Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

Myksyk

Your probability reasoning is all over the shop and really you should know it. Davros has pointed it out to you so I'll just iterate in the hope that some information might stick (I don't hold out much hope however). We all agree that the probability of the spontaneous generation of complex life forms from zilch is zilch. As Richard Dawkins said in one of the links I pointed you to, this is "creakingly, grindingly obvious". This is your oft-repeated evolutionists belief life appeared through chance processes fallacy.

However, the probabilities of tiny changes are much higher. If these changes are naturally selected for by dint of their reproductive success in the light of their better fit with the environment, they can accumulate over vasts amounts of time, with each tiny change being entirely probable. Do you understand that we are talking about the probability of tiny changes being selected for and accumulating over time (this is THE fundamental idea in evolution ... it really is important that it sinks in)?

robindch

> You assured me that if such a scientifically valid hypothesis
> were to exist that you would abandon your BELIEF in Evolution.

Nobody said this. Please read our postings.

> You also took it upon yourselves to assure me that ALL
> scientists, being the objective creatures that they are,
> would equally take such a valid hypothesis “ on board” and
> also abandon Evolution.

Nobody said this either. Please read our postings.

> my hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce
> the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific
> useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random
> evolution of life is an impossibility” is a valid scientific
> hypothesis because:-
> 1. It is PRECISELY defined.
> 2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
> 3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.

Good, we're getting somewhere. Now, here's my equivalent 'scientific hypothesis':

"There is an invisible, fire-breathing pink goat sitting beside me"

...which, according to your logic concerning a 'scientific hypothesis' (apologies for spelling this out in tedious detail):

> 1. It is PRECISELY defined.
> 2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
> 3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.

...does this mean, becuase I've been able to write it down, that there's an invisible, fire-breathing pink goat sitting beside me? Your strange logic requires that we do believe it, or indeed any assertion at all that I could make regarding something that's not been observed.

In short, just because you can write something down, doesn't mean that it's true, no matter how much you'd like it to be true.

> My mathematical calculations are correct.

You've multiplied some numbers together correctly, but along the way, you've made many, many assumptions about getting those numbers, how they should be multiplied, and what the result means, in order that you can reach your pre-ordained conclusion that life couldn't have arisen. This is not science, this is nonsense.

Nonetheless, regardless of your calculation, we find ourselves here -- so what's your explanation as to why we are?

> "Muck to Man"

Who's slagging whose notions off here? This one's straight from genesis, 2:7 "God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life".

> Your only serious attempt at a rebuttal [...] was a “one liner” about
> a “coin-tosser flipping coins"

You asserted that a random process cannot give rise to a non-random result. I gave you an example of such a process and explained how the process is analogous to evolution. Please read my example again.

> sinister remark

I seem to remember -- please correct me if I'm wrong -- that it was Kevin Nolan, the speaker at December's talk on the scientific response to creationism, who mentioned that he was at one of Kent Hovind's 'talks' in Dublin some years ago and who was physically pulled from his seat and shoved out the door by the event's security goons when he began to ask Hovind questions; the only difference was that I was making a joke about there being skeptic goons (which there aren't, continuity or otherwise), and not actually having such goons and getting them to heave people who disagree with me around the place. KH, by the way, lives behind http://www.drdino.com and, just the same as Ham, is another young-earth creationist cheer-leader with a creation theme park in need of a constant stream of fee-paying visitors.

- robin.

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

...does this mean, becuase I've been able to write it down, that there's an invisible, fire-breathing pink goat sitting beside me?

You mean there isn't an invisible fire-breathing pink goat beside you? ... umm I must be the only one ...

JC is doing a typical creationist trick, starting off with an incorrect assumption (that "life" started as amino acids and proteins) and then saying that based on this incorrect assumption the probablity of life forming is to vast to say it is possible. The thing to remember is that his starting point is incorrect

To me it is kinda like someone saying -

"the grand canyon was formed by one single blow, that removed all the rock. The odds of a natural event forming such a perfect canyon structure in one go are next to impossible. Therefore someone must have formed the grand canyon with intelligent design. QED"

The problem with the above statement is that the grand canyon was not formed in one single event. Likewise JC is arguing a point which has an incorrect assumption at its starting point.

Myksyk

“That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”

You are saying that you cannot imagine any way in which replicating molecules could have come about therefore it did not happen ... this is an argument from personal incredulity and does not stand up. You have not demonstrated in any way that it is impossible for replicating molecules to evolve. (You also assume that DNA/proteins were the first macromloecules capable of replication which isn unfounded assumption and which leads to your chicken and egg problem).

Secondly, the gradual evolution of life HAS obviously taken place as supported by the vast amount of evidence from other sources and is not refuted by pointing to gaps in knowledge and personal incredulity ... as I have pointed out to you already.

Overall, pointing to gaps in knowledge in no way refutes what IS known and how it is consistent with the theory of evolution, no more than saying that because we don't know what happened in the first microseconds of the universe that everything we think about it afterwards is wrong and couldn't have happened.

Myksyk

J C wrote:

... gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you just have difficulty with the information given to you to date regarding the non-random nature of evolution and will try to expand our points a bit so that you can let this go.

Evolution includes random events like genetic mutations (just how random these are I do not know), this is the raw material upon which natural selection works. Natural selection however is a contingent process with the probability of certain things happening being far greater than others.

If a tiny genetic mutation confers advantage/environmental fit, then its liklihood of selection is greater than some other random genetic mutation. Its selection is therefore not random but more likely than others for specific reasons.

