Mildly funny, but it’s hard to feel sorry for creation science advocates when you read the crap that that page linked to (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brianmcnicoll/bm20050510.shtml) Few things are more annoying than assholes who are completely ignorant of the facts but act like smug know it alls.
Wow aint that the pot calling the kettle ignorant. Where’s is that mirror when you need it?
You can say that again:)
Just show me where I’ve been ignorant of the facts 
Or if I’ve made claims like scientists know how life began and the door is closed on that subject, or that two gorillas mated and gave birth to a humans. Morons like that McNicols guy must think they’re so clever when they refute those “facts”.
The story is a funny one, especially because it’s indicting to me since I don’t have a Ph.D. in biology, chemistry, astronomy, philosophy or mathmatics, unlike all the evolutionists that post on this forum.
I understand the point of the story to be that the subject person ignores indirect evidence. However, what really makes this funny is not that the fact that the evidence is indirect, but that the evidence (albeit indirect) demonstrates such an absurdly high probability of the true cause.
The irony is that evolution is not that way at all.* The probabilities for go-to-you evolution are absurdly low, and I mean freaky absurdly low. Has anyone read – from evolutionists themselves – the absurdly low probabilities that they attribute to goo-to-you evolution? I’m not a scientist, statistician or mathematician, but those seem like such low probabilities that if I believed them notwithstanding the low probabilities, then I think I’d have to admit that my belief was boarding on a religious belief, which was close to incredulous. And, I’d have to wonder if – although the religious people admit that their belief in creation is mostly driven by their belief in a religiion – I might have to start admitting that I’m following my belief system with religious fervor, notwithstanding the probabilities.
*see disclosure about my lack of expertise
The probabilities for go-to-you evolution are absurdly low, and I mean freaky absurdly low.
I’m not really sure what this means, esp “go-to-you”?
I’ve never read anywhere, much less from “evoluntionists” that the probabability of evolution happening is so low as to be hard to imagine.
From the International Socieity for Complexity, Information and Design … http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_PrimitiveCell_112302.pdf
They evaluated the probability that the RNA of the first cell was assembled randomly in the time available (1.11 billion years). You’ll have to read the paper for the other assumptions, etc.
“With all these assumptions, we find that the probability of assembling the RNA required for even the most primitive (12-14) cell by random processes in the time available is no more than one in 10-to-the-79 .”
I’ve read elsewhere that there’s app. 10-to-the-80 electrons in the universe (just to give an idea of scale).
As I said, I’m not an expert in any of these areas; so, have at it. I’m open to contrary numbers or if you can refute the paper’s assumptions. Personally, I think allowing 1.11 billions years for this to happen is pushing it, but that’s just me.
OK, that’s an interesting paper. But that paper (and I’ve only skimmed part of it as it’s pretty long) is dealing with the probabilty of assembling the first cell, not the probability of evolution of exiting lifeforms.
The origins of life are pretty mysterious to everyone. The guy who wrote that has to make certain assumptions that may or may not be correct - it’s imposible to say. I do note that he is focusing on proteins, when many people think that autocatalytic RNAs may have performed many functions in the early cells. But regardless, I dont think science has a good answer for the origin of life at this time. That paper, while thought provoking, is hardly definitive evidence that cells could not have spontaneously assembled from macromolecules. By contrast, there is no evidence that that happend either.
On the other hand, if one looks at evolution as properly defined (this does not include the origins of life itself), there is abundant evidence for it, and the general principles are accepted by the vast majority of scientists out there. The only real opponents are creationists and ID advocates, who somehow see evolution as imcompatible with their religion (and I and many others argue that it’s not, it’s only incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.) You dont see any atheist scientists doubt the principles of evolution simply because the evidence isnt good enough - it’s always a religious objection.
To people who insist on a strict reading of the creation story, I would ask this: if the line in the Bible referring to the “four corners of the earth” can be read allegorically, why cant the creation story as well?
To people who insist on a strict reading of the creation story, I would ask this: if the line in the Bible referring to the “four corners of the earth” can be read allegorically, why cant the creation story as well?
