AronRa and Justice Frangipane exclusive thread

[Gnug215]

This is the thread for the discussion between AronRa and Justice Frangipane.

It's not your standard "debate" thread, with any specific format. I just decided it might be a good idea to make a separate, user restricted thread for this, particularly because Justice Frangipane (wisely, given the circumstances) suggested that he wanted to focus specifically on AronRa and his questions in one thread.

If either of you, Aron and Justice, are opposed to this, just let me know. I will not close the "Facebook Sheeple" thread - unless you both desire to do that.


I want to start by posting the entirety of Justice's last post in the original thread, as he there outlines in what manner he desires the conversation to be conducted:

I suppose it would be a good idea to request a few things here before we really get into it. There are a few things that help me determine a waste of effort in any type of conversation. (Aron, I'm sure you have your list)

1. Avoiding questions and topic shifting. I think that each point should be reasoned from start to finish as best as possible, without leaving large unattended gaps.
2. Wild assertions, my favorite is that oh so familiar "If so and so doesn't believe what I believe then they don't understand ANY science, ergo are useless in every scientific task" When it comes down to it, what I believe, and you believe about origins plays very very little into real empirical science. (neither creation nor evolution fall into empirical science)
3. The assumption that either theory must be perfect to be plausible. Evolution has holes in it, so does creationism. I don't, nor will I pretend that a theory or a belief in something is something that can be scientifically proven. Yes, we validate scientific theories as plausible, but plausible does not mean proven.
4. Personal attacks, honestly, I don't expect that here, but I'll say it anyway. Not all creationists are only faith based, some do have brains. Same way some evolutionists haven't thought more then a few seconds past what they've been fed. Really, that statement could easily go for both sides. Grammatical attacks are silly, (I often write "your" instead of "you're" as well as forget to use "than" and write "then" if those mistakes invalidate all of my arguments in your mind please don't waste your time here (talking to the readers not you Aron)
5. Please readers, if you have a comment to make and you're dying to make it, please start another thread. I enjoy this conversation a lot but for the benefit of future readers being able to follow the logic on both sides, please refrain from posting on this specific thread.
6. With the best of our abilities to look at the facts and realize that there is often more then one intelligent way to interpret the data. It is okay to concede that intelligent alternative views exist.
7. I'm sure we will need to define terms fairly quickly here, but since I'm asking the questions to start, we will let those emerge organically from the primordial soup of our conversation =)

<i></i>


Enjoy!

 

[AronRa]

Someone on Facebook wants to get into it, and of course that forum has already proven insufficient for this discussion. So I'll archive it here, as I usually do.

Aron Ra
Why are sheeple so fucking stupid?

Justice Frangipane
Aron, I would specifically like to talk to you.

Aron Ra
In what format? Apparently not this one.

Justice Frangipane
Also would like to point out. I'm not a sheeple, I also am not a conspiracy under every event kinda guy. To throw out one instance, I believe sandy hook was not handled or reported remotely accurately. I'm not interested in talking with people who only regurgitated what popular media feeds. I would like to talk to people who can think for themselves and don't mind doing their own research.

Justice Frangipane
By the way I am a young earth creationist, I don't agree with the attack on Bill Nye in this picture. It's obviously immature. If anyone is up for a few questions I would love to ask some. Not looking for a hate fest. I'm a nice guy looking for a few people who would enjoy answering some questions from a scientific and logical standpoint.

Justice Frangipane
Anyone here familiar with Darwin's beliefs?

Aron Ra
I'm very familiar with Darwin's beliefs, although they probably won't be relevant. He only discovered evolution. He has no idea what we've learned in the century-and-a-half since then.

Aron Ra
By the way, today is Darwin's birthday. Happy Darwin Day everyone!

Aron Ra
One thing that had been firmly established by 19th century science was that Young Earth creationism cannot be true. Even "creation scientists" at that time knew better than that.'

Justice Frangipane
While I am happy at a future time to discuss what I believe I would actually like to ask a few questions if you're up for it.

Aron Ra
If you have questions, ask them.

Aron Ra
As for what you believe, that doesn't matter. All that matters is why you believe it, and how accurate you show it to be.

Justice Frangipane
Looking for a specific answer here. Do you know why you believe the earth is 4.6 to 5 billion years old? (I'm assuming you believe the current stats, correct me if that's wrong)

Aron Ra
Yes I know why I believe that the Earth is billions of years old. I was a geoscience major, focusing on paleontology and systematics. I understand how thermodynamics demands that the earth be billions of years old as well. The speed of light was a necessary component of much of my chemistry lessons, and of course we all know what that implies about astronomy. The fact that the earth is at least orders of magnitude only than man's mythology would have it can be determined many different ways.

Aron Ra
Now if I may turn the same question to you: You said you are not a 'sheeple'. I don't see how that could be possible, because there is absolutely no evidence anywhere indicating that the world could be any younger than it could possibly be. The only people who believe that the earth is only a few thousand years old are 'sheeple', those who follow authorities rather than evidence; those who believe in fairy tales that have witches, giants, magic spells, and animals that talk and act like people. Look up what a fairy tale is, and then look back at your Bible. It's a story book with no confirmed prophesies, no discernible wisdom and no external support. It's absolutely wrong about absolutely everything it says that can be tested. So we have the evident facts of reality pitted against the irrelevant lies of mythology. All the evidence everywhere contradicts your compilation of fables, and I mean on every level. Because it's not just that it's wrong scientifically and historically and ethically and morally; even the theology is irreconcilable nonsense. So let me ask you, if you're not a sheeple who believes what he's told on faith, then do you know why you believe the earth is so young?

Justice Frangipane
Thank you for the response. As far as my beliefs, I have about 10 to 15 questions to ask and will be happy to defend after that point. If you would like me to defend now, lets start a new thread. As we probably should right now anyway. (this one is really annoying to find) As opposed to branches of study, I would like more specifics. Let me guide a little. Do you believe in the geologic column? Are you familiar with how the ages of the strata in the geologic column were established?

Justice Frangipane
Lets move this to one of our walls if you don't mind. If you're really confident in your stance then lets move it to your wall. But mine is fine as well. Tag me and we can continue there.

Aron Ra
I'll do you one better. If this discussion is going to be anywhere near as good as you seem to think, then let's archive it so that it will be accessible at any time with a simple link we can both share.

 

[AronRa]

I have about 10 to 15 questions to ask and will be happy to defend after that point. If you would like me to defend now, lets start a new thread. As we probably should right now anyway. (this one is really annoying to find) As opposed to branches of study, I would like more specifics. Let me guide a little. Do you believe in the geologic column?

Yes, I 'believe in' what i have seen with my own eyes and can easily demonstrate and confirm for others.

Are you familiar with how the ages of the strata in the geologic column were established?

Yes, I am familiar with the ways in which the ages of strata were historically established, and many of the ways they are established using modern technology.

 

[AronRa]

3. The assumption that either theory must be perfect to be plausible. Evolution has holes in it, so does creationism. I don't, nor will I pretend that a theory or a belief in something is something that can be scientifically proven. Yes, we validate scientific theories as plausible, but plausible does not mean proven.

I must correct you on an important point. There is only one theory being discussed here. Evolution is the only theory of biodiversity there is or ever was, and it is one of the best-supported theories in all of science. It includes multiple mechanisms and testable potentially falsifiable hypotheses, and it encompasses a few natural laws specific to that field. There are many ways to prove evolution, and that has been done. There are many aspects of evolution which I can show you to be demonstrably factual, but there are no facts pertaining to, supportive of, or concordant with creationism. There is no mechanism to creationism, no supportive evidence whatsoever, and not one natural law applicable to it (or that is not broken by it). It can't be indicated or vindicated, verified or falsified by any means that creationists will accept -yet it has still been utterly disproved in every testable claim that it makes. Creationism meets exactly none of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Last night I watched one of your youtube videos. (something creation related, ended with your statement about unicorn footprints) It was enjoyable, funny, had some interesting points, touched on what I thought was a pretty good assortment of material.

I know that you have a brain, which again is what makes this all the more fun. You didn't use any documentation in your presentation with the exception of referencing a nova broadcast. I am not a sheeple, so that won't fly for me. I am not saying I agree or disagree with various parts of the show, but if you are rebutting something, I expect documentation, not just a "you're a fool for not believing in what everyone else thinks." This is a very common tactic that I consider a non intellectual approach. What tends to happen is the other person looks at the analysis of the data and thinks its the data. Interpretation of the data is not the data and it can, contrary to popular opinion, be interpreted intelligently more than one way.

Before we move on lets define something. I have the desire to ask you to define various things, but as I know that is a lot of busy work, I'll just define, site and you can address it how you please.

Proof of the non existence of things.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

PROVING NON-EXISTENCE
Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place for providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something. Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.
If you can’t, X exists.
Example #1:

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise I will continue to believe that he does.
Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

I agree with this definition. this is not how its done.

That said, your last post using "none", "no", "ever", "not one", etc is setting yourself up for a VERY early loss of credibility. I would encourage you to edit your statement before we continue.

