Responding to Picard

>> There is a surprising scarcity of learned creationists. Most creationists, learned or otherwise, are forced to employ deceit and ignorance as defensive tools.

> I'm sorry, could you substantiate this claim, specifically the first one?

A creationist asking for actual evidence of a non-extraordinary claim is something you must admit is - anomalous. I will let answers-in-genesis, and the defendants in the Dover case speak to this claim.

You will notice that my posts are replete with examples and specifics. Please try to counter with specifics and examples.

>> It is often mentioned, by creationists, that there are "holes" in evolutionary theory.
>> Well, if there were, then the people would feel happy to point them out. There are none.

> That's a bold statement. What "people" are you referring to? Scientists
> that support the evolutionary theory? You surely don't mean the scientists
> that find fault with it; that would imply that the case isn't closed. I
> wouldn't ever be as bold to say that there are no holes in
> Intelligent Design because doing so implies that there is no room left for
> refinement, growth, or greater understanding.

It (people) was a qualified pronoun, referring to "creationists".

You are spot-on, it is bold. That's because it's a theory. If a theory had "holes" then it'd be a hypothesis. Sorry, take it up with science itself.

Creationists have a vested interest in demonstrating, or even pointing out holes in evolution because it's all they've got to hang their collective hats on, at the end of the day. They've had quite some time to work on a real theory. They've come up with none.

A hole is not a gap in a long chain of evidence; a hole would be a lack of the overwhelming reams of evidence, or a failure of the predictions or a demonstrated disproof.

>> It is often mentioned, by creationists, that abiogenesis is mathematically a practical impossibility. That's the use of five fallacies in a row : argument from personal incredulity, texas-sharpshooter fallacy, argument from ignorance, false premise, and unstated major premise (oh, and false continuum).

> Could you explain how those fallacies were "used?" You touch on a few below, but you leave out the others.

I could, but I shant bother, because you've not disputed any of the major ones that I did include.

>> The unstated major premise is that abiogenesis is a part or aspect of evolution.
>> It is not. When people mention abiogenesis or the origin of life as a critique
>> of evolution, it's because they realize that evolution is pretty bloody solid, so
>> they have to attack another field of science. It's basically the argument where
>> someone says "Oh, YEAH!? Well neurophysiology doesn't explain how calculus works!" --
>> the two are disciplines, and could be related, but they are very different.

> Please define the term "evolution". This is a Straw Man and an equivocation. You'll understand that once you define "evolution."

Descent with modification at a gross level, OR more technically, the change in allele or gene frequency of/in a population, over time.

Please demonstrate how this is an equivocation or a straw-man? It is quite specific, has remained effectively unchanged since it was first posited and was not designed to counter an ideology by semblence nor mimicry.

>> The argument from personal incredulity is where someone employs an attempt to
>> actively apply their ignorance of a portion of some topic in order to further an
>> ideological agenda. If I asked you what the odds were of ten two-sided blocks
>> arranging themselves ALL with their green side facing the red side of another
>> block (when adjacent) then you'd probably say, "oh, well, two sides, equal
>> chances of..."... But in chemistry there are charges and forces at work.
>> So, instead of being like a box of coins where a heads-up coin is as likely
>> to sit atop another heads-up coin as not, the blocks would be magnetic, where
>> they almost always touch red to green.

>> The combinations would not be entirely random. To say or imply that they were is either ignorance or a lie.

>> Thus, it's not like Adenine would bind to Cytosine or Guanine. Adenine binds to Thymine. Cytosine binds to Guanine. Certain molecules are attracted and combine specific ways.

> So now that you've "separated" abiogenesis from your definition of evolution, you feel compelled to discuss it.

It's discussed simply because it was referred to in a previous posting in this topic.

Furthermore, I destroyed the probability issue, by showing that the reactions are not subject to utter randomness nor truly chaotic processes.

To declare that the system is random is either ignorance or a lie.

> You still haven't made a point beyond "Creationists are dumb." No one has denied basic principles of Chemistry here--who the hell are you directing your post at?

See above, the basic principles of organic and inorganic chemistry, physics and entropic systems are quite clearly being denied in order to make the declaration that the "claim that the incredible improbability of abiogenesis is evidence of supernatural inteference"...

They aren't directed "at" anyone. That would be petty. It was, however, in response to a previous and recent posting by Picard.

>> If you have this happening, in 10 places around the planet, then you've got what wouldn't be likely to stop
>> combining. All you'd need is to have it start anywhere, and the combinations would follow a few patterns.
>> It wouldn't be long before the entire structure of a cell-membrane would be formed (not the chemical/ion gates, of
>> course -- that'd be much later).