One such person who holds this theory is Dermott Mullan, an astrophysicist at the University of Delaware, who recently wrote an article for the New Oxford Review titled: “Fundamentalists Inside the Catholic Church: A Growing Phenomenon.” Mullan espoused his “Day-age” theory with an earlier article for The Catholic Answer about four years ago titled: “The Signature of God: Science in the Bible.”
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/earth-young-old3.htm
Hmmmm… he’s also the guy who wrote that paper on the probability of RNA self assembly. Not that the fact that he’s a astrophysicist not a biologst, or that he’s certainly coming from a “God created life” perspective invalidates the paper, (the guy might be brilliant) but it does raise an eyebrow. I wish I could better critically evaluate it, but you would probably have to be really well versed in both biology and complex systems, and I’m lacking in the latter department.
Maybe Francois will give it a look…
“I dont think science has a good answer for the origin of life at this time.”
I must agree with you. My point (and the point of the paper) is that incidentally if you’re going to believe in the origin of life by natural means, then you’re stuck with probabilities that are absurd. And, if you believe that, then that belief is a religion (i.e., based on faith) just like a Bible-based religion (i.e., based on faith).
“That paper, while thought provoking, is hardly definitive evidence that cells could not have spontaneously assembled from macromolecules.”
Since I don’t know much about science, I don’t know what “macromolecules” are. But, if I understand you’re point, I agree with you that the paper is not saying it’s impossible. The paper is merely saying that, according to its assumptions, the chances of it happening are 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
“By contrast, there is no evidence that that happend either.”
Again, I think I agree that the paper’s point is not to point out that there is evidence that it did or did not happen; it’s point is only that if you believe that it happened then those are basically the absurd probabilities you’re staring right in the face.
“On the other hand, if one looks at evolution as properly defined (this does not include the origins of life itself), there is abundant evidence for it, and the general principles are accepted by the vast majority of scientists out there.”
Here’s where I think we need to be careful of equivocation (as you astutely pointed out) with regard to “evolution” (observational evolution v. origin evolution). If “evolution” (observable) means natural selection, then even six-day creationists (e.g., John Q. Creationist in the article above) have no problem with that. After all, this would fall under his direct evidence (observable) example. Right? We have direct evidence that the beaks on finches in Galapagos Islands changed. We have direct evidence (observable) that you can breed animals to eliminate certain characteristics. That’s observable (i.e., direct evidence). Right? I think I hear you defining “evolution” as going downstairs (which I mean to be a loss of DNA). Creationists agree with that – it’s observable. The problem comes in (with regard to origin evolutionists v. creationists) when origin evolutionists assume that they if there’s going downstairs, then we can go upstairs (an increase of DNA). I hope this is not confusing, but it’s the rubbing point and very important to understand the difference. One of which we have abundant evidence (as you pointed out) the other we have zero evidence (and absurd probabilities).
“it’s only incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.”
I don’t see how this (i.e., observational evolution) is so far incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis. Where do you think it’s incompatible in your literal reading of Genesis? It’s hard for me to know what you mean exactly, can you give me a specific example in the book of Genesis?
“To people who insist on a strict reading of the creation story, I would ask this: if the line in the Bible referring to the “four corners of the earth” can be read allegorically, why cant the creation story as well?”
I think either you already know the answer to this (if you’ve ever read Genesis), or you’ve never actually read either of those two parts of the Bible yourself. The answer to your question is context. For example, the 10 o’clock weatherman says, “Humidity tomorrow will be 80%. Temperature will be 80 degrees. Sunrise will be 5:30am.” Is the weatherman arguing for heliocentricity? I think it’s reasonable (and painfully obvious to a sober evaluation) that we take part of the weatherman’s forecast as literal and part as allegorical (or rather phenomenological)? If you’ve ever read any of the two passages in Scripture for yourself, which I’m not saying that you haven’t, then I think after a sober reading of the two you illustrated that it’s plainly obvious what they are meaning (whether literal or allegorical) – just like the weatherman example. If you haven’t already (or if you have not, then try it again), then I encourage you to take the time to actually read the two examples and see if it’s not plain by your own reading. I think you’ll find that it is. If not, then we can do some exegesis together; you can guess that I’d love the opportunity to talk more specifically about the Bible, but you must read the words yourself - http://bible.gospelcom.net/.
The paper is merely saying that, according to its assumptions, the chances of it happening are 1 in…
According to its assumptions. There’s no way to know whether those assumptions are valid, therefore there’s no way to know if the conslusions are valid.origin evolutionists assume that they if there’s going downstairs, then we can go upstairs
Absolutely… you can think of it both in terms of the fossil record (simple species are found in earlier layers, more advanced species are found in later) or molecularly (for example, gene duplication and reduplication are well known phenomena). There’s no reason to think that gaining information is impossible.
If you want a “direct observation” example of gaining information, think of cancer where gain of genetic material is very common. Now given that these aren’t exactly beneficial changes, but it’s not unreasonable to expect that over million of years a germ cell might duplicate some region of a chromosome and gain an evolutional advantage for the organism.I don’t see how this (i.e., observational evolution) is so far incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis
Well, I’m not talking about “oberservational evolution” per se (that’s not really a scientific concept either). The fossil record is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.
The answer to your question is context…
Well, OK, but I think it’s painfully obvious that a sober evaluation of Genesis will lead to reader to conclude it’s not literal. At least in light of the fact that we know the Earth is not 30000 years old (or whatever the young earth creationists would have one believe). Attempts to harmonize a literal reading of Genesis with the scientific evidence requires saying things like carbon dating is phony, or God put fossils on Earth to test of faith, or any number of equally silly rationalizations. The last guy here, TripleThreat, who spent a good amount of time arguing about creation vs. evolution went from a Young Earth Creationst to an evolutionist (albeint an evolutionist who believed that God started it all).
- International Socieity for Complexity, Information and Design*
The more I look at this, the more it’s obvious this is a pro-ID society. Not really an unbiased scientific society, and certainly not “evolutionists”
Look who the number 1 fellow is:
<u>Michael J. Behe</u>
Biochemistry
I’m still not sure what your beef with ID is, jhc. (ID just as a general concept, not as defined by any particular person, such as Behe.)
Is there any part of ID that’s incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution? And if you believe, as I assume you do, that God created the universe, isn’t that fundamentally what ID says? Or is your position that you believe in ID in some form, but there’s no strictly scientific evidence of it?
Or is your position that you believe in ID in some form, but there’s no strictly scientific evidence of it?
That pretty much sums it up.
All these probabilities assertions to say that there must have been ‘something’ behind all this are quite funny…
They never take into consideration what any biologist or chemist or physicist knows which is stability. Molecules tend to evolve towards stable configurations. If you take this into account then the probabilities are nowhere near that small…
The mistake that is made here is a common one dealing with probability. The odds that any final outcome is reached from a given starting point can be astronomical, as you pointed out. Given the state of the world as it was when I woke up, what are the odds that I would be typing these exact letters at exactly this moment, with my office-mate typing whatever it is that he is typing, too? The odds are really, really long, but it happened. Same applies to ending up with exactly the chemistry of life we have.
In addition, this mistake made here is also used as one of the underpinnings of Intelligent Design. You can’t just look at the complexity of the result, calculate the odds of that spontaneously occurring, and say voila! it couldn’t be. Complex systems don’t spring from whole cloth; they evolve from simpler mechanisms, which in turn evolved from even simpler mechanisms, and often combining to form novel systems.
Read “Innumeracy” and other books by John Allen Paulos, a mathematician from Temple University (?). Really fun reading, and it’ll help you see errors in statistics and probability you encounter everywhere. (Example: how many people do you need to have before the odds of two of them sharing the same birthday is better than 50/50? The somewhat surprising answer is 25.)
“If you want a “direct observation” example of gaining information, think of cancer where gain of genetic material is very common.”
I’m confused. It looks like you’re saying that going upstairs is quite common (i.e., observed), but Prof. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, who is a champion of evolutionary thinking, admits that it’s never been observed. Prof. Dawkins seems to be saying, “Trust me. I know better what happened millions of years ago than you do.” I’m not a biologist, chemist or any of that stuff. Please reconcile what looks to me to be an inconsistency.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/video/frogPrince.aspx
“There’s no reason to think that gaining information is impossible.”
Well, I don’t mean to discount indirect evidence, but it’s fair to say that if it’s never been observed and the probabilities are absurd for it happening, then that’s one reason.
“The fossil record is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.”
We’re all over the place here, but I’ll bite. Actually I think the fossil record is amazingly compatible with the burying process (e.g., the settling of sedimentary material and mass burial of intact creatures) that would happen in a global flood.
“Well, OK, but I think it’s painfully obvious that a sober evaluation of Genesis will lead to reader to conclude it’s not literal. At least in light of the fact that we know the Earth is not 30000 years old (or whatever the young earth creationists would have one believe).”
Whoa! Now we’re getting to the true nature of your exegesis. You’re using man’s religious devotion to naturalism to explain the text of the Bible. As I said, a simple sober reading of the Bible is not enough; instead, you have to be looking through the “naturalism is true” lenses, which is exactly what you admit to doing. Again, I’ll ask you to just read the Bible’s words without the “naturalism is true” lenses. You’ll find that it’s impossible to get a long age evolution from it. Again, since talking about the Bible is one of my favorite topics, we can do exegesis together, but you’ll have to agree that we can’t interpret the Bible by forcing naturalism (man’s worldview) into it. To understand what the Bible teaches, we must let the Bible speak for itself and see what it says. If you choose to not believe the Bible, then that’s what you’re going to believe and we’ll have to agree to disagree, but at least we’ll agree that the Bible does not teach long-age evolution. Please give me a passage from the Bible where you think the Bible is trying to communicate long-age evolution.
Our topics here are all over the map, which is common is such a debate. It’s really going to get unorganized from here I’m afraid. I’d prefer if we can narrow the scope. And, I’ll admit that my knowledge of such topics is quite thin. Personally, I’d prefer to talk about the Bible’s teaching/non-teaching of long-age evolution since I’m more comfortable in that area, but we can keep going down other paths; it’s just that think it’s going to be hard (and frustrating especially for you) to communicate at higher levels with regard to biology stuff because I’m just not familiar with those things (as you saw when you use terms like “macromolecules” and you can quickly lose me where you didn’t intend to. If you agree to discuss “the Bible teaches long-age evolution,” then I promise to talk only about what’s plain to the sober reader.
I’m still not sure what your beef with ID is, jhc. (ID just as a general concept, not as defined by any particular person, such as Behe.)
Is there any part of ID that’s incompatible with the scientific theory of evolution? And if you believe, as I assume you do, that God created the universe, isn’t that fundamentally what ID says? Or is your position that you believe in ID in some form, but there’s no strictly scientific evidence of it?
I know you didn’t ask me, but…
The problem with Intelligent Design (and not just as defined by Behe) is that it is still based on argument from incredulity. ID seems to be about looking for “patterns” in nature for which the origin has no explanation: ergo a designer must have been involved. Again, just because at this very moment we don’t understand something doesn’t mean we should throw up our hands and declare a designer. Too many “gold standard” designs have been explained in due course.
“If you want a “direct observation” example of gaining information, think of cancer where gain of genetic material is very common.”
I’m confused. It looks like you’re saying that going upstairs is quite common (i.e., observed), but Prof. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, who is a champion of evolutionary thinking, admits that it’s never been observed. Prof. Dawkins seems to be saying, “Trust me. I know better what happened millions of years ago than you do.” I’m not a biologist, chemist or any of that stuff. Please reconcile what looks to me to be an inconsistency.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/video/frogPrince.aspx
“There’s no reason to think that gaining information is impossible.”
Well, I don’t mean to discount indirect evidence, but it’s fair to say that if it’s never been observed and the probabilities are absurd for it happening, then that’s one reason.
“The fossil record is incompatible with a literal reading of Genesis.”
We’re all over the place here, but I’ll bite. Actually I think the fossil record is amazingly compatible with the burying process (e.g., the settling of sedimentary material and mass burial of intact creatures) that would happen in a global flood.
“Well, OK, but I think it’s painfully obvious that a sober evaluation of Genesis will lead to reader to conclude it’s not literal. At least in light of the fact that we know the Earth is not 30000 years old (or whatever the young earth creationists would have one believe).”
Our topics here are all over the map, which is common is such a debate. It’s really going to get unorganized from here I’m afraid. I’d prefer if we can narrow the scope. And, I’ll admit that my knowledge of such topics is quite thin. Personally, I’d prefer to talk about the Bible’s teaching/non-teaching of long-age evolution since I’m more comfortable in that area, but we can keep going down other paths; it’s just that think it’s going to be hard (and frustrating especially for you) to communicate at higher levels with regard to biology stuff because I’m just not familiar with those things (as you saw when you use terms like “macromolecules” and you can quickly lose me where you didn’t intend to. If you agree to discuss “the Bible teaches long-age evolution,” then I promise to talk only about what’s plain to the sober reader.
You, and this discussion, are traveling the same path that TripleThreat went down last year. He was a remarkable example of someone who changed his (strongly-held) beliefs after giving serious consideration to the evidence for evolution, and has come to a conclusion that acknowledges the scientific evidence yet allows him to maintain his spiritual beliefs.
There is a new species of plant in the Pacific Northwest that has double the chromosomes of the species from which it derived, and it is fertile and reproduces true. The genesis (if you will let me use the word) of this species is well documented. Is this an example of “gaining information”?
The flood cannot be reconciled with the fossil record. It cannot explain why there is no co-mingling of dinosaur fossils and primate fossils, for example.
I’m confused. It looks like you’re saying that going upstairs is quite common (i.e., observed), but Prof. Richard Dawkins, Oxford University, who is a champion of evolutionary thinking, admits that it’s never been observed. Prof. Dawkins seems to be saying, “Trust me. I know better what happened millions of years ago than you do.” I’m not a biologist, chemist or any of that stuff. Please reconcile what looks to me to be an inconsistency.
I can’t play that video, so I dont know what he’s saying. Sorry…
We’re all over the place here, but I’ll bite. Actually I think the fossil record is amazingly compatible with the burying process (e.g., the settling of sedimentary material and mass burial of intact creatures) that would happen in a global flood.
No its not, not when the deeper layers are thousands/millions of years older than more superficial layers.
Whoa! Now we’re getting to the true nature of your exegesis. You’re using man’s religious devotion to naturalism to explain the text of the Bible.
It’s funny how creationists like to try twist reality, often refering to “facts” in the Bible and the “religion” of naturalism. The fact is that the Earth is billions of years old, which is inconsistent with the young earth theory which traces the age of the Earth through Biblical geneologies. The fact is that fossils of older species (like dinosaurs for instance) are never found in more recent layers with remains of new species (like people for instance), which makes a scenario where the earth, all the animals, and people were all created in the same week impossible.
Personally, I’d prefer to talk about the Bible’s teaching/non-teaching of long-age evolution
First you’ll have to tell me what long-age evolution is…
as you saw when you use terms like “macromolecules”
The funny thing is I probably misused the term, which in terms of biology, means proteins, nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) or polysaccharides (long sugars).
“There is a new species of plant in the Pacific Northwest that has double the chromosomes of the species from which it derived, and it is fertile and reproduces true. The genesis (if you will let me use the word) of this species is well documented. Is this an example of “gaining information”?”
I don’t know – I’m not a biologist. But, presumably, Prof. Dawkins, Oxford University, who is at the forefront of the evolution v. creation debate, would have known either this or another “common” example. Instead, he just sat there with a blank stare. Maybe, he was just nervous.
“The flood cannot be reconciled with the fossil record. It cannot explain why there is no co-mingling of dinosaur fossils and primate fossils, for example.”
There is a tree in Australia called the Wollemi Pine that evolutionists claim is millions of years old (i.e. a “living fossil”). They’ve never found any of the tree fossils co-mingled with that of primates. Warning: if you tell the tourists who visits Wollemi National Park and takes a Polaroid with his beautiful children alongside the Wollemi Pine that primates and the pine tree were never on the planet at the same time, then expect a weird and confused look.