The dishonesty of creationists.

[Autodidact]

Well just to prove you wrong, I did a Google on it. Saltation is quick evolution as opposed to gradual change. Either one can't be seen.

Oooh, MoF actually looked something up on Google! Everyone stand back! Saltation is what ToE predicts won't happen, MoF. Let me know when you're ready to learn what ToE does say.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry but calling flies that have different capabilities, but they are still flies, different species isn't going to cut it. Flies reproduce flies, period.

So according to you all flies belong to the same species? You would disagree with the world's entemologists who believe that there are about 119500 known species of flies? On what basis do you disagree? Is it something to do with your definition of species? Does it differ from the scientific definition? Is there some reason you assert that this:

and this are the same species?

 

[camanintx]

Your not just pulling my leg....? Right...?

That is what the entire argument of irreducible complexity is about !

You cannot evolve a simple non-complex organism, which Darwin clearly says everything sprouted from, into a complex one like the Bacterial flagellum by Darwins method of minute incremental change. The BF requires multiple proteins present at the same time to be functional. Darwins theory does not allow for multiple changes occuring at once. At least not without alot of hoop jumping and misdirection.

Once again I must say, this not a difficult equation to understand. I am puzzled as to why so many cannot, or perhaps will not, grasp it.

Exaptation is a common method of evolutionary development. Maybe you should learn something about it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm sorry but calling flies that have different capabilities, but they are still flies, different species isn't going to cut it. Flies reproduce flies, period.

So...is what you're saying is that they're not different species but different kinds...?

 

[2nd mouse]

Exaptation is a common method of evolutionary development. Maybe you should learn something about it.

I addressed this type of "evidence" in a prior post. It's simply theory inserted into the gap of real evidence.

The arguments and "evidence" to support Darwins theory are conveluted intellectual nonsense in my opinion. Full of gaps which the "scientists" replace with theory and then call it science. The Creationist theory may still have some inconsistancies to iron out, but the general explanation is much simpler. Experiencial knowledge dictates that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one, or at least closer to the correct one.

 

[Valjean]

Creationism isn't a theory. It doesn't explain anything, it's just an assertion of agency, ie: "God did it." It doesn't explain how God did it, leaving magic as the apparent "mechanism."

A theory takes facts and observations about a phenomenon and posits an explanation.
Creationism takes an axiomatic conclusion and cherry-picks often out of context facts and observations to support it.

Creationism seems to think that any unexplained step in a process or feature of a phenomenon invalidates the whole theory, then goes on to assert that if every feature can't be explained the only other viable alternative is "creationism."

Evolution is change over time. Are the creationists here arguing that no change has occurred or that the mechanisms of change described by evolution theories are incorrect?

 

[camanintx]

You cannot evolve a simple non-complex organism, which Darwin clearly says everything sprouted from, into a complex one like the Bacterial flagellum by Darwins method of minute incremental change. The BF requires multiple proteins present at the same time to be functional. Darwins theory does not allow for multiple changes occuring at once. At least not without alot of hoop jumping and misdirection.

Once again I must say, this not a difficult equation to understand. I am puzzled as to why so many cannot, or perhaps will not, grasp it.

Does anyone else find this argument strangely similar to Zeno's "proof" that Achilles couldn't catch the tortoise?

What exactly do you think prevents an organism from using an existing structure to build a more complex structure with a different function? If this is what the whole argument for irreducible complexity is about then it's no wonder that it fails.

 

[camanintx]

I addressed this type of "evidence" in a prior post. It's simply theory inserted into the gap of real evidence.

Do you have a problem with theories using other theories to support their position? Should we toss out Ohm's Law and the rest of Electrical Theory because it draws on Atomic Theory to explain how it works?

 

[camanintx]

The Creationist theory may still have some inconsistancies to iron out, but the general explanation is much simpler. Experiencial knowledge dictates that the simplest explanation is most often the correct one, or at least closer to the correct one.

What is the "Creationist theory" and how is it much simpler than common descent?

 

[Autodidact]

Your not just pulling my leg....? Right...?

That is what the entire argument of irreducible complexity is about !

You cannot evolve a simple non-complex organism, which Darwin clearly says everything sprouted from, into a complex one like the Bacterial flagellum by Darwins method of minute incremental change. The BF requires multiple proteins present at the same time to be functional. Darwins theory does not allow for multiple changes occuring at once. At least not without alot of hoop jumping and misdirection.

Says you. Biologists who study it say different, and have published quite a lot of articles explaining the probably evolution of same. Behe is wrong.

Once again I must say, this not a difficult equation to understand. I am puzzled as to why so many cannot, or perhaps will not, grasp it.

Me too. My guess is that they've read too much Discovery Institute propaganda.

 

[Autodidact]

I addressed this type of "evidence" in a prior post. It's simply theory inserted into the gap of real evidence.

Exaptation is not evidence, it's a process. We know it happens, because of the ample evidence that it does. If you want to refute the evidence, then do so. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[Jose Fly]

Exaptation is not evidence, it's a process. We know it happens, because of the ample evidence that it does. If you want to refute the evidence, then do so. Just saying so doesn't make it so.

Right. 2nd Mouse is perfectly following items 1 and 6 from Jose Fly's Creationist Primer

1) Argue via bald assertion. Let’s say your evolutionist opponent presents you with a thorough explanation of his position, or a comprehensive rebuttal to something you posted. What do you do? Easy…simply tell him he’s wrong, biased, deceived, untruthful, blinded, or whatever. No need to get specific, just saying so is good enough.

6) Don’t look. Some of your evolutionist opponents may try and direct you to university websites or published scientific papers. Don’t look at them. All you have to do is fall back on tactic #1 above and baldly assert that they are fraudulent, “don’t prove anything”, or “are written by fallible men who worship science”. Again, no need to get specific; your say-so is good enough.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Right. 2nd Mouse is perfectly following items 1 and 6 from Jose Fly's Creationist Primer

1) Argue via bald assertion. Let’s say your evolutionist opponent presents you with a thorough explanation of his position, or a comprehensive rebuttal to something you posted. What do you do? Easy…simply tell him he’s wrong, biased, deceived, untruthful, blinded, or whatever. No need to get specific, just saying so is good enough.

6) Don’t look. Some of your evolutionist opponents may try and direct you to university websites or published scientific papers. Don’t look at them. All you have to do is fall back on tactic #1 above and baldly assert that they are fraudulent, “don’t prove anything”, or “are written by fallible men who worship science”. Again, no need to get specific; your say-so is good enough.

Ahhh yes.......:yes:

We call these tactics..."Circular Reasoning"....

 

[Valjean]

How is creationism or ID not simply magic?

 

[Man of Faith]

How is creationism or ID not simply magic?

Ever see a magician create something?

 

[Sunstone]

Ever see a magician create something?

And you haven't seen god create something, either.

 

[fantome profane]

Ever see a magician create something?

Yes, which is why direct observation is actually not the best evidence.

 

[Valjean]

Now watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat....

 

[Half Asleep]

Ever see a magician create something?

I think he meant Magic as in Harry Potter, not Harry Houdini.

 

[tumbleweed41]

A prime example of intellectual dishonesty and intentional ignorance.

From this THREAD

That is all that can be accepted in the evolution theory, real science.

What would falsify our hypothesis:
1) If we fail to find fossil evidence of the creatures that evolved into human and chimps.
2) If we failed to find a mechanism that would cause the behavior differences between chimps and humans. For example, wearing clothes, living in houses, driving cars, burying the dead, praying, using currency, talking, having a self consious, etc.
3) If we fail to observe the human and chimp evolution. If it takes millions of years to produce a human, then millions of years ago when this started we should be seeing it now with some percent of the population.
4) If we fail to find out why humans and chimps don't marry. In some instances there are stories of humans marrying their cousins.
5) If chimps and humans can't reproduce. There should be a great plasticity in the lab between chimps and human reproduction if we are cousins.

What would prove our hypothesis true:
1) If we find concrete proof in the fossil record. We have the common ancestor and we have fossils of every creature along the way of the evolution chain.
2) If we find the mechanism that changes the shapes and usage of bones in hands and feet that are required for this evolution. For example, how could random mutation account for the necessary bone structure for chimps to climb or humans to walk upright.
3) If we observe the common ancestor of chimps and humans producing this split of creatures as they are birthed.
4) Seeing a human and chimp on their honeymoon.
5) Being able to produce offspring between human and chimps.