3rd Creationist Cartoon change.

Brian Tweed: 2nd Response to 1st Question

As before I will be putting his questions and responses, as well as when he quotes me, in Blue, while my replies will be in Bold Green.

Brian,

Looking at the response I had already started, I found I’ve almost completed it, but I also found a pattern.  What I found is you were almost never giving explanations for your claims.  Instead you answer my questions with statements that seem to be based purely in opinion with NO facts to back up what you have stated. 

My current responses below have “Brian2” directly after the section I am replying to for clarity of new verses old entries to you.

Hi SP
Since you have stated on your twitter account that you do not think I answered the question “Does the fossil record match claims of a Noachian Flood” and then added “I don't think he answered the ?” I will attempt to respond to both your additional questions and your accusations in this post.

First of all, I thought that it was a bit underhand to post your ‘accusation’ that I had not answered your ‘question’ in your twitter post, before you replied on Facebook. You know that I did not use twiiter, and therefore your accusation of me trying to sidestep your question was made ‘public’ even before you had informed me. The fact that you have chosen to ‘selectively publish’ our conversation on a blog is an interesting development, as this seems to indicate that you are more interested in having a ‘public discussion’ than you are interested in having a meaningful exchange of views. I also find it interesting that even though I am willing to stand behind my statements as my personal opinion, you would rather hide behind your anonymous pseudonym and avoid so many of my questions, whilst you accuse me of not answering yours.

As you can no doubt pick up from my statement above, I am not too happy with your actions, but as I have now made public a much fuller account of our discussion on my own blog, I will leave anyone that is interested in reading it, to get a better feel for how are discussion has ‘progressed’ over the 6 months since you suggested we have a discussion.

All this said, I will now try to respond once again to your posts, though I do not feel that you have put the same amount of time or effort into replying to my posts.

Brian2: The above three paragraphs after your introduction paragraph will be quickly addressed.  First, the posting of your reply and my response to my first question occurred in the order of Blog, Twitter, & Facebook all within an hour of each other.  It was not my intent to selectively publish content from our conversation on my blog, but it was of course (as the public can see from our conversations on March 25 and May 20) for it to be easier to track  the treads of thought as Facebook posts are singular in nature and not an open forum.  I’ve already discussed the reasons for having a Nome de Plume (being a public school teacher) and will address questions you feel I’ve avoided, but isn’t this why we agreed to restart the conversation with one question to each other?  I’m sorry you feel like I’ve not put the “…same amount of time or effort into replying…” but I would have hoped you would have pressed those points at the time they were made.  I will try to address them now.

As I stated in my reply to your twitter post, I do not think that you asked the question as succinctly on Facebook as you did in your ‘tweet’ If you had really asked me “Does the fossil record match claims of a Noachian Flood” I would have replied in a much different way than I did. As I do not believe that there is a clear ‘fossil record’ but it is actually closer to the truth to say that there are various ‘interpretations’ of the fossils that are found.

I would say that the questions that you asked were far more convoluted than the one you suggested on your tweet, and I was not really sure what you were asking. Perhaps that is more down to my ability to understand your question, than it was down to your ability to form your question, so I will attempt to answer it for you now, taking your additional questions and clarifications onboard.

Brian2: I find this explanation confusing to say the least.  I started my first question to you by laying out the Young Earth Creationist position as it is most commonly expressed by various organizations and individuals (such as AIG, Henry Morris, and Kent Hovind) with dates and events. I then mentioned various types of organisms, the list could have been much larger, that should have been found on the Ark according to YEC’s claims the fossil record being formed by the Noachian flood.  My question was then based on the information I listed from YEC claims and the sequence of the fossil record/geological column and was very specific in that I was asking about recent/top layers and living organisms matching while the organisms from older/deeper layers not currently found alive and why there is no mixing of recent organisms throughout the fossil record/geological column.  I asked a very specific question after clarifying the YEC position I feel it is the same question I posted on Twitter, but, again, I was focusing on specifics.

SP stated “the Earth was covered by water for a year which destroyed all life except that which was brought aboard a ship with eight humans”

To which I replied “it was only the ‘land dwelling animals with breath in their nostrils’ that needed to be saved, as those plants and organisms that could survive a flood did not need to be taken onboard the Ark”

Brian2: What is your basis for the claim that only those with “…breath in their nostrils…” were taken and are you also claiming that there were some animals/plants (what about fungi, protists and bacteria) that were on the Ark because they could not have survived the flood otherwise? 

