A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

Duplication of genes with subsequent mutations *does* increase total information.

And even without subsequent mutation, such events can alter phenotype...

 

[leroy]

You fail to understand how the conclusion was drawn - you are making hasty generalizations. It is not an appeal to the origin, it is concluding that the supposed evidence presented is window dressing and that the 'origin' IS actually what most such folk are driven to argue in favor of in the first place, facts be damned.
It is easily seen on these sorts of forums - creationists often start out full of bombast and confidence, having read a creationist book or website or seen some youtube videos, and they are ready to DEMOLISH some evilutionist god-haters with their newly found "facts". In short order, the shortcomings of their position becomes clear (the argument via analogy to human activity for IDC, for example). They soon find themselves unable to counter rebuttals. They soon realize, at some level, that they are wrong, and so fall back on their Faith, presenting bible verses instead of even trying to discuss the science.. I have seen it hundreds of times.

"They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views."

That is what it boils down to for many creationists - in my experience, that is the underlying premise for nearly all of them, the attempt to argue 'science' is just window dressing.

For me, there came a point, about 20 years ago, when I stopped giving 'new' creationists I encountered the benefit of the doubt that their scientific arguments were potentially valid and that they earnestly believed that the science they were presenting damaged evolution and supported creation. I reached that point after engaging dozens of such folk, without a single example in which their science was valid, legitimate, meaningful, etc. After reading numerous creationist books and hundreds of essays on sites like ICR, AiG, the DI, etc. - nearly all littered with half-truths, misdirection, even outright falsehoods - all being unquestioningly parroted and presented as TRUTH by the creationist of the day. And upon demonstrating the errors of their claims, and the claims of their sources, getting only threats of damnation and the posting of Scripture in return. After that, I saw little reason NOT to employ, as you want to describe it, the genetic fallacy. But it was a conclusion based on experience, not a prejudicial or otherwise uninformed position.


No, because there is empirical evidence for that which you could present if asked.

Were you to declare that Uranus was the largest planet because an ancient manuscript said so, and you were able to find some people with college degrees that agreed and had websites and books on the subject (all ultimately based on that ancient manuscript) and you entered a debate based on the information gleaned from those people, and your claims were refuted by those with real evidence, and you fell back on 'but this ancient manuscript said so!'...

What then?

Were I to describe that as 'he just thinks Uranus is the largest planet because of his devotion to some ancient manuscript', would that be a fallacy?

that at most would prove that creationists (the individuals) are stupid, biased, not-objective, etc. but it would not prove that creationism (the world view) is incorerect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Duplication of genes with subsequent mutations *does* increase total information.

That is a problem they can't seem to answer. Any working definition of "information" shows that new information enters the genome all of the time. ID believers try to use a circular definition of "information" using mostly hand waving to usually based upon the assumption of a a goal rather than results.

 

[Subduction Zone]

that at most would prove that creationists (the individuals) are stupid, biased, not-objective, etc. but it would not prove that creationism (the world view) is incorerect.

Not our duty to "prove me wrong". That is now how it works in the sciences. When one makes a claim that person has to prove that he is right. In the sciences one is treated as if one is wrong if one cannot support one's claims:

I can fly by flapping my arms, prove me wrong!

That is now how science is done. "I can fly by flapping my arms and this is how I do it . . . "

That would be acceptable. If I made a claim and then demonstrated how my claim was correct. There are an infinite number of unsupported claims that can be made. Scientists do not have the time or the ability to refute them all.

 

[Valjean]

Duplication of genes with subsequent mutations *does* increase total information.

True, as in the duplication of chromosome #21 giving rise to an individual with Down's syndrome. But a whole lineage of radically new creatures ("kinds?") rarely arises from a single, mutated individual. Usually its just plain old natural selection working on 'rearranged' info.

Genes can be duplicated, deleted or altered in many different ways, or just turned on or off. Occasionally you'll get a selective variation, but this isn't the primary driver of evolution.

"Increased information" is a very odd characterization of evolution. Altered information might be a little more accurate.

 

[leroy]

Not our duty to "prove me wrong". That is now how it works in the sciences. When one makes a claim that person has to prove that he is right. In the sciences one is treated as if one is wrong if one cannot support one's claims:

I can fly by flapping my arms, prove me wrong!

That is now how science is done. "I can fly by flapping my arms and this is how I do it . . . "

That would be acceptable. If I made a claim and then demonstrated how my claim was correct. There are an infinite number of unsupported claims that can be made. Scientists do not have the time or the ability to refute them all.

I agree,

The only point that I am making is that “tas8831” rejects creationism on the basis of the Genetic Fallacy.

