Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[he_who_is_nobody]

hwin, thanks for not cackling. Have you considered that it's possible to define an idea in overly broad terms as a way of making it more easily defensible, and as a way of making it appear like there is less scientific descent against it than there actually is?

That is not a broad way of defining evolution that is very narrow. As you can see by that definition, it only applies to life, populations, and time. It is also an observed fact, which, as you pointed out, no one disagrees with. Thus, when creationists argue against evolution, they are not arguing against the observed fact of evolution, they are arguing about other aspects of it, something implied by the evidence we have at hand and our observations of evolution.

I have to say that I am glad to see a creationist admit that evolution is correct and happens. Now we can get to the real thrust of your argument, which are universal common descent and the age of the earth.

For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above. I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists and the list in is the pdf at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.

Wow, I cannot believe a creationist is still referring to this. Have a look at Project Steve.

Further, even the hundreds of advanced degreed scientists who are voting members of the Creation Research Society agree with the definition you've posted above.

Again, hurray for agreeing that creationists accept evolution, this is a step in the right direction. Now we can move on to the real disagreements you have with evolutionary theory.

Imagine if racists defined racism as a belief that there are differences between the human "races", and you concurred with that statement, so everyone started saying: See, hwin is a racist, and all scientists are racists. Would that in anyway be helpful?

No such thing as race, so I would not admit to that. However, this is beside the point. You are trying to claim that the definition of evolution is too broad, when it is not. Look at that definition and besides life, what fits into it? It is a very narrow definition of what we observe in nature.

If some religious people said that Christianity is a belief in Jesus, and they asked, Do you believe that Jesus existed?, and you (or some atheist), said yes, and they said: See, you're a Christian!, that wouldn't be helpful either.

Again, see above.

Examples like this could abound. And they don't lead to understanding and helpful discussion of the differences. If you want to define evolution in such a way that you agree with creationists, then fine. You can do that. But then you'll have to come up with another concept or term that distinguishes you from creationists.

Those concepts already exist; I have been pointing them out in our discussion. Furthermore, I am not defining evolution so that creationists will agree, that is simply how it is defined in biology. BobEnyart, I am not the one clouding this issue. If we go back and look at all your posts, you are the one that has minced your terms in this discussion. One example I can give, is above when you say secular Darwinism. I believe I know what you are talking about when you state secular Darwinism (evolutionary theory), but why use that term when no one else is, why not just use the standard terminology. In this, you would not create so much confusion in a discussion and large amounts of time would not be wasted arguing semantics and definitions. Look how long it took me to get you to admit that you actually agree with evolution. This came about from the deliberate clouding of terms by you and your fallow creationists.

That definition above, that you posted, leaves out a common ancestor. So, if you have no objection to a biology professor who promotes evolution, but denies common ancestors and the appearance of new vital organs, etc., then you and I are in agreement.

Of course it leaves out common ancestor, again you are confusing evolution with evolutionary theory (you do realize that those are two separate things, right?). A universal common ancestor could be disproved tomorrow and it would do nothing to disprove evolution. However, I would object to a biology professor denying common ancestry for the simple fact that we have evidence for that. Furthermore, most creationist agree with common ancestry, they just do not agree with all life having a common ancestor.

But does that really help us? Of course this is one of the longstanding difficulties in communication between evolutionists and creationists. So, if any of what I've just written is valid, and for you to agree in the slightest with it, would take a lot of fortitude.

Yes, this does help us, because it stops confusing the issue and gets us to the real thrust of your disagreement with modern science. As pointed out by you, creationists accept evolution by definition; they just disagree with other aspects of evolutionary theory. Furthermore, the difficulty comes from creationists mincing their terms when they talk about evolution and evolutionary theory. If we were to use standard definitions of the terms in this discussion, we would drop a lot of this useless arguing over semantics.

YesYouNeedJesus, we still have some questions for you to answer here.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

The point was that Bob's pointing to hearsay as "evidence", even though we've educated him on the standards of evidence quite a few times.

I don't think so. Australopithecus made a bold claim. He said:

... if you've been on a Dino dig with people who think Dino bones they find smell like bones then they're either lying to you, or mentally ill.

He apparently did not realize that Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer said this, so he needs to own up to his words or recant. Are Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer lying or mentally ill?

 

[Inferno]

For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above. I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists and the list in is the pdf at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.

He's absolutely right! If they don't accept evolution, they're not scientists. They might have a Ph.D, but that does not make someone a scientist.

Of course this is one of the longstanding difficulties in communication between evolutionists and creationists. So, if any of what I've just written is valid, and for you to agree in the slightest with it, would take a lot of fortitude.

I'm sorry to say that none of what you've written is valid.
I could point out that all of your examples completely miss the point, by defining something in a way that merely acknowledging its existence makes you a believer. That's not the case in the way scientists defined evolution and nor is it the case with what you described, even though yours is a strawman at best. Incredible, this is actually the first strawman of a strawman I've seen.

I could point out that creationists accepted speciation only after it was brought to them many times over and that alone already demolishes your entire argument above. Creationists don't accept the logical (and scientifically sound) next step because they're conditioned not to.

