15 answers to creationist bullsh!t acusations

[xirtam]

I've done the fruit fly lab.

It's not speciation. It's microevolution and simple genetics. If you want to simplify evolution to only accounting for differences within species, like why we have black humans and white humans, then nobody's going to argue with you because that's observable all the time.

As far as I know, we're debating the logic jumps.

"Recent scientific theories imply that the universe had no beginning. Where does that leave your infinite regression of causes except as an infinite regression. Also it's one step shorter and therefore simpler and therefore more logical and therefore preferable, and so on, to assume that a temporally originated universe needs no cause than it is to add the extra step of a God cause that needs no cause. As long as we haven't the faintest idea of what we are talking about keep it simple. "

Keep it simple? Simple is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That's simple.

The problem with assigning the nature of the universe to be the necessary Being is that you run into trouble with the metaphysical aspects of it. In short, you wind up with pantheism. But since humans are composed beings, pantheism is self-defeating. That's a separate topic. I was just pointing out that it is most definitely *not* more logical to assume that the universe is an uncaused cause. But I have thought about it.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Let's all have our cake and eat it too.

 

[Moonbeam]

xirtam, no matter how you want to cut it, the way I've characterized it is simpler. If I ask you where God came from you will pull a rabbit out of a hat. Lets just pull the universe out of the hat instead. That is what simpler is all about. I don't know what fiction you've concocted about pantheism, but the way I see it, if you're gonna pull something out of a hat to pull something elso out of a hat, you don't then all of a sudden want to start getting logical.

 

[xirtam]

I'm discussing a philosophical and necessary First Cause, not pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

God isn't something you pull out of a hat, he's not a vending machine you ask for candy, and he's not a genie in a lamp.

The nature of the First Cause is to always exist. The reason we have a need for God is because the universe does *not* exhibit properties (either scientific or philosophical) that allows it to function as a First Cause... for something cannot be the cause of it's own existence. Your only argument left is that the universe did not need a cause, that it is an uncaused cause. You're left with the universe functioning as either necessary existence or contingent existence. But if the universe is uncaused, it cannot be contingent, and must therefore be necessary. You're left with pantheism. And I didn't concoct it -- don't subscribe to it... I'm just letting you know that your "simple" philosophy of the universe as not requiring a cause winds up being self-refuting. You can't pull the proverbial "God card" out of a hat because you need it as a crutch to explain the universe -- there are philosophical reasons why necessary existence must be, has to be, and cannot not be, and we refer to this necessary existence as God. I don't care what you want to call the necessary Being, but it can't be the universe.

 

[UThomas]

I've done the fruit fly lab.

It's not speciation. It's microevolution and simple genetics. If you want to simplify evolution to only accounting for differences within species, like why we have black humans and white humans, then nobody's going to argue with you because that's observable all the time.

As far as I know, we're debating the logic jumps.

Uhhh... yea, you may have done that lab, but obviously you don't know the lab I'm talking about. Go to a major university college of natural sciences. I'm not talking about variation within a species (microevolution; which you could do in a lab with fruit flys too), like peppered moths. I'm talking about distinct speciation. I've provided almost half a dozen major sources (some of which are over 40 years old!) as examples for those who are not familiar with it. You can also do this in a lab with fruit flys, but it can also be done in about 2 weeks with some ferns.

There are no logic jumps, if you agree to microevolution you agree to macroevolution/speciation. In genetics, small changes do add up to larger ones, its a uniformity principle. Somebody please tell me from a genetic perspective what makes genetic variation within a species different from genetic variance across near species. Nobody has posted it b/c there is none.

Thomas

 

[xirtam]

Again, as mentioned before, the trouble comes with the manmade distinction of what exactly makes a species. The main issue is... where did it all come from?

Things change... if you want to call that evolution, fine. But evolution does not provide a mechanism to explain the vast degree of difference between species of life. Life would all be the same if we all had a common ancestor, so we wouldn't really have a true thing called "species." Given enough time, everything could be produced from this one ancestor. It's like we have a Father Hydrogen out there or something.

Wow. Maybe if I wasn't programming right now I could make that into a more coherent paragraph.

 

[UThomas]

That post didn't make any sense. This thread is about evolutionary theory, not an origin theory. Evolutionary theory talks about a process, and is taught as a process. Don't deflect or setup a straw man misrepresenting the theory.

