3-D Praying Mantis Vision Confounds Evolution

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 3-8-18 | Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D.

[BroJoeK]

unlearner: "Take a look at trees near to the equator today, such as those in tropical rainforests.
The earth was probably much more like such rainforests before the flood."

Indeed, there is plenty of geological & fossil evidence that the Earth was often much warmer than today, in the far past.
This chart is one representation of the evidence:

unlearner: "And it is highly likely that rings from trees older than 5000 years represent time periods greater than one year whereby weather patterns changed gradually over much longer time periods."

Meaning: if counting tree rings gives us an age of, say, 12,000 years, it might really be much older?
That's an interesting hypothesis, but there's no evidence to support it.
All the confirming evidence -- i.e., carbon-14 dating -- says otherwise.

unlearner: "Carbon dating is also imprecise before the flood because it relies on a constant ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere, which one might reasonably expect to dramatically change as a result of the flood."

Again, an interesting hypothesis, but there's no physical evidence suggesting if, when or how such a change happened.

unlearner: "Further, carbon dating is calibrated using tree ring data, for which I have already shown the flaw of treating rings as representing equal time periods before the flood."

But you suggested that ancient tree rings might represent more than one year periods which would mean that material we test as, say, 25,000 years old might, in fact, be 50,000 years old.
As I mentioned before, an interesting hypothesis, but no physical evidence to support it.

unlearner: "Before the flood, a large part of the water presently on the earth was then stored ABOVE the atmosphere."

Indeed, the physical evidence does suggest that much, or all, of Earth's water arrived here from deep-space comets.
Of course, the time period was several billions of years ago, not thousands.

unlearner: "Notice flood waters came from below the ground and from above..."

Somewhere I read that the amount of water (H20) locked away in solid materials of the Earth is far greater than all the oceans combined.
I'm not enough of a chemist to know how that works, but have no reason to doubt it.

unlearner: "And while “windows of heaven” being opened could be figurative language to describe heavy rain, it is far more likely a description of the cataclysmic downpour caused by a total collapse of ice rings around the earth."

Scientifically speaking, the evidence suggests a massive bombardment by water-bearing comets billions of years ago.

unlearner: "Do I need to point out the impact of pre-deluge climate on these ice cores?"

You claim, with no evidence to support it, that Earth was much warmer in the relatively recent past.
The physical evidence suggests a series of ice-ages each lasting about 100,000 years broken by relatively brief 10,000 year-long interglacials.
The current interglacial started about 10,000 years ago and is now getting a bit, well, long of tooth.

Ice core layers from Antarctica have been counted back 800,000 years and analyzed to show changes in global temperatures.

unlearner: "Let’s get real. 'Direct observation' of present-day subjects does NOT constitute direct observation of the PAST. "

Of course it does.
When you look at a tree-ring or a rock you are also looking at the processes which first created them, even if you don't fully understand what you see.

unlearner: "Can you imagine trying to recreate the American Civil War using tools of modern science with NO HISTORICAL record?"

Physical evidence would show us huge numbers killed at one place & time by mini-balls or cannon shot, with many more dying daily from diseases.
It might also reveal that many of those killed were closely related leading us to wonder why brothers would kill brothers in such numbers?

unlearner: "The reckless use of science produces irrational overconfidence with tragic consequences. Think of Nazi eugenics..."

Agreed, but science has come a long way since then and today nobody pretends that Nazis had anything to do with real science.

unlearner: "When such “science” is used to stifle the free exercise of religion—and it is—then it is no longer being used for scientific inquiry but is encroaching upon areas in which science does not belong."

Agreed, well said.

unlearner: "I do not demand that anyone accept the historical or scientific accuracy of the Bible.
However, I do insist that historical eye-witness accounts can not be excluded from the debate as if unscientific by definition."

I am fully satisfied that God explained to ancient Israelites as much science as they could understand and needed to know.
When other sons of Judah needed to know much more (i.e., Albert Einstein) God revealed as much to them as suited His purposes.

unlearner: "If the philosophy of science is determined exclusively by naturalism, then it is an outright denial of anything existing which can not be scientifically studied.
It is not merely a refusal to include them, it is a denial that they even exist."

Correct, which is why I'm always careful to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism (atheism) and Methodological Naturalism which simply defines natural-science as the study of nature using only natural explanations.
Methodological Naturalism does not deny the existence of the Supernatural, only posits that natural science is not intended to study it.

unlearner: "Yet, there has NEVER been ANY scientific theory for how mind possesses this emergent quality.
And now testable scientific theories support the opposite: matter is an emergent property of conscious agents."

