The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

I find it richly ironic that you think you are qualified to deal with questions on creation science when you haven't provided an example of one or their work; when you admit to not knowing anything about science; and when you admit to not even reading the 'creation science' articles you link to. :rolleyes:

I also note with some amusement that your response is in stark contrast to J C's refusal to 'name and shame.' I wonder why? :pac:

If you had read my post with any degree of care, you would have noted I dealt not with creation science but with journalist integrity, and the theology of God's existence.

In addition, I have provided numerous examples of creation science.

I know enough about science to spot ideological dogma masquerading as science. Contrary to your expectations, I'm referring to evolutionary assertions. Creationists too have assertions, but they are happy to acknowledge them and separate them from the science of their arguments.

Many of the articles I provide as links are indeed beyond my capacity to adequately grasp. Others I am able to follow enough to see their argument. All of them are provided for you to honestly assess. Whether you do or not is your affair.

I have also posted the names of creation scientists that are in the public domain. JC quite rightly will not post any he knows that wish to remain anonymous to avoid persecution.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you had read my post with any degree of care, you would have noted I dealt not with creation science but with journalist integrity, and the theology of God's existence.

In addition, I have provided numerous examples of creation science.

I know enough about science to spot ideological dogma masquerading as science. Contrary to your expectations, I'm referring to evolutionary assertions. Creationists too have assertions, but they are happy to acknowledge them and separate them from the science of their arguments.

Many of the articles I provide as links are indeed beyond my capacity to adequately grasp. Others I am able to follow enough to see their argument. All of them are provided for you to honestly assess. Whether you do or not is your affair.

I have also posted the names of creation scientists that are in the public domain. JC quite rightly will not post any he knows that wish to remain anonymous to avoid persecution.

Science plz.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

JC quite rightly will not post any he knows that wish to remain anonymous to avoid persecution.

lol :p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

Oh, you were being serious ... :eek:

robindch

J C wrote: »

...Ben Stein questioned ALL sides in the film.

Didn't ask that -- I asked you if you genuinely felt that Stein had produced an honest documentary that does not misrepresent his opponents.

Do you?

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

I believe one of his piers who's name escapes me actually came up with the same or similar theory and they both released their theories at the same time.

Poor old Alfred Russel Wallace...

AtomicHorror

I realise that you feel ill-equipped to address some of the other questions. But what do you think of J C's responses? Do you think they answer the question or even address the question in all cases? What do you think of my rebuttals?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Many of the articles I provide as links are indeed beyond my capacity to adequately grasp.

If this is true then how can you assess our criticisms of them?

wolfsbane wrote:

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years. We will accept scientists engaged in primary research at any institution, whether their briefs specify creation science or not, if their work can be shown to be directly connected with creation science.

We are not looking for you to identify scientists who are also creationists. This does not concern us. We are interested in active creation researchers.

Some examples:

Older creation research:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1541/

This is a review referring to the paper below. It's not new research.

wolfsbane wrote:

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1760/

This is from 1988. It certainly is primary research, but it's 20 years old.

wolfsbane wrote:

Article that refs. creation research:
Rapid Petrification of Wood: An Unexpected Confirmation of Creationist Researchhttp://www.icr.org/article/rapid-pet...onfirmation-c/

Not bad. This one is from 2005, though it seems to be reporting results acquired in 1998. Either way, it's not very recent research.

List of some research papers:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

I don't really have the time or inclination to search that list. If there's primary research published some time in the last two years, please point it out.

wolfsbane wrote:

Creationist biology research,June 11, 2008 :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ability-cattle

Again, this is a review. It's not primary research.

wolfsbane wrote:

But I've given several creation research sites before, with the scientists and the creation research work they do. You guys refuse to acknowledge any of it is science, or if admitted you declare it is not creation science. Some of you even refuse to check the sites.

What I'm asking you for is recent primary research. Rather like the 1988 paper, but not 20 years old. There must be a section describing a new experiment. New results. Preferably there'd be full disclosure of materials and methods. Most of what you're providing is reviews which discuss the findings of other people's work. That's little more than advanced scientific journalism. To support a hypothesis, or to falsify one, you need to make new observations which contradict or support the hypothesis. Reviewing the current evidence is a worthy pursuit, but it's not supposed to form the bulk of science. It's reactionary, cheap and very much open to cherry picking. Now if you were to show me a systematic creation science review, I'd be more impressed. But the primary research seems really lacking too.

wolfsbane wrote:

11. Do you think it was morally wrong for an Answers In Genesis film crew to mislead Richard Dawkins into providing an interview for them?
I am referring to the requests for an interview made to Dawkins which at no time made clear that the crew were employed by AIG despite it being quite well known that Dawkins would decline an interview with any creationist group. Indeed, the requests instead attempted to imply some association with individuals not involved.

I've answered this fully before. Again, you just ignore the answer and repeat the question. But to humour you, in brief the answer is: a perfectly valid piece of journalism.

That's not really answering my question. I'm not asking if it was valid journalism. Journalists are often dishonest or conduct themselves in morally questionable ways. I'm asking you if you thought the conduct of the AIG team was morally wrong?

wolfsbane wrote:

Only the guilty need fear the light. That's why Dawkins is so upset.

