The dishonesty of creationists.

[Jose Fly]

2nd Mouse,

You do understand what's going on here, right? Behe's irreducible complexity definition is that "If you take away any of its parts, it ceases to function". His favorite example of IC was bacterial flagella (although as far as I know, he never specified exactly which type of flagellum he was talking about--there are many different types). Thus, Behe's argument is...

"If you remove any of the parts of the bacterial flagellum, it ceases to function, thus it is irreducibly complex."

That argument was falsified upon discovering that a subset of the parts of a bacterial flagellum functions quite well as a secretory system. Since that time, specific scenarios for the evolution of certain bacterial flagella have been published in the scientific literature (LINK).

What'll be interesting is to see your reaction to this information. Objective people incorporate this data into their thinking and adjust their arguments accordingly. Typical internet creationists however tend to ignore the data and continue on making the same arguments as if no one had ever said anything to them.

What will you do?

 

[McBell]

but either way you have a poof.

says you.
But then you have said all manner of things in thread alone to make me question your actual knowledge of such things.

 

[challupa]

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.

You really don't get it do you? I was talking about evolution not how it all came to be in the first place. Evolution does not have anything to do with how things were created so therefore evolutionists don't have to deal with any "poofing". We readily admit we don't know how the first life was created, that first spark. We just explain what happened after that. Really, is this so hard to understand? I don't care if god poofed the first spark of life into existence, I am interested in the process after that.

 

[Man of Faith]

You really don't get it do you? I was talking about evolution not how it all came to be in the first place. Evolution does not have anything to do with how things were created so therefore evolutionists don't have to deal with any "poofing". We readily admit we don't know how the first life was created, that first spark. We just explain what happened after that. Really, is this so hard to understand? I don't care if god poofed the first spark of life into existence, I am interested in the process after that.

So you admit that you have never seen the first life form come about by natural causes, but you believe it did. And at the same time you castigate creationists for believing something they haven't seen.

 

[Man of Faith]

says you.
But then you have said all manner of things in thread alone to make me question your actual knowledge of such things.

I try to talk in an 8th grade language so everyone can understand.

 

[McBell]

I try to talk in an 8th grade language so everyone can understand.

Nice try,
but your "8th grade language" cover story does not hide your blatant ignorance of evolution.

 

[challupa]

So you admit that you have never seen the first life form come about by natural causes, but you believe it did. And at the same time you castigate creationists for believing something they haven't seen.

No, I refer only to believing in evolution which is what happened after the first spark of life. No one here knows how the first spark of life began. No one is saying that. I never said that the first life form came from natural causes either. I have no idea where it came from. I do know that after that spark of life was formed, evolution was the process that took us from then to now. This is really that hard for you to understand?

 

[Man of Faith]

No, I refer only to believing in evolution which is what happened after the first spark of life. No one here knows how the first spark of life began. No one is saying that. I never said that the first life form came from natural causes either. I have no idea where it came from. I do know that after that spark of life was formed, evolution was the process that took us from then to now. This is really that hard for you to understand?

Have you ever seen the evolution that you believe in? Have you seen humans evolved from something else? Let's face it, you haven't seen it, yet you believe it. I will consider your argument defeated.

 

[McBell]

I will consider your argument defeated.

of course you will.
But then, you considered any argument that disagrees with your beliefs defeated even before they were presented.

So once again you have protected your beliefs from the truth and facts.
GOOD JOB!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So you admit that you have never seen the first life form come about by natural causes, but you believe it did. And at the same time you castigate creationists for believing something they haven't seen.

How life began has never been the argument here. How life changed over time, micro/macro evolution, speciation......these things are on the table. No one here is arguing Abiogenesis.

 

[Jose Fly]

The problem is MoF, all we see is evolution. When we study populations, that's all they do. The only way we've ever seen new species come about is via evolution. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that that's the way it was in the past as well.

Contrast that with creationism. You've never seen your god create anything--not even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species.

That you would even try and compare the two is laughable.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Have you ever seen the evolution that you believe in? Have you seen humans evolved from something else? Let's face it, you haven't seen it, yet you believe it. I will consider your argument defeated.

You're not serious are you....?

So you've seen your god create...???.....:sarcastic

 

[McBell]

You're not serious are you....?

So you've seen your god create...???.....:sarcastic

Of course he hasn't.

However, I suspect that this is his thinly veiled attempt to show that evolution is on the same belief level as God.

 

[Man of Faith]

The problem is MoF, all we see is evolution. When we study populations, that's all they do. The only way we've ever seen new species come about is via evolution. Thus, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that that's the way it was in the past as well.

Contrast that with creationism. You've never seen your god create anything--not even a single grain of sand, let alone an entire species.

That you would even try and compare the two is laughable.

Actually all you see is adaptation and the capability of adaptation could have been built in by a creator.

