Real Science Friday: A Creationist Interviews Lawrence Krauss

[Bob Enyart]

This threads are so, so painful.

And yet you are drawn to them like a moth to flame.

Yes. Interestingly, granite figures prominently into my argument with Krauss against the Big Bang claim of chemical evolution, in Part II. Finally, he's famous!

 

[Memento Mori]

MM, part II should be posted here on TOL today.

Sa-weet. :thumb:

MM, we always offer live interviews, but guests often prefer taping to fit their schedule. Also, because our planned 25-minute interview ran about 40 minutes, to air it in Denver we needed to air it over two programs. To keep the flow, we decided to limit our "stop the tape" comments to just once per broadcast.

Is there an uncut version which is up for public access?

MM, how about his:
- "What's a person?"
- "What's an atheist?"
- "What's Darwinism?"

In all fairness, you and I deal with these ideas daily. Dr. Krauss probably doesn't. Just as I don't expect you to know what embodied cognition is even though I deal with it daily. It is very specialized and if I were discussing it with others who were unaware of the idea, it may seem foolish to me that they don't know, but they don't have a schema for the idea. Krauss recognized this discussion was a civil discourse and he need definitions to understand your framework. Just as "atheist" can mean someone who is religious but holds no gods (like Buddhist).

And he never heard of scientists proposing that aliens might have seeded life on Earth even though it's been discussed for a half century starting with the co-discoverer of DNA? Can you consider that this is shtick that evolutionists use? It's like Eugenie (Junk) Scott stumbling over a request for "evidence" and AronRa asking incredulously, "What's neo-Darwinism?"

I've never heard of seeding until I began reading an EvoPsych textbook. It's totally foreign and lacks credibility as far as I've seen. Thus panspermia isn't really in any scientific literature. I'll show why in my response to the Dawkin's quote.

MM, do scientists believe facts to be true? Not everyone does. I do. But I've encountered many atheists who don't. Can you perhaps see some of yourself in this description that I wrote of Krauss and atheists:

Believe facts to be true? That's a tautology. It's not necessary to believe facts to be true. There has been philosophical discourse on the matter but that's all it is, philosophy. For instance, for anyone to claim the opposite they would have to show the opposite occurring, i.e., a fact being untrue (which defies the nature of fact, thus impossible).

Krauss Claims that Scientists Don't "Believe" Anything: Krauss contradicts his claim that he doesn't "believe" anything a dozen times over in this interview alone, including in the first one minute by acknowledging that he does believe in the existence of the cosmos. Likewise, while claiming that science doesn't have beliefs, but rather, it only disproves claims, Krauss doesn't realize that claiming that a theory has been falsified is itself a positive statement. (Krauss' fellow atheist AronRa also makes this kind of error. Regarding the philosophical claim that the universe has no center, AronRa could not get himself to realize that such a claim is a positive assertion.) Atheist self contradiction includes their belief in falsehood and opposition to truth (which is understandable seeing that Jesus Christ said, "I am the truth). Thus atheists are increasingly uncomfortable with information per se, with mind, with the validity of the laws of logic, and even with truth itself. So atheists find a confused kind of comfort in claiming that they don't believe things, they just falsify ideas. Come to think of it though, they're even uncomfortable with the very existence of "ideas", since ideas themselves are not made of matter. (See realsciencefriday.com/math#Einstein.)​

This is philosophy and has little value to me. Either an idea can be falsified or it has not yet been. As a scientist, I am forced to either accept or reject the null hypothesis (as a measure to prevent affirming the hypothesis).

And then Memento Mori, I'd say that you were making this next part up, about Dawkins (since it is completely false), but reading between your lines I come to the conclusion that perhaps you're not making it up yourself, but rather, that you're repeating a belief that you've developed after reading a claim that someone else made up. On this matter, you are not looking at the fact (of the actual recording), but you are proclaiming your belief:

The Dawkin's quote mentions a possibility. Is it possible that God create amoeba life on an asteroid whirling about a star in a distant galaxy? Sure. Does that mean in admitting the possibility, we've affirmed that that is what occurred. Absolutely not. Evidence has to be provided.

Twisted? Clearly? Yes MM, look at it. I did. 15 times. Literally. With a group of us. As I transcribed what he said. You've made an assertion MM without support, and against videotaped evidence. The burden of proof is on you. Some people, of course, hold to beliefs, in spite of the evidence. I infer that you're not one of them. So could you retract that claim about Dawkins' words being clearly twisted?

I didn't realize that "could have" equals "did." But hey, perhaps, they've changed the meaning of implications on what is said and meant.

Here's what Richard Dawkins said:

"Well, [the origin of life on earth] could have come about in this way: The evidence may show, as we look at the complexity, as we look at the genetic mechanisms, that might be evidence that a long time ago, far far away in another galaxy, that there was a civilization that evolved by Darwinian means. And that civilization designed life and seeded it on our earth." -Richard Dawkins to Ben Stein in Expelled
​

With the number of seconds in a 14 billion year old universe, and the number of particles in the universe, there's far less than 10 to the 150 physical interactions of particles in the history of the universe. Yet with rather short proteins having chains of 150 amino acids, there are about 10 to the 195 possibilities to come upon it randomly. Eukaryote proteins average hundreds of amino acids, and some proteins have functional chains thousands of amino acids long. And all that specified complexity only gives you a protein, which in and of itself is nothing but a dead protein molecule, a million miles, metaphorically speaking, from a living cell. You need that molecule described on a length of DNA three times longer than the length of the protein, and you need transfer RNA, and transcription RNA, and then... you've got to fold it correctly. This is just the beginning of the physical hurdles for life arising by chance that Dawkins was referring to, saying, "The evidence may show, as we look at the complexity, as we look at the genetic mechanisms, that might be evidence..." Which is the kind of evidence that led Francis Crick to propose directed panspermia: aliens did it!

Again, "could have" does not equal "did." Sure it's possible. Nigh anything is possible. But what does the evidence show? As you've pointed out, it's highly unlikely.

 

[Granite]

Yes. Interestingly, granite figures prominently into my argument with Krauss against the Big Bang claim of chemical evolution, in Part II.

:yawn: I doubt it.

Finally, he's famous!

And just maybe, Bobby, you'll get there yourself one of these days.:devil:

Have fun with the thread, Memento, but wear waders.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I get the sense that you aren't particularly interested in honest discourse, but your motive here is to make yourself look good, when you have control of the medium of discussion.

Daedalean, it seems that not a large percent of people would say that they are motivated to make themselves look bad. Also, is this an arbitrary accusation that you would tend to only make against creationists? Or would you say that atheist scientists are among those motivated to make themselves look bad?

DS, I have an errata link on my homepage at KGOV.com to call attention to and correct the errors I've made over a long period of time, which I now acknowledge. (Errors made over a long period of time are more embarrassing, of course, then ad hoc errors, and they are also the kinds of errors that are more likely to be picked up and repeated by others.) I imagine there are neo-Darwinists who do that, but I just don't know who they might be. Do you? And as evolutionists here on TOL can attest, when I've been convinced by them that I've made an error on a specific show, I record that error in the show summary, as when Jukia caught me in an especially embarrassing thoughtless slip up. Also, twice in my debate with AronRa, in rounds 4 and six, I acknowledged error, and each time I did so at the very top of a post.

If a creationist requests evidence for evolution, and we point to radiometric dating of fossils, he/she may reject that as evidence because the Creationist is not convinced radiometric dating works...

DS, we've been having fun presenting the short-lived 14C that's everywhere it shouldn't be, with a summary of this at http://kgov.com/dating-a-dinosaur

And aside from wildly discordant dates atop and at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, it's amazing to just look at the flat boundaries in the canyon with your own eyes (I've been there a dozen times, including rafting), and to see what would have to be, by your reckoning, TENS OF MILLIONS of years of MISSING deposits and erosion, staring us in the face through the exposed walls of the canyon. Just check it out at http://youngearth.com/millions-years-worth-missing-grand-canyon-deposition-and-erosion.

Creationists reject so much of mainstream science, it's difficult to know what they would even recognize as evidence, as they can simply reject any scientific evidence on a whim.

DS, it's so easy to make these kinds of assertions, but they just as easily cut both ways. Here's evidence, massive evidence, that I find evolutionists just blow off (really, they must blow it off, or re-consider their belief system, which many simply won't do):



See the discussion and source for this at that young earth link above.

-Bob Enyart
RealScienceFriday.com

 

[Memento Mori]

MM, per your request that I provide sources, here's one at least. We spoke for 40 minutes, and I've never heard any conversation where people cited a source for everything they said. That'd be weird, no? What are you wanting a source for? BTW, the ONLY reason that we were talking about what Dawkins said was because Krauss acted like he had not before heard of the idea of panspermia, first implying he had never heard of it, then saying it was an interesting idea, and then a fascinating idea. (Wow, that's rapid development of thought!)

