ID/Creationism challenge

[Reality Check]

Here's one for example. Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue as evidence for a young earth based on biochemistry. Also the bold prediction once found, we'd find others with the same situation.

I would also predict, though not a YECer, that other dinosaurs will large bones will be discovered buried in different soil that shows a similar lack of decomposition, though not all.

The only reason anyone thinks the fossils are old is due to evolutionist dating methods. If it were not for that, they would be assumed to be young as it was not envisioned such soft tissue and organic molecules of formerly living tissue could survive more than 10,000 yrs and certainly not 65 million years.

Take out any evo rebuttal and it's a slam dunk for creationists in terms of the age of the fossils not being millions of years old.

I hope that that you are being sarcastic because if you are not then this prevails a large amount of fantasy and ignorance .

Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue dated at millions of years old are not evidence for a young Earth. It is evidence that the possibility of recovering tissue from fossils was overlooked for many years.

I would predict that based on the discovery, more discoveries will be made.

The delusion that there are "evolutionist dating methods" is obvious.
There are scientific methods to date fossils such as radiometric dating.
You do not have to date fossils to see that the Earth is old. Just count the rings in trees (10,000 years), carbon date once living things (50,000 years) , the layers in ice cores (500,000 years) and radiometric dating of rock (billions of years).

 

[randman]

I'll go ya one further. It makes perfect sense that vestigal organs have a purpose in many cases. The use of an appendage/organ today does not mean that is what it will be used for umpteen generations from now. This is frequently missed in the irreducible complexity argument.

Pythons use their legs to this day. Not only can they use them in a defensive role (weakly and only rarely, but still...) they are (in many species) a crucial part of male/male combat and in courting, stimulating, and positioning the female! (I need a cold shower after that last phrase).

From locomotion to reproductive function.
Hey, it rhymes, so you know it's right.

So you agree with creationists that organs have a purpose? '

Good.

That's one piece of positive evidence, and no you cannot introduce an evo explanation because I would not be allowed to refute it per the thread rules.

Appreciate the humor btw. Just getting a little testy from other threads.

 

[Halfcentaur]

That's not what scientists and science writers have said.

You are just making stuff up, as usual.

No, this is what I've only heard. I am not certain about it and am asking you to provide me with more information. In the thread you brought this up in it was suggested by others that there were questions about the samples being contaminated with turkey blood cells. I never saw you attempt to refute that, apologies if you did. But that should not matter, are there more examples of red blood cells in dinosaur fossils than this single scientist's findings or not? Are you suggesting it's more rational to throw out an entire tenant of basic geology and biology over one woman's findings than to postulate she was mistaken? Because as far as I know in my fallible knowledge, that's what is going on here.

But outside of clarifying knowledge for my own interest, I think you've demonstrated you're incapable of making a case for your position outside of typical denialist tactics. You have nothing in your arsenal but red herrings and points of contention with evolutionary theory. You can't even postulate hypothetically beyond these logical errors apparently. You are trapped in the construct you've erected of circular reason and fallacy, unable to even stray in hypothetical exercises. Why can't you do that? Do you lack abstract thinking, creativity, empathy? I don't understand why it's so hard to even pretend and address hypothetically.

I think it's been obvious from the beginning you're trying to assert your dogmatic faith based religion and pass it off as science by trying to find evidence to fit a conclusion you are seeking to validate rather than by following what the evidence suggests.

And you're a denialist for claiming your own special take on things.

Underneath your red herrings and your baited questions and your cherry picking and your complicated feelings and anecdotes, you're just another denialist claiming a special and privileged insight against a world of brainwashed people who follow the dogma you deem there is the least amount of evidence for. All the while subscribing to dogmatic Christianity at the heart of your own belief system, which demonstrates some pretty epic projection I must say.

I like to look at the data and see what it does and does not say. I think people can make a decent argument for a number of models except ironically the one generally accepted, which absolutely flies in the face of all the facts and data we have.

Front-loading predicted what might be called super-genomes. That impressed me they were so bold and correct in their predictions and NeoDarwinism failed so miserably. But there are other areas of data.

Maybe common descent and evolution never happened in the first place. Common descent is a given assumption in most of these studies.

