Creationism and the Darwinian Theator of the Mind

Bonky · December 2, 2016

On 11/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, thilipsis said:

I would start with the cranial capacity of 340 cc, clearly not in the Hominid range. Then there is the wave after wave of controversy surronding the skull from it's first discovery:

"an examination of the casts... will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous. 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, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine)

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.

On 11/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, thilipsis said:

To a more convoluted discussion and controversy that rages in more modern times:

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)

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

On 11/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, thilipsis said:

That's not so much, l realize that controversy is part of paleontology and there are going to be questions regarding comparative anatomy. It the place in history that the Taung Child represents and the obvious motives to scramble for a viable transitional to replace the Piltdown hoax:

The turning point in the acceptance of Dart's analysis of the Taung Child came in 1947, when the prominent British anthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark announced that he supported it. Le Gros Clark, who would also play an important role in exposing the Piltdown fraud in 1953, visited Johannesburg in late 1946 to study Dart's Taung skull and Broom's adult fossils with the intention of proving that they were only apes. But after two weeks of studies and after visiting the caves where Broom had found his fossils – the Taung cave had been destroyed by miners soon after the discovery of the Taung skull – Le Gros Clark became convinced that "Dart and Broom were essentially right in their assessment of the significance of the australopithecines as the probable precursors of more advanced types of [humans]." 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)

So Le Gros Clark helps to expose the Piltdown hoax and then becomes instrumental in elevating the Taung Child to the status of Hominid. The Piltdown hoax now being exposed they turned to the only alternative they had, the Taung Child, that they were working to dismiss. Then in a dramatic reversal two key people; Keith and Le Gros Clark flip and it wasn't very long before Keith's apprentice, Louis Leaky would publish the 'Latest New From Oldovia Gorge' dismissing the Cerebral Rubicon, the cranial capacity that had previously been the stopping point for inclusion into the genus Homo. The myth of the stone age handyman 'Homo habilis' was born.

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.

On 11/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, thilipsis said:

It would not be so bad if it were not so obvious. Not only is this evident and obvious in paleontology but it's readily apparent in comparative genomics. The inverse logic is intuitively obvious. Special creation remains the alternative explanation and no amount of rationalization can escape that.

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

On 11/26/2016 at 11:57 PM, thilipsis said:

What is much more important is we rely on scientists to tell us the truth regarding evidence and adjust their theories accordingly. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing is the evidence distorted. Feel free to prove me wrong and respond as you see fit. Ultimately I have this one confidence, the truth will prevail.

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.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bonky

Enoch2021 · December 2, 2016

1 hour ago, Bonky said:

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

Really?? How bout (Short List):

Reality, Matter, Information, Genetics, Biochemistry, All the Laws of Physics (QM) including the Laws of Thermodynamics, Functional Sequence Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Consciousness, Logic, Fine Tuning ...??

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

Quote

If you want to say their conclusions are wrong, all the more power to you.

We're not only saying but DEMONSTRATING that they're not only WRONG but... they're NOT "Scientists".

Quote

...but when they try to sell this conspiracy theory that scientists are a bunch of untrustworthy crooks THEY are the ones being dishonest.

You're kinda missing the "ACTUAL" Argument (Straw Man Fallacy). We're saying, and DEMONSTRATING, that they're NOT 'Scientists'.

and...

Conspiracy -- a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy

No, this never happens!! Just Thousands of Times each day EVERY DAY throughout the Entire History of the HUMAN RACE!!

Quote

No doubt there are bad scientists out there, no doubt scientists have been wrong.

There's also a METRIC TON (like 99.9999%) that call themselves --- and like to be called 'Scientists' ...that are NOT.

Quote

Having said that, science has shown me a lot more than religion has.

1. Science is NOT and ENTITY or a RESULT; it's merely a Method: The Scientific Method. It can't: "SHOW", run, say, jump, point to, do the Hokey Pokey or anything else because it's not ALIVE; Ergo...Reification Fallacy.

2. And you do follow a "Religion", your entire World-View is based on one...

Materialism/Realism/Methodological Naturalism/Material Reductionism (aka: Atheism) --- Is a "RELIGION". As a matter of fact, it's a Scientifically Falsified Religion, which we'll get to in a moment.

The quintessential tenet or sine qua non of 'Religion' is...Belief without Evidence.

Faith: "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." --- American Heritage Dictionary, 1991, p. 486

The OBJECT of this Faith is irrelevant...deity, rocks, earth, wind, fire, ect. So...