There is an accepted definition of what species is. Every highschool biology student learns it.

Evolution does provide a mechanism to explain the vast degree of difference between species of life, simply said it is selection on variation with inheritance.

Life would all be the same if we all had a common ancestor,

All cars had a common ancestor, but that doesn't make them all the same. My sister and I have the same parents, but we are not the same. Thats where the variation with inheritance comes in.

Thomas

 

[xirtam]

The thread's about creationism, and creationism focuses on the origin. No strawman here.

But you're the same species, and every car is a car. I was a biology student, and I learned the "accepted definition" of a species. My biology teacher told me that it was just what the book said and it was actually quite worthless because nobody really understands what makes something a completely new species. But this has already been stated above.

Plus, I think we're kind of off the topic of the off-topic thread. So if you want to talk about this off-topic point further, start a new one.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

First cause != God/Bible. You're pulling a rabbit out of the hat when you make that jump.

 

[xirtam]

Nr8: You're making the jump to God/Bible. I never brought the Bible into it.

The Bible didn't cause anything. Except a bunch of confusing threads, some changed opinions, and maybe a few mass executions. Unfortunately.

And my jump is not to God, but to a necessary Being. And I've already explained why it's philosophically necessary. I don't care what you call the necessary Being. Haven't made the connection from necessary being to God, but if you're serious about studying the connection, you should check out some of Norman Geisler's stuff and maybe Anselm. St. Thomas Aquinas had some good stuff to say about the essence/existence of being too.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

But it seems like you're arguments for a necessary being are rational for a belief in god. A necessary being is still a presumptuous concept for us lowly humans.

 

[Moonbeam]

xirtam, it seems to me that all you've done is build a box of words and exclaimed to yourself. see it's a cube. The logic you think you create has no correspondence in reality. You create a thing you call a First Cause and proclaim it always had to exist. What do you mean by exist. In order to exist a thing must occupy space and be in time. Otherwise it's just a rabbit. If space time appeared in an instant, nothing could have caused it because nothing was or wasn't any sooner than the first instant. The universe didn't cause itself. It didn't exist to cause itself. Before the universe there was neither existance or non existance. There was not anything and there was not nothing so not anything or nothing could have caused it. And naturally nothing could have caused the universe because the cause would have needed to have acted before the universe began. But there is no 'before the universe began'.

 

[xirtam]

"Lowly" in comparison to what? I agree with you... we are lowly. Obviously the universe was not spawned by a human. Question is, was the universe spawned or not? And what are the implications of your answer to that question?

It's a philosophical as well as scientific question. You can't have one without the other when you're dealing with the origins of the universe. To find a view that remains consistent with both branches of knowledge can be difficult at times, and you can't have a system completely dependent upon negation.

The word "God" means too many things to too many people to be used coherently in conversation, in my opinion.

 

[UThomas]

Xirtam - You're just talking out of your ass now. This thread was a response to creationist attacks against evolutionary theory, it is not a creationism thread or a thread on the existance of God. Claiming evolutionary theory is an origin theory is a strawman. It isn't and it isn't taught that way.

But you're the same species

Exactly, but we are not identical. Our genetics are different (inheritance with variation). Which is exactly what drives evolution and hense speciation.

You have repeatedly failed to provide any mechanism to prevent the accumulation of so called "microevolutions" from leading to speciation ("macroevolution"). You have also failed to dispute any of the evidence I posted that includes empirical data showing observed speciation. People, including myself, know exactly what mechanisms and causes produce a new species. Don't project your ignorance of evolutionary biology on others.

I find it very telling that only rarely do professionals within the fields in question (genetics, biology, anatomy, psychology, etc) come and ask these types of questions or make these criticisms. You don't see lunar geologists going "well, the Earth must be 6000 years old otherwise our space capsules would sink into 2 miles of dust on the moon." Nope, you see it from guys who last took science in highschool 30 years ago. And that must be there target audience too...

Thomas

 

[KIAman]

I thought that mutated flys usually died and/or could never reproduce ( correct me if Im wrong, im in now way a biology nut). I've heard of the legs growing out of the eyes and having 3 pairs of wings and such and such, but I dont think there is any genetic mutation that has ever benefited (of course refer to my first prended ?? prenthesied?? statement).

