Presuppositionalism

[Looncall]

But that is what science is! Science is based on the working assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. These assumptions are key to all scientific endeavors, not just the theory of evolution. When an astronomer makes observations of a distant star and concludes that there are planets in orbit around that star that astronomer is making the assumption that the same laws of physics that apply in the observatory today also apply thousands of light-years away and thousands of years ago. That astronomer also makes the assumption that the observations are not the result of magical trickster deities. This is the way science works.


If you are not employing the working hypothesis of naturalism you are not doing science. You can’t tell me that you have no problem with science but you have a problem with the assumptions of naturalism and uniformitarianism. All scientific conclusions are based on the assumption of naturalism, and virtually all are based on the assumption of uniformitarianism.

If you choose to reject science because of the assumption of naturalism, fine. Just be honest about it.

Is an intial assumption that turns out to work still an assumption? All our observations support naturalism and uniformitarianism and none refute them. I think it is dishonest to refer to them as assumptions. Just another lieing ploy by the religious.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith:

Many Christian experts who do not believe that a global flood occurred, and accept theistic evolution, and believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that a global flood occurred, that creationism is true, and that the earth is young. After conducting a lot of scientific research, they changed their minds. How can you use a presupposition argument against those Christians since they originally presupposed your way?

Why don't the take the time to find out why many Christian experts gave up YEC? In an article at Glenn Morton's story, Glenn Morton, who is a Christian, a geophysicist, and a former YEC, tells why he gave up being a YEC.

When Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not an atheist. Obviously, when he wrote the book, he presupposed that God exists, and created life on earth.

 

[fantome profane]

Is an intial assumption that turns out to work still an assumption? All our observations support naturalism and uniformitarianism and none refute them. I think it is dishonest to refer to them as assumptions. Just another lieing ploy by the religious.

I take your point, but I still have to say that yes it is an assumption. It is an incredibly reasonable and practical assumption. It is an assumption that every sane individual makes in 90% of their day to day lives. We demand that people make this assumption, not only scientists, but also mechanics, plumbers, electricians, manufactures etc. If you take your car to a mechanic and he recommends a magical spell that will dispel the gremlins from your engine, you take your car to a different mechanic.


I don’t think it is dishonest to call them assumptions, but it is dishonest to imply that they are invalid assumptions, and it is incredibly dishonest to deny that everybody makes exactly these same assumptions.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

When Charles Darwin wrote 'On the Origin of Species,' he was a theist, not a naturalist.

Many Christian experts who do not believe that a global flood occurred, and accept theistic evolution, and believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that a global flood occurred, that creationism is true, and that the earth is young. After conducting a lot of scientific research, they changed their minds. How can you use a presupposition argument against those Christians since they originally presupposed your way?

Why don't the take the time to find out why many Christian experts gave up YEC? In an article at Glenn Morton's story, Glenn Morton, who is a Christian, a geophysicist, and a former YEC, tells why he gave up being a YEC.

Do you object when inerrantist science experts presuppose their conclusions before they get degrees in science? Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to become inerrantists? A simple "yes" or "no" will do for a start.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

When Charles Darwin wrote 'On the Origin of Species,' he was a theist, not a naturalist.

Many Christian experts who do not believe that a global flood occurred, and accept theistic evolution, and believe that the earth is old, originally presupposed that a global flood occurred, that creationism is true, and that the earth is young. After conducting a lot of scientific research, they changed their minds. How can you use a presupposition argument against those Christians since they originally presupposed your way?

Why don't the take the time to find out why many Christian experts gave up YEC? In an article at Glenn Morton's story, Glenn Morton, who is a Christian, a geophysicist, and a former YEC, tells why he gave up being a YEC.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Man of Faith: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

Do you object when inerrantist science experts presuppose their conclusions before they get degrees in science? If so, what is your solution? If not, then why is presuppositionalism a problem?

Argument #2

Do you believe that it is acceptable for people who know very little about science to become inerrantists? If so, then you are not actually concerned very much about science. I doubt that you would answer "no."

Argument #3

Many Christian physicists originally presupposed that the earth is young, and after conducting a lot of scientific research, changed their minds and became old earth creationists. Obviously, your presuppositionalism argument doesn't work regarding those Christians since they originally presupposed your way.

Argument #4

In an article at Glenn Morton's story, Glenn Morton, who is a Christian, a geophysicist, and a former YEC, tells why he gave up being a YEC. Please read all of the article, and state what you think of it.

Argument #5

In your opinion, can professing Christians who reject the global flood theory go to heaven?

Argument #6

A hundred years ago, most Americans presupposed that homosexuality is wrong. Today, a large percentage of Americans approve of homosexuality for people who want to live that kind of life. In your opinion, a hundred years ago, was it wrong for most Americans to presuppose that homosexuality is wrong?

Argument #7

Consider the following:

Christians up until the 19th century, held dominant scientific beliefs that were founded on the biblical narratives of Creation and the universal deluge.

So until the 19th century, as far as the majority of Christians were concerned, the presuppositionalism deck was stacked your way.

 

[gnostic]

I'll let the scientists debate about the details.

You says "scientists", but you don't really mean it, especially when it clash with your belief.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that creation scientists support irreducible complexity and evolution scientists don’t.

Creationism, like Biblical Creationism, has nothing to do with science.

There is no such thing as "creation scientist" or "creation science". Using either one together ("creation" & "science", or "creation" & "scientist"), is actually misnomer. Creationism (or creation science) is nothing more than pseudoscience.

Likewise, Intelligent Design is also pseduoscience, because it too doesn't use scientific method to process theories and evidences.

Pseudoscience because it (creationists & ID advocates) doesn't use scientific method, have no scientific evidences to support its creation myth. Creationists & ID also ignored the falsifiability of their presuppositions and prepositions.

Scientists (not just evolution scientists, but also biologists, microbiologists, biochemists, all of which belonged to real science disciplines) have already debunked ID's Irreducible Complexity. Irreducible Complexity doesn't meet with requirements of scientific method, and Irreducible Complexity is not falsifiable, hence it can't be scientific. Irreducible Complexity couldn't even pass the peer review, let alone pee in the cup... :foot:

Irreducible Complexity is a refuted hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

So to sum it all up:

1. Testable and verifiable evidences is of utmost important in science. It is also important that such evidence can be re-tested. Evolution have enormous amount of testable and verifiable evidences; ID and Creationism don't have any.
2. Scientific Method is important procedure or methodology in science. Evolution used scientific method and passed all requirements; ID and Creationism haven't met with any of the requirements of Scientific Method, hence failed to be scientific.
3. Any hypothesis or theory must be "refutable", hence Falsifiability, therefore it is important in science. Evolution is "falsifiable", therefore it is scientific; both creation and ID are not falsifiable, therefore they are not scientific.
4. Evolution is part of biological discipline, therefore can be taught in science (biology) subjects. Both ID & Creation Science are not biological disciplines, so they shouldn't be taught in science classrooms.
5. Any academic papers, particularly those of scientific nature, should be able to evaluate the paper/hypothesis/theory by its peers. Evolution has passed peer review; neither ID nor Creation has passed the review.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I agree with the OP completely. One thing I find interesting is that one of the greatest Christian thinkers, St. Augustine of Hippo, said basically that when science reveals something to be true, and it is contrary to what Christians believe the Bible teaches, that it is the Christians who should change their interpretation of the Bible, so they don't come across as ignorant fools. And like it's stated in the OP, most Christians do not accept literal scientific understandings of the Bible, especially stories in the OT, like creationism, the global flood, etc. It's just that the small amount who do, are much more vocal about it. They don't even realize that most of their religious brothers and sisters reject such things. When one presupposes that their view is right, simply because they think it is, it shows them to be foolish, ignorant, and dishonest. Those unwilling to change their views even in clear light of truth are not really worthy of the time and energy to debate. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless. If you can't learn, then don't waste the time. It's said that the wise are open to chastisement, while the foolish are not. And, if I'm not mistaken, that is from the Bible. That's my two cents.

 

[Sapiens]

I have no problem with the OP. I admit that I do use the presuppositions that the Bible is the history of man and catastrophism. I have a problem with evolutionists that don’t admit it, or don’t know that Darwinism is built on presuppositions. The main two being naturalism and uniformitarianism.

No, no, no. The "presuppositions" (as you call them) were hypotheses that stood the test of time, the test of data and the test of peer review and that are now at the rank of (at least) theory or law.

There is evidence of a global flood. It's at your fingertips if you want to look. Sometimes I wonder if peoples Google works. Over 350 cultures around the world have a great flood story and 80% of the stories have commonalities.

That is evidence that over 350 cultures were exposed to floods at one time or another. That is to be expected since it is far easier to live in a flood plain than on a dry savanna or desert.

I'll let the scientists debate about the details. It shouldn't come as a surprise that creation scientists support irreducible complexity and evolution scientists don’t.

There are no Creation Scientists, the very term is an oxymoron.

It also shouldn’t come as a surprise that the religious support what the leaders say. The Catholic’s official position is “to just trust science” and that their faith is compatible with religion, when in fact the Bible is grossly incompatible with it. However I notice that a large majority of Catholics do support evolution because of the church’s official position.

Miller has the same presuppositions in that article that all evolutionists do, that evolution happened now let’s figure out how. You should ask Behe to discuss the article, not me.

Behe has repeatedly failed to make his case.

Or it was passed down through oral tradition from the original tribes that were created after the global flood.

Without any presupposition, the genetic data (amongst many other forms of data) does not support the division of Noah's family into "the original tribes."

 

[Sapiens]

Do you want to trade links? If I post a link about how geology shows a global flood, more than likely you will post a link in refute to it. That’s fine but that gets boring after a while. How one views the evidence is based on presuppositions. Like I said before Google can give you plenty of links to flood geology. You should be able to debate yourself on it. Post a link on flood geology from creationists, then refute it with another link from evolutionist. I’ll watch the debate in fascination. :clap

Thats all been done for you, with all your arguments neatly numbered and refuted:

(if this list bores you, please skip to Page 7)

