written by evolutionist where they choose radiometric dates based on what their opinion says it should be. That alone should throw up a huge red flag. But it doesn’t because that is what peer pressure says you should do. “It must be this old because this is what the theory of evolution predicts,” is the primary mode of thought in the popular science community. The logic is backwards. The theory makes a prediction. If it doesn’t fit the fact, it is wrong. This happens a lot with evolution. It just gets covered over with assumptions that the facts are wrong, so they need to be re-assessed, re-sampled. or in some cases, thrown out entirely.
So, my understanding of how science works is solid. You observe, and measure. Then compare to the theories’ predictions. Whichever theory is most correct is the best choice.
I am quite away that what I stated about evolution was “sarcasm”. Apparently you were not. I was making a point by exaggerating the situation. Regardless, the fact remains that we should see a multitude of partial transitions, with new forms regularly appearing. Why? Simple. The process is supposedly happening continuously, and has been going on for billions of years. Yet, everywhere we look, more of the same. The theory doesn’t fit the observable data, yet again. And we see lots of species changing into more varieties of the same type of creature. No new creatures. No new features on said creatures. Just more of the same. For instance, humans and apes supposedly evolved from the same ancestor. Why did the process stop? Where is the continued evolution? The answer is quite plain. It didn’t happen in the first place.
So, my understanding of what evolution is supposed to be is accurate. The evidence supporting the expected observable evidence for evolution is what is missing.
“Yet, everywhere we look, more of the same…. Why did the process stop?” It didn’t. It’s still going on. Have you ever been to a Natural History museum and compared fairly recent fossils of ancient elephant species, for example, with modern ones? And then compared those to older ones? Or even hominids – more of these are also being found. Have you heard of Denisovans? Homo floresiensis? Have you looked at the genome sequences of great apes, humans and sequence data of early humans? You do realise that we have observed bacteria evolving in controlled environments and gaining new phenotypes. Ditto viruses, bacteria and insects in the real world, evolving resistance to various things.
Do you also realise that radiometric dating is based on radioactive decay and not light? I’m guessing not. Do you also think that the rate of radioactive decay has slowed? I’d love to see a model of the different isotope half-lives slowing in such a way as to give consistent ages when they overlap – and then, of course, the degree of slowing needed to get the timing out by 5-6 orders of magnitude! I don’t know where you’ve been doing your research but your summary of it is far from convincing.
“All to often I see articles written by evolutionist where they choose radiometric dates based on what their opinion says it should be.” Examples please. Give us your best ones. I suspect you are talking about where within the defined error margins of the calculations they think is most probable given other data, not: “The result said 6,000 years but I choose a date of 60 million years.”
“So, my understanding of what evolution is supposed to be is accurate.” On the basis of what you falsely claim it predicts, no it most certainly is not. I know this because I *am* one of those professional evolutionary biologists from whom you have so much disdain. So far, you have got nothing right except your acceptance of Natural Selection. (Which *is* one form of continued evolution!)
Yes, I have looked at all these examples, and none of them are proof of lifeforms evolving. For someone who wants to believe in evolution, or is steered by peer pressure to believe, it is easy to rationalize them to be proof of evolution. What it comes down to is more speculation. This is only in reference to all the evidence that hasn’t been fabricated by scientists desperate to prove evolution. For fossils, there is zero proof of evolution, only a factual record that a lifeform existed. I noticed you didn’t address the multitude of fossilized modern lifeforms found along side the extinct ones, or the well documented existence of “dinosaurs” in recent history (within the past 2000 years). I expect you will summarily dismiss that evidence because it doesn’t fit the evolutionary paradigm. The facts still remain, dragons lived recently.
I have looked into the genome sequences of apes and humans. Before I seriously looked into the topic, this was proof of evolution to me. Now that I have made a serious study of it, I realize this is just pure speculation. As it turns out, the genome similarities are equally good proof of a common design framework. Since land animals were created from the land, it only makes sense if we see elements of design similarities. If we did not see this, it would be good proof against creation. So, in my opinion the genome is a stand-off, as it fits both.
We have indeed seen bacteria experience the process of Natural Selection in controlled environments. This is just like the selective breeding of dogs. The primary difference is, in the laboratory environment, the bacteria are subject to environmental restrictions. Those that are able to survive the best do while the rest die out. Some would call this evolution. The problem is, no new information was created. For evolution to actually be a real thing, new information must be created. In every instance of these “new” bacteria, the information was already present in the pre-existing population. This would be no different than if you have a population of brown-eyed people, and wanted everyone to have blue eyes. Every time a baby is born without blue eyes, you kill it. Eventually, the only humans left alive would all have blue eyes. This is not creating new information (evolution). In any case, in every instance, when the new, superior bacteria were reintroduced into a normal population, they eventually would die off and the population would revert to the standard mix. This is definitely not a good representation of evolution even in the loosest of examples.
