What are common creationist strawmen?

If man came from monkeys then how come there are still monkeys??This one I actually heard:"Evolution can't possibly be true because a monkey would have had to have given birth to a human".PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 05-05-2004 09:33 AM

---

404 Not Found

If you want to get pedantic, as I do , what you have done is to apply the principles of biological evolution to non-living things. The TOE is a theory about how the panoply of life came to be, and by definition is about life.

If I wanted to get really, really pedantic (and why would I want that?) I could first point out that I used the word 'principles' initially, in the second sentence of my message to Lam, and secondly that the possibility of applying a theory outside it's original domain means that, from then on, it encompasses a larger domain. The theory of evolution is no longer just a theory about life, but a theory about how complex systems in general, of which life is a prime example, can evolve.But of course I do not want to get really, really pedantic.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

While in the shower and brushing my teeth, I actually thought up of some reasons why I still stand by my statement that ToE only apply to living things. Gotta rush to class. Post later.By the way, just noticed your sig. Very funny. I think it's one of the better quotes of Desdemona.

---

The Laminator

​

What happened? My arguments went down the drain?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

No, it doesn't prove that the theory of evolution also apply to nonliving thing.Permit me to give an analogy.One of the important part of the theory of gravity is that in order for something to have gravity it must have mass. The more mass, the stronger it's gravitational pull on other things.I used to have a program (before I formated my harddrive then noticed that I have lost the original cd) that simulates the effect of gravity. What I was able to do with the program was assign certain gravitational strength to certain objects. I could even change the universal constant.Based on your reasoning, the theory of gravity also apply to things that doesn't have mass, like those objects in my program. That is nonsense.Going back to your program, it is not carrying out evolution. It is only demonstrating how evolution occur using certain concepts and mechanisms of evolution. In other words, computer simulations do not count.Besides your computer, which I have shown that you can't use a computer simulation to "prove" certain parts of the theories to be wrong, can you think of anything nonliving that also exhibit the same characteristics described by the theory of evolution?By the way, I am sure I thought of at least 5 other reasons why your logic is flawed when I was brushing my teeth. For the life of me, I can't think of them now. Too much philosophical discussion on animal rights/interests makes you lose your ideas.

---

The Laminator

​

Lam, you disappoint me. Your analogy is flawed, surely you must realise you are mixing levels here. Those objects in your programme didn’t have real mass, but they had something more appropriate for a simulation of gravity, namely a simulated mass. That’s why the programme could tell you how those objects would interact if they were real world objects with real mass. Just as real gravity doesn’t have an effect on the simulated objects in your programme, the simulation of gravity doesn’t have an effect on the real objects on your desk. Like I said, you are mixing levels. Well, there is an important difference between gravity and evolution. On the one hand, gravity cannot be implemented on a computer, because you cannot put real mass into a programme. The best you can do is a simulation. Evolution, on the other hand, basically deals with information, which makes it perfectly possible to implement it on a computer, because you can put real information into a programme.I start with a set of itineraries of poor quality, in that each and every one of them will send the travelling salesman all over the place, making him travel longer than necessary. They are of poor quality because they are randomly generated. Then I let my programme do it’s thing on those itineraries and I end up with a population of them in which each is much more efficient than any one in the original set. Real poor quality information has evolved into real high quality information. So my programme is not merely a simulation of an evolution, it is actually carrying one out. I’m sorry, but I think you haven’t even come close to showing this. Yes. Memes. Either that, or brushing your teeth is dangerous for the brain.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Sorry to disappoint you. I didn't know I was running for perfection or anything.I'm going to start another thread about this issue before I get banned by the bosses. This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread's topic.

---

The Laminator

​

Don't be offended, Lam. I just think that your reasoning is flawed, which I find uncharacteristic, based on what I've seen from you so far. How far can one stray from the path before it becomes 'off-topic'? The topic is common creationist strawmen. You mentioned the scrap heap argument as an example and commented that one of the reasons it doesn't hold water is that evolution only applies to living things. I objected to that line of thought with an example. I ask you now: how far off-topic are we? Aren't we still discussing the validity of one reason why a certain argument is or is not a strawman?But if you want to create yet another thread, go ahead. I'll see you there.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

The reason I think this is off-topic is because we both agree that making a statement like "a pile of rock will not evolve into a computer" or "a pile of scrap metal will not evolve into an airplane" to refute evolution is straw man.I listed a few reasons why this is straw man, and we disagreed on one of the reasons. Unless you think that making assertion that since "a pile of rock can't evolve into a computer" then biological evolution can't exist to be not a straw man, what we have been discussing about is off-topic.Regardless of what we might decide on whether the theory of evolution can be applied to non-living things or not, oversimplifying the ToE like that to refute it is straw man, period.

---

The Laminator

​

No offense taken. I am by no means perfect. I've made flawed reasonings in the past, and I am bound to make some more flawed reasonings in the future.By the way, thanx for the compliment ("...which I find uncharacteristic, based on what I've seen from you so far.").This message has been edited by Lam, 05-06-2004 03:19 AM

---

The Laminator

​

Lam, are you saying we can only stay on-topic here by disagreeing about something being a strawman or not? As soon as we agree on something being a strawman, anything we say is off-topic? The finer nuances of the matter, are they off-topic? I know you are straight thinking, but isn't this a bit over the top?Although I realise that this meta-discussion about on- or off-topicness is really off-topic, I'd like a second opinion. AdminTL? Other Admins? Anyone?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Admins, what are the boundaries of a topic?This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 05-06-2004 10:11 AM

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Sounds like a new thread to me.

---

The Laminator

​

This thread is only 2 days and 29 posts old, so I will refer back to the OP http://EvC Forum: What are common creationist strawmen?.The originator specifically requested "common creationist strawmen" and said "this is not a debate".I believe the issue of evolution and life/non-life is an interesting topic and should be taken to a more appropriate forum for discussion.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe