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?

[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.

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?

You are the one that made the claim, so you should know what you are claiming. The fact you have to ask me what kind of evidence I need shows indicates you do not have that evidence, or a model to produce evidence.

With the TOE, I get presented with fossils , I get presented with dates for those fossils, and the methodology to produce those dates, which are supported by physicists and geologists. I get presented with genetic data of living species, the predictions on how they would interrelated, and how closely the actual data then match the predictions. With cosmology, there are the mathematical formulas that predict what will be discovered, and , by golly by gosh, a number of those models actually DO predict what is found in the cosmos when we get the technology to LOOK and see.

I don't see any of that for 'pre-fall', pre-flood' and 'post-flood' claims.

You make the claim. If the claim is valid, you can provide reasons WHY the model is valid.

.

[sfs]

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?

Of course it makes no difference what you think about the information: the physical processes will go on regardless. It also makes no difference if you don't think there's any information in an egg. The process seems to have nothing to do with information, as far as I can tell.

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?

It depends on what meaning you're using for "information" here. In one meaning, every physical object has information content. In another, information exists only as a human interpretation of certain arrangements of matter. So I'll try asking again: what do you mean by information? Does an adult human have more information than a fertilized egg or not?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 21 by Goat]

With the TOE, I get presented with fossils , I get presented with dates for those fossils, and the methodology to produce those dates, which are supported by physicists and geologists. I get presented with genetic data of living species, the predictions on how they would interrelated, and how closely the actual data then match the predictions. With cosmology, there are the mathematical formulas that predict what will be discovered, and , by golly by gosh, a number of those models actually DO predict what is found in the cosmos when we get the technology to LOOK and see.

Well, all of that is undeniable. And fine, as far as it goes. And if it works for you, and provides the comforting reassurance that there is no God to "get on the wrong side of" -- then bully for you.

The trouble with it is, to me, it is unexplanatory; inconsistent, incoherent; based (in its interpretation of the evidence) on false and absurd premises; and provides no framework by which to lives one's life.

If it's all true: if matter, time and space are the product of some mindless cosmic accident; and we the beneficiaries of an unlikely informational climb from microbes to men, destined to become room temperature, and then return to microbes and then constituent elements soon enough --

what of it? What's the point?

But if, as Chesterton asserts, that "the Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence"; and that the frontiers of science and of our understanding are lining up with what the Bible has asserted all along, because it is "the true history book of the universe", imparted by the One who authored both (book and universe), then to fail to interpret our empirical findings in the the light of that truth, is to miss out on ALL Truth.

As I said at the beginning, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs; nor to "prove God" or anything else (but especially not that which lies beyond the sphere of scientific proof; which all proofs are grounded in).

The thrust of the OP was to call into question the use of "Information; Irreducible Complexity; Kinds; and Macro-Micro Evolution" by Bible-believing scientists. As if: "throw those concepts out, and what do you have?" ("Intelligent Design" was overlooked, for some reason)

And I quite agree.

I took it upon myself to defend their use; if my defense has been insufficient in anyone's eyes, that's not my problem.

I would have been extremely surprised -- overjoyed, but not surprised -- to discover otherwise.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 21 by Goat]

With the TOE, I get presented with fossils , I get presented with dates for those fossils, and the methodology to produce those dates, which are supported by physicists and geologists. I get presented with genetic data of living species, the predictions on how they would interrelated, and how closely the actual data then match the predictions. With cosmology, there are the mathematical formulas that predict what will be discovered, and , by golly by gosh, a number of those models actually DO predict what is found in the cosmos when we get the technology to LOOK and see.

Well, all of that is undeniable. And fine, as far as it goes. And if it works for you, and provides the comforting reassurance that there is no God to "get on the wrong side of" -- then bully for you.

The trouble with it is, to me, it is unexplanatory; inconsistent, incoherent; based (in its interpretation of the evidence) on false and absurd premises; and provides no framework by which to lives one's life.

If it's all true: if matter, time and space are the product of some mindless cosmic accident; and we the beneficiaries of an unlikely informational climb from microbes to men, destined to become room temperature, and then return to microbes and then constituent elements soon enough --

what of it? What's the point?

But if, as Chesterton asserts, that "the Fall is the only Christian doctrine for which there is empirical evidence"; and that the frontiers of science and of our understanding are lining up with what the Bible has asserted all along, because it is "the true history book of the universe", imparted by the One who authored both (book and universe), then to fail to interpret our empirical findings in the the light of that truth, is to miss out on ALL Truth.

As I said at the beginning, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs; nor to "prove God" or anything else (but especially not that which lies beyond the sphere of scientific proof; which all proofs are grounded in).

The thrust of the OP was to call into question the use of "Information; Irreducible Complexity; Kinds; and Macro-Micro Evolution" by Bible-believing scientists. As if: "throw those concepts out, and what do you have?" ("Intelligent Design" was overlooked, for some reason)

And I quite agree.

I took it upon myself to defend their use; if my defense has been insufficient in anyone's eyes, that's not my problem.

I would have been extremely surprised -- overjoyed, but not surprised -- to discover otherwise.

And, in all that verbiage, where did you , you know, actually provide the requested evidence??


Second challenge

Please provide evidence for the 'Pre-fall, Pre-flood and post flood epocs.


I am invoking rule 5 here.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

If it's all true: if matter, time and space are the product of some mindless cosmic accident; and we the beneficiaries of an unlikely informational climb from microbes to men, destined to become room temperature, and then return to microbes and then constituent elements soon enough --

what of it? What's the point?

You know its funny I asked that question in another thread directed towards believers. Funnily enough their answer was no different than mine.

So let me ask you the question. If your beliefs are true whats the point?

[Volbrigade]

Please provide evidence for the 'Pre-fall, Pre-flood and post flood epocs.


I am invoking rule 5 here.

I have no idea what "rule 5" is, and am not particularly interested in looking it up. I understand that forums such as this must have rules; and have no wish to violate them, especially in regard to maintaining civility, providing support for argument, etc. By the same token, I don't visit here to pass a test on how well I ascribe to a set of rules. I think it was George C. Scott's Patton (I'm sure it was) who said the line "well -- they have their rules (I think he actually said "timetable"), I have mine."

This never-ending chirping of the chorus "where is the evidence?!" for the reality of God, creation, the Fall, the resurrection and ascension, etc., is tiresome. If it was simply a matter of providing empirical proof for such claims, then the case would've been decided long ago, and there would be no need for this forum, where Whateverists congregate in large numbers to reassure themselves that none of it is real, that the only reality is that which can be directly observed and measured.

Or would it? Jesus turned the water to wine, healed the sick, raised the dead -- and many witnesses of those events turned against Him at the earliest opportunity. Our fallen nature's aversion to God is powerful; and we have a powerful enemy to inflame it.

In any case, as I wrote elsewhere in regard to the same request: "where, and what, is the evidence?"

Everywhere. And all of it (which would require a boost in bandwidth to provide here ).

Or, if you prefer: Nowhere. And none of it.

It's called "choice". It is a trait that expresses free will, provided to us by the Mind who created us.

If it were possible to view the evidence as a blank slate, with no preconceptions at all, then you would still, at some point, have to face the question: "is all of this the product of Design, which demands a Designer? Does this reality conform to the standards of exhibiting deliberate information, imparted by the Intelligence that brought it into being?

Or is it the product of mindless forces? An impersonal accident of some kind?"

The choice of which "lens" you choose to view the evidence through, will determine what conclusions you draw from the evidence.

Where the rubber meets the road is the Flood event.

If the geologic and fossil records are evidence for long, slow, gradual processes, which document the incremental climb uphill of microbes into men; then of course it is reasonable to wonder whether this could have occurred through random processes; and whether our freakish mutation of intelligence is the only incidence of it anywhere.

But if those records convey evidence for a cataclysmic, catastrophic event, as described in the Bible; then that surely validates many Biblical claims; and the Fall as an explanation for the rather peculiar traits possessed by men (such as mutual and self destruction; exploitation of others; killing for pleasure, and so forth).

That is the core of the conflict, as I see it. And to deny that there is evidence of the Flood, is to deny truth. It is everywhere, and scientific evaluation of it is readily available.

So let me ask you the question. If your beliefs are true whats the point?

Now that's a fair question. And certainly one worthy of conversation.

Let me begin an attempt at an answer by positing the following:

I take it as axiomatic that if there is "the true and the good", then it is our duty and purpose to conform to it.

If that is not the case with you, then I'm afraid our conversation will be rather short.

If the "true" and the "good" indeed exist, as absolute categories, then I submit it follows that there is a standard by which they exist. And that the maker of that standard would then be the ultimate expression of them.

If that is not the case: if the maker of all things is personal in nature, but not "true and good", but some sort of diabolical monster, then we have much bigger problems to face than whether or not microbes turned into men over time.

I hold that He IS the standard of true and good. I concede that I am unable to provide empirical proof of that claim. Nor do I allow the necessity of it: in this case, we're not talking about "what" or "how" or even "when" -- but "WHY?".

I have been asked, "if eternal life is all there is to Christianity's claims, why should I accept them? What's so great about eternal life, living forever, 'giving glory to God', and all that"?

I think that's at the heart of your question.

Allow me to provide the following, in regard to "what's the point?"

(a note: this is inspired by a discussion I was having with a fellow believer, who is a "non-Trinitarian". I turned to C. S. Lewis' wonderful exposition of the Trinity doctrine in "Mere Christianity", as part of my argument; it applies here as the answer to "what's the point?" -- emphasis mine)

____________


This third Person is called, in technical language, the Holy Ghost or the "spirit" of God. Do not be worried or surprised if you find it (or Him) rather vaguer or more shadowy in your mind than the other two. I think there is a reason why that must be so. In the Christian life you are not usually looking at Him: He is always acting through you. If you think of the Father as something "out there," in front of you, and of the Son as someone standing at your side, helping you to pray, trying to turn you into another son, then you have to think of the third Person as something inside you, or behind you. Perhaps some people might find it easier to begin with the third Person and work backwards. God is love, and that love works through men-especially through the whole community of Christians. But this spirit of love is, from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and Son.


