Still Crazy After All These Years: Creationists Keep Trying

Discussion in 'Spirituality & Religion' started by Dyvel, Dec 21, 2010.

  1. Sounders78

    Sounders78 Member+

    Apr 20, 2009
    Olympia
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    No, it doesn't. Behe himself admitted as much in the Dover trial: the appearance of design does not equate being designed. Natural processes can result in things appearing designed.

    And I can point to well-respected scientists that argue for panspermia - that doesn't make that true either. Regardless, the origin of life is a different topic altogether from the evolution of life. If you think it is more statistically probable that a sentient something for which there is no actual evidence created the universe and life from nothing, then go for it. Maybe the Titans did do it but until I see evidence of their existence they remain as real to me as Santa Claus.

    You're also further complicating matters. Now not only do we need to figure out how that sentient being created life but we also have to find evidence for that sentient being.

    Maybe you should read Behe's works and testimony, he clearly does - he clearly does not hold the impenetrable genera boundary that you do.

    But there is a cogent explanation. Our understanding of genetics is not what it used to be.

    But mutations in a body plan gene or genetic switch can cause dramatic changes in very few generations. Keep in mind that genera and other taxonomic categories are, as Richard Dawkins says, a "convenient fiction". They help us categorize a continuum into manageable groups based on likely ancestry.

    Using our modern understanding of genetics, can you come up with a solution using mutations in genetic switches or body plan genes that could give a testable hypothesis?

    That would be very interesting research to engage in - to examine the DNA of such animals to see where the genetic differences lie that might cause this phenomenon. But just because we don't know it now doesn't mean we will never know, nor that we should just throw in the towel and argue that something(s) for which we have no evidence did it.

    But we can hypothesize HOW based on our modern understanding of genetics. Whether those hypotheses turn out correct or not is to be determined.

    The biblical account is a very poor predictor of the historical record prior to the 9th or 10th centuries BCE (in fact, it is virtually useless and has simply delayed accepting what the archaeological and historical records demonstrate). As such, there is absolutely no reason to assume the biblical creation stories are reliable or historically accurate. Are they useful as a reflection of the beliefs of the people at the time they were written, therefore informing us of their cultural worldview? Absolutely! Do they reflect what actually happened? There is no logical reason to assume so. Just because some people believe those (conflicting) stories to be true does not make them true.

    Unlike biblical literalists, scientists are not claiming to be inerrant.
     
    Justin Z and crazypete13 repped this.
  2. AfrcnHrbMan

    AfrcnHrbMan Member

    Jun 14, 2004
    Philly
    Club:
    Olympique Lyonnais
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    @StiltonFC
    I bolded your crutch there. "The 'complexity' of living things challenges the idea that they came into existence through random chance". You would be right, if anyone was actually proposing such an absurd idea. What you're claiming is essentially that evolutionary biologists think that humans just appeared out of some sea foam fully formed and functional a la Aphrodite. Mutation is random, evolution is not random. Evolution is a process through natural selection, the complete opposite of randomness. It is directed by evolutionary pressures that manifest as either a fitness gain or fitness cost on the organism. This is not random. What do you mean by complex anyway? Complex as the indomitable human being? Or can we go down to the Sponges? Moss? Escherichia coli? No one is suggesting that these things just appeared out of the nether, well at least scientist aren't, creationists seem to have no problem suggesting this. What is your definition of life? What you personally consider 'life' can significantly color this concept. This idea isn't as straightforward as it seems, mostly because there's a point of contention on whether viruses are alive, which divides biologists. The definition I go with is twofold: A live organism must be able to self replicate, and a live organism must show some form of metabolism (which puts me in the viruses are not alive camp). That's it, full stop. Not eggs, or eyes, or leaves, or mass civilizations, just metabolism and replication. And if you are in the 'viruses are alive' camp, life can be even more simple, a lot of viruses are just a protein sack with a strip of DNA in it. So with this in mind, the earliest life forms were absurdly more simple than even the simplest bacteria alive today. The prevailing thought is that they arose from protocells, essentially chemical reactions enveloped in a membrane of amphiphatic molecules, which is well documented to spontaneously develop. It's on these rudimentary structures that the process of evolution began. I'm going to stop here, because we are already in abiogenesis territory, and the work done in this field can literally fill books. I don't have the time nor the expertise to fully explain all the ideas and experiments going on without weeks of literature reading, but if you are truly interested you can look in to some reviews on protocells and work your way down from there.

    The short answer is that the information was already there. You're falling into Williamson's trap by looking at caterpillars and butterflies as two completely separate organisms that required some bridge to merge. There three forms of insect development: ametabolous where the insect hatches as a tiny adult, hemimetabolous were the insect has a nymph stage in which it gradually through molting events acquires a fully adult form, and holometabolous with the larval, pupa, adult method. But before hatching and immediately after hatching in hemimetabolous insects, the babies look nothing like the adults. Kinda like how embryos of fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals all look pretty similar and proceed to develop into superficially very different babies. There is evidence to suggest that holometabolous insects are like hemimetabolous insects that have an elongated pronymph phase detailed by this diagram below.
    [​IMG]
    http://coo.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/really-abominable-mystery.html

    There is evidence for this by structural and hormonal consistences between hemimetabolous pronymphs and larvae. As well as evidence of the pupal stage being a modification of the nymph stage, as there are some insects with mobile pupae (which was news to me!) In hemimetabolous insects this pronymph stage is over in a matter of hours or days, or more often even before the egg is hatched! The proto-holometabolous insects extended this phase considerably, and with that evolution can have a stronger impact on what we now call a larval stage. Seeing as in all holometabolous insects that I know of, only the adult can reproduce, adaptions to the larval stage that increased its fitness would naturally specialize and acquire new traits through genetic mutation that increase the likelyhood that it will survive to reproduce. Hence why a caterpillar may have spines or horns that are not required in the butterfly stage. So the set of instructions of larva, pupa and adult were already there from the beginning, no need to acquire a completely new set of blueprints. Just need to tweak what was already there. So now that we understand where the information came from, I guess the question would be what caused this elongated pronymph stage in the first place. Even in extant species of hemimetabolous insects the length of the pronymph stage is not consistent. During my readings for this reply, I came across that ancestral species of holometabolous laid smaller eggs than those of hemimetabolous insects. This would lead to less nutrient availability in the egg and the necessity of being born 'prematurely' to acquire resources from the external environment. As to what lead to smaller eggs...a fixed genetic 'defect' could have caused this, enabling the mother to produce more eggs than her larger laying cousins, leading to more offspring and greater chance of some surviving to adulthood. Also, competition for resources could have driven holometabolous anscestors in to nutrient poor niches which limited the size of the insects and consequently of the eggs they could produce. Now this is admittedly speculation on my part, I do study bacteria after all. But speculation consistent with testable observations, and it's quite possible that someone has explored the 'why' in great detail, I just don't have time to write a literature review on insect evolution on bigsoccer. Just to give you an idea of the effort it takes, it took me a couple of months of reading, writing, debate, and revisions to write a concise literature review on sialic acid metabolism in bacteria (a very narrow topic), and that's actually the field I'm trained in! I've given you some food for thought, now it's time to explore!
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We don't?! You're not going to hold your own holy book to the same standards you have for science?
     
    dapip repped this.
  4. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the totally fictitious claims that the Bible contains lots of contradictions and errors are just that: fiction.

    demonstrate otherwise.
     
  5. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    What I was talking about is the genesis of Life, per se. Either it was created or was the result of random event(s). Of course no biologist thinks that Man came out of the sea foam, fully formed. But evolutionary biologists believe that the first molecules that led to life came about because the conditions provided an opportunity and "certain forces" provided "the spark", to use a commonly understood term.

    Because there are different sort of insects, there are different paths of development from egg to adult. We are reasonably certain that metamorphosis is a later development from the "normal" path, egg, nymph/larva, adult. So when you say that the instructions that drive metamorphosis were there from the beginning, that should not be the case, since metamorphosis is not the "normal" developmental process. At some point the instructions that allow for some insects to pass thru a pupal stage must have been activated or introduced. If they were there from the beginning and were activated, that idea is counter-intuitive. What that suggests is that evolution "anticipated" the need for an intermediate developmental stage and delayed the activation of the metamorphic process until such time as it was advantageous. Otherwise what must have been the case is that "random changes" in genetic information produced the metamorphic process. Since metamorphosis seems to be an all-or-nothing phenomenon, it doesn't make much sense to think that it is the result of gradual changes.


    What you did not include in your explanation was the caterpillar to butterfly process, except to say that there was "tweaking". "Tweak" is a cunning word. It means to improve thru modification, at least as I understand the term. Random changes can improve or degrade. They tend to degrade much more than improve, by a factor of incalculable magnitude. Yet you want us to believe that "tweaking" is what happened. Oh, and tweaking is virtually always, if not always, performed by intelligent forces. Just sayin'.

    I would sooner believe it was "twerking".
     
  6. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    Holy moly. Give me a few years if you want a complete account. Otherwise, a few days oughta work.
     
  7. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    A prime tenant of science is that those proposing a hypothesis attempt to disprove it. How many of those proposing intelligent design/creationism are attempting to disprove it? Their entire worldview required 'faith' rather than repetitive, predictable observation and, therefore, have no place in science.
     
  8. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    this is a very reasonable position to take, assuming that special creation is a matter that science can address.

    of course, it isn't, but that shouldn't stop people from making that sort of query, even though it's overtly nonsensical.
     
    HerthaBerwyn repped this.
  9. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    start with two.
     
  10. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And if we take that for granted, then this shouldn't happen, but it does all the time:

    [​IMG]

    If religion and science are separate then let science be taught in science classes, and science can continue to stay out of churches.
     
  11. HerthaBerwyn

    HerthaBerwyn Member+

    May 24, 2003
    Chicago
    Then it has no place in any school save Sunday.
     
  12. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    Who was Joseph's father?
    How did Judas die?
     
  13. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
     
  14. BlueDamian

    BlueDamian Member+

    Jun 7, 2005
    In the shade
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    That's one version of it. There is another version. Re: contradictions
     
  15. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You didn't even ask about who bought the field, and when!
     
  16. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    And there's always just about everything in Genesis.
     
  17. Pønch

    Pønch Saprissista

    Aug 23, 2006
    Donde siempre
    Or who found out the tomb was empty. That tale is like a circus clown car, you never know who's going to show up next.
     
    Justin Z repped this.
  18. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    or you don't understand the narrative
     
  19. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    I admit, it's hard to reconcile the two narratives within Genesis. Especially when they can't even agree on the order in which things were created.
     
  20. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yours is the typical reaction to the narrative. the problem is that you aren't asking the right question(s).

    first of all, why would there be two separate accounts of the same events? there must be a reasonable explanation for the different accounts. the most obvious answer is that they have an altogether different focus.

    the first account is a simple chronological description of creation, what happened on each day.

    the second account concerns the addition of Man and his involvement with the rest of creation, especially the living creatures that were brought to him in order to be named.

    your finding inconsistencies in the narrative stems from a simple misunderstanding of the purpose of the two accounts.

    the same kind of problem is true for you when evaluating the gospel account of Judas' death and the statements in Acts from Luke. being a physician, Luke is describing what happened to the body in greater detail than Matthew, who merely delineates the cause of death: hanging. Luke is not telling the reader how Judas died. he is relating the additional facts that would be noted by an observer after Judas died.

    consider this: Judas dies by hanging and the body remains for a period of time, undiscovered, in the noose. the body becomes bloated as gas begins to accumulate; perhaps the rope breaks and Judas' body falls to the ground and his abdomen bursts.

    none of us knows what actually transpired after he hanged himself, but since Luke in Acts does not say that Judas died in a way different from hanging, Matthew's account is satisfactory.

    how about a couple more "discrepancies".
     