That's a separate issue. We could use that sweeping claim to point to anyone who gets upset at a question as "guilty".

wolfsbane wrote:

14. J C, following your claim that the Creator is "probably" irreducibly complex, can you explain how this irreducibly complex being came into existence? As irreducible complexity cannot arise without intelligent intervention, what intelligence created the Creator?
Quote:
If God is exempt from time and causality then how did He initiate cause or create anything?

Because He is self-existent and all-powerful. The material universe can into being from nothing by an exercise of His omnipotent spiritual force.

Yes, but how? How does he initiate causality whilst remaining separate from time itself? Explain the mechanism.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is a coherent explanation of God.

No, unless you're willing to go into the mechanisms used, then it's not an explanation at all. It's just an answer designed to stop questions.

wolfsbane wrote:

You have no coherent explanation for the cause of the existence of the universe.

Neither do you, but at least I can admit it.

wolfsbane wrote:

Unless you want to go for energy being self-existent, self-aware and organising itself in ever-increasing complexity? The old dead materialist stuff just doesn't hack it - Pullman might give you some relief.

Again with the Pullman. You assert that Pullman had to resort to pantheism to give a reasonable account of a naturalistic origin for our universe. This is total nonsense. He chose to resort to that to explain the origin of different universe that also features talking polar bears, witches and demons. It's no more an attempt to explain the origins of our universe than the story itself is about our universe. In other words, the relationship is metaphorical at the most.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

AtomicHorror said:


What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6299/

That article is a sickening piece of total garbage that seeks once again to blame pretty much every atrocity that occurred after Darwin's death on the man's ideas. Do you genuinely think that a scientific theory, be it true or not, compels a morality, robs us of free will, denies us our innate values? We've been over this argument many times, and it never brings us anywhere. The moral implications of a theory do not impact on it's veracity. Only the evidence does. If you want to argue that we should deny ourselves some kinds of knowledge on the basis of their moral implications, then that is another matter entirely. That article is motivated by hatred and fear and it ought to be beneath you.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...Ben Stein questioned ALL sides in the film.

He intensely quizzed the ID Proponents, as well as the Materialists.:pac::):D

Rather as Wolfsbane did with regard to that AIG and Dawkins question, you have not directly answered the question.

And whilst Stein may have "intensely quizzed" both sides, I wonder if the ID proponents were kept in the dark as to the film's agenda just as Dawkins and Myers were.

This was the pitch (for a film originally titled "Crossroads") that was given to Dawkins, PZ Myers and Michael Shermer when they were approached for interviews:

It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, The Origin of Species. In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.

It actually sounds rather balanced, even pro-evolution. Understandable, since we know Dawkins at least would have declined to be interviewed if he suspected that the film was being made by creationists or ID proponents. Yet here is what Ben Stein said about how he was approached regarding the film's intent:

Ben Stein wrote:

I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can't question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you'll lose your job, and you'll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating. Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.

Also, compare the interview Ben Stein does with Guillermo Gonzales versus the one he does with Richard Dawkins. The ID man is presented in a bright room with a view of nature outside. Dawkins is presented in a darked room with stark lighting and creepy ambient music. During one question, Stein extrapolates considerable meaning from one of Dawkins' replies regarding the possibility of Design- in a voice over. Dawkins is never asked if this is what he really means.

So the question to you guys, and I hope you'll answer me directly, is do you think the difference in approaches (in terms of the original pitch and then the presentation of the interviews) was honest? Do you think it was morally right for the producers of this film to mislead the "evolutionists"?

I get that this is what documentaries do. Michael Moore pulls the same tricks. The question is whether you guys think that this is acceptable behaviour.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Didn't ask that -- I asked you if you genuinely felt that Stein had produced an honest documentary that does not misrepresent his opponents.

Do you?

Yes

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Yes

A straight answer to a straight question! :eek: Since you're being so open, care to provide some creation science?

J C

Galvasean wrote: »

Poor old Alfred Russel Wallace...

....unfortunately for Darwinists there is a LONG LIST of people who demonstrably had come up with the idea of Natural Selection BEFORE Charles Darwin!!!

...the list includes Alfred Russel Wallace AS WELL AS James Hutton, Dr. William Wells, Patrick Matthew and Creationist Edward Blyth and even Darwin's own Grandpa, Erasmus.

...and you can read all about why you should really be celebrating 'Edward Blyth Day' ... instead of wearing false beards and playing 'musical chairs' to remember Darwin here:-

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/493/

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That article is a sickening piece of total garbage that seeks once again to blame pretty much every atrocity that occurred after Darwin's death on the man's ideas. Do you genuinely think that a scientific theory, be it true or not, compels a morality, robs us of free will, denies us our innate values? We've been over this argument many times, and it never brings us anywhere. The moral implications of a theory do not impact on it's veracity. Only the evidence does. If you want to argue that we should deny ourselves some kinds of knowledge on the basis of their moral implications, then that is another matter entirely.

...the supposed mechanism that is 'Mice to Man Evolution' IS indeed a 'nasty mechanism' ... and this is freely admitted by many Darwininsts.