> Wait a minute, we go from proteins bonding to entire cell structures forming? On their own?

Now I didn't mention cells forming right away... but yes, I did mention a membrane, which I presume could be called a structure.

I specifically cell-membranes (phospho-lipid bi-layers). It's more like a film of oil sitting on water (because that's one easy way to form this structure) (see repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/49731/1/Yoshikawa378.pdf, linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022072898002964 or do a search).

They are mildly complicated structures to explain, but they happen, in low and high energy systems, all the time.

> Are we not making a few assumptions here?

Nope. Phospholipid bilayers and equivilant structures have been formed abiotically. You even see them produced by non-living processes, ammonia, water and any of various other inorganic substances form this (it will look like gasoline or oil sitting on the surface of water).

> How exactly does this eliminate creation?

Excellent question, I like that because it's the CRUX of the entire point.

There is no need to "eliminate" creation. But if you wish to support creationism as a "science" then proof, predictions and falsifiability are the benchmarks.

That's why abiogenesis isn't a theory yet. It's a field of science, and it's got several hypotheses, but none are seriously superior to other model hypotheses.

It's much like a championship pie contest... you know that there's not likely to be a really dreadful pie in the running.

Evolutionary theory, and abiogenesis are typically considered amongst the realm of science. They don't consider proof supporting one model to be a qualified disproof of another system.

Nor do scientists labor under the false premise that because there is a lack of proof for one aspect of another model that the entire other model is invalidated.

Creationists are self-relegated to employ with parochial singularity that sole technique. And they have to date, relied on trying to say stuff like "look, evolution doesn't have a fossil showing amphibians turning directly into Norwegian bar-maids" so it must mean that creationism wins.

Show me a single piece of evidence supporting creationism, just one experimental outcome or prediction later verified successfully...

>> Evolutionary theory is supported by tens of thousands of experimentally tested observations every year. The data for those experiments are published in labs and peer-reviewed journals and online all the time.

> So evolutionary theory is true because it is supported by "tens of thousands of experimentally tested observations every year." That's an appeal to popularity.

No, it's true because it's got evidence, AND has made predictions that have been verified, and has been subject to experimentation that has been reviewed by almost countless scientists.

It's not an appeal to popularity, or an appeal to authority. However, they do happen to be popular in that the majority of the scientific community does support it, that's just frosting on the cake. The fact that the evidence supports it is one strong correlating factor lending credence to the premise.

That's also NOT an appeal to popularity. The premise is not that I say it's true because a lot of people say it's true. The premise is that it is true because every form of evidence available, to all reasonable and rational people support the premise.

>> Evolutionary theory makes predictions which have withstood the test of time for decades. From tiktaalik to the missing chromosome (most primates have MORE chromosomes than humans) -- the evolutionary predictions have been resounding and unequivocal.

> What are these predictions you are referring to? This is Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

Ok, simple. Tiktaalik is a beautiful case in point.

Scientists knew that the transition from aquatic creature (fish) to tetrapod (four legged creature) should exist between when the first of a certain group of fish appeared, around 380 million years ago AND when the first tetrapods were discovered to have existed, around 360 million years ago. So scientists figured fossils formed between 360 million years ago and 380 million years ago would be a good era to search through.

Scientists then came to the realization that the best place to find the fossils of those kinds of animals would be in places where such animals would likely form, like near a shoreline.

So scientists came up with a short list of places that were likely to have been coastal shorelines about 370 million years ago. They started searching one particular place, called Ellesmere Island in Canada.

They found a "new" species they now call Tiktaalik. It's physiology indicates that it genuinely is a stage between the two other species.

Other predictions made would be stuff like "where did the missing chromosome go"... If humans really descended from an ancestor shared with other primates, then why do humans have a different number of chromosomes (fewer, in fact!). Clearly that would seem to indicate that we didn't descend from a common ancestor to the primates, if our DNA was really that different.

But scientists predicted that the only way this could have occurred was if two chromosomes merged (merged is a bad word, more like got stuck end-to-end).

When scientists were able to sequence DNA with sufficient speed and technical competence, they saw that this was precisely the case.

Let me quote Ken Miller (from the Dover case) :

"Lo and behold, the answer is in Chromosome Number 2.
All of the marks of the fusion of those chromosomes
predicted by common descent and evolution, all those
marks are present on human Chromosome Number 2.

So the case is closed in a most beautiful way. And
that is the prediction of evolution of common ancestry is
fulfilled by that lead pipe evidence that you see here,
in terms of tying everything together, that our chromosome
formed by the fusion from our common ancestor is Chromosome
Number 2. Evolution has made a testable prediction and it
has passed."

>> Evolutionary theory has presented levels of falsifiability, which are experimental outcomes which, if demonstrated, would be a disproof of the theory of evolution. To date, none of those falsifiability criteria has even been broached.

> Example? Regardless, this is an argument from ignorance.

That was clearly not an argument from ignorance, for if there were successful demonstrations, they'd not be in isolation. They'd be repeatable, and they'd be easy to reference. Further, you, or someone would have posited them to refute these arguments.

>> Creationism ONLY exists based on it's attempt to poke holes in evolution. Creationism makes no testable predictions. Creationists have never done and are not doing scientific research (no experiments or tests). Creationism has no criteria for falsifiability (there is no experimental outcome which would prove creationism is false). Creationism has no supporting evidence.

> Let's break this down, shall we?

> 1. Creationism ONLY exists based on it's attempt to poke holes in evolution.

> Atum, the sons of Borr, Kamui, Izanagi, Izanami, Pangu and Zeus all seem to disagree. Oh yeah, and the Christian God would also be included since that story came before evolutionary theory too.

> Post Hoc? Check.

Wow, they all spoke English, did they? Unless they did, and unless they lived post-Lincoln, then they didn't support "creationism" as the term was coined as a religious ideology

There is a large difference between believing in the Biblical account of Genesis and the ideology of "Creationism".

Good point.. When I say "creationism" I mean the quasi-scientific counter to evolution as coined in the 1868 exclusively in America.

What I find a bit ironic, is that you reference Atum, a fictional being in one mythos to support what might very well be a fictional being in another mythos. So, I don't even know if that's an appeal to... anything really. It's like saying "Oh yeah, well Harry Potter liked root-beer so it must be better"...

Are you saying that all mythological creation stories are as valid?

> 2. Creationism makes no testable predictions.

> Hasty generalization? Check.
> Argument from ignorance? Check.

Ok, let's see. Name a SINGLE counter. If it was hasty or ignorant, then you'd have provided evidence. I have supplied copious examples, and you have supplied copious -- nothing.

> 3. Creationists have never done and are not doing scientific research (no experiments or tests).

> Hasty generalization? Check.
> Argument from ignorance? Check.

Sorry, that's been documented. BUT, do feel free to prove it wrong. You won't and can't.

> 4. Creationism has no criteria for falsifiability (there is no experimental outcome which would prove creationism is false).

> Hasty generalization? Check.
> Argument from ignorance? Check.

Sorry, again, you are both wrong and this time as for number 3, you are either ignorant or attempting to deceive (further proof of our first line).

If there was ANY research being done, or any criteria for falsifiability, then it would have been introduced during the Kitsmuller trial, by the LEADING supporters of creationism/intelligent design.

> Find the body of Christ and you disprove the Christian God and the creation
> story within the Bible. Regardless, we're talking apples and oranges here.
> If you want to deal with abiogenesis, then deal with abiogenesis. If it has
> nothing to do with evolution, then why the hell do you bring up this slow
> process that ultimately leads to life? At what point does this happen and
> how does it happen? Oh wait--if you did that, you would disprove the Christian God.

You're bringing up the abiogenesis and evolution. I brought it up above because Picard mentioned it as do the majority of people trying to argue for creationism.

If I had a picture of the first cell forming then that wouldn't disprove a Christian God, or any god.

It MIGHT mean that the legends are wrong. But the existence of any item cannot be disproved.

I like that argument, however wrong it is. Because if you found the body, then you'd have the Jews
saying "The Christians are just misled, because Jesus was not the true Messiah" which is a defensible
case. So, your point is wrong. Of course, you did say Christian God -- but is that different from the
Jewish God? You're going to have to make up your mind here. Also, if the body were found, then Christians
would eventually adopt the stance that Jesus ascended and didn't need his body.

It's a straw-man argument, of course. But I approve of that one because of the elegance and eloquence.

What's shocking is that you're asking for proof of a body for a person for which there is no proof of ever having existed at all.

Show me proof that he existed, and I'm sure scientists would search for the body.

> 5. Creationism has no supporting evidence.

> "Lack of proof is no proof." Argument from ignorance.

In part, I support that claim.

But having NO supporting evidence for a claim maintained for over 4000 years is a reliable indicator that the reliability is sorely lacking.

It also makes creationism clearly NOT even a theory. It's a guess, not an educated guess, and still far less than a hypothesis.