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

[ironduck]

I'm sick of radiodating, so I'm not going to get into that again.

However, I have two questions for classical hero:

1) When your claim is demonstrated to be bunk, will you denounce your source or will you just ignore it and use the source again when it fits you?

2) Do you agree with the purpose of the Institute for Creation Research that you just linked to? Here it is from the front page:

We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5).

If so, please explain.

 

[Perfection]

And here are three very good rebuttals for (CH):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html (not direct, but refutes the claims made)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html (actually refutes a different experiment that makes the same flaws)

If you have any dissagrements to the contents of my links please make them known!

 

[Phlegmak]

I would like to know if any of the arguments presented by the multitude of pro-evolutionists in threads like these has swayed any creationists to realize that evolution is correct.

If you are among those creationists (or perhaps former creationists), please let us know.

 

[ironduck]

I would like to know why all creationists in these threads are drive-by posters.

 

[Smidlee]

I would like to know why all creationists in these threads are drive-by posters.

Probably because they make their case then move on. I've notice on some christians forums when it comes to origins, evolutionist will preach for years at the site; out of their evolution bible Talkorigins for example; while most creationist are mostly drive-by posters (as you called them). Evolutionists (Darwinist , Neo-Darwinist) I guess are looking to convert others to their faith. Talkorigins is the only place you need to really go to see what die-hard evolutionist believe and preach.

P.S I do find the debate on origins a little more interesting (still gets boring after a while)among believers than with atheists. Obviously an atheist only option is to accept evolution so there's not much point in debating them.

 

[ironduck]

Probably because they make their case then move on. I've notice on some christians forums when it comes to origins, evolutionist will preach for years at the site; out of their evolution bible Talkorigins for example; while most creationist are mostly drive-by posters (as you called them). Evolutionists (Darwinist , Neo-Darwinist) I guess are looking to convert others to their faith. Talkorigins is the only place you need to really go to see what die-hard evolutionist believe and preach.

Erh.. just thought you might like to know that:

1) There's no such thing as an evolutionist.

2) Preaching is probably not very relevant when it comes to science.

3) The drive-by posters here don't make their case. They quote something from a creationist site that has been debunked a million times already and is promptly refuted again. However, they completely ignore that and return at some later time to post some similarly ridiculous copy-paste from a creationist site. There's no independent thought, no willingness to discuss, just copy paste some nonsense and ignore everything that refutes it.

 

[Smidlee]

Erh.. just thought you might like to know that:

1) There's no such thing as an evolutionist.

So you understand what I was refering to:

What is an Evolutionist? There are two types of evolutionists -- naturalistic and theistic. The naturalistic evolutionist believes that the universe began about 14 billion years ago. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Life began, probably as bacteria deep in rocks and has been evolving ever since. Purely natural forces without any input from any god or other deity have driven the evolutionary process. Some of these evolutionists do not believe in any type of god. Others believe in one or more gods who are not involved in the process. Some of these evolutionists are “Deists who believe that God created the universe, started it in motion, left the universe, and allowed natural processes to originate life and drive evolution.”1

Theistic evolutionists believe in the same process as the naturalistic evolutionists, but they believe that it was a tool used and/or controlled by God. A theistic evolutionist would say that the early chapters in the Book of Genesis in the Bible are not to be taken literally.

2) Preaching is probably not very relevant when it comes to science.

I agree which why I disagree with what some people would call science.

 

[ironduck]

So you understand what I was refering to:

I've only encountered the term when creationists label people who see the merits of the theory of evolution. The term itself is ridiculous. What else, a gravitationist? An atomist? An electromagnetist? If we're discussing science dump the labels and focus on the models and data.

I agree which why I disagree with what some people would call science.

Have you seen any of that in this thread? Because I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Smidlee]

I've only encountered the term when creationists label people who see the merits of the theory of evolution. The term itself is ridiculous. What else, a gravitationist? An atomist? An electromagnetist? If we're discussing science dump the labels and focus on the models and data.

It's just a title and nothing more. It wasn't my intention to offend you.

 

[ironduck]

Oh, I'm not offended at all

I just don't have any idea what you're really trying to say.

 

[El_Machinae]

1) There's no such thing as an evolutionist.

I'm one!

I'm also an a-aetherist, a string-theoryist, and a victim of entropy.

I give up - I can't figure out what the root 'roogis' means. I thought it was estonian, but it doesn't seem to be. The 'ama' is certainly greek.

The search for roogis, though, led me to all kinds of neat places.

 

[brennan]

I've just read the last half-dozen or so pages, I think this was the origin of the amaroogis...

The platypus is actual an alien invader from the planet Amaroogis.

That's what causes the controversy.

Some of you appear not to have noticed the joke.

 

[Smidlee]

Here is the third thread by Perfection and he still hasn't OK creationism,... no, not by science. He love to claim, like many TE that, creationism is anti-science but man hasn't produce his own "Frankencell" yet even with all of life's tools (Rna,proteins,etc.) let along show how it possible for nature to produces it's "Frankencell" without human involvment nor living resourses.
Of course some has pointed out that the TOE hasn't nothing to do with the origins of life but the origins of life has everything to do with "origins". Of course that was a "no brainer" but evolution does deal with all other origins so it still connected since origins of life is the beginning of all other living origins (origin of sex for example).

