Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Another piece of Creationist Claptrap

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by Rob Kidd, Oct 2, 2015.

  1. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member


    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.


    Word speak for themselves
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  2. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Some thoughts about quals.......................


    Clearly a thought process..................
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2016
  3. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    The problem with most of these rebuttles of the creationist view is that they are straw man arguments i.e. They are a diversion from the original argument and then they use satire to riducule the argument that has been falsely constructed and so infer that the original argument is rediculous. This is not good logic its just flummery.

    Example - not believing in creationism is a belief system like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    However naturalism or materialism relies on the axiom of nothing from nothing and life from lifelessness. They ignore the logical necessity that says anything created must have an eternal non created origin that requires an explanation. Saying I don't know does not excuse the need for explanation. Science has shown that the universe is not eternal and has a begining i.e. It was created. The naturalist therefor has to believe that it came from nothing (something that physics does not allow i.e. They allow themselves on big miracle to start their theory off) or provide an explanation. The creationist theory of an eternal intelligent creative entity with purpose and intent is an elegant and logically satisfying explanation.

    Example 2 many scientists and philosophers believe in a logically necessary creative intelligence but not necessarily in the judeo christian God. So when the natutalist uses percieved inconsitencies and moral objections drawn from the bible to ridicule the creationist scientist or philosopher then this is a blatant logical fallacy deliberately used to divert the argument and ridicule the person.
     
  4. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    I am unsure as to whether you are addressing me or either of these video clips. However, to be absolutely clear, I have never mentioned the bible - or any other religous text, any God or any religous argument - these are not places I do not go. When students broach it with me, in their simplistic assumption that it is either evolution or creationism - again, I do not go there, I usually say something like: "your religion is like your sexuality - it has nothing to do with me".

    However, with respect to the first clip re: thermodynamics, the "closed system" bit is habitually left out of the creationist argument as it refutes it totally. As for the second clip - well, let us leave that to the readers to make their minds up.

    Rob
     
  5. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Rob I'm commenting on this video in particular but also in the general way that naturalists dismiss creationism. Another example is when Anthony Flew changed his mid to support the idea of an eternal necessary intelligent designer with purpose and intent, because that is where the evidence led him, then Naturalists dismissed their one time guru of naturalism by suggesting he must be mentally ill.
     
  6. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    You need to understand where I am coming from. Frankly I do not give a toss about religion, creation or any of the other issues. All I care about is evolution, its place in biology, and from my point of view, its place in human anatomy. I certainly do not get involved in any argument such as evolution vs creation - will leave that to others. I only care about the science. We get dragged in from time to time when we or our forefathers are misquoted ( ie lied about), which happens frequently. I will just say this: "in the general way that naturalist dismiss creationism": - it does not conform to scientific method - what else can they do? Actually, I would suggest that they should not go there in the first place - it does nothing to help any arguments. Rob
     
  7. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    Really Rob, religion in creationism is not the central consideration - the central consideration is this - A necessary eternal cause is required to start creation whether that be big bang or creation by purposeful intelligent entity. God fits the bill very well but nothing is no explanation at all and invoking time is the same as invoing god. All things are possible with God - anything is possible with time (even tho time can't exist in nothing). The choice is down to the believer but at the end of the day both are faith. Nothing requires a miracle but God is the miracle required.
     
  8. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member

    So before you can argue for evolution of life you require a reasonable basis to argue from. If you believe in nothing and time then it is by necessity that evolution is a reasonable explanation i.e. everything happened by and from itself without an external agent. But if you believe in an eternal intelligent creator then it is not the first conclusion you might come to or a necessary one.
     
  9. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Sorry Dave - not going there. Evolution is testable, measurable, and demonstrable - and by brains far superior to mine. Done
     
  10. David Smith

    David Smith Well-Known Member



    Rob this is a video of Anthony Flew who was the foremost atheist philosopher until the evidence convinced him otherwise. Evolution is testable, measurable and demonstrable when interpreted from the axiom of the naturalistic view where the intelligent creator view is not allowed. If the existence and action of such an intelligent being is allowed then the data can be interpreted in a way that allows a different outcome. data in itself says nothing - facts (knowledge that is accepted as probably true) are, and can only be, revealed by interpretation in the light of an initial world view. Of course Evolution is one probability within the axiom of intelligent creator but evolution in itself does not negate the existence of an intelligent creator. After we accept the probability of an intelligent creator then we can consider his nature, purpose and intent and what our personal response might be to such a being.
    What such a being did and how he made it work is insignificant in comparison to what was his intent and purpose for us? Can I know and how can I know this being and does (he) care for me and the future of us all?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2016
  11. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    I met a few creationist believers ... hugely entertaining people. World is 10,000 years old. Man co-existed with dinosaurs. All that good stuff. Keeps me entertained for hours.
     
  12. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    There is much hypocrisy & contradiction on such associated topics as this. The following video is very interesting pertaining to the issues surrounding such topics as this. It is a lecture by Professor James Tour... he discusses the elements required for life... the start of life (Abiogenesis - prebiotic process wherein life arises)... the existence of life... the development of life. He doesn’t discuss "scientifically unknown entities" (i.e. panspermia, God or another intelligent agent/source; what I call the Ultimate Causation factors) that have been proposed to have seeded life (just the science of what’s involved for the said evolutionary process to begin & develop). That said, the Ultimate Causation factors are an interesting topic i.e. the principle of causation - the cause of all causes & subsequent causes must itself be uncaused (albeit, this issue is delving into scientific unknown territory).

    The lecture goes for about 80 minutes (well worth the time to watch/listen) & focusses on the associated science... the empirical data we have to assess/test the requirements of life & the development thereof... & in doing so exposes the initial bankruptcy of naturalism - & subsequently evolution conjecture. Hence the lecture doesn't delve too much in exposing the flaws within the Neo-Darwinian conjecture (i.e. the stated evolutionary driving mechanisms such as "mutations" & "Natural Selection"... which just can't give us the massive amounts of bits & bytes of increasingly complex information required for the evident massive & diverse development of life on this planet). Those who state evolution (i.e. organisms evolving from one order/class/phylum to another; not debating Natural Selection [elements of speciation] here) is fact, testable, measurable & demonstrable - expose their ignorance (or is it deception, or biasness, or gullibility) on the crux of the topic.

    A bit about Professor Tour...

    Professor James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist (specializing in nanotechnology). Dr. Tour is the T. T. & W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science & Nano Engineering... & Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas. (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour)

    Tour holds more than 120 United States patents plus many non-US patents. He has more than 600 research publications, with an H-index = 119 (100 by ISI Web of Science) & i10 index = 484 with total citations over 67 000 (Google Scholar - https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=YwoecRMAAAAJ&hl=en).

    Tour was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015. He was named among "The 50 most Influential Scientists in the World Today" by TheBestSchools.org in 2014. Tour was named "Scientist of the Year" by R&D Magazine in 2013. Tour won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society in 2012. Tour was ranked one of the top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade by Thomson Reuters in 2009... (Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#Awards)

    The issues behind building (complex) functional systems (over & over again) via naturalistic processes (i.e. evolutionary paradigm), without the required information & foresight (a 'blueprint' leading to a conducive function; without such invokes a non-predetermined endpoint/target... of which ensuing abundant non-functional dead-ends & undesired deleterious products) & hindsight (recalling the steps to resynthesize/recreate new functional processes/systems for repeating building processes) are insurmountable... & within any supposed (eonic) time frame you wish to assign to it. However, time we now know isn't the convenient friend of the naturalistic (evolutionary) process due to the breakdown (decomposition) of compounds/molecules during the building process (thus rendering the building molecule to junk). Hence invoking the requirement of simultaneous molecule presence (i.e. multiple molecules being present at the same time or within a short period of time for conducive building... once again going against evolutionary tenets). Hence, the building of a basic building block of life, i.e. a 'simple' carbohydrate (let alone a protein) for the construction of the backbone (scaffolding) of DNA & RNA (codes of life) functioning turns out to be far more problematic within the naturalistic process (required for evolution) than the evolutionary rhetoric would have you believe. Then there are the varying specific (environmental) conditions (i.e. correct temperature, solvent, light, pH etc...) required for the steps required for such molecule building to be effective & subsequently functional (i.e. precise environmental control must be maintained & in some cases differing parameters [i.e. temperatures] required at varying steps... which is unlike natural atmospheric conditions/traits where these molecules are supposedly evolved from). Then there are the enzymes needed (to be present beforehand) for such molecule assembly to take place (how did these originate & develop?). Then there is also the symbiotic relationship of structures within comparatively 'simple' life forms/systems (i.e. a cell) let alone the higher complex systems to consider... which then increases the complexity of the overall system... & subsequently adds further contradiction & difficulty (improbability) to the naturalistic (evolutionary) paradigm.

    There are few people on the planet that know as much as Professor Tour on the building of molecules into complex functional systems. Here is what he has to say... it is interesting (& entertaining)... to say the least...



    Yea - "claptrap"... evolutionist "claptrap" more to the point... however, academia/science isn't allowed to go there... evolutionary conjecture is evidently immune of such investigative inquiry! Why? Numerous reasons... one of which, it is fragile of reason, logic & evidence! Hence what often ensues is the likes of ad hominem attacks like we see within the opening posts of this thread... usually picking on soft targets & invoking straw man arguments collectively onto any side (or persuasion i.e. Intelligent Design advocate, Young or Old Earth Creationist, Agnostic, Non-Theist) that is skeptical of evolution. There’s a saying... "I go where the evidence leads"... this should be universal... this shouldn't just imply to the acceptable or convenient topics... but also to those which have been (subjectively) convened as controversial (going against the status quo world view)... thus we should be allowed to go where the evidence leads (on any topic)... & allow the empirical data - the science do the talking as to which is valid, plausible, truth... or worthy of further (ongoing) investigation.
     
  13. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    Always healthy to maintain an open mind ....

    "In February 2006, the New York Times reported[37] that Dr. Tour was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers among five hundred scientists and engineerswhose names appear on Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."[45] The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching ofintelligent design in public schools.[37][46][47][48]
    The New York Times article described Tour as saying that the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes. Despite this, he said he remained open-minded about evolution. He was quoted as saying "I respect that work" and being open to the possibility that future research will complete the explanations"
     
  14. Dieter Fellner

    Dieter Fellner Well-Known Member

    I watched Dr. Tour's video. This is a highly technical lecture but contains a simple message: the creation and assembly of organic compounds is unbelievably difficult. Even with the assembly of a dream team, unlimited resources and a highly sophisticated understanding of the science. The most capable of humanity would simply scratch their heads and walk away.

    I am not a synthetic organic chemist; fact checking his narrative is impossible. His ultimate conclusion, that science doesn't have a single clue about the origins of life is compelling. Viewed from the perspective of the organic biochemist, the challenges and difficulties to be overcome, even in the creation of a single 'simple' cell is as compelling as his frustration faced with scientists who claim to have a better understanding.
     
Loading...

Share This Page