 

[AronRa]

your last post using "none", "no", "ever", "not one", etc is setting yourself up for a VERY early loss of credibility. I would encourage you to edit your statement before we continue.

I said that creationism does not qualify as a theory because it meets none of the required criteria. It includes no body of knowledge, no exclusively concordant facts or indicative evidence, no natural laws, no mechanism, and no falsifiable hypotheses, and it hasn't withstood critical analysis in peer review. It offers nothing whatsoever to the sum of knowledge regarding any field of study, but particularly not on the subject of biodiversity, where it is pitted against evolution, an actual theory which has all of the above in spades, has been verified myriad ways, and has enormous explanitive power. I have no reason to change any part of that statement because it is all correct.

I could however add that creationism also lacks predictive power, which is another element of a scientific theory, and which evolution has repeatedly demonstrates profoundly.

If you think that statement is wrong, prove it. Show me where creationism has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it. What laws were postulated, and by whom? Most importantly, explain to me what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.

 

[AronRa]

your last post using "none", "no", "ever", "not one", etc is setting yourself up for a VERY early loss of credibility. I would encourage you to edit your statement before we continue.

I said that creationism does not qualify as a theory because it meets none of the required criteria. It includes no body of knowledge, no exclusively concordant facts or indicative evidence, no natural laws, no mechanism, and no falsifiable hypotheses, and it hasn't withstood critical analysis in peer review. It offers nothing whatsoever to the sum of knowledge regarding any field of study, but particularly not on the subject of biodiversity, where it is pitted against evolution, an actual theory which has all of the above in spades, has been verified myriad ways, and has enormous explanitive power. I have no reason to change any part of that statement because it is all correct.

I could however add that creationism also lacks predictive power, which is another element of a scientific theory, and which evolution has repeatedly demonstrated profoundly.

If you think that statement is wrong, prove it. Show me where creationism has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it. What laws were postulated, and by whom? Most importantly, explain to me what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

So as not to get distracted I am going to be putting the defense arguments on hold for a bit.

The question on hold is

"Does creationism qualify as a scientific theory?"

Let me know if I'm correctly getting what your question is.

For your scientific theory, Let me ask if you can empirically prove any of the points below. As a side request, can any of these be seen happening today? I would say that every single one lies in direct opposition to what we OBSERVE in nature. I would state that not a single one of these happen today.
1. "the Big Bang" (where did the matter come from?) cosmic evolution. (goes in direct opposition to the first law of thermodynamics) cosmic evolution
2. "Molecular evolution" (how do we get all the elements from the basic original "few") do we see elements becoming more complex on their own? chemical evolution.
3. "Origin of stars and planets" Why do we not observe new stars forming? with 70 sextillion or so out there it would sure help to see one forming. stellar evolution.
4. "Origins of life" spontaneous generation is the foundation mechanism by which abiogenesis is supposed to function. Spontaneous generation has been disproven since 1872. organic evolution.
5. "Beneficial mutations" Why in all of Gods green earth can NO ONE find an example of a beneficial mutation to put in a textbook? This is the mechanism by which macro evolution is supposed to take place and yet we can not find a single example of this happening in nature. Macro evolution.

All of these aspect of evolutionary theory must be accepted by faith. Can you see any of these things happening right now? When you say you can PROVE various aspects, you mean that you can prove what? That the data is there? That radioactive elements are present in various objects. Sure, I agree. Can you prove that the assumptions used to get the "proof" are accurate? NO. The only way to prove that the assumptions are true for radiometric dating methods is to actually know how old something was. Meaning you would need to see it created or emerging, or dying, etc. in order to know how old something actually was. Scientifically, how do we know how old something is? Is it based off assumptions? Yes.
Can you prove actually PROVE those assumptions are correct? No
Truth is, the age of the earth is built on unprovable assumptions and there is no way around that fact.
Do you know what the actual amount of time we observed radioactive decay before we became experts?

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years (extrapolated data not fact) radioactive material as a unit decays randomly. Half life means that while one isotope could disappear tomorrow or 3300 years from now or 5730 years from now, as a group the average is roughly 5730 years for half of it to naturally decay. This extrapolation is done from an average of measurements of about 10 years (best I can find by my research) it was developed in the mid 1940's by Willard Libby. Initially his study gave a half life of 5568 yrs, a 3% error over 5730 years. The current half life of 5730 came in 1960. What's that mean? That with 10 years of research a half life of 5568 was attained. Which is roughly 0.001795977011494% of the 5568 year time span. At 20 years of watching the radioactive decay we get 5730 years. We have watched it decay for 0.003490401396161 of its life span and deduced we have a "handle" on what happened for the other .9945% of the time. But my dates might be off. So let's assume that for a hundred years they have watched carbon-14 decay. That would mean that we watched 0.017452006980803% of its half life and assume the other .982% is the same.

I find that scientifically a significant stretch to assume that after watching less the 1% of something happen that the other 99% has to be the same. Must be the same. Can not be different. But this isn't the real problem. Because C-14 has the HIGHEST likelihood of being accurate. K-Ar or potassium-argon dating has a half life of 1.3 billion years.

Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. If we give the 100 years of documented, scientific, accurate, and flawless research to the scientists doing the extrapolations for potassium-argon dating (which is extremely generous). That means that the half life of K-Ar dating is measured by scientifically looking at .000000076923077% of ONE half life and ASSUMING that the other .99999992% is the same. As an intelligent people (not sheeple) I think we need to look at this for what it really is.


Now. Scientists say "we know for a fact the earth is billions of years old!" Let me ask that question again.... Do we really "know" that? Scientifically are we basing the FOUNDATION of the entire theory of evolution on watching 0.000000076923077% of something happen? That's just ONE half life! More then 3 half life's of K-Ar are used to determine the age of the earth. So we are looking at less than 0.000000230769231% and saying that we certainly, definitely, without a shadow of a doubt know KNOW what's going on.

I would call that a tad bit presumptuous. Especially since the levels of carbon-14 have not reached equilibrium.

K-Ar dating for know rock formation doesn't work.

Is this the type of "science" to build a theory on?

Does anyone want to know what the percentage is for the age of the universe? I love this one. It's zero. It is a 100% theoretical. No actual scientific tests can be done for the age of the universe. We can ONLY theorize. Don't get me wrong. Having theories is GOOD but calling them scientific facts is fraudulent behavior.

Let's pretend we are in a court of law and the defense attorney calls a witness to the stand. The witness attests with an absolutely marvelous depth of conviction that they were absolutely sure the defendant had done the crime. "It is a scientific fact your honor! I am a witness!" They declare loudly. The lawyer asks, "what did you see? Did you see the murder happen?" After much questioning it comes out that the witness saw 0.000000230769231% of the event occur. Did they see the murder?? No. Did the scientist see the Big Bang? Did they EVER OBSERVE chemical evolution? No, have they EVER observed spontaneous generation? No. Have they EVER SEEN OR OBSERVED Macro evolution? No. Have they EVER OBSERVED a positive mutation??? Again the answer is no. If we found the witness to be in possession of less then .0000001 percent of a theories merits. And extrapolation can not happen from one to the next. You can not watch micro evolution happen (and it does) and then say it makes sense for the rest. Natural selection DOES WORK. But can only select from the deck of cards it has. You can select more worn cards, eventually you can select ripped cards but you will never select a coin from a deck of cards. Meaning you can not use natural selection to MAKE anything.

I would state that evolution (with the exception of micro evolution) "lives" in direct contradiction to what we ACTUALLY see happening in nature.

 

[AronRa]

So as not to get distracted I am going to be putting the defense arguments on hold for a bit.

The question on hold is "Does creationism qualify as a scientific theory?"

Let me know if I'm correctly getting what your question is.

You weren't even close. In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you were supposed to show me where creationism has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it. What laws were postulated, and by whom? Most importantly, explain to me what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that. You didn't even try. All you did was to try to shift the burden of proof, and you failed even in that.

For your scientific theory, Let me ask if you can empirically prove any of the points below. As a side request, can any of these be seen happening today? I would say that every single one lies in direct opposition to what we OBSERVE in nature. I would state that not a single one of these happen today.

1. "the Big Bang" (where did the matter come from?) cosmic evolution. (goes in direct opposition to the first law of thermodynamics) cosmic evolution

As others have no doubt already explained to you, cosmology is not related to evolution. Darwin didn't know anything about the origin or inflation of the universe, and that does not relate to any portion of his theory. But in answer to your question, yes, we have observed both galactic red shift -indicating that the universe is still expanding, and we have observed cosmic microwave background radiation, predicted by the big bang model. These are exclusively concordant with cosmology. No form of creationism can account for either of these, and both refute any notion of a universe that is only a few thousand years old.

2. "Molecular evolution" (how do we get all the elements from the basic original "few") do we see elements becoming more complex on their own? chemical evolution.

As others have already explained to you, we do now know how the elements are formed in stars, but this isn't relevant to evolution either, because life cannot exist inside stars. Darwin didn't know anything about quantum-level chemistry, but neither do you, even though that is only 1st semester course material nowadays.

3. "Origin of stars and planets" Why do we not observe new stars forming? with 70 sextillion or so out there it would sure help to see one forming. stellar evolution.