 

[2nd mouse]

2nd Mouse,

You do understand what's going on here, right? Behe's irreducible complexity definition is that "If you take away any of its parts, it ceases to function". His favorite example of IC was bacterial flagella (although as far as I know, he never specified exactly which type of flagellum he was talking about--there are many different types). Thus, Behe's argument is...

"If you remove any of the parts of the bacterial flagellum, it ceases to function, thus it is irreducibly complex."

That argument was falsified upon discovering that a subset of the parts of a bacterial flagellum functions quite well as a secretory system. Since that time, specific scenarios for the evolution of certain bacterial flagella have been published in the scientific literature (LINK).

What'll be interesting is to see your reaction to this information. Objective people incorporate this data into their thinking and adjust their arguments accordingly. Typical internet creationists however tend to ignore the data and continue on making the same arguments as if no one had ever said anything to them.

What will you do?

Well right after I post this I will have some lunch.

Well I thought his article that I posted addressed that quite well. good enough to satisfy me at least.

Look we all know that there never will be any data presented that will change your view. You begin this discussion with a bias as I do, as everyone does. You will continue to embrace arguments that support your predetermined view and reject any that does not.

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.

I am not a rabid creationist. That is to say I believe some form of evolution could fit quite nicely with the intellegent design theory. You on the other hand, as well all other proponents of evolution that I've heard, flat out reject everything about the creationists theory.

The reason that you, and the scientists you support, do that is because they believe that mankind is the "end all and beat all" of intellegent beings. Their arrogance makes them reject even the possibilty of a life form with a deeper understanding than them. They proport to be able to prove the existance of more than 11 dimensions of existance, but only consider the ones they are living in to determine the origin of life. In my estimation that is just proposterous on it's face.

The fact is, as I stated earlier, you will never serioously consider the possibility of Intellegent design becasue you are afraid of the implications if it is true. That one day you may have to stand before an almighty God and give account for how you spent this life trying to convince people of His non-existance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually all you see is adaptation and the capability of adaptation could have been built in by a creator.

Um...no. We see evolution, i.e. populations changing their allele frequencies, all the time, every single day. Every time we've documented the emergence of a new species, it's come about via evolution.

And again, contrast this with the fact that you've never seen your god create anything at all.

 

[McBell]

The fact is, as I stated earlier, you will never serioously consider the possibility of Intellegent design becasue you are afraid of the implications if it is true. That one day you may have to stand before an almighty God and give account for how you spent this life trying to convince people of His non-existance.

Problem is that this is NOTHING more than your opinion.
Your presenting it as fact merely further points out the truth of the thread title.


Are you even going to acknowledge your blatant error concerning Behe?
I am not expecting it, but thought I would ask any way.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well I thought his article that I posted addressed that quite well. good enough to satisfy me at least.

How so? Surely you're not going to simply link to something and say "That satisfies me" without further explanation, are you? That's not discussion or debate; that's nothing more than preaching.

Look we all know that there never will be any data presented that will change your view.

How do you know that?

You begin this discussion with a bias as I do, as everyone does. You will continue to embrace arguments that support your predetermined view and reject any that does not.

How do you know my view is "predetermined", and not otherwise derived?

How do you know so much about me?

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.

If all that is so, then the data should reflect it, right? So we should be able to arrive at the above conclusions based on nothing more than an examination of the data.

So how about we do that? Let's stick to the data and see where it takes us, ok?

I am not a rabid creationist. That is to say I believe some form of evolution could fit quite nicely with the intellegent design theory. You on the other hand, as well all other proponents of evolution that I've heard, flat out reject everything about the creationists theory.

What is the "creationist theory"?

The reason that you, and the scientists you support, do that is because they believe that mankind is the "end all and beat all" of intellegent beings. Their arrogance makes them reject even the possibilty of a life form with a deeper understanding than them.

Again, how did you reach a place where you can make these sorts of judgments about me? Also, how do you reconcile the above with the existence of so many scientists who are not atheists?

They proport to be able to prove the existance of more than 11 dimensions of existance, but only consider the ones they are living in to determine the origin of life. In my estimation that is just proposterous on it's face.

I seriously doubt either one of us is qualified to pass judgment on the mathematics behind that level of physics.

The fact is, as I stated earlier, you will never serioously consider the possibility of Intellegent design becasue you are afraid of the implications if it is true. That one day you may have to stand before an almighty God and give account for how you spent this life trying to convince people of His non-existance.

Amazing how you have deemed yourself qualified to make such a sweeping judgment of me and my character, despite the fact that we've never once met.

Now, let's return to the Behe/flagellum argument.

My first question for you is: Did you read the PNAS paper I linked for you?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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
​

Man....been busy....I didn't even see this one today. I would respond but thanks to Mestemia..I don't need to....

 

[McBell]

Man....been busy....I didn't even see this one today. I would respond but thanks to Mestemia..I don't need to....

You are welcome.
I wonder if 2nd Mouse will see it......?