I could elaborate. Guess I would be considered an Intelligent Design theorist as far as my ideas, but it gets kind of complicated. I think the whole field whether evolutionist, front loading evolutionist (non-Darwinist), young earth creationist, old earth creationist, IDers, etc,....are still generally locked into a materialist perspective on reality outdated by modern physics.

But the NeoDarwinists are the worst in that regard.

But that would be a physics thread, and yes, I do have some ideas on how reality including life is generated.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So information theory requiring an Intelligent Designer is not positive evidence and keep in mind I listed specific non-theist theories to explain it as well.

No, it's not. It's just another claim.

 

[Halfcentaur]

So you agree with creationists that organs have a purpose? '

Good.

That's one piece of positive evidence, and no you cannot introduce an evo explanation because I would not be allowed to refute it per the thread rules.

Appreciate the humor btw. Just getting a little testy from other threads.

Stop playing, you've already violated the rules of the hypothetical exercise. You're just being evasive and making excuses.

 

[randman]

But that should not matter, are there more examples of red blood cells in dinosaur fossils than this single scientist's findings or not? Are you suggesting it's more rational to throw out an entire tenant of basic geology and biology over one woman's findings than to postulate she was mistaken? Because as far as I know in my fallible knowledge, that's what is going on here.

Yes, there are more examples than this single finding, and yes, it is an extraordinary claim.

Before going further, you do agree it's a fantastic claim that, in your words, may "throw out an entire tenant of basic geology and biology"?

 

[Halfcentaur]

I hope that that you are being sarcastic because if you are not then this prevails a large amount of fantasy and ignorance .

Dinosaur bones found with red blood cells and soft tissue dated at millions of years old are not evidence for a young Earth. It is evidence that the possibility of recovering tissue from fossils was overlooked for many years.

I would predict that based on the discovery, more discoveries will be made.

The delusion that there are "evolutionist dating methods" is obvious.
There are scientific methods to date fossils such as radiometric dating.
You do not have to date fossils to see that the Earth is old. Just count the rings in trees (10,000 years), carbon date once living things (50,000 years) , the layers in ice cores (500,000 years) and radiometric dating of rock (billions of years).

And more importantly, the number of these rings and other rates of age all add up and correlate to very large and very specific numbers you would have to be willfully ignorant to ignore.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Here's a non-theistic mechanism for Intelligent Design.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Of course, wiki could be wrong in it's assessments. But if the universe or multiverse selects past histories for the purpose of allowing life, that's evidence the universe has some sort of intelligence as a mechanism to purpose life and affect the past; hence Intelligent Design.

This is about as pathetic as those who cite Albert Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" as evidence that Albert was a theist. Simply put, you're taking a metaphor as a literal and using that as evidence of ID. C'mon, did you actually have some scientific evidence of ID or Creationism?

 

[randman]

No, it's not. It's just another claim.

The claim is it requires an intelligence behind the design. Are you denying that or saying they are wrong?

If wrong, care to address their arguments on why?

A number of papers have addressed this. It's not my particular cup of tea so don't know all the ins and outs but just dismissing this as you do indicates you are not interested in hearing dissent.

I would also say physics itself posits either an Intelligent Designer or Intelligence in the Multiverse as Designer. Either God did it or the Multiverse did, but either way it's informational based on physical laws (design) pre-ordered by intelligence, either the universe, multiverse itself or God.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Yes, there are more examples than this single finding, and yes, it is an extraordinary claim.

Before going further, you do agree it's a fantastic claim that, in your words, may "throw out an entire tenant of basic geology and biology"?

More of your "ah-ha" baiting.

No, not necessarily. Looking at probability alone, it's silly to dismiss the idea we may have been wrong about methods of recovering fossilized tissue than to disregard tenants of geology and biology which have far too many specific correlations to ignore. You'd have to have a dogmatic agenda to assert to be able to to do that reasonably.

 

[randman]

This is about as pathetic as those who cite Albert Einstein's "God does not play dice with the universe" as evidence that Albert was a theist. Simply put, you're taking a metaphor as a literal and using that as evidence of ID. C'mon, did you actually have some scientific evidence of ID or Creationism?