As far as i know, mutations are pretty harmful, like cancer and genetic diseases and down syndrome (and a million other stuff).

Also isnt there some proof that all the different types of dogs come from one set of parent dog. Doesnt that imply that the variations we see in our current set of dogs were already in the parent dog so even though dogs are different now, they had the opportunity to become that way because the parent's DNA already had variations encoded?

Is there documented proof that there was a genetic variation that was totally random mutation and not a trait already encoded in the DNA that gave that certain life some sort of advantage? I mean we don't even know what the majority of our DNA is and cast it off as simply junk DNA. I could be wrong. I am just speculating with no knowledge of this stuff.

Also given the definition of "God" why would he require a day to rest after he created the universe? I mean couldnt he theoretically create infinite amount of universes and not even break a sweat? Maybe the Bible is a bit mistranslated or something, or maybe God is who we think he is. I dont know, the Bible has been translated like many many times over and the meanings could be quite different from the original to what we have now. I mean look what happened to JFK at Berlin...

Also what makes us so special compared to animals? I mean, if we are just a highly evolved species, then we are no different from animals and why should we live by laws? If we are more special and innately different from animals, what sets us apart?

Those are some of my questions to both sides.

 

[xirtam]

"Don't project your ignorance of evolutionary biology on others."

Lol! That one made my day.

 

[Format C:]

Originally posted by: UThomas
Xirtam - You're just talking out of your ass now. This thread was a response to creationist attacks against evolutionary theory, it is not a creationism thread or a thread on the existance of God. Claiming evolutionary theory is an origin theory is a strawman. It isn't and it isn't taught that way.

But you're the same species

Exactly, but we are not identical. Our genetics are different (inheritance with variation). Which is exactly what drives evolution and hense speciation.

You have repeatedly failed to provide any mechanism to prevent the accumulation of so called "microevolutions" from leading to speciation ("macroevolution"). You have also failed to dispute any of the evidence I posted that includes empirical data showing observed speciation. People, including myself, know exactly what mechanisms and causes produce a new species. Don't project your ignorance of evolutionary biology on others.

I find it very telling that only rarely do professionals within the fields in question (genetics, biology, anatomy, psychology, etc) come and ask these types of questions or make these criticisms. You don't see lunar geologists going "well, the Earth must be 6000 years old otherwise our space capsules would sink into 2 miles of dust on the moon." Nope, you see it from guys who last took science in highschool 30 years ago. And that must be there target audience too...

Thomas

See? I told you so.

 

[Moonbeam]

So what happened to the prime cause, did it become a lost cause?

 

[Chooco]

howdy, 2 things.
-i'm subscribing to this thread
-thanks for the article, i'll chill out at scientific american more often....some neat stuff goin down there

 

[Geekbabe]

LOL,if there was a God, I should think he'd have come in and told all you guys to quiet down by now as your loud arguing was interupting his viewing of the Simpson's and his digestition of a nice pepperoni pizza

Btw, my vote for best post in the thread goes to

"if dna was included in the bible it would have been harder to read" ... for some reason that cracked me
up


<-- can't believe she read this entire thread

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: KIAman
I thought that mutated flys usually died and/or could never reproduce ( correct me if Im wrong, im in now way a biology nut). I've heard of the legs growing out of the eyes and having 3 pairs of wings and such and such, but I dont think there is any genetic mutation that has ever benefited (of course refer to my first prended ?? prenthesied?? statement).

As far as i know, mutations are pretty harmful, like cancer and genetic diseases and down syndrome (and a million other stuff).

If you want the easiest example of beneficial (to them/it) mutation, just look at how flu virii mutate to become resistant to antibiotics.

Whether a mutated creature can naturally reproduce depends on a lot of different things. To start with you will often need several mutated creatures if the mutation is too big, as the original creature will not see it as being of the same kind anymore and will most likely not want to mate with it anymore. The male/female strings of DNA have be 'compatible' with the creature it mates with, and unless you want to have the original creature back you have to make sure that the reproducal organs create cells with the mutated DNA too. As you said, we don't know that much about DNA yet, so it's often hard to know what exactly does what. Natural mutation often goes slower, mostly a matter of the mutated DNA being dominant, and the creature being more suited to the situation/stronger than the original beings.