And now, what does it all matter? It matters more than anything else in the world. The whole dance, or drama, or pattern of this three-Personal life is to be played out in each one of us: or (putting it the other way round) each one of us has got to enter that pattern, take his place in that dance. There is no other way to the happiness for which we were made. Good things as well as bad, you know, are caught by a kind of infection. If you want to get warm you must stand near the fire: if you want to be wet you must get into the water. If you want joy, power, peace, eternal life, you must get close to, or even into, the thing that has them. They are not a sort of prizes which God could, if He chose, just hand out to anyone. They are a great fountain of energy and beauty spurting up at the very centre of reality. If you are close to it, the spray will wet you: if you are not, you will remain dry. Once a man is united to God, how could he not live forever? Once a man is separated from God, what can he do but wither and die?

-- C. S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", Book IV

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.co ... 5ILUa6_evk

[Goat]

Please provide evidence for the 'Pre-fall, Pre-flood and post flood epocs.


I am invoking rule 5 here.

I have no idea what "rule 5" is, and am not particularly interested in looking it up. I understand that forums such as this must have rules; and have no wish to violate them, especially in regard to maintaining civility, providing support for argument, etc. By the same token, I don't visit here to pass a test on how well I ascribe to a set of rules. I think it was George C. Scott's Patton (I'm sure it was) who said the line "well -- they have their rules (I think he actually said "timetable"), I have mine."

Rule 5. you must support your claim with evidence and reasoning. If you want to keep on being in this private debate section, you follow the rules.. simple as that.

This board has rules. The rules of the board can be found here When you signed up for the board, you supposedly agreed to follow the rules. Rule 5 is

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

Now, you made specific claims about 'pre-fall/pre-flood and 'post flood'. they were not relayed as opinion. So, by rule 5, please support your claim.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 27 by Goat]

Now, you made specific claims about 'pre-fall/pre-flood and 'post flood'. they were not relayed as opinion. So, by rule 5, please support your claim.

I have, and did. You are apparently applying another poster's "subjective meaning" to my arguments, and arriving at conclusions that are not objectively stated.

If may claims are not supported to your understanding or satisfaction, then you will have to learn to live with that. My obligation is to provide the support; I am not obligated to ensure that you grasp it; and if you are determined not to, such a grasp will not be possible.

[Clownboat]

I took it upon myself to defend their use; if my defense has been insufficient in anyone's eyes, that's not my problem.

The problem would seem to be with your defense, which would make it your problem.
Just sayin.

I have a better idea! Blame everyone else for not understanding. That's it, anyone that finds your statements (it would be dishonest to call them a defense at this point) is just dumb. Much easier than providing an actual defense.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

That's it, anyone that finds your statements (it would be dishonest to call them a defense at this point) is just dumb.

Well, not dumb, necessarily. How about, "deliberately obtuse on this point"?

Goat repeatedly requests "evidence" to back the claim (the reality) of the three epochs in Earth's history: Pre-Fall; Pre-Flood; and Post-Flood.

I may have been a little brusque with him in my last post. We Christians, while justified in the spirit, struggle with the sanctification process -- the "war against the flesh", which is residually part of the fallen world.

I have prayed for patience in this instance, and received it. So let me offer this:

God made a world, and called it "very good".

This world, by any standard outside of a lunatic asylum, is not "very good".

Sin was -- is -- a spiritual thermonuclear explosion, resulting in a spiritual tsunami that altered the fabric of the pre-Fallen world; we exist in what might be termed a "dimensionally diminished" version of that world.

Anything that is hyperdimensional, such as the 10 dimensions posited by quantum theory, or the multi-verse hypothesis, must be arrived at by inference, as it is by definition beyond the scope of our senses, or ability to measure.

Therefore, knowledge of the pre-Fallen world must be arrived at either by revelation (which pagan Whateverists reject -- fine), inference, or both.

To demand empirical evidence for it -- a fossilized leaf from an Edenic tree, whatever -- is to completely miss the point. Where is the empirical evidence for an alternate universe? Why won't Hawking provide it?

To continue to demand such evidence when this has been pointed out -- as I hope I am doing clearly here -- invites suspicion as to the motives of such a demand, if not as to the capacities of the demander.

Again: the answer to "what is the evidence?" for God, the creation, the Fall, The Flood, the Incarnation and Resurrection, et. al, is "all of it. Properly understood, it all underscores the the truth of those things; because they are the Truth."

I don't want to repeat myself further so I refer you to my post of 2:44PM.

By the way, the word "dishonest" in your quote, above, is applicable in regard to your apparent positions and presuppositions, since they are on the wrong side of the truth.

But it does not accurately describe what I have been expressing on here, at greater length than I had any intention of doing...