As others have already explained to you, we do see new stars forming, so everything you've asserted so far has been wrong. I should add that creationism cannot account for this either. But that still isn't related to evolution, because evolution is only concerned with how populations of reproductive organisms change over many generations.

4. "Origins of life" spontaneous generation is the foundation mechanism by which abiogenesis is supposed to function. Spontaneous generation has been disproven since 1872. organic evolution.

Wrong again. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but in this instance, it's not your fault. Common dictionaries typically get this wrong, and will not correct themselves even when notified of the error. The only time you're likely to get the proper definition of either of these words is in college studying biology as a science major. Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are completely different concepts not related to each other. Here are the real definitions.

Spontaneous generation: Proposed by Anaximander in the 6th century BCE, and disproved in a series of experiments from 1668 to 1861: The idea that fermentation and putrefaction activates a latent “vitalism” in all matter, thus recycling organic refuse into new forms of already complex, albeit vile, viruses and living organisms from bacteria all the way to fully-formed animals such as flies and even rats.

Abiogenesis: Proposed by Rudolph Virchow in 1855, and coined by Thomas Huxley in 1870; the current hypothesis replacing spontaneous generation as an explanation for the origin of life, the proposition that the formation of life requires a prior matrix, thus an intricate sequence of chemical stages must have enhanced naturally occurring replicative proteins enabling the eventual development of genetic precursers in protobiont cells.

Up to this point, you’ve been expressing what I described as the 6th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, the idea that evolution alone should explain every aspect of life, the universe, and everything. It doesn’t. Evolution is only an explanation of biodiversity, summarily defined as 'decent with inherent modification'. That means there has to be something to 'descend' from. The origin of life is an entirely different collection of processes.

5. "Beneficial mutations" Why in all of Gods green earth can NO ONE find an eample of a beneficial mutation to put in a textbook? This is the mechanism by which macro evolution is supposed to take place and yet we can not find a single example of this happening in nature. Macro evolution.

My son's high school text book lists several beneficial mutations. I made a video on the 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism which presented a few more that were taken from news stories between 2000 and 2005. Ian Juby posted a 30 minute video trying to refute mine, but the best he could do was point out one instance where I cited the wrong paper. I posted a follow-up erratta video showing that he had failed to refute any of the beneficial mutations I listed, and he has no accounting for the textbook examples either. I then posted another video listing a few more examples of beneficial mutations taken directly from peer-reviewed literature.

All of these aspect of evolutionary theory must be accepted by faith.

The fifth and final item on your list is the only one that even relates to evolution, but all of them are backed by substantial verifiable evidence, such that none of them require an ounce of faith. But it's good that you already realize that whatever requires faith should be suspect, being unsubstantiated.

Creationists always play the game of equivocation and projection, an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow comparable, when they are not. The game is played by the creationist pretending to be objective -when he and we all know he is not- while projecting all of his own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course do not share any of those flaws. Typically that game has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:

*Evolution is a religion.
*Science relies on faith just like religion does.
*Science is biased just like religion is.
*There is no evidence for evolution/big bang/abiogenesis, etc.
*There is evidence for creation/the flood/god/etc.
*Religion is reasonable just like science is.
*Religion can be confirmed empirically and experimentally just like science.
*Creationism is scientific.

There is no comparison between our positions; it is completely one-sided. This will be much easier when you realize that I don't have faith and you don't have evidence.

Can you see any of these things happening right now?

Some of it, yes. The rest (as you will soon see) we can trace as certainly as following the tracks of brand-name sneakers making a trail along the beach.

When you say you can PROVE various aspects, you mean that you can prove what? That the data is there?

Not just that; I can also prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species; that it is the only theory of biodiversity, being the only one that has evidentiary support, scientific validity, and verifiable accuracy. As a bonus, you will show that there is no truth to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature. At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.

That radioactive elements are present in various objects. Sure, I agree. Can you prove that the assumptions used to get the "proof" are accurate? NO.

Yes. If you’re going to ask me a question, you should let me answer it. Your answer is wrong.

The only way to prove that the assumptions are true for radiometric dating methods is to actually know how old something was. Meaning you would need to see it created or emerging, or dying, etc. in order to know how old something actually was. Scientifically, how do we know how old something is? Is it based off assumptions? Yes.

No. If you’re going to ask me questions, you should let me answer them. Your answers are wrong.

Can you prove actually PROVE those assumptions are correct? No

Yes. If you’re going to keep asking me questions, you should start letting me answer them. Your answers are all wrong.

Truth is, the age of the earth is built on unprovable assumptions and there is no way around that fact.

The truth is that you don’t know what the truth is, and you don’t know what a fact is either. Our hypotheses with regard to the half-lives of various elements have been proved experimentally. You have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Do you know what the actual amount of time we observed radioactive decay before we became experts?

Yes. You’re still talking at the 1st semester level of chemistry. We’ve been confirming different rates in many different isotopes for many decades, and some of these have VERY short half-lives. We have confirmed these rates to the degree that we’ve even been able to advance new life-saving technologies dependent on the accuracy of our understanding.

Have you noticed that creationism has never contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years (extrapolated data not fact)

Extrapolated data is fact. A fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. Such data can be determined mathematically, the same way we know that Pluto's orbit takes roughly 248 years, even though we only discovered Pluto 84 years ago, and have never seen a full orbit yet.

As an intelligent people (not sheeple) I think we need to look at this for what it really is.

What it really is is that you’re a sheeple. I told you, a sheeple is someone who follows authorities rather than evidence. You presented your different ‘kinds’ of evolution from your shepherd, Kent Hovind. This list is not indicated anywhere else. Not only have you not followed any of the actual evidence anywhere, you’re trying to argue against a theory that you don’t know anything at all about. You don’t even know what evolution is! When you stop posting copy-pasta from criminally fraudulent charlatans, and start looking at legitimate evidence you’ve so far never even looked for, then you’ll stop being a sheeple.

Now. Scientists say "we know for a fact the earth is billions of years old!" Let me ask that question again.... Do we really "know" that?

Yes. One of many ways we can know that is by using the speed of light to measure time as well as distance. Another method is thermodynamics.

Scientifically are we basing the FOUNDATION of the entire theory of evolution on watching 0.000000076923077% of something happen?

Wrong again. Do you really think Charles Darwin knew anything about radiometric dating in 1856? The foundation of the theory of evolution is the fact of evolution, and this was well-known long before Darwin’s time. He was simply the first person to provide a testably accurate explanation of it.

Is this the type of "science" to build a theory on?

That’s what a theory is; the kind of science that is demonstrably factual, measurably accurate, testable, and consistently shown to work –despite all attempts to falsify it.

Does anyone want to know what the percentage is for the age of the universe? I love this one. It's zero. It is a 100% theoretical. No actual scientific tests can be done for the age of the universe.

The thing I find most remarkable about creationists is how anyone can be so consistently proven to be absolutely wrong about absolutely everything, yet still think theirs is the absolute truth. Yes, there are ways to test and confirm the age of the universe.

We can ONLY theorize. Don't get me wrong. Having theories is GOOD but calling them scientific facts is fraudulent behavior.

How can you complain about fraudulent behavior while at the same time endorsing Kent Hovind? And you still don’t know what a theory is. I explain this in part 1 and part 2 of the 15th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism.

Let's pretend we are in a court of law and the defense attorney calls a witness to the stand. The witness attests with an absolutely marvelous depth of conviction that they were absolutely sure the defendant had done the crime. "It is a scientific fact your honor! I am a witness!" They declare loudly. The lawyer asks, "what did you see? Did you see the murder happen?" After much questioning it comes out that the witness saw 0.000000230769231% of the event occur. Did they see the murder?? No.

Irrelevant. I'm going to give a better example, to let you know what it is like arguing with creationists:

"Let's use the analogy of a detective coming to the scene of a crime where there were no eyewitnesses. The baronet has been shot. Fingerprints, footprints, DNA from a sweat stain on the pistol, and a strong motive, all point toward the butler. It's pretty much an open-and-shut case, and the jury and everybody in the court is convinced that the butler did it. But a last-minute piece of evidence is discovered, in the nick of time before the jury retires to consider what had seemed to be their inevitable verdict of guilty: somebody remembers that the baronet had installed spy cameras against burglars. With bated breath, the court watches the films. One of them shows the butler in the act of opening the drawer in his pantry, taking out a pistol, loading it, and creeping stealthily out of the room with a malevolent gleam in his eye. You might think that this solidifies the case against the butler even further. Mark the sequel, however. The butler's defense lawyer astutely points out that there was no spy camera in the library where the murder took place, and no spy camera in the corridor leading from the butler's pantry. "There's a gap in the video record! We don't know what happened after the butler left the pantry. There is clearly insufficient evidence to convict my client."
In vain, the prosecution lawyer points out that there was a second camera in the billiard room, and this shows, through the open door, the butler, gun at the ready, creeping on tiptoe along the passage toward the library. Surely this plugs the gap in the video record? But no. Triumphantly the defense lawyer plays his ace. "We don't know what happened before or after the butler passed the open door of the billiard room. There are now two gaps in the video record. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my case rests. There is now even less evidence against my client than there was before." -Prof Richard Dawkins

This is a much better description of the situation we have regarding evidence supporting evolution.