One of the things (artificial) mutation is used for is to make crops stronger, more resistant and more fruitful. If they notice a better 'version' of a plant, or another plant with useful attributes, they try to breed that trait into a plant. The effects of this over the past decennia has been plants which do not need huge amounts of insecticides on them, plants which can do well in harsh environments (extreme heat/cold/draught), more tasteful fruits, etc.

For all the people afraid to eat modified tomatos: Are you also afraid to eat potatoes? After all, DNA from potatoes was used to make tomatos more resistant and 'fleshier'.
Being afraid of genetically modified food is like being afraid of a new type of car, as it has a new type of engine in it.

Edit: Ack! Missed turning Platinum cause of all the flame wars

 

[xirtam]

You have repeatedly failed to provide any mechanism to prevent the accumulation of so called "microevolutions" from leading to speciation ("macroevolution"). You have also failed to dispute any of the evidence I posted that includes empirical data showing observed speciation. People, including myself, know exactly what mechanisms and causes produce a new species. Don't project your ignorance of evolutionary biology on others.

Scientists can't even clearly agree on what a species is. Oh sure, there's that "every high school biology class" line... bull. I've already explained it, to which no refutation has been provided. So you're so-called "empirical data" is all fine and good, but since the scientists performing the research are also interpreting it under whatever light they want, it does me little "empirical" good. Seems like most of the scientific "evidence" I see proclaimed in the magazines has to be retracted later... see National Geographic articles on Archaeoraptor... "perhaps the greatest proof for evolution between species since Archaeopteryx..." Yeah. They had to issue a retraction later with an apology a year later when they found out it was a hoax. Why do people feel like they have to jump on these scant pieces of biological evidence for evolution that they can interpret under a favorable light... unless they're starving for those pieces that will support their view?

There isn't a mechanism preveventing accumulation of microevolutions from leading to speciations. I just don't see it when I look at the evidence, and I don't see the mechanism that causes microevolutions to amount to macroevolution on such a wide scale to explain the entire range of organisms. That's a jump that I don't think is supported scientifically. Finally, I don't believe that the world is 6,000 years old. The evidence indicates that the world is quite a bit older than that.

I'll dismiss your ad hominem attacks... but the rest of your ideas at least have a bit of credibility. I have no trouble with accepting evidence. I just don't see much that indicates that I came from a tree shrew. As far as accusing me of making strawmen arguments, I really don't think I have done so. Whether you accept evolutionism or creationism depends upon your philosophy of the origins of the universe. To me, the point is central. And if evolution doesn't include the discussion of origins, then it's an incomplete philosophy in my mind. The biological evidence that I've seen is lacking... I've tried to get all my biology teachers to show me evidence that things can evolve from one species to another and that life can come from nonliving matter and that somehow a quantum fluctuation of energy can produce the universe. I have yet to receive positive data. It'd be nice to not have to believe in a First Cause, because that inescapably leads me to a God to whom I'm morally accountable. And if I don't have to be morally accountable to a God, I'd rather not be. It'd be nice if life was meaningless and that every thought I could possibly have could be ultimately explained away as insignificant since it's the byproduct of random and chaotic chance, caused by an unguided and intelligent process. I have no problem with the idea of "inheritance with variation." This happens every day. I also have no problem with the idea that other species have formed as a result of mutations and genetic variation. I just think that the system fails when you try to universally bind it. Extrapolate backwards and think of the implications. When I was in kindergarten several years ago, they told me that the mechanism of evolution caused by a princess kissing a frog and turning it into a human was a fairy tale. In high school biology, they told me that the princess's name was Natural Selection and she kissed the frog while speaking words like "mutation" and "genetic variation," but that didn't make the fairy tale any more scientific. I love fairy tales as much as the next guy, but I must preserve my intellectual integrity.