  21. Justin Z

    Justin Z Member

    Jul 12, 2005
    Edinburgh, Scotland
    Club:
    Heart of Midlothian FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    But is the question really whether we're the ones asking the right questions? Is it that we're nitpicking at what contradictions are? No. Absolutely not. At all.

    The question is, whether a being capable of CREATING physics, designing the laws that led to the formation of galaxy superclusters, who fine-tuned the mathematical constants of the universe with such inconceivable precision, would leave, as its written message to its favorite species, this garbled book of contradictory, slip-shod, altered, mistake-ridden texts and tell us that if we didn't believe the message exactly is it's supposed to be conveyed, even though literally thousands of denominations all interpret it differently, then we would suffer eternally after death.

    THAT, sir, is "the question." Well the answer is, "You've got to be ********ing kidding me." And you're sitting here getting semantic about what a contradiction is.
     
    luftmensch, Pønch, taosjohn and 2 others repped this.
  22. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    I don't have a problem with the narrative. I understand why it is the way it is. I'm not the one trying to twist it into something that it is not.

    Actually, the most obvious answer would be that it is a human construction which uses contradictory sources. Anything else is adding further assumptions.

    By finding inconsistancies, isn't that showing that there are contradictions? Even if you can explain them, it doesn't mean that the contradictions do not exist.

    The actual text from Acts moves straight from aquiring the field to falling over and bursting open. Why would he move from aquiring the field to the aftermath of a suicide simply to describe the effects without mentioning, even in passing, that he hung (or even just killed) himself?

    Here's 101 of them. Good luck.
    http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm
     
    dapip and crazypete13 repped this.
  23. gmonn

    gmonn Member+

    Dec 8, 2005
    There's also those other competing books out there, not to mention the other millions of other prophets/shamans/gurus/cult leaders/loony toons now, throughout history, and probably through tens of thousands of years of prehistory, and how this particular dude is the only really supernatural one. Hint: they all say that.

    To paraphrase, what does it say that "your" religion/story is the solution to the universe and the almighty power in the universe and not the others, just because you were born in an area with churches and not mosques or temples or shrines or cave paintings? Just like your country being the best country in the world because you were born in it.
     
    Justin Z and dapip repped this.
  24. StiltonFC

    StiltonFC He said to only look up -- Guster

    Mar 18, 2007
    SoCal
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    they are only contradictions if you decide that the information contained in the two separate narrative must be identical to be consistent. that is not the case if the two narratives have separate purposes.

    it has nothing to do with separate sources. if you and a friend were driving in a car and each of you were asked to recount a specific incident that occurred by the side of the road, the greatest likelihood is that you would give accounts that were similar but contained somewhat different details.

    OTOH, if only you told the story and you told it to different people, it is more than likely that you would emphasize elements in the story that would appeal to the audience. for example, if you saw a totaled Kia Optima and you were telling the story to another person who had a Kia Optima, that would be a feature that might not receive the same amount of emphasis as if you told the story to someone who had a MBZ or a BMW.

    as you know the 4 gospels have different audiences and different appeals. John's is markedly different and he is explicit in his purpose for writing that narrative.

    when you make a point of indicating that the two Genesis accounts are contradictory it is obvious that you don't accept the fact that the reason for the differences is very clear.
     
  25. lanman

    lanman BigSoccer Supporter

    Aug 30, 2002
    And if we had the order in which things happened differently around said incident then at least one of us would be wrong. We would, in fact, be contradicting each other.
     

Share This Page