Creationism and the Darwinian Theator of the Mind

[Bonky]

44 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I was going to respond to several of the posts in this thread until I came to the realization that you guys are WAY more informed on the subject than I!  ALL of you.  But I've enjoyed reading through the thread and I've learned things too so...good job.  If y'all can keep ME from challenging and arguing then my hat is off to you. 

For heavens sake join in, this thread could use another view. 

[Enoch2021]

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

My posts in this thread have been related to what thilipsis is bringing to the table.   Now look at what you're posting about and see how it relates...if at all.  

Who cares WHO you were talking to.  I took your claims to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned them Senseless and you hadn't a single coherent response to anything; save for silly frivolous appeals. 

Here's another one...

Quote

That sounds very trollish.  I have to admit, you are a little charming in a Donald Trump kind of way.  

 

Quote

You just proved my point.  I don't know where everything came from.  This is a strawman argument you're making and it's wasting our time.

This is to Straw Man as Hydrogen is Straw Man to Water.

The scary thing is, you really don't know what you 'believe'.   See if you can follow this...

You said:  "I'm not sure special creation explains much."

Well sir, you only have Two Choices for HOW we are here: Nature (Unguided) or God (Guided).  Ya see...

 

George Wald (Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology)...

 

“The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION  …Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.” {emphasis mine}

Wald, G., “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

http://www.academia.edu/2739607/Scientific_GOD_Journal

 

Let's break this down so you can see it...

 

P1: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation".  Nature (UnGuided)

 

"The Only alternative" ...

 

P2: "a single, primary act of supernatural creation."  God (Guided)

 

 

C1: True Dichotomy: Nature (UnGuided) vs. God (Guided); " THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION ".

 

Since you are of the position that Special Creation doesn't explain anything: THEN, Ipso Facto your choice is Nature (Unguided).  

 

Then I took your position here and your next comment :  "science has shown me a lot more than religion has"  to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned it Senseless with Illustrating and Demonstrating --- explicitly and in quite excruciating detail, via The Laws of Thermodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, and Common Sense...How you don't know what Science is,  How Actual "Science" has pummeled your position, and shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is you that adhere's to "Religion" and that YOUR Religion is Scientifically Falsified; whereby, imploding your clumsy False Dichotomy Fallacy (Science vs Religion). 

 

Quote

Aside from that, you seem to be addressing someone who demands that there is only the material, with no room for a creator.  This isn't me.

It is you, you just didn't know it until now (Look Up).

 

Quote

So when you make this lengthy posts talking about quantum mechanics this and that, who are you talking to?

You.  And I wasn't talking 'ABOUT' Quantum Mechanics; I was using the Validated Experimental Results from QM to pummel "Materialism" (Your "Religion").

 

Quote

It doesn't even relate to the thread!

Huh?? 

Sir how on earth can my posts discussing Creation and the Mysteries of Religion and Science not relate to what you said concerning "Creation", "Religion", and "Science" (??)...

"science has shown me a lot more than religion has."

"I'm not sure special creation explains much."

Did you not say these things??  And if they don't relate to the thread and it was YOU that first brought them up.... then ahhh, can you tell me who brought up UNRELATED topics to the thread ??

 

regards

[thilipsis]

14 hours ago, Bonky said:

It almost looks like you're helping me out here.  I said from the beginning that the scientific community did not jump on the bandwagon that this was any kind of missing link.   I'm also becoming very confused by your statements.  You seem to earlier claim this was just a chimp fossil and yet you say here "clearly not in the Hominid range"...a chimp is a HOMINID.

I agree that your confused but it seems it is due to the fact that you are misreading the quote:

First of all Keith is talking about the endocast of the Taung child, "an examination of the casts...", indicates the claim that this specimen being a human ancestor,  "will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous". Bear in mind this is the leading comparative anatomist of his time. He continues, "The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape... and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee", in other words it's the cast of an ape brain not a human descendent at all. Keith concludes, "that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine) 

It wouldn't be considered a human ancestor until it became increasingly obvious that Piltdown was a hoax. He was right, the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee, arguments to the contrary are still, 'preposterous'. 

As far as the term, 'Hominid', we are talking about an ancestral taxonomic category not a contemporary one. Expanding it to include gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans is a reference to a taxonomic category at the level of 'family' which includes all genus and species. Hominid is a reference to the genus 'Homo', in this context and I don't think I've been ambiguous on this fact. 

Quote

Which once again just shows that scientists aren't just marching lockstep.

Again I don't think you are paying much attention to the source material:

Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, noted that Dart had not fully considered certain apelike attributes for Taung.

    "In his 1925 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized".

    "Like humans, other primates go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

A couple of things here, first, 'the humanlike features were overemphasized' and Faulk points out, ", spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". This explains why the Taung Child can be explained as nothing more then an immature chimpanzee thus accounting for the seemingly bipedal forearm magnum. It's much more likely that the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee ancestor.  

Quote

Except for the FACT that the Piltdown hoax wasn't exposed until the 50's!!!   So it seems the chronology of the events don't support your assertion.  Even IF the chronology matched up you would still need to show some kind of evidence that there was a causal link between the two.  Otherwise you just have your opinion which doesn't tell me much.

Oh I think the evidence is more then supportive and the source material is sufficient to demonstrate exactly that. People knew the jawbone didn't belong with the skull and while Louis Leaky knew that it had not dawned on him it was a fabrication of a transitional. 

Quote

 

I'm not sure special creation explains much.  It attempts to answer a question, that I would agree.

It's the alternative explanation for the evidence. As late as 1946 Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was intent on proving the Taung Child was just an ape. 1947 was the first time a prominent academic even entertained the notion publicly and it turned into a complete reversal of all that had proceeded:

In early January 1947 at the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory, he was the first anthropologist of such stature to call the Taung Child a "hominid", that is, an early human. An anonymous article published in Nature on 15 February 1947 announced Le Gros Clark's conclusions to a wider public. On that day, Arthur Keith, who had been one of Dart's most virulent critics, composed a letter to the editor of Nature announcing that he supported Le Gros Clark's analysis: "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form [of Australopithecus] was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and the chimpanzee. I am now convinced ... that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong." As Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, "a prompter and more thorough capitulation could hardly be imagined." (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

The handwriting was on the wall, they were scrambling to find a replacement transitional and the solution would be that Taung would be promoted to the status of human ancestor and the Homo habilis followed in it's wake. 

Quote

You are making a claim of intentional misrepresentation and deception, you haven't supported that in the slightest.  If you want to say their conclusions are wrong, all the more power to you.  I don't mind at all that creationists have different views but when they try to sell this conspiracy theory that scientists are a bunch of untrustworthy crooks THEY are the ones being dishonest.  No doubt there are bad scientists out there, no doubt scientists have been wrong.   Having said that, science has shown me a lot more than religion has.  It's not perfect, but at least I can question it, put it on trial and criticize it w/o being told I'm a wicked person.

This isn't a conspiracy theory and I don't really care what their motive might have been. I see the fact that there are no recognized chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record but Taung Child should be. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, there are also the contrived tools of Homo habilis and the cerebral rubicon being removed as the cut of for the genus Homo. 

What is far more important is the genetic basis for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. This key line of evidence shows a growing body of research indicating highly conserved genes would have to undergo massive overhauls and some 60 de novo genes appearing out of nowhere but uniformly assumed is a symphony of illogic. What is at the heart of the controversy isn't science but the prevailing presuppositional bias against the inverse logic that remains intuitively obvious. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited December 3, 2016 by thilipsis

[thilipsis]

5 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I was going to respond to several of the posts in this thread until I came to the realization that you guys are WAY more informed on the subject than I!  ALL of you.  But I've enjoyed reading through the thread and I've learned things too so...good job.  If y'all can keep ME from challenging and arguing then my hat is off to you. 

Hey jump in any time, like Bonky said, a fresh perspective is always welcome. This stuff has so many twists and turns and the evidence seems to go on forever. The challenge isn't so much doing the reading and the research, it's a thankless time consuming task but that's not the hardest part. It's boiling it down to something conversational and substantive. If you could help us out with that it would be most welcome. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

[thilipsis]

8 hours ago, Bonky said:

Enoch I think you managed to copy and paste your defense of your copy/paste routine.  Well done.

BTW, if you ever debate Lawrence [or anyone really] publicly I'd love to know.  Also, the reason why I give you grief about your copy / paste routine is because the routine doesn't address me.   Also, rarely do your posts actually dive into what I'm responding to.   As other's have said, you don't really seem to be interested in dialogue, you seem interested in arguing.  Until you realize this and make some adjustments, you're going to continue to struggle to get anybody to take you serious.  

Yea I don't get it either. He has some interesting quotes if you can get through the formatting and the many tangents. I haven't had much luck but I never liked heavy semantics and rationalistic rhetoric much. Guess I never seen the benefit of it. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

[Enoch2021]

12 hours ago, thilipsis said:

Yea I don't get it either.

Yes, we know.

 

Quote

He has some interesting quotes if you can get through the formatting and the many tangents.

1.  They are CITATIONS, ya know... that SUPPORT thing.

2.  Appeal to Format: (Red Herring Fallacy)  

3.  Baseless 'bare' Assertion (Fallacy): "many tangents". 

 

Quote

I haven't had much luck...

Try a coherent argument, perhaps your 'luck' might change.

 

regards

[thilipsis]

6 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes, we know.

I suspect thats the point

Quote

 

1.  They are CITATIONS, ya know... that SUPPORT thing.

2.  Appeal to Format: (Red Herring Fallacy)  

3.  Baseless 'bare' Assertion (Fallacy): "many tangents". 

As far as I can tell you never read the opening post and this spam of definitions and fallacies, is classic, undiluted projection. You cite things, and there are some interesting quotes, but it bears relevance to nothing substantive. I have no reason to have you chase a red herring, the challenge with you is to get something on topic, which you haven't managed once, and bare assertion, seriously? Your whole argument is nothing more then on long ad hominem attack and as far as I can tell, it's the same one no matter who you respond to. 

Quote

 

Try a coherent argument, perhaps your 'luck' might change.

 

regards

I know what your doing and it has nothing to do with creation. This is nothing but one long ad hominem fallacy and as I predicted, you never recovered from it. You are fairly unique in one respect, you started right off with it, usually it's a downward spiral. Fallacious rhetoric is the bane of debate, it paralyzes the substance of the issues and polarizes normal rationality. What actually fascinates me, what may well have kept my interest all these years, is that there is someone like you in virtually every thread. I honestly don't know what your motive here is, but your arguments are fallacious, that much is obvious. 

Yet I'm curious, did you ever figure out the difference between an empirical theory and a unified theory. I doubt it but thought I would ask anyway.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited December 4, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

2 hours ago, thilipsis said:

As far as I can tell you never read the opening post

What method did you use to arrive @ your absolute speculation here: Crystal Ball, Dowsing Rods, Tea Leaves??  Other?

Let's TEST your Blind Conjecture Acumen:  What's My Favorite Color...?

 

Quote

this spam of definitions and fallacies, is classic, undiluted projection.

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x 2).  Support...?

 

Quote

You cite things, and there are some interesting quotes, but it bears relevance to nothing substantive.

Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.  Support...?

 

Quote

the challenge with you is to get something on topic, which you haven't managed once

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x 2).  Support...?

 

Quote

and bare assertion, seriously?

Yea, look up --and down and throughout this entire thread.  Are you attempting to celebrate the entire catalog?

 

Quote

Your whole argument is nothing more then on long ad hominem attack and as far as I can tell, it's the same one no matter who you respond to.

 Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x 2).  Support...?

 

Quote

I know what your doing 

How do you know what I'm doing ...is this another: Crystal Ball, Dowsing Rods, Tea Leaves, scenario ?

 

Quote

This is nothing but one long ad hominem fallacy and as I predicted

1.  Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.  Support...?