IF 'Mice to Man Evolution' was true, I guess we would just have to accept it and try to live out ultimately pointless lives while appealing to our common sense of Human descency to ameliorate some of it's more ruthless implications!!!!

However, the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE for Materialistic Evolution means that we don't have to live out a pointless existence ... and we should start to behave as the unique and special people made in the image of God - that we all ARE!!!!:pac::):D

....and, as an added bonus, if you become a Christian, you will be indwelt with the full spiritual power and wisdom of the living God !!!!:D:)

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.....whilst Stein may have "intensely quizzed" both sides, I wonder if the ID proponents were kept in the dark as to the film's agenda just as Dawkins and Myers were.

This was the pitch (for a film originally titled "Crossroads") that was given to Dawkins, PZ Myers and Michael Shermer when they were approached for interviews:

It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, The Origin of Species. In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.
It actually sounds rather balanced, even pro-evolution. Understandable, since we know Dawkins at least would have declined to be interviewed if he suspected that the film was being made by creationists or ID proponents. :

.....WHY would Prof Dawkins decline an interview on ID by ID proponents????

....surely it would be a golden opportunity for him to talk to the 'unconverted' out there ... to get the Darwinist message across to non-Materialists????

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.....Also, compare the interview Ben Stein does with Guillermo Gonzales versus the one he does with Richard Dawkins. The ID man is presented in a bright room with a view of nature outside. Dawkins is presented in a darked room with stark lighting and creepy ambient music.

I guess they were interviewed wherever and whenever Ben could meet them. There were several indoor interviews with ID proponents as well.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.....During one question, Stein extrapolates considerable meaning from one of Dawkins' replies regarding the possibility of Design- in a voice over. Dawkins is never asked if this is what he really means.

...Prof Dawkins can still fully explain what he meant .... nobody can or is stopping him ... but I haven't seen any explanation .... he could also do another interview with Ben Stein to fully explain his ideas about Alien 'seeding' as a mechanism for the creation of life on Earth !!!!
....indeed I share your frustration that the tantalising issue of 'Alien Seeding' was kinda left 'hanging in mid air' by the doumentary!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

.....So the question to you guys, and I hope you'll answer me directly, is do you think the difference in approaches (in terms of the original pitch and then the presentation of the interviews) was honest? Do you think it was morally right for the producers of this film to mislead the "evolutionists"?

I get that this is what documentaries do. Michael Moore pulls the same tricks. The question is whether you guys think that this is acceptable behaviour.

...there is an element of 'doorstepping' journalism about many documentaries and I guess Ben Stein genuinely wanted to get reasonable balance into this documentary ... and if he didn't fully succeed it wasn't for the lack of trying ... and I'm sure that there would be a right of reply afforded to the Materialists if they would like to take part in 'Expelled II - the Sequence'...:eek::D

....as a matter of interest, HOW would you produce a balanced documentary on the ID issue IF Materialistic Evolutionists would refuse to be interviewed by you, if you told them you were doing a balanced documentary (as distinct from a 'hatchet job') on ID????


....anyway you are all an amazing and special group of people ...
...and I love you all with a deep, abiding ... but tough love!!!!

...like I have said before, I am a great admirer of Prof Dawkin's wit and intellect ... and I have had many a good chuckle when reading his books at his very witty turn of phrase!!!!
...he seems to be a genuine descent man ... who reminds me a lot of a relative of mine that I also admired greatly ... but who broke my heart because he refused to be Saved before he died.

....I guess we can learn a lot from each other ... I have certainly learned a lot from Prof Dawkins, and I would be the first to extend a warm and genuine handshake to him if I ever had the privelige of meeting him....I might even ask him to explain his ideas on 'Alien seeding' a bit more.

Life is too short for personal bitterness and acrimony... we should be able to vigorously debate an issue ... and then retire for a drink afterwards, as the best of friends, ... to discuss the really important, non-controversial issues of the day (like George Hook's assessment of the Irish Rugby Team) !!!!:pac::):D

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Yes

2Scoops
A straight answer to a straight question! :eek:

...that's me alright ... as straight as a die ... and as blunt as a hammer!!!!:eek::):D

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Originally Posted by Ben Stein
I was approached a couple of years ago by the producers, and they described to me the central issue of Expelled, which was about Darwinism and why it has such a lock on the academic establishment when the theory has so many holes. And why freedom of speech has been lost at so many colleges to the point where you can't question even the slightest bit of Darwinism or your colleagues will spurn you, you'll lose your job, and you'll be publicly humiliated. As they sent me books and talked to me about these things I became more enthusiastic about participating. Plus I was never a big fan of Darwinism because it played such a large part in the Nazis' Final Solution to their so-called "Jewish problem" and was so clearly instrumental in their rationalizing of the Holocaust. So I was primed to want to do a project on how Darwinism relates to fascism and to outline the flaws in Darwinism generally.

...sounds like there were strong personal reasons why Ben Stein wanted to do this Doucumentary !!!!:eek::):D

.....and he has been very open about where he is 'coming from' !!!:D

....that DOESN'T mean that he just accepted everything he heard from the ID people ... he quite rightly, questioned and cross referenced everything that he heard from them.:D

I equally question the validity of some things that ID Proponents believe ... 'deep time' for example ... but that DOESN'T mean that I would support their sacking or the denial of tenure to them, just because some of them believe that the Earth is billions of years old!!!!