Over aeons, the accumulation of many of these tiny changes which are selected non-randomly (i.e. based on their specific properties) will eventually lead to noticeable differences between organisms. Nature is selecting only those mutations that confer advantage, all others die out in the shifting sands of evolutionary change. The selection is not random. The process is not random. The results are not random.

bus77

J C wrote:

My hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility” is a valid scientific hypothesis because:-
1. It is PRECISELY defined.
2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.
To recap
Its precise definition is obvious. Critical amino acid sequences and the number of electrons in the Universe are phenomena that can be repeatably observed . My mathematical calculations are correct.

I would agree with you if it is an open system, each ball with the same number. 'electrons' 1's and 0's, you could use open system maths on them. However, when we get to 'Critical amino acid sequences' we are geting into chemical reactions or the results of chemical reactions, in combination with other afectors, Bunches of numbers, that have been formed by reactions to other numbers. A systems system.

Carpo

J C wrote:

My hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility” is a valid scientific hypothesis because:-
1. It is PRECISELY defined.
2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.

Can you please point me in the direction of a (recoginsed) proponent of evolution that claims that modern critical amino acids were produced randomly? Just one will do. I would imagine that since you have disproved this notion and consequently torn down the walls of evolution, it must be a pretty integral part of evolutionary theory, so you shouldnt have much trouble finding just one accredited source.

If you cannot provide an example of the propostion against which you are arguing then I will have to assume that you are merely attempting to obfuscate and misrepresent the issue.

J C

Quote
There is an invisible, fire-breathing pink goat sitting beside me
which, according to your logic concerning a 'scientific hypothesis' (apologies for spelling this out in tedious detail):

> 1. It is PRECISELY defined.
> 2. It is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
> 3. Observed phenomena are in accordance with its premises.

An invisible FIRE-BREATHING pink GOAT eh.
If you are telling me that yourself and your “Pink Goat” friend have just proposed a valid Scientific hypothesis – I’m sorry to disappoint you, you haven’t. Although it is PRECISELY defined it lacks the other test – that of being testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.

Another Gem
You do not have to randomly produce an full modern amino acid sequence randomly. All you have to do is produce a simple repeating molecule, which is tricky but not in anyway impossible considering carbon likes joining together.
Carbon likes joining together - I see you really have the origins of life sussed alright!!

I went fishing one day and caught me a “Repeating Molecule” - but it got away and I NEVER saw it again – NOW BELIEVE ME!!

The arguments from the Evolutionists on this thread are so thoroughly “WET” that I have to shelter under an umbrella every time I log-on, to avoid being thoroughly soaked!!!!.

Having worked in McDonalds as a student, and now as YOUR “TRAINED PHYSICIAN”, boys and girls I have some bad news for you all. My diagnosis is that you are all suffering from “Acute Denial Meltdown Frenzy”. This is a highly contagious mental condition in populations that have enjoyed a very long period of “Cock-Sureness” which collapses suddenly.

I recognised the symptoms immediately, because I once suffered from the condition myself. You see, I too used be An EVOLUTIONIST , there I said it!!!
I’ve never regretted the day that I stopped BELIEVING in EVOLUTION, there I said it AGAIN – and I have never let another drop of Evolution inside my head ever since!!!
Early on, I did suffer some withdrawal symptoms. Sometimes I’d look at a person in the street and say to myself “now there is a very nice random arrangement of atoms, if ever I saw one”
I have “stayed on the wagon” so to speak, ever since and I have found a great feeling of liberation since I threw off the Evolutionary shackles that had imprisoned my mind.

Quote
Now you are just taking the piss.
Another DEEP evolutionary insight no doubt!!
I don’t need to TAKE it – I always get a LIBERALLY SPRINKLED with the stuff every time I visit this thread!! I’m constantly showering as a result!!!

Is there ANY scientist, “trained” or otherwise, out there who will address my valid scientific hypothesis with reasoned argument that I can respond to.
Otherwise I will be forced to regale you with more wonderful musings as I tap my fingers here waiting for a reply.

Hello, hello, anybody home??

Testing 1 2 3……….

robindch

> you are telling me that yourself and your “Pink Goat” friend
> have just proposed a valid Scientific hypothesis – I’m sorry
> to disappoint you, you haven’t. Although it is PRECISELY
> defined it lacks the other test – that of being testable by
> repeatable observation and experimentation.

Good heavens, my friend, we disagree again and I after making a special effort to keep things simple by quoting your text back at you twice, so that there could be no chance of you failing to understand what you'd written!

Anyway, in this reply, I'll write in two styles, so that you can pick which makes more sense to you. If neither of them do, well, try reading them again, because they're really quite easy!

[IF](JC-mode style)

This reply is in your writing style, in the hope -- heh, heh -- no the FAITH, because I have a LOT, that something will stick!!

You see, you forgot completely that my pink goat is actually INVISIBLE -- see my hypothesis! And this means that you can't see it becoz it's invisible!!!! And that means that my SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is absolutely testable by repeatable observation and experimentation as you were looking for. And you were quite right to look for it too!!

To repeat -- because I know I must! -- I can't see that daft goat that you say is SANTA, whoops, SATAN (and it might be!!!), therefore that daft goat is REALLY there, because my shiny, white SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS says that it is! And I'm so happy because with this so totally wicked, man!

And THAT means that you're WRONG!!! Dearie me, but I really mean it!!

[ELSE](Sober writing style)

I'm afraid to point out that my hypothesis fits all of *your* criteria for a 'scientific hypothesis', since you forgot that my proposed pink goat is invisible, meaning that everytime that I look for it and don't see it there, I make another successful observation of its 'invisible' attribute. This means that your rejection of my criticism is invalid and also, that your definition of a 'scientific hypothesis' is not sufficiently comprehensive to conclude that a set of observations which fits its restrictive template also validates the observation's conclusion.

In short, your conclusion is not supported by your chain of reasoning.

[ENDIF]

I hope that either of the above will help you!

Hugs and kisses from darkest D4.

- robin.

Myksyk

Sometimes you have to know when your efforts to engage in a reasoned discussion with someone are a complete waste of time and effort. JC's approach to this debate is to ignore all arguments which he has to actually answer. He has frustrated the thread with deliberate misrepresentation, repeated inaccuracies and infuriating obfuscation. This it seems is the hallmark of the creationist. If his manner had been more acceptable then his creationist stories may at least have been entertaining but somehow he has managed to present to us a mix of intellectual banalities while at the same time being patronising, dismissive, sarcastic, hostile, insulting and sneering. I have better things to do than try to talk with someone who has their hands in their ears, their eyes closed and their mind set like concrete. I wish I could say it's been fun but it hasn't. If any reasonable people wish to know what going to Ken Ham will be like, just read JC's posts and weep. By the way, creationists alternative to the incredible intellectual endeavour of biological science over the last two centuries is that 'God did it ... and he did it EXACTLY like the stories tell it in the Bible'. And WE are the fantasists?

J C

Quote
I'm afraid to point out that my hypothesis fits all of *your* criteria for a 'scientific hypothesis', since you forgot that my proposed pink goat is invisible, meaning that everytime that I look for it and don't see it there, I make another successful observation of its 'invisible' attribute.

Very good Robin, but you are not able to make any observations about ANY of it's supposed attributes such as it's fire-making abilities, it's colour or it's "goatiness". In fact in precise scientific terms an observation that something isn't there will only have importance if it is "supposed" to be there for some reason in the first place. Otherwise it is meaningless!!

Again I have bad news for you it is still not a valid scientific hypothesis - but nice try though!!!!

I'm off for another shower!!

bus77

J C wrote:

I'm off for another shower!!

And admire the way your nose is shaped while your in there.

J C

Quote
If his manner had been more acceptable then his creationist stories may at least have been entertaining but somehow he has managed to present to us a mix of intellectual banalities while at the same time being patronising, dismissive, sarcastic, hostile, insulting and sneering. I have better things to do than try to talk with someone who has their hands in their ears, their eyes closed and their mind set like concrete. I wish I could say it's been fun but it hasn't
Was it something that I said?

I've had great fun - but then winners always do!!!

I'm off for another shower!!!

Carpo

Carpo wrote:

Can you please point me in the direction of a (recoginsed) proponent of evolution that claims that modern critical amino acids were produced randomly? Just one will do. I would imagine that since you have disproved this notion and consequently torn down the walls of evolution, it must be a pretty integral part of evolutionary theory, so you shouldnt have much trouble finding just one accredited source.

If you cannot provide an example of the propostion against which you are arguing then I will have to assume that you are merely attempting to obfuscate and misrepresent the issue.

*cough*

robindch

> but you are not able to make any observations about ANY of
> it's supposed attributes such as it's fire-making abilities, it's
> colour or it's "goatiness".

Completely wrong!!!! My holy book (it's called The Scary Big Black Book Which Is True, Honest!), says that every invisible thing is a fire-breathing, pink GOAT! And you're silly and horrible if you don't agree with me!!!! In fact the pink, fire-breathing and very ladylike Holy Goat is a central to to my hole theory of the Universe! It's the Filly-OK! clause! Ha, ha, ha!(*)

> I've had great fun - but then winners always do

Absolutely. I'm clapping with my right hand, and sometimes my left as well, as hard as I can here in D4 for you now! You've convinced me for sure, good buddy!!!!!! Now, run off like a good little doggie and have another cold shower -- it should calm your fevered brow which must have lots of beads of nasty sweat on it from all the hard believing that you've been doing!

Anyhow, If I'm well enough tomorrow, I'll lever myself out of bed and try and get across to hear the good Professor Ham deliver his deep and boundless wisdom, wrapped around the finest fruits of his rapier-like intellect to the sharpest minds in all of Dublin (who knows, perhaps the world!), and with a bit of luck might even manage a trip report if the muse takes me and I don't get to a pub first.

- robin, finally admitting he was on the wrong side of this argument all along. Mea maxima culpa!

(*) probably the first time in history anybody's ever attempted a joke (please note) about this... tee, hee.

Myksyk

Carpo wrote:

*cough*

Carpo ... You better do more than cough!! you could jump and down and wave your hands and JC will still not answer pertinent questions. Despite multiple corrections, he still blathers on about 'random' evolution, still confuses the origin of life with the process of evolution, still deliberately waffles on about irrelevant probabilities, still refuses to present his own theory which satisfies all the criteria he sets out for evolutionary theory.

So don't expect a reasoned response any time soon. However, do be prepared for more mind-numbing brain-ossifying pre-pubescent 'humour' masquerading as hilarious irony.

I think we should just keep repeating the questions JC refuses to address instead of being distracted by his general nastiness.

Here's yours again

Carpo wrote:

Can you please point me in the direction of a (recoginsed) proponent of evolution that claims that modern critical amino acids were produced randomly? Just one will do. I would imagine that since you have disproved this notion and consequently torn down the walls of evolution, it must be a pretty integral part of evolutionary theory, so you shouldnt have much trouble finding just one accredited source.

If you cannot provide an example of the propostion against which you are arguing then I will have to assume that you are merely attempting to obfuscate and misrepresent the issue.

Here's a couple of mine?

Do you accept that the theory of evolution as currently understood involves the non-random accumulation of small genetic changes over vast stretches of time and that each miniscule change is entirely possible and its selection is entirely probable?

Since you accept that natural selection is a valid scientific theory, do you accept that the process it specifically explains (evolution) is also valid?

Do you understand that the question of the origin of life is a separate one from the evolution of species?

Do you accept that pointing to gaps in knowledge in no way refutes what IS known and how it is consistent with the theory of evolution?

Any more questions guys that he has failed to address?

Turley

robindch wrote:

You see, you forgot completely that my pink goat is actually INVISIBLE -- see my hypothesis! And this means that you can't see it becoz it's invisible!!!! And that means that my SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is absolutely testable by repeatable observation and experimentation as you were looking for. And you were quite right to look for it too!!

Your statement violates a first principle of rational reasoning that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. Thus your quote below is appropriate to your own argument

robindch wrote:

In short, your conclusion is not supported by your chain of reasoning.

Myksyk

He's not saying it simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. He's saying that it exists but you can't see it. 'Rational' reasoning restored.

bus77

Myksyk wrote:

So don't expect a reasoned response any time soon. However, do be prepared for more mind-numbing brain-ossifying pre-pubescent 'humour' masquerading as hilarious irony.

Seems to be a trend in various "educated" conservative types in the states, and some D4 types in Ireland. Ofcourse being Irish the D4 types have a grasp on irony.

Myksyk wrote:

I think we should just keep repeating the questions JC refuses to address instead of being distracted by his general nastiness.

Why keep up the same approach when there is plainly no ground to be made?

I view pointing out inconsistencies in the bible as being just as insightfull/productive as JC's. Both are piss-poor attempts to undermine each percived 'negative faith'.

Myksyk

Why keep up the same approach when there is plainly no ground to be made?

That's a fair enough argument.

I view pointing out inconsistencies in the bible as being just as insightfull/productive as JC's. Both are piss-poor attempts to undermine each percived 'negative faith'.

I did point out inconsistencies earlier but did so only with the very specific aim of countering a claim made by another poster that the Bible was a 'consistent' and true document and could be taken as a true account of creation; My doing so was therefore directly relevant to a specfic part of the debate and not an attempt to undermine anyone's faith.

bus77

Myksyk wrote:

I did point out inconsistencies earlier but did so only with the very specific aim of countering a claim made by another poster that the Bible was a 'consistent' and true document

I think it rests on the interpretation of 'consistent' though. I think to them religion is consistent in that it provides results, both on a personal level, and on a social level by observing people coming together under the banner and feeling joy from association.
So therefore inconsistencies in the text are simply irrelevant and go against observed and felt results. Pointing them out simply reinforces the interpretation that you must still be lost and/or under some sort of other influence.

Myksyk wrote:

and could be taken as a true account of creation;

And this is the bone. I think this depends more on the starting point/persective of the people saying/countering it, more than the actual statements themselves.

Myksyk

bus77 wrote:

I think it rests on the interpretation of 'consistent' though. I think to them religion is consistent in that it provides results, both on a personal level, and on a social level by observing people coming together under the banner and feeling joy from association.
So therefore inconsistencies in the text are simply irrelevant and go against observed and felt results. Pointing them out simply reinforces the interpretation that you must still be lost and/or under some sort of other influence.


And this is the bone. I think this depends more on the starting point/persective of the people saying/countering it, more than the actual statements themselves.

I was not speaking of religion being consistent. I was responding to a specific claim that the Bible was consistent. For fundamentalists/biblical literalists there are no inconsistencies in the bible and they very much deny that there are merits to an interpretationist approach to it. If the 'specific' claim is made that the bible is consistent and non-contradictory then this is a testable claim and countering it has implications for other fundamentalist claims, including those about evolution and creationism, the topic of this thread.

bus77

Myksyk wrote:

I was not speaking of religion being consistent. I was responding to a specific claim that the Bible was consistent. For fundamentalists/biblical literalists there are no inconsistencies in the bible and they very much deny that there are merits to an interpretationist approach to it. If the 'specific' claim is made that the bible is consistent and non-contradictory then this is a testable claim and countering it has implications for other fundamentalist claims, including those about evolution and creationism, the topic of this thread.

Apologies, I know you were responding to a specific claim, however I think the line between those that really believe in every word of the Bible and those that firmly belive in the Bible as being an essential part of society and peoples lives, has become blurred.I dont think it is the Bible Literalists you will find hovering around the evolution issue. More like Bible Socialists.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

He's not saying it simultaneously exists and doesn't exist. He's saying that it exists but you can't see it. 'Rational' reasoning restored.

Please explain how it is known to be a Pink goat if you cannot see it. To both "not see that it is pink" and "see that it is pink" at the same time violates a first principle of rational reasoning.

Turley

"British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Mr. Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible.
But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design — a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe."
from a UPI article dateline France published at:
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20050303-115733-9519r.htm

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

Please explain how it is known to be a Pink goat if you cannot see it. To both "not see that it is pink" and "see that it is pink" at the same time violates a first principle of rational reasoning.

I don't know. Ask Robindch ... he's the one who sees it

[I suppose he 'sees' it and 'knows' its pink in the same way people see any 'god' and speak of his/her characteristics ... its all down to faith I guess!!]

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

"British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

C'mon Turley, this is just an argument from personal incredulity. I'd be much more interested in what evidence he has that it is impossible ... and I'm sure the scientific world would too.

Turley

JC and Robin-
Have either of you read Michael Behe? If so, can you comment.

A friend has recommended his book to me recently saying,
"By the way, for a good read on Intelligent Design theory, check out
Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." Behe is a biochemist, and in his
book he argues that observations at the cellular and molecular levels
demonstrate the impossibility of spontaneous generation of life and of
evolution from species to species. It's a hard book to put down. It
reads very easily, and Behe presents very technical information in a
relatively easy-to-understand manner. "

Open minded skeptics might find his book of interest.
-Turley

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

C'mon Turley, this is just an argument from personal incredulity. I'd be much more interested in what evidence he has that it is impossible ... and I'm sure the scientific world would too.

It is not an argument. It is a related article like the book by the biochemist Michael Behe. I am only pointing to additional sources for information. People can read more if they are interested.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

I don't know. Ask Robindch ... he's the one who sees it

[I suppose he 'sees' it and 'knows' its pink in the same way people see any 'god' and speak of his/her characteristics ... its all down to faith I guess!!]

You are right.
Some people believe in God. I do.
Other people choose dismiss God and believe in invisible pink goats.

Turley

Myksyk wrote:

By the way, creationists alternative to the incredible intellectual endeavour of biological science over the last two centuries is that 'God did it ... and he did it EXACTLY like the stories tell it in the Bible'. And WE are the fantasists?

That is not true.
All through history people have believed in a God/Creator before they even knew of the Bible. The Japanese people are one example. And Catholics believe in God the Creator but their Creed does not include the Genesis story of creation.

You are fantasizing again. (watch out for that pink goat)

J C

I wish to summarise our “progress” to date on this thread. In order to help retain clarity of thinking, on all of our parts, I will used numbered positive or negative statements that you can all react to / comment upon.

1. I am a “man of science” AND a “man of faith”.
2. It is important to identify the boundary where scientifically validated knowledge ends on any topic, and therefore, where my faith (and indeed, the faiths of everyone else) begin.
3. The best and most objective method of determining “the line” where science ends (and therefore where faith begins) is The Scientific Method.
4. The Scientific Method allows us determines “the line” where the current state of scientific knowledge ends by examining all valid scientific hypotheses on a particular topic. If it continues to be a valid scientific hypothesis it is on the scientific “side of the line” – and if it doesn’t it is on the faith “side of the line”.
5. One of the implicit reasons for the Irish Skeptics forum is to use science to determine this “line” on every scientific issue that arises.
6. The Scientific Method determines the scientific validity of hypotheses which:
· Are PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about.
· Are repeatably testable by observation and/or experimentation.
7. “Hypotheses” that are not precisely defined or which cannot be empirically tested are not on the scientific “side of the line” – and therefore are on the faith “side of the line”.
8. A “speculation” such as “I believe that all gravity originates in my big toe”, even though it is PRECISELY DEFINED, it is not empirically testable – and is therefore on the faith “side of the line”.
9. A “speculation” such as “I believe that light exhibits wave characteristics” is PRECISELY DEFINED, and empirically testable and supported – and is therefore on the science “side of the line”.
10. One of the objectives of this thread is to make a determination on whether the “Theories of Evolution” are scientifically valid and therefore implicitly whether they are on the science or faith “side of the line” so to speak.
11. There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they involve speculation on the spontaneous generation of life and it’s gradual development over billions of years by random means. These “theories” are therefore not precisely defined, nor are they largely testable by repeated observation and/or experimentation. This would, prima face, place them on the faith “side of the line”.
12. To remove all doubt, I proposed a valid scientific hypothesis as follows : “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein and therefore gradual random evolution of life is an impossibility”.
13. It is a valid scientific hypothesis because it is PRECISELY defined and it is testable by repeatable observation and experimentation.
14. Its precise definition is obvious. Critical amino acid sequences and the number of electrons in the Universe are phenomena that can be repeatedly observed.
15. My mathematical calculations are correct and shown in my post of 1/3/05 @22.45 on page 5.
16. My hypothesis indicates that, all “theories of evolution” are invalid SCIENTIFICALLY and are therefore firmly on the “faith” side of the line so to speak.
17. Everyone on the thread agree with the “grindingly obvious” nature of first half of my hypothesis “That it is a mathematical impossibility to randomly produce the observed critical amino acid sequences for a specific useful functioning protein” (as it exists today).
18. There is one outstanding objection from members of this thread to the conclusion of my hypothesis that “the gradual random evolution of life is therefore an impossibility”.

The objection involves four questions, which I shall address as follows:

1. Do you accept that the theory of evolution as currently understood involves the non-random accumulation of small genetic changes over vast stretches of time and that each miniscule change is entirely possible and its selection is entirely probable?.
In a word, NO. Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities. A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps. Sir Fred Hoyle, a former evolutionist and British Astronomer Royal, calculated that the odds of randomly producing all of the protein sequences for an amoeba were 10 to the power of minus 40,000.
Small random changes in an amino acid sequence can’t “lock in” permanently, as implied in your question and they therefore CANNOT accumulate “upwards and onwards”. Like a herd of ‘mice at a crossroads’, the amino acid sequences would go every which way (including loose!) with each “roll of the dice” in each succeeding generation. Your putative ‘evolving organism’ is statistically just as likely to be taking two “critical amino acid sequence” steps backwards for every one step forwards, as it is to be going the other way around. This leads to overall statistical stability and therefore no progress on average towards the achievement of the critical amino acid sequences that are required to provide the very limited number of for USEFUL FUNCTIONING proteins that we observe in nature. The other problem is that ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage – so that you cannot “work up” to the correct critical amino acid sequence through “genetic drift” – no more than you can “work up” to the correct sequence to unlock a 40,000 digit combination to a safe. If you didn’t KNOW the combination you would just have to try every possible permutation – and with “a little help” from every electron in the known UNIVERSE – you still wouldn’t be able do it in a QUADRILLION years.
This number is BIGGER than the number of nano-seconds required to move the entire Universe one electron at a time from one side of the Universe to the other using a SNAIL!!!!!
Another way to look at it, is that the likelihood of your so called “non-random Evolution” producing an Amoeba, is the same as a tornado in a junkyard producing a FULLY FUNCTIONAL Jumbo Jet - which happens to be a very small number, for a change ……….and that number is a big fat 0. Even if a QUADRILLION tornadoes “had taken a run at it” – the lack of a “lock-in” mechanism for any dubious “improvements” that might be made each time – still wouldn’t produce a FUNCTIONING TYRE for the said Jumbo – nor a functioning Mitochondrion for the said Amoeba.
I can offer a faith-based opinion on this myself – but that would be going somewhat off-topic.


2. Since you accept that natural selection is a valid scientific theory, do you accept that the process it specifically explains (evolution) is also valid?
Natural selection DOESN’T explain Evolution. The theory does provide an excellent explanation for observed adaptation in populations exposed to changed environments, full stop. Living organisms are observed to have two main methods of adjusting to environmental change “hard wired” into their genomes. For example to cope with colder conditions there are short term individual physiological reactions eg shivering and longer term population “genetic drift” under Natural Selection eg increased prevalence of hairy phenotypes. The adaptation always uses inherent genetic diversity ALREADY WITHIN the population. How this massive amount of complex genetic information (even in so-called “simple” organisms) came to be there, in the first place still remains a SCIENTIFIC mystery. I can also offer a faith-based opinion on this – but that again would be going somewhat off-topic.

All Evolution Hypotheses that I am familiar with, lack any plausible mechanism for creating genetic diversity. The only potential mechanism currently observed – genetic mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage most of the time and observed loss of genetic information ALL of the time. This is NOT a plausible mechanism to provide the massive INCREASE in genetic information evident at all points between “muck and man”. The reproduction process does “jumble the genes” – but there is no evidence that it significantly increases the genetic information within the genome of any species. Observed “copying errors” during reproduction, would actually indicate the reverse.

J C

3. Do you understand that the question of the origin of life is a separate one from the evolution of species?
Perhaps in a very strict sense, yes. However, for any comprehensive scientific explanation of life from inanimate Muck to animate Man, answering the origins question is important. I have noted that you have conceded in your post of 25/2/05 @16.19 on page 2 that “no-one has yet explained the origin of life though there are some interesting theories”. This puts ALL speculation on the origin of life firmly on the “faith” side of the line so to speak.
Once again, I can offer a faith-based opinion – but that would still be going somewhat off-topic.

4. Do you accept that pointing to gaps in knowledge in no way refutes what IS known and how it is consistent with the theory of evolution?
What IS known certainly ISN’T consistent with the theory of evolution, as I have pointed out in Item 5 of a previous post of 28/2/05 @ 23:37 the predictions of EVOLUTION simply doesn’t fit with our observed REALITY of many very fundamental biological phenomena !!
You are correct in your assertion that pointing to gaps in knowledge obviously doesn’t refute what IS known – but it can provide evidence that certain conclusions may be invalid. For example, if I KNOW that SOME buses in Dublin are green and CONCLUDE that ALL buses in Dublin are green without examining EVERY bus in Dublin – then the GAPS in my KNOWLEDGE of ALL buses in Dublin would invalidate any SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION on my part that ALL buses in Dublin are green. The Sceptics Forum could validly challenge such an unfounded conclusion by, pointing to the obvious GAPS in my knowledge.
I could hold my BELIEF that all Dublin buses are green – but this particular belief would be on very “shaky ground” if a BLUE 46A arrived at my bus stop some day – possibly even pushing me into “denial” territory!!! I might then start arguing, that “BLUE” is actually “GREEN” with the “YELLOW” removed!!

But lo! what do I see before me - Sir Fred Hoyle in a gleaming RED bus – I could of course continue to BELIEVE that ALL buses were green!!!!

However, my belief would be seriously "out of synch" with the stubborn RED colour of Sir Fred Hoyle's bus!!!

robindch

> "British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a
> humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism,
> saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the
> fact that one single cell can carry more data than all
> the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica. [...]
> But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design
> — a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador
> of secular humanism to the belief in some form of
> intelligence behind the design of the universe."

A stunning desertion, were it true. See

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=98

...for a brief discussion of some of Flew's rather mealy-mouthed assertions in this field.

- robin.

Danno

Hats off to you JC, posts #183 and #184 are brilliant, clear, precise, straight to the point, easy-to-read and understand.

I guess that there is little more to add to this thread, (no doubt though that some snivelling whirms will make their way in to the closing chapters of this thread ) I will miss your excellent posts.

BTW Where has the Christianity Forum gone???

Zombrex

J C wrote:

In a word, NO. Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities. A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps. Sir Fred Hoyle, a former evolutionist and British Astronomer Royal, calculated that the odds of randomly producing all of the protein sequences for an amoeba were 10 to the power of minus 40,000.

JC you have been repeatably shown that your probability theory (or more specifically the Creationist probability theory found in the 1985 "Life--How Did It Get Here?" article in the Watchtower Bible) is a seriously flawed piece of scientific reasoning. For someone who attacks evolution as containing flawed logic it is amazing that you continue to referr to this probability theory as your basis for your belief that Abiogenesis is impossible.

This page explains in detail, and quite simply, everything that is wrong with the probability theory. If you continue to use this as a basis for your arguments I will simply continue to referr you to this webpage until you read it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

robindch

> This page explains in detail, and quite simply, everything that is
> wrong with the probability theory. If you continue to use this as
> a basis for your arguments I will simply continue to referr you
> to this webpage until you read it.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This approach of requesting rebuttals from JC isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid -- I posted this link getting on for two weeks ago, half way down page two of this thread, and am still waiting for a reply more useful than yet another repetition of his inerrant (dang, where have I heard that word before?) 'calculation'.

- robin.

robindch

Hi -

I dropped up yesterday to see the great Doctor himself and his travelling roadshow and I have to say that if this is the best example of how much fire and passion a religiously fundamentalist multi-million-dollar organization can call upon, then I really don't think that we need worry very much about Ham, or his colleagues, or his notions.

The two risible talks which I sat through were entitled 'How to Evangelise Today's Culture', and 'Dinosaurs and the Bible'. The first talk largely centered around his notion that the problem with much of society today is that people ask questions, a problem which he sees as being 'greek'. He reckons that we should be more like Jews, and not ask questions (I'm not making this up). He also kindly included a ten minute presentation of his new Creation Theme park, which, to judge by his constant appeals for both funds and visitors, seems to be running into financial trouble and the date of opening, receding at speed, is now scheduled, he tells us, for sometime in 2007 (BTW, he claimed that it's the first of its kind in the world -- as with everything else he said, this was complete nonsense. Regular thread visitors will remember Kent Hovind of http://www.drdino.com fame who has a similar park around 600 miles away in Florida, and the Institute for Creation Research has another such facility, in, AFAIR, California; I'm sure there are more).

The second talk told us how dinosaurs (of which there are only 50 species apparently) existed up to 4,000 or so years ago, that fire-breathing dragons existed, that evolution is resonsible for all the evil in the world (abortion, homosexuals, etc), that the Noachian flood carved the Grand Canyon, and that atheists will go to hell. There was much, much more in a smilar vein, but frankly, there's only so much rubbish you can write down in a notebook before you get bored and I did get bored.

In short, it was a surprisingly passionlesss performance by somebody who gave a talk that he seemed to have given many, many times before and just couldn't get himself excited by it. Neither were his tired, formulaic and lumbering attempts at humor greeted by much more than polite laughter by the faithful. The fact that the hall was less than one-third full didn't help Ham's delivery either -- in a hall for 600, I counted around 180/190 people (though the organizers claimed that there were 240/250 there).

I did get speaking to one or two interesting people there, though, and I will write about these at greater length elsewhere, together with a more expansive version of the above.

- robin.

robindch

> The only potential mechanism currently observed – genetic
> mutation – is invariably damaging to the genome and results
> in lethal and semi lethal conditions, conferring disadvantage
> most of the time and observed loss of genetic information
> ALL of the time.

As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact, together with your scientific language. Anyhow, as with all your other claims, the talkorigins website contains rebuttals to each of your clearly-unresearched comments. These particular rebuttals are at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

> There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they
> involve speculation [...] These “theories” are therefore not precisely
> defined,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

> by random means.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/

> nor are they largely testable by repeated observation
> and/or experimentation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

I could go on, but I think readers get the point.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

I dropped up yesterday to see the great Doctor himself and his travelling roadshow and I have to say that if this is the best example of how much fire and passion a religiously fundamentalist multi-million-dollar organization can call upon, then I really don't think that we need worry very much about Ham, or his colleagues, or his notions.

...The fact that the hall was less than one-third full didn't help Ham's delivery either -- in a hall for 600, I counted around 180/190 people (though the organizers claimed that there were 240/250 there).

I am still curious who funds Ham to build his multi-million dollar museum if he is not selling tickets. Many of the fundamentalists in the U.S. support the state of Israel. Jerry Falwell received the 'prestigious' Jabotinsky Award for service to Israel. Fundamentalist Pat Robertson received "the State of Israel Friendship Award from the Zionist Organization of America for his consistent support for Greater Israel." http://www.answers.com/topic/pat-robertson

Ken Ham is pictured with Jerry Falwell here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0510kh_doc.asp

IMO Falwell turns people away from Christianity and belief in a Creator. Falwell gets plenty of press in the U.S. He has his supporters but many are repulsed by him.

Turley

robindch wrote:

> nor are they largely testable by repeated observation
> and/or experimentation.

You "refuted" the statement by JC above by posting several URLs. I clicked the one of them:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

and at that link it stated, "The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly."

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

Your link above is preceeded by, "As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact..." and followed by "I could go on, but I think readers get the point." The point I get is that you are blowing smoke. Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not. Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

Macro-evolultion is not directly observable because, by definition, it takes thousands of years. But the effects of macro-evolution are observable. By studying the results of evolution we can see how is takes place and what the result are.