Did the scientist see the Big Bang?

No, but we do see that the cosmos is expanding. What is the only thing that could possibly mean, if we were extrapolate backwards?

Did they EVER OBSERVE chemical evolution? No,

Yes. Don’t answer your own questions. Your answers are wrong.

have they EVER observed spontaneous generation? No.

Because Spontaneous Generations is a supernatural event, which could not be concordant with evolution or abiogenesis. Not only are your answers wrong, even your questions are wrong!

Have they EVER SEEN OR OBSERVED Macro evolution? No.

Yes, dozens of times, both in the lab, and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field. I explain this -and a provide a list of examples- in my video on the 11th FFoC. Again, don’t answer your own questions, because you have no idea what you’re even talking about.

Have they EVER OBSERVED a positive mutation??? Again the answer is no.

Again, your answer is wrong. The correct answer is yes. In fact so many definitely beneficial mutations have been positively identified that creationists have had to change their arguments such that they accept that these can happen now. They'll do whatever they have to to keep from admitting when they're wrong.

If we found the witness to be in possession of less then .0000001 percent of a theories merits. And extrapolation can not happen from one to the next.

Now you’re describing your own position as a creationist.

You can not watch micro evolution happen (and it does) and then say it makes sense for the rest.

Yes, we can watch microevolution happening, and we can even watch Macroevolution happen the same way.

Natural selection DOES WORK. But can only select from the deck of cards it has. You can select more worn cards, eventually you can select ripped cards but you will never select a coin from a deck of cards. Meaning you can not use natural selection to MAKE anything.

All evolution is a matter of varying proportions, be it physical or physiological, chemical. There are several instances of increasing complexity documented in the genome for various species, and I list examples of that in some of my more recent videos.

I would state that evolution (with the exception of micro evolution) "lives" in direct contradiction to what we ACTUALLY see happening in nature.

Perhaps you should watch my whole series on the foundational falsehoods of creationism, and maybe follow that with my playlist on Falsifying Phylogeny. Then, when you have some idea what the subject is that we're talking about, we can resume this conversation, and you will never repeat these same questions again.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Hello Aron,

Been busy, will have time to reply soon. I have some research to do and some things to think about. This thread has quickly switched to me defending and I'll need to restructure some questions and learn the appropriate terms for this debate. As I agree, my terminology is out of date.

I appreciate the thoroughness of your answer and the time you have put into your response.

I will respond as soon as I can with an appropriate rebuttal.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years (extrapolated data not fact)
Extrapolated data is fact. A fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. Such data can be determined mathematically, the same way we know that Pluto's orbit takes roughly 248 years, even though we only discovered Pluto 84 years ago, and have never seen a full orbit yet.

"Extrapolated data is fact". quote from Aron Ra,

I don't think there is really any point in debating with you.

I think that you have some good things to say, some good science (some based off bad assumptions) and some bad science. But you come across as so incredibly close minded to anything outside of your point of view that you, regardless of any truth presented to you , I believe will continue to say the EXACT same things louder than ever. I want you to prove to me that I am wrong here.

Before investing the time and effort to dispute the points you made, I want to know that you would post and keep up an errata video on your youtube account. I believe you have purposely lied repeated in your response and will take the time to address those lies, if you are willing to stand up and be accountable for what you've written. You are a public figure with a large following of people, and you matter. What you do has a large effect on the world. You're funny, you have a good charismatic personality and a good mind. You matter, and this is not what you were made for.

 

[AronRa]

Extrapolated data is fact. A fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable in that it is objectively verifiable. Such data can be determined mathematically, the same way we know that Pluto's orbit takes roughly 248 years, even though we only discovered Pluto 84 years ago, and have never seen a full orbit yet.

I don't think there is really any point in debating with you.

So I guess you didn't understand the explanation I just gave you. Oh well, I'm patient. I'll help you figure it out.

I think that you have some good things to say, some good science (some based off bad assumptions) and some bad science.

No sir. The 'bad assumptions' and 'bad science' are all yours. You've already demonstrated that, and I will continue to prove it for you, if we proceed.

But you come across as so incredibly close minded to anything outside of your point of view that you, regardless of any truth presented to you ,

I'm sure it seems that way to you, because you have no truth at all on your side, nothing whatsoever that you can actually show to be true. While I can -and will- easily prove that the things I know are true, you will be unable to show that anything you believe in is even real. Or (like before) you'll demonstrate that you didn't know about chemical fusion in celestial plasma, that you didn't know we've already seen new stars forming, or that creationists now admit that beneficial mutations have been identified. At this point, essentially everything you know is wrong, and if we pursue this conversation, you will be the one to prove that for yourself.

You're also trying to project your own faults onto me. You're the one who is closed-minded, prepared to believe that 2+2=5 if the Bible said so. Creationists frequently admit that they'll still believe even when they know it's not true, and they'll believe what they know cannot be true. If the Bible said, "Jonah swallowed the whale", you'd believe it; because you're the one bound to a belief-system. It has required beliefs which you cannot question, and prohibited beliefs which you're forbidden to consider. Your statement-of-faith has you assuming a pre-determined conclusion to be held a-priori no matter what. That's not an honest position, and you're not allowed to admit that it's wrong. Science does not have -and would not allow- anything so closed-minded as a faith statement -for that reason. So I have no such prohibitions, and no doctrinal obligation, because I'm not part of any belief-system. That's what 'freethought' means; I have neither required beliefs nor prohibited beliefs. I'm free to accept or reject any notion based on the evident truth of it or lack thereof. For me, it doesn't matter what either of us believes; all that matters is how accurate we can show our positions to be. So the core of my philosophy requires that I always be more open-minded than you're ever permitted to be.

I believe will continue to say the EXACT same things louder than ever. I want you to prove to me that I am wrong here.

I will definitely prove you're wrong. Don't worry about that. I will probably say the exact same things, but rather than saying them louder, I'll back it with proof that they're right.

At the moment, you don't have any understanding of this subject at all; you don't understand either side of this argument, not even your own! I will be happy to show you what you do not yet know. You'll be embarrassed afterward, but also wiser and empowered to help others out the position you're in now.

Before investing the time and effort to dispute the points you made, I want to know that you would post and keep up an errata video on your youtube account. I believe you have purposely lied repeated in your response and will take the time to address those lies, if you are willing to stand up and be accountable for what you've written.

If only you had some idea of the severity of your accusations. No matter; you will soon know their falsity.

I wonder why it is that people who thrive on lies, who's whole 'world view' is made entirely out of lies, and who's 'apologetics' is nothing but lies -are so quick to accuse others of deliberately lying? I have not lied nor will I. If by some 'miracle' you can actually show that something you believe is correct where my perception is wrong, I will of course concede it upon confirmation, and will never hold that position again. That doesn't happen to me very often because I believe in inquiry over assumption. But I have been proven wrong on a couple important points in my life, and I have always admitted it, and changed my mind accordingly. That's how I got the position I hold now. Hopefully you will be able to do the same, but it will be much harder for you. You've been deceived your whole life, and you were conditioned to be illogical. Fixing that is going to be difficult for both of us. I suspect that you'll do as the rest of your ilk typically does: Once you realize you're the one in the wrong, you will duck out and disappear, and we will never hear the admission from you that you're now asking of me.

You are a public figure with a large following of people, and you matter. What you do has a large effect on the world. You're funny, you have a good charismatic personality and a good mind. You matter, and this is not what you were made for.

Thank you, but I was not 'made', and there was no intended purpose for my existence. You have to find a meaning for your life, if you need one. It isn't given to you.

Now, considering what has been said so far, do you now understand the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis?

Do you accept the scientific definition of evolution previously provided? That evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, of varying allele frequencies in population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent modification’? Do you understand why the evolutionary process is therefore unrelated to the origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang?

Do you accept the fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics?

Do you accept the fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups?

Do you accept the fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application?

Do you accept the fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups?

Do you accept the fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have withstood critical analysis in peer-review?

Do you accept the fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory?

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Aron,

Thank you for your response. I do really appreciate that you aren't one to run away from a fight. I really like that quality. Not in my nature either. I will admit that I don't know everything and if you've followed any of the other posts I've made on this forum you'll know that I am not one who is incapable of admitting fault. Some of the questions posed are on aspects I haven't considered yet and I am contrary to your consistently blanketed assumptive statements able to admit when I'm wrong and grow. I don't know if I should take your words literally, or view you as a great showman trumpeting loudly to garner a specific response from your audience. I WANT to do this and may if I'm not careful find myself making statements that are far to easily dismissed because of the span of their assertions. It would be fun to say, evolution has ZERO good science, its ALL lies, there is NOTHING to back it up, and EVERYBODY who believes in evolution is a satan worshiping idiot. But of course those things are not true. The scope of people who believe in any one point of view can and does vary greatly. For you to assume that I, because I believe something, MUST be like everybody else, definitely betrays a clear error in your logical process. Which puts the logic by which you hold your theory so highly under suspicion. In fact many of your absolute statements put your credibility as a reliable source of information into question.

Based off your response I would like to ask again, just for clarity sake, if you will post an errata video on your youtube account if/when our conversation leads to a change in position on points regarding creation theory. No back peddling and no excuses, if we come to an agreement that certain aspects of the creation account are both scientifically viable and demonstrably true, you will post a video admitting these truths exist on the creationist side of the position.

Agreed?

 

[AronRa]

It would be fun to say, evolution has ZERO good science, its ALL lies, there is NOTHING to back it up, and EVERYBODY who believes in evolution is a satan worshiping idiot. But of course those things are not true.

Yes it is important to note that there are many aspects of evolution which you already know to be true, even before we get started. You should also realize there is nothing you can show to be true about creation in the same sense. There are only two categories; (1) that which cannot be indicated nor vindicated, verified nor falsified, and (2) that which has already been falsified many times over. The third category, for 'things which can be/have been verified' is where all my stuff is.

For you to assume that I, because I believe something, MUST be like everybody else, definitely betrays a clear error in your logical process. Which puts the logic by which you hold your theory so highly under suspicion.

Good thing I didn't do that then. Funny that you assume that I did. Surely you understand that when I say creationists 'typically' do something, it doesn't mean they always do, right? And when I said what creationists 'typically' do -it was right after you had already done it.

I did say that creationists "frequently" admit that they will still believe things they know can't really be true. I hear that admission a lot, especially from Young Earth types, because their position requires the greatest denial of science. 'Frequently' does not mean 'always', but I'm betting that will be true in your case too.

I also said that your belief system includes a faith-statement. Are you saying that's not true? With which religious school, church, or other relevant organization are you affiliated?

I said your belief system has required beliefs, and that your faith has you assuming impossible nonsense without any evidence to back it up. Are you saying that's not true?

I also said that your faith requires -on pain of a fate worse than death- than you maintain your belief even if you have to disregard evidence to the contrary. Are you saying that's not true?

Would you agree that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true?
Would you agree that it is dishonest to refuse to acknowledge evidence against you?

I said that for these reasons, being a free-thinker myself allows me to be more open-minded than believers are permitted to be. Are you saying that's not true?

In fact many of your absolute statements put your credibility as a reliable source of information into question.

Then let's put it to the test already. I wish all these conversations didn't have to begin with so much posturing and fluffing of feathers. Bluffing will never work. So let's get on with it.

Based off your response I would like to ask again, just for clarity sake, if you will post an errata video on your youtube account if/when our conversation leads to a change in position on points regarding creation theory. No back peddling and no excuses, if we come to an agreement that certain aspects of the creation account are both scientifically viable and demonstrably true, you will post a video admitting these truths exist on the creationist side of the position.

Agreed?

Absolutely. Creationism meets none of the criteria required of a scientific theory. If you can show that it actually does qualify as such, I certainly would post an errata video in your honor. I would also ask that you mention my name when accepting your Nobel prize for overturning the status quo on such a fundamental level.

Now since you're repeating yourself regarding my earlier challenge -still unanswered, allow me to repeat it too:

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it. What laws were postulated, and by whom? Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review. Most importantly, explain to me what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.

Creationists typically avoid direct inquiry, and you're already exhibiting that trait too. I know you said that some of my questions require additional explanation, and that's fair. I will go over each of them systematically. But first I must at least repeat these three:

Do you now understand the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis?

Do you accept the scientific definition of evolution previously provided? That evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, of varying allele frequencies in population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent modification’?

Do you understand why the evolutionary process is therefore unrelated to the origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang?

 

[Justice Frangipane]

So we have agreed if ANY of this debate leads to a change in Aron Ra's belief in the scientific assertions of creationists then he will post and keep posted an errata video.

I did say that creationists "frequently" admit that they will still believe things they know can't really be true. I hear that admission a lot, especially from Young Earth types, because their position requires the greatest denial of science. 'Frequently' does not mean 'always', but I'm betting that will be true in your case too.

Here is what you actually said. (caps added for emphasis)

Creationists ALWAYS play the game of equivocation and projection, an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow comparable, when they are not. The game is played by the creationist pretending to be objective -when he and we all know he is not- while projecting all of his own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course do not share any of those flaws. Typically that game has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:

The thing I find most remarkable about creationists is how anyone can be so consistently proven to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, yet still think theirs is the absolute truth

.

Not just that; I can also prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species; that it is the only theory of biodiversity, being the only one that has evidentiary support, scientific validity, and verifiable accuracy. As a bonus, you will show that there is NO TRUTH to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature. At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.

Have you noticed that creationism has NEVER contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?

To clarify. When you say that you use the word "frequently" or "sometimes" it is often the world "always" and "never". They are quite obviously VERY different meanings.

You should also realize there is nothing you can show to be true about creation in the same sense. There are only two categories; (1) that which cannot be indicated nor vindicated, verified nor falsified, and (2) that which has already been falsified many times over. The third category, for 'things which can be/have been verified' is WHERE ALL MY STUFF IS.

That means that you Aron Ra, have admitted that there is nothing that you can learn that will change your opinion of what you already know. Your brain would be "closed off" to any different interpretation of what you believe you know is fact. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Justice Frangipane wrote - But you come across as so incredibly close minded to anything outside of your point of view that you, regardless of any truth presented to you -,

Aron Ra - I'm sure it seems that way to you, because you have NO TRUTH at all on your side, NOTHING WHATSOEVER that you can actually show to be true. While I can -and will- easily prove that the things I know are true, you will be unable to show that ANYTHING you believe in is even real. Or (like before) you'll demonstrate that you didn't know about chemical fusion in celestial plasma, that you didn't know we've already seen new stars forming, or that creationists now admit that beneficial mutations have been identified. At this point, essentially everything you know is wrong, and if we pursue this conversation, you will be the one to prove that for yourself.

You're also trying to project your own faults onto me. You're the one who is closed-minded, prepared to believe that 2+2=5 if the Bible said so. Creationists frequently admit that they'll still believe even when they know it's not true, and they'll believe what they know cannot be true. If the Bible said, "Jonah swallowed the whale", you'd believe it; because you're the one bound to a belief-system. It has required beliefs which you cannot question, and prohibited beliefs which you're forbidden to consider. Your statement-of-faith has you assuming a pre-determined conclusion to be held a-priori no matter what. That's not an honest position, and you're not allowed to admit that it's wrong. Science does not have -and would not allow- anything so closed-minded as a faith statement -for that reason. So I have no such prohibitions, and no doctrinal obligation, because I'm not part of any belief-system. That's what 'freethought' means; I have neither required beliefs nor prohibited beliefs. I'm free to accept or reject any notion based on the evident truth of it or lack thereof. For me, it doesn't matter what either of us believes; all that matters is how accurate we can show our positions to be. So the core of my philosophy requires that I always be more open-minded than you're ever permitted to be.

While I understand your point here. Your statement that because I have faith in the Bible that I CAN'T think objectively is very overstated. You are REQUIRED by your naturalistic view point to reject the intervention of a divine being. You by excluding intelligent intervention as an option have SEVERELY limited your ability to perform objective science. Sometimes, the answer is intelligent design. What then? You are forced into conclusions that rejects the very clear truth that "design DEMANDS a designer". Do not pretend that I am the only one tied to a belief.



I agree the all the positioning is tiresome but utterly important.

Do you now understand the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis?

I understand the differences in definition better now. While I think that the goal of recreating the concept of life from non living/non related material in Abiogenesis a good idea, it is foundationally the same disproven concept of spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis, says, is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

It should be noted that "organic" compounds come from life.

Lets unpack the definition of "abiogenesis"

Abiogenesis - The belief that somewhere, long ago, in an environment we assume to understand, something unnatural happened. Life started from non related, non living material. We are calling it organic because that sounds better, but it was not organic material in the sense that it was once alive. This is a special type of organic material that was never alive, ever. Because we think that living self replicating sustainable viable organisms are simple because they are small we are going to say this is a factual part of science and this is Not At All like spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is different for one we don't because they think that living organisms come from non related, non living organisms, but that instead of something wildly complicated like a flea from dust, no no, abiogenesis is far more scientific because it believes the creature created was smaller then a flea so that makes it easier to believe that it was more logical and not complicated at all. Also lets not forget that abiogenesis happenened long ago and far away, but spontaneous generation has to happen now. So if I were present at the dawn of life to observe "abiogenesis" what would I call it? Spontaneous generation.

Trump it up, repackage it, put it far away and long ago, its the same idea. Whether you make the life from non life little or big its still the origin of life from non life. Things that have NEVER BEEN ALIVE and living things are not related in a coherent parental relationship way. Nor, can I think of any way that they are related in any sense beyond compositional, as in, eg. this banana has some of the same ingredients in it as I do. I must have come from a banana.

The aspect of spontaneous generation claiming "ordinary formation" is what I would consider the defining difference between the two definitions. But I would equate that to saying that spontaneous generation could possibly happen if the situation was jussssssssst riiiiiiiiiiiiight. =) But only a few times and long ago.

Do you accept the scientific definition of evolution previously provided? That evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, of varying allele frequencies in population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent modification’?

