19 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidThis isn't complicated. If you saw a pyramid would you infer it to be the product of natural forces, or would you infer it to be the product of intelligent design? What would be your inference to the best explanation?
You said "a relatively short timeline" is needed in order for speciation to occur. I assume this is because intermediates are not seen in the fossil record?
If you run across a tree which is down and spongy and mossified in the forest, would you demand data showing it at various stages of decay before you conclude it had fallen and decayed?
Or could you infer, based o ...[text shortened]... hat the tree was once standing? Would you need to see the tree in (brief) flight to infer causality?
The concept of inference to the best explanation can be applied to anything and by anyone. It's not an argument for intelligent design, it's simply a conceptual tool.
19 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidHow is the 'inference to the best explanation' that a tree was intelligently designed to fall over? What evidence supports that conclusion?
I didn't say intelligent design is the best explanation, I said 'inference to the best explanation' is one of the main tenets of intelligent design. You illustrated this idea and how it works with the example of a fallen tree in the forest.
19 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidBefore I can answer your question I need to know what evidence supports your conclusion a tree fell over.
How is the 'inference to the best explanation' that a tree was intelligently designed to fall over? What evidence supports that conclusion?
20 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidThe tree is lying on the ground.
Before I can answer your question I need to know what evidence supports your conclusion a tree fell over.
20 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidI didn't ask what evidence supports your conclusion the tree is lying on the ground.
The tree is lying on the ground.
I asked what evidence supports your conclusion a tree fell over.
20 Feb 19
@wildgrass saidWho said anything about a tree intelligently designed to fall over?
How is the 'inference to the best explanation' that a tree was intelligently designed to fall over? What evidence supports that conclusion?
You did, that's who.
So who should be called upon to present evidence to support that conclusion?
You, that's who.
I don't have a problem with you making stuff up, but don't try passing it off as something I've said. Okay?
20 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidYou are replying multiple times to old posts on multiple pages. I can't follow the thread, the logic or the point you're trying to make.
Who said anything about a tree intelligently designed to fall over?
You did, that's who.
So who should be called upon to present evidence to support that conclusion?
You, that's who.
I don't have a problem with you making stuff up, but don't try passing it off as something I've said. Okay?
20 Feb 19
@wildgrass said
You are replying multiple times to old posts on multiple pages. I can't follow the thread, the logic or the point you're trying to make.
You are replying multiple times to old posts on multiple pages.
I wouldn't need to that if my previous posts weren't being ignored or misrepresented.
I can't follow the thread, the logic or the point you're trying to make.
Instead of reacting to select words and phrases, may I suggest reading those words and phrases in context?
I used the idea of intelligent design (pyramids) as simply an example of inference to the best explanation. I could have used a different scenario as an example not involving intelligent design. In other words, ID isn't the salient point. Your example of a decaying tree in the forest and your question about what I would infer was not about ID (obviously). You were simply asking what I would infer.
My "by the way" (re: intelligent design inference) was just that... it wasn't the main idea that either of us were discussing.
20 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidThe creationist timeline has the Earth created around 4000B.C.. So there are 6,000 years for a flood to happen in. I did this calculation about a decade ago and the amount of water needed to cover the Earth to a depth of a mile is truly phenomenal. There simply isn't enough water for a global flood. Also continental drift would have to happen at about 1 mile per year, which might not sound like much, but it's more like 1 inch per year currently.
@DeepThought
Is the flood meant to be localized or global?
Global
For a global flood there's obvious questions regarding why there are any animals in the Americas and Oceania. If it's just Africa, Europe and Asia, then that is still an unimaginably large area to fill in less than one thousand years.
According to creationist literature ...[text shortened]... to encourage you to look into something you've already decided is not true and not based on science.
@wildgrass
Going back to what I said about PE (punctuated equilibrium)
Imagine you are being charged with murder. You were never there at the scene of the crime and there is no evidence of you being there, but the investigators strongly believe you were. So one of them makes the case you weren't there long enough to leave physical evidence. No finger prints, no hairs or fibers, nothing to physical tie you to the murder other than the unwavering belief you were there. So in a funny kind of way the investigator has used the fact there is no evidence to support a narrative that can supposedly overcome any objection to you being there... because after all, there is no other explanation.
Does it seem reasonable that you could be charged and convicted of a murder in the absence of any evidence you were at the scene of the crime? And that the only evidence appears to be someone's unsubstantiated belief that you were there?
PE apparently does the same thing. It explains a lack of evidence to people who strongy believe that evidence used to exist... because after all, there is no other explanation.
@deepthought saidTo assume there wasn't enough water for a global flood you would need to leave out a few factors.
The creationist timeline has the Earth created around 4000B.C.. So there are 6,000 years for a flood to happen in. I did this calculation about a decade ago and the amount of water needed to cover the Earth to a depth of a mile is truly phenomenal. There simply isn't enough water for a global flood. Also continental drift would have to happen at about 1 mile per year, which might not sound like much, but it's more like 1 inch per year currently.
1) ice canopy (small particles of ice) being held aloft by the earth's electromagnetic field.
2) underground cisterns of water.
3) the possibility that percentage of water covering the earth today is not the same as it was then.
4) land mass and ocean floor relatively smooth before movement of tectonic plates (no deep ocean trenches as well as no tall mountain ranges)
The loss of an ice canopy would also explain a loss of atmospheric air pressure. The electromagnetic field would not prevent gravity from causing the canopy to exert downward pressure on the atmosphere. Creationists estimate air pressure to have been 2.5 to 3 times what it is today. Recently (within the past few years), in order to explain how dinosaurs could get enough oxygen in their bodies with relatively small lungs, and explain how it was possible for pterodactyls to fly, evolutions have estimated air pressure to have been 3.5 time greater than it is today... slightly higher than the creationist estimate.
Loss of a light diffusing ice canopy, introduction of more surface water, and a drastic change in land mass (from one large land mass to several smaller ones). These factors could account for a permanent change in climate and air pressure, and determine the survivability of many forms of life.
The evolutionist version of a past catastrophic event is a gigantic rock from outer space smacking into the earth, killing off the dinosaurs and causing a permanent change in climate.
But once the air cleared, what was there to prevent the climate from returning to its former state?
And how could it have caused any change (permanent or otherwise) in air pressure?
@deepthought said
The creationist timeline has the Earth created around 4000B.C.. So there are 6,000 years for a flood to happen in. I did this calculation about a decade ago and the amount of water needed to cover the Earth to a depth of a mile is truly phenomenal. There simply isn't enough water for a global flood. Also continental drift would have to happen at about 1 mile per year, which might not sound like much, but it's more like 1 inch per year currently.
continental drift would have to happen at about 1 mile per year, which might not sound like much, but it's more like 1 inch per year currently
Catastrophic events are not typically portrayed as relatively calm and passive events. The extinction event is portrayed as a very violent event resulting in some permanent changes. The same would be true in a global flooding event. There's no reason for me to assume violent changes were not in play at the very beginning of such an event, or to assume continental drift has always ticked along (like a finely tuned watch) at a passive and calm one inch per year.
22 Feb 19
It's kind of sad if you think about it. The tyrannosaurus and brontosaurus and pterodactylsaurus, and all those other sauruses, they never had a chance. It doesn't matter what the catastrophic event was, when the air they breathed became 3 and a half times thinner they would have all died out from hypoxia... they never had a chance of surviving. Maybe if they rapidly evolved into miniature versions themselves, became the size of tiny nervous little dogs, maybe then they could have survived.
But they didn't. And this makes me sad. I'm sad because I'll never experience the taste of a bronto-burger, or be able to get a big bucket of crispy pterodactyl wings to munch on when watching football games.
22 Feb 19
@lemon-lime saidAn ice canopy is nowhere near enough. According to the Wikipedia page the Earth has a surface area of 510 million square kilometers. Assuming a flood 1 km deep, which will leave the tops of some mountains visible then you need half a billion cubic kilometers of water. This weighs about 5.1 E17 tonnes, that's half a quintrillion. The Earth's mass is 5.97E21 tonnes. The amount of water you need to cover the entire earth to a depth of 1 km is one ten thousandth of the mass of the Earth. There is not enough water.
To assume there wasn't enough water for a global flood you would need to leave out a few factors.
1) ice canopy (small particles of ice) being held aloft by the earth's electromagnetic field.
2) underground cisterns of water.
3) the possibility that percentage of water covering the earth today is not the same as it was then.
4) land mass and ocean floor relatively smoo ...[text shortened]... its former state?
And how could it have caused any change (permanent or otherwise) in air pressure?
@deepthought said
An ice canopy is nowhere near . According to the Wikipedia page the Earth has a surface area of 510 million square kilometers. Assuming a flood 1 km deep, which will leave the tops of some mountains visible then you need half a billion cubic kilometers of water. This weighs about 5.1 E17 tonnes, that's half a quintrillion. The Earth's mass is 5.97E21 ton ...[text shortened]... earth to a depth of 1 km is one ten thousandth of the mass of the Earth. There is not enough water.
An ice canopy is nowhere near enough
I didn't say an ice canopy can account for all of it, and there are other contributing factors.
2) underground cisterns of water.
3) the possibility that percentage of water covering the earth today is not the same as it was then.
4) land mass and ocean floor relatively smooth before movement of tectonic plates (no deep ocean trenches as well as no tall mountain ranges)
• Underground chambers of water under pressure being released is also a factor.
• We don't need to presume water covered 70% of the earth's surface as it does today.
• When I said "land mass and ocean floor relatively smooth before movement of tectonic plates" this means the difference between a shallow plate and a deep bowl. A soup bowl is able to hold more liquid than a medium size dinner plate. And a relatively "smooth" land mass would mean no high mountain ranges... you don't need a lot of water to cover land that is relatively uniform and low compared to land masses existing today.
The earth has gone through some significant changes. Making assumptions (and calculations) based solely on current conditions is like assuming every species of life existing today must have been squeezed into Noah's little ark.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it...