FAQ
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:25 am


Author Message
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic science?  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:42 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Can I have some examples of evidence given by naturalists that disproves the creation origin of the world we see, that creationists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

Can I have some examples of evidence given by creationists that disproves the natural origin of the world we see, that naturalists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

I'm not asking for examples of evidence that has been counter-explained with bad reasoning.
I'm asking for examples of evidence that has not yet been counter-explained by the other side.

If there's none,
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for creation, where the best explaination from the naturalist community shows bad reasoning?
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for naturalism, where the best explaination from the creationist community shows bad reasoning?


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:50 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 514
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Quote:
Can I have some examples of evidence given by naturalists that disproves the creation origin of the world we see, that creationists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?


All of it... Creationists have never refuted any counter-arguments with any coherent explanation, they just repeat the same nonsense, evasions and lies until we get bored and leave them to it (or on forums get banned). This guy https://thelogicofscience.com/evolution/ points out some of their crap for the crap it is and is a good place to start.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:14 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Can I have some examples of evidence for creation, where the best explaination from naturalistic science has issues with consistency?


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 10:03 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 514
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Can I have some examples of evidence for creation,


There isn't any... Well not outside of Bronze Age creation myths...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:05 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
as ph said, the only evidence for the creationist point of view is the bible, which was cribbed from Sumerian and Assyrian legends
any naturalistic evidence that we can see and measure with our own senses contradicts those legends - e.g. look up geochronology in wikipedia and you see a myriad of methods that confirm one another and contradict the creationist point of view

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:34 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Can I have some examples of evidence given by naturalists that disproves the creation origin of the world we see, that creationists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

Can I have some examples of evidence given by creationists that disproves the natural origin of the world we see, that naturalists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

I'm not asking for examples of evidence that has been counter-explained with bad reasoning.
I'm asking for examples of evidence that has not yet been counter-explained by the other side.

If there's none,
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for creation, where the best explaination from the naturalist community shows bad reasoning?
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for naturalism, where the best explaination from the creationist community shows bad reasoning?


May we have examples of the situations you are talking about?

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 11:28 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
paleoichneum wrote:
May we have examples of the situations you are talking about?

I was the one asking for examples.

Here's the list of responses for many (all?) of the popular creationist claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Talkorigins spotted many crap with creationist claims.
What I want to know is whether any creationist has spotted any crap with the talkorigins' "crap-spotting".

I want to know if any creationist organization has created a full compilation of counter-counter-responses for every counter-response in the talkorigins response list.
If not, I want to know if they are doing so, have planned to do so, or are planning to do so.

Naturalist people keep giving me links to show the responses to creationist's craps.
Creationists people keep giving me links to show the responses to naturalist's craps.
Shouldn't it be good reasoning to let every response get it's own response?

EDIT: I found a complete list of responses to the talkorigins response list here:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
Is there any full list of counter-counter-responses to these counter-responses on creationwiki?


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:03 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
Roamer wrote:
paleoichneum wrote:
May we have examples of the situations you are talking about?

I was the one asking for examples.

Here's the list of responses for many (all?) of the popular creationist claims http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Talkorigins spotted many crap with creationist claims.
What I want to know is whether any creationist has spotted any crap with the talkorigins' "crap-spotting".

I want to know if any creationist organization has created a full compilation of counter-counter-responses for every counter-response in the talkorigins response list.
If not, I want to know if they are doing so, have planned to do so, or are planning to do so.

Naturalist people keep giving me links to show the responses to creationist's craps.
Creationists people keep giving me links to show the responses to naturalist's craps.
Shouldn't it be good reasoning to let every response get it's own response?

EDIT: I found a complete list of responses to the talkorigins response list here:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
Is there any full list of counter-counter-responses to these counter-responses on creationwiki?


The problem is the question you have asked is way to broad, and there is no actual way to address it. You have found talkorigins and creation wiki. I will ask you, of the two which uses more empirical and non biased information?

