Jump to content
Uber Genius

Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality....

I accept that A model that discards mutation is possible. I just don’t see value in a model that differs from reality

In our conversation, no one has presented a model that “discards mutation”. That idea stems from your odd understanding of the words necessary, required and could. These words deal with logical limitations of the model, not what the model actually claims.

The reason it is important to note that my model doesn't require mutations for diversity is because secular estimates of mutation rates are based on the idea that all diversity is ultimately a result of mutation - but since my model claims most diversity existed at the creation (i.e. apart from mutations), those secular estimations are meaningless from the perspective of my model. Earlier in the conversion, you were trying to apply the secular mutation estimates to my model – an approach which lacks logical consistency.

 

Why would that not be a logical conclusion? Since you accept Jeanson’s model of heterozygosity + recombination + mutation = level of diversity we now observe, then subtraction of any one of these factors would result in reduction of diversity. I realize that it isn’t simple arithmetic, but it seems like a rather simple conclusion to me

I didn't claim it's not “logical”. You made a truth claim which is, in my opinion, over-simplistic. If you take out mutations, you take out a lot of diseases that could influence the survival of species. For example, if a predator survives, the prey species might be driven further abroad; thereby providing increased opportunities for diversity to arise. The predators might follow, providing the same opportunities for diversity to them. It's just not something that can be predicted.

 

Do you think heterozygosity and recombination were essential, but for some reason, mutation was not?

Do you mean logically “essential” for broad diversity? Because again, this is a question about what is logically possible, not about what actually happened.

 

I don’t see how this is related to your conclusion that mutations aren’t necessary. To me, the rapid diversification only supports the necessity of mutations

Except we understand, as a matter of fairly common knowledge, how the breeds were derived. Pups with desired characteristics were interbred over generations until most of the genetic diversity was bred out. The diversity did not come from mutations adding differences to each lineage. The desired characteristics were there at the start of the process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 12:44 PM, Uber Genius said:

Now before someone has a TIA, I'm a theist. But I also abhor bad arguments and misrepresentations of scripture, and science. 

 

In 2001 or 2002 I was invited by a Christian friend to see a presentation by an Aussie named Ken Ham. It was not just eye-opening, but a jaw-dropping experience.

I listened for an hour to claims about scripture which were not supported historically or from scripture. But more disturbing was the misrepresentation about scientific claims, scientific knowledge, and how one should approach these discussions with "skeptics."

Now have no intention of being drawn into debates about young-earth vs. old-earth theories, or detailed entailment so of "How God created." My primary concern is to highlight bad arguments coming from Ham and his ministry. My hope is that I can dissuade theists from using such constructions in favor of sound and compelling rational arguments. 

Now Ham has changed some of his approach in the last 15 years so my notes may no longer be representative of his views.

1 - Evolution and the Big Bang Model of cosmology are just "Theories!"

Now if you have read some of my other, "Tricks," treads you will be familiar with this informal fallacy...equivocation.

The Oxford dictionary defines the word "Equivocation," as, "The use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself."

This equivocation is always meant to deceive. But it only deceives the uneducated and those to lazy to do the research.

"Theory" in scientific parlance means an inductive inference about the data that has withstood the test of time, hundreds or thousands of confirmatory experiments, and is accepted by all the experts as knowledge.

In common usage it is equivocal to a hypothesis. That is a inference that explains data.

The trick Ham wants you to miss is he is substituting common usage for scientific usage. Just the way new atheists often want to misrepresent atheism as lack of belief or faith as a way of knowing. If we doesn't pay attention to the fact that "atheism" and "faith" have specific meanings in the fields of philosophy and theology respectively, we can be dragged into equivocations meant to misguide and conflate, with statements like, "common usage is ..."

2 - "We're you there?"

Here we find the most damning argument against Ham and his methodology. After Ham's presentation a student asked the question, "How do you account for all the dinosaur fossils that are millions of years old." Without missing a beat Ham responded, "We're you there?" 

His point was to create skepticism about scientific findings unless we had first-hand knowledge of the events.

I decided not to embarrass the fellow. But I did ask him after the talk how he demonstrated the validity of the historical info about Jesus' death and resurrection. He blurted out a bunch of one-liners, to which I responded, "We're you there?" Puzzled, he hesitated and then kept giving me evidence as if he had deleted the cognitively dissonant revelation altogether.

Point is Ham's epistemic approach destroys all scientific and historical knowledge. In fact legal knowledge is greatly injured as well as no one on a jury could every "know' something based on eye-witness testimony.

Ham is perhaps the Christian equivalent of the plethora of Internet infidels found out on places like YouTube. This is a step below the new atheists in that they are unaware of historic claims, and philosophical claims, and logic in general. Both appeal to a poorly educated audiences focusing on rhetorical flourish alone. (P.S. I have relatives that fall for this Answers in Genesis propaganda)

Please share other theistic tricks you have run into.

However, beware not to regurgitate internet infidel propaganda mindlessly. They create straw men of theistic arguments and attack those as "fallacious." 

Straw arguments always make poor substitutes for real ones.

Evolution is filled with double-speak jargon that even evolutionists have a hard time keeping straight. But the point is, the scriptures say there were two people, Adam and Chavah (aka Eve), they sinned and died. Their sin is passed down to all after them, save One. That sin required Jesus to come and die in our place. Without a real Adam and a real Chavah, then there is no need of Jesus. That's the issue with a false belief in evolution. Simple. No debate on the scientific matter, but where it belongs, in facts from the scriptures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

But the point is, the scriptures say there were two people, Adam and Chavah (aka Eve), they sinned and died. Their sin is passed down to all after them, save One. That sin required Jesus to come and die in our place. Without a real Adam and a real Chavah, then there is no need of Jesus. That's the issue with a false belief in evolution.

Although many people believe that evolution automatically precludes the existence of Adam and Eve, that is not necessarily the case. This linked article is somewhat long, but what you read there may surprise you.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Although many people believe that evolution automatically precludes the existence of Adam and Eve, that is not necessarily the case. This linked article is somewhat long, but what you read there may surprise you.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2017/06/a-genealogical-adam-and-eve-in-evolution/

BioLogos is another Christian organization that has many articles related to theistic evolution from historical, scientific and theological perspectives if people want to check that out. Members include Francis Collins, world renown geneticist from the human genome project, theologian and historian NT Wright and many more.   

  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ByFaithAlone said:

BioLogos is another Christian organization that has many articles related to theistic evolution from historical, scientific and theological perspectives if people want to check that out. Members include Francis Collins, world renown geneticist from the human genome project, theologian and historian NT Wright and many more.   

I was at a BioLogos conference in Houston about 2 years ago. Both Francis Collins and NT Wright were there for the first night. In addition to their many other talents, both are musicians and played a couple of entertaining songs together - it was a great evening! Collins hasn't been able to do anything officially with BioLogos for the last several years due to his position as head of the NIH, but he certainly added a considerable amount of cache to the organization. I'm much more of a scientist than a theologian, but I imagine NT Wright has also added considerable cache in his area of influence.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Loved it! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of good discussion to be had on all sides. 

What would the original audiences understand the text of Gen 1 to mean?

Were Adam And Eve literal of figurative?

Can neodarwinian evolutionary theory account for the enormous creation of information found in the first life ex nihilo?

Can neodarwinian evolution even account for the creation of new body plans?

Once we eliminate rhetorical tricks, bad exegesis, false scientific claims we are still left with a wide range of conclusions it seems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very astute observation about the wide range of the term “theory” when applied to the narrow knowledge area of science. We can be much more fine-grained in our assessments it seems. So while all agree with descent with modification we don’t all agree on common ancestry. While all would agree with the data of oscillating evolution within species such as the Galapagos finches beaks that skirts the point that for neodarwinian to be supported one must show directional not oscillating evolution.

There are countless rhetorical tricks. One must do some study of philosophy of science to separate  the religious aspects of evolution from the science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I started this topic I suggested that the focus be limited to rhetorical tricks not YEC vs OEC vs NDEvolution.

We find 10s of thousands of conversations on the internet about the latter and next to none about the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×