The dishonesty of creationists.

[Man of Faith]

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?

Even evolutionists have their poof problem. Life had to come about by some way, have you ever seen life come from non-life? But yet you believe that.

 

[McBell]

I don't know if creationists lie or not.

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that they do lie.
Or perhaps you are exceptionally good at protecting your willful ignorance?

Even evolutionists have their poof problem. Life had to come about by some way, have you ever seen life come from non-life? But yet you believe that.

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Though I do find it interesting that you have to be told this fact at least once per thread...

One would think that sooner or later you would actually learn.

 

[2nd mouse]

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.

Evolutionists claim that it happens by minute incremental change. One minor change at a time. The argument posed was based on massive 80% change at one time. His argument did not address incremental minute change.

In order to disprove the IC theory he should have shown that if you add back, one at a time the proteins he removed from the Flagelim, to the Secretory System, at each interval the SS continues to function in some form. That is not what he did. IF at any point durring the addition of single proteins the device fails to function Darwins theory fails. Instead he was moving multiple proteins at once.

Darwin from his 1859 book Origin of Species - "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

His presentation and conclusion were deception at worsed and clearly error at best.

I don't mean to be insulting but I'm a little puzzled that you don't understand that.

 

[Krok]

Even evolutionists have their poof problem. Life had to come about by some way, have you ever seen life come from non-life? But yet you believe that.

No, the ToE does not have a poof problem. The theory indicates that every living thing developed from something else.

Creationists do have the poof problem. You know, some unproofed entity waved his magic wand and POOF, everything was there immediately.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evolutionists claim that it happens by minute incremental change. One minor change at a time. The argument posed was based on massive 80% change at one time. His argument did not address incremental minute change.

In order to disprove the IC theory he should have shown that if you add back, one at a time the proteins he removed from the Flagelim, to the Secretory System, at each interval the SS continues to function in some form. That is not what he did. IF at any point durring the addition of single proteins the device fails to function Darwins theory fails. Instead he was moving multiple proteins at once.

Sometimes we call this "moving the goal post". Look, it was Behe that said "an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional"

Miller showed a known bacteria with 40 parts removed and it was still functional. Behe's statement (challenge) was not to take it apart...piece by piece and put it back together. It was not to try and account for each individual protein and surmise its function.

Take for instance the human body on a whole. Over time I can remove pieces and the person will not cease to function. The only thing I can think of that can not be removed and one could continue to function is the brain. Even though the heart is vital to our body it can be removed and replaced with an artificial one and function normally. It can be replaced with another person's heart (assuming compatibility) and the heart has a good chance of functioning. My sister in-law received a liver from her boyfriend (true story) and he and she are doing fine. Does this mean the body is reducible or irreducibly complex?

Darwin from his 1859 book Origin of Species - "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

Whoa...baby...Darwin would be thoroughly impressed if he could see what advances we have made in the field of biology and how now have a better understanding of how evolution works.....

I don't mean to be insulting but I'm a little puzzled that you don't understand that.

You're not being insulting because I was a little puzzled how one can even conceive of and IDer or god (for which there is no evidence)....being responsible for the bacteria flagellum. I'm interested how the two connect. Is it...because...'it appears so complicated to me that it must have been designed'..? Is that your position?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolutionists claim that it happens by minute incremental change. One minor change at a time. The argument posed was based on massive 80% change at one time. His argument did not address incremental minute change.

In order to disprove the IC theory he should have shown that if you add back, one at a time the proteins he removed from the Flagelim, to the Secretory System, at each interval the SS continues to function in some form. That is not what he did. IF at any point durring the addition of single proteins the device fails to function Darwins theory fails. Instead he was moving multiple proteins at once.

Darwin from his 1859 book Origin of Species - "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"

His presentation and conclusion were deception at worsed and clearly error at best.

I don't mean to be insulting but I'm a little puzzled that you don't understand that.

Again, perhaps you should study the scientific Theory of Evolution a bit more.
The great thing about science is that it is not static, Findings and theories from 100 years ago can be expanded, expounded upon and/or reformulated once new data is found.
Unlike the static creationist stance that is based on a story at least 3000 yrs old, and accepts no new data.