I accept that this is the definition that we will be arguing. I would like to shrink down my creationist definition to like proportions.

Do you accept that the definition for creation during this argument be limited to the explanation of biological life, reproduction and variation in species within kind with deleterious mutations refined out by natural selection; summarily defined as intelligent diversification of a genetically designed species for the purpose of sustainability.

I think that while I may have to play with the wording a little, this should keep us from arguing apples and oranges over this topic.

Do you understand why the evolutionary process is therefore unrelated to the origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang?

I understand what you want me to agree too. I will agree that the theory we are debating we will limit to the definition put forth. However I would like to argue from my redefined position.

I believe that if we were to talk origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang that the list of "I don't know/we don't know" would grow very quickly. I think this is a very good choice to chose to not discuss those. How do you, without a God, logically account for those origins? That I just don't know. It seems so foolish to REQUIRE the lack of a God when you have so many questions that would easily and intelligently be answered by the existence of what seems so necessary for origins. Design demands a designer. MUST you ABSOLUTELY refuse an intelligent source for those origins? It seems quite like you are stuck inside a belief that won't allow you to think objectively about the world around you.

Scientifically, if your argument is that I refuse to look at science without that addition of the possibility of a god as a cause, and that I have been limited by my faith. I would say that your refusal to use god/intelligent intervention as a possible option... has made you the one with the restrictions on his thinking. My science includes all options. Some things by design, some things by chance natural processes. What I believe your view does is restricts your abilities to think objectively without limits. You don't have the same choices as I have.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Had some wording issues in this section and missed the editing timeline,

here it is with the corrections.

Abiogenesis, -- is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

Let's unpack what this actually is.

Abiogenesis - The belief that somewhere, long ago, in an environment we assume to understand, something unnatural happened. Life started from non related, non living material. We are calling it organic because that sounds better, but it was not organic material in the sense that it was once alive. This is a special type of organic material that was never alive, ever. Because we think that living self replicating sustainable viable organisms are simple because they are small we are going to say this is a factual part of science and this is NOT AT ALL like spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is different because for one, we think that living organisms come from non related, non living organisms. That instead of something wildly complicated like a flea from dust, abiogenesis is far more scientific because it believes the creature created was smaller than a flea, making it easier to believe, and is therefore more logical and not complicated at all. Also lets not forget that abiogenesis happenened long ago and far away, but spontaneous generation has to happen now. So if one were present at the dawn of life to observe "abiogenesis" what would one call it? Spontaneous generation.

 

[AronRa]

Here is what you actually said. (caps added for emphasis)

Creationists ALWAYS play the game of equivocation and projection, an attempt to paint the illusion that science and religion are somehow comparable, when they are not. The game is played by the creationist pretending to be objective -when he and we all know he is not- while projecting all of his own logical fallacies onto the science-minded, who of course do not share any of those flaws. Typically that game has the creationist telling some or all of the following lies:

Yes, I said that part of the game which creationists always play is telling one or more of a list of lies, and that list included the lies that "Evolution is a religion" and that "Science relies on faith just like religion does". Note that I pointed that out to you immediately after you said, "All of these aspect of evolutionary theory must be accepted by faith". So I was right.

The thing I find most remarkable about creationists is how anyone can be so consistently proven to be ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, yet still think theirs is the absolute truth.

Look at the part of the above quote that is highlighted in yellow. You should write that on your bathroom mirror. Then take a selfie and send it to me.

Not just that; I can also prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species; that it is the only theory of biodiversity, being the only one that has evidentiary support, scientific validity, and verifiable accuracy. As a bonus, you will show that there is NO TRUTH to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature. At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.

That challenge still stands -verbatim.

Have you noticed that creationism has NEVER contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?

An absolute statement can be disproved with a single exception. Yet this absolute statement stands unchallenged.

To clarify. When you say that you use the word "frequently" or "sometimes" it is often the world "always" and "never". They are quite obviously VERY different meanings.

I never mix meanings. I define my terms and hold rigid to those definitions, unless some correction is necessary. In this discussion, there has yet been no need of modification. I choose my words carefully, and thus far, my choices have been appropriate.

You should also realize there is nothing you can show to be true about creation in the same sense. There are only two categories; (1) that which cannot be indicated nor vindicated, verified nor falsified, and (2) that which has already been falsified many times over. The third category, for 'things which can be/have been verified' is WHERE ALL MY STUFF IS.

That means that you Aron Ra, have admitted that there is nothing that you can learn that will change your opinion of what you already know. Your brain would be "closed off" to any different interpretation of what you believe you know is fact. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

Understand that 'knowledge' differs from mere belief in that knowledge is demonstrable with measurable accuracy, and I really can verify what I know where you cannot. Nor can you offer any challenge to that, because you have no understanding of EITHER SIDE of this discussion; you have no idea what you're talking about. The other difference between us is that I am also free to change my mind if given reason to, and your faith forbids you from changing your mind for any reason.

But you come across as so incredibly close minded to anything outside of your point of view that you, regardless of any truth presented to you -,

I'm sure it seems that way to you, because you have NO TRUTH at all on your side, NOTHING WHATSOEVER that you can actually show to be true. While I can -and will- easily prove that the things I know are true, you will be unable to show that ANYTHING you believe in is even real. Or (like before) you'll demonstrate that you didn't know about chemical fusion in celestial plasma, that you didn't know we've already seen new stars forming, or that creationists now admit that beneficial mutations have been identified. At this point, essentially everything you know is wrong, and if we pursue this conversation, you will be the one to prove that for yourself.

We both already know that you have no reason (in the form of logic or evidence) to believe as you do, so there is no reason you could give to compell a rational, empirical apistevist like myself to believe you.

You're also trying to project your own faults onto me. You're the one who is closed-minded, prepared to believe that 2+2=5 if the Bible said so. Creationists frequently admit that they'll still believe even when they know it's not true, and they'll believe what they know cannot be true. If the Bible said, "Jonah swallowed the whale", you'd believe it; because you're the one bound to a belief-system. It has required beliefs which you cannot question, and prohibited beliefs which you're forbidden to consider. Your statement-of-faith has you assuming a pre-determined conclusion to be held a-priori no matter what. That's not an honest position, and you're not allowed to admit that it's wrong. Science does not have -and would not allow- anything so closed-minded as a faith statement -for that reason. So I have no such prohibitions, and no doctrinal obligation, because I'm not part of any belief-system. That's what 'freethought' means; I have neither required beliefs nor prohibited beliefs. I'm free to accept or reject any notion based on the evident truth of it or lack thereof. For me, it doesn't matter what either of us believes; all that matters is how accurate we can show our positions to be. So the core of my philosophy requires that I always be more open-minded than you're ever permitted to be.

While I understand your point here. Your statement that because I have faith in the Bible that I CAN'T think objectively is very overstated.

Obviously you misunderstood me again. I didn't imply that you lack the ability to think objectively. If I thought that then it would be impossible for me to fulfill my promise of proving evolution to your satisfaction. I meant that your belief-sytem requires that you assert as fact that which is not evidently true, that it requires you to assume impossible nonsense without justification, to defend that with a combination of cognitive bias and logical fallacies, and that it also prohibits you from reconsidering what your dogma demands you to believe. That's just part the many reasons why faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have. I have no doubt that -if you defy the mandates of your mythology, that you CAN think objectively. The question is, WILL you?

You are REQUIRED by your naturalistic view point to reject the intervention of a divine being.

Wrong again. If there were any sound, sane, or logical reason to believe that a god existed, I would accept that. But if there were such a thing, there would also be some evidence of it, some reason to believe it -other than the willfully ignorant deliberate dishonesty, unsupported assertions, illogical assumptions, and irrational ravings of only the least credible of all people -who all contradict each other, and have always been wrong on every claim that could be tested.

My 'naturalistic' view doesn't require anything of me. I choose the naturalistic view because there is no justification whatsoever to belief in magic. There is no truth to any religion's theistic beliefs, and that's what's important. Like I told you before, it doesn't matter what you believe; all that matters is why you believe it, and how accurate you can show it to be. If you can't show any truth to it at all, then it would be absurd to give you the benefit of the doubt -especially when there is no doubt, because what you believe defies all laws of science or logic.

I think the biggest difference between us is that in my perspective, truth is paramount, regardless whatever I might prefer to believe. So accuracy and accountability matter to me where neither of these are as important to you. If you were right, I would want you to show me where I am in error even more than you would want to correct me. Why would anyone want to be convinced of something that isn't even evidently or apparently true? This is one question you could answer but that I cannot.

You by excluding intelligent intervention as an option have SEVERELY limited your ability to perform objective science.

There is no need to exclude what was never implied in the first place. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence, and what is not supported, and whatever is not supported doesn't warrant serious consideration. The rules regarding the burden of proof are very simple.

Do you understand that? It means that when you can show that something is indicated, (be it djinni or giants, gods or ghosts, fairies or leprechauns, Loch Ness monster or alien reptiles, whatever) then I should accept that as something that might be potentially true. But if there is nothing whatsoever to imply that your assertion even could be correct, then you still haven't met the minimum criteria for consideration. Your postulation would still be unsupported and unrealistic, and that is how it should be appropriately treated.

