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?

[sfs]

[Replying to post 30 by Volbrigade]
Is there any chance this discussion could return to something remotely connected to the OP? Or to your claims about information, which are claims about this present world?

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 30 by Volbrigade]
Is there any chance this discussion could return to something remotely connected to the OP? Or to your claims about information, which are claims about this present world?

Why, certainly! More than happy to!

After all, I have an unlimited amount of time and resources to address each and every sundry objection, question, or request for clarification from any and every denizen of this board who harbors any permutation under the vague, nebulous, trivial non-belief umbrella I refer to as 'Whateverism".

Perhaps the addition of a dozen or more to this thread, each with a pet facet of specific umbrage with any of the hundreds of words, and/or the multiple concepts and ideas I've expressed , would provide an opportunity, through a careful exegesis of my response to all of it, to arrive at a global understanding of the information contained therein?



Or, put another way:

I think I've said about all I have to say on the subject.

For now...

[sfs]

[Replying to post 30 by Volbrigade]
Is there any chance this discussion could return to something remotely connected to the OP? Or to your claims about information, which are claims about this present world?

Why, certainly! More than happy to!

After all, I have an unlimited amount of time and resources to address each and every sundry objection, question, or request for clarification from any and every denizen of this board who harbors any permutation under the vague, nebulous, trivial non-belief umbrella I refer to as 'Whateverism".

Perhaps the addition of a dozen or more to this thread, each with a pet facet of specific umbrage with any of the hundreds of words, and/or the multiple concepts and ideas I've expressed , would provide an opportunity, through a careful exegesis of my response to all of it, to arrive at a global understanding of the information contained therein?



Or, put another way:

I think I've said about all I have to say on the subject.

For now...

Well, you've made several vague, unsubstantiated and seemingly contradictory statements, and then ignored all requests for clarification. If that's all you have to say on the subject, your contribution hardly seem to have been worth the trouble of posting.

[Goat]

[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.

Where.. show me the post. I didn't see where you actually gave any evidence for anything.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 30 by Volbrigade]
Is there any chance this discussion could return to something remotely connected to the OP? Or to your claims about information, which are claims about this present world?

Why, certainly! More than happy to!

After all, I have an unlimited amount of time and resources to address each and every sundry objection, question, or request for clarification from any and every denizen of this board who harbors any permutation under the vague, nebulous, trivial non-belief umbrella I refer to as 'Whateverism".

Perhaps the addition of a dozen or more to this thread, each with a pet facet of specific umbrage with any of the hundreds of words, and/or the multiple concepts and ideas I've expressed , would provide an opportunity, through a careful exegesis of my response to all of it, to arrive at a global understanding of the information contained therein?



Or, put another way:

I think I've said about all I have to say on the subject.

For now...

Well, you've made several vague, unsubstantiated and seemingly contradictory statements, and then ignored all requests for clarification. If that's all you have to say on the subject, your contribution hardly seem to have been worth the trouble of posting.

Here is something that I expect total agreement with you on:

It wasn't.

[Zzyzx]

.

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." ]

Second Moderator Warning

Please review the Rules.

It would be prudent to look up the rules that you agreed to abide by as a condition of membership.

Specifically, rules require that one substantiate claims and that disallow preaching.

Continued infraction will result in probation and then banning. You now have two strikes against you.


______________

Moderator warnings serve as a strike towards users that can lead to a probation vote. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 27 by Goat]

What a great yet infuriating conversation. I think the issue here is that one of you is seeing the Bible as evidence while obviously that cannot be used in a debate if that is the source of the question at hand.

There is no evidence of a pre-fall epoch that exists apart from the Bible. However, the existence of a flood or more accurately the prevalence of the story of "the flood" does exist apart.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... d-legends/

The prepoderance of the evidence suggests to me that at some point in time something occurred which has left an indelible mark on humanity and whose story is still told today. In fact even recent mitochondrial DNA research points to a narrow bottleneck of the human race in our distant past. I am assuming the well read posters here know the research. I am not suggesting any of this as iron clad proof since obviously no tangible evidence exists.

