The Creationist's Nightmare

[scitsofreaky]

Anyway, Behe and other IDists don't dismiss evolution...

I think that this is the fatal flaw. Behe concedes evolution, and I don't think that he even goes for the micro/macro crap (although I could be wrong. The problem is that they find one thing that they claim is IC, but concede that everything around it evolved. So they have a God that waits for something to evolve to a point where it can still survive without eyes (to use that worn out example), and then gives them eyes. But what good are eyes if the brain is not equiped to use them? So either the animal evolved a brain that, for no reason, could translate optical stimulae, or the animal evolved the capacity to use the eyes afterwards. In either case, you have an animal walking around with an "expensive" piece of equipment that is utterly useless to them (I say "expensive" because both the eye and even just parts of the brain are complex). And that concept goes against everything I know about natural selection.

This hypothetical is probably flawec, but I'm just trying to demonstrate that IC (and therefore ID) are incompatable with evolution.

(Please forgive any weird spelling mistakes, I"m using my parents possesed keyboard)

[RHEMtron]

Minstrel, you can check out all that we had to say on behe here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=10239

 

if you wanna a good recap of the irreducible complexity, then go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

[Ouroboros]

I certainly realize the contradictions in the Genesis 1 story.

Good, just wanted to be sure.

 

The "Link" I was referring to...is a "linking-stage" between the proposed progressive stages of mankind's development.

Sorry, that logically can't be done. See if I can explain it. Every individual is a link to the next individual. The word "species" isn't a clear definition. There are several different and contradictory systems to classify species, and each one have exceptions. In the purest sense of DNA and life, we all are just one species. So the links you're asking for is to find the bones of each individual that have existed since the beginning of time. And that is impossible.

 

The fact that Behe et al are not proponents of the Genesis' Creation epic, is a bonus, in my mind.

Yes it is. Actually, I don't disregard or look down on Behe at all. The argument that if you can find something that is IC, then that would be a proof of Design. He's absolutely correct. That is a philosophical correct assertion (in my mind), but the problem is more of how can we know if something is IC or not. Because IC becomes just another name for God-in-the-gaps.

 

Though, I would hope not to disregard any legitimate find, on account of a bias against their philosophical bent.

Couldn't sleep... Maybe this will help.

Hope it helped.

 

Anyway, Behe and other IDists don't dismiss evolution...

I think that this is the fatal flaw. Behe concedes evolution, and I don't think that he even goes for the micro/macro crap

That's true. I don't think he goes for the micro/macro evolution either. Behe is in my mind more of a believer in Theistic Evolution. Which to me isn't a huge issue at all. I'd say the issue is more with Dr Dino that takes the IC/ID arguments and run like a maniac with it.

 

(although I could be wrong. The problem is that they find one thing that they claim is IC, but concede that everything around it evolved. So they have a God that waits for something to evolve to a point where it can still survive without eyes (to use that worn out example), and then gives them eyes. But what good are eyes if the brain is not equiped to use them? So either the animal evolved a brain that, for no reason, could translate optical stimulae, or the animal evolved the capacity to use the eyes afterwards. In either case, you have an animal walking around with an "expensive" piece of equipment that is utterly useless to them (I say "expensive" because both the eye and even just parts of the brain are complex). And that concept goes against everything I know about natural selection.

This hypothetical is probably flawec, but I'm just trying to demonstrate that IC (and therefore ID) are incompatable with evolution.

(Please forgive any weird spelling mistakes, I"m using my parents possesed keyboard)

You got a very good point, but I don't think the ID/IC argument have to be that radical. Like an eye sprung up from nothing, but in slow and guided changes. Basically ID/IC is an argument against Natural Selection, and brings it into Divine Selection instead. "Survival of the divine selection"

[white_raven23]

and satan is a creationist worst nightmare, he is the one fooling people inito believing naturalist evil lunchoen.

 

I think I still need that coffee. I've got a mental image of the devil sitting on a fence munching a hummous and cucumber sandwich.

 

Whaaaaaat?

 

Creationists are scared of the devil because he promotes the consumption of foods that are free of artificial colors, preservatives, and pesticides at noontime?

 

Are you smoking dandilion fuzz?

[Minstrel]

Thanks to you all for your input and feedback...and the links.

My entire professional life has been in an arena of toppling the experts (of various names)... So, if what I find in these articles doesn't cinch the argument for my mind...hope you'll accept that I hold reservations, or...disagree.

But...my thanks are sincere.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks to you all for your input and feedback...and the links.

My entire professional life has been in an arena of toppling the experts (of various names)... So, if what I find in these articles doesn't cinch the argument for my mind...hope you'll accept that I hold reservations, or...disagree.

But...my thanks are sincere.

No problem. Only you can find the answers to your own questions. So happy hunting.

[Minstrel]

Okay folks... Read the rebuttals (links), and links that derived from the links, as well as some of Behe's rebuttals to the rebuttals...and must say I'm convinced neither way.

My biggest problem with the Evolutionary argument...is the method.

How can - The environment selects the best candidates (mutations/improvements) and helps them along to survival not be an argument, in itself...for some manner of intelligence...or design? Likewise, the abrupt ends and abrupt beginnings of variant forms of life in the fossil record just throw me into a loop.

I recognize the counter-intuitive stance...but, in essence, it says...don't worry about it if it doesn't make sense...just wait for us to explain it to you. God, that sounds like religion.

Sorry if I'm frustrating you...I'm just blessing you with my emotional tilt.

[Ouroboros]

Because the Environment is natural, and not supernatural.

 

The Environment consists of heat, energy, food, wind and weather, living conditions, sexual reproduction... and much more.

 

Everything that effects a individuals chances of survival and reproduction, is Natural Selection. It is in fact not random or by chance, as the critics say, but it is not "aware" or "intelligent" either. It's just is.

 

Like 'chaff in the wind'. How does the seed casings "know" to fly and separate itself from the seed when wind blows through it? It isn't intelligence, and it isn't chance, it is natural forces.

[Minstrel]

Everything that effects a individuals chances of survival and reproduction, is Natural Selection. It is in fact not random or by chance, as the critics say, but it is not "aware" or "intelligent" either. It's just is.

I can agree with your assertion...in the sense that I know of no Superior Being moving about the earth, influencing and affecting the courses of change. On the other hand, quantum mechanics/physics/theory interjects another component into the equation. Which, to me, means that, while there may be no All Compassing Being at the helm of history, it is quite possible that we (humans, et al) are the driving force behind what we call evolution.

Sorry, my thoughts aren't together on this, right now...just got interrupted...Uhhh...what were we talking about? Foot! Don't even know if I agree with my last statement, there... I think I was going to rethink it or reword it...but.........Ohhhh...I'll come back to this later. Sorry, again.

[scitsofreaky]

You got a very good point, but I don't think the ID/IC argument have to be that radical. Like an eye sprung up from nothing, but in slow and guided changes. Basically ID/IC is an argument against Natural Selection, and brings it into Divine Selection instead. "Survival of the divine selection"

Thank you for clearifying. Now I just have to figure out how in the hell that could possibly be scientifically tested. If I am understanding correctly, they pretty much just say that something weren't selected naturally, but supernaturally. And they say that is science? Even if they are right, there is no possible way to sceintifically prove it. Morons.

 

How can - The environment selects the best candidates (mutations/improvements) and helps them along to survival not be an argument, in itself...for some manner of intelligence...or design?

It is evidence of design, but not of the designer. People mistakenly think that the ID v Evolution debate is design vs non-design, but evolution is about design, just the unintelligent type. Animals are designed by the enivorment, which is an unintelligent "force." But it does not follow that there is an intelligent force behind the selection. Really, natural selection doesn't "select" good genes, it basically just kills off any mutations that are too harmful. Of course this is anthropomorphicizing natural selection, which seems to cause problems in its own right.

[Skankboy]

There is no more need for a "conscious" agent to be involed in evolutionary change than there would be for the small particles to fall through a sifter and the larger particles to stay on top. "Natural Selection" is a filter, not an active principle.

 

"Missing Link" Man oh man am I sick of this one. Like Han said, ALL fossils are transitional. NO species exists in a state of stasis, that's the whole point. If ID and other creationist theories were correct, we should be able to find modern animal skeletons right along side other, ancient ones. We don't. Instead we find a steady progression of change over time, IE evolution...

 

IMOHO,

[Ouroboros]

You got a very good point, but I don't think the ID/IC argument have to be that radical. Like an eye sprung up from nothing, but in slow and guided changes. Basically ID/IC is an argument against Natural Selection, and brings it into Divine Selection instead. "Survival of the divine selection"

Thank you for clearifying. Now I just have to figure out how in the hell that could possibly be scientifically tested. If I am understanding correctly, they pretty much just say that something weren't selected naturally, but supernaturally. And they say that is science? Even if they are right, there is no possible way to sceintifically prove it. Morons.

Exactly. It can't be proven. Because if you make one test, and it comes out to favor nature, then of course the process can be broken down in lower resultion of steps, and each step is now not definied completely in nature, and hence can be by "divine guidance". Take quarks for instace, until we know what they are, we have gaps in understanding the universe. And as long as we don't have a unified field theory, we can postulate intelligent design.

 

How can - The environment selects the best candidates (mutations/improvements) and helps them along to survival not be an argument, in itself...for some manner of intelligence...or design?

It is evidence of design, but not of the designer. People mistakenly think that the ID v Evolution debate is design vs non-design, but evolution is about design, just the unintelligent type. Animals are designed by the enivorment, which is an unintelligent "force." But it does not follow that there is an intelligent force behind the selection. Really, natural selection doesn't "select" good genes, it basically just kills off any mutations that are too harmful. Of course this is anthropomorphicizing natural selection, which seems to cause problems in its own right.

Well, the Intelligent Design or just Design have it's problem in that we are part of the system that we look at. So of course anything that we see will look like design. Because we are defininig what a "design" is. To a fish in a fish bowl, everything in the universe is a fish bowl.

 

Go back to my "chaff in the wind" example. Let's say that nature was "designed" different. That the seed was lighter than the shell. Then it would be "seed in the wind", and we would still see that situation as "wow, it must be intelligent design". Or let's say the seed and chaff are just as heavy (or light), but they're different size so we can filter through some machine, then we'd say "wow, it must be intelligent design". To understand this, everything we see is a design, because we are the observers. And this kind of observer that we are, see design in chaos. We find patterns. Otherwise we as species, and other species too, would not be able to survive. With only chaos in our minds, we would be crazy. So we make patterns, and see correlations, even where there are no correlations. You see a car with licensplate Z444ABC and then a car with X444DDD and you think that is a coincidence, but if you see Z666ABC and X666DDD then you start thinking about Antichrist and the Beast. So now suddenly, it was a "sign from above", while the earlier example was not!

[SwissMiss]

Well rather than bore you with a huge long post, I'll stick this link up with a huge long list in it instead and let you all take your pick!!

 

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/t...ionistshate.htm

[Guest adamtheha]

I can't believe all of you! None of you would know what "evidence" was if it slapped you in the face and gave you a wedgie. I'm a peace officer, and I work in Court all the time, and I can tell you, if you brought your "evidence" in, you'd be objected to instantly. I haven't heard any real evidence since I came to this site, and I've been looking! Both the creationists and evolutionists are to blame. Neither one of you understands your position, and neither of you can defend it!

 

Here's what evidence is:

1. Real evidence - Fossils, rocks, samples, numbers, dates, names, and documents, directly related to the question at hand.

2. Circumstancial evidence - Facts that do not directly relate to the case at hand, but can be useful.

 

Types of evidence

1. Primary source - Right from the horses mouth. You saw the rock, you sampled it yourself, you testify to it's age to the best our your knowledge and belief. Anyone can question and cross-examine you at will.

2. Secondary source - You heard someone else talking about the rock, and you relate some or all of what you heard.

AKA - HEARSAY = NOT ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN NORTH AMERICA!!!

Heresay is not admissible, because you can not cross examine the source.

 

Reason - The conclusion that a previously uninformed reasonable person would come to.

Logic - If A + 1 = B, then B - 1 = A

Common sense - Its not as common as you might think.

Science - Latin "scientia" = literally "KNOWLEDGE"

Philosophy - a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means - Webster's dictionary

 

I don't subscribe to Christian philosophy, and I don't believe in Evolutionary Philosophy.

Christians - You haven't investigated the evidence supporting your viewpoint..."God did it" doesn't fly in court, and it doesn't fly with me.

Evolutionists - You don't even understand your philosophy (most of you), and you couldn't defend it against a blind beggar with a pointed stick!

 

I don't care to argue with anyone here. I won't call any of you names, so don't call me names. If you want to ask me what I've discovered, go ahead, bring your Primary source evidence, names, dates, facts, witnesses and evidence, and we'll see what we come up with. If you can't live with that, fold your hands and shut up. Believe what you want to believe, but let's quit this childish game playing, shall we?

[Ouroboros]

Very nice. Thanks for clearing that up. You probably got everyone dislike you already with your extremely polite introduction of yourself. Welcome to our site btw.

 

This is a discussion board, and not a court, if you know the difference.

 

So tell me, why do you believe in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? What's your primary source? Did the evidence get slapped in your face, and that's why you believe the Bible is true?

 

I let you in on a little secret. This website is a safe haven for people that recently have deconverted from Christianity. And you want everyone to shut up, and not discuss or talk about any issues, because you are the judge and jury that demans evidence in these discussions. Is your opinion that this site should close because of it? Heck, why don't we close Starbucks since they can't prove Evolution when two guys are talking about it in the corner? That's a very stupid suggestion, don't you agree?

 

It sounds like you expect this site to have the answers your looking for, or the evidence for faith or not having faith, but sorry, this is not the place. We discuss, rant, vent and get our emotions out. That's what we do here. If you want the evidence for evolution or for christianity, then you should go somewhere else. Because that is not why we are here on this site.

 

We might be wrong about things, but we are in the process of learning and trying to understand things. If you have better knowledge, then lets hear it, instead of you attacking. Your post is rude, and you will get rude responses. You set the tone of how people will interact with you.

 

And may I ask, since you work in the court, why is DNA used as evidence?

 

And also, what do you mean with Evolutionary Philosophy?

 

Anyway, I'll bite. What is your discovery? What have you found that is so new and different?

[Thurisaz]

I don't subscribe to Christian philosophy, and I don't believe in Evolutionary Philosophy.

 

Am I the only one here who, judging from his/her experience, found that such a line is typical for a fundie trying to sneak into a non-fundie community undercover?

 

Anyway, prove me wrong. Pray tell (pun intended), what is "philosophical" in basing your conclusions on observable (and verifyable) evidence solely, instead of blindly pulling assumptions out of wherever?

 

For, you know, evolutionary theory is good science. Good science observes, draws conclusions from those observations, and tests those conclusions. The more tests the conclusions pass, the more they get accepted as fact (though never 100 %). You got a better suggestion? Tell us about it. Or don't you? Then get lost.

 

Clear enough?

[Ouroboros]

Thur, I get the feeling the Adamthea knows what evidence is, but not the difference between philosophy and science. Don't you say?

[zandore]

For, you know, evolutionary theory is good science. Good science observes, draws conclusions from those observations, and tests those conclusions. The more tests the conclusions pass, the more they get accepted as fact (though never 100 %). You got a better suggestion? Tell us about it. Or don't you? Then get lost.

 

Clear enough?

When science draws a conclusion (in this case evolution) it will try to prove those conclusions wrong. If the data is not proven to be wrong then it is accepted as a theory.

 

To simply accept something as an act of God with no supporting evidence is unscientific and illogical.

[white_raven23]

 

 

 

Wooooowww!!!

 

Lookit everyone!

 

Real evidence of a mutation involving cranio-rectal inversion!

 

Cooool.

[Minstrel]

I suppose I should just jump on the bandwagon, and say something derogatory (toward adamtheha)...so I can fit in... But, honestly, I think he's right (though abrasive).

I've looked at every link offered here, for support of the Evolutionary Theory...or, as rebuttal against Intelligent Design/Creationism (had already been reading on Project Steve)...and found the entire argument for Evolution (specifically - macroevolution) to be wanting of substance.

In so saying - all I can say of the Intelligent Design theory is...it does a good job of pointing out the failures of its opponent. It really doesn't get me any closer on an answer to the origin.

In the various rebuttals (links/articles), the most common attitude I see is - type-casting, name-calling, side-stepping and slight of hand...no different from dogmatic Christianity's attitude toward Ex-Christians.

You seemed to have a solid conviction on Evolution...so, I submitted myself to the grill, to learn (if you were able and willing to share). I did not begin with - "So, why don't you folks believe in Genesis 1?". I let you know that I've read scientific articles... Have been exposed to both sides of the argument... Know some of the basics and groundrules...

I was handed a bunch of links...to articles I've already read (including the entire thread on this site regarding irreducible complexity)... Nonetheless, I had not read them within the last year...so I trudged through them again, thinking a former bias might have blinded me to what substance/s you wanted me to see. If it was there...I didn't see it.

Could be...as I've seen others called, here...that I'm a moron.

Could be...otherwise.

What I think I see, is a religious determination to align with a philosophy that justifies atheism... And, I have no religion/god to appease.

But, since my last post kind of left a big question mark as to whether I found your links and arguments convincing...I thought I should wrap up my involvement in this thread...forget about entering into such topical streams...and enjoy you all in other topics of Ex-Christendom.

As always...I reserve the right...to change my mind.

[Thurisaz]

Thur, I get the feeling the Adamthea knows what evidence is, but not the difference between philosophy and science. Don't you say?

 

Maybe so. But honestly, I hardly care anymore.

I'm damn close to the point where I dismiss everything an evolution-denier et cetera says about his past or his credentials as a standard lie. I've seen so many clearly false claims coming from them, I'm sickened almost to the point of physical nausea to examine any more of them. Thus my harsh reaction to the general attitude of that posting.

 

Just how many times have we seen fundies first claim "I have such-and-such a degree in science" and then babble crap that shows that they don't know jack about even the very basics of science... or seen them claim to be "former atheists" and then demonstrate the same utter ignorance about atheism?

 

I say any amount of tolerance is wasted on them. Just call them the morons they are.

[Sheratan]

Lookit everyone!

 

Real evidence of a mutation involving cranio-rectal inversion!

 

Cooool.

ROTFL!

This is a keeper!

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've looked at every link offered here, for support of the Evolutionary Theory...or, as rebuttal against Intelligent Design/Creationism (had already been reading on Project Steve)...and found the entire argument for Evolution (specifically - macroevolution) to be wanting of substance.

 

Hi, Minstrel, in case you're still on this thread, here's my opinion -

 

Do you have a view on Karl Popper's arguments about the nature of a scientific theory? I think Popper makes sense in The Logic of Scientific Discovery when he argues that you can't verify a scientific theory because inductive logic always involves a leap - there's no way we can examine every instance of a phenomenon, so we may be missing counterexamples (there might be a black swan or two out there that no one has seen).

 

Popper said a theory "proves its mettle" when it stands up to every new experiment, no counterexamples offer themselves, and it predicts conclusions that guide further research. That research eventually may detect counterexamples that blow up the theory. He argues that we cannot prove a theory true. The most we can do is falsify a theory. As long as a theory does its work, it stands up, and the reasons for using it grow stronger.

 

Another feature of a successful theory is economy. A theory that consistently explains the observed phenomena but requires assumptions about unobserved entities is less economical than a theory that doesn't require those assumptions. So the economical theory is better. This is the application of Ockham's Razor. You said in an earlier post that the TOE and ID both explain the data. The TOE is better because it doesn't require us to assume the existence of an entity outside the system that created various species.

 

So far to my layman's mind, the TOE has stood its mettle in explaining a wide set of phenomena, it's economical, it predicts direction for further research.

 

IDers and Creationists err, in my mind, by viewing the TOE analogously to the way they view religious dogma. They think you have to take a step of faith and believe the TOE beyond the evidence. That's what they do with dogmas. But the TOE doesn't demand the same level of assent as dogma does. All you do with the TOE is accept it as more useful than any other theory, and you keep doing your research. An analogy would be the researcher of religions who thinks, say, Vedanta is a more successful philosophy for explaining reality than any competitor, and who goes on to investigate reality without claiming that it's inerrant or The Truth.

 

What kind of data would amount to a counterexample that would disprove the TOE? That's my question.

[white_raven23]

 

I've looked at every link offered here, for support of the Evolutionary Theory...or, as rebuttal against Intelligent Design/Creationism (had already been reading on Project Steve)...and found the entire argument for Evolution (specifically - macroevolution) to be wanting of substance.

 

Han, I believe made the comparison of basing your opinions on evolutionary theory on two chaps having a conversation about it in Starbucks.

 

I'm going to give you another example. HAve you seen that tv commercial where theat guy is looking to buy a particular phone, but he's trying to buy it in a hardware store?

 

Now, doubtless cell phones are used in hardware stores......but you don't buy them there.

 

Looking for a presentation of scientific evidence for Evolution in an online community focused on leaving a religion.....that is a little off.

 

Now....have you looked at the months old posts in the Science and Religion section of the Forum?

 

Look at old posts involving Mr.Neil, and Mr. Spooky. They are our science guys (who we haven't seen in a while....miss you guys!). Now, they know the science enough to explain it waaaay past the layman's understanding of science. Now while their stuff is good, the links they would post were even better.

 

Or, even better, google it.

 

Not all the answers to life are in these forums.

[Minstrel]

Both of your replies are appreciated.

Thanks for the time, thought and sincerity you put into them.