The dishonesty of creationists.

[Sunstone]

My question is, what is the evolutionists explanation of the well documented and discussed concept of irreducable complexity on the sub-cellular level ?

And please do not ask for proof of the documents or evidence of the discussions. Intellectually honest people know it is a factual proven science. Google it.

The notion of irreducable complexity has been debunked far too often -- and far too thoroughly --- for it to be taken seriously. For instance, it was thoroughly debunked at the Dover trial. Google it.

By the way, you've achieved something new for a creationist. That's the first time I've seen a creationist refer to intellectual honesty as a virtue.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't like dishonesty in creationists arguments but it's a no win situation, if I don't believe in evolution then I am a liar by trait according to some. Also creationists are human like everyone else and make mistakes and stretch the truth to their advantage at times. We have seen out right fraud on the evolutionist side down through the years also.

Yes but scientist have no problem exposing a falsehood and changing. Creationism, from what I have seen, does not. Everyone is entitled to what they will or won't except. ToE explains a lot and has a massive amount of data on its side. Creationism is the exact opposite and attempts to use the already collected data and evidences to make it an established theory. Unfortunately creationism gets dates, and geology wrong and completely mixed up. When shown this obvious error or attempt at dishonesty....creationist are reluctant or never change...instead continue to perpetrate their falsehood as if it is fact.

IMO.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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.

This has become all too true with the answersingenesis website. They have a huge section for kids...chock full of numerous video. They are absolute crap. The one show (X Nhilo) was talking about dinosaurs and 90% had nothing to do with the scientific method and almost everything as to what the bible supposedly said in reference to dinosaurs. This stuff is aimed at the youth. Their minds are like sponges trying to soak it all in and then people like this come along. About time the actual evidence gets to them they are so brainwashed they want nothing to do with truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Not only did I come from a very religious conservative Baptist family. I was also a Deacon and Youth Director in a Southern Baptist church less than ten years ago.
As a leader in the church, I felt it was my responsibility to learn as much about the Bible as I could. It was my research and an non-dogmatic approach that led me to eventually reject all reveled revelations, and take a more rational look at life.

Now I'm suspect. You might be a "mole"......

 

[Dirty Penguin]

My question is, what is the evolutionists explanation of the well documented and discussed concept of irreducable complexity on the sub-cellular level ?

There's NO such thing as "Irreducible Complexity"

Here's why......;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HV...196B5E80&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

 

[2nd mouse]

The notion of irreducable complexity has been debunked far too often -- and far too thoroughly --- for it to be taken seriously. For instance, it was thoroughly debunked at the Dover trial. Google it.

By the way, you've achieved something new for a creationist. That's the first time I've seen a creationist refer to intellectual honesty as a virtue.

The science on this issue that has been debunked depends on which side of the argument you are on. There are no absolute facts proving transitional speices and there never will be. I will admit to inter-specie mutations but those mutations have been thoroughly proven to be regressive as well as progressive which flies in the face of Darwins theory.

And further more, the amount of time that it would take for evolution to progress to it's present day point is staggeringly out of step with even the most liberal estimates of the earth's age.

Evolution is is a theory and nothing else. Both sides passionately refute the others conclusions with their own interpretation of the evidence. The fact is you believe in intellegent design because it supports your preheld belief in a Creator. You believe in evolution because it supports your preheld belief that there is no Creator. Both positions are based on faith.

It's a well known fact that Darwin was raised in a religious family. At the time of his "research" Darwin was years into a period of extreme doubt as to the validity of the religious beliefs he grew up with. He was looking for evidence to justify his doubt and thats exactly what he found at Galapagos.

He did what many scientists do today. They form a conclusion and set out to prove it.

 

[2nd mouse]

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.

How is this any different than how you learned about evolution?
Its called indoctrination and you were educated by the same method.

 

[2nd mouse]

There's NO such thing as "Irreducible Complexity"

Here's why......;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HV...196B5E80&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=28

This clip proves nothing. It's the exact same argument of gradualy progressive transitional mutation, they just try to apply it in reverse to a smaller subject.

To start with the speaker hjimself says "now this is not evidence but rather an argument" a pretty lame one in my opinion. He reminds me of one of those "3 card monty" guys on the boardwalk in Jersey.

Secondly and more importantly the example he was using to prove his theory is not legitimate. Irreducable complexity states that if a single component of the functioning subject is removed the functioning subject will no longer function as intended. This guy completely dismantled the whole thing and made something completely different from the remaining parts.