If I recall, you are a biologist, so you are probably just not aware of this. Anyway, I will tell you. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Radiometric dating requires a process where elements destabilize and turn into other elements. This process is primarily governed by the electromagnetic force, as the atom is composed of such a structure as to make the nuclear forces weak enough to be subject to destabilization caused by electromagnetic fluctuation. .It has been proven in laboratories that exposing radioactive materials to electromagnetism will accelerate the decay. So,there are two massive problems with radiometric dating due to this nasty fact. The first being that, since light (electromagnetic radiation) was faster in the past (thus making it a stronger force), radioactive decay would be accordingly faster. The second is that the earth’s electromagnetic field is weakening. This means we know it would be stronger in the past, and thus making radioactive decay faster in the past. Now, what do evolutionists do when analyzing radiometric dates? They try to stretch them out as far as possible based on modern day timing. From this, we can immediately conclude that the dates are younger than anything they predict, no matter what, without any chance of error. As far as calibration of the dates is concerned, that is just circle logic. You only need to read a detailed white paper on radiometric dating calibration to know for a fact that it is circle logic. The base their dates on a presupposed ancient time scale. Instead, they should be using a reliable method of calibration by dating something we know the age of. But, when they do this, the dates all start aligning with a 6000-8000 year old earth. Coincidentally, the creation theory prediction aligns to this perfectly.
Pick any article where the author bases his ages on radiometric dating. I don’t need to cherry pick one for you. They ALL do it.
I have no disdain toward you personally. I just think you are not well informed. Either that, or you are protecting your belief system. And no, Natural Selection is not even remotely close to Evolution For An Explanation Of Origin. Natural Selection is valid in the creation model, so not evidence for either. You can’t take a concept that works equally well in two theories and claim it as proof for one and not the other. What we have here is two models that make predictions about what we should observe. We need to look at what would falsify both models alternately, then look at the data and see which one does not fit. That is what i have started doing. In every situation thus far, the evidence always ends up siding with the creation model. Not my opinion of what it should be.
Care to provide ANY documented evidence to support any of your wild claims? Isn’t radioactive decay governed by the weak nuclear force, not electromagnetism? Besides, the idea that the particle physicists studying this stuff would have missed it and/or are lying to cover it up is preposterous! Still, assuming it is not, I want to see the magic calculations that make “the dates all start aligning with a 6000-8000 year old earth”. Presumably someone has done some actual experiments with different light energy levels to test this stuff, right?
And you are wrong about evolution again… twice. 1. Not all of the information is already present in the population, some of it enters through mutation; 2. Evolution is a change in frequency of variants, so changes from Natural Selection ARE evolution.
It is common ancestry that you have a problem with, I think, rather than evolution. There is nothing about Creation that predicts the pattern of genomes. How do you account for whales under your model? The inside-out human eyeball? The giraffe’s neck? The pentadactyl limbs of vertebrates, even when bones have to be fused together to produce fewer final “toes” etc. You can’t honestly tell me that these look like good design features, can you?!
Living things carry plenty of evolutionary baggage in their anatomy, behaviour and genetics, none of which is parsimonious with special creation. How do you account for HIV and bird flu? Did God want us to be prone to cross-species transmission of viruses. Another design flaw – no need at all for the same genetic code unless we shared ancestry. And what of the changing forms in the fossil record? Do you really believe that all of that was fabricated?!
Oh, and a reference or two for “the multitude of fossilized modern lifeforms found along side the extinct ones, or the well documented existence of “dinosaurs” in recent history (within the past 2000 years)” would be good too. I am only aware of hoaxes.
Once you have finished with that, you can summarise how the Bible predicts modern distributions of animals and the very different past distributions of plant and animal fossils.
My statements aren’t “wild” in the slightest. They may be “wild” in your opinion, but that is due to your belief system. You believe I am wrong, so you believe what I say is “wild”. I could go and provide you with a mountain of documents, and research projects, etc., but they are all publicly available to anyone who wants to go find information about any of these topics. So, it would be mostly a waste of my time, since, if you are honestly interested, you could easily go find any of it faster than I could go find it and post it. So, if you are honestly interested (which I doubt), do the research.
The weak and strong nuclear forces play a major role in the stability of atomic structures. What I said is that the structure of the unstable isotopes makes it susceptible to electromagnetic fluctuation. The “structure” of the atom is what causes this. Anyway, particle physicist do know about this. I don’t expect you to because you are a biologist. It really isn’t that big a deal if you were unaware of this.
Provide any example of new information being added via evolution. I have seen many and none of them have been new information. And, no, Natural Selection is not evolution. Twisting the definition to suit your argument will not work with me. I have used that tactic a multitude of times when arguing against creationist in the past. We are not talking about micro-evolution, which is just a fancy, pathetic way of saying Natural Selection is evolution. We are dealing with Macro-Evolution, which is required as proof of evolution for origin. Again, Natural Selection fits equally well with the creation model as it does the evolution model. So, this part of your argument is automatically null. You cannot use. I cannot use it. Honestly, it won’t help you to keep using evidence that also fits with the creation model.
Okay….creation model.
-Whales were created and should be relatively the same when found in the fossil record. This is precisely the case. The vestigial parts have been dunked, and are in fact highly useful to any whales who want to breed.
-Human eyeballs being inverted is only important if people don’t want to be blind. This is critical design factor.
-With the giraffe’s neck, I am assuming you are referring to the laryngeal nerve?? If so, the answer to this one is ridiculously simple. It is timing issue. Electrical impulses take time to travel through nerves, which I would hope you know since you are a biologist. if you map out the distance, and take into account all the areas information is being transmitted to, and map this to a three-dimensional construct to see when the signal arrives at all associated areas, it is pretty obvious that it is required for time alignment. It is just another design element.
-I have not researched the pentadactyl limbs of vertebrates, so I cannot make any assessment about this other than…. Since all other issues have turned out to be genius design elements, this is probably no different.
Okay…diseases. This is basically hard proof of the creation model. It specifically details that the original creation was uncorrupted, and, due to some stupid decisions made by the humans placed in charge, a corruption cycle was started. Thus, the creation model predicts that we should see increasingly more harmful mutations, and increasingly more diseases, which should also be increasingly more dangerous. Not surprisingly, this is precisely what we observe. Yahweh never intended for any of this. The humans in charge caused the damage.
As for the changing forms in fossil records, yeah….no. There are no “changing forms” in the fossil record. There are extinct animals in the fossil record. There are also modern animals in the fossil record. There are even modern humans in the fossil record. You may want to update you knowledge about the fossil record. There is apparently a fair amount you are unaware of. Again, a simple search will turn up all of this information faster than I can go and find it and post it.
Okay, quick summary about how the creation model predicts the modern distributions of animals (and plants) and the very different past distributions of animals and plants. First, the creation model portrays a super continent, instead of the multiple smaller continents we have today. Basically, all lifeforms had free access to everywhere. Extra-terrestrials intervened, and humans and animals became corrupted and evil. Yahweh finally got fed up with it, and destroyed nearly every air-breathing, lifeform with a world flood. The cataclysm ripped apart the super continent into small continents. Due to the water that erupted from within the earth being superheated, it caused an ice age to follow. The water receded dramatically as it was locked away in the ice, etc. The continents were not settled for quite some time afterward and were still fairly mobile, which would have created several mountain ranges due to tectonic plate collisions. We should also see areas of “fossil graveyards” which would be due to large numbers of animals/plants being crushed together during the event, which is also the case, along with many other very obvious features that are only adequately explained by a world flood. Anyway, during this period after the flood, there would have been land bridges between the new continents, and the climate would have been changing all around the planet. This would caused shifting eco-systems, and the animals that were suited to certain eco systems would have naturally followed along with the changing systems. Once the ice age reached its peak, the waters would have slowly started rising, and have continued to do so. Also what we see today. This would lead to the isolation of animal and plant species. Again, this is what we see today. For further evidence, human settlements, and structures should be found underwater. This is another prediction that has been confirmed multiple times over.
Not as quick as I wanted it to be, but I believe I included all pertinent information necessary for a brief, coherent summary.
You need to provide some citations. I am not familiar with these mysterious “white papers” you keep referring to – not something we really have in science – and if I find something online and trash it, you will only tell me I am looking at the wrong wild claims. That’s a mug’s game and I am not interested. If you have really done the research then you know what the best evidence for your position is, can look for it explicitly and find it a lot quicker than me (to whom it is all nonsense). So give us your evidence or stop claiming that it exists.
If you think that mutations cannot add information then look up the experimental technique of phage display. Or, perhaps, read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19180668. (Which I did just find from a quick Google – it should link to free full text.) You are just plain wrong.
Macroevolution is just microevolution plus time. Name one feature of macroevolution – apart from the large-scale separation that needs time – that is not observed in microevolution.
Whales: wrong. We have a fossil record with intermediate limb stages etc. (Will come back to limbs.)
Human eyeballs: wrong. The octopus can see fine and has its eyes wired in the right way round. (Unlike theirs, our retinas are in backwards so we have a blind spot – a major design flaw if it was design.)
Giraffe’s neck: of course the giraffe functions with the nerve length that it has but there is no need for it to be that long. I think you are making stuff up. (If not, point me to the citation with the evidence.)
Limbs: has it never bothered you that whale flippers, bat wings, human arms and horse forelimbs all have essentially the same number and arrangement of bones? Do you seen the equivalent in human design of planes, cars and submarines? Inconsistent with design.
Viruses next… “Yahweh never intended for any of this.” Then why did he give us all the same genetic code, so a harmless virus in monkeys could hop across and work perfectly well in humans. If he wanted to avoid it, he could have done very simply by giving each organism a different genetic code. Besides, there is no evidence that diseases are getting more dangerous.
Of course there are modern animals in the fossil record – in young rocks. It is the PATTERN in the fossil record that I want you to explain. Whilst you are at it, show me where in the Bible it mentions mass extinction – or dinosaurs, for that matter. Given that the vast majority of species that have ever lived are extinct, you would have thought it would have got a mention – especially given your claim that this stuff is PREDICTED by a proper understanding of Biblical Creation.
An interesting tale of world Natural History twisted and sped up. We can leave the evidence for that for now. (Too far-fetched to know where to start!) Just out of curiosity, though, where is the ice age mentioned (or predicted) in the Bible? (Only one? are you sure?) Or the plate tectonic collisions. You presumably know about volcanoes and such? Given the amazing speed that the planet was being torn apart, how come there were no cataclysmic eruptions that blotted out the sun for years and killed everything off? (Surely THAT would have got a mention, even if 40 foot carnivorous reptiles were too dull to write about.)
Biogeography: your account does nothing to explain why similar animals (and their fossils) tend to be found together. Why, for example, did all the different kind of marsupials decide to wander off together into Australia and South America? If all of the animal kinds were pre-existing, they should be randomly distributed.
Floods: of course some fossils were the result of flooding. These could have been local floods. There is no way that one flood could have laid down all that sediment and, if it did, how did it do it in layers and first kill only “primitive” organisms, then progressively more complex animals – and plants don’t forget, who could not move – in neat layers. And how did other layers of rock get inserted between these sediments? Why did the pterosaurs all decide to hang around with the dinosaurs and drown rather than flying to higher ground and going out last?
That may have been a “brief, coherent summary” but it is wrong in basically every possible way.
I agree about one thing, though – the link between dinosaurs and dragons. I am sure that dragon myths arose from people finding dinosaur bones, just as flood myths arose from people finding marine fossils up mountains. (They didn’t know that the mountains were actually rising.)
TheGuyzer:
But then you have no standing in science, your fellow Biblical-literalist creationists have no standing in science, and the people you cite such as Chuck Missler have no standing in science. In contrast, mainstream science has been proved to work, because it underpins all of modern technology. The computer that you type these comments on was created by mainstream science, using the very same ideas and evidence that tell us that the Earth is billions of years old and that life evolved. No technology and nothing of value comes from reading Genesis.
You are not boosting your credibility!
I notice that you give no citation and provide no substance to this claim (and citations to Answers in Genesis and similar would just be laughed at, since they explicitly say as a declaration of faith that they reject any evidence that conflicts with their Biblical-literalist and creationist worldview).
Again, no cites, no substance. I bet you don’t actually read scientific articles, but just parrot what other creationists tell you about them.
Not at all, the timescales of earth and geology are determined largely by physicists, without any reference to biological evolution.
How are we supposed to tell what is you deliberately “sarcastically” misreporting from what is just you misunderstanding?
Not true. Modern species are often substantially different from their ancestors tens of millions of years ago, and their descendants millions of years into the future will likely be very different again. This process is indeed going on all the time, it is just slow, slower than human timescales.
The process hasn’t stopped. The continued evolution is ongoing. Come back in ten million years and you’ll see the change. Evolution theory does not say that we would see large changes in a few decades, it says it takes millions of years. If large changes in a few decades were observed then that would conflict with evolution.
Not it isn’t. Like most creationists you don’t understand evolution at all.
I note you give no citation for this. Are you talking about birds (descendants of dinosaurs)?
You really are not boosting your credibility. UFOs and dragons. Faeries and hobgoblins next?
I don’t believe you.
I don’t believe your claim to have previously accepted evolution. For example, the “genome sequences of apes and humans” has almost never been put forward as a strong proof of evolution. That’s partly because it is only very recently that we’ve sequenced the genomes of apes and only in the past couple of years that we’ve been able to make a proper comparison.
Sure, and that is done by mutations, which add information to the genome.
No, it is not a coincidence that what YOU call a “reliable method of calibration” is one that “aligns perfectly” to Biblical-literalist creationism. It is YOU who cherry pick data to fit and ignore anything that doesn’t. Sorry, a “6000-8000 year old earth” is too ga-ga crackpot to be worth discussing.
Technical correction– literalist creationists have no standing in “secular” science. This is only due to the two disagreeing on origin. It has nothing to do with actual evidence. Currently, there is not a single instance of technology that requires evolution as a method of origin to be correct. Add to this, most of the modern world would not exist without Genesis. Literally.
Why would I care about boosting my credibility? I am only concerned about pointing out the truth. It is none of my concern if anyone chooses to believe something else.
The white paper on the research dealing with the speed of light is publicly available.
Apparently you don’t read any articles about people dating anything via radiometrics. I don’t need to cherry pick an article. it is a common practice. Just pick one.
Note that, those timescales of the earth are done via radiometrics.
You should be capable of telling I was being sarcastic. Things are only brought into existence suddenly in the creation model. The evolution model requires billions of years. Anyway…
Okay, now you have pointed out some assumptions that evolutionists are so well known for. You are assuming certain fossils are ancestors of modern lifeforms. There is no actual proof of it. not to mention that modern animals are found along side some of these supposed ancestors. Stating your case by using assumptions just does not work. Get rid of everything that is an assumption and reassess what you know. You will be much closer to the truth.
So anyway….I do understand evolution quite well. You seem intent on re-defining what I am saying to make me incorrect. Error in your logic is noted. Moving on.
Again, everything is publicly available. I will not cherry pick information. If you are honestly interested, it will take you less time to find valid research than it would take me to go find it for you.
You seriously have a problem with “dragons”??? You do realize that the word “dinosaur” is nothing more than a modern term for “dragon” don’t you? Your words seem to indicate otherwise. I suppose maybe you have never looked into it enough to know, but it seems like this would be obvious. I knew this in elementary school. Anyway… Moving on….
You don’t believe me. Meh. I don’t care. That is your choice. What you cannot do is prove me wrong…because I have been telling the truth. I just know that anyone seriously interested will actually go and research it instead of blindly taking anyone’s word for it. Then they will start seeing what I am saying is technically correct. Those are the only people I am interested in helping.
I only recently came to the conclusion that evolution as a means for origins was poppycock. This is why the genome was proof for me, in spite of it being in more recent history.
Mutations are a corruption of pre-existing information. The has never been a case where a mutation has been proven to add new information to the genome.
And, as expected, you cannot refute the issue of proper radiometric calibration.
The Guyzer:
And secular science is science. There is no such thing as religious-creationist “science”, only religious-creationist making-things-up to match Biblical literalism.
I note once again that you don’t give a citation or any backing for your claim. That is typically creationist.
I note once again that you don’t give a citation or any backing for your claim. That is typically creationist.
How? You say one nonsensical thing that is utterly opposed to the science, and you’re apparently serious, but when you say some other nonsensical thing that is utterly opposed to the science I’m supposed to discern that you are “being sarcastic”?
Biblical-literalist elementary school? Only Biblical-literalist crackpots would make a connection between the dragons of mythology and dinosaurs which lived tens of millions of years before man had evolved.
Anyway, you’ve been spouting Biblical-literalist creationism long enough, and it is way off topic from the post above, so I suggest we end the discussion here.
In response to Coel, I think you are right that the conversation has run its course. You have proven that you are unwilling to listen to reason by way of automatically assuming anything that does not agree with what is currently vogue in the science world cannot possibly be correct. This is in spite of the fact that “popular” science has a long track record of being proven wrong. Maybe you will recall this conversation when popular science finally gives up on evolution.
@TheGuyzer, you’ve claimed to have done “research” but your writing implies that your research is simply taking in all the propaganda of “Answers in Genesis” etc. and parroting back their lies and errors. Unless you can provide actual sources and evidence to back up your claims – difficult, I know, if those claims are based on the unevidenced claims of others – there is no reason at all to believe otherwise and take you seriously. At the very least, provide links to these mysterious “white papers” you keep referring to.
You have given no evidence at all against mainstream science, contrasting with the vast piles of evidence for it. I’ve pointed out that you’ve given no citations to any actual evidence yet you still don’t provide any. Sorry, but science is discussed on evidence.
To The Guyzer:
I’m probably wasting my time but let me try to show you with a few specific examples why the scientific evidence does not support the Genesis account:
According to young earth creationism the earth is 6000 years old (some might go as high as 10,000-12,000) and, within that time, the human population, which started from a gene pool of two, then encountered a second genetic bottleneck of eight individuals. Add to this the creationist claims that the genomes of those eight were free of all deleterious mutations and that all mutations that have occurred since that time have been deleterious. OK, if we can accept this we can generate some hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: That any organ from any one individual human being can be successfully transplanted into another human being. There would be no need for tissue typing.
We can predict this because we know we can do this with other mammalian species that have experienced less severe genetic bottlenecks in similarly recent history. So, given that the Bible is correct and science is wrong I imagine that, should you or any of your dependents require an organ transplant, you will insist that no tissue typing need be done – it would be money and time wasted – or risk looking like both a hypocrite and/or someone of limited faith.
Hypothesis 2: That if we were to find an individual who lived before the flood and were able to genotype this individual their genome would be substantially different to that of modern humans.
We can predict this because we know the current rate of genetic mutation in Homo sapiens is approximately 1 in every 10 billion cells. The genome of each new born baby has something in the region of 100-130 mutations across their genome that don’t exist in either of the parents genomes (assuming a father of 30 years old at conception; the older the father, the higher the number of mutations). Given the current population of the world, this means that there is currently something of the order of 800 billion new mutations in each new generation. Now remember, it is a creationist canard that all of these mutations, without exception, are deleterious and add no new information to the genome.
Unfortunately for creationists we actually have an intact genome from someone who lived approximately 1000 years before the alleged genetic bottleneck of 8 individuals (Ötzi, the mummified male found in 1991 in the mountainous border of Austria and Italy). He was genotyped last year. This is a guy who must have lived only a few dozen generations away from Adam and Eve and so according to the creationist account he must have a ‘pure’ genome that has lost no information.