CA: Philosophy and Theology

• CA000: Ethics
  • CA001. Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview.
    • CA001.1. Crime rates etc. have increased since evolution began to be taught.
  • CA002. Survival of the fittest implies might makes right.
    • CA002.1. Evolution leads to social Darwinism.
    • CA002.2. Marx admired and corresponded with Darwin.
  • CA005. Evolution is racist.
    • CA005.1. Darwin himself was racist.
    • CA005.2. Darwin's work refers to "preservation of favoured races".
    • CA005.3. T. H. Huxley was racist.
  • CA006. Evolution encourages eugenics.
    • CA006.1. Hitler based his views on Darwinism.
    • CA006.2. Stalin's policies were influenced by Darwin.
  • CA008. Evolution encourages promiscuity and lust.
  • CA009. Evolution teaches that we are animals and to behave as such.
  • CA010. Homosexuality receives approval from evolutionists.
  • CA012. Evolutionists are intellectual snobs.
  • CA040. Fairness demands evolution and creation be given equal time.
  • CA041. Teach the controversy.
    • CA041.1. Federal law (Santorum Amendment) supports teaching alternatives.
  • CA042. Biology can reasonably be taught without evolution.
  • CA045. Inherit the Wind is false propaganda.
  • (see also CH010: Creationism is good.)
• CA100-CA499: Epistemology
  • CA100: Foundation of Knowledge
    • CA100. Argument from incredulity
      • CA100.1. Evolution leaves lots of things unexplained.
    • CA110: Argument from Authority
      • CA110. Evolution will soon be widely rejected.
      • CA111. Many current scientists reject evolution.
        • CA111.1. Over 300 scientists express skepticism of Darwinism.
      • CA112. Many scientists find problems with evolution.
      • CA113. Quote mining
        • CA113.1. Darwin on evolution of the eye.
      • CA114. Many famous scientists were creationists.
        • CA114.1. Lord Kelvin was a creationist.
        • CA114.2. Linnaeus was a creationist.
        • CA114.4. Babbage was a creationist.
        • CA114.10. Fabre was a creationist.
        • CA114.22. Louis Pasteur was a creationist.
        • CA114.28. Steno was a creationist.
        • CA115.1. Design arguments converted atheist Antony Flew to theism.
      • CA118. Your arguments do not count because you are not qualified.
    • CA120. An evolved mind is fallible, its conclusions untrustworthy.
    • CA130: Ad hominem
      • CA131. Darwin suffered from psychoneurosis.
  • CA200: Theory of Science
    • CA201. Evolution is only a theory.
    • CA202. Evolution has not been proved.
    • CA210. Evolution does not make predictions.
    • CA211. Evolution can not be falsified.
      • CA211.1. Karl Popper said Darwinism is not testable.
    • CA212. Evolution is ambiguously defined.
    • CA215. Evolution is a useless theory.
    • CA220. Evolution can not be replicated.
    • CA221. Were you there?
    • CA230. Interpreting evidence is not the same as observation.
      • CA230.1. Evolutionists interpret evidence on the basis of their preconceptions.
        • (see also CI402: Evolutionists refuse to see design.)
    • CA240. Ockham's Razor says the simplest explanation (creation) is preferred.
    • CA250. Scientific findings are always changing.

 

[Sapiens]

• • CA300-CA499: Scientific Method
    • CA301. Science is naturalistic. (see also CA601: Methodological naturalism)
      • CA301.1. Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation.
        • (see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
    • CA310. Scientists find what they expect to find.
    • CA320. Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma.
      • CA320.1. Mims was fired because he was a creationist.
      • CA320.2. Damadian was denied a Nobel prize because he was a creationist.
      • CA320.3. Darwinists had Dembski removed from his position at Baylor.
    • CA321. Scientists are motivated to support naturalism and reject creationism.
      • CA321.1. Scientists' conclusions are motivated by money.
    • CA325. Creationists are prevented from publishing in science journals.
    • CA340. Evolutionists do not accept debate challenges.
      • CA341. Evolutionists have not met Hovind's challenge to prove evolution.
      • CA342. Evolutionists do not accept Walt Brown's debate challenge.
      • CA343. Evolutionists refuse Mastropaolo's "Life Science Prize" challenge.
    • CA350. No gradual biochemical evolution models have been published.
  • CA500. "Survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
  • CA510. Creationism and evolution are the only 2 models.
    • CA510.1. Problems with evolution are evidence for creation.
  • CA520. The Origin of Species does not address speciation.
• CA600: Theology
  • (see also CH: Biblical Creationism)
  • CA601. Evolution requires naturalism.
    • CA601.1. Evolution's materialism or naturalism denies a role for God.
    • (see also CA301: Science is naturalistic.)
    • (see also CI401: Science's method rules out design.)
  • CA602. Evolution is atheistic.
    • CA602.1. Darwin made it easy to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
    • CA602.2. Scientists aim to make God unnecessary.
  • CA603. Naturalistic evolution rules out all but a Deist god.
  • CA610. Evolution is a religion.
  • CA611. Evolutionary theory has become sacrosanct.
  • CA612. Evolution requires as much faith as creationism.
  • CA620. If man comes from random causes, life has no purpose or meaning.
  • CA622. Without a literal Fall, there is no need for Jesus and redemption.
  • CA630. Animals are not moral, aesthetic, idealistic, or religious.
  • CA640. Do you want to be descended from a monkey?
  • CA650. Death and suffering before humanity implies an unmerciful God.
    • CA651. God would have pronounced death and suffering "very good."
    • CA652. Christ's death was unjust if physical death was not the penalty for sin.
  • CA660. Pope's statement about evolution was mistranslated.
  • CA662. It is not true that the church used to teach a flat earth.

CB: Biology

• CB0: Abiogenesis
  • CB000. Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis).
  • CB010. The odds of life forming are incredibly small.
    • CB010.1. Even the simplest life is incredibly complex.
    • CB010.2. First cells could not come together by chance.
  • CB015. DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA.
  • CB020. Why is new life not still being generated today?
  • CB025. Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally.
  • CB026. Abiogenesis experiments produce toxins, such as cyanide and formaldehyde.
  • CB030. Early molecules would have decayed.
    • CB030.1. Early molecules would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light.
  • CB035. Miller's experiments had an invalid assumption of the type of atmosphere.
    • CB035.1. Earth's early atmosphere had abundant oxygen.
    • CB035.2. Earth's early atmosphere had no reducing gases.
    • CB035.3. Amino acids are not generated from just CO2, nitrogen, and water.
  • CB040. Life uses only left-handed amino acids.
  • CB050. Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence.
  • CB090. Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis.
• CB100: Genetics
  • CB100. Mutations are rare.
  • CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
    • CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
    • CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
  • CB102. Mutations do not add information.
    • CB102.1. Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information.
  • CB110. Microevolution selects only existing variation.
  • CB120. Genetic load from mutations would make populations unviable.
  • CB121. The cost of natural selection is prohibitive (Haldane's dilemma).
  • CB130. "Junk" DNA is not really junk.
  • CB141. Chromosome counts differ greatly and unsystematically between species.
  • CB144. Human and chimp genomes differ by more than one percent.
  • CB150. Functional genetic sequences are too rare to evolve from one to another.
  • CB180. The genetic code is a language.