You've posted that now several times and while I'd disagree, I don't have enough idea of my own views to even debate it.
Suffice it to say: I've seen no such evidence.

unlearner: "Why is it ok for science to ASSUME the existence of mind but not the existence of God?"

Science would only assume existence of mind to the degree it can be studied using tools of natural-science.
Anything beyond that would be outside science's scope of inquiry.

unlearner: "Science can only answer a limited range of questions.
It is not the foundation or sole basis of epistemology."

Bingo!

unlearner: "It is necessary that science be subject to and guided by wise, moral, philosophic choice.
For me, the Bible is the foundation for these things."

Amen!

[unlearner]

“no physical evidence to support it”

The flood? Sorry, but the evidence is global.

“no physical evidence suggesting if, when or how such a change happened”

And you’re the one claiming the aftermath of events from millions of years ago is direct observation?

It doesn’t take much exploration to see that massive amounts of evidence and data have been accumulated to support the historical accuracy of the global flood, including the hypothesis that the atmosphere was insulated from cosmic rays by water.

The resulting change in C-12 to C-14 ratios is an absolute certainty if the atmosphere was shielded in this way. The mechanisms for this are known. They are reproducible. I’ve already explained how. You seem to have overlooked or ignored this.

“Meaning: if counting tree rings gives us an age of, say, 12,000 years, it might really be much older?”

Meaning that rings beyond the time in history when the earth’s axis shifted, we have no reasonable way to determine the weather cycles. There is no reference point. Yes, rings could, in some cases represent longer periods. In others they might represent sudden changes that took place over months, weeks, or days.

“You claim, with no evidence to support it, that Earth was much warmer in the relatively recent past.”

I never said that, but I do see how you might come to that conclusion. I asserted it was different prior to the flood. I made a comparison to tropical rain forests. I do not believe that the entire planet would automagically be much warmer or colder. My assertion is that the cataclysmic changes due to the flood make “predictive” models based on post-flood cycles unreliable.

Do you believe the earth could have literally traversed the sun BILLIONS of times with no such cataclysms?

“Physical evidence would show us huge numbers killed at one place & time by mini-balls or cannon shot, with many more dying daily from diseases.”

Sure, and a small amount of speculative information could be derived from interpolation (not extrapolation as these millions and billions of prehistoric earth years suggest). But science could not guess the contents of the Gettysburg Address apart from a historical record.

“Agreed, but science has come a long way since then and today nobody pretends that Nazis had anything to do with real science.”

That is outlandish. Science today is creating human-animal hybrids. Science today is paying massive amounts for the body parts of babies murdered through abortions. And our government acquired over 1600 German scientists and engineers through Operation Paperclip. The Nazis were doing lots of real science. And modern science is being used to commit many of the same types of atrocities as the Nazis did. Further, science is completely incapable of answering any moral questions. It is beyond the scope of science. Moral inquiry can rely on scientific information, such as the fact that unborn babies are alive and fully human. But science has no way of determining who should live or die apart from an entirely independent moral, ethical, and legal inquiry.

“You’ve posted that now several times and while I’d disagree, I don’t have enough idea of my own views to even debate it.
Suffice it to say: I’ve seen no such evidence.”

You’re disagreeing with no evidence to support your position while ignoring contrary evidence. But for clarification, are you disagreeing with the idea that mind is not an emergent property of matter or whether a scientific theory for such emergence has been formulated?

1. Biocentrism—the theory that consciousness creates reality.
Was discussed on FR:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3549290/posts

2. Conscious realism—the theory that the objective world, i.e., the world whose existence does not depend on the perceptions of a particular observer, consists entirely of conscious agents.
http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf

3. Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe
http://www.ctmu.org/

So there are competing theories which support matter being an emergent property of consciousness, but I’ve seen no theories which support mind being an emergent property of matter. In fact, if you read the introductory paragraph of the linked PDF on #2, you will see the assertion that no such theory exists.

I believe all three are scientifically rigorous. I do not know if they have been peer reviewed.

“Correct, which is why I’m always careful to distinguish between Philosophical Naturalism (atheism) and Methodological Naturalism which simply defines natural-science as the study of nature using only natural explanations.
Methodological Naturalism does not deny the existence of the Supernatural, only posits that natural science is not intended to study it”

I don’t think such a dichotomy exists. I’ve used the Lincoln example. Of course science can not explain how supernatural processes work if the laws of nature are suspended. I do not know if natural laws are suspended in order for supernatural events to occur. Many things that are commonplace today would have been viewed as miraculous or witchcraft only a century or two ago.