He is basically arguing “cereationism is wrong because creationists belive in their model for the wrong reasons”

 

[tas8831]

that at most would prove that creationists (the individuals) are stupid, biased, not-objective, etc. but it would not prove that creationism (the world view) is incorerect.

And yet this exchange (between us) all started in regards to just that - "they" -

""They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.""

On the other hand, if what they are presenting as evidence fails, while those presenting evidence for the alternative does not, there are only so many valid conclusions to draw.

 

[tas8831]

That is a problem they can't seem to answer. Any working definition of "information" shows that new information enters the genome all of the time. ID believers try to use a circular definition of "information" using mostly hand waving to usually based upon the assumption of a a goal rather than results.

On top of that, most of them, even the 'professionals', can't seem to apply their criteria to a random DNA sequence unless a non-IDCist explains to them what the DNA sequence in question is. I have witnessed this in action - an IDist makes a claim about information in DNA; a sequence of DNA is presented to them; they are asked how much information it contains; they ask what it is - a gene or what?; they are asked why it matters; they declare that a gene has more information... etc...

 

[tas8831]

I agree,

The only point that I am making is that “tas8831” rejects creationism on the basis of the Genetic Fallacy.

He is basically arguing “cereationism is wrong because creationists belive in their model for the wrong reasons”

LOL!

Wow, no... Did you not read ANYTHING in that post of mine? It seems not. I reject creationism because there is no evidence supporting such a thing, and the evidence that does exist supports evolution.

Here, let me help you not be so blatantly disingenuous:

"It is not an appeal to the origin, it is concluding that the supposed evidence presented is window dressing...

...creationists often start out full of bombast and confidence, having read a creationist book or website or seen some youtube videos... In short order, the shortcomings of their position becomes clear (the argument via analogy to human activity for IDC, for example). They soon find themselves unable to counter rebuttals. They soon realize, at some level, that they are wrong, and so fall back on their Faith...

...I reached that point after engaging dozens of such folk, without a single example in which their science was valid, legitimate, meaningful, etc. After reading numerous creationist books and hundreds of essays on sites like ICR, AiG, the DI, etc. - nearly all littered with half-truths, misdirection, even outright falsehoods - all being unquestioningly parroted and presented as TRUTH by the creationist of the day. And upon demonstrating the errors of their claims, and the claims of their sources, getting only threats of damnation and the posting of Scripture in return...."​

Please stop with the misrepresentations.

Now, regarding your unwitting admission -

"He [me] is basically arguing “cereationism [sic] is wrong because creationists belive [sic] in their model for the wrong reasons”​

What are the RIGHT reasons for a creationist to 'believe' their 'model' to be correct?

I assume you would say that it is because of their..... Faith?

And if Faith is the sole reason a creationist should accept that the biblical story of creation is true, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that this is the case, regardless of the fact that the evidence is actually contrary to that 'belief', then how on earth is the 'genetic fallacy,' in this case, a fallacy?

 

[SkepticThinker]

For one of a number of notable examples, God says to test Him--specifically test Him--in tithes and offerings. Every natural law and I we know of math says, "Giving money away, neither saving nor investing it, should reduce total income."

I've seen God come through every time, hundreds of times. An observation that is that consistent, hundreds of times, goes against all statistical probability.

In this case "Statistical probability" means nothing more than "cherry picking to get the results I want."

Sorry but it's true.

 

[leroy]

I assume you would say that it is because of their..... Faith?

And if Faith is the sole reason a creationist should accept that the biblical story of creation is true, regardless of the fact that there is no evidence that this is the case, regardless of the fact that the evidence is actually contrary to that 'belief', then how on earth is the 'genetic fallacy,' in this case, a fallacy?

No. I would say that most creationists honestly and sincely believe that there are good reasons to accept their model (apart from faith)

 

[leroy]

LOL!

Wow, no... Did you not read ANYTHING in that post of mine? It seems not. I reject creationism because there is no evidence supporting such a thing, and the evidence that does exist supports evolution.

For that I apologize, I dindt noticed that you and ecco are different individuales

ecco said: ↑

They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.

ecco (not you) was responsable for making the genetic fallacy

 

[leroy]

And yet this exchange (between us) all started in regards to just that - "they" -

""They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.""

On the other hand, if what they are presenting as evidence fails, while those presenting evidence for the alternative does not, there are only so many valid conclusions to draw.

well even if this where true

""They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.""

It wouldn’t follow that “god did it” is wrong, at most it would follow that “God did it” is not supported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For that I apologize, I dindt noticed that you and ecco are different individuales



ecco (not you) was responsable for making the genetic fallacy

How did that quote of ecco's demonstrate that me mad a genetic fallacy?