 

[Sapiens]

• CB200: Molecular Biology
  • CB200. Some systems are irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.1. Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex.
      • CB200.1.1. The flagellum has 30 or so unique (non-homologous) proteins.
    • CB200.2. Blood clotting is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.3. Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.4. The immune system is irreducibly complex.
    • CB200.5. The metabolic pathway for AMP synthesis is too complex to have evolved.
  • CB211. An antigen receptor protein structure is same in camels and sharks.
  • (see also CA350: No gradualistic biochemical models published.)
• CB300: Physiology and Anatomy
  • CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved.
    • CB301. The eye is too complex to have evolved.
      • (see also CB921.1: What use is half an eye?)
    • CB302. The ear is too complex to have evolved.
    • CB303. The brain is too complex to have evolved.
      • (see also CB400: Behavior and Cognition)
    • CB310. The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved.
      • CB310.1. Bombardier beetle chemicals would explode if mixed without an inhibitor.
    • CB311. Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved.
      • CB311.1. Evolution can't explain butterfly evolving from caterpillar.
    • CB325. The giraffe neck could not evolve without a special circulatory system.
    • CB326. The woodpecker tongue could not have evolved.
    • CB340. Organs and organ systems would have been useless until all parts were in place.
    • CB341. Snake venom and hollow fangs could not have evolved simultaneously.
  • CB350. Sex cannot have evolved.
    • (see also CB610: no mate for 1st of a species.)
  • CB360. Vestigial organs may have functions.
    • CB360.1. The human appendix is functional, not vestigial.
    • (see also CB130: Junk DNA not really junk.)
  • CB361. Vestigial organs are just evidence of decay, not evolution.
    • CB361.1. Presently useless vestigial organs once had function.
  • CB365. Spinal treatments based on evolutionary theory fail.
  • CB370. Endorphins at death indicate a beneficent creator, not evolution.
  • CB381. Men have fewer ribs than women.

 

[Sapiens]

• CB400: Behavior and Cognition
  • CB400. Evolution cannot explain consciousness.
    • CB400.1. Evolution does not explain human intelligence.
  • CB401. Instincts are too complex to have evolved.
  • CB402. Evolution does not explain language ability.
  • CB403. Evolution does not explain homosexuality.
  • CB411. Evolution does not explain morals, especially altruism.
  • CB420. Evolution does not explain art.
  • CB421. Evolution does not explain music.
  • CB430. Evolution does not explain personality and emotions.
  • CB440. Evolution does not explain religion.
• CB500: Botany
  • CB501. Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year.
  • CB510. Evolution cannot explain photosynthesis.
• CB600: Ecology and Population Biology
  • CB601. The traditional peppered moth story is no longer supportable.
    • CB601.1. Peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks, and pictures of them there were faked.
    • CB601.2. Peppered moths occur in uncamouflaged colors in many areas.
      • CB601.2.1. Dark moths never completely replaced light ones in Manchester.
      • CB601.2.2. In several areas dark moths were more common than expected.
      • CB601.2.3. Dark moths increased in s. Britain after pollution control began.
      • CB601.2.4. In places, light moths increased before lichens reappeared.
      • CB601.2.5. Light moths increased before trees got lighter.
    • CB601.3. Direct mutagenesis better explains peppered moth variation.
    • CB601.4. An increased recapture rate suggests fraud in Kettlewell's data.
    • (see also CB910.2: Peppered moths remain same species.)
  • CB610. The first individual of a new species would not find a mate.
  • CB620. Human population growth indicates a young earth.
  • CB621. Humanity was traced back to an African Eve.
    • CB621.1. Mitochondrial Eve lived only 6500 years ago.
  • CB630. Mutually dependent species could not have evolved.
• CB700: Developmental Biology
  • CB701. Haeckel falsified his embryo pictures.
    • CB701.1. Recapitulation theory is not supported.
  • CB704. Human embryos do not have gill slits.
  • CB710. Genes with major effects on development are conserved across phyla.
  • CB731. Finger development disproves birds descended from dinosaurs.
  • CB732. Finger development differs greatly between human and frog.
  • CB751. Bilateral symmetry is improbable under evolution.
• CB800: Systematics
  • CB801. Science cannot define "species."
  • CB805. Evolution predicts a continuum of organisms, not discrete kinds.
    • (see also CC201: smooth continuum through the fossil record.)
  • CB810. Homology cannot be evidence of ancestry if it is defined thus.
  • CB811. Homologous structures are not produced by homologous genes.
  • CB821. Phylogenetic analyses are inconsistent.
  • CB822. Evolution's tree-like pattern is discredited.

 

[Sapiens]

• CB900: Evolution
  • (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
  • CB901. Macroevolution has never been observed.
    • CB901.1. Range of variation is limited within kinds.
    • CB901.2. No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
    • CB901.3. Darwin's finches show only microevolution.
  • CB902. Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.
    • CB902.1. There are barriers to large change.
    • CB902.2. Small changes do not imply large changes.
  • CB904. No entirely new features have evolved.
    • (see also CB101.2: mutations don't produce new features.)
  • CB910. No new species have been observed.
    • CB910.1. Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies.
    • CB910.2. Peppered moths remained the same species.
  • CB920. No new body parts have evolved.
  • CB921. New structures would be useless until fully developed.
    • (see also CB300: complex organs can't evolve.)
    • CB921.1. What use is half an eye?
    • CB921.2. What use is half a wing?
  • CB922. No two-celled life exists intermediate between one- and multicelled.
  • CB925. We do not see creatures in various stages of completion.
  • CB926. Preadaptation implies that organs evolved before they were needed.
  • CB928. Why are beneficial traits not evolved more often?
    • CB928.1. If intelligence is adaptive, other apes should have evolved it.
    • CB928.2. Humans have stopped evolving.
  • CB929. Evolution does not explain our using one tenth of our brain.
  • CB930. Some fossil species are still living.
    • CB930.1. The coelacanth, thought extinct for ages, is still living.
    • CB930.2. A plesiosaur was found by a Japanese trawler.
    • CB930.3. Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo.
    • CB930.4. A pterodactyl was found alive in Jurassic limestone.
  • CB932. Some modern species are apparently degenerate, not higher forms.
  • CB940. Pure chance cannot create new structures.
    • CB940.1. Odds of many successive beneficial mutations are minuscule.
  • CB941. How do things know how to evolve?
  • CB950. Overspecialization with no adaptive value sometimes occurs.
  • CB951. Long-term trends (orthogenesis) do not fit evolutionary theory.
  • CB952. The evolution of specialized diets would not be adaptive.
  • CB990. Proposed evolution scenarios are just-so stories.

CC: Paleontology

• CC0: Physical Anthropology
  • CC000-CC049: Questionable fossils
    • CC000: Specific hominid fossils were hoaxed
      • CC001. Piltdown man was a hoax.
        • CC001.1. Piltdown man was the subject of 500 doctoral dissertations.
      • CC002. Nebraska man was a hoax.
      • CC003. Lucy's knee was found far from the rest of the skeleton.
      • CC004. Ten Peking Man skeletons were suppressed.
    • CC020: Specific hominid fossils were misidentified
      • CC021. "Orce Man" was a donkey skull.
    • CC030. All human fossils would fit on a billiard table.
    • CC040. Anthropologists disagree.
      • CC041. Homo habilis is an invalid taxon.
  • CC050. All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape.
    • CC051. Neanderthal was based on a disfigured human.
      • CC051.1. Neanderthals were humans with rickets.
    • CC052. Laetoli footprints were human.
    • CC054. KP 271 (a fossil humerus) was human.
    • CC061. French scientists called Peking Man "monkey-like."
    • CC080. Australopithecus was fully ape, closer to chimp.
  • CC100: Human fossils are out of place.
    • CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
    • CC102. Sandal footprints have been found associated with trilobites.
    • CC110. Moab man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
    • CC111. Malachite man was found in Cretaceous sandstone.
    • CC112. Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls were found in Pliocene strata.
    • CC120. Baugh found a fossilized finger from the Cretaceous.
    • CC130. A petrified hammer was found in Cretaceous rocks.
    • CC131. An iron pot was found encased in Carboniferous coal.
  • CC150: Other Anthropology
    • CC150. If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?

 

[Sapiens]

• CC200: Transitional fossils
  • CC200. Transitional fossils are lacking.
    • CC200.1. There should be billions of transitional fossils.
  • CC201. We should see smooth change through the fossil record, not gaps.
    • CC201.1. Punctuated equilibrium was ad hoc to justify gaps.
    • (see also CB805: smooth continuum among living creatures.)
  • CC202. Transitional fossils do not show direct ancestry.
  • CC210: Specific examples of non-transition
    • CC211. There are gaps between invertebrates and vertebrates.
    • CC212. There are gaps between fish and amphibians.
    • CC213. There are gaps between amphibians and reptiles.
    • CC214. There are gaps between reptiles and birds.
      • CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
        • CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
      • CC214.2. Duck-billed dinosaur find disproves its bird ancestry.
    • CC215. There are gaps between reptiles and mammals.
    • CC216.1. There are gaps between land mammals and whales.
    • CC216.2. Horse fossils do not show evolution.
    • CC220. Arthropods arose suddenly.
      • CC220.1. There are no fossil ancestors of insects.
    • CC250. There are no fossil ancestors of plants.
      • CC251. Progymnosperms are imaginary evolutionary ancestors.
• CC300: Fossil Record
  • CC300. The Cambrian explosion shows all kinds of life appearing suddenly.
    • CC301. Cambrian explosion contradicts evolutionary "tree" pattern.
  • CC310: Dating of fossils
    • (see also CD0: Geochronology)
    • CC310. Fossils are dated from strata; strata are dated from fossils.
      • (see also CD103: Geologic column assumes evolution.)
  • CC330: Polystrate fossils
    • CC331. Polystrate fossils indicate massive sudden deposition.
    • CC332. Yellowstone's Specimen Creek fossil forests were evidently transported.
      • CC332.1. Specimen Creek fossil trees grew at the same time.
      • CC332.2. Orientations show Specimen Creek fossil trees were transported.
    • CC335. A fossil whale was found vertically through several strata.
  • CC340. Many fossils are out of place.
    • (see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
    • CC341. Recent pollen has been found in old rocks.
  • CC350: Some fossils are faked.
    • (see also CC000: Hominid fossils faked)
    • CC351. Archaeopteryx is a fake.
    • CC352. Archaeoraptor was a fake.
  • CC360: Taphonomy
    • CC360. No new fossils are being formed.
    • CC361. Fossils can form quickly.
      • CC361.1. Coal and oil can form quickly.
      • CC361.2. Mammoths that were quickly frozen have been found.
      • CC361.3. Contorted positions of fossil animals indicate rapid burial.
    • CC362. Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism.
    • CC363. Fossilization requires sudden burial.
    • CC364. Sea fossils have been found on mountaintops.
    • CC365. Footprints in the Coconino Sandstone appear to have been made underwater.
      • CC365.1. Coconino Sandstone was deposited underwater.
    • CC371. Evidence of blood in a Tyrannosaurus bone indicates recent burial.
      • CC371.1. Soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus bone indicate recent burial.
    • CC373. Jurassic shells from mud springs are remarkably preserved.
    • CC381. There are too few Stone-Age remains for a long history of humanity.
• CC400: Methodology
  • CC401. Paleontologists reconstruct an entire animal from a single bone.

 

[Sapiens]

CD: Geology

• CD0: Geochronology
  • (see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
  • CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
    • CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
    • CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
    • CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
    • (see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
  • CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
    • CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
      • CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
      • CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
      • CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
      • CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
      • CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
      • CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
    • CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
    • CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
      • CD013.1. K-Ar dates of 1986 dacite from Mount St. Helens are very old.
    • CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
      • CD014.1. Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old.
    • CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
    • CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
  • CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
  • CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.
• CD100: Geological Column
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD101. Entire geological column does not exist.
  • CD102. The geological column is sometimes out of order.
    • CD102.1. Out-of-order strata occur at the Lewis Overthrust.
  • CD103. The geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution.
    • (see also CC310: Circular dating of fossils and strata.)
  • CD110. Meteor craters are never found in deeper strata.
  • CD111. Meteorites are never found in deeper strata.
• CD200: Sedimentation
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD200. Uniformitarian assumption is untenable.
  • CD202. Sandstone and shale layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
  • CD203. Limestone and dolomite layers are too extensive for normal deposition.
  • CD210. The mouth of the Colorado River does not have enough sediment for the Grand Canyon.
  • CD211. Mississippi delta could have formed in 5,000 years.
  • CD220. There is not enough sediment in the ocean for an old earth.
    • CD220.1. Much more sediment is deposited than removed by subduction.
  • CD221. Oceans do not have enough dissolved minerals for an old earth.
    • CD221.1. Sodium accumulates in oceans too fast for an old earth.
  • CD222. Juvenile water is added to oceans too fast for an old earth.
  • CD230. Natural gas escapes too fast to allow for long ages.
  • CD231. High pressures in oil fields would have bled off if earth were old.
  • CD232. Oil seepage would have drained offshore reservoirs in 20,000 years.
  • CD240. Experiments show that strata can violate principles of superposition.
  • CD241. Varves can form in less than a year.
  • CD250. Stalactites can grow very rapidly.
  • (see also CC365.1: Coconino sandstone deposited underwater.)
• CD300: Evaporation
  • CD301. Evaporites could form without evaporation.
  • CD302. Evaporites are too thick.
  • CD303. Evaporites contain no organic matter.
• CD400: Glaciation
  • CD410. World War II airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers.
• CD500: Mountain Building
  • CD501. On an old earth, mountains would have eroded by now.
  • CD502. Volcanic mountains are built too fast for an old earth.
  • CD510. Folded rocks must have been soft when folded.
• CD600: Erosion
  • (see also CH540: Flood effects)
  • CD610. The erosion rate of Niagara Falls' rim indicates a young earth.
  • CD620. Average soil depth is consistent with a young earth.
• CD700: Geophysics and Plate Tectonics
  • CD701. The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth.
    • CD701.1. Cowling's theorem disproves dynamo theory of earth's magnetic field.
  • CD740. The theory of plate tectonics is wrong.
    • CD741. Midocean magnetic anomalies are not reversals.
  • CD750. Plate tectonics occurred catastrophically and has since slowed.
• CD800: Climate Change
  • CD821. Sahara Desert is expanding.

 

[Sapiens]

CE: Astronomy and Cosmology

• CE000: Earth
  • CE001. There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth.
  • CE010. NASA scientists found a day missing.
  • CE011. Earth's rotation is slowing, indicating a young earth.
    • CE011.1. The frequency of leap seconds indicates a young earth.
  • CE020. An old earth would be covered by 182 feet of meteoric dust.
• CE100: Moon
  • CE101. There is not enough moon dust for an old universe.
  • CE110. The moon is receding at a rate too fast for an old universe.
  • CE130. Lunar moonquakes, lava flows, and gas emissions indicates the moon's youth.
  • (see also CF220: Short-lived U-326, Th-230 found on moon.)
• CE200: Planets and Solar System
  • CE210. Venus's high temperature and atmosphere should have eroded its surface features.
  • CE230. Io's great volcanic activity indicates a young age.
  • CE231. Jupiter and Saturn are cooling too rapidly to be old.
  • CE240. Saturn's rings are unstable.
  • CE260. Three planets and several moons revolve backwards.
    • CE260.1. Retrograde motion of planets disproves the big bang.
  • CE261. Comets would not have lasted in an old universe.
    • CE261.1. Oort cloud and Kuiper belt are ad hoc fantasies of astronomers.
  • CE280. Solar wind should have cleared the inner solar system of microparticles.
  • CE281. The Poynting-Robertson effect would remove space dust in an old solar system.
• CE300: Sun and Stars
  • CE301. The lack of solar neutrinos indicates that the stellar model is wrong.
  • CE302. The sun has most of the mass but little angular momentum of the solar system.
  • CE310. A shrinking sun indicates a young sun.
    • CE310.1. Helmholtz's contraction theory says the sun is young.
  • CE311. The faint young sun paradox contradicts an old earth.
  • CE351. Sirius was a red star 2,000 years ago and is a white dwarf now.
  • CE380. Galaxies should lose their spiral shape over millions of years.
• CE400: Cosmology
  • (see also CI300: Anthropic principle)
  • CE401. There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe.
  • CE410. Physical constants are only assumed constant.
    • CE411. The speed of light has changed.
      • CE411.1. Physicists found that the speed of light was once faster.
    • CE412. Gravitational time dilation made distant clocks run faster.
    • (see also CF210: Radiometric dating assumes constant rates.)
  • CE420. The big bang theory is wrong.
  • CE421. The cosmos has an axis, contrary to big bang models.
  • CE425. Red shift comes from light aging, not expansion of the universe.
  • CE440. Where did space, time, energy, and laws of physics come from?
  • CE441. Explosions such as the big bang do not produce order or information.