Sometimes, the answer is intelligent design.

Apparently -in your world, the word 'sometimes' = 'never once yet'.

What then?

What when? When you show that there actually is some truth to your as-yet unsupported assertions? If that ever happens, (and we both already know that it won't) then I would treat your position has having some degree of credence, which it currently does not deserve.

You are forced into conclusions that rejects the very clear truth that "design DEMANDS a designer".

Notice that you have failed to provide any reason to believe that. You have shown no 'clear truth' such as you imagine -despite repeated challenges to do so! You're also citing the 7th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism, because the designs of nature are emergent -without a designer.

Do not pretend that I am the only one tied to a belief.

Here you are, repeating that same lie of projection and equivocation again. There is no need to 'pretend' that you're the only one here holding to a belief-system; I think that fact is obvious to all observers.

I agree the all the positioning is tiresome but utterly important.

No sir, all your pointless posturing, bluffing, and fluffing of feathers is just a waste of time. Quit ducking & dodging all my direct questions, and properly address my points and challenges.

Do you now understand the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis?

I understand the differences in definition better now. While I think that the goal of recreating the concept of life from non living/non related material in Abiogenesis a good idea, it is foundationally the same disproven concept of spontaneous generation.

Then you still don't understand it at all. The difference is in the definition. The word, 'spontaneous' is inapplicable to abiogenesis, because the definition of abiogenesis requires a prior matrix, and there are actually multiple matrices.

Abiogenesis, says, is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds.

It should be noted that "organic" compounds come from life.

Wrong again. Why are Young-Earth creationists always such excellent examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect in psychology? Would it kill you to understand something about the sciences you pretend to criticize? Could you at least google 'organic chemistry' first?

Lets unpack the definition of "abiogenesis"

Let's unpack what this actually is.

Abiogenesis - The belief that somewhere, long ago, in an environment we assume to understand, something unnatural happened.

Wrong & wrong. The environment in question is indicated by evidence rather than assumption, and it was apparently NOT 'unnatural'.

I would invite you to watch at least some of the videos I made on the specific subjects we're talking about.

Life started from non related, non living material.

Wrong again. Obviously nothing ever came from anything that was 'non-related'.

We are calling it organic because that sounds better,

Wrong again. We're calling it 'organic' because they're complex carbon chains, which is the simplest way to describe what 'organic chemistry' means.

but it was not organic material in the sense that it was once alive. This is a special type of organic material that was never alive, ever.

That would be the 'normal' type. Hint: Organic chemicals usually don't come from life, but some of them can be basal to life.

Because we think that living self replicating sustainable viable organisms are simple because they are small

Speak for yourself. I've completed both courses of biology for science majors in college. I know better. That is also another why I cannot believe as you do.

I also understand that the prior matrices of life are NOT 'living self replicating sustainable viable organisms'. That is life, not the precursors of life. Protobiotic cells would be like viruses in that they are not actually alive (even though they are self-replicating and they can be killed. There are multiple stages to consider here.

we are going to say this is a factual part of science and this is NOT AT ALL like spontaneous generation.

While it is true that abiogenesis is nothing like spontaneous -in any respect, we don't yet know enough about abiogenesis to conclude for certain all of the matrices that are involved.

Spontaneous generation is different because for one, we think that living organisms come from non related, non living organisms.

Wrong again -as always. Spontaneous is different because it's supernatural, not a combination of natural processes. Otherwise they're different because they're described entirely differently. For example, spontaneous generation refers to non-related prior material while abiogenesis is related to the prior material. For another example, spontaneous generation has life emerging from now-dead material that were once alive.

Warning. Don't be dishonest with me. All such attempts will be exposed, and I will walk away smelling clean.

That instead of something wildly complicated like a flea from dust, abiogenesis is far more scientific because it believes the creature created was smaller than a flea, making it easier to believe, and is therefore more logical and not complicated at all.

Wrong again -as always. First of all, it would not be a 'creature', and both the product and the process are so complex that we haven't even figured it out yet. Evolution we know; we got that one. We're still working on abiogenesis.

You're also wrong because abiogenesis is scientifically logical because it is indicated by all the relevant evidence. The further into the fossil record we look, the simpler and more similar living things appear to be, until there are only single cells, and prior to that, there is no evident life of any kind at all. We know that there are complex chemical components of life that are already replicative, we've seen them form in sterile conditions expected of the pre-biotic earth, and we have even seen ribonucleotides forming out of prior components during a repeated cycle of inundation, dehydration, and irradiation. So we know it is possible, and that it apparently did happen.

But is not possible -and certain did not happen, is that a genie chanted an incantation to poof everything out of nothing, and that is what you propose.

Also lets not forget that abiogenesis happenened long ago and far away,

It might have been far away, because we've detected organic chemicals in space, and we have [what appear to be] extraterrestrial fossils, in addition to the potential for panspermia. However there is no need to look beyond this world for what has apparently appeared here, and wasn't necessarily transported here from anywhere else.

but spontaneous generation has to happen now. So if one were present at the dawn of life to observe "abiogenesis" what would one call it? Spontaneous generation.

It seems you did not even read the descriptions of either of these processes. Or you only understood the first one and couldn't comprehend what the second one said. Nor do I think you've understood anything I've said about it since then.

Trump it up, repackage it, put it far away and long ago, its the same idea. Whether you make the life from non life little or big its still the origin of life from non life. Things that have NEVER BEEN ALIVE and living things are not related in a coherent parental relationship way.

You mean like in ancient Hebrew myticism, casting a golem spell? That's where a magi makes a sculpture out of clay and then either anoints it with blood or 'breathes' life into it. Sorry. What I believe is evidntly possible; what you believe is follklorish fable.

Nor, can I think of any way that they are related in any sense beyond compositional, as in, eg. this banana has some of the same ingredients in it as I do. I must have come from a banana.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse, another typical tactic of the creationist, trying not to understand. Incredulity will not qualify as a counter-argument.

The aspect of spontaneous generation claiming "ordinary formation" is what I would consider the defining difference between the two definitions.

Except that isn't part of either definition.

But I would equate that to saying that spontaneous generation could possibly happen if the situation was jussssssssst riiiiiiiiiiiiight. =) But only a few times and long ago.

Spontaneous generation was never possible for the same reason your brand of creationism isn't possible; both require magic to conjure complex structures made up out of bullshit.

Do you accept the scientific definition of evolution previously provided? That evolution is an explanation of biodiversity, of varying allele frequencies in population mechanics; summarily defined as ‘descent with inherent modification’?

I accept that this is the definition that we will be arguing. I would like to shrink down my creationist definition to like proportions.

Do you accept that the definition for creation during this argument be limited to the explanation of biological life, reproduction and variation in species within kind with deleterious mutations refined out by natural selection; summarily defined as intelligent diversification of a genetically designed species for the purpose of sustainability.

I think that while I may have to play with the wording a little, this should keep us from arguing apples and oranges over this topic.

Actually it has the opposite effect, because it has you arguing Darwinianism as if that were an aspect of creation. Why can't you just admit that natural selection is Darwinian, and propose a creationist alternative?

Ah of course. You don't have a creationist alternative, because creationism is in no wise indicated or implemented, and has never contributed anything positive to any field of science.

You do understand that you will still have to define what creation is, what the mechanism(s) and how we can test them. Then you'll also have to define what a 'kind' is, and I'll warn you now, that will be your toughest challenge. Because the answer is inescapably evolutionary.

Do you understand why the evolutionary process is therefore unrelated to the origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang?

I understand what you want me to agree too.

Since you're hesitant to admit that your disingenuous shepherd obviously mislead you on this point, would you care to explain about the dynamics of population genetics could produce new chemicals, stars, or a whole universe? Otherwise I suggest you admit that evolutionary processes are unrelated to these other topics.

I will agree that the theory we are debating we will limit to the definition put forth. However I would like to argue from my redefined position.

I believe that if we were to talk origin of life, planets, chemicals, or the big bang that the list of "I don't know/we don't know" would grow very quickly. I think this is a very good choice to chose to not discuss those.

I know why too. We've already seen that happen, remember? You didn't know about chemical fusion in celestial plasma. You didn't know we've already seen new stars forming. You didn't even know what 'organic' means in the context of chemistry. So if we continue that conversation, there will only be more that you don't know about, and I already do.

Word of advice. Quit trying to bluff me. It is not possible for someone like you to even intimidate me. I don't have to believe what I do the way that you do. Even if I did, I can still tell a rattler from a bullsnake. So thrashing your tail to sound like a rattler will not work. I know you're unarmed. So all this silly posturing will only waste my time.

How do you, without a God, logically account for those origins? That I just don't know.

Obviously. You would also be expected to explain how you would 'logically' account for these things, -or anything else WITH a god. Because that you don't know either.

It seems so foolish to REQUIRE the lack of a God when you have so many questions that would easily and intelligently be answered by the existence of what seems so necessary for origins.

I don't require the 'lack' of anything. But I do require could intelligently answer any of our questions, and a god simply does not qualify. Blaming things on magic is not the same as understanding what really happened.