It's true that most people don't cite material off the cuff. But when asked for references, they should be given.

So here's my reference for my statement that the 60% of U.S. MDs say that God was involved in the origin of human life, which I offered to counter Krauss (as we've heard from many atheists) who was implying that it's only unscientific people who look at the evidence and conclude that God was involved in origins:

There was also an atheist that believed God started evolution.

Do you have the citation for:

The SD of the ratio of electron to proton ratio.

The unlikelyhood of our universe and the "scientists multiverse claim of trillions upon trillions of universes"

Probability of our universe. "A paltry number of universes" "Legion of physicists"

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Daedalean, it seems that not a large percent of people would say that they are motivated to make themselves look bad. Also, is this an arbitrary accusation that you would tend to only make against creationists? Or would you say that atheist scientists are among those motivated to make themselves look bad?

Not making oneself look good does not necessitate making oneself look bad. Your statements here deny the middle ground. That being said, would I tend to make this accusation more against creationists, probably. I fully admit that I am biased, however you must see that your editing of the Krauss interview is likewise biased to support a certain conclusion.

I imagine there are neo-Darwinists

I would just like to quickly point out this statement here seems to support a point I made earlier about using the term "Neo-darwinism" as a pejorative term for Evolution completely neglecting the actual definition of the term. I think we can safely assume you're not referring to evolutionary modern synthesis, but the the term is nothing more than an unnecessary expression of contempt for Evolutionary Biology and it's proponents.

who do that, but I just don't know who they might be.

Popular youtuber and Evolutionary Biology proponent PotHoler54 has done this to give a specific example.

Science in general does this as a function of the Scientific method. It's interesting to note that every fraud or hoax that has been found, such as piltdown man, and Nebraska Man, were discovered and exposed by the researchers in those fields. To my knowledge no creationists has ever discovered a legitimate hoax, feel free to correct me on that. Even in one of the other "RealScience" posts we have Paleontologists admitting that Neornithes developed earlier than previously thought. I can name numerous examples where errors are admitted. Adjustments are made based on these discoveries and we move on.

DS, we've been having fun presenting the short-lived 14C that's everywhere it shouldn't be, with a summary of this at http://kgov.com/dating-a-dinosaur

And we have here the perpetration of a known fraud. Hugh Miller, amateur geologist and creationist obtained several samples of dinosaur fossils from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History claiming he was a chemist wanting to do analysis on the specimens the museum officials told him the specimens were coated in an organic preservative shellac, Miller then submitted the fossils for carbon dating by Russian scientists (neglecting to tell them about the organic preservative). So when the Russian Scientists carbon dated it, what they got was a date for the organic preservative not the fossil. Yet this known fraud is even to this day still circulated by creationists as evidence that carbon dating doesn't work. The only think it's evidence of is perpetual deception from creationist organizations.

Dinosaur fossils aren't carbon dated, because they don't contain any carbon. Instead dinosaur fossils are dated using uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating, all of which have come to an approximate age in agreement with each-other within a relatively small margin of error. That you even suppose that carbon dating should or would refute evolution or the age of Dinosaur fossils demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Citation:
http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

And aside from wildly discordant dates atop and at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, it's amazing to just look at the flat boundaries in the canyon with your own eyes (I've been there a dozen times, including rafting), and to see what would have to be, by your reckoning, TENS OF MILLIONS of years of MISSING deposits and erosion, staring us in the face through the exposed walls of the canyon. Just check it out at http://youngearth.com/millions-years-worth-missing-grand-canyon-deposition-and-erosion.

Not sure what this has to do with evolution, it's more or less an attempt to justify a worldview contrary to mainstream science. Therefore you must convince yourself that the science is wrong in all areas which contradict your theological proclivities (and not just evolution). Never have I seen a creationist declare that cell theory is "Just a theory", for what I would submit is largely due to the fact that cell theory doesn't contradict the creationist worldview. Large swathes of mainstream science are thus rejected by Creationists and unnecessarily convoluted explanations are offered to justify disagreeing with the conclusions of the vast majority of the world's foremost experts.

DS, it's so easy to make these kinds of assertions, but they just as easily cut both ways. Here's evidence, massive evidence, that I find evolutionists just blow off (really, they must blow it off, or re-consider their belief system, which many simply won't do):

Because it's not evidence of what you want it to be evidence of, first of all the missing strata are sandwiched between prior and preceding strata, which doesn't mean that they didn't happen, but rather than the layers weren't preserved either being eroded away or not laid down. Second of all, even assuming that these eras didn't happen at all (a logically absurd conclusion) it would still make the Grand Canyon at the very least 80 million to a billion years older than you want it to be, which I would suspect doesn't jive too well with a young earth :shocked:.

Bob, you value scientific evidence but you also value your faith in a literal genesis, and thus you find yourself in a very uncomfortable position trying to reconcile these two conflicting values, often to the point where you actually have to disagree with the overwhelming expert consensus.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

No response?

 

[Paulos]

DS, we've been having fun presenting the short-lived 14C that's everywhere it shouldn't be, with a summary of this at http://kgov.com/dating-a-dinosaur

And we have here the perpetration of a known fraud. Hugh Miller, amateur geologist and creationist obtained several samples of dinosaur fossils from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History claiming he was a chemist wanting to do analysis on the specimens the museum officials told him the specimens were coated in an organic preservative shellac, Miller then submitted the fossils for carbon dating by Russian scientists (neglecting to tell them about the organic preservative). So when the Russian Scientists carbon dated it, what they got was a date for the organic preservative not the fossil. Yet this known fraud is even to this day still circulated by creationists as evidence that carbon dating doesn't work. The only think it's evidence of is perpetual deception from creationist organizations.

Dinosaur fossils aren't carbon dated, because they don't contain any carbon. Instead dinosaur fossils are dated using uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40 dating, all of which have come to an approximate age in agreement with each-other within a relatively small margin of error. That you even suppose that carbon dating should or would refute evolution or the age of Dinosaur fossils demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter.

Citation:
http://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_30.pdf

Here's a link to a video by Potholer54 in which he examines this claim of Hugh Miller's dinosaur fossils having been carbon dated to within 20,000 years:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXatbY#t=4m26

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

I'm kind of disappointed that Bob has decided not to respond any further. I did follow his link to the debate between himself and AronRa, hoping for a video but instead we are treated to Bob's Interpretation of the events of the debate which are so laughably and utterly biased it's an insult to my intelligence. It's as if he doesn't trust his audience to come to the correct conclusion on who won the debate, which seems in perfect harmony with how he treats his discussion with Krauss.

How disappointing.

 

[Stripe]

...my intelligence.

:darwinsm:

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm kind of disappointed that Bob has decided not to respond any further. I did follow his link to the debate between himself and AronRa, hoping for a video but instead we are treated to Bob's Interpretation of the events of the debate which are so laughably and utterly biased it's an insult to my intelligence. It's as if he doesn't trust his audience to come to the correct conclusion on who won the debate, which seems in perfect harmony with how he treats his discussion with Krauss.

How disappointing.

He's busy with things more important than responding to arrogance and ignorance on TOL.

You could always call into the show...

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

He's busy with things more important than responding to arrogance and ignorance on TOL.

You could always call into the show...

He wasn't too busy to begin the discussion.

 

[Lighthouse]

He wasn't too busy to begin the discussion.

How long ago? October?

The man's got a lot going on. If you want more just call in to the show.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

How long ago? October?

The man's got a lot going on. If you want more just call in to the show.

He might be busy I don't fault him for not resounding now, I am only disappointed that he didn't continue our discussion.

 

[Lighthouse]

He might be busy I don't fault him for not resounding now, I am only disappointed that he didn't continue our discussion.

Again, I suggest you call in to the show.

1-800-8-Enyart

M-F 3-3:30p MST.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Again, I suggest you call in to the show.

1-800-8-Enyart

M-F 3-3:30p MST.

I'm a better writer than speaker.

 

[WizardofOz]

I'm a better writer than speaker.

This is the typical response you get from Enyartians; 'call the show'.

Be thankful you were able to engage Bob at all.

 

[Stripe]

I'm a better writer than speaker.

Wow! :noway:

You must be almost mute!

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

This is the typical response you get from Enyartians; 'call the show'.

Be thankful you were able to engage Bob at all.

The problem with live shows is that, he would control the medium of discourse and could cut me off, and get the last word or summarize the discussion in terms favorable to his position, something which I have seen him do with Krauss, and AronRa. I have no expectation that he would treat any call I make any better.

Also there is simply no time to fact check any claims he could make during a live recording, I would simply have to take what he says at face value.

 

[Stripe]

:allsmile: