Why won't the Creationists talk turkey?

[Dave_Stewart]

Edwino said:

How do we know that this is not the whim of some omniscient creator? Well, good evidence for that comes from what we find between genes. We find old, discarded genes, which code for nothing. We find remnants of viruses, which may contribute new genetic material, even from other species (and may be linked to large scale genome reorganization). We find ancient duplications and transpositions and inversions. We find exons recruited from neighbors, and exons discarded and left to rot. In short it is a huge ugly mess. Most of the genome does diddly squat. Large deletions are associated with absolutely no decrease in fitness.

So if God drafted man, He used fingerpainting.

What you said actually was fascinating. It suggests that evolution really is a process of trial and error, with lots of error.

The creationist lines of argument seem to go like this:

1. science can fundamentally be wrong. The wrongness proves God.

2. science doesn’t explain everything. What it doesn’t explain is evidence of God.

3. somthing started the universe, because of Newtonian cause and effect. We don’t know what that something is, so it must be God.

4. God is incomprehensible, therefore He is in existence but we just can’t prove it.

Unless I’m misinterpreting what’s being said, these argument are inherently flawed.

What proof is there that there is a guiding hand of God in creation? I’m not trying to be obnoxious: I’d actually like to know (the “who needs proof when you have faith” spiel is a cop-out).

I’ve turned my mind to this, trying to think of some arguments, to be fair, and come up with the following:

1. the sheer complexity of things are beyond the design capabilities of humans, so a higher intelligence must have come up with them. The randomness of chaos cannot have come up with what we experience: a world in a life zone around a benevolent star, with the right mix of gases and rock. The unlikelihood of life developing in the universe suggests that Someone had input into gelling life here. I guess the counter-argument to that is that someone has to win the lottery, and we did it.

2. Other planets and even the Earth’s moon are riddled with craters from meteor strikes, but the Earth has dipped out. Divine intervention has prevented the Earth from being rendered as sterile as the moon. The Earth is positively devoid of craters, comapred to other planets. People who say the Moon dragged meteors away from the Earth are reversing the position - the Earth has bigger mass, and so should have dragged meteors away from the Moon towards the Earth. I’d be interested in some feedback on this one.
   …um, I’m racking my brains, but can’t think of anything else right now…

[edwino]

**
2. Other planets and even the Earth’s moon are riddled with craters from meteor strikes, but the Earth has dipped out. Divine intervention has prevented the Earth from being rendered as sterile as the moon. The Earth is positively devoid of craters, comapred to other planets. People who say the Moon dragged meteors away from the Earth are reversing the position - the Earth has bigger mass, and so should have dragged meteors away from the Moon towards the Earth. I’d be interested in some feedback on this one.
**

This is a misconception. We do have impact craters. Recently, these impacts caused mass extinctions. We see these mass extinctions both in the genome and in the fossil record and in the geologic record. We just happen to be on a planet big and warm enough to retain a thick atmosphere which causes most of the meteors to disintegrate into harmless pebbles upon impact. Also, said atmosphere (along with water) has caused most impact craters to erode. So, we have impacts, they are not less frequent than let’s say Venus (with a similar atmosphere situation), but most of the craters are worn down. That’s my take on it.

[MEBuckner]

Other planets and even the Earth’s moon are riddled with craters from meteor strikes, but the Earth has dipped out. Divine intervention has prevented the Earth from being rendered as sterile as the moon. The Earth is positively devoid of craters, comapred to other planets. People who say the Moon dragged meteors away from the Earth are reversing the position - the Earth has bigger mass, and so should have dragged meteors away from the Moon towards the Earth. I’d be interested in some feedback on this one.

Earth does get hit by meteors, and there are craters here, but a) much of the planet is covered by water and b) weather, geological processes (plate tectonics) and Earth’s ferocious biosphere erase most evidence of impacts in a short time, geologically-speaking. The Moon–no atmosphere, no oceans or flowing liquid water, and geologically “dead” for a long time now, with no moving continental plates or erupting volcanoes–doesn’t really get hit by large meteors much any more, but it still bears the scars of just about everything which has hit it in the last 4.5 billion years.

Earth’s not the only body to not have craters (or not very many craters). The gas giants obviously don’t, although Shoemaker-Levy 9 showed quite spectacularly that they do get hit. Jupiter’s moon Europa has very few craters–it has an icy crust over a (probably liquid) water ocean; craters are quickly “healed” when the ocean comes out through the new hole and freezes over; also, ice doesn’t have the material strength to retain geological relief (like mountains or impact crater ridges) the way rock does. Another of Jupiter’s moons, Io, also has few impact craters, because it’s extremely geologically active; the volcanoes there erase impact craters pretty fast. (Callisto, on the other hand, cosmically in about the same place–i.e., orbiting Jupter–and presumably hit no more often in the last several billion years than its sister moons, lacks those geological processes, and is about the most cratered thing there is.) I don’t think Venus has many impact craters under all that atmosphere, again due to its meteorology and geology.

[capacitor]

2. Other planets and even the Earth’s moon are riddled with craters from meteor strikes, but the Earth has dipped out. Divine intervention has prevented the Earth from being rendered as sterile as the moon. The Earth is positively devoid of craters, comapred to other planets. People who say the Moon dragged meteors away from the Earth are reversing the position - the Earth has bigger mass, and so should have dragged meteors away from the Moon towards the Earth. I’d be interested in some feedback on this one.

There have been a lot of environment-changing meteor strikes on Earth, some more devastating than that of the Moon. But none of them have the effect of rendering the Earth inhospitable to all life. That little ozone layer may have something to do with it.

[armedmonkey]

You have a lot of good points, Dave. I thank you for trying to bring this back to the discussion it is supposed to be.

I will attempt to answer #2 (though I suspect… hell I KNOW, that podkayne can give a better answer):

Earth has not avoided bombardments, it is hit all the time. The difference between the Earth and the moon can be summed up in one word: erosion. The Earth has both an atmosphere and oceans (i.e. weather). The craters caused by impacts are covered over by the activities of the planet itself. Put erosion and plant growth together and it is damn hard to find some of these craters. Divine intervention is irrelevant.

ahhhhh, but did He create the Earth to be able to heal itself?..

In the spirit of debate, I will also pose this: What about interchangeable parts? How do we know that all of Molecular Biology is not just a metaphysical Met-Wrentch set? How do we know that God isn’t still experimenting with the preternatural equivalents of automatic transmission versus manual?

-Beeblebrox

---

“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

[armedmonkey]

Damn, VERY slow in posting that one.

[MEBuckner]

In the spirit of debate, I will also pose this: What about interchangeable parts? How do we know that all of Molecular Biology is not just a metaphysical Met-Wrentch set? How do we know that God isn’t still experimenting with the preternatural equivalents of automatic transmission versus manual?

I think Ben’s original post already addressed this. (“Why do unrelated proteins serve similar functions in cases where evolutionists claim that those functions evolved independently in the fossil record?” and “Why are similar functions sometimes served by completely different proteins? Why are completely different functions sometimes served by similar proteins?”) You really do have to get into the nitty-gritty of molecular biology (or comparative anatomy at the macro level, for that matter) to competantly debate this stuff. I think that was sort of Ben’s point from the start.

[capacitor]

I meant from the last sentence “That atmosphere may have something to do with it.”

[armedmonkey]

MEbuckner, I am a molecular bioligist (sort of). I was, and am, trying to play Devil’s Advocate.

The thing is, God is by definition both omnipotent and omniscient. You can not invoke Him and then dismiss theological arguments. The Creationists never said that evolution doesn’t happen now, they just said it’s not our origens.

I know you will hate this, but imagine a preternatural production line. They are going to need interchangeable parts as well as different models. Some species use drum brakes, some use disc. Same function - different method. You have to realize that this princaple applies from the ground up. This is the reason for the homologous proteins as well as convergent evolution.
<Go easy, I may not be very good at playing devil’s advo.>
-Beeblebrox

---

“I am so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis.”

[Dave_Stewart]

Everyone leapt on that one at the same time!

OK, how about this: evolution is God’s tool. The transition of birds from dinosaurs is so wildly improbable that someone must have had a hand in it.

(This presupposes that the dinosaur theory I got from Crichton’s Jurassic Park is correct.)

I’m guessing not everyone agrees with the idea that the Universe doesn’t need a “first cause”. I have some doubts about the solid state theory of the universe, although I like it in principle. The doubts arise from the fact that the universe appears to be expanding. In theory I guess you can track everything back to one point.

[Lemur866]

What I can’t understand is the the attitude that evolution MUST be atheistic. Evolution is not atheistic, and does not require the non-existance of God.

Also, there is nothing wrong with saying that the “six days” really represented some other amount of time, whether you change the meaning of “day” or change the meaning of “time”. I mean, what does it mean to say that time has “slowed down”? If time has slowed down, how would we know? Since we are inside the universe there is no way to tell if the rate of time is constant or not.

But we do know for sure that the Earth has existed for hundreds of millions of years, that the universe has existed for billions of years, that organisms on Earth are related to one another by descent from common ancestors, and that humans are no exception. Those are the facts that we cannot ignore. However, knowledge of those facts does not require us to embrace atheism any more than they require us to embrace theism.

[Darwins_Finch]

[The rest of you may move along…the main thread’s that-a way…this is just a quick detour]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**OK, how about this: evolution is God’s tool. The transition of birds from dinosaurs is so wildly improbable that someone must have had a hand in it.

(This presupposes that the dinosaur theory I got from Crichton’s Jurassic Park is correct.)**

First, forget everything that Crichton mentioned in Jurassic Park. Everything, even if it sounded vaguely scientific.

OK…head clear now? Good. Crichton may spin a good yarn, but his science sometimes…what’s the word?..sucks. He used to be a medical doctor, not a paleontologist - keep that in mind.

Now, if one were to look at the fossil records of theropod dinosaurs (those are the bipedal, mostly meat-eating ones), one would see a remarkable number of similarities with birds. These similarities can be found, for example, in bone structure, the wrists, ankles, shoulder girdle, pelvis, and skull. The distinction between “bird” and “dinosaur” gets very fuzzy at times, and were it not for the presence of feathers (as in Archaeopteryx fossils), one might not suspect anything more than an odd-looking dinosaur. One see trends in the fossils leading to more and more bird-like forms. If you were to look at the fossils, the transition would not seem nearly so improbable. The fossils make sense, based on what came before.

Rather than Crichton, I would suggest authors such as Gregory S. Paul, Robert Bakker or Jack Horner (to name just a few of many).
[End Detour]

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by Beeblebrox
I know you will hate this, but imagine a preternatural production line. They are going to need interchangeable parts as well as different models. Some species use drum brakes, some use disc. Same function - different method. You have to realize that this princaple applies from the ground up. This is the reason for the homologous proteins as well as convergent evolution.

When you look at all the evidence of molecular biology or comparative anatomy, the only possible conclusions are that a.) living organisms evolved or b.) living things were deliberately made to look like they evolved.

The question of a God who created a world which looks exactly like a world which is billions of years old and contains living things which evolved from a common ancestor, but which is really 6,000 years old (or 6,000 days old or 6 million trillion years old) is one for philosophy, not science. In effect, such a theory is tantamount to making a claim, and saying that all available evidence will point to a contrary conclusion, but that all available evidence has been falsified. The problem is that there are an infinite number of totally counter-evidential hypotheses or worldviews (maybe it’s not the Protestant Christian Bible that’s inerrant and gives the real truth, all evidence to the contrary, maybe it’s the Collected Works of L. Ron Hubbard, or the X-Files, or the poem “The Night Before Christmas”, or some book that hasn’t been written yet). And since we’re stating that all evidence has been manufactured to be false, we have no way of choosing from this infinite set of possible worlds. It’s essentially solipsistic.

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
OK, how about this: evolution is God’s tool. The transition of birds from dinosaurs is so wildly improbable that someone must have had a hand in it.

This sounds like two possible notions here: One is “theistic evolution”; God guides the course of events in a way which can never (except by faith) be distinguished from natural processes. As already stated, atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists don’t disagree about science, they disagree about philosophy. The other is the “God of the gaps”. We don’t understand something (or it is asserted that we don’t understand something–not always the same thing), and it is claimed that only a supernatural miracle could account for the phenomenon. The “God of the gaps” tends to be an ever-shrinking and always retreating entity. We no longer have to invoke direct supernatural intervention to explain lightning or rainbows or whirlwinds. In cases of real “gaps”, we probably will come up with an explanation sooner or later other than “God did it”. And many of the “gaps” of creationists turn out to be illusory anyway–we already have a scientific explanation; they just don’t know about it, or refuse to believe it.

I’m guessing not everyone agrees with the idea that the Universe doesn’t need a “first cause”. I have some doubts about the solid state theory of the universe, although I like it in principle. The doubts arise from the fact that the universe appears to be expanding. In theory I guess you can track everything back to one point.

Again, cosmological claims tend to boil down to either a philosophical dispute between atheists and theists without any disagreement about the scientific facts, or else turn into a “God of the gaps” argument.

[Darwins_Finch]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
1. the sheer complexity of things are beyond the design capabilities of humans, so a higher intelligence must have come up with them. The randomness of chaos cannot have come up with what we experience: a world in a life zone around a benevolent star, with the right mix of gases and rock. The unlikelihood of life developing in the universe suggests that Someone had input into gelling life here. I guess the counter-argument to that is that someone has to win the lottery, and we did it.

Another counter-argument is that just because we can’t make something as complex as, oh, any other living thing, does not mean that “someone” smarter than us must have. Living things are complex, for one reason, because they are a hodge-podge of cobbled-together bits, baggage from ancient ancestors. If you’ve got an old junker, you could either break out the duct tape and bailing wire, salvage a few other wrecks, and come up with something that works, but not exactly optimally - or, you could just build a new one.
An omnipotent creator has within his means the ability to do away with the clutter - to begin from scratch, with no evidence of what came before; this we do not see. What we see in nature are organisms making due with duct tape and bailing wire.

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner ***This sounds like two possible notions here: One is “theistic evolution”; God guides the course of events in a way which can never (except by faith) be distinguished from natural processes. As already stated, atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists don’t disagree about science, they disagree about philosophy. The other is the “God of the gaps”. We don’t understand something (or it is asserted that we don’t understand something–not always the same thing), and it is claimed that only a supernatural miracle could account for the phenomenon. The “God of the gaps” tends to be an ever-shrinking and always retreating entity. We no longer have to invoke direct supernatural intervention to explain lightning or rainbows or whirlwinds. In cases of real “gaps”, we probably will come up with an explanation sooner or later other than “God did it”. And many of the “gaps” of creationists turn out to be illusory anyway–we already have a scientific explanation; they just don’t know about it, or refuse to believe it.
…
Again, cosmological claims tend to boil down to either a philosophical dispute between atheists and theists without any disagreement about the scientific facts, or else turn into a “God of the gaps” argument. **

Yes, that’s what I kind of meant by

2. science doesn’t explain everything. What it doesn’t explain is evidence of God.

but you’ve put more thought into it than I did.

PS - thanks for the detour, Darwin’s Finch I was wondering about that…

[Ben]

*Originally posted by sdimbert *
**Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

Padeye is the Anti-Christ!

**

Now, now. That’s how rumors get started.

-Ben

[Ben]

*Originally posted by mornea *
**I don’t know the specific answers to all of the questions presented in the OP. But I can infer from the presentation of the information that all of the items that you mention are basic things common to most species. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this basic premise.

**

This, folks, is exactly what I’m talking about: a creationist who tries to give us answers without even understanding the questions.

Mornea, I suggest you read both my FAQ and the must-read FAQs at http://www.talkorigins.org.

**
Science cannot state, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that everything in the universe evolved from a couple atoms (or whatever) that happened to be in the same place at the right time.

**

“Or whatever.” Mornea doesn’t quite know what all this evolution business is all about- but he sure knows how to prove it wrong!

**Neither one of these can be proven by humans to be absolutely true, but I believe that it is highly improbable that our existence happened by accident. **

Ben: Here’s a pile of facts which creationism must explain in order to be taken seriously.

Mornea: I can’t explain the evidence, and I don’t even understand the questions, but hey- you never know.

One could use the same argument to defend flat-earthism. Since science, by its very nature, cannot absolutely, positively rule out the infinitesimal possibility that we’ve been wrong all along in thinking the earth is round, then Flat-Earthism must be a perfectly reasonable and respectable scientific hypothesis, right?

To this, Mornea adds the classic Argument from Incredulity. Again, remember that Flat Earthers find it “highly improbable” that people are walking around upside-down in Australia.

And, last but not least, Mornea manages to insult all the theistic evolutionists by equating evolution with atheism.

Mornea, I don’t expect you to know anything about molecular biology. But you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing better than to:

1. Give answers when you don’t understand the question.
2. Criticise evolution without even knowing what it is.
3. Drag creation science down to the level of Flat Earthism by deciding that the only way creationism will clear the bar is if you lower it to the very ground.
4. Declare something to be “highly improbable” without knowing square one about the evidence involved.
5. Equate evolution with atheism.

Remember, Mornea, a closed mouth gathers no foot. Had you simply admitted to yourself that you don’t know enough about evolution to be able to evaluate it, you would have avoided making yourself and your beliefs look foolish.

-Ben

[Ben]

*Originally posted by sdimbert *
**I won’t toss off references to the metaphysical musings of the Arizal and Rambam. 'Kay?
**

koff koff…

How about a nutshell explanation of the Arizal and Rambam?

-Ben

[walor]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ben *
**

Or will you wake up tomorrow to learn that- silly us- we thought the moon was a big rock when all along it was made of green cheese?

**

Walor, did you take this as crowing, or did you take it as a metaphor?

[sidetrack…]Ben, I think that you hold very strong beliefs on evolution. They are based on your understanding of scientific evidence from a variety of respectable sources.

I sense that you are frustrated with others who cannot present you with evidence for their thinking in the same scientific manner or with similar scientific discipline as you do.

I suspect that you are a genuine person (I truly do not mean that to be taken as a condescending comment) and I sense that you feel a strong need to state your view of things assertively.

Having said that, there are times perhaps, when we all allow ourselves to respond with either a low shot or a sarcastic comment or an all-out attack on an individual poster who doesn’t seem to ‘get it’.

I’ve spent a good part of my life ‘not suffering fools gladly’. I’m trying to change. I still find myself having to think before I speak (or type) in response to others. I try to start now by assuming that the other person is probably correct. It’s amazing how much I’m learning by truly listening to the other viewpoint rather than either paying it lip service or dismissing it before hearing it, because of who has said it.

I’ve been on this board for a short time. I’ve discovered that there are intelligent people, educated people, knowledgeable people, opinionated people, sarcastic people, cynics, skeptics… a bit like the rest of the world really.

The people who have impressed me the most so far are those who respond with wisdom. My personal goal is to aspire to graduate into that group, with the help of the other posters on the SDMB.[/sidetrack ends]

As far as the green cheese reference goes… I think that your overall response to my earlier posting was more to the aggressive side of assertive than the passive side. Let’s say that its tone was a challenging one.

I’m happy to be challenged… that’s what debate is about. Sometimes though, it’s not what is said, but how it is said that matters. I take no offense and I’m not willing to throw stones at this stage… Ben, sorry to be Biblical but I sure that I’ve offended others here (wittingly or unwittingly) so I’m in no position etc.etc.

pax

[Epimetheus]

Err, I wanted to put a quote in, but I cannot find it. (I’m a bit sleepy) Somebody questioned if any Molecular biologist is a Creationist.
My sister is attending her 4th year in undergraduate school for the purpous of becomming a MicroBiologist. I am pretty sure they are very similar in the fact that it would be difficult for one to be a young earth creationist. Granted, she has not yet started graduate school, so there is hope yet. She is a very hard-core young earth creationist, and mentions all the time that evilution is wrong! wrong! wrong! Yet in the same discussion she mentions one of the reasons she loves microbiology is because viruses mutate constantly and “adapt” to cures and such. I find this hilarious, yet cannot break through to her that what she is seeing is evidence of evolution.

Personally I feel that she will absorb what she needs, memorizing the data that needs to be learned, and still reject it. She is bone-headed enough to pull it off though. She sees evolution, yet calls it something else and puts her fingers in her ears and lala’s when somebody tries to point it out to her.

Me: ahh, the sun, isn’t it great?
her: Sun? No! that is a lie, there is no sun, only a ball of supercompressed gas that is burning emiting light and various other particles/subparticles. The sun is just an evil lie by the scientists to try to prove their athiest religion.
Me: Uh, they are the same thing.
Her: La! La! I can’t hear you, did you say something. (walks away)