How NOT to debate a Creationist

[HalfBadger]

First people couldn't explain thunder, so they said "hey it's a god with his hammer who's doing all the fuss !"
Then we explained thunder.
It's the same thing here. One day, we'll be able to explain why a cell works that way...
God is NOT in the shadows of science...

What did 'people' say, before hammers were invented?

I don't think the Bible tries to explain WHY things happen, isn't the first part mainly warning ppl to behave or they'll go to hell and the second part mainly telling people if they ask for forigveness, then they get to go to Heaven.

so I'm not sure which people you are referring to with your 'First people...' comment. It seems very generalised and an odd if not poor way to claim/debate that God is not in the shadows of science.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What did 'people' say, before hammers were invented?

There seems to be good reasons to think that hammers predate speech.

 

[HalfBadger]

Well, no. One side makes arguments, the other twist them and use voodoo logic.
One side require a small leap of confidence, the other require a totally insane leap of faith going against everything logical and obvious. Not really comparable.

The problem with this statement, is one could debate/argue that each side is the first or second.

I wish I remembered the exact number, but I believe in a book I read, that the chances that two amino acids randomly forming into a protein is like 1 in 1x 10 to the power of 31 (1 with 31 zeros following). then the chances of other things randomly happening increases exponetionally.

For me it's almost pure stats, I *think* it's statistically more probable that an 8th dimensional (or 8-110 dimensional for example) being, metaphorically as a weekend science project layed out the ground work for a universe to develop and have sentient (sp?) life, rather than all the amazing/coincidental things happening at randomly at astronomical odds.

I also find it interesting how some people put so much believe/faith into Scienctists, as if they are somewhat omniscient, they are just now starting to explain (or what they belive is an explanantion) of on of the most common things around, light. Scientists often argue and debate about things as well, I'm not trying to undermine Scientists experiments, theories etc, but it's funny how some people put all their trust in them. Especially with all the lies and mistruths about vaccines going around.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Abiogenesis certainly does not require that any specific protein coalesced unprompted. Calculating such odds doesn't mean anything.

 

[Gothmog]

@HalfBadger - please look into the various forms of the Anthropic Principle. It's not that dissimilar to your argument 'humans exist therefore God must exist' but it says 'humans exist therefore the universe must take a form that allows humans to exist'

Here's a little bit more:
The Weak Anthropic Principle. The best known formulations of the weak anthropic principle were provided by: B. Carter: “we are not saying that the universe would not exist if we didn’t exist. We are saying that since we are and we can make abstractions, then the universe must be such as it is.”

Especially with all the lies and mistruths about vaccines going around.

Gah! Please start a thread where I can properly shed some light on this shadow.

 

[Masquerouge]

What did 'people' say, before hammers were invented?

I don't think the Bible tries to explain WHY things happen, isn't the first part mainly warning ppl to behave or they'll go to hell and the second part mainly telling people if they ask for forigveness, then they get to go to Heaven.

so I'm not sure which people you are referring to with your 'First people...' comment. It seems very generalised and an odd if not poor way to claim/debate that God is not in the shadows of science.

I was not talking about "First people", but saying "First, people..."

What i was trying to convey is that I do not like it when people, upon not understanding something, say 'That must be God !'
And since every early civilization has a god of Thunder, I'm pretty confident that it's neither a "generalisation" nor an "odd if not poor way" to show that people have a tendency to put God in stuff they can't explain, and that since the very beginning.

And I also completely agree that the Bible does not try to explain why things happen. However, in a Creation thread, I think it's fair to suppose that Creationnists are people strongly convinced that the Bible is a book that DOES explain why things happen.

What I find strange is that on reading your post, we should apparently agree...

 

[E-Raser]

Abiogenesis certainly does not require that any specific protein coalesced unprompted. Calculating such odds doesn't mean anything.

Disagree. The odds are'nt calculated for a specific protein but for a avarage of about 500 aminoacids IIRC. Anyway this is only one thing. Millers experiment for example is IMO completly without any relevance. First he considered an athmosphere which is not due to presant knowlage. Second he used a cooling-trap to catch the AS which else would be destroyed as soon as synthezised. But even if, he yielded a racemat of L- and D- AS. In organisms only L-AS are used.
In addition AS can bind differently but in proteins AS are only linked by peptid bindings via condensation. In a water medium condensation isn't very likely to happen. So the odds against protein sythesis by chance make it really less propable than it could happen.
But even if-
Now you have proteins. What are they worth in fact? They would have to withdraw environmental influances until the other compunds necessary for a living cell would have developed and could find together. I doubt this!

And furthermore I doubt, that even if you put all the proteins, fatty acids and nucleotides under optimal circumstances, temperature, pH, energie sources - contruct however, whatever. Even after ages you'll get nothing but nutrient broth.
Every experiment made on the idea of abiogenesis showed so far that it wasn't possible. Of course you can argue the time factor, but I consider this weak. All compounds must make it in a quite short period, because organic compounds will not survive ages in an environment presumed for this times.
DNA for example is sensitive to UV-radiation and many proteins start already to denaturize at temperatures about 40°C.

Either all experiments lack a vital compound we have no knowlage of yet and therefore we name it god (like Thors hammer, example above) or it was god. Or there exsists even another posibility we do not imagine yet. But from all evidences I know so far I consider abiogenesis quite utopic.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/books.php

This is the source for some books of an islamic Creationist, they can be downloaded there as pdf for free. Because neither islamic nor Creationst discredits someone in my opinion that much, that I wouldn't at least listen to, I had a look at these books, although not yet very deeply. For sure it is biased, but books from Evolutionists are also. But at least he gives good sources of articles which are dealing with themes like abiogenesis, evolution and related stuff. I consider them an interesting base of discussion anyway.

 

[Scuffer]

In addition AS can bind differently but in proteins AS are only linked by peptid bindings via condensation. In a water medium condensation isn't very likely to happen. So the odds against protein sythesis by chance make it really less propable than it could happen.

But our bodies are mostly water and linking peptides by condensation happens all the time. So do lots of reactions. They might not be energetically favourable in water, but that doesn't mean they couldn't occur.
As you say, 'odds' are involved. Odds means probability, and probability suggests a ratio of 'happens':'doesn't happen'. Do it often enough, and it will happen sometime.

 

[E-Raser]

But our bodies are mostly water and linking peptides by condensation happens all the time. So do lots of reactions. They might not be energetically favourable in water, but that doesn't mean they couldn't occur.
As you say, 'odds' are involved. Odds means probability, and probability suggests a ratio of 'happens':'doesn't happen'. Do it often enough, and it will happen sometime.

Inside your body (as well as in mine) this reactions are catalysized through enzymes - therefore enzymes are oftend named biokatalysators. Without catalizing this reactions - you may wait until judgement day - it will not happen.
From statistics, if odds are higher than a certain size it is considered to be impossible.
To try it often enough you need the dices to throw. But if the dices aren't stable enough to throw them a billion times, what than? It will not happen of course.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Couple points:

I'm not aware of any reason that protein necessarily was present in the first life (or proto-life), still less that any primeval proteins must have been the size of modern ones.

The limited life-span of the compounds in question is only relevant to the extent they were not continuously regenerated.

Chirality looks like a "frozen accident". If life arose "by chance" from an organic primaeval broth, all that's needed is that the first replicator randomly chose L chirality for all descendant life to retain it.

 

[E-Raser]

Couple points:

I'm not aware of any reason that protein necessarily was present in the first life (or proto-life), still less that any primeval proteins must have been the size of modern ones.

What I know about the metabolism of cells makes it difficult to imagine how anything without proteins should be considered alive. But I am intersted in the scenario you'd consider reasonably possible.
DNA-RNA first? Even much more complicated molecule to develope by chance- not only AS but sugar and nucleotids. A C T and G are also quite complex I'd say.
Viruses? They posses a hull of proteins, so still as above.
I am all my ears errr- eyes in this case

The limited life-span of the compounds in question is only relevant to the extent they were not continuously regenerated..

Sounds logical. But he life time of a proto-protein wouldn't be long. Against all the odds the appearances of proteins (or DNA, RNA, whatever you imagine as a starting point of life) does not seem to be as probable as that a continuous synthesis can be considered. Can it? Even Miller yielded only very small concentrations of AS, hardly enough to strengthen your argument.

Chirality looks like a "frozen accident". If life arose "by chance" from an organic primaeval broth, all that's needed is that the first replicator randomly chose L chirality for all descendant life to retain it.

This is in fact all what is needed. But if you have brown and white bricks and you want to build them a house by change you would consider the house to be in two colours. Not?
Where should be a reason to restrict to only L- form if both are available? Even more if you consider this "soup" be not as rich of proteins that you may easily waste one half. Again "by chance"?
For this theorie there are so many "by chance" and each one with a very low propability in fact, that the summ of them sounds like most propably not!

But bacause of your If it seems you're also not definetaly convinced about the abiogenesis or am I wrong?
Anyway, here it is not possible to bring indeed hard evidence, hence one must consider what seems to be the most propable.
One version might be that life can in fact not appear on earth but on another systems planet and the seeds were planted through a comet's impact? Also thinkable, isn't it? Theoretically bacterial spores may be able to survive such a travel.
This sounds even more reasonable than the spontanous origin of life under the presumed conditions on earth IMO.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@E-Raser
Repeat after me: e-vo-lu-tion

Now say: a-bi-o-ge-ne-sis

Evolution does not need Abiogenesis, for what it's worth, God or the Giant Pink Urangutan might have created the first life. How life arised is very much BEYOND the scope of Evolution. Evolution ONLY deals with the development of life. :duh:

 

[E-Raser]

@E-Raser
Repeat after me: e-vo-lu-tion

Now say: a-bi-o-ge-ne-sis

Evolution does not need Abiogenesis, for what it's worth, God or the Giant Pink Urangutan might have created the first life. How life arised is very much BEYOND the scope of Evolution. Evolution ONLY deals with the development of life. :duh:

Some news at last.

 

[betazed]

@E-Raser
Repeat after me: e-vo-lu-tion

Now say: a-bi-o-ge-ne-sis

Evolution does not need Abiogenesis, for what it's worth, God or the Giant Pink Urangutan might have created the first life. How life arised is very much BEYOND the scope of Evolution. Evolution ONLY deals with the development of life. :duh:

Aphex, that is all very well. But I still think the starting point should be explained as well to make a complete theory of life and evolution of it. Otherwise it's like saying physics should explain all that happens after big bang and not the bang itself.

So I am empathize with the discomfort that Eraser feels.

 

[E-Raser]

Aphex, that is all very well. But I still think the starting point should be explained as well to make a complete theory of life and evolution of it. Otherwise it's like saying physics should explain all that happens after big bang and not the bang itself.

So I am empathize with the discomfort that Eraser feels.

I honestly appreciate your support. Thanks a lot.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Aphex, that is all very well. But I still think the starting point should be explained as well to make a complete theory of life and evolution of it. Otherwise it's like saying physics should explain all that happens after big bang and not the bang itself.

So I am empathize with the discomfort that Eraser feels.

The theory of life is not yet science. Despite a number of obvious pointers in the direction of abiogenesis, it is still not a scientific theory (by the standard definition of it). Life (from non-life) has not yet been reproduced in a laboratory, even if some very complex by-products of it have, nor has a methodology by which it could be produced in the future been developed. Evolution however is very good, well established science. A c hink in the armor is what it takes to have Creationists proselityse in the science classroom.

Now, the cause for the big bang is also not science. There's string theory that could explain it, but it hasn't been tested yet. Someone once said : "String theory is mathematical philosophy", I will paraphrase and say "Abiogenesis is biological philosophy", with the diference that the last is closer to becoming actual science. But philosophy is still a nice and interesting way to speculate about the real world.nk

 

[Smidlee]

wow i cant belive this stuff is actually being debated so much in america, the debaters are famous!

listen, if someone decides to belive in a 2000 year old book, instead of modern sience and logic, what is the point of telling them anything?

Well for one reason many see the bible a threat. Of course this isn't just in the area of science. Today science is the new religion which is why it debated so much.

 

[Mise]

Today science is the new religion

You say that like religion is a bad thing. EDIT for clarity: As in "science today has degenerated into a religion, where scientists blindly believe what Darwin has told them."

 

[Perfection]

Is it really massive evidance?

Yes

If one species developes into another where than are the fossiles of intermediates?

Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

I know about the theories to explain that, just to shorten - this does not convince me completly. Sorry I am still sceptical.

Skepticism is good, but I believe you are overdoing it, in cases where one theory far exceeds all others, succesfully explains the behavior of things, and is substantially evidentiated it makes sense to accept it as credible. Of course, you may not believe that evolutionary meets these criteria (which I believe it does) in which case I ask you to continue voicing your concerns so you can get a better view.

Yep, right as far as above- consider convinced.
Just to me it seems most ppl try to find inside the evolution theorie the proof god does not exsist.

While evolution does give naturalistic explanations to many things, its use to disprove god is false.

In this sense it would make no sense anymore, bacause if you agree life was created it doesn't matter if soecies develope or get created, god is already proven.

I think it's not a philosophical objection to god (I mean, I wouldn't mind having a god (provided it didn't cast me into a pit of hell or anything)), rather it's just that the creationist evidence is so minimal

IF you than agree to gods exsistance, you could also claim that the species were created in a way that they seem to us being developed. In this sense creationsm and evolution could even easily coexsist.

Well, then you have the philosophical issue of a dishonest god

But the more I read in the net these days I come to the conclusion that the main topic is not evolutioon yes or no, it is about wheather god exsists or not for many of the ppl arguing in this cases. Or I misinterprete a LOT.

Oh, it happens all the time, but in my expereince the evolutionists usually do not base thier arguements off the presumption of god's existance

 

[Sims2789]

It is impossible to debate an empirical and scientific subject with one who does not accept empiricism and science.