So a good example might be whether science could be useful in evaluating the flight path of a flying saucer that makes maneuvers that modern aircraft can not make. Should modern science simply assert that this is impossible? Should science wring its hands and say it is only concerned with natural phenomena?

There is absolutely no reason modern science, when exploring evidence from our past, should ignore the Biblical account of Noah’s flood. Nor should it ignore the historical record of creation. You’re suggesting that though you personally accept the validity of the Bible, it should not be considered in such inquiries. Or, at least that how it sounds.

“Amen!”

I appreciate the discussion and hope I have not been too argumentative. Your positions are different than most others I’ve had similar discussions with. Do you believe in the literal, Biblical, global flood? If so, don’t you think there should be massive amounts of observable data supporting this?

[BroJoeK]

unlearner: "The flood? Sorry, but the evidence is global."

There is certainly global evidence for floods, asteroid strikes, global ice ages and mass extinctions -- many of them.
But there is no evidence for the singular event described in Genesis 7.

unlearner: "And you’re the one claiming the aftermath of events from millions of years ago is direct observation?"

Growth rings on trees going back 12,000 years, ice core layers going back 800,000 years, those are observed directly and confirmed by numerous indirect methods.

unlearner: "It doesn’t take much exploration to see that massive amounts of evidence and data have been accumulated to support the historical accuracy of the global flood, including the hypothesis that the atmosphere was insulated from cosmic rays by water."

Confirmed scientific evidence on that is exactly: zero.

unlearner: "The resulting change in C-12 to C-14 ratios is an absolute certainty if the atmosphere was shielded in this way.
The mechanisms for this are known.
They are reproducible.
I’ve already explained how.
You seem to have overlooked or ignored this."

All of that is pure fantasy, including your claim to have "explained" it.

unlearner: "My assertion is that the cataclysmic changes due to the flood make 'predictive' models based on post-flood cycles unreliable."

There is plenty of evidence of global catastrophes, the K-T boundary (aka K-Pg boundary) separating the age of dinosaurs from the current age being one example.
The boundary is distinct and can be found around the world, but it did not change anything in science, for example, the half-lives of radiometric materials.

unlearner: "Do you believe the earth could have literally traversed the sun BILLIONS of times with no such cataclysms?"

The geological evidence shows many cataclysms over the past 4+ billion years.

unlearner: "Further, science is completely incapable of answering any moral questions.
It is beyond the scope of science."

Correct, but Nazi work on eugenics was junk science, that's my point here.

unlearner: "You’re disagreeing with no evidence to support your position while ignoring contrary evidence.
But for clarification, are you disagreeing with the idea that mind is not an emergent property of matter or whether a scientific theory for such emergence has been formulated?"

Frankly, I'm not interested enough in the subject to even have an opinion, much less defend it.
But none of your claims confirm anything I might know, so will let it go with that.

unlearner: "In fact, if you read the introductory paragraph of the linked PDF on #2, you will see the assertion that no such theory exists."

None exists to my knowledge.

unlearner: "So a good example might be whether science could be useful in evaluating the flight path of a flying saucer that makes maneuvers that modern aircraft can not make.
Should modern science simply assert that this is impossible?
Should science wring its hands and say it is only concerned with natural phenomena?"

I doubt if any scientist would pass judgment on a "flying saucer" without knowing a whole lot more about it.
In the mean time, they would say what any reasonable person would: "we don't know, we can't explain it."

unlearner: "There is absolutely no reason modern science, when exploring evidence from our past, should ignore the Biblical account of Noah’s flood."

The geological record shows many floods & other cataclysms.
It also suggests a great flood in historical times, east of Eden and the Tigris-Euphrates confluence, when ocean levels rose high enough to flood the Persian Gulf.

unlearner: "You’re suggesting that though you personally accept the validity of the Bible, it should not be considered in such inquiries.
Or, at least that how it sounds."

What's astonishing to me is how closely the scientific account, which officially ignores the Bible, in fact confirms everything important in it.

unlearner: "Do you believe in the literal, Biblical, global flood?
If so, don’t you think there should be massive amounts of observable data supporting this?"

The scientific evidence of floods & other catastrophes is clear, and I'll say again I think God told ancient Israelites as much as they could understand and needed to know at the time.
Today He reveals more to each new generation, but the basic picture remains as ever: "In the Beginning, God created..."

[CodeToad]

Ttoe is only a theory.