As to the OP.

I agree that all of those terms are used differently than what they are scientifically meant for by YECists. I do not believe that a strict reading of the creation story is logically compatible with our current knowledge. However, I do believe that it is compatible with the knowledge at the time of its writing. YECists do themselves a disservice by not incorporating current knowledge into their understanding of creation. In my opinion the more we learn the more room there is for the hand of God. I understand that on this site the tendency is to exclude the supernatural as a possibility. As the OP is referencing YECists we cannot exclude this motivation and belief from the debate. Then we may as well not have one.

I have said before that the problem occurs when theists try to co-opt scientific terminology and use it in a way that is incongruent with its original meaning. That makes everyone mad. It is possible to meld science and theism. The issue I and many others have with YECists is that they flatbout refuse to even entertain the possibility yet demand it be done by the scientific community. This is not the way to mutual understanding. Not agreement. Understanding.

Sorry if this is a wishy washy opinion post but I wanted to help our friend provide what flood "evidence" there is without fighting a battle over origins/TOE.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 27 by Goat]

What a great yet infuriating conversation. I think the issue here is that one of you is seeing the Bible as evidence while obviously that cannot be used in a debate if that is the source of the question at hand.

There is no evidence of a pre-fall epoch that exists apart from the Bible. However, the existence of a flood or more accurately the prevalence of the story of "the flood" does exist apart.

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/ ... d-legends/

The prepoderance of the evidence suggests to me that at some point in time something occurred which has left an indelible mark on humanity and whose story is still told today. In fact even recent mitochondrial DNA research points to a narrow bottleneck of the human race in our distant past. I am assuming the well read posters here know the research. I am not suggesting any of this as iron clad proof since obviously no tangible evidence exists.

As to the OP.

I agree that all of those terms are used differently than what they are scientifically meant for by YECists. I do not believe that a strict reading of the creation story is logically compatible with our current knowledge. However, I do believe that it is compatible with the knowledge at the time of its writing. YECists do themselves a disservice by not incorporating current knowledge into their understanding of creation. In my opinion the more we learn the more room there is for the hand of God. I understand that on this site the tendency is to exclude the supernatural as a possibility. As the OP is referencing YECists we cannot exclude this motivation and belief from the debate. Then we may as well not have one.

I have said before that the problem occurs when theists try to co-opt scientific terminology and use it in a way that is incongruent with its original meaning. That makes everyone mad. It is possible to meld science and theism. The issue I and many others have with YECists is that they flatbout refuse to even entertain the possibility yet demand it be done by the scientific community. This is not the way to mutual understanding. Not agreement. Understanding.

Sorry if this is a wishy washy opinion post but I wanted to help our friend provide what flood "evidence" there is without fighting a battle over origins/TOE.

The bible is the claim. When it comes to physical things. like, a world wide flood, the age of the world, and all that sort of things, you need physical evidence to back up the claim.

Now, one thing about flood legends, they are most often different from each other.

I will point out that also, civilizations tended to develop along rivers, as a source of water to drink, and for irrigation for food, and for allowing trade and transportation with boats.

Every once in a while, those rivers will flood, and once in a great while, those floods will be 'epic'.. so people will make stories about them.

You have to show that, for the 'world wide flood', that , well, all these flood stories came from the same time period, and referred to the same event. Can you? Where is the physical evidence?

I don't take 'answers in genesis' very seriously. Their science claims are horrendously bad.

[Swrrws]

[Replying to post 38 by Goat]

Oh I agree. I do think it possible a large regional flood event could have occurred before widespread human diaspora. Although your theory is just as plausible.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 38 by Goat]

Oh I agree. I do think it possible a large regional flood event could have occurred before widespread human diaspora. Although your theory is just as plausible.

I am sure there were plenty of 'large regional flood event''s before the widespread diaspora.

However, we do not have any evidence that all these flood legends were the SAME flood event.