The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Two: The Empiricists Strike Back!

[Sahkuhnder]

Quasar is in the habit of giving bizarre accounts of QM. I'd not worry about it.

I'm starting to feel guilty for dog-piling on the poor guy, but yikes! It's almost as if he said he doesn't 'buy' the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and then drops off a couple odd pseudo-scientific beliefs and a bible quote in support. What exactly are we supposed to say back?

Does he really believe the stuff he says? Is it just done to see if us suckers will take the bait and spend time responding to nonsense? I hate to even suggest such a thing but is he, well, you know? He seems nice enough...


EDIT - Quasar, no offense intended. You have a right to your own opinion too. But I can't be the first person to point out that your scientific views may be just a bit unconventional to say the least. I think that the number and detail of the responses lends weight to this as well.

 

[The Last Conformist]

But as I was saying, the Black Sea flooding (if it even happened as described) was something you could walk away from. Or crawl. Very very slowly. One or two hundred meters per day. While abrupt in geological terms, it was a gradual process that took at least a year, probably several years to complete.

The accumulation of online stupidity is such that googling is pretty meaningless, but my understanding is that Pitman and Ryan's scenario has been refuted.

 

[carlosMM]

TLC: as I have repeatedly posted here, including the graphs and once the full PDF, the Black Sea flood didn't happen from the Med. Other way round, though, there's a BUNCH of overspill sediment splays. Thus, the water later was HIGHER in the Black Sea than in the Med and spilled SOUTH.

NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the Black Sea was not filled up very slowly from river influx.

 

[Leifmk]

The accumulation of online stupidity is such that googling is pretty meaningless, but my understanding is that Pitman and Ryan's scenario has been refuted.

Well, there's certainly a good amount of evidence against it (such as brackish-water species found in the Adriatic from many millennia before it supposedly happened). What I'm saying is that EVEN IF their scenario is accurate it wouldn't make a good candidate to have inspired the Noah flood story. Which was probably cribbed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, which came from an area where "the world" was the flood plain of a major river system.

 

[classical_hero]

Abiogenesis is scientific, however it is not a coherant scientific theory like evolution. Abiogenesis referes to a series of naturalistic ideas used to explain the emergence of life. These ideas are incomplete and have much competition among themsleves. How they are scientific lies in the fact that they are investigatable by empirical methology and are consistant with the naturalistic assumption and other scientific thoeries. Indeed some abiogenic ideas already have a fair amount of credence to them and can be stated as fairly reliable thories. It's just that the overall abiognesis filed of study is far from complete.

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what you just said. Can you show me an example of life coming from a non life source?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what you just said. Can you show me an example of life coming from a non life source?

Happy to help:

Origin of Life on Earth, artificial formation of the building blocks of life in an early earth atmosphere is about halfway down the page.

These building blocks are the same ones used to create simple genetic strings in both nature and in labs.

Here is a bit more technical article about the same thing.

Science is making great progress in genetic engineering.

 

[carlosMM]

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what you just said. Can you show me an example of life coming from a non life source?

this must be the funniest post on CFC in about, oh, two years?

 

[Perfection]

There is absolutely no evidence to back up what you just said.

Yes there is, my assessment of the field is basedoff of reading numerous things on the subject.

Can you show me an example of life coming from a non life source?

Wouldn't that make abiogenesis more or less complete thus falsifying my statement?

No life hasn't been seen coming from non-life (at least directly, we can indirectly see that life on earth came from a no-biological source).

Right now we only see snippets of the process.

 

[Samson]

This seems like as good a place as any to ask, so here goes.

Does anyone here actually understand the Intelligent Design theory? It seems like it is totally based on the idea of irreducible complexity, with the main example being the flagella. Do the proteins that make up the flagella have no homologues? This would seem to me to be at least a very interesting phenomenon, as I am not aware of any other proteins that have no related examples.

 

[Perfection]

This seems like as good a place as any to ask, so here goes.

Does anyone here actually understand the Intelligent Design theory?

I understand it, but I also understand that it's flawed.

It seems like it is totally based on the idea of irreducible complexity, with the main example being the flagella. Do the proteins that make up the flagella have no homologues?

They do! A certain protien that forms a proton pump IIRC.

 

[Samson]

I understand it, but I also understand that it's flawed. They do! A certain protien that forms a proton pump IIRC.

So what are they saying? That it is inconcevable that these proteins that these proteins could come together in a stepwise manner while still performing some function? I would like to understand the idea before arguing against it.

 

[Perfection]

So what are they saying? That it is inconcevable that these proteins that these proteins could come together in a stepwise manner while still performing some function? I would like to understand the idea before arguing against it.

Basicly. I've seen that they come up with a bizzare set of assumptions, like after assembly of a chemical system no further evolution took place so they can dismiss it as impossible without looking at all the possibilities.

Really, a lot of Intelligent Design proponants get thier message across not because of having good scientific arguements, but rather by being very charismatic and providing an excuse for people to believe what they want to believe.

 

[Samson]

Basicly. I've seen that they come up with a bizzare set of assumptions, like after assembly of a chemical system no further evolution took place so they can dismiss it as impossible without looking at all the possibilities.

That is ridiculous. I thought the ID people basicly accepted most of evolution, but thought that there were a few situations that revealed the presence of god. Evolution within a system is obvious in most examples I have come across.

I do still want to read up on the arguments, but if they include this sort of ridiculous assumption I suspect that will not take long

 

[Perfection]

I thought the ID people basicly accepted most of evolution, but thought that there were a few situations that revealed the presence of god.

The cutoff seems incoherant from what I can glean from IDTers, they "know" evolution is flawed, they just can't tell what level.

 

[El_Machinae]

The best explanation of how marine fossils wind up on mountaintops, is a worldwide flood.

I'd say that a flood would be a good explanation for finding evidence of marine animal remains (bones and whatnot on the surface) on the moutains - except erosion would move them back down if they were deposited on the surface.

But finding fossil in the rock is not explained by a flood.

 

[ironduck]

That's like saying you don't 'buy' the theory of gravity.

I might be interested.. what would you be willing to sell it for? Does it come with a set of steak knives? I probably can't go higher than $40..

Seriously, this thread is line-by-line repeat of the other creationist threads started by Zany. All the creationists get their 'info' from the same old creationist web sites; in fact the cases they draw up have been used so many times they each have their own neat little section on talk.origins for easy viewing

 

[El_Machinae]

That's what I find truely pathetic. The irrational claims have gotten so tiring that people took the time to document refutations - I wonder if there is any benefit to anyone for these efforts?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

That's what I find truely pathetic. The irrational claims have gotten so tiring that people took the time to document refutations - I wonder if there is any benefit to anyone for these efforts?

Yes, the benefit is to other nations, who gain a lead on is technologically because they are actually teaching their students science. Hmm . . . evidence of a conspiracy? Is ID unpatriotic? You be the judge!

 

[El_Machinae]

Ah well, while the rate of biological research will be reduced in these types of states (who advance these theories) - I'm sure that the workers there still will provide production that allow them to trade for medical services.

Much like, Canadian oil will be able to buy Singaporian stem cell therapies, despite our reluctance to do that research.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

True. However, I think it is still a great loss to anyone if they are taught such conflicting things in science class. I'm fairly certain that better science education would help a lot of people who don't accept the theory of evolution for religious reasons, to do so. In my own religion, many people avoid it even though it conflicts with none of our doctrine, but it is made to seem as if it does by this whole debate.