Common Creationist Canards

[Haven]

Creationists (especially of the young-Earth variety) tend to use several ill-defined, unscientific, and flat-out erroneous terms and concepts when arguing in favor of creationism or critiquing evolution. These include, but are not limited to:

• Information: An ill-defined concept typically used when discussing genetics. Creationists often claim that evolution can't produce "new information," by which they generally mean "new genetic material." This is false. Also, "information" is not a scientific term and it has no standing in biology.
  
  Irreducible Complexity: A claim that certain features of (usually animal) life, such as eyes, limbs, and wings, could not have evolved because said features would be useless in a less-than-fully-formed state. This concept is useless because no features of life have been found to be irreducibly complex.
  
  Kind: Another ill-defined concept that essentially means whatever the creationist wants it to at the time. May be equated with species, genus, order, or something completely novel or incoherent. Generally, it's meant to draw the line between "microevolution" (changes within a "kind") and macroevolution (the change of one "kind" into another "kind"). Creationists should kindly provide a definition of this concept or it is useless.
  
  Macroevolution and Microevolution: Unscientific terms meant to divide the unitary process of evolution. As mentioned before, microevolution is said to be changes within a "kind" and macroevolution is said to be changes between "kinds." Without a coherent definition of "kind," this doesn't get off the ground.

Debate questions: Are these common creationist concepts coherent? Why or why not? Can such concepts be shown to be relevant to the natural world? Are these concepts biologically sound, or just meaningless canards?

[Ooberman]

[DNA is]... the best software program ever devised; in all probability, the best one possible.

Better than what God is made of? Wow, that's amazing! Who would have thought flesh is better than God!


But how do you explain cancer and other corruptions?

[McCulloch]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25903

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 7 by Jashwell]

It doesn't happen by accident, it happens by well understood and acknowledged scientific phenomena.

Exactly. And what is understood is that the DNA molecule is an incredibly complex, efficient, and precise error-correcting code. Bill Gates called it the best software program ever devised; in all probability, the best one possible.

If he called it the best possible, then he's making quite the assumption.

All this by way of saying: can we please dispense with this nonsense that DNA doesn't clearly express INFORMATION -- which implies design, will, and intelligence? Computer programmers spend years, and huge amounts of money, using their will and intelligence to design computer codes --

and we're to believe Nature outdid them through mindless, random, accidental processes?

No, not a random accidental process, evolution.
If you put a rock of a very steep hill and it rolls to the bottom, is that outcome "random and accidental"?

If you're going to use information in this context, then no it doesn't imply design.
Evolution gives very clear mechanisms that explain how such volumes of code can be generated.

The thing about computer programmers, is we've only had 50 years to try. It took nature 3.8 billion years to make our code, yet we regularly make code that in specific areas outperforms nature. (E.g. precise logic and mathematics)

There's no logical requirement for DNA to be the way it is.
For instance, we refer to the main chemical bases of DNA as A C T and G.
We could've gone with A B C and D, it would make no difference because the meaning of something is subjective.

Not to break in on your solitary cranial activity here -- but what does that have to do with anything? Yes, the "meaning" of information is subjective. But that doesn't mean the information itself is -- just that we, individually, can fail to understand its objective meaning.

"objective meaning" is an oxymoron.
Under "Objective meaning" it would be the same even if there was nothing to interpret it. It could mean nothing to everyone and still have "objective meaning".
In a similar fashion, for it to be "objective information", it'd have to still be information without the molecular machinery that interprets it, in which case it wouldn't do anything.

The billions of letters of information in DNA will code for a chicken, a cow, or you, depending on how they are arranged -- "written" -- regardless of your interpretation of them.

But not regardless of the biological system's interpretation of them.
In fact, the biological system could've done it another way.
TGC codes for Cysteine, but it could code for Lysine instead. (It and AAA could be swapped around, for instance)
_{actually, your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa thing would be information to a biological system, it would encode for a massive amount of lysine}

The information itself - not objective.

It is of course meaningless to postulate an agent regardless, because you must further postulate that if such an agent did exist that they would attempt to create life and that they would do it in this exact fashion (which is not necessary, as previously stated, codes like ACT and ATC could be exchanged without making a difference).

Also, "source of the geologic and fossil record"?
If there was a global flood that could sink Everest, it'd physically crush and break fossils.
There isn't enough water on Earth for a global flood. Hence why we aren't underwater right now. That's one reason - and one reason is all that's needed - why it does not explain the "geologic record"

You should do some research into the various Flood models. I favor Baumgardner's "catastrophic plate tectonics"; you can google it.

Mt. Everest was caused by the cataclysmic upheavals and rapid continental plate collision, rifting, and subduction that produced the Flood -- as well as the release of the "Fountains of the Deep", and the 40 days and nights of rain (the rain didn't cause the Flood; it was produced by it).

As you're obviously uninformed as to what really happened in Earth's history, I envy your voyage of discovery!

The radius of the Earth up to sea level is 6371 kilometres.
Everest is 8848 metres above that, at 6379.848 kilometres.

The volume of the Earth up to sea level as it is now is given by (4/3) * pi * r³
or
1.0832069 x 10¹² cubic kilometres.

The volume of the Earth up to sea level if sea level was one quarter of the way up to the peak of everest[/b] would be
1.0843356 x 10¹² cubic kilometres.

