Anti-Creationists Backed Into a Corner?

AgapePress ^ | February 24, 2003 | Jim Brown

[Ichneumon]

Aarrgh! An HTML error led the follow snippet of my post to look like I had written something that Gore3000 actually had. Here's the corrected version:

[I wrote:] these threads consistently contain reams of facts,

[Gore3000 wrote:] Not from evolutionists,

[My response:] I'll let the obvious falseness of this brazenly transparent lie speak for itself.

[Ichneumon]

You stopped too early.

I wish I had stopped earlier, that source is a great waste of time. But can I take this as an admission that Chapter 8 was flawed?

Read chapter 9.

Done. It's just Hoyle's fallacy wrapped up in energy terminology -- in short he says that if something is a probabilistic impossibility, then it sure would take an unreasonable amount of energy to do all the trials. True, but trivially so.

Then he pads the rest of the chapter discussing energy-saving measures, but of course those wouldn't be enough to pull off an impossibility either, he concludes (wow, big surprise).

But his premise is wrong.

Like Hoyle's error, he presumes too restrictively about what "had" to happen randomly in order to produce the first replicator. For a scenario better grounded in recent findings, see Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

[Ichneumon]

I caught up with the entire thread finally, woo hoo!

(Okay, except for "guitar Josh's" questions, I'd like to do them justice and I'm too bushed to do that now after thwacking various fallacies and such. Right after I get some sleep, I promise.)

[AndrewC]

Why would you ask me such a stupid question?

It is at your level.

[AndrewC]

Okay, I'll bite -- where have you ever demonstrated anything "wrong" with the theory?

Your theory has the inverted order for your "birds".

Also, you don't know the difference between because and then.

[AndrewC]

I wish I had stopped earlier, that source is a great waste of time.

Well, at least you admit it your shortcoming. Go take a course in chemistry. It will help to keep it from being a waste of time.

[Junior]

I was hoping that you'd have something new and actually worthwhile to offer, as you promised -- something actually resembling a "current body of valid scientific work" in creationism. I'd like to see it. Where is it?

You aren't going to find it.  As Who Are the Creation Scientists? points out, once they start doing actual research, they quickly stop being literal interpreters of Genesis.  The general consensus among creationists is not to do any actual research, but to take real research out of context to "prove" their points.

"The real issue is not the correctness of the interpretation of various details of the geological data, but simply what God has revealed in His Word concerning these matters." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. xxvii) To the ASA Journal, which was vocal in its criticism of the book, Morris wrote, "The real crux of the matter is 'What saith Scripture?' " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 208)

[whattajoke]

Your sleep is well deserved. We applaud your diligence. Unfortunately, of course, those derned flagella are still irreducibly complex! /sarcasm

I wonder how long it took Behe to come up with that random thing to pick apart? There have been others like the bombadier beetle, but that seems to have fallen from creationist favor these days.

The simple fact that there are many, many different types of flagellum in the world is lost on them. An "intelligent designer" would certainly use a bit more economy, to my mind.

[BibChr]

You had your answer. You deny it's an answer. You deny that the original denial is denial.

That's the limit of effort I intend to give you on this.

So now, I expect you will deny that your denial of the denial is denial.

Dan

[vaudine]

My geology professor brought in all or most explanations of creation--just a mention of them as a matter of discussion and inclusion. It served to wake up the bored students in the back.He spent more time on the major theories, but did not try to persuade anyone to any specific belief. He was a true Renaissance man and presented science in a clear,concise fashion as well as painting earth history in a context that was fascinating and informative.

It doesn't hurt to discuss any/all theories/myths/whatever, but it would be counterproductive to spend major time on all the minor ones.

Vaudine

[vaudine]

I could say Ditto, but that would be smartass, so I will just say that I do read all the time. I cede to you your own beliefs while reserving to myself the right to my own
beliefs.

The matter of evolution/creationism has filled volumes, hours of discussion, college courses, etc., and will not be resolved in this forum in a few pithy sentences.

Although you like to denigrate Creationism and the minds that believe in it, if you care to look further than the sites/books you deem laughable, you will find scientists
with stellar credentials who believe the universe and man
were "created". One I can think of was Werner von Braun, whose credentials would surely meet your high qualifications.

This is not a tennis match in which you win by slamming a serve(response) with speed and force to demolish your opponent. Basic truths remain untouched by your ascerbic posts, and I doubt anyone's mind will be changed. I do understand, however, how much your "learned" serves and returns stroke your ego.

Happy Days,

Vaudine

[balrog666]

Is that a cogent rebuttal or a whining complaint?

[balrog666]

Is that a cogent rebuttal or a whining complaint?

[edsheppa]

First, I can and do and did follow links. How else could I be sure that the article's characterization was misleading?

Second, the information isn't plain for those who didn't follow the link. They will be misled into thinking "only 200? Evolution must be losing support even among the Godless." This is, of course, exactly what the author intended.

Third, an ad hominem argues based on irrelevant personal grounds. I have merely attributed to you a characterization of 9/11 that is equivalent to the characterization by this article of the Steve statement - which you say you don't find misleading.

[AndrewC]

They will be misled into thinking "only 200? Evolution must be losing support even among the Godless." This is, of course, exactly what the author intended.

"More than" denotes "more than". "Only" denotes "only". Your "paranoia" is not a sufficient reason to "color" the normal meanings of words especially considering that the article, in plain sight, provides a link to the NCSE article. "More than 200" is the only numerical mention of the actual 220 scientists who participated in the NCSE statement. NCSE itself in a misleading manner made no mention of how this relates directly to the total scientific community. Call them on misleading information.

[Dataman]

Scientific.
Rational.
Coherent.
Logical.
Vulcan.

So why do they lose control so easily?

[edsheppa]

"More than 200 evolutionists" was plainly designed to mislead. It is no different from the usual tricks of the liberal media. It's a shame to see you hold your side only to advertising agency levels of truth.

[BibChr]

LOL

I think we keep seeing that the problem is that, for them, it isn't primarily a logical, factual, rational discussion. It is a religious and moral discussion. The threat to their own imagined deity is what drives them batguano.

Dan

[f.Christian]

d_i_p ...

To: VadeRetro

Could you possibly be anymore condecending? I have the RNA World webpage bookmarked on my computer! It makes my point much better than I can make it. In big bold letters at the top is states "Nobody understands the origins of life. If they say they do they are probably trying to fool you." Which is my point. Getting from Lizards to birds is a huge leap for which there is but scant evidence. But in reality that's the least of your problems! It's also certainly not anything Darwin could address. That's my point. Darwin's theory is passe! It's hack science. It's 100+ years old, yet we still hang onto it as if it were a life-raft!


1082 posted on 02/27/2003 3:02 PM PST by Darwin_is_passe (Time is irrelevant to evolution)

fC ...

The only logical explanation of the geeologic column // geography ...

Most of these layers were formed from below as the earth cooled --- bubbled ...

and then this mixture // 'batter' protruded hills and buttes (( cambrian layers // plates on the tops )) through the cracks and holes from below !

This wouldn't be hard to prove ...

plate edges // cracks would match mountain // hill sides ---

cambrian plate residuals on the tops ---

also butte (( canyon sides // layers too ))layers (( thicker )) ...

would match underground layers (( thinner )) ---

this is all self evident --- obvious !

You just have to unlearn the evo hoax // ruse !