[__ Science __ ] Study: Only 37% of American Pastors Have a Biblical Worldview

[Barbarian]

Darwinist assertion #2: "There is evidence that humans are descended from non-humans."

What "evidence" do you have for this second assertion of yours, professional Darwinist? You are asserting Darwinist assertion #2. What "evidence" do you have for Darwinist assertion #2?

Let's ask YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise:
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Creation.com
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early
bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Genetics:
Genetically, we and chimpanzees are more closely related than either of us is related to any other organisms.

And we know this works, because we can use it to compare organisms of known descent.

The vast number of fossil hominids, with features transitional between forest apes and humans:

And a lot more. Would you like to see some more? Notice that even your fellow YE creationist admits the fact.

 

[Barbarian]

• Mitochondria of humans and some chimpanzees are identical:
  
  Circular mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of human, chimpanzee, and African green monkey origin has been characterized by several methods (analytical buoyant density in neutral and alkaline CsCl, absorbance melting, contour length in the electron microscope, and chemical analysis of base composition). Human and chimpanzee mtDNAs are indistinguishable by these criteria, but green monkey mtDNA shows slight differences. Pure complements have been used to prepare heteroduplex mtDNAs composed of one pure strand from each species. The heteroduplexes have been analyzed for duplex content by analytical buoyant density and by thermal absorbance melting. By both methods, heteroduplex mtDNAs of human-chimpanzee composition do not differ from reconstituted homoduplex mtDNAs.

mtDNA: Human-chimpanzee implications

Comparison of mtDNA from human and chimpanzee sources leads to some interesting conclusions.

www.macroevolution.net

 

[Runner]

Let's ask YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise:
Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Creation.com
Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early
bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and
Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39

Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Genetics:
Genetically, we and chimpanzees are more closely related than either of us is related to any other organisms.

And we know this works, because we can use it to compare organisms of known descent.

The vast number of fossil hominids, with features transitional between forest apes and humans:

And a lot more. Would you like to see some more? Notice that even your fellow YE creationist admits the fact.

I really don't have a dog in this fight and frankly don't even understand what semantic game Paul is playing, but I think it would be worthwhile to link Wise's entire paper so the context of his comments is more clear: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf.

Barbarian's post doesn't misrepresent or misstate anything, but I found Wise's paper a fairly interesting quick read. He frankly admits that YE paleontology isn't at the point where it is prepared to take on the "transitional forms" issue and that the fossil record is not what traditional YE creation theory would have predicted.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes. As I said, Wise prefers his understanding of Genesis to the evidence at this point, and says so. And he suggests that there might be in the future, a good YE explanation for the evidence.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

The spherical Earth was not directly observed until we had space craft to get far enough out to see the entire Earth. However, a number of facts allowed the ancients to infer that the Earth was round. Eratosthenes was able to measure it with surprising accuracy by using trigonometry. But his measurement was an inference based on the evidence. Now remember what a fact is?

I asked Barbarian:

Before any humans ever lived on earth, was it a fact that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?

Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Either it was, before any humans ever lived on the earth, a fact that the earth is a globe, or it was not, before any humans ever lived on the earth, a fact that the earth is a globe.

Before any humans ever lived on earth, was it a fact that the earth is a globe? Yes or No?

Listed here are your only possible answers to this Yes/No question, Barbarian:

1. "Yes, before any humans ever lived on the earth, it was a fact that the earth is a globe." (Affirmative)
2. "No, before any humans ever lived on the earth, it was not a fact that the earth is a globe." (Negative)

Why do you continue to cower from answering this simple, elementary question, Barbarian? Until you've answered this question either in the positive or in the negative, you will continue in your failure to have answered it.

Well, let's take a look...

globe ​

​

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. ​

• noun A body with the shape of a sphere, especially a representation of the earth in the form of a hollow ball.

Sorry, this time it was your enemy, I guess... I'm thinking you need to have a more precise dictionary. This kind of goes back to your essentialism. The world just doesn't work that way.

Wait....are you really so silly that you actually imagine a globe (like, for instance, a Rand McNally "representation of the earth in the form of a hollow ball" (one of which you might have sitting on a tripod, nearby your mechanical watch on your desk)) is actually "a three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point"? Of course it is not. That cardboard or plastic globe is a spheroid—"a body that is shaped like a sphere but is not perfectly round"—and yet, according to the very dictionary entry you just handed me, "especially" that Replogle "representation of the earth in the form of a [cardboard or plastic] hollow ball" is a globe. Your own dictionary tells us that a globe is a sphere—"a spherical object or figure"—by telling us that many an object's being spherical is its "having a shape approximating that of a sphere." So yeah, contrary to your silliness, the earth is a globe, since the earth, being a spheroid, is a sphere, since many a sphere has "a shape approximating that of a sphere." Sorry, Barbarian, but, as you've demonstrated, you have at least two, standard dictionaries arrayed against you, and in agreement with me.​

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I really don't have a dog in this fight and frankly don't even understand what semantic game Paul is playing,

Why do you call asking questions of semantics—questions about whether or not someone is speaking in a cognitively meaningful way in using the verbal forms they choose to use (and if so, about what they mean by them)—a "game"?

Do you consider it reasonable, what Barbarian is doing: denying that the fact that the earth is round is the truth that the earth is round? Why do you not call Barbarian's refusal to answer the elementary, Yes/No question I've been asking him—"Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round?"—a "game"? Does his refusal to answer that question seem reasonable to you, or, instead, could it not better be characterized as a game? Can you answer that question:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?
​

Myself, being a rationally-thinking person, I have no difficulty answering it; the correct answer is "Yes, before humans ever began to live on the earth, it was already a fact that the earth is round." It was already a fact that the earth is round, even before one or more humans ever observed that the earth is round. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Notice that even your fellow YE creationist admits the fact.

Notice that, once again, you're sitting there asserting that what you call "fact" is fact. What "evidence" do you have to back up your assertion that what you are calling "fact" is fact?

 

[Runner]

Why do you call asking questions of semantics—questions about whether or not someone is speaking in a cognitively meaningful way in using the verbal forms they choose to use (and if so, about what they mean by them)—a "game"?

Do you consider it reasonable, what Barbarian is doing: denying that the fact that the earth is round is the truth that the earth is round? Why do you not call Barbarian's refusal to answer the elementary, Yes/No question I've been asking him—"Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round?"—a "game"? Does his refusal to answer that question seem reasonable to you, or, instead, could it not better be characterized as a game? Can you answer that question:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?
​

Myself, being a rationally-thinking person, I have no difficulty answering it; the correct answer is "Yes, before humans ever began to live on the earth, it was already a fact that the earth is round." It was already a fact that the earth is round, even before one or more humans ever observed that the earth is round. Wouldn't you agree?

I've seen enough of Barbarian over the years to know he is intelligent and rational. I've never seen him be anything less than straightforward, even if I don't agree with him. Your haranguing and ad hominem attacks seem to me to be going nowhere. If Barbarian is actually waffling in his responses, who cares? I feel sure he wouldn't claim more for evolutionary theory than is scientifically warranted.

Let's say it's ontologically true that the earth is spherical. It really and truly is a sphere, exactly as it appears. This would be ontologically true if there were no humans at all - and no God, for that matter. (This is starting to remind me of a Buddhist koan: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, yes, it does, although that's not the answer the Zen master is looking for.)

At some point there were humans and they wanted to know the shape of the earth. Since the earth can be observed in its entirety only from space, the best the humans could do for many centuries was observe and measure what they could and derive theories from those observations and measurements. Those observations and measurements were the best evidence of their day.

If Joe the Caveman, a scientific genius of his time, had done all he reasonably could and declared the earth was flat "to a level of scientific certainty," he would simply have been wrong. In philosophical terms, he might have had epistemic justification or warrant for his conclusion the earth was flat, and he might even have been justified in claiming scientific certainty, but he would nevertheless have been ontologically wrong. (This is a point Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga makes in his extensive philosophical writings: When he insists Christian belief is epistemically justified in the absence of any evidence, this certainly doesn't mean it's ontologically true.)

We modern humans can observe and photograph the earth from space. Everyone this side of the Flat Earth Society agrees it's spherical (and the Flat Earthers are rightly regarded as loonies). We can truly say it's spherical to a level of indisputable scientific certainty. It's an established fact of nature.

But wait: Maybe our senses deceive us. Maybe there is no earth - it's an illusion. Maybe there is no us. Maybe, maybe, maybe - whatever philosophical objections you care to make. Perhaps we can never say "It is ontologically true that the earth is a sphere" because we can never fully comprehend the reality we and the earth occupy together. But we can legitimately say "The earth is a sphere to a level of indisputable scientific certainty and its roundness is an established fact of nature."

 

[Runner]

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that what you (and your Darwinism-shilling buddies whom you're fond of quoting) are calling "evidence" is evidence? Obviously it's never going to do for you to just continue to assert that what you call "evidence" is evidence. Duh.

Hello? Dr. Kurt Wise is not only a highly credentialed scientist, but he is also a dedicated Young Earth Christian who hopes to overturn Darwinian evolutionary theory but nevertheless is intellectually compelled to acknowledge the strength of the evidence for macroevolution.

Barbarian a "pompous windbag?" I hope the moderators have seen enough of your act.

 

[Barbarian]

Whatever "semantic games" aside...

Let's deal with your question again, Paul E. Michael

​

Do you understand why the fact that humans and some chimpanzees have indistinguishable mitochondrial DNA is very strong evidence showing our common ancestry?​

Here's why. Mitochodria are actually endosymbiotic bacteria. They look like bacteria, they have circular bacterial DNA, they reproduced independently of our cells, and in vertebrates they are always from the mother, not the father. Hence, the indistinguishable mitochondrial DNA in humans and some chimpanzees is convincing evidence that these two populations once had a common female ancestor.

This was not anticipated by scientists, but is completely in agreement with the evidence from other sources that indicate the same thing; humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor apart from any other organisms.

 

[Barbarian]

(This is starting to remind me of a Buddhist koan: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, yes, it does, although that's not the answer the Zen master is looking for.)

There was a young man who said God;
must find it exceedingly odd
that the sycamore tree
continues to be
when there's no one about in the quad.

but...

"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;​

I am always about in the quad.​

The sycamore tree​

will continue to be​

observed by Yours faithfully, God.” ​

 

[Barbarian]

Notice that, once again, you're sitting there asserting that what you call "fact" is fact.

Yes. Something observable. The fossil record is a fact. It's something that can be observed directly.

What "evidence" do you have to back up your assertion that what you are calling "fact" is fact?

It can be directly observed.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Barbarian a "pompous windbag?" I hope the moderators have seen enough of your act.

I never called your buddy a pompous windbag, but, from having read your posts, it is easy to see why you feel an impulse to try to silence my posts.

I've asked both you and Barbarian this question:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?

Paul E. Michael: "Yes. Of course it was. Duh."
Runner: <NO ANSWER>
Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why do you and Barbarian refuse to answer such an easy question as that?

 

[Barbarian]

I've asked both you and Barbarian this question:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?

You keep getting angry about the answer because you don't know what a "fact" is. A fact is something observable. So when we actually could see the entire Earth, it became an observed fact. Before that, it was an inference from evidence. Just as it's true that humans evolved from other primates; it's an inference from evidence, but it's not an observed fact. Evolution, as you learned earlier is an observed fact, since we can directly observe it. But consequences of evolution like common descent, are inferences based on evidence.

Does that help?

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I asked you:

What "evidence" do you have to back up your assertion that what you are calling "fact" is fact?

You responded:

It can be directly observed.

Here, once again, all you're doing is repeating your assertion, rather than providing evidence. Sorry, Barbarian, but your assertion that X is fact (no matter how many times you repeat it) is not evidence for your assertion that X is fact.

Remember what you said:

Remember what a fact is. It's something observable.

So, whenever you assert that something you call a "fact" is a fact, you're already, therein, asserting that what you are calling a "fact," is something observable.

"X is a fact." = "X is [something that can be observed]."

"The evidence that X is a fact is that X can be observed." = "The evidence that X is [something that can be observed] is that X can be observed."

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that whatever you call "something observable" or "something observed" is something observable/observed?

If someone tells you it's a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, and you do not believe their assertion that it is a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, I imagine that you'll not be impressed if they then tell you, "It's a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, because it is observable."

Why, Barbarian, do you imagine that any rationally-thinking person would be impressed with your circularity: "Remember what [something observable] is. It's something observable"?

 

[Barbarian]

Here, once again, all you're doing is repeating your assertion, rather than providing evidence. Sorry, Barbarian, but your assertion that X is fact (no matter how many times you repeat it) is not evidence for your assertion that X is fact.

As you learned, a fact in science is something directly observable. So there it is.

The definition of a scientific fact is different from the definition of fact, as it implies knowledge. A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence.

Fact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If someone tells you it's a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, and you do not believe their assertion that it is a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, I imagine that you'll not be impressed if they then tell you, "It's a fact that the Statue of Liberty blinks her eyes, because it is observable."

I don't think anyone has ever observed the Statue of Liberty blinking her eyes. (I'll be open your evidence to the contrary, of course) If it never happens, it isn't observable. I don't think you've thought this through very well.

More clear for you now?

 

[Runner]

I never called your buddy a pompous windbag, but, from having read your posts, it is easy to see why you feel an impulse to try to silence my posts.

Nice try. The post in which you called Barbarian a "pompous windbag" and Dr. Kurt Wise a "Darwinist shill" has been removed, either by you or by the moderators after I reported it. Since it is quoted in my post #389, I'm confident I didn't hallucinate it. Honesty not one of your virtues?

My views are, in the main, quite different from Barbarian's. He is my "buddy" only in the sense that he is a rational, respectful poster who deals in substance rather than ad hominem attacks.

I've asked both you and Barbarian this question:


Paul E. Michael: "Yes. Of course it was. Duh."
Runner: <NO ANSWER>
Barbarian: <NO ANSWER>

Why do you and Barbarian refuse to answer such an easy question as that?

If you believe my post #388 was "NO ANSWER" to your question, I'd have to question your reading comprehension skills. I'll refresh your apparently short memory:

Let's say it's ontologically true that the earth is spherical. It really and truly is a sphere, exactly as it appears. This would be ontologically true if there were no humans at all - and no God, for that matter.

We're done. Waste someone else's time.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

Nice try. The post in which you called Barbarian a "pompous windbag" and Dr. Kurt Wise a "Darwinist shill" has been removed, either by you or by the moderators after I reported it. Since it is quoted in my post #389, I'm confident I didn't hallucinate it. Honesty not one of your virtues?

"Nice try"??

Are you accusing me of having tried something, here? If so, of what are you accusing me of having tried?

In the post in which I wrote the phrase, "pompous windbag," I never called Barbarian a pompous windbag, so either 1) you're lying about me, or 2) you're not a perceptive reader; in either case, you're not telling the truth about me. And, in the post of mine you quoted in your post #389, I never even used your phrase, "Darwinist shill," and so, I never called anyone a "Darwinist shill". Here, again, either 1) you're lying about me, or 2) you're not a perceptive reader; in either case, you're not telling the truth about me. Honesty not one of your virtues? Reading not one of your skills?

"has been removed, either by you or by the moderators after I reported it."

Try to think clearly about what you've just said, there. Could I have removed a post I had posted? If so, how could I have removed a post I had posted? If I'm not mistaken, I have no option to remove a post(s) I've posted on this website, even if I wanted to. Am I wrong? Do you have an option to remove a post(s) on this website? As far as I can tell, the closest I could ever come to removing a post I have posted on this website would be to use this website's Edit function on a post I have posted, and then to erase all the text therefrom, and then to use this website's Save function to save my edited post as a blank post. Not to mention, I would need to do so within about 30 minutes of my initial posting of the post, because that could not be done by me after that window of time had expired. Not to mention, to do so would not be to remove the post, but rather, would be to merely erase all the text out of it.

So, since I could not have been the one to have removed a post of mine that has been removed, why did you choose to suggest that I could have been the one to have removed a post of mine that has been removed? Since I'm telling you (because it is true) that I did not remove my own post, against your suggestion that I might have removed it, do you want to call me a liar?

---

I have asked Runner, twice:

Before humans ever began to live on the earth, was it a fact that the earth is round? Yes or No?

Runner: <NO ANSWER, STILL>

So long as you continue in your present failure to have answered this easy, Yes/No question in the affirmative ("Yes"), and so long as you continue in your present failure to have answered it in the negative ("No"), you will continue in your present failure to have answered it at all.

We're done.

Oh, but you're mistaken about that. Obviously you're not done with your failure to have answered the question I've asked you; you'll only be done with your failure to have answered it if/whenever you decide to answer it. Till then, you shall continue on in your present failure to have answered it. And, I'm sure you're also not done seething over my pointing out that fact.

---

When he insists Christian belief is epistemically justified in the absence of any evidence, this certainly doesn't mean it's ontologically true.

Only irrationally-thinking people could say that one can be/is justified in believing something that is not true. Anything believed that is not true, is false, since whatever is neither true nor false is not believed. No one has ever been, nor shall anyone ever be, justified in believing falsehood. The propositions that constitute Christianity are true, and ipso facto, every person who believes those propositions is justified in believing them. Besides, the propositions that constitute Christianity are evidence, so only a crappy thinker could say that the propositions of Christianity are absent of any evidence.

 

[Paul E. Michael]

I don't think anyone has ever observed the Statue of Liberty blinking her eyes. (I'll be open your evidence to the contrary, of course) If it never happens, it isn't observable. I don't think you've thought this through very well.

I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything.
I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything that happens.
I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything that has been observed happening, or is observable.

• What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something?
• What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something that happens?
• What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something that happens and is observable/has been observed?

 

[Barbarian]

I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything.

"Change in allele frequency in a population over time." I keep telling you that, but you keep forgetting.

I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything that happens.

Such changes happen continuously and are repeatedly observed to do so.

I don't think that you, by your word, "evolution," are referring to anything that has been observed happening, or is observable.

It's easy to do this. The Grants on Daphne Major, in the Galapagos, did a nice long-term study of such changes.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something?

The observation that allele frequencies change over time in populations.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something that happens?

The observation of such allele frequencies changing.

What "evidence" do you have for your assertion that, by your word, "evolution," you are referring to something that happens and is observable/has been observed?

Stuff like the findings of the Grants, studying finches in the Galapagos.