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]

And that you will develop an appreciation for the courageous and stalwart scientists at ICR, AIG, CMI, and elsewhere, who diligently pursue truth in the face of enormous opposition.

I LOL'd... I get it now... You're a Poe.

How's their research going, Vol? Have they discovered any gods yet?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 60 by sfs]

My opinion is very well informed,

by false and erroneous uniformitarian, materialist presuppositions

and can be substantiated by reference to the primary scientific literature, the same literature cited by CMI in its articles. And no, that's not a lie.

Thanks. That's the only passage in your message that is worthy of response.

Same evidence, same literature -- different worldviews, with different presuppositions reaching different conclusions.

At least one is wrong.

I'll side with the one that acknowledges the Creator. It has the attractive quality of being built on truth.

You may choose the vague, unsubstantiated and preposterous claims made by those who have a vested, personal interest in denying God (if you like...):

That matter created itself; that entropy produced order; randomness produced information; and human intelligence is the only incidence of "mind" in the cosmos.

I suggest you consider altering your faith in that absurd ideology -- it is woefully antiquated and obsolete.

It begins with the simple acceptance that the force behind our reality is a Mind, with intelligence and will -- not the comforting chimera of "impersonal forces".

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

Intelligence Will Design Information

[Clownboat]

"The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1st Cor 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

You go right ahead and fear all the gods you want.

[sfs]

[Replying to post 60 by sfs]

My opinion is very well informed,

by false and erroneous uniformitarian, materialist presuppositions

Be honest here. You know precisely nothing about how these analyses were done. You haven't looked at the data, you haven't read the papers and you have never done anything like these calculations yourself. You have no way of knowing what presuppositions I've actually brought to these data. And yet you feel entirely qualified to offer a sweeping and insulting conclusion about something you could not possibly know. Is there any part of you that wonders, just a little, if there's something wrong with your approach here? That somehow you took a false step somewhere?

and can be substantiated by reference to the primary scientific literature, the same literature cited by CMI in its articles. And no, that's not a lie.

Thanks. That's the only passage in your message that is worthy of response.

Same evidence, same literature -- different worldviews, with different presuppositions reaching different conclusions.

Nonsense. Creationists never analyze genetic data in any meaningful way. I would love to see creationists do real analysis: take their model and make some predictions about real genetics. (I could give a long list of things they could model.) But they don't. Most of them can't, since they lack the skills needed (although for some reason it never stops them from pontificating about the science anyway). The few who can, won't, because they're too frightened of reality to engage real data. The only exception may be Todd Wood, who is comfortable with genetic data and who will analyze it seriously as a YEC. (Of course, other YECs don't like Todd very much, since he frequently tells them that their arguments are full of crap.)

I'll side with the one that acknowledges the Creator. It has the attractive quality of being built on truth.

My analysis acknowledges the Creator too. What has that got to do with it?

You may choose the vague, unsubstantiated and preposterous claims made by those who have a vested, personal interest in denying God (if you like...):

Sorry, but I do my own analyses, and my claims are anything but unsubstantiated or vague, and I have zero personal interest in denying God. Why are you so consistently wrong in everything you write about this subject? And why are you nonetheless so certain?

That matter created itself; that entropy produced order; randomness produced information; and human intelligence is the only incidence of "mind" in the cosmos.

Sorry, but genetic analysis has nothing to do with most of these -- why are you bringing up irrelevancies? The only one that seems relevant is the one about information being produced by randomness, which is trivially true (for obvious definitions of "information"). Aren't you the guy who started expounding on information, only to suddenly get really quiet about the subject when challenged? Are you wiling to start talking about again?

[Ooberman]

BTW, I visited a couple Cretinist Forums and had to leave. It's bad enough to see what uneducated people think about Evolution here, but in a protected Christain Zone it's mind-numbingly insane.

i'd encourage people to get a good look. it's like "Creationists say the darndest things". Hard to tell the difference.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 64 by sfs]

The only one that seems relevant is the one about information being produced by randomness, which is trivially true (for obvious definitions of "information"). Aren't you the guy who started expounding on information, only to suddenly get really quiet about the subject when challenged? Are you wiling to start talking about again?

I think you're trying to agree with me here (aren't you?). Do we agree that randomness cannot produce information?

What more is there to say?

"Information and Randomness are opposites: just as Entropy and Order are opposites."

Any disagreement?

Microbes2Men demands that randomness produced information; entropy produced order.

Absurd. Dismissed. Next?

Of course, if you add God in, and assert that He used "evolutionary processes" in creating our shared reality, then it becomes possible.

You may engage in that compromise, if you like. Many do: expressed in eloquent enough terms (that is, non-sensical enough), it might even get you a pat on the back, and keep you on the cocktail party "invite" lists, from the materialists (so they can laugh at you). At least keep you employed, if you are the scientist you claim to be. I understand that compromise; though I would prefer to put on fishnet stockings and prostitute myself. At least then, my title and profession would be integrous with one another (laugh -- I'm just ribbing you).

I prefer truth. I don't care a fig if it makes me popular or not -- in fact, it's pretty much guaranteed NOT to (our fallen nature, and all that... )

[Ooberman]

Why are you so consistently wrong in everything you write about this subject? And why are you nonetheless so certain?

This sums up every Apologist.

It's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which can manifest in one of two ways:

Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.

Those persons to whom a skill or set of skills come easily may find themselves with weak self-confidence, as they may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. See Impostor syndrome.

Source: wiki




Churches seem to be Dunning-Kruger trade schools of the former variety. Apologists are almost always unskilled and yet, suffer from an illusion they can speak authoritatively about complex science.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 53 by Volbrigade]

I searched creaton.com for a very simple question. The age of the earth. No answer was given. What I was given was several paragraphs attempting a logical dance with zero evidence and failing. The article, or more accurately, the rant assumes that there are no constants in the universe, at all, when there most certainly is. It states that because there are no constants we cannot truly know the age of the earth or really anything provided to us by the application of the scientific method. It then provides several links based on scientific research. You cannot have it both ways. A world view must be consistent or it is just fantasy and conjecture.

I have to agree with the others. This portion of the "debate" must end because of the stance you have adopted. I would challenge you to see this not as a victory, but as a chance to question why your world view must resort to the same sort of mental gymnastics and "doublethink" as that of those directly opposite you on the spectrum of ideas.

Is that so? Are you sure you had your reading glasses on?

.......

Still, milk is more comforting than meat. I pray that you continue to grow in grace and truth, until you develop a taste for the real stuff. And that you will develop an appreciation for the courageous and stalwart scientists at ICR, AIG, CMI, and elsewhere, who diligently pursue truth in the face of enormous opposition.

Someone said the science cited at CMI is "horrendous" -- but that is either the rankest of uninformed, unsubstantiated opinion; or just a bald faced (and damnable) lie.

Moderator Comment

First, don't make personal comments about other posters. Second, this post comes very close to breaking the guidelines on preaching.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

And that you will develop an appreciation for the courageous and stalwart scientists at ICR, AIG, CMI, and elsewhere, who diligently pursue truth in the face of enormous opposition.

I LOL'd... I get it now... You're a Poe.

How's their research going, Vol? Have they discovered any gods yet?

Moderator Warning


Do not make negative or personal comments about other posters. Do not post responses with no object but to mock and insult the writer of the post.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

BTW, I visited a couple Cretinist Forums and had to leave. It's bad enough to see what uneducated people think about Evolution here, but in a protected Christain Zone it's mind-numbingly insane.

i'd encourage people to get a good look. it's like "Creationists say the darndest things". Hard to tell the difference.

Moderator Warning


This post does not respond to any point made in this thread. It does not address any point. It's sole purpose is to mock and deride people, without addressing, in any way, any of the opinions or positions held by them. This is not acceptable behavior.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.