The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Three: The Return of the KOing!

[Perfection]

Well, I think it's time with the closing of the old thread (a replacement for the even older thread) to stir the old pot again!

This thread will be started start the new thread for the following reasons:
1. So Evolutionists get the first word
2. To enlighten the masses to the evidence for evolution including: evolutionists unaware of some of the fascinating evidence, those in the middle who need to see the light, creationists to combat the notion that evolution has no evidence and that creationism is scientific.
3. So I can set up some fair ground rules to make the thread more fun.
4. Sadistic Pleasure
5, The old thread was closed

The Rules:
1. No swamping the thread with articles. If you feel an article would be appropriate you may post it, but please only one per response. Also do not just post some random article, please use it as a means to augment your arguement, not as your arguement.
2. No yelling at someone to read a book. You want to post an exerpt from a book as part of your arguement, be my guest. However, yelling at someone to read a book is not going help.
3. We are arguing scientific credibility, therefore religious texts are not by fiat correct. If you want to argue religious philosophy go to the "Prove God Exists" thread. Please stay on topic
4. All standard forum rules apply, especially the no flaming, trolling and spamming rules. While one may consider their opposition to be incorrect let's not assert that they are not intelligent.

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.

As with the first thread I think I'll start off with a thought to chew on:

In general many Antievolutionists when they try to argue evolution is impossible make silly assumptions about evolution. I once attended a lecture by one of if not the leading ID advocates, Micheal Behe. To provide evidence for the impossibility of evolution he took an enzymatic pathway composed (IIIRC) 9 enzymes and looked at studies that removed the genes to code for the enzymes. Because none of the systems functioned properly he argued it could not ofevolved. This arguement is silly though, because he neglects changes in the enzymes other than them spontaneusly arising. When confronted by an audience member he just said it was something to look into. When one tries to proove a currently accpeted theory as invalid, one must look through all options and not just take a first glance approach.

[ybbor]

I am morally obligated to threadjack this and request you finish the EPYC you've kept us waiting for for over a month.

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, irreducible complexity doesn't exist. If my eye evolved by a single part being added at a time, it wouldn't work. But if a part was added, then another part, then the first part was changed, etc., the system works. It is like seeing a building and saying that it is impossible to build because there was no way to reach the top floors. Obviously, that is true once the scaffolding is gone.

[Perfection]

Originally Posted by ybbor

I am morally obligated to threadjack this and request you finish the EPYC you've kept us waiting for for over a month.

I'll do it when I do it. Quit whining or it'll never get done.

[The Last Conformist]

Behe is the new Gish - just throwing everything that looks vaguely like dirt in the hope something, sooner or later, will stick.

Other than that, I just want to point out I'm still waiting for diablodelmar's reference for rickets causing thick strong bones.

[bgast1]

Well, I have a question. When Michael Behe says that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life you would need to get about 200 protein molecules together!

What do you say? Your answer is crucial to me as to whether I want to attempt to tackle something in the question I asked in my To athiests and agnostics thread.

[Swiss Bezerker]

I know the one thig the most apealing of religon: it provides the meaning life.

Religon is stupid. People think that bad people go to hell because they make bad choices. But choises are really just luck and malinformation, it could just have easily been YOU making those choices, just your brain is wired differently. If one choice was actualy better than an other, than no one would do it. But something in their brain made them do it. Why should they be suffering pain for eternity out of something that wasnt their choice?

[sanabas]

Originally Posted by diablodelmar

My one-liners are purely out of boredom! I can't stand argueing with so many proud people who aren't willing to listen, don't argue the same thing and to answer me they simply throw links from an inaccurate website at me.

You haven't constructed an argument yet.

1) Yes, yes 2a) 450m tons per year, only 100m being taken out.

Evidence of how this data was calculated? If the salinity of the oceans is increasing that quickly, why does research into what the salinity level was in recent history come up with the same salinity level as today? Shouldn't it be less?

2b) ask any major evolutionist and he will agree with my theory and just say "its one of the things that baffles us"

I asked a major evolutionist about salinity levels. He gave me directions to the geology department. I asked a major geologist why salinity levels were increasing. He said they weren't, they're stable.

As for a link, I don't have one because I don't get my information from the web, but several books and DVDs.

So tell us the book and the DVD. And please explain why this source (your DVD) is accepted without question, and other sources (i.e. peer-reviewed, published articles) are automatically decried as wrong?

3) the research so far has only proven to show that they did have rickets but I don't simply want to say that because you're simply going to flatly contradict it (again, still with just a "no" instead of solid facts). The only reason I haven't re-introduced the arguement is because it was only last night that I said I would find evidence (and I haven't had time to look into it in much detail) and also because I'm still wondering how you came to the conclusion that it wasn't rickets/artheritis when x-rays proved it to be rickets about 20 years ago. Neandethal is no longer an arguement used by evolutionists! Accept that, because I guarantee its true.