No metaphor at all. You just don't understand it. Can't say anyone does completely but the idea of self-ordering and fine-tuning in the universe "selecting for" life indicates purpose and design.

Does it not?

Note; this is not just a general fine-tuning argument based on constants.

 

[Halfcentaur]

The claim is it requires an intelligence behind the design. Are you denying that or saying they are wrong?

If wrong, care to address their arguments on why?

A number of papers have addressed this. It's not my particular cup of tea so don't know all the ins and outs but just dismissing this as you do indicates you are not interested in hearing dissent.

I would also say physics itself posits either an Intelligent Designer or Intelligence in the Multiverse as Designer. Either God did it or the Multiverse did, but either way it's informational based on physical laws (design) pre-ordered by intelligence, either the universe, multiverse itself or God.

Have you ever watched this documentary or familiarized yourself with emergent order from chaos via feedback loops? In essence, no intelligence is needed, the universe has a natural behavior to order itself in a model very similar to natural selection. It's a trick of the mind, human projection, to see intelligence where we look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

 

[randman]

More of your "ah-ha" baiting.




No, not necessarily. Looking at probability alone, it's silly to dismiss the idea we may have been wrong about methods of recovering fossilized tissue than to disregard tenants of geology and biology which have far too many specific correlations to ignore. You'd have to have a dogmatic agenda to assert to be able to to do that reasonably.

So your words about thinking she was mistaken based on throwing out so much are not valid now? We should expect it.

So why think she was mistaken?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The claim is it requires an intelligence behind the design. Are you denying that or saying they are wrong?

The claim IS the "theory." It's a circular argument. Did you have any positive, scientific evidence to support ID or Creationism?

I would also say physics itself posits either an Intelligent Designer or Intelligence in the Multiverse as Designer. Either God did it or the Multiverse did, but either way it's informational based on physical laws (design) pre-ordered by intelligence, either the universe, multiverse itself or God.

This is just another claim. Please demonstrate your positive, scientific evidence to support ID or Creationism. Adding claims on top of claims is not evidence, or science, or logical.

 

[randman]

Have you ever watched this documentary or familiarized yourself with emergent order from chaos via feedback loops? In essence, no intelligence is needed, the universe has a natural behavior to order itself in a model very similar to natural selection. It's a trick of the mind, human projection, to see intelligence where we look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HACkykFlIus

Define intelligence then. Also, why would the purpose of feedback be to create life?

 

[Halfcentaur]

So your words about thinking she was mistaken based on throwing out so much are not valid now? We should expect it.

So why think she was mistaken?

No. I am considering your position hypothetically based on the parameters established in your question.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No metaphor at all. You just don't understand it. Can't say anyone does completely but the idea of self-ordering and fine-tuning in the universe "selecting for" life indicates purpose and design.

Does it not?

Note; this is not just a general fine-tuning argument based on constants.

You don't understand that it is a metaphor. Now, did you have any actual evidence?
I mean, really, when two hydrogen molecules bond with an oxygen molecule, do you think it's molecules having a threesome?!

 

[randman]

The claim IS the "theory." It's a circular argument. Did you have any positive, scientific evidence to support ID or Creationism?



This is just another claim. Please demonstrate your positive, scientific evidence to support ID or Creationism. Adding claims on top of claims is not evidence, or science, or logical.

Physics is not positive evidence in your world?

Then what is?

 

[randman]

You don't understand that it is a metaphor. Now, did you have any actual evidence?
I mean, really, when two hydrogen molecules bond with an oxygen molecule, do you think it's molecules having a threesome?!

Where is the metaphor? Do you see any metaphor in my comments?

 

[Halfcentaur]

Define intelligence then. Also, why would the purpose of feedback be to create life?

It's not a purpose at all. It's just an incidental result. It's demonstrated that spectacularly complex patterns can emerge on their own from pure dissonance and chaos, given that the chaos is looped in some manner and there is some method of variation.

I'd advise you watch the documentary, even if it's not something you agree with it's a fascinating model to consider. It's the idea basically that everything is a massive fractal of self arranging feedback.