Except he doesn’t. Ötzi’s genome is remarkably similar to those of modern humans living in Sardinia and Corsica. No evidence for a relatively ‘undegenerated’ genome was found. Furthermore, a sample of his red blood cells, which were remarkably intact, were found to be identical to those of modern humans: had he been alive today he could have donated blood.
Furthermore, Ötzi suffered what we now label a rare genetic abnormality and had only 11 pairs of ribs. As his genome would have been ‘undegenerated’, we must surely assume that Adam and Eve also had only 11 pairs of ribs. So how is it that the vast majority of humans alive today have 12 pairs of ribs? This fact directly contradicts one of the strongest creationist claims: that no new information can be added to genomes.
You will probably claim that Ötzi was much younger than claimed and the dating is wrong. If so, think about this. Ötzi lived well within the half-life of C-14 and even creationists accept that C-14 dating is accurate at this timescale – of course they have to – I’m always amused when I hear creationists deny the accuracy of C-14 dating then proceed to insist on the authenticity of some Old Testament era papyrus whose age has been ascertained by C-14 dating. Ötzi’s dating has also been corroborated by the pollen found on him and by his tools and clothing.
Hypothesis 3: If all mutations are deleterious and no new information can be added to the genome we would not expect to find, within the creationist timeframe, any changes in the genome that would infer some evolutionary advantage on the individual.
It doesn’t take a mathematician to realise that, even with a starting population of eight as little as 4000 years ago, our mutation rates would have rendered our species extinct. Except we aren’t, for the simple reason that while some mutations are indeed deleterious (though if enough deleterious mutations accumulate in an organism, that organism will likely die before reproducing), most have a neutral effect while rare mutations can even be beneficial. Examples of beneficial mutations are Apo-AIM (which reduces cardiovascular disease risk), LRP5 (increased bone density and strength), HbC (one copy results in a 29% reduction in susceptibility to contracting malaria; two copies a 93% reduction, both without risk of sickle-cell anaemia) and a mutation in LCT (allowing the digestion of milk after weaning). Another creationist canard is that there are no non-functional regions of the human genome. However, the fact that we are able to absorb this level of deleterious mutations at all without staggeringly high levels of phenotypic damage is due to the fact that the majority of our genome is non-functional, having been inherited from myriad ancestor species. And please don’t mention the ENCODE fiasco, it’s just embarrassing to your cause.
Hypothesis 4: We could not possibly have achieved the current world population from a starting point of 8 people, 4000 years ago.
This can be addressed in two ways, using genetics or using population growth calculations. I’ll start with some example genetics.
The DRB1 gene has 59 alleles and the chimpanzee homologue has 32. This level of genetic diversity could only have developed with a minimum human population of approximately 4000 synchronously reproducing individuals, suggesting a population bottleneck that could not possibly have been any lower than 15,000-20,000 individuals since the genus Homo split from the larger ape family approximately 6-7 million years ago and certainly not within the past few thousand years. By the way, this research was conducted by a Christian.
The HLA-A gene located on human chromosome 6p, has 673 alleles. After the flood the maximum number of HLA-A alleles possible would have been ten (i.e., two each from Noah, his wife and their sons’ three wives – we cannot add the alleles from Noah’s sons as they were inherited from their parents). This figure assumes that all were heterozygous for that gene which is by no means certain. It is possible, though statistically highly unlikely to the point of impossibility, that each of Noah’s sons carried mutations for the HLA-A gene, in which case the number of alleles would be a maximum of sixteen. It is biologically impossible for these initial ten alleles on a single gene to reach 673 in around 4000 years without the species incurring mutation rates in every generation so large as to make the species non-viable.
If you choose to ignore the genetic evidence it is certainly possible to accumulate a population of 6 billion from an initial population of 8 in 4000 years. No-one disputes that. But, to achieve this, whether you work forwards from the initial eight or work backwards from the current population, creationists make one mighty big erroneous assumption: that the human population has always experienced a steady rate of births over deaths and therefore exponential population growth has always been the case and is not a recent phenomenon. Yet we have plenty of written records that this isn’t so. For example, an almost complete record of burials and baptisms is available to us from the parish of St. Botolph in London. These reveal that in the years 1558-1625 AD the death rate was consistently slightly higher than the birth rate and in four of those years, 1563, 1593, 1603 and 1625, the death rate was very significantly higher. Similarly, the overall population of Europe is estimated to have decreased by 10% within two years in the famine of 1315-1317 and again by as much as 30-60% (estimated to be in the region of 100 million people), in the space of seven years, four decades later during the Black Death. And these are just sample stats from a small geographical area where natural disasters didn’t occur. Worldwide, the notion of a continuous exponential rate of growth over the past 4000 years simply doesn’t add up. The population of the British Isles, for example, is calculated to have remained constant at around 5 million between 1000 AD – 1750 AD. Exponential growth has only occurred there since the early 1800s.
Even if you choose to ignore the population stats and still claim an unwavering exponential growth rate creationists are still left with an insurmountable problem. Take a look at Henry Morris’s own calculations based on a starting date of 2026 BC (exactly 4000 years before the time of his writing in 1974). Here, he conservatively assumed two initial people, 40 years per generation and 2.46 children per couple. His calculations are actually pretty accurate in terms of his estimates for the mid-20th century. But look a little closer. in 1491 BC Moses allegedly led the Exodus from Egypt (having been there for 215, 400 or 430 years according to which Bible interpretation you accept). At that time the population of Egypt is reliably estimated by real historians to have been in the region of 3-3.5 million. If the population of the world started at 8 people less than a thousand years earlier this population would be vastly overstated – the population of the world (never mind just Egypt) would have been considerably lower. The Bible, however, states the Exodus was of 600,000 adult men. Assuming a male to female ratio of 50:50, that’s a whole 1.2 million people, not including any children. That means that, at the very minimum, a third of the Egyptian population supposedly got up and left and walked into the Sinai No wonder, despite detailed records, there is no Egyptian record of this ever happening, no written historical evidence outside the Old Testament and no archaeological evidence whatsoever to support the event.
Simlarly, there are continuous written records from a number of civilisations around the world such as the Minoan, Egyptian, the Indus Valley cities of Mohendaro and Harrapa, as well as the Chinese Yaou Dynasty, which cover the entire time-frame of the alleged flood. How is this possible? And who was it who built these civilisations if only several hundred years earlier the world had a population of 8 people?
Now, imagine if you will, someone who had never had any religious or scientific education (but was otherwise intelligent), and had never heard of creationism or cosmology or evolution, knew nothing of history etc. Two people approach. Both are given equal amounts of time to present the evidence for their competing theories. The first person describes creationism, the methods used to investigate creationism and the evidence in it’s favour. The second then describes physics, biology, history, cosmology, evolution etc, the methods used to investigate these fields and the evidence in favour.
Be honest: Which explanation would sound more realistic and which the more mythical?
Before finishing I’d like to comment on your claim that extinct dinosaurs lived alongside humans. It’s a personal experience of how creationists operate. On October 14th 2011 on the Creation Today Show (video is on youtube) Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor made the following claim (verbatim):
“Even as recently as two hundred years ago, there’s an account of a civil war battle, sorry I should make clear, English Civil War, not the American Civil War, the English Civil War battle, the battle of St Fagans, which although is in the English Civil war actually took place in Wales. And after the battle in which there were a lot of people dead on the battlefield, there are some eyewitnesses who wrote about it at the time, who reckon that this large huge bird without feathers, this dragon type thing, swooped over the battlefield and was sort of, it was obviously a carrion eating thing, it was having it’s fill of dead bodies, a rather gruesome story but the description sounds very like a pterodactyl type”.
I used to work in Cardiff which is 12 km from St Fagan’s. I know the village of St Fagans so I was interested in this story from an historical point of view. I knew people who lived in St Fagans so I asked them about the story. Never heard of it. Not taught in the local primary school. I then worked at Cardiff University so I emailed a lecturer in Welsh History. He too had never heard the story. I searched the catalogue at the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth. No documentation exists. The National Museum of Wales has a very large open-air facility at St. Fagans, including a completely rebuilt traditional Welsh village with exhibits pertaining to Welsh life over the centuries. On display are skeletons, cannon balls, musket balls, pykes and buttons found on the battle site. I asked them about the pterodactyl story. They were amused. I then searched several UK folklore archives and found nothing.
The story is not true, not even a legend. Eric Hovind and Paul Taylor were outright lying to their audience. If they actually had evidence that extinct dinosaurs lived alongside human beings in comparatively recent memory they would surely present such evidence. Why would they need to tell an outright lie? And do you realistically think this is the only time Hovind has ever done this, and it just happens to be on this one occasion that he’s been caught out? I very much doubt it.
Lying outright is something we have come to expect from creationists. On a par with “The has never been a case where a mutation has been proven to add new information to the genome” (polyploidy, anyone?).
Anyway, I’ll end with a couple of quotes which characterise the difference between your view and those of us you’ve been debating with. The first is from Paul Taylor:
“………scientific models, while helpful, must never take the place of scripture. The scientific model can be superseded. Scripture cannot”.
The second is from Isaac Asimov:
“So the universe is not quite as you thought it was? You’d better rearrange your beliefs then. Because you certainly can’t rearrange the universe.”
I’ll leave it to those reading this thread to decide which of the arguments are the more reasonable and which of those quotes is the more reasonable, the more realistic, and above all, the more honest approach to understanding our universe.
I wish I’d written that.
Pingback: William Lane Craig’s eight Special-Pleading arguments for God’s existence | coelsblog
By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.
So for the ungodly who wants to remain in his or her sin – God will be your judge.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Creation-accounts.html#ixzz2qZrPc5pd
The Guyzer – I enjoyed reading your comments – I would like to know to the ones that disregard the Bible – how’s your life? Kids respectful, marriage strong? inner peace? joy? love? Probably not happening for you because we know what the religion of evolution produces!
Much of Europe “disregards the Bible” and accepts science these days, and overall is less socially dysfunctional than much of religiose America.
I don’t know what the “religion of evolution” produces because I’m not aware of any such thing, but accepting science (including the well-established science of evolution) generally produces healthy people and healthy societies.
Well Rick, since it has been a while from the last time I saw any posts on this forum, I don’t recall exactly what I wrote, and I am not going to waste a bunch of time refreshing my memory, as it sounds like you have fully convinced yourself of your position anyway. In any case, my life is awesome. I have just finished creating a piece of software that does something people have been desperately trying to do for about 30 years, and I just signed a multi-million dollar licensing contract for it use in the financial sector. My kids are very respectful. My wife is amazing. She is very intelligent, and really hot. I don’t worry about anything. Life is just great all the way around for me. Really the only thing that concerns me is when I see people that have been so filled with false propaganda that they believe lies. But even that is not really enough to disrupt my peace, because in the end, my only responsibility was to tell the truth to them, which I have done. As of right now, my primary concern, which I have been spending a great deal of time thinking about, is the many ways I can take some of this money I am receiving and help other people. I am pretty excited about it.
Cheers!
Pingback: The multiverse as a scientific concept | coelsblog
Great post. Here’s another flaw that these people often overlook (though one that isn’t as ‘fundamental’ as the ones you’ve listed here):
A questionable and implicit assumption of theirs is that the ‘constants’ of the universe can only be changed one at a time, as when, for example, Craig stands up in front of audiences and tells them that if only one of the constants had been slightly off what it is now, then the universe could not have formed and therefore produced life. But as Victor Stenger and others have noted, there’s no logical reason to do this; we might as well assume instead that multiple constants can be changed simultaneously, especially if they’re high interrelated with one another (such that changing one will automatically change another). Secondly, and related to this, we can envisage that there are many COMBINATIONS of such values that will lead to similar outcomes (a universe largely like the one we observe, with stable stars that can produce heavy elements) or to universes in which some kind of life is possible. Of course, the fine-tuning proponents will then complain that we don’t know of any mechanism that can do this, but will then conveniently forget that their ‘immaterial’ God provides nothing of the kind either, and that the onus is on THEM to DEMONSTRATE that natural processes CAN’T produce these effects.
Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
“Non-intelligent processes could only produce the former. Thus, the fact that the universe appears to be “fine tuned” to produce its inhabitants is a direct prediction of atheism, but not of theism.”
Very true. An intelligent designer could design cars with square wheels, an omnipotent God could create cars with square wheels that can even drive around.
A terribly idiotic, biased and delusional article. What is true in an universal sense or that matters to the Universe? How can something matter to ‘the Universe’? How does that make any sense at all? And what is making the concept of making sense and the Universe itself other than a man-made concept, at least the way we think about them?
And the fine-tuned argument isn’t because we’re special (we are, now you’ll see why), it’s because our chances of existing are 1 in 10^40000 and that’s such a ridiculously small number even with the Universe being huge that it’s infinitesimally impossible in a random, non-guided Universe for me to be here writing this comment.
“our chances of existing are 1 in 10^40000 and that’s such a ridiculously small number even with the Universe being huge that it’s infinitesimally impossible in a random, non-guided Universe for me to be here writing this comment.”
You pulled that number out of your ass. Also, note how you introduce the vulgarized notion of “random, non-guided universe”, as though matter can only behave “randomly” and as though physical regularities and processes don’t occur.
It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?
Hello,
I’m working on a theory for some time in trying to combine science with religion, looking for an answer to the question “What is the purpose of life in Creation?” Finally thanks to science and space exploration in the universe, we got all to agree on the fact that we are not the only planet that is hosting life. Einstein studied very much the universe, we know it all and came to the conclusion that it is too big and too complex, not be governed by something like a higher energy “From nothing you can not can do anything he was saying” Big Bang could not create from nothing so simply out of nowhere and give rise to a complex mechanism so full of laws that creates (suns, planets, solar systems etc etc)In my opinion something above our understanding govern, lead, use, observe the universe,So helped by logic I suppose that we have solved one of the mysteries of mankind.
Of course, as in any mechanism at some point unpredictable errors may occur. From here starts a series of questions more or less strange ..
It is possible that life to be just an error in our Universe?
The existence of life be allowed, because we can not affect, interact with the true purpose of the universe?In conclusion we feed from details provided by religion,religious books etc Living just a big illusion, (Heaven, hell, afterlife, judgment day etc) ?? When the Great Architect actually has nothing to do with us?I ask you now, there is perfection? Universe,Creation itself is perfect?
If yes, then my theory is wrong.
Or He sent (prophets like Abraham, Solomon, Jesus, Mohammed, etc.) on all habitable planets in the entire universe possible multiverse?From here another series of questions that lead always other and other questions.
I look forward to your opinion,thank you in advance for your help.