The dishonesty of creationists.

[Nepenthe]

Cdesignists reminds me of the recent abject stupidity and/or lie coming from everyone's favorite ID propogandist Michael Behe. I believe it's been mentioned here once or twice already but Joe Thornton's work on the evolution of molecules is fascinating. Behe initially dismissed the research as "piddling", but later changed his mind because the research allegedly shows how evolution cannot produce anything more substantial than extremely small changes while ID is necessary to explain greater "leaps" in evolution (I have no idea what Behe is babbling about but that's what he claims). Anyway, Thornton fired off a letter to Carl Zimmer after Zimmer requested Thornton respond to Behe's claims. Thornton's smackdown of Behe's ignorant nonsense is just beautiful. I wonder if Behe, IDists and unthink tanks like The Discovery Institute will continue to distort and lie about Thornton's research. Time will tell I suppose.

"Behe’s argument has no scientific merit. It is based on a misunderstanding of the fundamental processes of molecular evolution and a failure to appreciate the nature of probability itself. There is no scientific controversy about whether natural processes can drive the evolution of complex proteins. The work of my research group should not be misintepreted by those who would like to pretend that there is."​

The Blind Locksmith Continued: An Update from Joe Thornton | The Loom | Discover Magazine

 

[Bware]

thats the problem though people (or sheepeople) will listen to and follow anything. if you tell a small child something enough times they will eventually accept it as the word of god (excuse the pun)

that is how some religious people get started, their parents/religious leader/ teachers drummed it into their heads at a young age and they don't question it later in life.

i'm not saying people dont find god later in life but the majority of religious people i know come from religious families.

Read my signature, it sums this up nicely.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Lie, Intellectual Dishonesty, or Ignorance-
Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.

Facts-

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
   • All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
   • Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
   • Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
   • Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
   • The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
   • Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
   • Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
   • Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
   • The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
   • Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
   • The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
   • When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
   • The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
   • Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
   • Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
   • Speciation has been observed.
   • The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
   
   Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
   
   The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.

An Index to Creationist Claims

 

[tumbleweed41]

How about certain leaders in the Creationist argument?

One of my favorites is Ray Comfort.

His greatest deception?
"I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even an Archaeopteryx—a dinosaur that produced a bird)."

What he is asking for is an example of a saltation . The sudden appearance of pseudo-transitional forms. Something which the theory of evolution says is impossible.

Thus what he is really asking for, and offering a supposed reward for, is something that the ToE actually says is counter to the ToE.

This also shows his complete lack of knowledge of the ToE, something he so vehemently opposes.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Speaking of saltation, how about the claims of the Actor/Creationist Kirk Cameron?
Ignoring the outlandish 'Banana Argument', lets go straight to his intellectual dishonesty concerning the chimera "crocoduck".
Kirk likes to argue that the existence of such a form is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, and that scientists have been "searching for it for hundreds of years" and that the nonexistence of crocoducks can therefore be used as an argument against Evolution.

The "crocoduck" argument appears to be derived from two basic falsehoods about intermediate forms.
(1) The falsehood that the theory of evolution predicts intermediate forms between species whether or not one is descended from the other.
(2) The falsehood that an intermediate form between two species must consist of a chimera composed of the front end of one and the back end of another.

 

[Alceste]

How about certain leaders in the Creationist argument?

One of my favorites is Ray Comfort.

His greatest deception?
"I will give $10,000 to the first person who can prove to me that they have found a genuine living transitional form (a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even an Archaeopteryx—a dinosaur that produced a bird)."

What he is asking for is an example of a saltation . The sudden appearance of pseudo-transitional forms. Something which the theory of evolution says is impossible.

Thus what he is really asking for, and offering a supposed reward for, is something that the ToE actually says is counter to the ToE.

This also shows his complete lack of knowledge of the ToE, something he so vehemently opposes.

I've noticed that tendency - it's SO frustrating. Since they (YECs) don't listen to any source of information other than the church, the church is free to utterly misrepresent something simply to attack it, and they (YECs) will never clue in they've not only misapprehended the entire field of biology, but are also marching out proudly into the world to make complete asses of themselves by repeating the BS about science they heard in church, then attacking it while believing they have an authoritative grasp on the subject.

Not sure that came out making any sense, but I'm riled up. It's an infuriating abuse of power on the part of the Ray Comforts of the world, and it's extremely unkind to misinform very stupid people in this way and send them out into the world to make fools of themselves.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

...
Ignoring the outlandish 'Banana Argument', lets go straight to his intellectual dishonesty...

I do not think ignoring the argument is the best way to go. There are some aspects of nature which do seem quite well suited to their task; I am not actually defending creationism here (there are obvious examples of gross inefficiencies and seemingly idiotic designs). I think it is best to confront them on their own ground. Point out the various things which almost certainly cannot be the "master stroke" of a "genius creator."

The "best case" scenario (in my opinion) for intelligent design would be establishing either that the general principles of evolution are consistent with an initial plan implemented at the onset of life on earth (by ET mind you) or that over time extra-solar objects containing "alien" organic material was found to be incorporated into the earth's ecology with the organic material being specifically designed to foster the creation of certain structures.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

I do not think ignoring the argument is the best way to go.

Have you ever seen a chimpanzee open a banana? You should. Comfort argues that the nub on the end was designed for opening the banana. Small problem is that no member of the animal kingdom other than humans actually use the nub to open it. The chimpanzees have a much better way. This combined with how the modern banana is a result of domestication shows just how idiotic the argument Comfort presents actually is.

If you ManTimeForgot are unable to have performed the research to see why Comfort’s banana argument is bunk then you have crossed the line from ignorance into choosing stupidity.

 

[ragordon168]

Speaking of saltation, how about the claims of the Actor/Creationist Kirk Cameron?
Ignoring the outlandish 'Banana Argument', lets go straight to his intellectual dishonesty concerning the chimera "crocoduck".
Kirk likes to argue that the existence of such a form is a prediction of the Theory of Evolution, and that scientists have been "searching for it for hundreds of years" and that the nonexistence of crocoducks can therefore be used as an argument against Evolution.

The "crocoduck" argument appears to be derived from two basic falsehoods about intermediate forms.
(1) The falsehood that the theory of evolution predicts intermediate forms between species whether or not one is descended from the other.
(2) The falsehood that an intermediate form between two species must consist of a chimera composed of the front end of one and the back end of another.

or in the case of human evolution that the steps on the evolutionary path should look like this:

looking absolutely like a human but just covered in hair. if they didnt look like this then they cant be related to us and must be an ape.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I do not think ignoring the argument is the best way to go. There are some aspects of nature which do seem quite well suited to their task; I am not actually defending creationism here (there are obvious examples of gross inefficiencies and seemingly idiotic designs). I think it is best to confront them on their own ground. Point out the various things which almost certainly cannot be the "master stroke" of a "genius creator."

Such as the banana being designed to fit in the human hand, with a convenient pull tab.

The "best case" scenario (in my opinion) for intelligent design would be establishing either that the general principles of evolution are consistent with an initial plan implemented at the onset of life on earth (by ET mind you) or that over time extra-solar objects containing "alien" organic material was found to be incorporated into the earth's ecology with the organic material being specifically designed to foster the creation of certain structures.

MTF

Pseudo-scientific speculation.

 

[MSizer]

I've mentioned it before, but I love Douglas Adams' comparison of human interepretations of the world with a puddle of water one day suddenly waking up and thinking: "Hmm, what an amazingly well designed hole this is for me. Someone painstakingly took the time to dig it out just perfectly so that it fits me to a tee." (slightly paraphrased)

 

[Gunfingers]

Scientific Creationism and Error

Good stuff in that article.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Blatant dishonesty from Answers in Genesis found in the second post of this thread, http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/87779-radio-dating-please-destroy.html

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Same goes for this thread, it is like a group of men beating up and mocking the infant mind of a child. I just don't get it...
Is someone actually asking to get the bashing you all are giving? Is someone so stupid to claim that YEC actually have it figured out?

 

[themadhair]

Same goes for this thread, it is like a group of men beating up and mocking the infant mind of a child. I just don't get it...
Is someone actually asking to get the bashing you all are giving? Is someone so stupid to claim that YEC actually have it figured out?

See that computer you are using? It was made using this thing called semiconductor theory which is in turn based on atomic theory.

In the other thread you have someone trying to deny radiometric dating, and thus atomic theory, for entirely religious reasons.

In short, such people are attempting to **** with the technological understanding that underpins our society. I don’t intend to sit back while such people attempt to take humanity back to the dark ages.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Carry on, and thank you for the explanation. I just had to ask!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Same goes for this thread, it is like a group of men beating up and mocking the infant mind of a child. I just don't get it...
Is someone actually asking to get the bashing you all are giving? Is someone so stupid to claim that YEC actually have it figured out?

I will continue to expose pseudo-scientific falsehoods whenever possible to prevent ignorance and superstition from becoming the rule of the land.

And yes, The ID, YEC crowd is very vocal, and influential in America.
Sitting silently on your hands while they corrupt biology, geology, and anthropology will only drag us back to the dark ages of science.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Have you ever seen a chimpanzee open a banana? You should. Comfort argues that the nub on the end was designed for opening the banana. Small problem is that no member of the animal kingdom other than humans actually use the nub to open it. The chimpanzees have a much better way. This combined with how the modern banana is a result of domestication shows just how idiotic the argument Comfort presents actually is.

If you ManTimeForgot are unable to have performed the research to see why Comfort’s banana argument is bunk then you have crossed the line from ignorance into choosing stupidity.

I have seen chimps eat bananas. They just squeeze the banana out. I have tried this before to no avail. I end up with mushed banana, and I hate eating banana paste. But then again your argument doesn't actually undermine the "Banana Argument." Their assertion is that the world is designed (not just designed period) for humans and humans alone. What other animals do is hardly relevant for them. If you want to attack their argument attack the truth value of the premise: earth was designed for humans. Show areas of earth's ecology which betray the implausibility of maximized earth-human interaction.

There is a big difference between attacking the premises and attacking the structure of an argument. A consistent argument is not necessarily a valid one. I am perfectly willing to posit that some of the premises are bunk in this particular version of the argument, but the structure is a little more difficult to undermine. Certain structures like the human eye seem to be extraordinarily purposed; the human eye possesses maximum photo-receptivity that is physically possible (the cells in the back of the eye are sensitive enough to detect a single photon; the cells are designed in parallel so that single photons don't produce pictures, only a group will). That is remarkable and is hard to explain the development of evolutionarily. I am not suggesting it is impossible; I do not know enough for sure, but when I consider that some elements of nature are basically garbage and then there are things like the eye which make me wonder if some intervention did not occur. I accept the argument that random chance should produce some spectacular successes and some spectacular failures. So here again I am not suggesting I believe that evolution is not possible.

I am the devil's advocate. I assume you understand why this is necessary? Or should I have to resort to immature debate techniques like ad hominem?

MTF

 

[darkendless]

Same goes for this thread, it is like a group of men beating up and mocking the infant mind of a child. I just don't get it...
Is someone actually asking to get the bashing you all are giving? Is someone so stupid to claim that YEC actually have it figured out?

Yes. YEC is an embarrassment to the developed minds of humanity.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Such as the banana being designed to fit in the human hand, with a convenient pull tab.


Pseudo-scientific speculation.

Such as rabbit digestion systems... Or the fact that lions were not originally afraid of humans, but are now (which undermines the assertion that earth's ecology was specifically designed for humans).


Now who is arguing with intellectual integrity? I didn't even say that I believed those. I said that hypothetically those would be the best case scenarios for a "true" intelligent design perspective. And attempting to make what I said sound foolish is a hallmark of poor debate. What I said was not "pseudo-scientific speculation" they were possibilities that could be turned into hypotheses if someone was so inclined (they are able to be falsified; earth may have lost some of the evidence necessary to do so to time and activity, which if we could establish that such was the case, they would be rendered moot issues from a scientific perspective, but they are things that one should at the very least consider if only to be able to discard them with a high degree of confidence). I also think it is important to keep an open mind to non-standard solutions to problems. Every now and again one of those "weird" solutions turns out to be the right one. And nothing I posited invokes magic or supernatural causation. ET interference (one way or another) =/= "God/gods" did it.

MTF