SP writes
Brian: Which is why I asked about a list of land dwelling animals that do not currently exist being on the Ark

Perhaps you are aware of the clarifications that I mentioned, but your original words did not convey them, which is why I felt it necessary to highlight the fact that not ‘all life’ on the planet was destroyed, as many sceptics try to suggest.

Brian2: What is your basis for this claim?  What life was not on the Ark & not destroyed by the flood and how did it survive a yearlong deluge?

SP stated “In Genesis 6 & 7 it is claimed that the Ark contained 2 of every beast and foul of the Earth (7 of the clean types) including “every thing that creepeth upon the earth“

To which I replied by informing you that there only needed to be about 2-10000 animals, and not once again ‘everything’ as you suggested.

Brian2: What is the basis for this claim and can you give me a list of what organisms were taken aboard the Ark?

(SP comments)
Brian: So then what is a “kind” are all carnivores a “kind”, what about all animals in the same genus??? What is a scientifically testable definition of the word that would apply to all instances?

First of all, I will point out that these are actually new questions, even though we had apparently agreed to answer just one question at a time, to prevent the conversation ranging too far in each post. But as I do not mind answering your questions, as it helps me to further clarify the YEC point of view on this matter I will take some time to reply to these ‘new’ questions.

Brian2: These are not new questions I have brought up, but instead they are questions you have created by making claims without backing up or explaining your reasons for making these statements in answer to my original question.

As you are no doubt aware the statements in the bible are not claimed to be ‘scientifically testable definitions’ of words, but rather the recounting of historical facts to people such as us that were not there to witness the events. 

Brian2: But you are claiming that the Noachian flood is a real event and therefore it should be scientifically testable.  This means when you claim that “Kinds” were aboard the Ark, we should be able to discuss what this means and how it matches with the present.

Obviously, when we try to ascertain details about the events that happened many thousands of years ago in a distant land, we are limited in what we can actually ‘know’ for sure. This problem is multiplied many times over when you read a ‘scientific’ article by someone trying to work out from a few small damaged clues, what supposedly happened ‘millions of years ago’. This is one of the reason why ‘scientific’ articles are full of so many ‘fuzzy words’, such as ‘may have’, ‘could have’, ‘some think’, ‘it is hypothesized’ and such like. Though the articles may be written by great scientists, they are aware that much of what they believe to have happened in the distant past is just speculation and a certain degree of imagination.

Brian2: Yet, when a peer reviewed article is published it then becomes open for discussion and debate which can lead to predictions that are testable (of course the article itself is most likely based on this exact same situation which is why there are always citations to previous studies).

I therefore cannot give you a ‘scientific’ definition of a ‘kind’, but since we know that creatures only bring forth after their kind, we can speculate that this meant any animal that could mate and produce other viable offspring in the original created order was of the same ‘kind’. None of us know for sure what these created kinds were, but then as the bible is not a scientific text book which is to given to us to answer ‘every’ question we have, this is not surprising. Though it is only speculation at this stage, most YEC would agree that the ‘kind’ is closer to the ‘family’ level of the current system of biological classification. 

Brian2:  So then, how does this match with the fossil record?  Are you now claiming that the organisms that boarded the Ark would not look like the ones that currently exist today?  Can you give evidence to back up your claims? This claim is also invalidated by the FACT of the fossil record having organisms that look very similar to the ones we have today and that they are arranged in a order showing common descent.

Obviously, this means that the answer to your question: “are all carnivores a “kind”” the answer is no. As to your question “what about all animals in the same genus?“ we obviously cannot say for sure, but as the ‘family’ order can cover more than one ‘genus’ then it is unlikely that we can restrict a ‘kind’ to this order. 

Brian2: Again, I am requesting evidence for this claim, but sticking your opinion that the Order Carnivora is not a “Kind”, but that Families are a “Kind” are you claiming (focusing on Families under the Order Carnivora) that what boarded and departed from the Ark were two of each of the Families in this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora#Classification ?

This is not a problem only for creationist though, as when we find a fossil, we cannot be sure what ‘species’ it came from, and so sometimes “Families can be used for evolutionary, palaeontological and generic studies because they are more stable than lower taxonomic levels such as genera and species” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_(biology) 

Brian2: First of all new species are assigned to new fossils all the time, so I’m not sure your basis for that claim.  Secondly, you do realize that Humans are in the Family Hominidae which includes all species of Gorilla, Chimps and Orangutan.  Lastly, your use of the quote from Wikipedia shows a lack of understanding of Cladistics & Systematics, so I suggest you do some research into what Monophyly and Clade mean in biology.