 

[Man of Faith]

Only because you refuse to accept the fact that they do lie.
Or perhaps you are exceptionally good at protecting your willful ignorance?


Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Though I do find it interesting that you have to be told this fact at least once per thread...

One would think that sooner or later you would actually learn.

I understand what you are saying, however even with evolution life had to come about some how. Either life poofed via a creator or it poofed via a natural mechanism.

 

[McBell]

Either life poofed via a creator or it poofed via a natural mechanism.

Really?
There is no other possible explanation?

Seems to me that you are far to fond of the word "poof".

 

[2nd mouse]

Sometimes we call this "moving the goal post". Look, it was Behe that said"an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional"

That is a misrepresentation of his view. And i will admit that my previous rebuttal was somewhat errant along these same lines.

The following is Michael Behe's explanation of IC. Refuting the mischaracterization of his views.


Dear Readers,

The January 2009 issue of Trends in Microbiology contains an article entitled “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Unfortunately, like many people, the authors have a mistaken view of irreducible complexity, as well as a very shallow idea of what a Darwinian “precursor” to an irreducibly complex system might be. I wrote a letter to the editor of the journal to point out these difficulties. Alas, they said they had no room to publish it. Below is the letter that I sent.

To the editor:

In their recent article “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Snyder et al. (2009) [1] attribute to me a view of irreducible complexity concerning the flagellum that I do not hold. They write “One advocate of ID, Behe, has argued that the bacterial flagellum shows the property of ‘irreducible complexity’, that is, that it cannot function if even a single one of its components is missing”. That isn’t quite right. Rather, I argued that necessary structural and functional components cannot be missing. In Darwin’s Black Box I wrote, “The bacterial flagellum uses a paddling mechanism. Therefore it must meet the same requirements as other such swimming systems. Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—it is irreducibly complex.” [2] A particular auxiliary component of the flagellar system, such as, say, a chaperone protein, may or may not be needed for the system to work under particular circumstances. However, if it is missing a necessary mechanical part, it simply cannot work.

That shouldn’t be controversial. In fact Snyder et al (2009) avail themselves of the same reasoning when they write about a hook-basal-body complex recently discovered in Buchnera aphidicola, which “lacks ... the gene for flagellin”. [1] They conclude it “must have some role other than motility.” Well, why must it have some role other than motility? Because, of course, it is missing the paddle, and therefore can’t work as a paddling propulsion system. In other words, in my sense of the term, it is irreducibly complex.

Snyder et al (2009) think Buchnera’s derived structure “illuminates flagellar evolution by providing an example of what a simpler precursor of today’s flagellum might have looked like – a precursor dedicated solely to protein export rather than motility”. [1] I think that simplicity should be distrusted. The activity of a protein export system has no obvious connection to the activity of a rotary motor propulsion system. Thus the difficulty of accounting for the propulsive function of the flagellum and its irreducible complexity remains unaddressed. In regard to the flagellum’s evolution, Snyder et al’s (2009) advice to distrust simplicity is sound and should be followed consistently. [1]

Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
​

 

[McBell]

That is a misrepresentation of his view. And i will admit that my previous rebuttal was somewhat errant along these same lines.

The following is Michael Behe's explanation of IC. Refuting the mischaracterization of his views.


Dear Readers,

The January 2009 issue of Trends in Microbiology contains an article entitled “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Unfortunately, like many people, the authors have a mistaken view of irreducible complexity, as well as a very shallow idea of what a Darwinian “precursor” to an irreducibly complex system might be. I wrote a letter to the editor of the journal to point out these difficulties. Alas, they said they had no room to publish it. Below is the letter that I sent.

To the editor:

In their recent article “Bacterial flagellar diversity and evolution: seek simplicity and distrust it?” Snyder et al. (2009) [1] attribute to me a view of irreducible complexity concerning the flagellum that I do not hold. They write “One advocate of ID, Behe, has argued that the bacterial flagellum shows the property of ‘irreducible complexity’, that is, that it cannot function if even a single one of its components is missing”. That isn’t quite right. Rather, I argued that necessary structural and functional components cannot be missing. In Darwin’s Black Box I wrote, “The bacterial flagellum uses a paddling mechanism. Therefore it must meet the same requirements as other such swimming systems. Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts—a paddle, a rotor, and a motor—it is irreducibly complex.” [2] A particular auxiliary component of the flagellar system, such as, say, a chaperone protein, may or may not be needed for the system to work under particular circumstances. However, if it is missing a necessary mechanical part, it simply cannot work.

That shouldn’t be controversial. In fact Snyder et al (2009) avail themselves of the same reasoning when they write about a hook-basal-body complex recently discovered in Buchnera aphidicola, which “lacks ... the gene for flagellin”. [1] They conclude it “must have some role other than motility.” Well, why must it have some role other than motility? Because, of course, it is missing the paddle, and therefore can’t work as a paddling propulsion system. In other words, in my sense of the term, it is irreducibly complex.

Snyder et al (2009) think Buchnera’s derived structure “illuminates flagellar evolution by providing an example of what a simpler precursor of today’s flagellum might have looked like – a precursor dedicated solely to protein export rather than motility”. [1] I think that simplicity should be distrusted. The activity of a protein export system has no obvious connection to the activity of a rotary motor propulsion system. Thus the difficulty of accounting for the propulsive function of the flagellum and its irreducible complexity remains unaddressed. In regard to the flagellum’s evolution, Snyder et al’s (2009) advice to distrust simplicity is sound and should be followed consistently. [1]

Michael J. Behe
Professor of Biological Sciences
Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA 18015
​

the dishonesty of creationists is exactly right.
and you, 2nd Mouse,are merely proving the thread title correct:

Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry-- From a speech delivered at Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference: Behe, Michael)

Irreducible Complexity: The Challenge to the Darwinian Evolutionary Explanations of many Biochemical Structures

now let us go to the website sited in the above quote:

An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution. Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for natural selection to have anything to act on.

So it is NOT a misrepresentation of his view.
Unless of course you are going to flat out call Mr. Behe a liar on his own words.
God luck with that.

 

[rusra02]

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



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.



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....?

I use "evolutionist" to refer to someone who believes in and supports that theory, as I assume you use "creationist" to refer to someone who believes in and supports creation as the truth. While I believe in creation and a Creator, I do not subscribe to the unscriptural and baseless teachings of creationists that the earth was formed 6,000 ago and that the creative days of Genesis are 24 hour days. True Christians are not anti-science, nor do we disagree with the so-called scientific method. We simply acknowledge its limitations. The point of the Piltdown affair is scientists were only too happy to believe in it's veracity because of their scientific bias for the unproven theory of evolution. I can understand their embarrassment and desire 'to move on' . The Piltdown man fraud pales in comparison with the fraudulent claim by many evolutionists (Richard Dawkins, for example) that evolution has been proven, and that everyone who thinks otherwise is an uneducated dolt.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Piltdown man fraud pales in comparison with the fraudulent claim by many evolutionists (Richard Dawkins, for example) that evolution has been proven, and that everyone who thinks otherwise is an uneducated dolt.

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.

• 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.

SOURCE

But you are not an uneducated dolt, just intentionally ignorant.

 

[camanintx]

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.

And how long did Christians fall for the Shroud of Turin?

 

[camanintx]

Even evolutionists have their poof problem. Life had to come about by some way, have you ever seen life come from non-life? But yet you believe that.

Can you describe the difference between "life" and "non-life"?

 

[tumbleweed41]

It is of interest to note, when discussing Professor Behe, that his own employer, Lehigh University, released the following statement...
"It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

 

[camanintx]

In order to disprove the IC theory he should have shown that if you add back, one at a time the proteins he removed from the Flagelim, to the Secretory System, at each interval the SS continues to function in some form.

Maybe you should read this paper.

Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I use "evolutionist" to refer to someone who believes in and supports that theory, as I assume you use "creationist" to refer to someone who believes in and supports creation as the truth. While I believe in creation and a Creator, I do not subscribe to the unscriptural and baseless teachings of creationists that the earth was formed 6,000 ago and that the creative days of Genesis are 24 hour days.

You must understand a few things then. When you use an ambiguous word such as "evolutionist" you seem to generalize scientist. The field of science is vast. A geologist can't necessary be refereed to as a evolutionist. He or she is not really dealing with organic material in a way a biologist would. It's widely known that creationist even refer to Astronomers as "evolutionist". I'm not sure why seeing as though their field of science has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Unless you make clear to us what kind of creationist you are (OEC, YEC, Strict Bible Literalist YEC) then we classify you as a "creationist".

True Christians are not anti-science, nor do we disagree with the so-called scientific method.

That is a debate for you and other Christians now isn't it? There seems to be other "Christians" here at RF and other places who call themselves true christians but vehemently disagree with the scientific method. Creationist appear to be very much divided in their interpretations of their scripture. Like you say, you accept the scientific method (I assume to a degree) but reject the classical teaching of the biblical day being a 24hr period. Where as other creationist disagree with that stance and deem your understanding not to be based on (biblical fact).

We simply acknowledge its limitations.

As do we. But we also understand that while the scientific method has limitations the concept of an IDer holds far greater limitations. There's nothing that can be done with the ideology to help us understand the natural world and it leads to speculations, pseudo-science.

The point of the Piltdown affair is scientists were only too happy to believe in it's veracity because of their scientific bias for the unproven theory of evolution.

The problem with your understanding here is that scientist were not "all too happy". While there were some in the scientific community of the day that did believe the hoax....there were plenty of others who outright rejected Piltdown Man. Give credit where it is due. Scientist were not unanimous in accepting this fraud. Also understand that many years later new scientific methods were developed allowing scientist to accurately test these (so-called findings) and eventually exposed it for hat it really was. This is how science and the scientific method works.

The same can be applied to your beliefs. We can use the method in determining if the so-called "deluge" happened and we find that it didn't and have the evidence to show it didn't. We can and have shown that man had a common ancestor and they were not the biblical "Adam or Eve". In fact as we apply the method more and more...your biblical stories of creation and genealogy begin to breakdown. This is one of the reasons scientist can not and do not rely on biblical text to shed light on the natural world. The information contained in it is incorrect and anyone who uses it to try and make sense of things leads themselves down the road of continuous speculation...such as dinosaurs coexisting with man....and a worldwide flood.

I can understand their embarrassment and desire 'to move on' . The Piltdown man fraud pales in comparison with the fraudulent claim by many evolutionists (Richard Dawkins, for example) that evolution has been proven, and that everyone who thinks otherwise is an uneducated dolt.

Piltdown Man was far from being an embarrassment. Again, this is how science works. It's self correcting. The same can not be said about those who believe in the stories of the bible (Creation, Great WWF). When it was exposed, by a scientist mind you, to be a hoax the community moved on. It certainly wasn't a blow at all to archeology, anthropology or biology. In fact the testing methods that were used allow the scientific community to be on guard for frauds like this. That wasn't the first time someone wanted to defraud the scientific community for fortune or fame. It won't be the last either. But now it becomes harder to do because technology that wasn't available to us long time ago is now at our fingertips and we use them. I can't speak for Dawkins but if you choose to then provide a quote from him. And for the record...Evolution is a well established theory that you and others have difficulty refuting.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And how long did Christians fall for the Shroud of Turin?

Yea, let's not forget weeping or bleeding statues either....

Church custodian on trial in Italy for weeping statue hoax

 

[challupa]

Even evolutionists have their poof problem. Life had to come about by some way, have you ever seen life come from non-life? But yet you believe that.

No evolutionists don't have a "poof" problem. Evolution is not about what created life, but rather, about how life evolved AFTER being created. Very important distinction.

 

[Man of Faith]

No evolutionists don't have a "poof" problem. Evolution is not about what created life, but rather, about how life evolved AFTER being created. Very important distinction.

I didn't say evolution has a poof problem, I said evolutionists have a poof problem. Very important distincion. If you want to believe in evolution, you have to believe that life came into existence, poofed if you will, via natural mechanisms or you could believe in a creator, but either way you have a poof.