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 12:36 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Roamer wrote:
I want to know if any creationist organization has created a full compilation of counter-counter-responses for every counter-response in the talkorigins response list.


that's not how creationists operate

they try to stack their bods in the school boards and have their people bussed in when they want to "debate" an evolutionist - in short they're going to try and play by their own rules not those of the scientific community, and the validity of their arguments are neither here nor there because it's all about SOUNDING right, not BEING right

if you've read RationalWiki, you may have come across the pigeon chess analogy :

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
M_Gabriela
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:26 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

Offline
Roamer wrote:
paleoichneum wrote:
May we have examples of the situations you are talking about?



EDIT: I found a complete list of responses to the talkorigins response list here:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
Is there any full list of counter-counter-responses to these counter-responses on creationwiki?


Have you read it?

A touch of colour to this thread:

I clicked on the first title "Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview (Talk.Origins)" and in "Related references", first topic:

Quote:
Related References

Women's dilemma: Sex on first date?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:24 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
M_Gabriela wrote:
Have you read it?


I tried, but I had to stop - I started to feel sick

I read the bit about Stalin reading Darwin, but in the end it turns out he hasn't really, all they can say was that he was influenced by social Darwinism, which is not the same as Darwin's natural selection

then they mentioned Solzhenitsyn who makes a figure of speech about Stalin's reign of terror being natural selection at work, and all of a sudden that is Stalin applying Darwin's principles ?

you don't really know whether to laugh or cry

oh sure, from time to time they say that certain allegations are unfounded, but more often than not they try to pin the unethical tail on the evolution donkey even though natural selection is about biology, not ethics, and they use about every fallacy in the book to try and make mud stick

As for "biology can reasonably be taught without evolution": yes it can, as a sort of stamp collecting of unrelated facts
but please take note of what Theodosius Dobzhansky had to say about this topic : "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" - it's a bit like geology before plate tectonics: things like orogenies just happened, without any deeper understanding of what makes geology tick

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:04 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 514
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
On a similar note as Charlie Brooker says: "If the bible said gravity was caused by invisible sky hooks we'd still be debating Newton with idiots too."

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:42 pm

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
Link Here
I see creationists pointing out the out-of-order fossil eras.
However, all their evidence are taken from geological columns where tectonic plates meet.
Do they even agree that there are such things as "prehistoric eras"?

If they say the fossil eras are out-of-order, doesn't that mean if they don't assume prehistoric eras are real?
Or can they point that out without needing to assume that prehistoric eras are real?

My questions:
What terms do I use to filter a list of all known fossil excavation sites that aren't near fault lines?
Where do I submit those terms to, to get a list?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:20 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
not sure how you would search for that type of area in general

it is clear that mountain building will cause folding, faulting and overthrusts - to try and make out like they're a problem to geologists is pretty disingenuous, as even a first year geology student will be able to tell you

so what you're looking for is places where layers have remained more or less flat which funny enough isn't all that rare - here's 2 examples from the lower jurassic, one at Burton Cliffs from the south coast of england, the other one at Llanwit Major on the Glamorgan Heritage Coast

Image Image

both are good examples of how strata can remain virtually undisturbed after nearly 200 million years

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:46 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
As marnixR notes, the "out of order" fossils are in no way a problem for geologists. Study of the stratigraphy in the area and correlation of the rocks to other areas, identify what units are older.

Also the list you are looking for encompasses literally thousands of sites. Take a look at the formations of the southwestern US, the central US, central Europe etcetera

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Roamer
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:14 am

Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 4:27 pm
Posts: 62

Offline
I want to know whether any geological columns (that aren't caused by mountain folding) exists that shows out-of-order fossil eras.

What terms do I use to filter a list of these particular geological columns?


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:13 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
No, there arent. You will notice that creationists only cite examples in tectonic areas, that's because they can't cite what doesn't exist.

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:57 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
the fact that the principle of superposition was already well established in the 19th century surely makes it clear that anyone who studies the strata without any preconceived ideas will see that younger strata get deposited on top of older ones - that is, UNTIL you get folding and thrusting which is only associated with mountain building

but as paleo said, where the strata are not disturbed there is not a single site where older rocks lie on top of younger ones - that's why it already was obvious to early geologists

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 1:33 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 232

Offline
Roamer wrote:
Can I have some examples of evidence given by naturalists that disproves the creation origin of the world we see, that creationists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

Can I have some examples of evidence given by creationists that disproves the natural origin of the world we see, that naturalists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

I'm not asking for examples of evidence that has been counter-explained with bad reasoning.
I'm asking for examples of evidence that has not yet been counter-explained by the other side.