 

[leroy]

How did that quote of ecco's demonstrate that me mad a genetic fallacy?

Because this seems to be his argument against creationism

"They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.""

that is not an argument..............agree? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

True, as in the duplication of chromosome #21 giving rise to an individual with Down's syndrome. But a whole lineage of radically new creatures ("kinds?") rarely arises from a single, mutated individual. Usually its just plain old natural selection working on 'rearranged' info.

Genes can be duplicated, deleted or altered in many different ways, or just turned on or off. Occasionally you'll get a selective variation, but this isn't the primary driver of evolution.

"Increased information" is a very odd characterization of evolution. Altered information might be a little more accurate.

Sounds like an other endless semantic game on the term information.

The truth is that in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need new “genetic stuff” (stuff that was not there) and evolution requires a step by step path, where each step is beneficial. (a step being a single mutation)…you can include some neutral mutations,

No path has ever been shown to exist,

We call this “genetic stuff” information, but you are always free to give it an other name.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because this seems to be his argument against creationism

"They believe in GodDidIt because anything else conflicts with their deeply held religious views.""

that is not an argument..............agree? Yes or no?

It was an observation. It was not meant to be an argument. So not a genetic fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like an other endless semantic game on the term information.

The truth is that in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need new “genetic stuff” (stuff that was not there) and evolution requires a step by step path, where each step is beneficial. (a step being a single mutation)…you can include some neutral mutations,

No path has ever been shown to exist,

We call this “genetic stuff” information, but you are always free to give it an other name.

What do you mean by "No path has ever been shown to exist."?

Of course we do not have a complete path but many clear steps have been observed. Of course if a person makes unrealistic demands one can claim not to be convinced. Since you do not have video of your whole life no one should believe that your baby pictures are of you, even if you have countless pictures of you growing up.

Creationists seem to understand what would happen if they used proper debating techniques. That is why there is no real debate. There is only correction of creationist errors.

 

[gnostic]

No, it's simple.

An hypothesis needs to be just what you said, but first must be conceived, mentally, first, the scientist(s) hypothesizes, then they ask themselves what is testable in that frame of reference.

I am going to answer what I highlighted in bold, first.

That’s not how hypotheses are formulated.

Before you begin writing a hypothesis, you always start with some initial observation of phenomena, first. Always, this come first, regardless of what happened next.

The initial observations, is like preliminary testing, that start with viewing a specific phenomena.

The next step, scientists asking the questions, like (A) WHAT is this (observed) phenomena is, followed by the next question of (B) HOW does this phenomena work. Those questions provide the starting point of investigation of how scientists would answer these questions, and provide the the first idea or concept of what the concept is and how it work.

These two basic questions on WHAT and HOW, plus that initial observation that start off the questioning, is what start off the first step of SCIENTIFIC METHOD, which is the FORMULATION OF THE QUESTION.

The formulation of question is important first step (in the scientific method), before they even started the next step to formulate the hypothesis.

To give you a real life example, a historical example: Albert Einstein and the dual nature of light - known as Photoelectric Effect (1905).

Einstein didn’t just write up the his hypothesis only from his “genius” brain, starting from nothing. Two things started off his hypothesis.

The first is that his hypothesis was building on knowledge of older discovery and older knowledge regarding to light (eg Heinrich Hertz’s discovering how spark can easily be made from ultraviolet light coming from electrode, and Maxwell Planck’s 1900 study of light being a packet of energy).

The second, come from his own observation of how light exhibited energy that have wave and particle properties, and that energy in light is carried in discrete quantized packets.

When he wrote and published this hypothesis on Photoelectric Effect in 1905, along with his hypothesis on Special Relativity, he and Planck (1900) have both started off Quantum Mechanics.

My point in this example, is that Einstein didn’t just conceive his hypothesis just “mentally”. His hypothesis started off with his own observations and build from existing theories or hypotheses before his own hypothesis.

Newton did the same things with gravity and law of motion. The idea first come from some initial observations and asking some basic questions, before he started with writing up his hypothesis.

And it was the same with Charles Darwin and his natural selection (started off with his voyage in 1830s, before he published his hypothesis on evolution, On Origin Of Species in 1859).

And it were the same for Friedmann, Robertson and Lemaître, who each independently used Einstein’s General Relativity to form the framework for the expanding universe during 1920s (better known as the Big Bang theory), but they started off only because of Edwin Hubble’s discovery in 1919, that the Milky Way is just one of many galaxies in the universe. Before Hubble in 1919, all astronomers thought the Milky Way was the entire universe. Lemaître, Friedmann and Robertson both asked the questions of the how universe as they know it back then, HOW did universe all started.

The next stage (in Scientific Method) after “Formulation of the Question”, is the FORMULATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS, which is attempt to answer those questions, with more detailed explanations, with possibly some mathematical statements and with predictions.

Your producing hypothesis from just mental process, is not how most hypotheses started off. It always started off with some initial but actual observations first, and then asking questions.

That’s all I want to say for now.

 

[gnostic]

Hypothesis - The Bible, since it is an ancient set of documents, yet ones covering many peoples, leaders, tribes and places, if it is valid, should concur with archaeology.

Sorry, but just because some cities mentioned in the Bible, doesn’t mean they are true, because Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, regarding to the Trojan War, had also described many cities that existed, some that were in Bronze Age, but much of existed contemporary to the author(s).

Simply naming some cities and kingdoms, are not good enough for archaeology.

In the Old Testament, some are correct, in which we can verified archaeologically, eg Hezekiah's Tunnel that served as the aqueduct for Jerusalem is a physical and archaeological evidence and have been conclusively dated to the late 7th century BCE, so that part of the Bible is correct. The part about the Assyrian waging war against Judah (and Israel) by Sennacherib, has also been confirmed independent Assyrian records in Sennacherib's time.

In another example, of Israel and Aram besieging Jerusalem, with Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser coming to Ahaz's aid, and receiving tributes from Ahaz, also in Assyrian independent records.

But in many cases, there are no confirmation to OT from archaeology, or it is fictional.

For instances, there are no archaeological evidences of Solomon's Temple, nothing (of such building) dated to the 10th century BCE, the supposed reign of Solomon. According to 1 Kings, Solomon was so wealthy, it was legendary, and yet we have not a single gold or silver coin minted in Solomon's time, with Solomon's name.

There are more historical and archaeological evidences for Ahaz and Hezekiah than there are for Solomon and David, which are nonexistent. And unlike Ahaz and Hezekiah, there are no independent historical records from contemporary kingdoms to that of David and Solomon.

Likewise, in Exodus 1, where it stated the Egyptian kings forced the descendants of Jacob into slavery and having the built Ramesses and Pithom. According to 1 Kings 6:1, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign (967 BCE), 480 years have passed, since Moses led Israelites out of Egypt. But 480 years would put Exodus at 1447 BCE, and add another 80 years for Moses' birth 1527 BCE. 1527 BCE would put the date to Ahmose I's reign, the founder of the 18th dynasty.

Sorry, but Ramesses II was the one who had it built and named after him, as Pi-Ramesses, literally meaning "House of Ramesses". Ramesses II was the 3rd king of the 19th century, reigning from 1279 to 1213 BCE.

Your Exodus 1 and 1 Kings 6 is historically and archaeologically incorrect. Pi-Ramesses didn't exist in Ahmose's time.

A couple more examples including Egypt/Mizraim and Uruk/Erech (said to be built by Nimrod), both mentioned in Genesis 10, which according to the author, they didn't exist until after the Flood. Both untrue and just simply wrong.

Egyptian culture existed as far back the 4th millennium BCE. Egyptian hieroglyphs started around 3100 BCE. And in mid-3rd millennium BCE, the pyramids of Giza were built. They are the largest pyramids, but not the oldest. All these dates, predated the supposed Flood of circa 2350 BCE.

One of the big problems with Genesis and Exodus, it mentioned no names of the other players, like the kings of Egypt. You say the Bible is reliable and verifiable, but how can you possibly verify anything with the names of kings from Egypt?

While Uruk was a thriving city during much of the 4th millennium BCE (which modern historians and archaeologists called the "Uruk Period"), predating the Sumerian civilisation of the 3rd millennium BCE. But older settlements at Uruk, clearly indicated the earliest dating as far back as 5000 BCE.

Here, in Genesis 10, we do have a name, a single name, Nimrod, but the only problem is that there are no record of Nimrod in Mesopotamian literature, not in Sumerian, not Akkadian and not in Old Babylonian. Nimrod supposedly had Babylon and Accad (or Akkad) built, but the only names I could find is that of Sargon I (or Sargon the Great), in association with Akkad (or the Biblical Accad), the founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire. The empire lasted only 100 years, but it brought forth the Akkadian literature, in a Semitic language. I don't think Nimord is Sargon.

As you can see, Genesis and Exodus don't match with actual archaeology. The problem with the Old Testament is that as far as archaeology is concerned, it is spotty, full of holes in its claims, and mostly unreliable.

Look them all up, BilliardsBall.