And no, Moonbeam, I don't think it became a lost cause. It's obvious that you think in order for something to be "real" it has to be tangible, meaning that you can see it, feel it, experience it scientifically. If something transcends the universe, it would not be made of matter. It would transcend matter itself. I don't expect to persuade you, merely to explain my position and say that I disagree with you that what I pose has no basis in reality. For it makes sense that the cause of the universe must transcend the universe itself, else the universe is a self-caused existence. But to be a self-caused existence, the entity must be in act in order to bring about an effect. Thus, the problem. A being cannot bring about a cause without itself being in act. Thus you must have an uncaused cause. You're saying it's the universe, and I've shown why this cannot be. You're left with an intangible being who must exist in reality, yet in a different way than you can scientifically and empirically observe.

I think I'm done with this thread, though. If you want to flame me, just start a "xirtam is a loser" thread. I'll be more likely to read it, and you can feel more satisfied knowing that you've done all you can to show the world what an idiot I am for holding a position that contradicts the status quo. Anyway...

When the theory of evolution itself evolves into a scientific and rational theory, I'll accept it. But every presentation I have witnessed thus far has been unconvincing because it has left me with serious philosophical problems when I extrapolate to the origins. Where did it all start? That thought is central to me, and as Thomas has pointed out, evolution has failed to present a viable solution. Or better worded, the implications invoked by the philosophical implications of macroevolution as a universal mechanism explaining the formation of every organism is completely unrealistic, contradicting everything I observe about the nature of the way the world operates and striking against the value of intelligence itself. Science is based on cause-effect relationships to some degree, is it not? What about the cause of the universe? So quit playing the "Emperor's New Clothes" game with the universal idea of evolutionary theory. It's naked, bereft of undeniable scientific and philosophical proof.

Oh. And none of us were there. Why are we arguing about it? I don't share your faith, and you don't share mine, and messing around on an online board isn't going to change anybody's mind... so the only word I can come up with for this thread right now is...

nef.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I've about had a nef of this.

Good evening, gentlemen. (and baffled)

Edit: I don't disagree, Skyclad, that life can adapt to it's environment in favorable ways. I'm just at a loss for all this significant evidence everybody else seems to have for why all life in the universe came form... well... nothing. Seems to be almost universally accepted around here, but I'm kinda missing the proof. Or maybe I just missed that class where all the public school students were brainwashed with the "evolution" drug.

 

[HOWITIS]

What I no longer understand is the capacity to believe in something so outlandish as the existence of an Almighty God--much less one who created us all one by one, cherishes our immortal souls, intervenes on behalf of those who call upon his name, and holds a place for his faithful in an everlasting paradise. None of us has ever seen this being; none of us has ever heard him, except in the silence of our own heads; none of us can produce a piece of evidence as large as a mustard seed that what we think of as God is anything more than a thought. Our scientists can see stars that have been dead for a billion years; they can document microscopic bacteria that concluded their brief lives on earth eons ago. But of God we have no trace, except for the testimony of scribes writing of events neither they nor those around them ever witnessed--and the faith of millions of people who have managed to convince themselves that he lives and reigns somewhere in the sky

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Edit: I don't disagree, Skyclad, that life can adapt to it's environment in favorable ways. I'm just at a loss for all this significant evidence everybody else seems to have for why all life in the universe came form... well... nothing. Seems to be almost universally accepted around here, but I'm kinda missing the proof. Or maybe I just missed that class where all the public school students were brainwashed with the "evolution" drug.

What you don't believe:
Over a matter of millions of years matter came in the right circumstances to create the most basic building blocks of life, aminoacids. After millions more slowly more advanced 'structures' appear, and after a lot of time the first 1 cell creatures appear.

Instead you believe in this theory:
There is nothing, void, not even nothingness, just an allpowerful being.
God: 'Hmm, I'm bored, lets create stuff that is pretty useless, and see what happens to it, which I already know considering I am omniscient.
He then creates from nothing the whole universe, and some imperfect beings who he infuses with a 'soul' and gives a will, to see what they will chose to do, which he already knew beforehand. He also creates evil to seduce them, as God is pure good, he created all, and evil had to start somewhere. (If you create free will, you also have to create the ability to choose for the wrong side)
Humans mess up all the time, he kills loads of them, and then decides to create a son to let him be tortured and to 'sacrifice' him for humanity, knowing this will not do much at all, besides creating the Inquisition and groups like that.

 

[MadRat]

I think Thomas is stretching speciation out to be more than it is. By his concoction the burrow is a new species although its from the mating of horse and mule, two phyla of the same species.