If there's none,
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for creation, where the best explaination from the naturalist community shows bad reasoning?
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for naturalism, where the best explaination from the creationist community shows bad reasoning?

Yeah there is a bit of faulty logic unexamined in these debates. It's a set of two unfounded premises, i.e. beliefs, that frame and inform debate. Because both sides share these premises, debate is possible: They're arguing over how to make the two unfounded beliefs they share, work.

The premises are in the the question "How did life begin on Earth?"

Premise that life had a beginning, like it sprung into existence. Of course this belief is a relic of creation myths.

Premise it was on Earth. This is wrong in several ways. For one, it denies the interplanetary nature of matter now consolidated as a discrete "Earth". Yet we have evidence of life while "Earth" was bombardment and not yet fully assembled. The concept of planet Earth becomes less meaningful. Like the concept "salad" - how did tomato begin in the salad? Neither side embraces the paradigm of "the Earth" existing in several places simultaneously. That's evident by their semantics and reasoning. Another problem with the premise "on Earth" of course is it makes Earth the Universe, which again is a relic of obsolete worldview.

Anecdotally I find most debates revolve around obscure premises. When both parties share a bad premise, debating around it rather colludes to reinforce the premise. The fundamental belief in creation can't be destroyed if deep down we're still thinking like creationists.


Top
paleoichneum
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 2:14 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 509

Offline
Pong wrote:
Roamer wrote:
Can I have some examples of evidence given by naturalists that disproves the creation origin of the world we see, that creationists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

Can I have some examples of evidence given by creationists that disproves the natural origin of the world we see, that naturalists have not yet addressed in a counter-explaination?

I'm not asking for examples of evidence that has been counter-explained with bad reasoning.
I'm asking for examples of evidence that has not yet been counter-explained by the other side.

If there's none,
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for creation, where the best explaination from the naturalist community shows bad reasoning?
Can I have some examples of specific evidence for naturalism, where the best explaination from the creationist community shows bad reasoning?

Yeah there is a bit of faulty logic unexamined in these debates. It's a set of two unfounded premises, i.e. beliefs, that frame and inform debate. Because both sides share these premises, debate is possible: They're arguing over how to make the two unfounded beliefs they share, work.

The premises are in the the question "How did life begin on Earth?"

Premise that life had a beginning, like it sprung into existence. Of course this belief is a relic of creation myths.

Premise it was on Earth. This is wrong in several ways. For one, it denies the interplanetary nature of matter now consolidated as a discrete "Earth". Yet we have evidence of life while "Earth" was bombardment and not yet fully assembled. The concept of planet Earth becomes less meaningful. Like the concept "salad" - how did tomato begin in the salad? Neither side embraces the paradigm of "the Earth" existing in several places simultaneously. That's evident by their semantics and reasoning. Another problem with the premise "on Earth" of course is it makes Earth the Universe, which again is a relic of obsolete worldview.

Anecdotally I find most debates revolve around obscure premises. When both parties share a bad premise, debating around it rather colludes to reinforce the premise. The fundamental belief in creation can't be destroyed if deep down we're still thinking like creationists.

Please cite your source for evidence of life during early earths asteroid bombardment

_________________
The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.


Top
Pong
Post  Post subject: Re: Evidence that cannot be explained with naturalistic scie  |  Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 3:51 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sat May 28, 2016 2:53 am
Posts: 232

Offline
Wikipedia's a good start as usual: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Heavy_Bombardment#Geological_consequences_on_Earth

See the timeline graphic on the right. There are several evidences of life around the period called Late Heavy Bombardment, some apparently during and prior ... which is amazing since the LHB would have opened much of our fresh crust as lava/magma.

That would tend to obliterate evidence. :)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy