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.