CF: Physics and Mathematics

• (see also CE400: Cosmology)
• CF000: Second Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory
  • (see also CB102: Mutations don't add information.)
  • (see also CE441: Big Bang doesn't produce information.)
  • CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
    • CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
    • CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
    • CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
    • CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.
    • CF001.5. Evolution needs an energy conversion mechanism to utilize energy.
  • CF002. Complexity does not come from simplicity.
    • CF002.1. Tornadoes in junkyards do not build things.
  • CF003. How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself?
  • CF005. 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to information theory.
  • CF010. Cybernetic simulations show that Darwinian processes do not produce order.
  • CF011. Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in design in the fitness function.
    • CF011.1. The outcome of Dawkins's WEASEL program was prespecified.
    • CF011.2. NFL theorems prove that evolutionary algorithms do not beat blind search.
• CF100: First Law of Thermodynamics
  • CF101. The universe's energy cannot come from nothing.
    • (see also CE440: Origin of everything; CI200: First cause)
• CF200: Radiometric Decay
  • (see also CD000: Radiometric dating)
  • CF201. Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.
  • CF210. Radiometric dating falsely assumes that rates are constant.
    • (see also CE410: Physical constants only assumed constant.)
  • CF220. Short-lived isotopes Th-230 and U-236 exist on the moon.

 

[Sapiens]

CG: Miscellaneous Anti-Evolution

• CG000: History
  • CG001. Darwin recanted on his deathbed.
  • CG010. The oldest living thing is younger than 4,900 years.
  • CG020. All all languages and religions could develop in 3,000 years.
    • (see also CB620: Population growth.)
  • CG030. Oldest structures, such as pyramids, are already very complex.
  • CG040. Written history is too short.
  • CG041. Agriculture is too recent.
• CG100: Linguistics
  • CG101. Chinese glyph for "ark" is literally "8 mouths."
  • CG110. The first known languages are highly complex.
  • CG111. Why are languages getting less complex?
• CG200: Folklore
  • CG201. There are flood myths from all over the world.
  • CG202.1. The Miao flood myth is very like the story of Noah.
  • CG202.2. The Chinese Hihking flood myth is very like the story of Noah.
  • CG211. Tablet from Nippur (Iraq) authenticates priority of biblical flood description.

CH: Biblical Creationism

• CH000: Biblical Creationism Generally
  • CH001. Creationism has explanatory power.
  • CH010. Creationism, being Bible-based, is good.
    • CH010.1. Learning creationism stimulates mental health, joy, and morals.
  • CH030. God is all-good.
    • (see also CA650: Death before humanity implies unmerciful God.)
  • CH050. Genesis is foundational to the Bible.
  • CH055. Noncreationist Christians are compromisers.
• CH100: Biblical Accuracy
  • CH100. The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it.
    • CH100.1. Science must be interpreted in light of scripture.
  • CH101. The Bible is inerrant.
    • CH101.1. If part of the Bible is wrong, none of it can be trusted.
  • CH102. The Bible is literal.
    • CH102.1. Genesis must be literal; it is straightforward narrative.
    • CH102.2. Genesis must be literal; later writers refer to it as fact.
      • CH102.2.1. Jesus refers to creation and flood as though they were literal.
    • CH102.5. God's promise of no more floods fails if Noah's flood was local.
  • CH103. Bible claims inspiration.
  • CH110. Prophecies prove the accuracy of the Bible.
  • CH120. The Bible must be accurate because archaeology supports it.
  • CH130. The Bible's accuracy on other scientific points shows overall accuracy.
    • CH131. The Bible says that the earth is round.
    • CH132. The Bible says that the earth is unsupported.
    • CH133. The Bible got the water cycle right.
    • CH134. Records say civilization was man's original state.
    • CH135. The Bible specifies good medical and hygienic practices.
      • CH135.1. The Bible specifies the best time for circumcision.
      • CH135.2. Moses reveals that blood is the essence of life.
    • (see also CB621: Humanity traced to an African Eve.)
  • CH180: The Bible is unique in other ways.
    • CH181. The Bible is popular.
    • CH182. The Bible is influential.
    • CH183. The Bible is target of persecution.
    • CH184. The Bible is intellectually honest.
  • CH190. The Bible is harmonious throughout.

 

[Sapiens]