Atheism -- a positive claim concerning the lack of belief in the existence of a Deity.

By virtue of this stance --- and since there are only Two Choices (True Dichotomy) for HOW we are here:

Unguided -- Nature (Matter) or Guided --- Intelligent Design (God)

Therefore, The Atheist's "Creator" MUST BE.... "Matter".

So let's get to "cases" shall we ?? ...

P1: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics ("Pillar of Science") states that: Nature/Natural Phenomena CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.

P2: The Universe had a Beginning --- SEE the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ("Pillar of Science").

C: So since there: was a Cosmic Beginning, and Matter/Energy can't Create Itself ---and Matter EXISTS, then something else not bound to Universal Laws Created Matter/Energy.

But the Materialist/Atheist's conclusions MUST BE, either:

C1: Matter/Energy Created itself... Direct Violation of 1LOT (and Ground Squirrel Level Logic) Or

C2: Matter/Energy Existed Forever... Direct Violation of 2LOT.

So for the Materialist to remain consistent with the principles of their World-View, they are FORCED to DISMISS as FALSE The Laws of Thermodynamics ("Pillars of Science")!!!

And I thought Atheist's clung to "Science" as their White Knight??

If you think that's Science and Logic denying Absurdity, you ain't seen nothin yet...

Materialism/Realism (Atheism's) Entire 'Religious' Foundation holds, with a Kung Fu Death Grip --- that Matter exists INDEPENDENT of Perception/Consciousness.

Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics, per adventure?? You know, the most Experimentally Verified/Validated field of "Actual" Science in the history of man? The same that has sent Materialism/Realism (Atheism) into the Incoherent Oblivion?? ...

Cause Ahhh, you kinda have some BIG Problems: Namely, being in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Literally Thousands of EXPERIMENTS (REAL "SCIENCE") !!!!!!!

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness

[ Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism ] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."---

Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf

THEREFORE...

In order for " MATTER " to Exist, there MUST BE A

" KNOWER " .... FIRST !!!

Have you seen these, Mr Science (??)...

1. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5.

The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior when the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. (SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005, Xiao-song Ma et al 2013).

http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf

In conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates:

a. Knowledge (Knowing) the "which-path information" alone causes Wave Function Collapse.

b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.

c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Time and Space have NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics.

2. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.

The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again).

"The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."

[**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]

"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/

3. The Outcome Observed Reality depends on the Measurements @ that time and can't be predicted prior to that.

Confirmed by Validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem:

Lapkiewicz, R; Zeilinger, A: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system: Nature, 474, 490–493, June 2011.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10119.html

Speaking to this experiment in...

Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it/

(See Parent Paper in 'Nature' above)...

“There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,” Zeilinger concludes."

"Kochen, now at Princeton University in New Jersey, is also happy. “Almost a half century after Specker and I proved our theorem, which was based on a [thought] experiment, real experiments now confirm our result,” he says.'

Steinberg [Quantum Physicist] is impressed: “This is a beautiful experiment.” If previous experiments testing entanglement shut the door on hidden variables theories, the latest work seals it tight. “It appears that you can’t even conceive of a theory where specific observables would have definite values that are independent of the other things you measure,” adds Steinberg.

Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011.

That Echo's from...

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts."

Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160

“The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”

Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

4. Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007): An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875. ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html )

In this Landmark Paper, the authors violate both Bell's Inequality (again) and Leggett's Inequality revealing that the concept of locality is not consistent with Quantum Experiments and that intuitive features of Realism should be abandoned.

Physicsworld April 20 2007, speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’ New Scientist 'Reality Check' 23 June 2007..."There is no objective reality beyond what we observe".

5. Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.

"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.html

6. Hensen, B et al. (2015): Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686, doi:10.1038/nature15759

"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism for the 1875th TIME!!!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html

Got another ~ 1875 Experiments that support these conclusions, Without Exception(!!) but they would be well beyond painfully redundant.

To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Materialism/Realism (Atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...

Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdf

A Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...

Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.

4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?

I'll monitor the Presses!!

So Far, to be an Atheist ("No God"), you MUST 'believe'...

The Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science" are False.
All Physical Laws (Quantum Mechanics) are False.

Law of Cause and Effect is Falsified. (What Science is FOUNDED UPON !!)
Something can come from Nothing, Naturally.

Does that sound "Scientific" to you?

Let's look @ a 3rd Grade Proof...

Atheism -- a positive claim concerning the lack of belief in the existence of a Deity.

So again, to be Atheistic towards an Intelligent Creator you Ipso Facto MUST BE Theistic towards " Matter ".

i.e.,

A. that the MATERIAL PHYSICAL World is all that EXISTS.

B. that the MATERIAL PHYSICAL World exists outside perception/consciousness. ( Falsified Above )

C. Matter created itself (it Pre-Existed before it Existed) and has volition. ( Falsified Above )

Do these Exist (??)...

TRUTH, Logic, INFORMATION, Time, THOUGHTS ....? These are... "IMMATERIAL".

To validate your World-View "Materialism", please provide the Chemical Structure/Charge/Mass/Momentum/Spin of Each...?

In an Atheistic (Materialist/Realist) World-View, how on Earth can the "IMMATERIAL" Exist without Violating the Law of Non-Contradiction...? i.e.,

How can the MATERIAL PHYSICAL World be all that EXISTS. AND... Have "IMMATERIAL" Exist ??

These (TRUTH, Logic, INFORMATION, Time, THOUGHTS) are by definition "Super-Natural"; so if you're an Atheist and you believe that these Exist, then you MUST BE a...

Supernatural Atheist

That'll give 'Married Bachelors' a run for their money !!

Essentially what you are doing, which is so incomprehensibly absurd:

You're adopting the CHRISTIAN World View by using IMMATERIAL (Thoughts, Truth, Logic, Information ) ... the very things your "Religion" MUST DENY, --- as the vehicle/medium to present evidence against the very thing you don't believe in.... "A CREATOR": The Christian World View!

It's tantamount to attempting to falsify air... all the while breathing in vast quantities to reach the Invalidation.

Logically, it's a Hammer meet c4 Fire scenario.

Every Atheist is a Pre-Suppositional Kleptomaniac !! Stop stealing then using OUR WORLD VIEW to feebly attempt to Falsify OUR WORLD VIEW !!!!

Quote

It's not perfect

It's NOT "Science".

Quote

but at least I can question it

Apparently (SEE: above), you haven't questioned much of anything.

Quote

put it on trial

The fiasco wouldn't make to the Courthouse Steps...semi-coherent 3rd graders have pummeled "Materialism" @ recess.

regards

Bonky · December 2, 2016

Enoch, since you know so much why aren't you out exposing scientists to be the miserable fools they are? Why are you wasting your time on a messageboard? It's easy to be tough behind a keyboard.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Bonky

Enoch2021 · December 2, 2016

17 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Enoch, since you know so much why aren't you out exposing scientists to be the miserable fools they are?

I have been, for years. And they're NOT Scientists.

Quote

Why are you wasting your time on a messageboard?

?? I'm Exposing 'Pseudo-Scientists'. Do I have to be on a certain "Special" media to EXPOSE them?

Quote

It's easy to be tough behind a keyboard.

Being Tough ?? How so?

I was attempting, IMHO quite successfully...to present sound Scientific Principles and Logical Reasoning.

Are these 'Procedural' appeals to my intent/purposes/motives (Fallacy) all you have in lieu of coherent 'Substantive' defense of your claims ??

regards

Edited December 2, 2016 by Enoch2021

Bonky · December 2, 2016

41 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I have been, for years. And they're NOT Scientists.

I mean when you're awake.

Have you engaged in any public debates?

43 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

I'm Exposing 'Pseudo-Scientists'. Do I have to be on a certain "Special" media to EXPOSE them?

What is an example of a proper scientist? What discoveries or insight did they offer us? An example or two would be fine.

44 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Being Tough ?? How so?

I was attempting, IMHO quite successfully...to present sound Scientific Principles and Logical Reasoning.

You presented a mish mash of ....I'm not sure what. If you notice the discussions I am active in, both parties are discussing a topic or two and actually engaging each other. Your responses are usually a giant copy paste routine that goes into 50 different directions. Not something that interests me in the slightest.

Enoch2021 · December 2, 2016

10 minutes ago, Bonky said:

Have you engaged in any public debates?

Yes, There's a few on You-Tube. I've challenged a few to a Public Debate (Lawrence Krauss, Dr. Danny Faulkner, Dr. Rob Carter) the last two I've had private debates with.

Quote

What is an example of a proper scientist?

One who follows The Scientific Method.

Quote

What discoveries or insight did they offer us? An example or two would be fine.

In order for " MATTER " to Exist, there MUST BE A

" KNOWER " .... FIRST !!!

Yes, it was in the "Mish-Mash" LOL...