People of great ability, like many ID Proponents AND Materialistic Evolutionists, SHOULD be secure in their jobs irrespective of their views on the 'Origins Question'!!!!!

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

.....WHY would Prof Dawkins decline an interview on ID by ID proponents????

....surely it would be a golden opportunity for him to talk to the 'unconverted' out there ... to get the Darwinist message across to non-Materialists????

You'd have to ask him, but the fact is that he does not engage in direct discussion with creationists or ID proponents. Except when tricked into it, which has happened twice to my knowledge.

J C wrote: »

I guess they were interviewed wherever and whenever Ben could meet them. There were several indoor interviews with ID proponents as well.

Did any of those interviews feature stark lighting and creepy music? Can you give me a YouTube link? And are you seriously suggesting that the only place that Stein could meet Dawkins was what appears to be the set from Mastermind? That just happened to be where Dawkins was hanging out that day?

J C wrote: »

...Prof Dawkins can still fully explain what he meant .... nobody can or is stopping him ... but I haven't seen any explanation .... he could also do another interview with Ben Stein to fully explain his ideas about Alien 'seeding' as a mechanism for the creation of life on Earth !!!!

From the interview itself, it is clear that he was stating such a thing to be "possible", not probable. Dawkins was being called by Stein to speculate and so he did so. His main point was that, if true, we'd be able to see evidence in the genome.

J C wrote: »

....indeed I share your frustration that the tantalising issue of 'Alien Seeding' was kinda left 'hanging in mid air' by the doumentary!!!

You're right, it was left hanging. Since Dawkins has consistently stated before and after this interview that there's no evidence for design of any kind in the genomes of living organisms, it's quite possible that he made that contention once again. Dawkins has stated that only a fraction of the interview was featured in the film and that most of it has little to do with challenges to evolution.

J C wrote: »

...there is an element of 'doorstepping' journalism about many documentaries and I guess Ben Stein genuinely wanted to get reasonable balance into this documentary ... and if he didn't fully succeed it wasn't for the lack of trying ... and I'm sure that there would be a right of reply afforded to the Materialists if they would like to take part in 'Expelled II - the Sequence'...:eek::D

That doesn't answer the question. Was it morally right for the producers to mislead the evolution supporters?

J C wrote: »

....as a matter of interest, HOW would you produce a balanced documentary on the ID issue IF Materialistic Evolutionists would refuse to be interviewed by you, if you told them you were doing a balanced documentary (as distinct from a 'hatchet job') on ID????

If I wished to maintain the moral high ground, I would be compelled to be entirely open. Given that Stein went on to make morally-based accusations against the theory of evolution and science in general, the moral high ground would have been valuable. The honest tactic would probably work, since neither PZ Myers nor Michael Sherman would have declined on the basis of the topic. Both have a long history of engaging in debate with creationists. Only Dawkins would give me pause to consider deception. That deception would, in my opinion, be immoral. As it was here.

What do you think?

AtomicHorror

Right so, here are your questions replied to J C. I've answered most of them and asked for clarification on a couple. Any chance you could address my rebuttals of your replies to the 15 questions now?

J C wrote: »

1. Have we observed any mechanism spontaneously generating life – it should still be there somewhere if Evolution is true?

Firstly, abiogenesis is not a pre-requisite for evolution. We areagreed that variation may emerge by mutation and natural selection and so we are agreed that some amount of evolution can occur (you call it micro-evolution). Abiogenesis does not enter into that consideration, if it did then your assertion that abiogenesis is impossible would also imply that "micro-evolution" is impossible, since micro-evolution and macro-evolution differ only in the time required and the extent of variation achieved.

Secondly, we would not expect abiogenesis to still be occurring in modern times for at least two main reasons. a) The conditions thought to have been conducive to abiogenesis are no longer common and thus the chances of such a reaction occuring are now much lower. b) The free organic materials required are now in very short supply as they are constantly being assimilated by living organisms. Understandably, these organisms have a massive competitive head start on any abiogenesis reaction that might occur in the wild.

J C wrote: »

2. How can life be generated spontaneously if the
random production of the critical amino acid SEQUENCE for an essential
protein is a MATHEMATICAL impossibility?

The question assumes that the first life would have need or use for a critical amino acid sequence. It assumes that function is an absolute rather than being defined by natural selection. It assumes that function precedes structure. It also assumes that such structures must come into being with that pre-conceived functional destiny in a single step. All of these assumptions are incorrect and make no sense in the framework of a process working by natural selection.

The first life would have had no need for any functions other than stability in its medium and replication efficiency. Any sequences or structures adopted by the replicator would help or hinder these functions. Replication will reduce the population impact of the very common detrimental mutations. The "critical functions" will emerge only by exaptation from already present structures/sequences with simpler functions.

J C wrote: »

3. If the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) radio telescopes were to pick up the DNA code for an Amoeba being transmitted from a distant point in our galaxy, evolutioists would definitively conclude that they had found proof of extraterrestrial intelligence – so why do evolutionists not conclude that the Amoeba's own DNA code, is also proof of intelligence AKA God?