As most YEC would accept that a ‘kind’ is a much broader term than both ‘species’ and ‘genus’, we can accept the fact that all our present ‘breeds’ of dogs came from some representative of perhaps the ‘canidae’ family. If we found a fossil of all the different breeds of dogs, it is likely that they would be classed as different ‘species’, due to their immense differences in morphology. In fact apparently even Darwin realised that this may have been true of the pigeons.
Whilst reading Sean B. Carroll’s book “The making of the fittest”, he made this statement.
“Darwin pointed out that the varieties of pigeon were so markedly different from one another that if shown to an ornithologist and told that they were wild birds, they would each be ranked as well-defined species. But Darwin deduced correctly that they were all descended from the rock pigeon.” (P46) 

Brian2: I’ve made the same claim about dogs, but of course these are a domestic species which means that humans are doing the breading and as such if humans disappeared then dogs would become biological species as they would be geographically isolated and many would be morphologically incapable of reproduction (AND they might be behaviorally different enough that they will not interbreed ***Added after my post on Facebook to Brian yesterday). 

So, YEC would believe that all the animals that were on the ark were of the ‘kinds’ of creatures that were the ancestors of the living species we see about us now. We believe the principle that ‘life brings forth life’ and so we accept that all land animals alive now had a common ancestor on the ark, though it may have looked much different than many of the varieties of creatures alive now.  

Brian2: And you evidence for this claim is…? But it is also nessesarry to point out that this statement CONFILCTS with your claim that all organisms found in fossil formations are there due to a one time flood.  I made this point earlier in this round of replies and would like to you explain the evidence for why, as you say above,  the life before and on the Ark “…may have looked much different…” and yet we find organisms in the fossil record that are almost exactly the same as “…varieties of creatures alive now.”

You on the other hand, believe that all organisms alive now came from a common ancestor that was once just dead chemicals.
Your belief that ‘dead matter brings forth life’ does not seem very scientific to me. 

Brian2: Abiogenesis is a field of science we can address later, but will stick with questions relating to how you answered my question about the fossil record and the Noachian flood.


(SP comments)
Brian: So if we take your statement as is, how would we know the sedimentary rocks that were formed before the flood? Would we rely on the Law of Superposition only or is there another way to date these pre-flood fossil beds? The ones formed after the flood would be easy, again Law of Superposition, but they would only contain modern animals I assume? Would you agree??? Since you are claiming that one Flood that lasted only a year created all these (besides the aforementioned pre&post deposits), how do you explain Aeolian layers (some are so delicate as to contain spider footprints) mixed in with all the other layers? How does this occur when the whole Earth is completely covered by water?

Again, you are now breaking the agreed format, and whilst you want to pick and choose which questions that I have raised that you are willing to answer, I will attempt to give AN answer to these additional questions, though I doubt that they will satisfy you.

Brian2: This, again, is not a new question, but instead is my asking you to explain your answer to my original question.

Firstly, “how would we know the sedimentary rocks that were formed before the flood?“ 

As I mentioned at the beginning of my earlier post, I am not an expert in this area, and I would have to research this before I could give you a better informed opinion on it. My view is though that they are likely to be few and far between as they would likely be due to local flooding, so I cannot say much more about this at the moment.

Brian2: Ok, so I will wait for you to do the research necessary to answer this question.

Secondly, “Would we rely on the Law of Superposition only or is there another way to date these pre-flood fossil beds?”
The short answer would be no, we would not rely on the Law of Superpositon, as though this was an interesting hypothesis, it was not tested experimentally until recently, and it was seen to incorrect in the experiments that were carried out by Pierre Y. Julien, Ph.D of Colorado State University. If you doubt his qualifications they can be seen here, and you can watch a video of the experiments on youtube, though I am sure you will find some reason to dispute his findings.

Brian2: Instead of making an argument from authority, how about explaining your understanding of why you think the Law of Superposition is incorrect.  What I found interesting about the video is lamination occurs all the time in all different types of layers and I’m not sure how it supports your claim that the Law of Superposition has been disproved. In my original question (and first response) I also brought up that Superposition correlates with Radiometric dating, but I’ll await an explanation.

