Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,635
    Nope. Only yours.
    Again, no. You might be thinking of the Black Sea Deluge hypothesis - but that was one very small area of the world. NOT the entire world.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    I disagree with parts of what you said and agree with others.

    I for one would say that Pancakes and other things like them are definitely “designed”! They need an intelligently created specific recipe in order to create them and they would not exist without the creator, us.

    Please explain what instinct is precisely, it has always seemed a bit mysterious to me. Perhaps you can help?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Please explain why ancient Chinese Characters depict the Flood.

    https://www.icr.org/article/genesis-chinese-pictographs/

    Please explain why they would ever base their own historical Characters, there own ancient written language, on the made up fantasy stories of the Jews?

    I think they did it because they thought those stories were historically accurate.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Here is second lecture given by Harvard educated Scientist Dr. Kurt Wise for your review...



    Please just draw your own conclusions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php

    extract:
    There are, however, a few shining exceptions. Kurt Wise now makes his living at Bryan College (motto �Christ Above All�) located in Dayton, Tennessee, home of the famed Scopes trial. And yet, he originally obtained an authentic degree in geophysics from the University of Chicago, followed by a Ph.D. in geology from Harvard, no less, where he studied under (the name is milked for all it is worth in creationist propaganda) Stephen Jay Gould.

    Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, a compendium edited by John F. Ashton (Ph.D., of course). I recommend this book. It is a revelation. I would not have believed such wishful thinking and self-deception possible. At least some of the authors seem to be sincere, and they don�t water down their beliefs. Much of their fire is aimed at weaker brethren who think God works through evolution, or who clutch at the feeble hope that one �day� in Genesis might mean not twenty-four hours but a hundred million years. These are hard-core �young earth creationists� who believe that the universe and all of life came into existence within one week, less than 10,000 years ago. And Wise�flying valiantly in the face of reason, evidence, and education�is among them. If there were a prize for Virtuoso Believing (it is surely only a matter of time before the Templeton Foundation awards one) Kurt Wise, B.A. (Chicago), Ph.D. (Harvard), would have to be a prime candidate.

    Wise stands out among young earth creationists not only for his impeccable education, but because he displays a modicum of scientific honesty and integrity. I have seen a published letter in which he comments on alleged �human bones� in Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these �bones� would blow the theory of evolution out of the water (incidentally giving lie to the canard that evolution is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific: J. B. S. Haldane, asked by an overzealous Popperian what empirical finding might falsify evolution, famously growled, �Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!�). Most creationists would not go out of their way to debunk a promising story of human remains in the Pennsylvanian Coal Measures. Yet Wise patiently and seriously examined the specimens as a trained paleontologist, and concluded unequivocally that they were �inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all.� Unusually among the motley denizens of the �big tent� of creationism and intelligent design, he seems to accept that God needs no help from false witness.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    From previous link:
    Concluding paragraph...............................

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Seems like something from a comic festival.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Wow, Thanks!!!

    Great Testimony to his credentials, and character and so much more. The guy is even better than I thought he might be.

    Thanks for the encouragement!!!

    But Ultimately it still must come down to his arguments not his amazing credentials.

    And each person must evaluate his arguments for themselves. The arguments either stand or fall on their own, regardless of his beliefs. Everyone has bias!

    So please just do that if you wish, or don’t if you wish.

    Your free choice!
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Your pretentious frivolity fools no one.
    Yep, he rejects science [his own words] in favour of some obscure mythical book, written by obscure men, in an obscure age.
     
  13. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes, all humans have bias!

    But, what do you find wrong in his arguments?

    I gave you two lectures, you can review, if you wish.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  14. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Are you guys really against freedom of thought, against freedom of investigation, and against the freedom for each person to draw their own conclusions?

    It sometimes appears so.

    And/Or...

    Are you guys really falling for the same kind of Authoritarian Dogmatism you hated in the Church, but are now just replacing it with the Authoritarian Dogmatism found in Science?

    Sometimes it looks like that as well.

    Come on guys, we all have to be better than either of these!

    Right?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  15. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    1. Analytical thought that is not based on a analytical knowledge is wasted (aka GIGO).
    2. You're not investigating; you're simply regurgitating stuff you've read.
    3. No one is denying you freedom of thought. Freedom of thought does not have anything to do with being right, or being knowledgeable.
    4. The fact that you would make a silly post about 'freedom of thought' is a strong indicator that you have a poor grasp of how analysis works.
    As always, the onus is not on us. Centuries of work has been done to show claims such as yours don't hold water. If you want to claim you've got a better idea, the onus is on you to make your case, and overthrow centuries of evidence. You haven't.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Humans may have bias, science does not.
    He rejects science, and as a consequence, evidence and observational and experimental data.
     
  17. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    So, have you listened to both lectures, and found specific problems with his arguments? If so, what are the problems with his arguments?

    Or,

    Have you pre-judged him from personal bias, without investigating his claims and arguments in any serious manner?

    I really don’t know, so I am just asking?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  18. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    All Scientists, including him, have bias.

    He is a Scientist, and I would bet that if you asked him, he would say that he in no way rejects either Science or the Scientific Method.

    Again, what is wrong with his arguments?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2020
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Comprehension problem? again, humans. even scientists can have bias, the science discipline does not
    From his own mouth....
    https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php
    "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand"
    See any of the links I have given.
    NB: I, like you, do not have the expertise or qualifications to critique his faulty arguments...hence the reputable links..
     
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Let’s add another one just for fun...

    Are you guys falling for the logical fallacy that the majority Scientific opinion is always right?

    Because that one is another really big potential problem! And has historically been proven to be wrong over and over again!

    That also appears to be the case at times here as well.

    Hopefully we are all better than that one as well.

    At least I hope we are?
     
  21. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    On what basis do you choose which side of a Scientific “in-house disagreement” is correct?

    Since you apparently don’t think you have the ability to decide for yourself? I think you do have that ability, by the way.

    The “Majority Rules” Fallacy?
     
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    How about you knock off the gaslighting and just concentrate on making your case.
     
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    Yes the Data is certainly the same, but that Data is obviously interpreted through the Biases of the Scientists currently living.

    That is exactly your claim against Dr. Kurt Wise.

    I am agreeing with your point, but just extending your point and applying it to all Scientists, where it truly belongs.
     

Share This Page