Tuesday, November 17, 2009

We get creationist email #2

This is a follow-up to this dialogue. Martin has politely asked me if I would increase my blogging activity over the next few weeks, so that we can make up for the lack of new shows. Since I enjoy writing posts that react to something else, I'll probably carry on with this sort of thing as long as I can. Besides, it's good to stay in practice.

This email will be abridged so you don't have to see increasingly wide quote boxes.

From: thelambstruth

Hola :)

[Regarding Kazim's statement that "
neo-Darwinian evolution is the most widely accepted explanation for how the diversity of life came into existence"]

Majority is correct? That's extremely flawed. I'm sure you perhaps meant something differently?

Nope. This is not an argument from popularity, although you might regard it as an argument from authority. In brief, I am not a scientist, but I understand the scientific method and recognize that it relies on results that are repeatable and can be independently verified. I also recognize that among the people who devote themselves to the serious study of biology, i.e. published biologists, only a vanishingly small number of them have any beef with the claim that biological evolution occurred.

Science is based on converging consensus based on common repeatable observations. If you'd like me to explain the scientific method in more depth then I will.

[Responding to Kazim's statement that fossilization is a rare event]

However that was not my question. I was stating that in order for fossilization to occur, some pretty drastic things had to happen. So, what was this (these) process (processes) basically?

I'm sure you're fully capable of doing your own research. But here, let me google that for you.

[Regarding Kazim's remarks about the temporal proximity of pyramid building to the flood]

Well there is: " The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C." However the Flood occurred 4400.

Reference, please? Where are you getting these numbers? As I understand it, there are two perspectives. The young earth creationist view is based on numbers cooked up by Bishop Ussher, who concluded that the flood occurred in 2348 BC.

The position of the scientific community, on the other hand, is that there is no indication whatsoever that a global flood ever occurred.

[When called out for posting long lists of objections to science from web sites, without providing detail]

Haha, my bad. I admit, I was in a bit of a hurry, which caused me to get some points from book/site. I'll elaborate in a future message.

Okay. I've got time to wait.

[Further pressing for a reaction to the web site ostensibly showing ancient pictures of dinosaurs]

Yes it is subjective, however if you want to deny how amazingly (try to think objectively) accurate the paintings/carvings/etc looked, then whatever. How can someone do so with such accuracy? Has there been any other examples such as these? If it would've been a drawing of some random monster, then yea, so what? This is significant because they didn't know anything about the dinosaurs (supposedly), so how can they just so happen to draw such pictures?

As I already said, I don't think that they are amazingly close to dinosaurs. Although I will also note a couple of other points:

1. There is actually good reason to believe that people found dinosaur bones in ancient times...

2. There is nothing inherent in evolution that says that the dinosaurs could not have survived past the presumed extinction event. It's unlikely, but wouldn't fundamentally change the scientific understanding of how evolution works.


  1. if you are interested, I had a discussion with someone regarding the 'dinosaur' petroglyphs -- you can see it here http://the-non-flood.blogspot.com/2009/04/non-flood.html

  2. Kazim...

    I am now eagerly awaiting the day I have a chance to Google something for someone and leave them a snarky link. I can't wait!

  3. Keep it up Russell! I always love to read these kinds of conversation. I like to have them myself, but only to the point when you have to explain obvious facts or when they change their opinion depending on the specific point they're making. Or when they just start to repeat things without going into your arguments.

  4. Summery: I have done no research and know nothing about the science, but I know it is wrong, I am right and I am an authority on the subject."

  5. @Mythnam:
    Seconded! I never knew about lmgtfy.com, can't wait to use it.

  6. That's right... cringe under the taskmaster's whip and keep the posts coming.

  7. It's really arrogant and stupid to think that ancient people didn't find dinosaur fossils. In Canada and Mongolia, for example, there are fossilised dinosaur bones exposed above ground. No digging required. The native people have known about them for a long time. If this is the creationists' best argument, that's pretty sad.

  8. We know for example that dinosaur fossils were found in China in antiquity where they were misidentified as dragon bones and used for traditional Chinese medicine.

    Also considering evidence is leaning towards many if not most dinosaurs having some form of feathering the ancient drawings are entirely what you'd expect from someone imagining the creature from only the bones.

  9. And as for the argument from authority argument, is it really a fallacy if the authority is based on the fact that the people in question know more about the subject than the two people having the discussion ever will?

    Sure, the authority can be wrong, but if you are not willing to do the research to bring yourself to his, her, or their level, then their word should carry extra weight.

  10. He's also counting the hits/ignoring the misses when it comes to the mythological beasts. How many ancient carvings and fantastical creatures look NOTHING like dinosaurs? Plus with the bewildering array of shapes that dinosaurs came in, you're bound to get some hits.


PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.