Thirdly, “The ones formed after the flood would be easy, again Law of Superposition, but they would only contain modern animals I assume? Would you agree???“

No, I do not accept this, as I do not think that the Law of Superosition is actually a scientifically verified ‘law’, and therefore, I do not think that we can rely on it to ‘date’ fossils. Also, you seem to be ignoring what I acknowledge in my last post, that I accept variations and change over time in the creatures since the flood, so I do not think that every ‘species’ has remained unchanged since the flood but I accept what is now known as ‘micro-evolution’ in that organisms have changed over time, in minor ways that were present in the genetic code of the creatures when God created the various ‘kinds’ of animals. So, it is clear that I would believe that the creatures we see around us now are probably different in outward appearance from their ancestors that exited the Ark. 

Brian2: And your evidence for these claims are…? 

Perhaps you could define the ‘evolutionary biology’ that you want to discuss, and what you think you have ‘proof’ for, as perhaps I will agree with you more than you would seem to believe. I do not reject all definitions of ‘evolution’, so you will need to define what you mean by ‘evolution is a fact’ before we continue our discussion.

Brian2: That is a whole new question that I will address after you can answer my original question.  If you like I will include that in my response to your first question of me as it relates to the part on Natural Selection.

Fourthly, “how do you explain Aeolian layers (some are so delicate as to contain spider footprints) mixed in with all the other layers? “

Obviously, as I am not an expert, this would require some further research before I could answer this, but our claim is not that the Flood covered the whole Earth for a year, as parts of it may have been covered at a later points than others, and as the land masses changed after the flood, there may have been parts that were covered slowly and as the tides rose and fell it may have been uncovered at various times too. Have you now changed that you want to discuss the fossil record and geology? If so I will have to read up more on these topics, but I thought you wanted to concentrate on the firm scientific knowledge about ‘biological evolution’ rather than on the highly speculative thoughts and hypotheses about what things may have been like ‘millions of years ago’. 

Brian2: What evidence do you have for the claim that the entire surface was not covered for a whole year?  Again, this is not changing the topic as it relates to my original question.  I hope you can better answer this question after you do some research into Aeolian sedimentary types.

Fifthly,” How does this occur when the whole Earth is completely covered by water? “
The Flood was sent to destroy all the life forms that God had sent it to destroy, but this does not mean that all of the Earth was covered by water for the full year, it is likely to have ebbed and flowed over various parts of the land as some areas arose due to the tectonic activity that is likely to have accompanied the events, as mentioned in other parts of the bible.

Brain2: And your evidence for this claim is…?

To be continued...

Brian Tweet from 29Mar2012

Brian,

I moving our conversations here as Facebook is not the best area to keep track of or reply to your posts (one reason being I cannot access it at my school).  This post will be a reply for both the comments on the 29th of March. One is copied the other is just a link to another video (both links below)...

Hi SP,
I find it very interesting that you continue with your evolutionary propaganda on twitter, and criticise (sic) those that do not answer your questions to your satisfaction, but yet you have not replied to several of my posts yet, nor answered the questions I posed to you.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for a little longer and assume that you may have ordered or purchased the book I recommended for you and are presently reading it.

In the meantime, here is a short video illustrating some of the flaws in the evolutionary story, which features the author of the book I recommended to you.

By the way, if you wish to recommend a book to me to read which will help to convince me that your view is correct, please feel free to, as I am happy to read any book which you feel 'proves' your point of view.

Brian Tweed

 ...and your second recommended video is found here

Now before I respond to (or even watch either of these videos) I need you, Brian, to clarify for me what evidence you believe the videos are giving you that refutes why current Evolutionary Biology is not the most valid theory to explain the facts that are observed.

The reason I will not watch the videos before your explanations of what the video is telling you and why you think it refutes Evolution, is that I find the idea of saying read this or what that without explaining why to be repugnant to our conversation.  If we are to learn from each other why each of us holds to our point of view it cannot be done by proxy of telling the other person to watch/read without explaining why it supports your point of view.

Yours,

SP

Conversations with Brian Tweed on Facebook.

Recently I've been having a conversation with Brian Tweed on Facebook, but we have both been hindered by the limitations of this format for our type of discussion.  As such I have moved his last post here so to allow for a greater ease of use and  response. Enjoy...

Hi SP, as there seems to be little continuity to our discussion on here, as you do not reply to many of my posts, I will have to start another new post, in an attempt to focus our discussion.