• CH200-CH799: Young Earth Creationism
  • CH200: Age of the Universe
    • CH200. The universe is 6,000-10,000 years old.
    • CH210. The earth is 6,000-10,000 years old.
    • CH220. The universe was created with apparent age.
  • CH300: Death and the Fall
    • CH301. There was no death or decay before the Fall.
    • CH310. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have made the world Edenic.
    • CH311. The pre-Flood vapor canopy would have extended human lifetimes.
    • CH320. Life is deteriorating.
      • CH321. Parasites are degenerations of free-living species.
  • CH350: Created Kinds
    • CH350. Organisms come in discrete kinds.
    • CH370. The stars and galaxies are unchanging.
  • CH400-CH599: Flood
    • CH400: Source of Flood
      • CH401. Flood from vapor canopy.
      • CH410. Flood from comet.
      • CH420. Hydroplate theory.
      • CH430. Runaway subduction.
    • CH500: The Ark
      • CH500. Noah's ark has been found.
        • CH501. We can expect to find Noah's ark on Mount Ararat.
        • CH502.1. Noah's ark may have been photographed on Ararat in 1949.
        • CH502.2. ERTS satellite photographed Noah's ark in 1973.
        • CH503. Noah's ark has been found near Dogubayazit, Turkey.
          • CH503.1. Anchor stones of Noah's ark have been found.
          • CH503.2. The Turkish government officially recognized the site of Noah's ark.
        • CH504.1. James Bryce found a 4-foot timber high on Ararat.
        • CH504.2. Navarra retrieved hand-hewn wood from high on Ararat.
        • CH504.3. Hardwicke Knight found soft wood timbers on Ararat.
        • CH505.1. Yearam guided three vile scientists to Noah's ark in 1916.
        • CH505.2. An 1883 Turkish expedition found Noah's ark.
        • CH505.3. Prince Nouri of Baghdad found the ark in 1887.
        • CH505.4. Hagopian visited the ark with his uncle around 1908.
        • CH505.5. Russian aviator Roskovitsky photographed the ark.
        • CH505.6. Resit, a Kurdish farmer, found the ark in 1948.
        • CH505.7. Local Kurds led Ed Davis to the ark in 1943.
        • CH505.8. Ed Behling was led to the ark in 1973.
      • CH508. Chinese treasure ships show Noah's ark was feasible.
      • CH510-CH529: Animals on the Ark
        • CH511. Insects survived on floating vegetation mats.
        • CH512. All kinds could fit.
          • CH512.1. Juveniles of large animals were taken aboard.
          • CH512.2. The average land animal is the size of a sheep.
        • CH513. Animals hibernated on the ark.
        • CH514. The crew could feed and care for the animals.
          • CH514.1. Many animals do not require fresh or live food.
        • CH520. Pre-Flood animals lived in a uniform climate.
        • CH521. Animals' exacting needs could have evolved after the Flood.
      • CH540-CH599: Effects of the Flood
        • CH541. Aquatic organisms could have survived the Flood.
        • CH542. Plants could have survived the Flood.
        • CH550. The geologic column was deposited by the Flood.
          • (see also CC364: Seashells on mountains.)
        • CH560: Fossils were deposited by the Flood.
          • CH561: Fossil order was determined by the Flood.
            • CH561.1. Fossils are sorted by ecological zonation.
            • CH561.2. Fossils are sorted hydrologically.
            • CH561.3. Fossils are sorted by the ability to escape.
            • CH561.4. Fossils are sorted by a combination of these factors.
          • (see also CC361: Fossils form quickly.)
        • CH570. High mountains were raised during the Flood.
        • CH580. The Flood shaped the earth's surface in other ways.
        • CH581. The Grand Canyon was carved by retreating Flood waters.
          • CH581.1. Rapid erosion on Mount St. Helens shows Grand Canyon could form suddenly.
        • CH590. The Flood caused an ice age.

 

[Sapiens]

• • CH700: Miscellaneous Young Earth Creationism
    • CH710. Man and dinosaurs coexisted.
      • (see also CC100: Human fossils out of place)
      • (see also CB930.3: Dinosaurs may be in the Congo.)
      • CH710.1. Ica stones show that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
      • CH710.2. Dinosaur figurines from Acambaro show a human-dinosaur association.
      • CH711. Behemoth, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
        • CH711.1. Leviathan, from the book of Job, was a dinosaur.
      • CH712. Dragons were dinosaurs.
        • CH712.1. Some dinosaurs breathed fire.
• CH800: Day-Age Creationism
  • CH801. Genesis 1 got the order of events right.
• CH900: Geocentrism
  • CH901. Bible says the sun goes around the earth.
  • CH910. Relativity shows geocentrism is true.

CI: Intelligent Design

• (see also CH000: Creationism Generally)
• (see also CF000: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Information Theory)
• CI000: ID as Science
  • CI001. Intelligent design theory is scientific.
    • CI001.1. Intelligent design theory is not religious.
    • CI001.2. Intelligent design is not creationism.
    • CI001.3. Intelligent design is mainstream.
    • CI001.4. Intelligent design has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
    • (see also CA041.1: Santorum Amendment.)
  • CI002. Intelligent design has explanatory power.
  • CI009. Evidence for design disproves evolutionary mechanisms.
  • CI010. There is a law of conservation of information.
  • (see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
• CI100-CI199: Detecting Design
  • (see also CA100: Argument from incredulity.)
  • CI100. Design is detectable.
    • CI100.1. Look; is design not obvious?
  • CI101. Complexity indicates design.
  • CI102. Irreducible complexity indicates design.
  • CI110. Complex specified information indicates design.
  • CI111. Dembski's filter can detect design.
    • CI111.1. Specified information criterion produces no false positives.
    • CI111.2. Specified complexity characterizes what intelligent agents do.
  • CI113. Genetic algorithms require a designer to specify desired outcome.
    • (see also CF011: Design from ev. algorithms comes from fitness function.)
  • CI120. Purpose indicates design.
  • CI130. Functional integration indicates design.
    • CI131. Every machine's origin, where determinable, is by intelligent agency.
  • CI141. Similarities in DNA and anatomy are due to common design.
    • CI141.1. Similar structures for similar functions, different for different.
  • CI190. SETI researchers expect that they can detect design.
  • CI191. Archaeologists and forensic scientists can detect design.
• CI200: First Cause.
  • CI200. There must have been a first cause.
• CI300: Anthropic Principle.
  • CI301. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit human life.
  • CI302. The cosmos is fine-tuned to permit scientific discovery.
• CI400: Meta-arguments
  • CI401. The methodology of science rules out even considering design.
    • (see also CA301.1: Science rules out supernatural explanations.)
  • CI402. Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design.
    • (see also CA230.1: Evolutionists interpret per their preconceptions.)
  • CI410. Design requires a designer.