For the same reason that a transmission of the composition of basalt would be considered a sign of intelligence but a piece of basalt itself is not considered to have been intelligently designed. The acts of determining that sequence or composition, translating it into a transmissible form and then performing the act of direct and focussed transmission are evidence of intelligence. The content itself could be anything, so long as it can be perceived as information rather than noise by the receiver.
Were we to transmit the amoeba genome to the aliens, they’d probably realise the signal itself was of intelligent origin but they might well have considerable difficulty figuring out whether the signal contains information as it would not having meaning for them unless they had seen the amoeba genome before.

J C wrote: »

4. If evolution is ongoing there should be millions of intermediate forms everywhere among both living and fossil creatures. Why has not even ONE continuum ever been observed among either living or fossil creatures for a functioning useful structure?

I can’t say whether your assertion that the full fossil lineage of some given feature has never been shown is actually true, though it wouldn’t be all that surprising if it were. Given that fossilisation is a rare event that relies on rather unlikely conditions, and given that the conditions which bring them to the surface are also rare, we should expect to see very few fossils by comparison to the number of species that must exist. Add that to the fact that fossils typically don’t survive exposure for long and we fully expect the fossil record to contain many gaps.

J C wrote: »

5. Why do our Mitochondrial DNA sequences (which are inherited in the
female line i.e. 100% from our mothers) show that all human beings are originally descended from ONE woman?

This is because all of the currently-existing humans originally descended from a single woman. She may well have had siblings, aunts, uncles and cousins but their descendants are extinct. This need not have been the result of a single event. She would also not have been the earliest human, but merely the most recent common ancestor of the currently living humans.

J C wrote: »

6. Why do our Y-chromosome sequences (which are inherited in the male
line i.e. 100% from our fathers) show that all men are originally
descended from ONE man

All humans are descended from a single male who mated with a descendant of mitochondrial Eve. The two were separated in time by at least 50,000 years. During the time since this mating, the descendants of relatives of Y-Adam became extinct.

J C wrote: »

7. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design and production of observed biochemical systems at atomic levels of resolution that outclass the largest and most sophisticated manufacturing abilities of mankind?

The question has nothing to do with the veracity of evolution. If we were currently capable of exactly reproducing any and all processes generated by evolution, would that prove that evolution happened? Would we be in the ludicrous situation where, looking back to a time when we could not reproduce these processes for ourselves (such as 1500’s) we could assert that evolution was not true back then because of their technological limitations?

4 billion years of evolution by natural selection has produced many structures and processes that humans, after less than 500 years of detailed investigation, have not been able to replicate. That has no bearing on whether evolution happened.

J C wrote: »

8. How do you explain the random (non-intelligent) design of the observed levels of interlinked complexity and functionality within living systems that are multiple orders of magnitude greater than out most powerful computer systems?

Once again, by incremental increases in complexity over approximately 4 billion years. We’ve been designing computer systems for less than 100 years and yet they may well exceed the most complex life forms in the next 100. Will this have any impact on the veracity of evolution?

J C wrote: »

9. Why do some scientists continue to believe that the Human Genome was an "accident of nature" – while they know that the super computers and gene sequencers that they had to use to decode it, were created through the purposeful application of intelligent design

They continue to believe it because that explanation makes the most sense given the available evidence. Nobody denies that the genome is complex, although the sequencing of the human genome in fact revealed it to be less complex than anticipated.

J C wrote: »

10. Why do we observe great perfection and genetic diversity in all species when "dog eat dog" Evolution would predict very significant levels of "work in progress" and the bare minimum of diversity necessary for the short-term survival of the individual?

You’re making some incorrect assumptions as a part of the question.

First, we don’t observe great perfection in nature; we typically observe plenty of “good enough” features. We see vasculature that takes convoluted routes for no particular reason but which gets the job done, extra teeth that serve little function but do not significantly impact on survival, vestigial organs exapted to non-critical functions although being not well suited to them.

Second, evolution does not predict a great many “work in progress” features (if by that, you mean functionless features) as entirely functionless features will tend to reduce survival and reproduction likelihood as they’ll often represent a poor cost:benefit ratio. We’ll certainly see them sometimes, and we’ll sometimes even see detrimental features persisting for a time, but mostly these won’t last many generations. Typically the “work in progress” features will have a useful function that will either be refined of exapted later. This is what we observe.

Third, evolution does not predict minimal genetic diversity in general. It predicts that it will be observed if a species has undergone a genetic bottleneck or very extreme selection (which will typically be one and the same thing).

J C wrote: »

11. Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?

How can a thing “invariably” be anything “most of the time”. Mutation is damaging “most of the time” but not “invariably”. The great thing about reproduction is that even when the majority of mutations are detrimental, there are always other members of the species in existence to carry on the “last good” version of that genome. It’s like having millions of backups.

J C wrote: »

12. Any 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. If ALL critical amino acid sequences except the CORRECT one will confer NO advantage –
how can a population "work up" to the correct critical amino acid sequence through "genetic drift" or Natural Selection ?

