Message 29 of 291 (513353) 06-28-2009 7:52 AM

Reply to: Message 26 by slevesque 06-28-2009 2:21 AM

quote:

---

This is a bit of a strawman of the creationist position. YEC say that 'either life made itself' or that 'intelligence made life'.

---

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. T&U's assessment of YEc is accurate. Your definition is so inaccurate as to be effectively unrecognisable.

I have never heard a YEC say anything along the lines of "life made itself". If you can provide evidence of any YEC saying anything to that effect, I would be interested to see it.

As for "intelligence made life", you are on safer ground. However, in my experience, YECs are not shy about identifying the proposed source of this "intelligence"; the god of the Bible. They at least tend to be honest about this aspect of their beliefs (unlike their ID cousins) and openly promote Yaweh as their creator-of-choice. They tend not to use weasel words such as "intelligent designer". They usually just credit God as the creator.

If you doubt me, here are some definitions of YEC from around the web;

Source

Source

Source

Source

Okay?

quote:

---

It is not: either evolution is true or creationism/ID is true.

---

Let's be quite clear; this attitude is not so much part of the ideology of YECs, it is more of a debating tactic. Woefully short of positive evidence in favour of creaton (they are short of evidence because no such evidence exists), YECs are reduced to attacking evolution and hoping that YEC philosophy will thus win out by default. It is a sad and sorry tactic, one which you yourself have dismantled to reveal the fallacy within. Proving evolution wrong does nothing to prove creation true, but that doesn't stop dishonest scumbags like Kent Hovind trying to use the tactic anyway, as in this video;

Hovind is very clearly aware of the fallacious nature of his argument. He just doesn't seem to care enough to stop employing the fallacy. Presumably he figures that "lying for Jesus" is OK just as long as he saves a soul or two.

It's not just Hovind either. The false dichotomy argument is a mainstay of creationist polemic. I lose count of the number of times I've seen it employed, here at EvC and elsewhere.

The majority of creationists using the fallacy don't realise that it is fallacious; the rest just don't care.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Rephrase for clarity

Message 58 of 291 (513389) 06-28-2009 10:22 AM

Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque 06-28-2009 9:00 AM

quote:

---

I meant it to say that creationists do not propose either evolution or creationism (as the only two options), but rather they propose that the debate is either abiogenesis or Intelligent Design.

---

Intelligent design is a specific label which describes a specific sub-set of creationists. Sure, all creationists believe that life was designed and that the designer was intelligent. Not all creationists however are proponents of "Intelliegent Design". Here is AiG on the ID movement.

Source

AiG still has much positive to say about ID, but there exists a wide gulf between the two. Creationism and ID should not be used as synonyms in all cases. All IDers are creationists, but not all creationists are IDers.

quote:

---

CMI and AiG are the two organisations who take care not to propose this dilemna. Their tactic is still two fold: they critic evolution, and they promote a young earth perspective.

---

CMI and AiG are slightly cannier than Hovind about how they phrase their arguments, but they still employ the same fallacies. A brief browse of CMI's site turns up plenty of attacks on evolution but positive evidence for creation is much harder to find.

As for Ken ham, he is the man who said this to a group of schoolchildren;

Source

For Ham it is God OR science, biblical literalism OR atheism, there is no middle ground. He embraces the flase dichotomy as much as Hovind, he is just a slightly better lier, that's all.

You are right that this is off-topic though! :) If you still disagree, I could always propose a new thread and we can continue the discussion there. Let me know if you're interested.

Mutate and Survive

Message 231 of 291 (514424) 07-07-2009 12:32 PM

Reply to: Message 228 by traderdrew 07-07-2009 12:12 PM

quote:

---

DNA contains switches that turn genes on and off. These switches are there to make sure the right functions are operating at the right times at the right order and creating the right amounts of substances.

---

I think you'll find that it's a bit more complicated than that. :) For starters, many genes can be switched on or off with signalling molecules, without altering the organism's DNA.

quote:

---

If all enzymes were active all of the time, would this overload the cells and create a complex chaotic mess?

---

Doubtless. What has that got to do with ID or evolution?

quote:

---

There is also the example of a giraffe's neck. It has an integrated package of biological functions working together.

---

It certainly does. What has that got to do with ID or evolution?

quote:

---

There is also the integrated storage capacity in the genome recently discovered by molecular biologists and this information was brought to my attention by the new book "Signature in the Cell". The genome has messages within messages.

---

It doesn't have "messages". That necessarily implies a messenger. It has information certainly, but... What has that got to do with ID or evolution?

Mutate and Survive

Message 246 of 291 (514515) 07-08-2009 2:16 PM

Reply to: Message 242 by traderdrew 07-08-2009 11:55 AM

quote:

---

It doesn't have messages like the same kind of messages that we are using to write each other. You know the two codes that DNA and RNA utilize.

---

Thanks for clarifying. In my opinion we should be very careful about the kind of language we use when discussing origins and evolution; it is too easy to put the cart before the horse and use terms that seem to prejudge the conclusion. Even describing DNA as a "code" can be problematic and lead to confusion.

We are in agreement that DNA and RNA contain information.

quote:

---

This is what I have found so far. Back in the 1990s, scientists conducted "minimal complexity" experiments. The most simple cell Mycoplasa genitalium requires only 482 proteins to perform its necessary functions and 560,000 bases to DNA to assemble those proteins.

---

It would be nice if you could provide references for the research you cite.

In any case, you are only addressing the simplest cell that exists today. That is not going to be the same as the first cell or proto-cell to exist in Earth's ancient history. No-one is suggesting that modern cells simply popped into existence fully formed. That would be silly, as silly as Hoyle's ridiculous 747 analogy.

quote:

---

The other person from the UK believes that cyanobacteria evolved.

---

You've lost me. What other person? There are quite a lot of us here in the UK you know. ;)

quote:

---

I just did some brief research on cyanobacteria. They utilize photosynthesis so that right off the bat tells me that their genome is complex.

---

Compared to a rock, yes they are complex. Compared to a human, they are relatively simple.

Why are you talking about cyanobacteria? They one are the first known forms of life, as preserved by the fossil record, but I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that they were the very first life forms.

You also seem to be conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

quote:

---

When an amateur neo-Darwinsists think that something like this evolved then, that is their "faith"...Period.

---

All living populations evolve. That's just the way it is. To assume that ancient cyanobacteria were any different would be perverse.

If you are suggesting (as I think you are) that "Neo-Darwinists" think that cyanobacteria were the first form of life, you are wrong. No-one is suggesting that. The predecessors to the cyanobacteria that formed the stromatalite fossils would have been simpler and their precursors simpler than that. This is the logical extension of what we know about evolution, but it does not and is not meant to explain the origin of the first life form. Indeed, "first life form" is probably not a helpful phrase, since even today there is no clear and cast-iron boundary between life and non-life.

quote:

---

I strongly suspect that scientists have abandoned that years ago and attempted to explain the origins of life through various RNA hypotheses.

---

You what?! You suspect? Why not do some research and find out instead of making up comforting answers on the basis of no knowledge? Your suspicions are irrelevant.

quote:

---

You still need complex specified information in RNA.

---

Leaving aside exactly what you mean by "specified information", why do you think this is problematic? Information is present in living and non-living objects.

quote:

---

"Signature in the Cell" addresses the RNA debate very well in my opinion.

---

Please do me a favour; stop banging on about Signature in the Cell. If I wanted read it, I would do. I' not going to. If you think the book raises important points, present them here in your own words. Don't just say "Oh Signature in the Cell sorts all this out..." as though that is supposed to mean anything to me.

In summary, I'm still not sure what your point is. DNA is complex; yes it is. RNA is complex; yes it is. So what exactly? Are you saying that they are too complex to have evolved? If so, why?

Mutate and Survive