The question wasn't 'did this entire population have rickets?'. You said that these specimens were just ordinary humans, who were hunched due to rickets. However, these specimens also have much stronger & heavier bone structure than modern humans. The question was 'how can rickets lead to increased bone strength?' Your answer was:

Originally Posted by diablodelmar's answer

I will look into it presently - I promise I will get you an answer. Remeber the Roman Military Maxim: "Come back with your shield, or on it"

I will get you an answer or else submit to evolution.

You've had some research time, so again: How does having rickets lead to increased bone strength?

I have decided to leave this thread. I have no hope of convincing any of you because you aren't willing to consider the evidence I give you

Certainly we consider it. Every bit of evidence you post, we will either refute it, rather than just say 'no it's wrong'. If we can't refute it, we will accept it.

because you have such hard heads and I am certainly not going to believe the links and other crap that gets thrown at me because it is widely regarded as being false! None of you have researched properly what those links contain and whether it is backed by science alone.

Why do you automatically believe your DVD, and automatically disbelieve any links we post? What constitutes 'widely regarded as false'? What population are you looking at that widely regards the peer-reviewed articles we link to as false? How do you know what research any of us have or have not done? How do you know what research the writers of your DVD have done, and that their research is sufficient?

Don't reply anymore to me in this thread because I certainly am not coming back.

All good, because now we have a new thread.

[Tenochtitlan]

Originally Posted by bgast1

Well, I have a question. When Michael Behe says that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life you would need to get about 200 protein molecules together!

What do you say? Your answer is crucial to me as to whether I want to attempt to tackle something in the question I asked in my To athiests and agnostics thread.

So it is possible isn't it? Improbable, yes, but it is still possible. And when you expand the probability over millions of years and a surface area of 510,065,284.702 km² it becomes rather inevitable.

[sanabas]

Originally Posted by bgast1

Well, I have a question. When Michael Behe says that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life you would need to get about 200 protein molecules together!

What do you say? Your answer is crucial to me as to whether I want to attempt to tackle something in the question I asked in my To athiests and agnostics thread.

Why do you need to get from nothing to a protein molecule in one step? Even if you do need to do it in one step, how many ways are there to get a protein molecule? Does it have to be the exact same protein molecule as we have now, or could something similar have worked just as well? For an analogy of that, imagine jumping into a taxi in new york, and randomly going to a building. You need a bank, and you end up at the first national bank of new york. The probability of going to that building is 1 in 10,000, and so you're amazed, the taxi obviously had guidance. But if there's 200 banks that would have been ok to go to, the probability you end up somewhere useful is actually 1 in 50. If you take 50 taxi rides, you have roughly a 2/3 chance of getting somewhere useful at least once.

I suspect Behe is doing something similar with the proteins, ignoring other possibilities, ignoring the amount of time and tries available, etc, to make them seem more fantastic.

[Perfection]

Originally Posted by bgast1

Well, I have a question. When Michael Behe says that the probability of getting one protein molecule (which has about 100 amino acids) by chance would be the same as a blindfolded man finding one marked grain of sand in the Sahara Desert three times in a row. And one protein molecule is not life. To get life you would need to get about 200 protein molecules together!

What do you say?

You don't need a specific set of long-chained protiens to make life. That's a false assumption. Think of it like rocks, let's say to make a nice path in your garden, you need 10 flat rocks. The probability of finding a rock that is 10.23 inches wide 20.56 inches long and 2.12 inches thick that is shaped like a streched regular heptagon is exceedlingly remote. However finding a nice flat rock isn't because there are many other types of rocks besides the 10.23x20.56x2.12 strecthed heptagon that will work, all the rock has to be is flat. The same is true in life, you don't need a specific 100 unit long protien chain for life to evolve, you just need protiens with a few important features.

[The Last Conformist]

Furthermore, Behe's odds are bunk for the very simple reason they assume that all amino acids are equally likely to to be around to react.

Behe's forte is setting up strawmen, getting KO'd by them, and then declaring victory when he eventually regains consciousness. It get's boring after a while.

[bgast1]

Fair enough you guys. At this point I don't have a rebuttal. There probably is one, I don't know it or have it. Please tell me about Gish. I know who he is, I've seen him speak, but as Behe, I accepted him as an authority. I will also do some further investigation into Behe before I just accept that he is bunk. After all, there may just be some resistance and unacceptance on you alls part as well.

[The Last Conformist]

Tell you about Gish? Well, he's written a book called Evolution: the fossils still say no! (there's a number of editions, some with variant titles), contains a plethora of long-refuted, not always self-consistent claims. He's given his name to the "Gish Gallop", which is a rhetorical tactic consisting of of throwing out long lists of claims in the hope the opposition won't have the opportunity or inclination to refute them all.

Is there anything specific you want to know about him?