This is pretty much the same question as the last one, except now you’re talking about gene products instead of genes. The principle is still the same.

J C wrote: »

13. Why do we observe that all living systems use pre-existing SOPHISTICATED complex biochemical systems and bio-molecules to produce SIMPLE bio-molecules – and not the other way around, if Evolution is true?

We don’t observe that. The complex transcriptional and translational machinery that generates most of our gene products (except for the metabolites from enzymes etc) is itself generated by that machinery. So immediately there’s an example of the machinery producing machinery of equal complexity. Also, the machinery can generate more complex proteins, such as the 30,000+ amino-acid protein connectin.

J C wrote: »

14. How do you explain the origins of DNA when the production of DNA
is observed to require the pre-existence of other DNA / RNA and a
massively complex array of other biochemical "machinery"?

The ultimate origins of DNA as used by organisms is not conclusively known. It is most likely that early life used an alternate nucleic acid, and that at some point this was used as a template for the first DNA genomes. The most favoured candidate is RNA, which can replicate freely in water when allowed to interact with several kinds of catalytic clays. However, at this time, this is an untested hypothesis.

J C wrote: »

15. Why have we never observed any species to actually INCREASE genetic information over time if "upwards and onwards" Evolution is in action out there?

Please fully define a) “genetic information” as you understand it and b) what would hypothetically constitute an increase in that information.

J C wrote: »

16. With odds in excess of 10 to the power of 1,800,000,000 against the production of the nucleic acid sequence of the Human Genome by accident – how do you explain it's existence using random chance Evolution when the number of electrons in the known universe are only
10 to the power of 82?

Based on calculations you have shown previously, you’ve made some errors and have misunderstood the meaning of probability somewhat also. The probability value you’ve provided is that of the appearance of 1 exclusive human genome from a random mixture of DNA nucleotides in 1 step given a time period of 4 billion years. This is indeed an event so unlikely as to be negligible. However, it is not claimed that the human genome came into existence in this manner. Instead the process would be incremental, massively parallel, non-teleological, constantly being backed up by replication and occurring over a time period of 4 billion years. That being said, a probability calculation will doubtlessly still show that the specified human genome is an unlikely outcome, indeed all specified genomes of equal complexity will also be similarly unlikely. However, the likelihood of any unspecificed genome of that level of complexity emerging will be of an enormously higher probability. The human genome is not specified by anything other than its own persistence and so the probability of its existence due to natural selection is much higher than that of some arbitrary specified genome of equal complexity.

This may seem counter intuitive, but in probabilistic terms this is a bit like the difference between the probability that 1 million coin tosses will result in approximately 50:50 heads to tails versus the probability that we’ll get some specified sequence of heads and tails in that ratio.

Unless you can show full calculations demonstrating that a plausible abiogenesis hypothesis is similarly unlikely, then this probability argument is essentially worthless.

J C wrote: »

17. Why is it claimed that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth - when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a scientific mystery?

I think it is quite well-accepted that the Miller-Urey experiment was a demonstration that 22 kinds of amino acids could be derived from a mundane mix of organic chemicals undergoing mundane natural processes. It would be an error to assume that the experiment is an accurate simulation of conditions on the early Earth, given that we now know more about those conditions, but it still stands as a demonstration that amino acids can be generated from some of the components of the early Earth without intelligent intervention. Later experiments have further demonstrated that lipids and nucleic acids can be similarly derived from conditions that are comfortably within the parameters expected on the early Earth (ie no impossible temperatures, pH conditions, exotic elements or manipulation of these conditions).

J C wrote: »

18. What is the evolutionary explanation for the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor – thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

The Cambrian explosion wasn’t actually much of an explosion. We’d expect that most of the Precambrian multi-cellular animal life would be quite small to the point of bordering on the microscopic, and so there should be fewer clear fossils of these organisms. Never the less there are numerous examples of animal fossils predating the Cambrian by some 50 million years as well as a great many examples of transitional fossils bridging the gaps between some of the major animal phyla such as the worms and the arthropods during the Cambrian (so the assertion that the phyla simply appeared is incorrect, we can see these phyla emerging). Molecular analysis now shows that a whole host of invertebrate species originated in the Precambrian also, again undermining the suddenness of the event. Further, there is evidence from the decline of some even earlier species that (very) small animal predation may have been occurring some 500 million years prior to the Cambrian. Given that the “explosion” itself may actually have spanned some 40 million years, it seems more likely that what we are observing in the fossil record is the emergence of a greater number of larger animal species that fossilise better. There’s also a good chance that the result of the emergence of larger and more motile animals created a great many more opportunities for organisms to range widely and become reproductively isolated. What all of this amounts to is that the Cambrian diversification, whilst remarkable, is not at all the event we once thought it was.

In fact, there is so much good evidence against the notion that phyla simply appeared during the Cambrian that this argument is very rarely used by Creationists anymore.

J C wrote: »

19. Why is it claimed that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

Without knowing what specific event you’re referring to, it’s hard to comment properly. A drought could easily represent an evolutionary selective pressure. However, droughts are quite transient events that last years rather than millennia. If the pressure is present for long enough (timing would depend on the pressure and the trait in question), all individuals carrying some undesirable trait will become extinct and you’ll have your “net evolution”. If the pressure is transient enough that some individuals with the undesirable trait remain when the pressure ceases, then genetic drift will return the frequencies of those traits to equilibrium once again over time.