2. Define ad hominem Fallacy, CITE source...?

3. If it's a "Scientific Prediction", can you please post the 'Necessary' Antecedent...."Independent Variable" ??

 

Quote

You are fairly unique in one respect, you started right off with it, usually it's a downward spiral.

Your attention to excruciating detail is OCD like.

Generalized Baseless 'bare' ambiguous Assertion Fallacy.  Support...?

Ad Hominem Fallacy.

 

Quote

Fallacious rhetoric is the bane of debate

Undiluted Projection.

 

Quote

What actually fascinates me, what may well have kept my interest all these years, is that there is someone like you in virtually every thread.

How so...?

Implied, Ad Hominem Fallacy.

 

Quote

I honestly don't know what your motive here is

Appeal to Motive (Fallacy). 

 

Quote

but your arguments are fallacious, that much is obvious. 

Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy; this much is quite Obvious.

 

Quote

Yet I'm curious, did you ever figure out the difference between an empirical theory and a unified theory. I doubt it but thought I would ask anyway.

Did you ever figure out what the difference was between a Scientific Theory and a Colloquial 'theory' ??

Please CITE a Reference defining:

Empirical Theory...?

Unified Theory...?

 

regards

[thilipsis]

On 12/3/2016 at 10:04 PM, Enoch2021 said:

 

Did you ever figure out what the difference was between a Scientific Theory and a Colloquial 'theory' ??

Please CITE a Reference defining:

Empirical Theory...?

Unified Theory...?

I already did and you ignored it, that's on you. The only definition I need for an ad hominem is 'subject' your opponent, 'predicate' negative personal attacks. This exercise in illogical argumentation is devoid of substantive step wise logic. It's a fatally flawed line of reasoning that you seem determined to hold to regardless. That tells me all I need to know, it means you have nothing else. You don't really argue for Creationism, Theistic Evolution or even Darwinism, your focus is exclusively whoever posts something you want to make sport of. I think it's Poe's Law in action:

Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views. (Poe’s Law, Wikipedia)

Some people find it annoying but personally I think it reveals something about the poster when they resort to fallacious rhetoric to the exclusion of the actual substantive issues. Your actually conceding the point when resorting to this kind of illogical argumentation. Like I said, that's on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited December 5, 2016 by thilipsis
transcription errors

[Enoch2021]

16 hours ago, thilipsis said:

I already did and you ignored it, that's on you.

You didn't and your continued 'dodging' here, is testimony of it.

 

Quote

The only definition I need for an ad hominem is 'subject' your opponent, 'predicate' negative personal attacks.

Yes, that's correct in general, more specifically it's...

Ad Hominem (Fallacy) -- argumentum ad hominem ...

(also known as:  personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, needling [form of], refutation by character)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

 

You've been incessantly charging me with it without any warrant whatsoever for roughly 10 posts on this and other threads in lieu of coherent rebuttal to your trainwreck posts.

So, can you show me where the ad hominem Fallacy is, here: 

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468152  (where Ironically, I explained this same phenomena to you...and then you Appealed to Format  )

or here...

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468175

??

Both of these, I pummeled your arguments in excruciating detail; Whereby, falsifying your feeble ad hominem appeal/rescue device.

 

Ya see, when you make a "CLAIM" or a "CHARGE" you kinda have to "SUPPORT" it SPECIFICALLY relatively quickly or you run into The "Village Idiot on the Corner" Phenomena of spouting meaningless Baseless Assertion (Fallacies).

 

For Example: when you charge someone with robbing a bank, you kinda then have to @ least (Relatively Quickly):

1.  Identify the bank.

2.  Place them @ the Scene of the Crime.

3.  Show the missing money.

4.  Show the defendant with the money.  ect, ect.

Follow??

So provide the EVIDENCE supporting your CHARGE...?

 

Until then, you're Whistl'n Past The Graveyard of a simple Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.

 

regards

 

ps.  This is getting quite boring and puerile, so unless you can finally provide your Evidence in SUPPORT of your charge this is the end of the discussion.