 

[challupa]

This clip proves nothing. It's the exact same argument of gradualy progressive transitional mutation, they just try to apply it in reverse to a smaller subject.

To start with the speaker hjimself says "now this is not evidence but rather an argument" a pretty lame one in my opinion. He reminds me of one of those "3 card monty" guys on the boardwalk in Jersey.

Secondly and more importantly the example he was using to prove his theory is not legitimate. Irreducable complexity states that if a single component of the functioning subject is removed the functioning subject will no longer function as intended. This guy completely dismantled the whole thing and made something completely different from the remaining parts.

I think you need to go back and watch again. That is not what he did. Take your bible hat off so that you can think clearly and go back and listen again.

 

[2nd mouse]

I think you need to go back and watch again. That is not what he did. Take your bible hat off so that you can think clearly and go back and listen again.

Well.... I don't know what to say to that. I watched it twice. Video was clear, sound was clear, he spoke english I understand english. My assessment of what he did is accurate.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To start with the speaker hjimself says "now this is not evidence but rather an argument" a pretty lame one in my opinion. He reminds me of one of those "3 card monty" guys on the boardwalk in Jersey.

He was countering an argument raised at the Dover trial. A trial he was called to testify in against Behe who presented irreducible complexity. Behe failed to show complexity in the flagellum.

Secondly and more importantly the example he was using to prove his theory is not legitimate. Irreducable complexity states that if a single component of the functioning subject is removed the functioning subject will no longer function as intended. This guy completely dismantled the whole thing and made something completely different from the remaining parts.

Yea...go back and look at it again. Not only did he remove one he went another 39 steps further...removing a total of 40 components to show that the flagellum was not Irreducibly Complex.

I think Ken Miller is more than qualified to address this issue. He's been doing it for many years now.

Ken Miller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller

Ken Miller on the Flagellum
The Flagellum Unspun

 

[challupa]

Well.... I don't know what to say to that. I watched it twice. Video was clear, sound was clear, he spoke english I understand english. My assessment of what he did is accurate.

Well can't help you then. He met the criteria by taking not just one but 40 and it still functioned. Why was that?

 

[Krok]

You asked for examples of fraud. You got them. Here's another:

A fly suspended in a chunk of amber, or fossilized tree sap, was long revered in scientific circles as a perfectly preserved specimen from 38 million years ago. However, New Scientist magazine reported that this prized specimen has actually turned out to be “an entomological crime on a par with the Piltdown hoax.” It seems that at least 140 years ago, some con artist actually sliced open the piece of amber, made a hollow in one of the halves, and placed a common latrine fly inside. This “fossil” was sold to England’s Natural History Museum back in 1922 and has since been examined by top scientists, even being mentioned in a book on fossils as recently as 1992.

Fact 1. It was a bee and not a fly.
Fact 2. It was discovered that it was a fraud in 1992.
Fact3. It was not mentioned in any scientific publication after that.
Fact 4. Scientists did not committ the fraud.

Maybe people should check facts in reliable publications before posting. Don't look at creationist websites. They lie.

There are many others.

Name them.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The science on this issue that has been debunked depends on which side of the argument you are on.

There are no "sides" in evolutionary biology, there is only science and pseudoscience.

There are no absolute facts proving transitional speices and there never will be.

Wrong.

• Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
• The euglena, which is halfway to plant
• Aquatic snakes
• Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared
• Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air
• The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear
• Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.

Source

And further more, the amount of time that it would take for evolution to progress to it's present day point is staggeringly out of step with even the most liberal estimates of the earth's age.

Wrong, you need to study more on evolutionary biology.

Evolution is is a theory and nothing else.

This statement says more about your lack of knowledge on the Scientific Method than anything else you have said thus far.

Both sides passionately refute the others conclusions with their own interpretation of the evidence. The fact is you believe in intellegent design because it supports your preheld belief in a Creator. You believe in evolution because it supports your preheld belief that there is no Creator. Both positions are based on faith.

The literal interpretation of the Bible is the Creationists pre-held belief. Biology is not concerned with a belief in a "Creator", nor does it hold a dogmatic belief in any supernatural explanations. All evidence points to naturally occurring phenomena. To insert the supernatural into ones "interpretation" of the evidence is decidedly unscientific and the very definition of superstition.

It's a well known fact that Darwin was raised in a religious family. At the time of his "research" Darwin was years into a period of extreme doubt as to the validity of the religious beliefs he grew up with. He was looking for evidence to justify his doubt and thats exactly what he found at Galapagos.

