[__ Science __ ] Dr. David Berlinski Refutes Evolution in Under 5 Minutes

[Jim Parker]

See here:

 

[Milk-Drops]

I was waiting for a refutation, but instead got a guy talking out of his bum. The genetics evidence, predictions in the fosil record, selection preasures, and homology alone kicks this guy's argument to the curb.

 

[Barbarian]

There's no magic bullet against science, is there?

 

[Barbarian]

 

[brother Paul]

I found some interesting points in the alleged Berlinski rebuttal. First off in his “faulty reasoning” judgment when he proposed B’s figurative example of a creature like a cow having to go through so many changes, he then allegedly settles it using an example of comparing them to fish (at least B’s were both mammals)...so he uses and applies as an alleged expert even more faulty reasoning.

Then in his parade of assumed predecessors he makes allusions based on topical similarities which could just as likely see design as a plausible explanation (not necessitating a lineal relationship)....he follows with a number of ASSUMPTIONS of semi or pseudo amphibious qualities (along with artistically contrived images that support his presentation...like the croc looking creature replete with amphibian looking skin) which is not remotely possible to know from bones of a creature dead for millions of years.

In his 1 over 800 scenario (B saying he stopped at about 50,000 changes does not mean there were not many more required but the rebutter spins it as if that is what he said) he makes the same “faulty reasoning” assumptions and then caps it off with the biggest hypothesis based interpretation ever...that of the ancestor of the gaps (UCA for cows and whales) which simply has never been demonstrated or observed for ANY creature (but is a presupposition that is used to shape the interpretation of the data).

Now I am not saying B was right and he was wrong but in doing this IMO he shows himself to be a clone for the theory that refuses to be open-minded to accept legitimate questions and rebuttals of his sacred cow presuppositions.

What is it called when we find a person “reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one's position, where proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.” Oh yeah, the no true Scotsman fallacy....in other words if B understood REAL science (which actually means if he would blindly submit to what these scientists say) THEN he would not hold this position. He obviously does not understand REAL science (er...ah...accept these presuppositions) therefore his reasoning is faulty at best.

 

[Barbarian]

Let's take a look at the numbers. Say for a population of 2,000 organisms, each with about 30 new mutations each (which is roughly the number you were born with. That means 60,000 mutations per generation.

Let's say only one percent are useful. That brings us down to 600 useful mutations per generation.

Let's say a generation is 20 years (which is a lot longer than it is for most ungulates).

Over 100,000 years, that's 5000 generations. So likely 3,000,000 useful mutations.

So Berlinski's reasoning fails for that, as well as for other reasons.

 

[Corn Pop]

I have a question for a atheist scientist.

What is the probability a planet come to be with the perfect environment for life from a random accident?.

I haven't finished, on top of that first random accident life somehow come to be in that perfect enviroment from another random accident.

 

[Jim Parker]

There's no magic bullet against science, is there?

No. There is not.
Neither is science the "magic bullet against the Bible."
The Bible is not a scientific or historical treatise. It is the revelation of God to man.
Man was given a brain and curiosity by the Creator. With those tools, mankind has been exploring the mysteries of God's creation and has discovered many facts. We have also formed many theories which are being pursued in order to be proven accurate or erroneous.
One of those theories is evolution. It has many shortcomings as well as many obviously accurate conclusions.
Nothing in the ToE can refute the revelation that God created everything.
As for the 6 day creation outlined in Genesis 1:1-2:3, I believe that is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduce "...the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," at Gen 2:4. It was standard literary practice of the ancient near/middle east, to introduce a narrative with a genealogy. In this case, that genealogy is the 6 days of creation.

IMO

iakov the fool

 

[Jim Parker]

Yeah. Everybody's got an opinion.

 

[Barbarian]

As for the 6 day creation outlined in Genesis 1:1-2:3, I believe that is the genealogy of the heavens and the earth which introduce "...the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," at Gen 2:4. It was standard literary practice of the ancient near/middle east, to introduce a narrative with a genealogy. In this case, that genealogy is the 6 days of creation.

The idea that it was just one day, ("in the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens") rather than six, misses the point. I'm pretty sure you know that, but a literal reading of the two chapters would have them in opposition to each other.

In fact, "Yom", which is what the Hebrew text says, can mean all sorts of things besides 24 hour days. So it's not explicit as to the actual time involved.

 

[Barbarian]

I have a question for a atheist scientist.

I don't know if we have any atheist scientists here. How about a scientist who is a Christian?

What is the probability a planet come to be with the perfect environment for life from a random accident?.

How about a whole universe from a random accident? Everything we see, is the result of God's creation. It's just that he used nature for most thing in this world.

I haven't finished, on top of that first random accident life somehow come to be in that perfect enviroment from another random accident.

From a Christian perspective, one would have to conclude that He made the world work as it does, to produce life. That's what Genesis says. Likewise, He made the rules by which this world works, so evolution is no accident, either.