(Scientia Perceptum writes) Our discussions have had nothing to due with theology (I thought I explained that to begin with),

I am afraid you this was not my understanding, as your initial response to me stated 

 I'm sorry for the misunderstanding Brian.  When I started our conversation I thought that I pointed out that my interests were only in the purely scientific reasons that creationists claim they have a better explanation than that given by modern Evolutionary Biology.  This meant that our conversations would be limited to changes in life over time and not dealing with the origins of the Universe, solar system, or life.

(Scientia Perceptum writes) “My aim is to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that creationists hold” 

Since you stated that this was your aim, it is obvious that those that you refer to as ‘creationists’ are going to have a worldview which has theology as its “basis”.
You also betray your own “theology” which you acknowledge as atheism, by promoting both your atheism and anti Christian opinions in your last few tweets.
It is interesting that you claim to want to have a meaningful discussion, but when you are given the opportunity to do so with a Christian that accepts the young Earth position, you claim that you are very busy, whilst at the same time you continue to post your atheistic worldview tweets that attack both Christianity and ‘creationists’.
I sense that you are not as sincere as you are trying to make out. This is very disappointing, as I saw this as an opportunity to have a meaningful discussion with someone holding an opposing viewpoint, that was capable of presenting their views in a rational and reasonable manner, you have not showed yourself willing to engage in this up to this point. 

 Of course the basis of creationism is theology (thank you for admitting that as some creationists will not), but that does not mean that every question can be answered with "God did it" and be considered an alternative to the scientific theories of Evolutionary Biology that explain the facts observed.


As science cannot say anything about the existence or non-existence of any deities it is neither atheistic or theistic in nature. The fact that I am an atheist also has nothing to due with a scientific discussion between you and I whether creationism can be considered a scientific alternative to Evolutionary Biology and I will never use it as such.  


As for your claim that I attack creationism in my tweets, it is true, yet I do so ONLY on a scientific nature and their religion or religious beliefs do not enter into it (unless they are making a claim about history of life that is completely unscientific and it is only their attacks on science that I address).  To your claim that I've attacked Christianity, I looked back at the last month of tweets and cannot find one time that I've said anything of that nature, so I await evidence of this statement.


Lastly, as I've stated a few times now, the reason I've moved our discussion here is to give me more time to allow for our conversation to occur.  Facebook is blocked at my school and moving here will allow me much more time and access to our discussions. As for tweets, those require almost no time and, if you have been following them closely over the last month, are almost purely devoted to current news event relating to Evolution including people & a thread with one particular creationist requesting that he back up his claims with facts.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)… but instead I've hoped would be based purely in science.  

I can see that you have a high regard for the discipline of science and the scientific method, as do I, but we must be aware that ‘science’ does not tell us anything, and it is how we ‘interpret’ the information that we discover that makes the difference.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that our worldviews effect HOW we interpret the information we are presented with. Whilst ‘science’ may not have a bias, it is people that ‘interpret’ the results, and they most certainly do have a bias.
My point is that whilst you may wish to exclude ‘theology’ from the discussion, this is not something that is possible in actuality. The position that we hold as regard to God and a Creator greatly affects the conclusions we arrive at.
You also seem oblivious to the fact that Christianity is the only worldview that makes total sense of the world around us. You think that you can use science, reason and logic to reach your opinion, but ignore the fact that if atheism is true, there is no reason to trust science, reason or logic! Atheism cannot account for the fact that there are laws of logic, or laws of nature, and instead you must rely on the Christian God to account for their presence in the first place. 

Before addressing the nature of science, I will again reiterate that any theological stance is not allowed and if one is letting their "...position...(that they) hold as regard to God and a creator..." affect their conclusions, than right away we know they have left the realm of science and are discussing only theology.  I will not address the claims about laws in logic or nature, as again by limiting them to being only explainable by the deity of Christianity your claims are purely theological in context and not a discussion I'm interested in having.

To the point about the nature of science, as the final part of the process is that of peer review, the point about "bias" can be disregarded as the only bias is that supporting the methodology of science itself. Science is systematic method builds theories to explain facts about the world & that works to eliminate biased interpretations of those facts.  For a more detailed explanation of the nature of science (which matches and expounds upon my statements above) see the official position by the NSTA.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…I've tried to take time to read, reread, clarify, and find citations for my comments

I have seen very little actual content from you, as you have not answered my questions, even though I have answered yours.

Which, again, is why I moved out conversations here off Facebook, the FB format was not working.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…(at this point I will request that we, again, address evolution {with geological evidence} as the focus of our discussions)

I have told you that I am happy to answer any questions that you address to me, and you have stated that you wanted to take one topic at a time. I understood that when I answered your questions that I was free to ask you any question I wished as ‘My aim is to understand the basis for and purpose of the belief that atheist evolutionary biologists hold’.

Again you are confusing theology with science.  There are many Evolutionary Biologists who are religious, including Christian, and they understand that their theology cannot and should not influence the science they study and report on.

I can understand why you want to avoid this, as I am sure you are aware that atheists have very few reasonable answers to the questions that interest most people, such as the origin of matter, physics and chemistry, which are essential prerequisites for the origin of life. It appears that you want to ignore discussing how the lego bricks were manufactured or how they came to exist in the first place, and jump straight to the assembled models themselves.

My field of study is not the origins of matter, my understanding of physics is limited to conceptual, but I have taken some higher level chemistry courses (including organic chemistry in college), but again how life originated (there are many working hypotheses in Abiogenesis) has NOTHING to do with the study of Evolution.  Life on Earth could have originated in various ways, but the fact of increasing morphology throughout geological history, convergent phylogenetic trees from paleontology and genetics (to name a few) and other observed facts are not explained by any other scientific theory EXCEPT the one I studied for my Bachelors in Science; Evolutionary Biology.  The claim you've made is a common straw man fallacy that should be dropped.

I did though attempt to focus our discussion in an earlier post, one which you have yet to reply to, in which I suggested that we focus on one of the main claims of common ancestry, and we examine the Primary axiom, which is the ‘supposed’ mechanism, by which evolutionary biologists seem to place their ‘faith’ in.
I have suggested that we take genetics as our first topic, and examine the ‘evidence for evolution’ which you seem to feel is conclusive. Have you given any consideration to my post? As I have yet to learn if you are willing to discuss this topic, which was on your list of ‘evidences’ for evolution.  

Please re-post the question here and I will get to it shortly.  The "timeline" aspect of Facebook does not allow easy or uninterrupted access that I need to keep this conversation on the track we are both requiring.

(Scientia Perceptum writes)…but again request that we make sure that science be to only topic in our conversations.

I am happy to discuss science, but to restrict our conversation to ‘only’ science seems to be very narrow minded, as my worldview can explain why science can even work in the first place, whilst yours has no reason to accept science as a reliable basis for knowledge, and instead you rely on the Christian worldview to explain the basis of science, and then reject the conclusions that it leads us to.

I see that as another theological statement that has nothing to do with how the current Nature of Science.  If you would like to start another conversation on history of the philosophy of science, I would be interested, but it must be a different thread so as to not distract from our discussion of the scientific validity of creationism or Evolutionary Biology.

Scientia Perceptum writes)…Given your statement above, are you claiming that "Creationism" is not scientific, but instead is a religion?

Perhaps you could be more specific, as I am not sure which statement you are referring to. As for your terminology, I do not use the term “Creationism” that is your term, and one which is usually used in a derogatory manner. I believe that God created the heavens and the Earth, and that science can help us to learn about His creation, but as for your ‘beliefs’, I think that there is little support for them in real science, and it is necessary to ignore a lot of the things that real science has revealed to support your evolutionary beliefs.

That sounds like a great beginning to a conversation on whether Creationism (I believe you have claimed to be a Young Earth Creationist) or Evolution is scientifically valid explanation of the observable facts.

Scientia Perceptum writes)…My reason for asking is that my concerns over the "creationism vs evolution controversy" is that both are claimed to be purely based in science by creationists and that is my only focus.

I would be interested in a citation, as I do not know of any biblical creationists that claim this. We acknowledge that both creation and evolutionism ;-) rely on information that is ‘beyond’ the reach of the scientific method. You cannot use the scientific method to support your beliefs, and must at some point admit that science is unable to answer every question.

I defer to my prior statement seen directly above the answer to this one.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… So, in your view, is creationism (the one you claim to follow) based purely in science and if so, how so???? 

I have explained to you before, that my beliefs are based on information that I have gathered from various different disciples, including physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology and biology. They are not though limited to these, as I also include logic and reason, as well as historical records in coming to my point of view.
My belief in God as the Creator of the universe takes all of these things into consideration, but as I have also stated before, I have more than all of these, as I have the testimony of an Eyewitness Himself who was actually there and has given us a reliable account of what happened in the book of Genesis.

In opposition to this, your view requires you to ignore reason and logic and historical information, and to deny several scientific principles to reach your conclusion that all life ‘evolved’ by natural processes from a common ancestor.

So no my views are not based ‘purely’ in science, but then neither are yours.

I will defer this to my prior statement and during our discussions on whether our evidence, your accepted form of Creationism or my acceptance of modern Evolutionary Biology, will prove to be a more scientific explanation as to the diversity of life on Earth.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… I am (I glean from your comments and page you are retired) heavily involved in work, professional life (today I ran a naturalist walk through a local conversation land informing my audience on the natural history of the area), and personal life and think should realize that my replies are based on my own sense of conveying the known facts in science and cannot delve into metaphysical conjecture.

I found it extremely amusing that your ‘interpretation’ of the information was so faulty in working out my age, and yet I am sure that this will not dent your confidence too much in believing that you are right about the age of the Earth, even though you must make so many assumptions to reach your conclusion, which may be equally as bad as the false assumptions you made about me ;-)

As we go into the facts which are explained by scientific theories , we will see which of our claims are backed up as to the age of the Earth.

Scientia Perceptum writes)… I suggest that we start our conversation anew based purely on the common descent of all life as inferences about the origin and nature of the universe are not my field of education/inquiry nor do they concern the fact that geological, morphological, embryological, fossil, and genetic information {all fields taking evidence from different facts} give matching phylogenetic tree, as the origin of the Earth/Universe does not (in my opinion) affect events that occur after the start of life on Earth itself.

As I have said before, I do not think that all of this information produces the unified picture that you imagine, and I have said that I would be willing to discuss any and all of them one topic at a time. I have suggested that we start with genetics, I will leave you to decide if you want to start with this one of the other fields you mention, but as you believe that all life has ‘evolved’ from a common ancestor, it would seem sensible to discuss the feasibility of the ‘supposed’ mechanism for this process.

Brian

Ok, so the start of our conversation will be whether genetics supports your Creationist view (again from previous conversations I am assuming you are a Young Earth Creationism advocate as you've indicated you believe the Earth to be around 10,000 years old) or if my mainstream scientific view best explains the evidence and proves common ancestry of all life on Earth.

Thank you again, Brian, for your time and please make all responses here (again I cannot access Facebook at school, where I do most of my work) and when needed I will start a new thread on new lines of conversation that we start.

Yours,

Scientia Perceptum

When the going gets tough, NephilimFree BLOCKS you from making comments on his videos.

I woke up today (Sunday January 11th) and watched a few new videos from channels I subscribe to on YouTube. One of the videos was from NephilimFree and titled "Evolution Quickshot - Speciation"

Now although NephilimFree was one of the first people I subscribed to when joining YouTube and I've watched many of his videos, I've never felt the need to comment on anything he has posted, until today.

Before even getting through all ten minutes of his video I made a couple of comments...

Starting your video, NephilimFree, by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim.

For everyone wondering the video was taken from Kent Hovind's "Debate #8 - Wayne State University" and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect.

Sad attempt at deception NF!

And

A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards??? That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile.

Your whole video seems to be nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

After watching the video all the way through I posted two more comments...

NephilimFree, you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance.

Point of Fact - Phylum Porifera existed in the Ediacaran and chemical markers push their existence back even older.
Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian with the fossil Dickinsonia as an example.
Phylum Cnidaria dates to at least the Ediacaran.
The origin of Phyla Annelida and/or Arthropoda can placed in the Ediacarian by Spriggina fossils.

cont...

And

cont...

Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella.

AND then comes the fact that MANY, to many to mention here, Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants.
So it is completely FALSE that "...all phylum (sic) and body plans of life came to be at once." in the Cambrian Explosion.

Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand? What animals/plants are in the same kind??

I was hoping that NephilimFree would give his reasons for making such inaccurate statements for why he thinks that salamanders are LIZARDS and when Phyla are known to appear in the fossil record, but instead he blocked me from being able to make any further comments.

At the same time he made the following scientifically inaccurate assertions (my comments are in quotations)...

"Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella."

We do not observe new morphological feautes [sic] arise(ing?) in mollusk fossils.

"Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants"

None. All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian.

Firstly we do observe "...new morphological..." FEATURES arising in mollusca after the Cambrian with the best example being the most recent molluscan: The Class Scaphopoda did not exist until the Ordovician. Besides this, new morphological features show up in mollusca throughout their history as verified by anyone researching the evolutionary changes in molluscan Orders, Families, and Genera over time.

Secondly all, I will repeat that ALL, land plant Phyla do not come into existence until after the Cambrian with the first appearing in the Ordovician. The first vascular plants do not appear until the Silurian and the most recent Phyla, the Angiosperms, do not appear until over 350 million years after the Cambrian.

Next NephilimFree said...

"Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand?"

The closest relation to evolutionist taxonomy is family, as I stated in so many words in the video.

"What animals/plants are in the same kind??"

Do your own homework.

According to NephilimFree a “creationist KIND” is defined as a taxonomic Family. Really??? Ok if that is true then according to NephilimFree Oranatanges, Gorillias, Chimpazees, and Humans (along with all extinct homonids like Australopithecenes) are the same KIND since they all fall within the Taxonomic Family of Hominidae.
Thank you, NephilimFree, for admitting that Humans are Great Apes, now I hope you will retract the statements in your video that deny this.

I've done my homework, now do your own.

What next...

"you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance."

I know more about evolutiosm [sic] than you do obviously, since you think phylum [sic] arose after the Cambrian.

"Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian"

Radiometric dating uses a material of presumed age as the control for calibration. It is not capable of dating anything.

Since I've already proven that many Phyla postdate the Cambrian period I will skip to your a comment by you that negates EVERYTHING you have to say about the occurrence of when new morphological adaptations occur.

If you, NephilimFree, claim that radiometric dating is "...not capable of dating anything." then I don't know how you can even begin to claim that "All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian." since to claim this you have to rely upon radiometric dating. I guess you cannot make any claims about the ages of fossils, the origins of new morphologies, or ANYTHING relating to the geological ages of anything.

Let's continue...

"by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim"

I quote a scientist and that invalidates something? You are totally lost in space.
Not surprising. You're an evo!

"and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect"

Moore is as lost as you are.

You, NephilimFree, did not quote Dr. William Moore, instead you mined the beginning of a rhetorical statement in a debate and showed this in your video out of context as an introduction to your entire argument and everything you said afterwards. Your intellectual dishonesty for not posting ALL of Dr. Moore's definition/commentary on how speciation is defined in biology negates everything you claim in the rest of your video.

Since NephilimFree does not want Dr. Moore to define speciation then I suggest that everyone watches the debate. It can be found on YouTube in sections and the entire debate can also be downloaded from various sources online.

What one will find is that species, according to science, are defined in different ways and one must understand these definitions before making an agrument either for or against speciation or if speciation has occured. Since NephilimFree does not address the different definitions or any known instances of speciation then we cannot rely on his statements that it does not occur.

Next comes my favorite responce by N.F. about a statement he made in his video. Between 5:53 and 6:05 he said...

Take for example, uh, a Gila Monster and a salamander, are they the same kind? Well certainly not. They're both LIZARDS of a different kind.

I found this statement so ignorant of reality I had to ask N.F. if he really thought this was true.

"A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards???"

National Geographic:
ht tp : // animals . nationalgeographic . com / animals / reptiles / gila-monster . h t m l

"the venomous Gila monster (pronounced HEE-luh) is the largest lizard native to the United States."

Totally lost are we?

NephilimFree is again claiming that SALAMANDERS ARE LIZARDS.

As you can see from my comment above I said "That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile." but instead of correcting his mistake (did you even look up Caudata NephilimFree???) or admitting that he was wrong NephilimFree gives a link about a Gila Monster.

Well to answer your rhetorical question: Yes, I think you are lost.

Caudata are an Amphibian (not Reptile, like Lizards) taxonomic Order that includes all Salamander species.

Evolutionists never cease to amaze me with thier ignorance. That's why I issued my challenge to them.

ScientiaPerceptum, you would serve yourself well to take that challenge. You would not make a goon of yourself so much if you actualy understood evolution theory and the evidences which destroy is [sic] so thoroughly.

Well NephilimFree apparently I cannot take your challenge and prove that the ignorance, about the scientific reality of Evolutionary Biology, is yours when you block me from posting any further comments on your videos.

What are you so afraid of me saying? If you allowed me, someone with an undergrad in Evolutionary Biology, to reply to your claims are you afraid that your subscribers would learn the extent of your ignorance of the facts that make up the Scientific theory of Biological Evolution or do are you afraid that you would have to apologize for your incredulous and inaccurate statements???

At this point, you, NephilimFree, have proven that like almost all creationists that your only evidence for the pseudoscience that you spew is censorship of the scientific reality.

S.P.