I find it surprising that even some TE has called me anti-science because I'm a creationist yet they accepted that the first life could be an act of God. Yet they obviously don't see themselves as anti-science. The difference between is I believe there were more than one act of creation. I don't automaticly assume similiarities between two creatures (by appearance and/or by DNA) must equal common descent.

Thus the point is: you can't honestly OK creationism or ID without first nail down the origins of life issue. For if the origins of life requires a creator then this open the door there could be more than one creation. This would effect TOE since a specie could evolved or been created. (the stasis of fossil record even support creation ) Since abiogensis is far from being fact ( even though many have strong faith in abiogensis and waiting on their science messiah to put down all critics) Creationism (as well as ID) is still plausible. So there is no OK punch. I can see "Perfection OK Part 4" in the near future.

 

[ironduck]

I have no idea what you're saying Smidlee.

Abiogenesis is a branch of its own. We don't know how life came to exist, but we have some ideas and are doing some experiments (some quite extensive work these days actually).

Creationism (as in the christian kind) lays out some specific events that can be examined. They have been examined and shown to be impossible unless they took place in a parallel universe or with different laws of physics.

And that's just the beginning of it, then we get to the evolution part!

 

[brennan]

Smidlee, abiogenesis happens like this:

1) Complex organic molecules form in the 'primordial soup'...
2) these molecules combine to form amino acids...
3) Proteins...
4) DNA

Given that life originally had a universe-sized test tube to go through this process, and billions of years to do it, can't you admit that it could have happened - and then look at yourself to realise that it did? And incidentally, given the size of the 'experiment' that produced life, it seems a little unfair of you to expect us to produce lab-grown 'Frankencells' to prove this to you.

Do you accept the possibility of any of the steps I state above, if not which do you object to and why? (Where is your God of Gaps?)

By the way, you should realise that to a scientist this has nothing to do with creation, it is a physical/chemical process - part of the way the universe works.

 

[ironduck]

Having read about some of the experiments that are taking place now I feel pretty confident that we'll be able to create life in the lab eventually

 

[Perfection]

Smidlee, First off, it's KO, not OK (It's a boxing term)

Let's move onto your points:

Here is the third thread by Perfection and he still hasn't OK creationism,... no, not by science. He love to claim, like many TE that, creationism is anti-science but man hasn't produce his own "Frankencell" yet even with all of life's tools (Rna,proteins,etc.) let along show how it possible for nature to produces it's "Frankencell" without human involvment nor living resourses.

Abiogenesis does not have all the answers nor do any abiogenesis scientists claim it does. What research has shown that there is no contradiction between physics and chemistry and biology and that there are plausible mechanisms that allow for the formation of life through abiogenic chemical and physical processes. Given that the alternatives require asserting the existance of processes that are seen nowhere else in scienc, the abiogenic theories remain the only scientific ideas.

Of course some has pointed out that the TOE hasn't nothing to do with the origins of life but the origins of life has everything to do with "origins". Of course that was a "no brainer" but evolution does deal with all other origins so it still connected since origins of life is the beginning of all other living origins (origin of sex for example).

I find it surprising that even some TE has called me anti-science because I'm a creationist yet they accepted that the first life could be an act of God. Yet they obviously don't see themselves as anti-science. The difference between is I believe there were more than one act of creation. I don't automaticly assume similiarities between two creatures (by appearance and/or by DNA) must equal common descent.

The problem is then you remove all the explinations that common descent provides. If two creatures don't have the same common descent then why do they have almost identical or identical tRNA codings? By asserting this you remove evolutions explaining power while providng nothign to replace it. Since the whole point of science is to explain things with theoritical models you act against science.

Thus the point is: you can't honestly OK creationism or ID without first nail down the origins of life issue. For if the origins of life requires a creator then this open the door there could be more than one creation. This would effect TOE since a specie could evolved or been created. (the stasis of fossil record even support creation ) Since abiogensis is far from being fact ( even though many have strong faith in abiogensis and waiting on their science messiah to put down all critics) Creationism (as well as ID) is still plausible. So there is no OK punch. I can see "Perfection OK Part 4" in the near future.

You don't have to disprove all psuedoscientific ideas for somethign to be scientifc. You can play the what if game all you want and so sure Creationism might be logically possible but since it lacks explanitory power it has no scientific bearing.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Obviously an atheist only option is to accept evolution so there's not much point in debating them.

Really, my only option, even though I am a believer, is to accept evolution (more accurately, the theory of evolution by natural selection) as well. This is not because I can't accept the idea of a creating god, but because I accept the validity of the scientific method and of science in general.

 

[El_Machinae]

Why do you reject the idea that the earth was made to look old?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Why do you reject the idea that the earth was made to look old?

Omphalism (also known as Last Thursdayism)? Well, I don't reject it at all, technically. There is no way to disprove it and so I don't say it is a clearly false idea. But it is also useless, so I don't put any stock into it.

(I actually more or less accepted it, once, when I was unsure that it was possible to accept science and believe in the Bible; I knew the science behind evolution was good, so I couldn't dispute it. But now I see it as an unnecessary hypothesis, albeit one that could theoretically be right.)