We can say that this event demonstrates how natural selection works because it does just that. We can observe changes in allele frequencies over time, which is the output of the process of natural selection.

J C wrote: »

20. Why is it claimed that fruit flies with an extra pair of wings is evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Can you point me to a peer-reviewed evolutionary research paper which makes this assertion? This sounds like a rather specific case, yet the details you provide are vague.

J C wrote: »

21. Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident - when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

You’re making two claims here. First that “materialists” use artist’s drawings as evidence; who do you mean by “materialists”? If you mean scientists, then I would challenge you to show me any peer-reviewed paper or review which uses an artist’s impression of human ancestry as evidence, or indeed uses them at all. Second, you’re claiming that fossil experts cannot agree on the lineage of our ancestors. Again, you haven’t pointed to specifics which would be helpful. However, the paths taken by evolution are certainly not known in their entirety, but that uncertainty does not amount to an uncertainty regarding the principles which underlie those paths.

To draw an analogy to another theory, we don’t know the exact orbital characteristics of some of the planets we’ve observed around other stars, but that fact does not cast doubt on our understanding of gravity. Only contradictory evidence, not the absence of evidence, falsifies theory. Just as observations of the orbit of Mercury falsified the Newtonian theory of gravity and demanded that a new theory be built.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....unfortunately for Darwinists there is a LONG LIST of people who demonstrably had come up with the idea of Natural Selection BEFORE Charles Darwin!!!

Of course, because natural selection is a rather self-evident concept. I'd be surprised if it hadn't occurred to a great many people before. But did any of them use the concept in combination with concepts of mutation and inheritance to build a comprehensive framework explaining the emergence of variation in the species? Please do direct us to that work if it exists.

Yes natural selection had been toyed with by people before, but none of those people put the pieces together to figure out how Evolution works.

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

...that's me alright ... as straight as a die ... and as blunt as a hammer!!!!:eek::):D

Did you just in a round about kind of way state that you are not the sharpest tool in the box?

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

IF 'Mice to Man Evolution' was true, I guess we would just have to accept it and try to live out ultimately pointless lives while appealing to our common sense of Human descency to ameliorate some of it's more ruthless implications!!!!

IF 'Sky to Ground Gravity' was true, I guess we would just have to accept it and try to live out ultimately pointless lives while appealing to our common sense of Human descency to ameliorate some of it's more ruthless implications!!!!!

(Also, I like the Freudian Slip there, where you seem to have confused the words 'decency' and 'descent'.)

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

People of great ability, like many ID Proponents AND Materialistic Evolutionists, SHOULD be secure in their jobs irrespective of their views on the 'Origins Question'!!!!!

you think the ability to do science should have no bearing on whether or not a person is secure in their scientific job, their job being to do science

I must remind my boss that even though I think computers run on steam and that programming is telling the pixies in my harddrive to do something by playing my recorder, he still has to promote me because my ability to actually do the job I have signed up to do should have no bearing on how I get promoted up the ranks.

:rolleyes:

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...sounds like there were good reasons why Ben Stein wanted to do this Doucumentary !!!!:eek::):D

.....and he has been very open about where he is 'coming from' !!!:D

Steins motives are not the issue. That quote is an admission from Stein that he and the producers had a very different agenda than the one they presented to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Michael Sherman. They led these guys to believe that they were taking part in a pro-evolution documentary examining the conflicts between religious conservatism and science, when in fact it was their intention to attack evolution from the very beginning.

Do you maintain that there was no dishonesty? Do you think this was morally right?

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This was the pitch (for a film originally titled "Crossroads") that was given to Dawkins, PZ Myers and Michael Shermer when they were approached for interviews:


Quote:
It has been the central question of humanity through the ages: How in the world did we get here? In 1859 Charles Darwin provided the answer in his landmark book, The Origin of Species. In the century and a half since, geologists, biologists, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers have contributed a vast amount of research and data in support of Darwin's idea. And yet, millions of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other people of faith believe in a literal interpretation that humans were crafted by the hand of God. The conflict between science and religion has unleashed passions in school board meetings, courtrooms, and town halls across America and beyond.


Steins motives are not the issue. That quote is an admission from Stein that he and the producers had a very different agenda than the one they presented to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Michael Sherman. They led these guys to believe that they were taking part in a pro-evolution documentary examining the conflicts between religious conservatism and science, when in fact it was their intention to attack evolution from the very beginning.

Do you maintain that there was no dishonesty? Do you think this was morally right?

...the information given to the Evolutionists was a fair description of the issues being covered by the documentary ... what the Evolutionists CHOSE to believe about it is their own business!!!

....nobody forced the Evolutionists to give the interviews not were they coerced into making the statements that they did!!!!

....all this muttering about 'dishonesty' and 'morality' is a bit rich coming from Evolutionists who are on record on this thread as supporting job discrimination against Creationists of the most overt and crass kind!!!!

....and now that you are on your moral 'high horse' could I again ask you about much more serious MORAL issues than whether PZ Myers was given an autographed copy of Michael Behe's latest book, before doing his interview or whether Prof Dawkins was wearing the right colour of shirt when he 'sounded off' about 'Alien Seeding' of life on Earth:-

1. Are YOU are shocked or moraly outraged that a teacher could be summarily sacked when she just mentioned that life looks like it could be designed ??

2. Do you think that it is fair to deny tenure to a scientist simply because he doesn't accept Materialistic Evolution???

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
People of great ability, like many ID Proponents AND Materialistic Evolutionists, SHOULD be secure in their jobs irrespective of their views on the 'Origins Question'!!!!!


Wicknight
you think the ability to do science should have no bearing on whether or not a person is secure in their scientific job, their job being to do science

.....you obviously DIDN'T read my posting where I said that "People of great ability ...... SHOULD be secure in their jobs irrespective of their views on the 'Origins Question'!!!!!"

wrote:

Wicknight
I must remind my boss that even though I think computers run on steam and that programming is telling the pixies in my harddrive to do something by playing my recorder, he still has to promote me because my ability to actually do the job I have signed up to do should have no bearing on how I get promoted up the ranks.

...believing that muck can spontaneously lift itself up by it's own bootstraps to become Man is indeed perilously close to (and just as 'evidentially challenged' as) believing that computers run on steam and there are pixies in your hard drive!!!!:eek::pac::):D
...and I agree with you, that you shouldn't tell your boss just how irrational your views on computers ... and life seem to be!!!!!!!!:eek::pac::):D

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

Science plz.

You'll find it in the links. Real scientists doing real science - just coming to the conclusions you don't favour.

The Mad Hatter

wolfsbane wrote: »

You'll find it in the links. Real scientists doing real science - just coming to the conclusions you favour.

I think you meant 'don't favour'. Either way, it's not the conclusions that issue is taken with, but the methods.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
What is there to celebrate about Darwin’s 200th birthday?
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6299/
That article is a sickening piece of total garbage that seeks once again to blame pretty much every atrocity that occurred after Darwin's death on the man's ideas. Do you genuinely think that a scientific theory, be it true or not, compels a morality, robs us of free will, denies us our innate values?

If evolutionary theory is true, it should inform our morality, inform the exercise of our free-will and affirm or negate our innate values.

If we are not the spirit and flesh beings Christianity asserts, but just intelligent animals, then our whole moral framework needs to be re-examined.

Even the atheists among us have been conditioned to some degree by a societal consensus that was mainly informed by the Judeo-Christian worldview. Most of those who have broken from the religious background have kept a lot of its morality. They just know that it is wrong to steal, rape and murder.

Some however have logically questioned why they should hold to such a view of life. They have separated themselves and those they care for from the rest of us, and are quite prepared to treat us as we do livestock, or even vermin.

We've been over this argument many times, and it never brings us anywhere. The moral implications of a theory do not impact on it's veracity. Only the evidence does.

I agree.

If you want to argue that we should deny ourselves some kinds of knowledge on the basis of their moral implications, then that is another matter entirely.

I do not argue that at all. If it is true, hold it. Let the morals be re-examined in the light of the truth.

You are the one with the dodgy arguement. You are the one saying evolution has no moral implications.

That article is motivated by hatred and fear and it ought to be beneath you.

It is motivated by concern for humanity, a humanity that is being told we are intelligent animals, not spirits who will exist forever.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

You'll find it in the links. Real scientists doing real science - just coming to the conclusions you don't favour.

You'd like to believe that, but the fact is you can't find a SINGLE example of an investigation into creation. Just essays and irrelevant examinations of tree hydridization and snakes having sex. Is that you're best evidence for creation? No show-stopping proof that evolution is a lie or direct evidence that God made the world?

And how on earth would you know that the science is in the links when you don't even read them yourself? PUT UP OR SHUT UP - WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? :pac:

wolfsbane

The Mad Hatter said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
IF 'Mice to Man Evolution' was true, I guess we would just have to accept it and try to live out ultimately pointless lives while appealing to our common sense of Human descency to ameliorate some of it's more ruthless implications!!!!
IF 'Sky to Ground Gravity' was true, I guess we would just have to accept it and try to live out ultimately pointless lives while appealing to our common sense of Human descency to ameliorate some of it's more ruthless implications!!!!!

Our being mere animals (albeit the most intelligent ones) surely has more relevance to our morality/behaviour than the fact that we fall down if we trip.

Does this really need to be explained to you?

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

You'd like to believe that, but the fact is you can't find a SINGLE example of an investigation into creation. Just essays and irrelevant examinations of tree hydridization and snakes having sex. Is that you're best evidence for creation? No show-stopping proof that evolution is a lie or direct evidence that God made the world?

And how on earth would you know that the science is in the links when you don't even read them yourself? PUT UP OR SHUT UP - WHERE IS THE SCIENCE? :pac:

To avoid talking at cross-purposes, perhaps you will define your meaning of an investigation into creation?

I hold that anything that tends to support a young earth, a world-wide flood, or rapid speciation, for example, would qualify. Am I missing the point?