Design demands a designer.

No it doesn't. Neither does reality require a realtor.

MUST you ABSOLUTELY refuse an intelligent source for those origins?

No. I'll accept whatever you can show me cause to believe. Since you will absolutely fail in that endeavor, (assuming you even attempt it) then I predict this conversation will go the way these conversations always do -with you disappearing at some point, refusing to accept the evident truths that always only ever ally with my side of the argument.

It seems quite like you are stuck inside a belief that won't allow you to think objectively about the world around you.

No it doesn't seem like that. It seems like you're trying to project your own faults onto me again, and I will not have them.

Scientifically, if your argument is that I refuse to look at science without that addition of the possibility of a god as a cause, and that I have been limited by my faith. I would say that your refusal to use god/intelligent intervention as a possible option... has made you the one with the restrictions on his thinking. My science includes all options. Some things by design, some things by chance natural processes.

Correction. God is NOT a possibility -for three reasons:

(1) God is defined by his miraculous nature. Miracles are defined as a suspension of the laws of physics. This means that they are physically impossible, and gods are physically impossible by extension.

(2) Your particular god is defined as existing outside this reality, which means that he does not exist in reality.

(3) In science, we cannot say that anything is possible until there is some precedent or parallel indicating that it is. Otherwise I could say that it is possible that monkeys *might* fly out of my ass. So until you produce some indication that your god is possible, plausible, and probable, it isn't.

What I believe your view does is restricts your abilities to think objectively without limits. You don't have the same choices as I have.

I grant you this, because science deals with reality, then it has to adhere to certain rules, but magical beliefs can be as squishy, fluid and unfathomable as a fever dream. So trying to reason with you will be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Consequently this is also going to get absurdly long, because you can't answer simple questions honestly; you have to dance and duck and dodge to defend your delusion. Knock it off, and understand that I'm trying to help you.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Been really busy, I will hopefully get a chance to write soon.

It should be noted that the original purpose of this thread was to ask questions, not answer them. Happy to attempt to do so after I ask my questions. I am going to put that on hold. (rationale for there not being a god is one I would like to address)

Question 1.

How were the dates for the geologic column originally obtained?



Thank you for your continued interaction Aron. I know it takes a lot of time. I appreciate you doing this.

 

[AronRa]

It should be noted that the original purpose of this thread was to ask questions, not answer them. Happy to attempt to do so after I ask my questions. I am going to put that on hold.

This will be a mutual discussion. I will answer all your direct questions of course, but you don't get to ignore mine.

Let me share with you the way this challenge is usually laid out, because you bypassed the normal formal entry into this game.

"I have noticed that if I simply tell creationists what the facts are, they'll ignore it and dismiss it without consideration. So the biggest challenge will be to get you think about what I'm telling you, to discover the truth for yourself. So it will have to be done in the form of inquiry. It won't take more than a couple dozen mutual exchanges at most. You'll pose the questions you need answered, and you must properly address all points and queries put to you too. If you repeatedly dodge or ignore direct questions, then it is off. Otherwise the onus is entirely on me, and I can't meet my goal unless you concede that I have. Once you know what the initial realities are, you'll set your own criteria accordingly, and by the end, -regardless whether you still believe in God or not, you will be an 'evolutionist'. You'll be that way for the rest of your life, and you'll be much more confident about that than you ever could be regarding creationism, because you won't need any faith at all. You will truly know better, and you'll be able to prove it."
-Quoted from 'Teaching evolution to a creationist'

(rationale for there not being a god is one I would like to address)

That has already been addressed. If you have no precedent or parallel or any other indication that it is even possible, then it isn't. If you have no evidence to show, then you have nothing for me to consider. Done.

Question 1.

How were the dates for the geologic column originally obtained?

Relative dating.

I already gave you the answer to this twice, if you had only bothered to look. But I will paraphrase it for you.

James Hutton is generally credited with discovering the first strong evidence of 'deep time' in the early 1800s. He observed the degree of erosion on the ruins of Hadrian's wall, and compared that to the erosion of other structures and the surrounding rock. Then by studying other formations, particularly uncomformities in the principles of superposition, original horizontality, and lateral continuity, he and his contemporaries were able to show vast periods of time during many of these layers individually and certainly collectively.

At about the same time, William Smith first identified geologic strata, and one of his contemporaries, Nicholas Steno revealed that certain fossils were confined only to particular strata. These became known as 'index' fossils, and added faunal succession to the principles of stratigraphy. Originally they had no way to determine any date other than 'relative to the index'.

Of course that's not what we use anymore -except on field trips.

Lord Kelvin is the man who devised the laws of thermodynamics. He was a contemporary of Darwin's, but he was no fan of evolution. He was a creationist arguing for intelligent design. But he was also the first to ascribe an age to the earth. Using thermodynamics, he concluded that the earth had to be no less than twenty million years old. However he didn't yet know about radiation or how it was involved. Once he became aware of this, it caused him to push his age back by orders of magnitude.

Now we've replaced relative dates with absolute dates, which we couldn't do until about 100 years ago. These are provided by radiometric dating: Uranium-lead, Samarium-neodymium, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium, Uranium-thorium, and Radiocarbon dating, in addition to Fission track, Chlorine-36, and Thermoluminescence.

Now back to my questions.

I asked you if you yet understood why Spontaneous Generation is not the same thing as Abiogenesis. Yet even after I provided the definitions for each, you still didn't get it. So I'm going to start using simpler words, and I would encourage you to use 'yes' or 'no' instead of inflated excuses.

1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?

1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.

1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.

1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?

1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?

1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?

If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.

I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.

2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...

The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.

In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.

You could fail to answer one or two of these and still have a theory. The theory of evolution has an answer to all of these, and so does atomic theory, and cell theory, and a host of others. But the theory of gravity can't yet answer every one, because they haven't quite worked out the mechanism. Gravity is still a theory though, and a theory is the highest level of confidence science can bestow. It's just that the theory of gravity isn't as well-supported as evolution is.

However if you can't answer ANY of these, then maybe you should take the shortcut and simply admit that creationism does not qualify as a theory.

Don't think I'm going to let you off any of these points. If I'm going to continue to participate in this discussion, you will adhere to the academically accurate definition of these terms. I will not let you turn this into meaningless word-salad.

Thank you for your continued interaction Aron. I know it takes a lot of time. I appreciate you doing this.

Don't thank me yet. Wait til the light comes on, when you see the reality of our different perspectives and your questions become sincere.

 

[Justice Frangipane]

Quick comment on the existence of God argument before we go further

(1) God is defined by his miraculous nature. Miracles are defined as a suspension of the laws of physics. This means that they are physically impossible, and gods are physically impossible by extension.

God is defined by a variety of attributes including his miraculous nature. If I were to describe you as angry but at the moment you were happy would you not exist because the defining characteristic I chose to define you by was not present? Hardly!
If we would like to pretend that we as human beings CAN define what is possible and what is not possible that's fine, I think it's a noble pursuit but the simple fact is we can not prove the non existence of ANYTHING so while in scientific practice you may rule out the worth of investing in any number of rational thoughts by the CURRENT ability to make progress in validating those thoughts by currently available mechanisms that doesn't define the reality of the world we live in. It only ONLY quantifies how we can observe it, not IF we can observe it and more importantly it does nothing for the arguement of existence AT ALL.
Saying that God can not exist because our ability to quantify the mechanism by whichever a miracle may occur is rationally insane. Imagine a person in the 1800's trying to explain how a phone worked or almost any of our modern electronics. It is if by MAGIC that these things are possible. Just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't by any means mean that the process is less scientific. God, for all we know may be a great scientist who uses no unscientific means by which to accomplish the tasks that's he is said to have performed. While we call them supernatural it maybe that outside of our current realm of understanding that the possibility of various things does in fact exist naturally.
If we knew the mechanism by which a "miracle" was performed it would cease to be a miracle in that very moment. So it appears that miracles are defined by a lack of understanding. So saying that a lack of understanding must exist for the property to exist does create a logical fallacy in your description of gods ability to exist. If we understood it, it would no long "be".
If events previously described as miraculous were found to be miraculous by natural means.... Would they still be miracles?
If God were found to be capable of miracles by processes previously thought to be in contradiction or suspension of natural law but found to be in accordance with a law that superceeded our current understanding of those laws would he then exist?
All of this assumes that we have a FULL understanding of the laws of physics and that those laws are ALL ENCOMPASSING. There is a very real possibility that the laws we see here are both temporary and local and not the key to all that is and has ever been.

(2) Your particular god is defined as existing outside this reality, which means that he does not exist in reality.

Your using the word "this" to mean the word "any". Let me rephrase.

Your particular God is defined as existing outside "this" reality, which means that he can exist in another reality. (As well as existing in both)

(3) In science, we cannot say that anything is possible until there is some precedent or parallel indicating that it is. Otherwise I could say that it is possible that monkeys *might* fly out of my ass. So until you produce some indication that your god is possible, plausible, and probable, it isn't.

Sure. We are talking formulaic process here not reality.

Origin of matter. God is now plausible.