But I'm not going to do that. Instead, I'll point you back to an earlier post of mine you've yet to reply to and make you aware, once again, of two things:
1) You have yet to define "information", "kind" nor any other term that you need to defend your position, such as "new structure" and so on.
2) Not having defined these terms, it's impossible to make any distinction at all, especially the distinction CREATIONISTS (and not evolutionary scientists) give of there being no "macromutation". If there truly were such a thing, creationists would have to show that there are either two kinds of DNA (one for micro- and one for macromutations) or that certain parts of the genome can't undergo mutation.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

For example, the 3,000 PhD scientists, who are listed online by name, who reject secular Darwinism, would all agree hwin with the definition you posted above. I discuss this in response to Lawrence Krauss claiming falsely that all scientists are Darwinists and the list in is the pdf at http://www.rae.org/darwinskeptics.html.

He's absolutely right! If they don't accept evolution, they're not scientists. They might have a Ph.D, but that does not make someone a scientist.

It's these kind of statements that really bug me. Question: Is John C. Sanford a scientist? Yes or No?

 

[australopithecus]

So let me get this straight. (I don't want to miss your salient point.) Someone who digs up dinosaur bones and says they smell like bones is only mentally ill or lying if they are accompanied on their dig by Bob Enyart?

No, the point is you've taken a flippant, throwaway sentence and have taken it far more seriously than intended. Again, you ignore the post where I point out there may be many reasons for a perceived smell at the dig site, but that is your problem, not mine. If you'd rather discuss trivialities rather than substance, then again, not my problem.

He apparently did not realize that Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer said this, so he needs to own up to his words or recant. Are Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer lying or mentally ill?

Could be both, could be one or the other, could be neither. For clarification, see above.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

No, the point is you've taken a flippant, throwaway sentence and have taken it far more seriously than intended. Again, you ignore the post where I point out there may be many reasons for a perceived smell at the dig site, but that is your problem, not mine. If you'd rather discuss trivialities rather than substance, then again, not my problem.

I'm ignoring that post because it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. If you think there are many reasons for a perceived smell at the dig site, why would you say that someone who claims such a thing is either lying or mentally ill?

I just see you backtracking at this point.

 

[Inferno]

It's these kind of statements that really bug me. Question: Is John C. Sanford a scientist? Yes or No?

No.

 

[australopithecus]

I'm ignoring that post because it's irrelevant to this particular discussion.

No, you're ignoring that post because you're an intellectually dishonest tool. You can't score petty points by honesty addressing my whole position, so you pick a triviality

If you think there are many reasons for a perceived smell at the dig site, why would you say that someone who claims such a thing is either lying or mentally ill?

One of those posts was serious.
The other was flippant.

See if you can spot which is which, then you'll have your answer.

I just see you backtracking at this point.

I just see you not addressing anything of relevance at this point.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

It's these kind of statements that really bug me. Question: Is John C. Sanford a scientist? Yes or No?

No.

Wow... Okay, so a geneticist, who also invented the gene gun, is not a scientist. Please give me the official LoR definition of a scientist, as it appears to be different than the one accepted by the rest of the world.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I find it amazing that YesYouNeedJesus is once again demanding us to answer his questions, when there is a whole list of unanswered questions here that he simply refuses to acknowledge. YesYouNeedJesus, it takes two to tango.

 

[australopithecus]

Please give me the official LoR definition of a scientist, as it appears to be different than the one accepted by the rest of the world.

Inferno does not represent LoR en mass, so cannot give an official LoR anything.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Inferno does not represent LoR en mass, so cannot give an official LoR anything.

Fair enough. Do you think John C. Sanford is a scientist?

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

I find it amazing that YesYouNeedJesus is once again demanding us to answer his questions, when there is a whole list of unanswered questions here that he simply refuses to acknowledge. YesYouNeedJesus, it takes two to tango.

Here they are (answers in RED):
YesYouNeedJesus, can you tell us why the T. rex and all the other non-avian dinosaurs are found below the K-Pg Boundary and why there are no non-avian dinosaurs above it? I do not know that to be true and if true, I cannot tell you why. How does that fit into your understanding of geology? YesYouNeedJesus, did you even know that 14C can be created from radioactive elements in the ground and that it does not always have to come from the atmosphere? This is an interesting theory, but doesn't really work. 6 problems listed below. If you truly believe that we have original biological material from these fossils, than why settle for protein when you can just go for the DNA that should be in it? Great question. DNA has now been discovered and I still believe we have original biological material. Have you changed your mind? Can you define evolution in its biological context? Yes sir.

* Six Problems with the Neutron Capture Explanation
First: Unexpected C14 is found in specimens worldwide, yet it takes a lot of nearby radioactivity to produce appreciable amounts of 14C by neutron capture. However, terrestrial radioactivity is concentrated, with the vast majority of it occurring in the continental crust. (On RSF Lawrence Krauss confirmed this well-documented observation.) Ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity is in 1/3rd of 1% of it's mass.

Second: Radioactivity is relatively scare even in the continental crust, at least as documented by this U.S.G.S. report for enormous swaths of land.

Third: Presented at the 2012 AGU Singapore conference, there was less than 20 parts per million of uranium and thorium in the dinosaur bones that contained large quantities of modern carbon, so much that it registered mid-range in the AMS (accelerator mass spectrometry) capabilities. Also, Uranium mines where the uranium content is 18% yield carbon specimens which have 1% 14C.

Fourth: In a meeting with RSF, a geologist with a degree from Colorado's School of Mines who has a background in nuclear physics (who also spent years bombarding various elements with neutrons to make isotopes for industry) told RSF that Carbon does not easily absorb neutrons because it is the heavier elements beginning with Sodium that readily capture neutrons. Further, while it is relatively unlikely that a Carbon atom will capture a free neutron, industrial processes use Carbon to slow down neutrons, whereas they use heavier elements, typically starting with Silicon, which is almost double the atomic weight of Carbon, for neutron capture. Creating 14C from Nitrogen, then, has essentially the same problem, because Carbon and Nitrogen are neighbors on the periodic table.

Fifth: Dr. Paul Giem writes that, "since nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13," samples with even tiny amounts of nitrogen would dramatically increase carbon dates, such that, "If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample." Giem adds, "I know of no such data."

Sixth: Recognizing that crustal radioactivity is generally relatively scare (as documented in this U.S.G.S report for coal, basalt, shales, granite, fly ash, etc.), Dr. Jonathan Sarfati builds upon Dr. Giem's research arguing that neutron capture could account for less than one 10,000th of the C-14 in diamonds (see these peer-reviewed calculations). Therefore, there would have to be thousands of times more uranium, thorium, etc. throughout the earth's crust everywhere that these globally dispersed materials are found.

 

[australopithecus]

Inferno does not represent LoR en mass, so cannot give an official LoR anything.

Fair enough. Do you think John C. Sanford is a scientist?

Not since he substituted doing science for faith based nonsense. FYI, I don't represent LoR either.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Fair enough. Do you think John C. Sanford is a scientist?

Not since he substituted doing science for faith based nonsense. FYI, I don't represent LoR either.

So he's not doing science at Cornell? http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/hort/people/sanford.cfm

Please give me your definition of scientist. I can't wait to hear this one.

How exactly does one go from being a scientist to not being a scientist?

 

[australopithecus]

Please give me your definition of scientist. I can't wait to hear this one.

Someone who doesn't presuppose "special creation" over evidence.

How exactly does one go from being a scientist to not being a scientist?

See above.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

he_who_is_nobody, I predict that you will ask me for evidence that DNA has been discovered in dinosaur fossils. I cannot provide you with that at the moment, so please tell me what you would think if DNA was discovered.

 

[YesYouNeedJesus]

Please give me your definition of scientist. I can't wait to hear this one.

Someone who doesn't presuppose "special creation" over evidence.

Is this peer reviewed? Do you have a link to another source that uses this same definition of 'scientist'? Or should I just accept it because you say so?

 

[australopithecus]

Is this peer reviewed? Do you have a link to another source that uses this same definition of 'scientist'? Or should I just accept it because you say so?

You asked for my definition. I have given it. I never claimed it was anything other than opinion.

 

[Inferno]

Wow... Okay, so a geneticist, who also invented the gene gun, is not a scientist. Please give me the official LoR definition of a scientist, as it appears to be different than the one accepted by the rest of the world.

No, you're just confused about what a scientist is. As Austra said, I'm not speaking for LoR, so I'll give you the definition of a scientist as accepted by... scientists.

A scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method in their pursuit of knowledge. The scientific method is defined as:

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Sauce[/url]"]Today scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. This method is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence and consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Scientific method as we know it today was formulated in the twentieth century specifying four elements of the process:
1. Characterization " How to understand a phenomenon, decide what to observe about a phenomenon, how to define the research problem and how to measure the phenomenon
2. Hypothesis and Theory " The research questions before performing research, often based on earlier research
3. Prediction " What answers do we expect? What is the reasoning and logic on why we expect these results?
4. Observation or Experimentation " Testing characterizations, hypothesis, theory and predictions, understanding a phenomenon better and drawing Conclusions

Or from (what seems to be) Newton:

Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"]Scientific method refers to the body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Now as Eugenie Scott has pointed out on numerous occasions, Creationism is not science. It doesn't follow the rigid set of rules scientists have to follow and because creationism isn't falsifiable (although I've actually tried to help you in this respect) it can not be considered science.
As such, no creationist can be considered a scientist.

You're not likely to understand that point, so I'll make it easy for you:
If a person rapes children on Sunday but is a perfect school teacher on the other six days of the week, do you call him "not a rapist" or a rapist?
If a person is delusional (and I mean full blown split personality and all that jazz) on one day and perfectly normal on another, do you call them "normal" or "delusional"?

In both cases, it's the latter. If you don't adhere to the principles of the scientific method all the time, you're not a scientist. I'd say the exact same thing about homeopathers, 9/11 truthers and holocaust deniers.

I will make one concession though: You could equally well argue that they are scientists when they're not being creationists, meaning they're inconsistent. That would make them bad scientists to the point of not being noteworthy, so it boils down to the same point.