Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
What's interesting about this tactic is that it takes the *opposite* side of the " irreducible complexity" argument used by Intelligent Design promoters: whereas Irreducible Complexity says that "evolution is akin to a tornado producing a 747 from a junkyard, therefore is so improbable that there must be a designer," Shubee appears to be arguing that "anything is possible, therefore the unbelievably improbable proposition that a great flood produced the incredibly ordered layering must be accepted as a reasonable hypothesis." |
Actually, I don't see anything too unbelievable in Sean D. Pitman's explanation of
The Fossil Record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
To those who would dismiss his argument out of hand, be aware that there is the lurking "evolution theory is even less probable than the great-flood theory, therefore you're all hypocrites" second shoe that will drop if you're not paying attention.
Of course evolution is *not* more improbable unless one ignores much well-verified theory--both pure mathematics and experimental--of complex systems.
|
The theory of devolution agrees with Darwin that there are living things that reproduce with variation but says that all life is spiraling downward toward extinction and death, not upward to more glorious forms of life.
For remarkable evidence that supports the theory of devolution and its direct observation in nature, see the article:
Evolution myths: Natural selection leads to ever greater complexity at newscientist.com.
Note that the article states: "Some apparently primitive creatures are turning out to be the descendants of more complex creatures rather than their ancestors. For instance, it appears the ancestor of brainless starfish and sea urchins had a brain."
And if you read that newscientist article in its entirety, I agree, it will say that "Nevertheless, there is no doubt that evolution has produced more complex life-forms over the past four billion years" but no hard evidence is given.
As for evidence that supports my third postulate, I'm very impressed by the utter simplicity of the observation that many petrified trees in
the fossil record extend vertically through millions and millions of years of sedimentary rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
Now this is exactly the issue with Shubee's first postulate: as Craig indicated "improbability" is ill-defined here, and contrary to Hydro's statement, quantum indeterminancy (the more correct concept) does not "make anything possible."
|
Quantum indeterminancy is only a related concept. And quantum theory does make creationism possible. Physicists already admit that a highly ordered reality can suddenly materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
"Improbability" if we take it to mean "inverse probability" is a direct function of the number of "trials" that are available for a rare occurrence to manifest itself. As the number of trials increases, something that is very rare can become an absolute certainty. Thus with only a single "trial" available, the great flood causing the well ordered layering of the earth's geological and paleontological record is indeed astoundingly "improbable."
|
It's not astoundingly improbable. Evolutionists readily admit to ancient catastrophes all over the planet. And geologists teach multiple mega-floods as scientific fact. I think it's highly likely that there is no clear and indisputable fact that prevents all these multiple mega-floods and fantastic catastrophes from being simultaneous events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
But as implied, "improbable" is not "impossible" and there we come face to face with the issues that are swept under the rug by the appeal to Hilbert's Philosophy:
If we start to look at the actual physical evidence at hand we have some issues that have to be dealt with: the exact correlation of "carbon-14 age" (which needs to be explained *even if* it is not an "accurate indicator of actual age" ...),
|
I learned the answer to that in a college intro course covering earth science and astronomy. The teacher was an avowed atheist. He explained that carbon-14 age has to be calibrated because the difference between carbon-14 age and tree-ring age increases as you go back in time. The comparison was shown graphically to the class in a slide presentation. Interestingly enough, there was less and less carbon-14 in the atmosphere as you go back in time. I understood the implications mathematically. Projecting carbon-14 availability from the known rapidly descending curve against tree-ring age implies that a carbon-14 test for anything beyond 20,000 years ago would appear virtually infinitely old. Accurate carbon-14 age determination is only as good as the oldest trees on earth if you make the usual adjustments. Anything beyond that limit is a guess.
