# The turkeytalk challenge- a creationist responds **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097 "2001-08-25T15:49:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2001, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/41 "2001-09-03T21:47:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\ ***Ben** , may I suggest that in future you add a clause to your outgoing email questions reserving the right to publish any replies? \*\* An interesting idea, but if they’re going to play games with me, I’d rather people knew that. If I had had such a clause in dealing with AiG, they just wouldn’t have responded at all, and we wouldn’t know about their cloak-and-dagger mentality. But overall, I suppose it’s a good idea. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2001, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/42 "2001-09-04T08:04:32Z")
But by failing to respond, we may assume that they concede the argument, we may even warn them of such a conclusion in advance if we like. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/43 "2001-09-08T16:37:00Z")
I’ve received an answer from [ChristianAnswers.Net](http://ChristianAnswers.Net). At first, Tom Henderson stated that he would shop my questions around to other creationists if I gave him the url for the FAQ. I did so, and asked why they needed the evolutionist answers before they could give me the creationist ones. Here is his reply: > [@](#): > > Ben, > > Thank you for your response. You are welcome to post mine on your forum. > > YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first > demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them > BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond. > > Since my last note I took a look at your forum link and the responses of > Helen Fryman to the 11 questions you posted there. > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83694](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83694) > I thought she did an excellent job! I can’t improve on them. As stated > above I think you took a backwards approach to the issues. You posted her > responses, then mostly ridiculed them, I felt, without ever showing your own > position on those 11 areas and how it was a reasonable one. > Thanks for the link you provided today. > [http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html](http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html) > I read through the first quarter of it and skimmed the rest. It seemed like > an excellent DNA tutorial. > At the end of it the 11 sets of questions are posed as a “challenge for > creationists”. But it did not appear that the text provided the > evolutionist’s position on those questions. > > Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated > mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones > preserved by natural selection? Come on! Not in all the billions of years > you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by > chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural > selection culling processes). > > But that is not your toughest problem! Even with a DNA structure where > would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from? Information doesn’t come > from chance. Chance only results in noise. > > “I’m not looking for a theistic evolutionist answer” either. Theistic > evolutionists believe in evolution. They just use God to get you > evolutionists through your infinitude of improbabilities and > impossibilities. They simply say God was the designer and He used > evolution. I don’t think God would do that. And chance plus natural > selection can’t design DNA and information for all the life forms that use > it. > > The only reasonable answer in my view is “special creation of individual > kinds” by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind > it all. If that’s too simple for you that’s too bad! But that is where I > think the scientific evidence points. Think about it. > > Since science has revealed the incredible complexity of life and all its > associated structures and processes it is difficult for me to understand > from a scientific perspective how there is still an evolutionist left - Tell > me why you all haven’t fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded > “What must I do to be saved?” > [http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/home.html](http://www.christiananswers.net/gospel/home.html) > [http://www.greatcom.org/laws/](http://www.greatcom.org/laws/) > Tom Henderson > [tom@christiananswers.net](mailto:tom@christiananswers.net) > Creation SuperLibrary Coordinator > [http://CreationSuperLibrary.com](http://CreationSuperLibrary.com) -Ben ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/44 "2001-09-08T16:57:57Z")
So the best he can do is admit that he is not capable of imagining something to occur and concluding it cannot have occurred? ::: sigh ::: I think even Anselm could have done better than that. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/45 "2001-09-08T20:00:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > \*\*\ > > Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated > mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones > preserved by natural selection? Come on! > > \ > > Tom Henderson > [tom@christiananswers.net](mailto:tom@christiananswers.net) > Creation SuperLibrary Coordinator > [http://CreationSuperLibrary.com](http://CreationSuperLibrary.com)\*\* That’s it, I’m convinced. The weight of the creationist argument is just too strong. :rolleyes: Message to creationist: arguments from increduality are very, very weak. It is basically an admission that you don’t understand, and have no desire to. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/46 "2001-09-08T20:02:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > **(Actually, responses by Mr. Henderson) > YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond.** I don’t get this one at all…unless, of course, he’s tacitly admitting that they don’t have the answers on their own, can’t even _come up with_ answers on their own, and the best they can hope for is to poke holes in the only available theories in a misguided attempt to “prove” something. \*\* > [@](#): > > Since my last note I took a look at your forum link and the responses of Helen Fryman to the 11 questions you posted there. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83694](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83694) > I thought she did an excellent job!\*\* There is obvious disagreement here. \*\* > [@](#): > > At the end of it the 11 sets of questions are posed as a “challenge for creationists”. But it did not appear that the text provided the evolutionist’s position on those questions.\*\* Again, it shouldn’t have to for this purpose. Either creationists can come up with a viable “theory” (or even just an explanation) _on their own_, or they should admit that it is a faulty, less-than-satisfying view for understanding biological phenomena. That, or they simply wish to cling to it as an act of faith, regardless what evidence may actually exist. \*\* > [@](#): > > Am I to assume that your position is merely that DNA and its associated mechanisms are merely the results of random mutations with the good ones preserved by natural selection? Come on! Not in all the billions of years > you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural selection culling processes).\*\* Oh look! The “chance” argument…_ **again** _. I think that at the very least, these people should a) take an organic chemistry course, and b) a statistics course. _Maybe_ they will then see just why these arguments receive so mich disdain. \*\* > [@](#): > > But that is not your toughest problem! Even with a DNA structure where would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from? Information doesn’t come from chance. Chance only results in noise.\*\* Oh. _That_ again. ::sigh:: There is no “information” in DNA; DNA, beyond acting as an ultimate template for the creation of proteins, contains no “information”. It is impossible to extrapolate upwards from “DNA strand” to “organism”, just by deciphering the “code”. The application of Information Theory to DNA is seemingly becoming more popular amongst IDers, if not creationists. Unfortunately, what they fail to realize is that Information Theory is a man-made _concept_, created to help explain certain aspects of communication, rather like the _concept_ of a magnetic or electric or gravitational field is used to explain magnetism, electricity or gravity, respectively. The fields do not truly “exist”, anywhere but in concept. The idea of “information” being contained in DNA is simply an anthropomorphic projection onto a molecule. Besides, it seems to me that there _is_ a hell of a lot of noise in DNA in the form of pseudogenes. \*\* > [@](#): > > They simply say God was the designer and He used > evolution. I don’t think God would do that. And chance plus natural selection can’t design DNA and information for all the life forms that use it.\*\* God’s spokesman, I guess. Whatever _we_ think God would, or would not, do is irrelevent. The question is, can we determine what God _did_ do, if, indeed, God did anything? \*\* > [@](#): > > The only reasonable answer in my view is “special creation of individual kinds” by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind it all. If that’s too simple for you that’s too bad! But that is where I think the scientific evidence points. Think about it.\*\* Reasonable, perhaps, if one clings to erroneous ideas about chemistry and statistics, and the anthropomorphism of molecules. \*\* > [@](#): > > Since science has revealed the incredible complexity of life and all its associated structures and processes it is difficult for me to understand from a scientific perspective how there is still an evolutionist left - Tell me why you all haven’t fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded > “What must I do to be saved?”\*\* To which, I can, regrettably, only respond with a heartfelt :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2001, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097/47 "2001-09-10T19:48:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ben \* > **YOU posed these 11 origins questions sets. In my view you should have first demonstrated that an evolution model has a good explanation of all of them BEFORE you challenged creationists to respond.** He doesn’t realize that you simply wanted to know what creationists believe? Oh, boy. > [@](#): > > **Not in all the billions of years you could want would such a complex configuration as we see in DNA result by chance (with all the intermediate stages likewise surviving natural selection culling processes).** Of course, he doesn’t bother explaining why. > [@](#): > > **Even with a DNA structure where would the INFORMATION stored in the DNA come from?** _What_ information? And if there is information in DNA, then who is it for? If there is no intended receiver, then there is no information. It’s just a bunch of chemical compounds strung together. > [@](#): > > **The only reasonable answer in my view is “special creation of individual kinds” by a Creator with the know-how and wisdom to do it and a plan behind it all.** What plan? How does he know there is one? > [@](#): > > **Tell me why you all haven’t fallen on your knees before the Creator and pleaded, "What must I do to be saved?"** The same reason he won’t sacrifice a goat to Zeus so he can go to Elysium Fields. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-turkeytalk-challenge-a-creationist-responds/78097.md?page=2)