There are a large number of scientific areas where evidence is not directly observable. This is not a reason to ignore them. As I said to JC before, the Vikings (or infact all of history older than 100 years) are not directly observable, yet by studying the effect they had on their surrounding we can see how they lived in great detail.

Turley wrote:

Your link above is preceeded by, "As ever, total nonsense -- you should try to make an effort to include some scientific fact..." and followed by "I could go on, but I think readers get the point." The point I get is that you are blowing smoke. Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not. Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

It does when it is nosense ... JCs arguments about genetic mutation (that all genetic mutation leads to a terminal sick creature that should be weeded out by NS) display a complete lack of understanding of biology and chemistry, and the ideas of evolution.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

I am not a scientist, but your link seems to support what JC is saying, that the evidence for evolution is not observable or testable directly.

No one has a problem with JC saying macro-evolution is not directly observable, because that is true. The problem people have is JCs then stating that because of this evolution is not a vaild scientic theory.

robindch

> I am still curious who funds Ham to build his multi-million dollar
> museum if he is not selling tickets.

As far as I can make out, the funding comes from (a) subscriptions to the project, details at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/membership/plans.aspx

...together with (b) people giving time and materials freely (see website) and (c) the proceeds from Ham's considerable online + travelling sales operation in the area of creationist apologetic material. Around half the stage on saturday was given over to books, CDs and DVDs which one was enjoined, one way or another, and every five or ten minutes, to buy. And the faithful certainly did buy them in great number -- almost every person I saw made off with one or two books, often more than that. WRT web-based sales, there's a picture somewhere or other on the AIG website of the interior of the enormous warehouse which services its principal market in the USA.

Although mickey-mouse in its approach to science, AIG appears to be a master of economics and I don't see any problems with the assertion that this museum is largely, and quite possibly exclusively, funded by AIG itself.

> Evidence of evolution is observable or it is not.

It is observable -- see the links I posted. An easy example is the evolution of resistance to antibiotics in viruses + bacteria, which I think even JC might have problems denying.

> Calling someone's argument "nonsense" does not make it nonsense.

Of course not -- I'm just stating my observation that it *is* nonsense. Different thing.

BTW, talkorigins.org does have an excellent link page at:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

...which lists most of the usual creationist claims, together with rebuttals, and it's worth a read just to get a feel for the luxuriant variety of ideas, extending from the reasonable to the utterly bizarre, which are on offer from our creationist friends.

- robin.

Myksyk

J C wrote:

There are many different current “theories of evolution” and they involve speculation on the spontaneous generation of life and it’s gradual development over billions of years by random means.

More obfuscation and misrepresentation. One summary would have sufficed:

J C makes up his own ridiculous theories of evolution and debates them rather than deal with evolutionary theory. No amount of correction will suffice because his intrinsically flawed arguments utterly depend on an intrinsically flawed view of evolution. No wonder he thinks he 'wins'.

Myksyk

Turley wrote:

You are right.
Some people believe in God. I do.
Other people choose dismiss God and believe in invisible pink goats.

One man's invisible pink goat is another man's God.

robindch

> One man's invisible pink goat is another man's God.

What *I'd* like to know is why nobody's pulled me up on the fire-breathing bit, or the goat bit. Turley was the only one who query'd how I'd known it was pink, if it was invisible, which is an excellent start; but the rest of it, folks?!

And anyway, my pink goat is more of a guardian daemon, sorry, angel, rather than a god. My god's the nine-foot crocodile living in my specially-extended broom cupboard. Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

- robin.

Myksyk

J C wrote:

Statisticians recognise that events with probabilities in excess of 10 to the power of minus 100 are statistical impossibilities.

Lucky for us then that small genetic changes have such a HIGH probability that they are essentially guaranteed.

A mathematical probability which is a statistical impossibility remains a mathematical and statistical impossibility – even if you break it down into many individual steps.

A stunningly, hilariously illogical and patently false statement. You're saying that if it is impossible to do something one way then it is impossible to do it any way???? LMAO!!

To use your own analogy, It's like saying that if it is a mathematical impossibility to get all the parts of an aeroplane, throw them in the air and expect them to end up as a fully-formed plane .... then it is impossible to build an aeroplane step by step. Come into the real world JC.

sliabh

robindch wrote:

And anyway, my pink goat is more of a guardian daemon, sorry, angel, rather than a god. My god's the nine-foot crocodile living in my specially-extended broom cupboard. Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

Careful now or the followers of those that believe the crocodile should only ever be measured in metric units (according to an interpretation of a passage in their millenia old big book of belief) will condemn you as a heretic and begin a holy war against you!

Obni

robindch wrote:

Invisible, all-powerful, and living outside of space and time, I need hardly add.

Is that his way of getting out of paying rent for the cupboard?

sliabh wrote:

Careful now or the followers of those that believe the crocodile should only ever be measured in metric units.

I believe robindch meant nine-footed, a characteristic of crocodile gods.

I also attended the 'dinosaurs and the bible' talk on Saturday, so you can decrease the Ham supporters count by one. I didn't know exactly what to expect on Saturday, but the room was hardly 'buzzing' was it? I've been to several 'charismatic' and other christian group meetings, and have even attended the evening ceremony at the grotto in Lourdes (an astonishing human spectacle), all of which have stuck in my memory: I've been in dentist waiting rooms with more atmosphere and enthusiasm than the lecture hall in UCD last Sat.
Maybe the majority of the crowd were Norwich fans, and were listening to the football commentary on the sly?