EvoWiki entry on Gish

[Eran of Arcadia]

Originally Posted by Swiss Bezerker

I know the one thig the most apealing of religon: it provides the meaning life.

Religon is stupid. People think that bad people go to hell because they make bad choices. But choises are really just luck and malinformation, it could just have easily been YOU making those choices, just your brain is wired differently. If one choice was actualy better than an other, than no one would do it. But something in their brain made them do it. Why should they be suffering pain for eternity out of something that wasnt their choice?

That's assuming that we have no free will at all, that our choices are determined entirely by genes/upbringing/environment. I think there are even nonbelievers who would disagree with you.

Re Behe's "calculations": What are the odds that, flipping a coin 10 times, you get the exact sequence HTHTTHHTHT? Pretty low, 1 in 2^5. But why is that sequence so special?

[bgast1]

Nothing specific. Here's the deal, some of you have been over to my thread on Athiests and Agnostics. I sort of set myself up for a task that I am beginning now to wonder if I am going to be up to it. Except that some of the evidence that was going to throw out was possibly that statement by Behe. Of course that's not all, and I would have to expect that even though some of these things have been refuted as you say, doesn't mean that refutation is flawed as well. I am not a scientist, philosopher, or anything else. Just a regular guy who has found Christianity to offer the best answers to me with regard to life. When the entire puzzle is put together, it makes more sense to me than to remain an athiest. I was warned that this would be a very tough assignment. I am only going to respond here a few more times at the most, because if I take the other task upon myself, I will have to prepare for it, but I am testing the waters, so to speak. I will of course touch on this stuff when I get to it, in my own thread.

[Eran of Arcadia]

Originally Posted by bgast1

Nothing specific. Here's the deal, some of you have been over to my thread on Athiests and Agnostics. I sort of set myself up for a task that I am beginning now to wonder if I am going to be up to it. Except that some of the evidence that was going to throw out was possibly that statement by Behe. Of course that's not all, and I would have to expect that even though some of these things have been refuted as you say, doesn't mean that refutation is flawed as well. I am not a scientist, philosopher, or anything else. Just a regular guy who has found Christianity to offer the best answers to me with regard to life. When the entire puzzle is put together, it makes more sense to me than to remain an athiest. I was warned that this would be a very tough assignment. I am only going to respond here a few more times at the most, because if I take the other task upon myself, I will have to prepare for it, but I am testing the waters, so to speak. I will of course touch on this stuff when I get to it, in my own thread.

There is something that I would like you to understand. The essence of Christianity is in no way incompatible with the theory of evolution. Although some Creationists (and some atheistic evolutionists) may say otherwise, you can accept Jesus and evolution. This is a purely scientific issue, not a religious one. Evolution can make no claims about the true origin of the universe, or about what, if anything, is at the fundamental basis of the laws of evolution.

When I was younger, I worried because it seemed to me at times that there was a conflict between evolution (the science of which is as rock-solid as any science) and my faith. When I realized that it wasn't, it allowed me to embrace science and religion. Remember, Jesus spoke in parables all throughout the Gospels; the essence of the parable of the sowers isn't about planting crops but about God's kingdom. I can see the first chapter of Genesis as a parable as well. What is important is not how long it took God to create the earth but that He did so at all.

So my advice is to really look at the science - and only the science - behind the issue. Ultimately, Christianity is the best way for me, as well, to understand both the universe and my own life; but evolution is the best way to understand biology and life on earth in purely physical terms.

[Perfection]

Well, this thread isn't about atheism, agnosticism, or Christianity. This is soley about the scientific merit of evolution and the scientific merit of any non-mainstream alternatives. The distinction is rather important. I don't want to debate how this fits in with your philosophical system but certainly Christians have integrated evolution and other scientific thoeries into their worldview.

[bgast1]

Originally Posted by Perfection

Well, this thread isn't about atheism, agnosticism, or Christianity. This is soley about the scientific merit of evolution and the scientific merit of any non-mainstream alternatives. The distinction is rather important. I don't want to debate how this fits in with your philosophical system but certainly Christians have integrated evolution and other scientific thoeries into their worldview.

Well spoken and accepted Perfection. That is why I said I was only going to post maybe 1 or 2 times more. I responded to your 2nd question over on the other thread.

[ironduck]

Just to remind classical_hero that he said he would look at my questions regarding rain and rainbows, I'm restating them from the old thread:

Ok, you said that the answer to my two questions was that 'no, there was no rain before the flood', and 'no there were no rainbows before the flood'.

So my subsequent questions are:

1) Did water not evaporate and form clouds?

2) Was it impossible for rainbows to be formed, or was it just that no one had seen any? Because there's no need for rain to form rainbows. Any source of drops will do. A waterfall is a good example. In other words, were the laws of physics different to prevent rainbows from forming, or was it just that no one had actually seen a rainbow for some reason?