That might not seem that significant, but you'd probably be forgetting the 10^12.

It's a difference of a cubic megametre - 1128654388 km³.
Now of course, that's only if the water was as high as one quarter of the height of Everest - 2 km higher than it is today.

[Volbrigade]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25903

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5&start=20

Oob --

But how do you explain cancer and other corruptions?

Sin.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 14 by Volbrigade]

1. How does "sin" explain it?

How does my stealing a bagel make a virus mutate into Ebola? Magic?


2. This means you believe all this 'amazing design' you see everywhere isn't so amazing. This undercuts the Teleological argument!

You saying that Man can change God's magnificent design? I don't know of any Good design that has the feature that it can be corrupted by someone, particularly from such unrelated connections.

Why is dna so amazing if it can be so easily mutated into cancer by someone telling a lie?

[Goat]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=25903

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 5&start=20

Oob --

But how do you explain cancer and other corruptions?

Sin.

Really?? Can you explain the mechanism.. and show how that works.

You seem to have lots of.. well, misrepresentations and unsupported claims.

Care to back up that claim with something other than religious rhetoric?

[Goat]

Double post

[Volbrigade]

Care to back up that claim with something other than religious rhetoric?

I have.

___________________


Oob --

now you're just being silly. Excellent! I like silliness, myself. And it is a fitting mode for those who are uninterested in searching for truth. Nothing is more tiresome than a secular materialist pagan Whateverist who takes himself seriously.

To answer your "question(s)":

A proper understanding that there have been three distinct epochs in the history of the Earth -- pre-Fall; pre-Flood; and our contemporary post-Flood epoch -- will clear up any misunderstandings you have in regard to sin and its consequences. I urge you to get started on that study now, in the hope you may arrive at that proper understanding before it's too late!

_______________________

No, not a random accidental process, evolution.
If you put a rock of a very steep hill and it rolls to the bottom, is that outcome "random and accidental"?

What if it rolls uphill? Will it do that randomly, accidentally, mindlessly?

You're asking me to believe (and, if not you, then "we're asked to believe") in an uphill process of microbes becoming men, which requires informational increases every step along the way.

"objective meaning" is an oxymoron...



...actually, your aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa thing would be information to a biological system, it would encode for a massive amount of lysine

The information itself - not objective.

It is of course meaningless to postulate an agent regardless, because you must further postulate that if such an agent did exist that they would attempt to create life and that they would do it in this exact fashion (which is not necessary, as previously stated, codes like ACT and ATC could be exchanged without making a difference)...



...The volume of the Earth up to sea level if sea level was one quarter of the way up to the peak of everest[/b] would be
1.0843356 x 1012 cubic kilometres.

That might not seem that significant, but you'd probably be forgetting the 10^12.

It's a difference of a cubic megametre - 1128654388 km3.
Now of course, that's only if the water was as high as one quarter of the height of Everest - 2 km higher than it is today...

As you point out, there is no "objective meaning" residing in the string of characters you typed, above.

My takeaway, in terms of my own "subjective meaning", is this: that it is a splendid recipe for butter rum cookies; coupled with a recommendation to wash them down with a frosty cold Newcastle Nut Brown Ale.

Splendid information, from my vantage point.

A couple of questions: if I don't subjectively think that the DNA information in a fertilized hen's egg codes for a chicken; does that mean that what hatches won't be a chicken?

If I don't subjectively believe that the DNA information in a human being codes for a human being, does that mean that we're not human?

Last one:

does it take information to construct a gull's wing, and the elaborate design exhibited in its covering feathers, that allow for the phenomenon of flight?

[Goat]

Care to back up that claim with something other than religious rhetoric?

I have.

___________________


Oob --

now you're just being silly. Excellent! I like silliness, myself. And it is a fitting mode for those who are uninterested in searching for truth. Nothing is more tiresome than a secular materialist pagan Whateverist who takes himself seriously.

To answer your "question(s)":

A proper understanding that there have been three distinct epochs in the history of the Earth -- pre-Fall; pre-Flood; and our contemporary post-Flood epoch -- will clear up any misunderstandings you have in regard to sin and its consequences. I urge you to get started on that study now, in the hope you may arrive at that proper understanding before it's too late!

That is the claim. You do realize there is a difference between a claim, and evidence.

Please provide evidence of 'Pre-Fall, Pre-flood' epochs, and show the mechanism why the different epochs have different biological rules.

[Volbrigade]

Care to back up that claim with something other than religious rhetoric?

I have.

___________________


Oob --

now you're just being silly. Excellent! I like silliness, myself. And it is a fitting mode for those who are uninterested in searching for truth. Nothing is more tiresome than a secular materialist pagan Whateverist who takes himself seriously.

To answer your "question(s)":

A proper understanding that there have been three distinct epochs in the history of the Earth -- pre-Fall; pre-Flood; and our contemporary post-Flood epoch -- will clear up any misunderstandings you have in regard to sin and its consequences. I urge you to get started on that study now, in the hope you may arrive at that proper understanding before it's too late!

That is the claim. You do realize there is a difference between a claim, and evidence.

Please provide evidence of 'Pre-Fall, Pre-flood' epochs, and show the mechanism why the different epochs have different biological rules.

What sort of evidence for an original, pre-Fallen creation; and a subsequent Fall from that state due to sinful disobedience, would suit you?

Like, a videotape or something?