Again, biology is not concerned with a supernatural Creator. It seeks to neither prove nor disprove any god concept. It is only concerned with the obvious evidence occurring naturally in this universe.

He did what many scientists do today. They form a conclusion and set out to prove it.

Incorrect. While this may be justification for the Creationist, such an attitude would not serve scientific development, and is contrary to the Scientific Method.

 

[McBell]

There are no "sides" in evolutionary biology, there is only science and pseudoscience.

Wrong.

• Various gliding animals, such as the flying squirrel, which may be on their way to becoming more batlike
• The euglena, which is halfway to plant
• Aquatic snakes
• Reptiles with a "third eye" that only gets infrared
• Various fish that can live out of water for long periods, use their fins as legs, and breathe air
• The various jaw bones of Probainognathus that were in the process of migrating toward the middle ear
• Various Eocene whales, which had hooved forelimbs and hindlimbs.

Source



Wrong, you need to study more on evolutionary biology.




This statement says more about your lack of knowledge on the Scientific Method than anything else you have said thus far.


The literal interpretation of the Bible is the Creationists pre-held belief. Biology is not concerned with a belief in a "Creator", nor does it hold a dogmatic belief in any supernatural explanations. All evidence points to naturally occurring phenomena. To insert the supernatural into ones "interpretation" of the evidence is decidedly unscientific and the very definition of superstition.


Again, biology is not concerned with a supernatural Creator. It seeks to neither prove nor disprove any god concept. It is only concerned with the obvious evidence occurring naturally in this universe.


Incorrect. While this may be justification for the Creationist, such an attitude would not serve scientific development, and is contrary to the Scientific Method.

Excellent post.
But I do fear that it will fall upon the deaf ears of one who is proud of his ignorance.

 

[camanintx]

And further more, the amount of time that it would take for evolution to progress to it's present day point is staggeringly out of step with even the most liberal estimates of the earth's age.

Where did you get that idea?
Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans

There is plenty of time for evolution to have occurred as observed in the fossil record.

 

[rusra02]

Fact 1. It was a bee and not a fly.
Fact 2. It was discovered that it was a fraud in 1992.
Fact3. It was not mentioned in any scientific publication after that.
Fact 4. Scientists did not committ the fraud.

Maybe people should check facts in reliable publications before posting. Don't look at creationist websites. They lie.

Name them.

Fact 1. Fatal flaw fingers fake fossil fly - 13 November 1993 - New Scientist says it was a fly
Fact 2. OK
Fact 3. Out of embarrassment for having been snookered?
Fact 4. "Scientists did not commit the fraud." Maybe not, but they sure fell for it. As they did the Piltdown man.
I don't know if creationists lie or not. I have no doubt that evolutionists do.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know if creationists lie or not.

Spoken like a creationist.

 

[challupa]

Why is it that when it comes to religion otherwise intelligent people throw reason out the window? I just will never understand a creationists stand point. It seems so bizarre. I have never once seen anything poofed into existence. I would pretty much think creationists haven't either. What, did god just quit poofing?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fact 3. Out of embarrassment for having been snookered?

No...after it was discovered as a fake (using the scientific method mind you) there was no need to continue with this supposed specimen.

Fact 4. "Scientists did not commit the fraud." Maybe not, but they sure fell for it. As they did the Piltdown man.

Yes they "fell" for it....or did they? Not all accepted Piltdown man and it, once again, was the scientific method self correcting itself by showing the supposed evidence for Piltdown man was fraudulent.

I don't know if creationists lie or not. I have no doubt that evolutionists do.

Not everyone is an "evolutionist", whatever that means. Some, especially in the case of Piltdown Man were most like devised to make money.
Piltdown Man: The Great English Mystery Story

In fact the people back in the day perpetrating this fraud were most likely theist. In the above article it list Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who met Dawson in 1909 when he, Chardin, was a Seminary Student. As we read later in the article Chardin and Dawson become good friends and have a long history together massing this hoax.

But take note here. In 1953 it was found to be a hoax by using the scientific method and employing chemical analysis. Are you, a creationist, now in agreement with the scientific method and chemical analysis for dating bones etc....or were you pointing out the Piltdown Man to try and prove your point?

You can't have it both ways now. You either continue to use the Piltdown man as your evidence, thus agreeing with us that the scientific method in fact does work or you cease in using this example and move on to something else....What will it be....?