Discussion of the CMI-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only)

In the "What is the point of this forum?" thread, Arphy contributed by sharing a written debate between Creation Ministries International and the Australian Skeptics. Source NosyNed suggested that a Great Debate be started using the debate as a basis. As nobody has yet taken the opportunity to do so, I will start the Great Debate off here.

I suggest the following participants:
Myself
NosyNed
slevesque
Arphy

My impression of the debate between CMI and AS was of a typical debate on the issue. CMI, disappointingly, offered little to no evidence for a biblical creation, instead opting to use a variety of recycled and oft-refuted arguments against evolution. I will begin by discussing CMI's opening paper. CMI began the debate by writing a paper consisting almost entirely of well known creationist arguments, presenting them in 7 different categories. Below I have a list of their arguments and my problems with them:

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. Natural Law (1 argument)
a)
      A strawman attack on evolution using the laws of thermodynamics
      to show how the universe must have had a beginning. (Strawman)

2. Life (5 arguments)
a)
      Evolution must explain how life began (Untrue)
b)
      Life arises only from life per law of biogenesis
      (Misrepresentation of "law" of biogenesis)
c)
      Even the simplest life needs elaborate "machinery"
      (Unsupported claim)
d)
      There are vast hurdles for chemical evolution to overcome in
      order to produce life (Unsupported claim)
e)
      A well known philosopher becomes a theist because "every
      discovery of molecular biology underlines the impossibility
      of such an entity arising spontaneously." (Appeal to authority?)

3. Biological Changes (1 argument)
a)
      Information is always lost in microevolution (PRATT)

4. Fossils (2 arguments)
a)
      Lack of fossils undermines evolutionary theory (PRATT, Lie?)

b)
      Lack of fossils constitutes positive evidence for biblical
      special creation. (How?)

5. The Age of Things (11 arguments)
a)
      The decay of the earth's magnetic field implies a young earth
      (PRATT)

b)
     Organic molecules in fossils millions of years old
      (No examples given)

c)
     Too much helium in deep zircons

d)
      Not enough salt in the sea

e)
      Carbon 14 in ancient diamonds

f)
      Polystrate fossils undermine an old earth (PRATT)

g)
      Intertonguing of non-sequential geological strata

h)
      Too small a number of supernova remnants

i)
      Magnetic fields on inactive planets

j)
      All arguments for the age of the universe are based on
      assumptions (Mischaracterization of dating methods)

k)
      Canyons have been shown to form quickly

6. Cultural-Anthropological evidence (2 arguments)
a)
      People all over the world have myths about floods
      (Not evidence of a global flood)

b)
      Humans have little genetic diversity (Strawman)

7. Design and complexity (2 arguments)
a)
      The usual argument from irreducible complexity (PRATT)

b)
      Complex organs like the brain are "obviously" created (bare assertion)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that none of the arguments presented offer evidence of biblical creation. Many are fallacious, some are PRATTs, and some are irrelevant to the topic. Furthermore, I believe their reliance on overwhelming their opponent with a rapid-fire of arguments (crappy or no) from a number of different fields constitutes what is known as a Gish-Gallop style of debate. I consider this very bad form for one of world's leading creationist organizations, but in all honesty it is precisely what I would have anticipated.
Their closing of the first paper is very telling of how ICM thinks.

"what tangible basis is there for anyone to reject the claim that there is indeed a Creator who has spoken by His prophets in the Bible?"

In other words: "prove that God doesn't exist". This must be the silliest thing written in the entire debate.

In stark contrast to ICM's opening paper, AS does not attempt to overwhelm the opponent with a flurry of arguments and claims, but begins by providing the definition of science, and showing why creation science does not fit the definition. They also ask the creationists to provide evidence for their claims. Which, incidentally, ICM never provides. They then illustrate how different fields of scientific study yield results consistent with evolutionary theory. This they do without throwing in 24 PRATTs and bare assertions.

I have begun by discussing the first two papers in the debate. Two things become apparent from the very beginning:

1. ICM does not bother presenting evidence of special creation (let a lone biblical special creation)

2. ICM relies almost exclusively on an array PRATTs and fallacies to further their case

Why is this? Is this because their case is too weak to defend with actual evidence?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

ABE: Apologies. I just noticed that NosyNed started the Great Debate on the same topic just before I did.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "(Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only)" part to the topic title.

Edited by Meldinoor, : Changed ICM to CMI in thread title

Thread copied here from the Discussion of the ICM-AS debate (Meldinoor, NosyNed, Slevesque, Arphy only) thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

I'd like to suggest that we see if we can pare down the list of items to discuss. We can remove those that we can all agree on (there must be some ).

In addtion, should we refer to discussions that are ongoing in other threads rather than reproduce those here? I'm not sure about this one since in many cases those threads are stalled.

For removal could we look at those that are marked as PRATTs in the OP? Even one or two of them? Some of those (e.g., salt in the oceans IIRC are even rejected by some major creationist organizations.)

ABE
Sigh, nope, they don't even reject the ocean salt one. Let's see if we can be smarter than that here.

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

Ok, what is a PRATT ? (Lol ... )

Oh, by the way NosyNed. The salt in ocean was the very first subject I made here I find it to be legit, since after discussion in that thread (over 6 months ago), the overall response was an an appeal that other sodium sinks would be found eventually. (Hence meaning that the argument as of right now, is valid) Only person I remember that were trying to find an answer was Dr.A if I remember correctly.

I agree with you that we should narrow down the subjects that we agree on, and also those that are secondary. To try and keep all this focused. I'm at my parents house for the weekend, I'll try to read as much as I can of the document as soon as I come back on monday.

Hi slevesque,

PRATT is an acronym for "Point Refuted A Thousand Times". In other words, an argument that Creationists like to make, but that has been shown repeatedly to be false.

I agree that we should not discuss every single argument posed by ICM. The reason I listed them was to illustrate what I think is wrong with ICM's debate style: Throwing out a plethora of outdated arguments that have been debunked many times before. I think you yourself condemned Gish Galloping in another thread, so I was curious to see what you think of their debate style.

The second fundamental flaw with the ICM side of the debate is that they never present evidence of Biblical Creation. While they attempt to undermine the TOE, they do not feel that they carry a burden of proof themselves. Curiously, I have never come across a single piece of evidence of Creation as described in Genesis. Why is this?

slevesque writes: Oh, by the way NosyNed. The salt in ocean was the very first subject I made here I find it to be legit, since after discussion in that thread (over 6 months ago), the overall response was an an appeal that other sodium sinks would be found eventually.

When I went through the list of arguments ICM presented, I did not label every single one a PRATT. This was either because I did not understand their argument (too few supernova remnants?? how do they know how many to expect?), or because I wasn't immediately familiar with an answer to it. (Although in retrospect I should have labeled the canyon one a PRATT as well)

The sea salt is one of the latter. There are many dissolved minerals in the ocean, and I don't know what mechanisms are responsible for removing all of them and maintaining an equilibrium. I'll have to do some research on this one. (Maybe I'll start off by looking at your thread)

So perhaps we should narrow the list of arguments down to those that we all agree are not PRATTs or are otherwise worth discussing. This leaves (by my list):

1. Too much helium in deep zircons
2. Not enough salt in the sea
3. Carbon 14 in ancient diamonds
4. Intertonguing of non-sequential geological strata
5. Too small a number of supernova remnants
6. Magnetic fields on inactive planets

Are there any other arguments from the ICM side that you would like to discuss? Any thing from the AS side?

So in summary:

1. ICM does not bother presenting evidence of Biblical Creation. Why is this?

2. What is your opinion of the Gish Galloping approach taken by ICM?

3. Which topics would you like to narrow our discussion down to?

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Hi Meldinoor, Nosyned, and Slevesque
Thanks to Meldinoor and Nosyned for setting this up and for inviting me.

The initial reason that I posted a link to the source material was to provide an example to dwise of a written debate between respected evolutionists and creationists. If this thread ever gets concluded maybe we could have another look back and see if these types of debate are worthwhile (both the source and our own debate here, whether they should be more focused (the debate covers a lot of ground), etc. Also, as an aside the title should read CMI (Creation Ministries International) not ICM.

Anyway, here goes the reply to Meldinoor's opening post:

1. Natural Law (1 argument) a) A strawman attack on evolution using the laws of thermodynamics to show how the universe must have had a beginning. (Strawman)

How is this a strawman argument? Yes, many evolutionists believe the universe had a beginning, however there are also some who don't i.e. as explained in CMI's final essay. If we take it that the universe did have a beginning then this is good supporting evidence for a creator. In a materialistc explanation this evidence can at the most provide neutral evidence but not positive evidence for a materialistic explanation.

2. Life (5 arguments) a) Evolution must explain how life began (Untrue)

I have only written this once or twice in my life but this situation calls for it. LOL!!
The AS really blew it big time here.
Let me quote from their (AS) opening essay:

Self-replicating molecules first appeared on the Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. All life on Earth is descended from these molecules, although there may have been many originations at different times and in different places.

This is simply incredible. They first make these claims and then run away from them by the second essay! What sort of a tactic is that?! You complain about "Gish gallops", well this sort of tactic is at the very least confusing or very bad debating.

The same goes for cosmic evolution.
They (AS) make the claim

According to the latest research, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The conditions and events which initially brought the universe into being are unknown at this time, but not necessarily unknowable. Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe coming into existence, there are certain rules, processes and constant values which operate across time, so that some observations made now have applied to the universe since it began and some conditions of the new universe still apply today.

Note especially the 2nd claim "Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe coming into existence". Here they are definatly making a claim for cosmic evolution. Yet they turn around in the second essay and deny it! What the....?

These two clear examples of, well not too sure what to call it, but perhaps hypocrisy, is just very bad debating. And then they try to blast the creationists for bringing up the subjects! That is just incredible!

Even the simplest life needs elaborate "machinery" (Unsupported claim)

Please don't be too quick to label something an unsupported claim. CMI provide an example which contains a reference for further reading. Yet you have made a judgement on the evidence even before we have discussed it. If you feel that the evidence given is insubstantial, wrong, misunderstood, or should be discarded for some other reason then you can say so. But then it is up to you to provide reasons for why this is so, otherwise you are just making unsubstantiated claims as well, i.e. you provide no evidence as to why you reached that conclusion.

There are vast hurdles for chemical evolution to overcome in order to produce life (Unsupported claim)

The AS claim on this topic is also unsupported with any references. However, in the next essay the AS run away from the claim (as shown above) while CMI does go into more detail and provides references.

This is probably enough discussion material on individual points but just want to discuss some of your conclusions.

"what tangible basis is there for anyone to reject the claim that there is indeed a Creator who has spoken by His prophets in the Bible?" In other words: "prove that God doesn't exist". This must be the silliest thing written in the entire debate.

Eh? What they are saying is that given the evidence as portayed in their essay, why do people still cling to other beliefs?

They also ask the creationists to provide evidence for their claims. Which, incidentally, ICM never provides.

CMI does but do AS provide any evidence for their claims?

This they do without throwing in 24 PRATTs and bare assertions.

Pardon me but they definatly rattle of some PRATTs about the ark and then make a whole list of claims. They don't provide a single reference in their opening essay compared to the 35 references given in the CMI opening essay!!!!!

1. ICM does not bother presenting evidence of special creation (let a lone biblical special creation)

many arguments used by YECs can be evidence for creation in general. Evidence for a young earth is definatly positive evidence for creation as opposed to a materialistic explanation. Please note that if you have problems with, or see flaws in the evidence then say so and give reasons why. Don't just make judgements about the evidence without discussing it. CMI believe that they have evidence for a young earth so do us a favour and don't just hand wave it away but take it seriously and show us with logic and evidence that we are incorrect. Is this fair? Agreed?
They also provide evidence in other areas which are only consistent with a creator, and so again I would ask that you take us to task on this evidence and not merely hand wave it away. As for Biblical creation specifically they gave evidence concerning flood accounts from around the world. I would also possibly later in this debate like to introduce more historical records and ancient genealogies that verify the historicity of the bible.

I think this post may have addressed a few points in your scond post as well. As for topics, your list seems to indicate that you are most interested in evidence for the different views on the age of the earth. That's fine with me, although i hope that we might be able to keep it relevant to the source debate. Although, maybe we could each pick our "pet" topic from the debate and focus on those. Or perhaps we should just start debating and then see which topics become the most popular or interesting. Either way, I don't mind too much.

I think I would be speaking for Slevesque as well by saying that just be careful to not over-use what seem to be pre-programmed "lie", and "haven't shown any evidence" buttons that seem to exist on most evolutionists' computer keyboards This makes it much easier for me and slevesque to take you seriously. Other than that, Let's get this party started!

Thanks,

Arphy

Hi Arphy, and welcome to the discussion,

I'm going to start by responding to some of the things you said in your post.

---------------------------------------------------------

Arphy writes: How is this a strawman argument? Yes, many evolutionists believe the universe had a beginning, however there are also some who don't i.e. as explained in CMI's final essay. If we take it that the universe did have a beginning then this is good supporting evidence for a creator. In a materialistc explanation this evidence can at the most provide neutral evidence but not positive evidence for a materialistic explanation.

Today most scientists accept that the universe had a beginning some 13.7bya. I don't know which "prominent cosmologists" CMI is referring to in their final essay, nor do I know the specifics of their "steady state model", as CMI apparently forgot to leave a reference. There are fringe-theorists among evolutionists too, so it's not hard to find an evolutionist who's promoting some obscure theory, point at him and say "this is what evolutionists believe".
In any case, showing that the universe has a beginning does nothing to support the claim that the world was created in six days some 6000ya.
Nor does it really provide evidence for a creator.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Arphy writes: 2. Life (5 arguments) a) Evolution must explain how life began (Untrue) I have only written this once or twice in my life but this situation calls for it. LOL!! The AS really blew it big time here. Let me quote from their (AS) opening essay: Self-replicating molecules first appeared on the Earth about 3.5 billion years ago. All life on Earth is descended from these molecules, although there may have been many originations at different times and in different places. This is simply incredible. They first make these claims and then run away from them by the second essay! What sort of a tactic is that?! You complain about "Gish gallops", well this sort of tactic is at the very least confusing or very bad debating.

Admittedly, AS does make the claim about self-replicating molecules without backing it up on the spot. Later on in the same essay, they do provide evidence in general terms, but do not reference any specifics. I agree that they could have done a more thorough job in the evidence department, however, considering their constraints (the essays were presumably of limited length) they probably wanted to present their position in general terms in the opening essay, and focus on the specific issues that CMI wanted to discuss. I don't think they anticipated the Gish Gallop CMI ended up giving them.

You wrote that AS "ran away from [their claim about self-replicating molecules] by the second essay". In reality, they offer several competing theories and state that science hasn't determined which one is the correct theory yet. There are many ways self-replicating molecules might have formed (see the abiogenesis article on wikipedia for a summary of several theories).

Arphy writes: The same goes for cosmic evolution. They (AS) make the claim According to the latest research, the universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The conditions and events which initially brought the universe into being are unknown at this time, but not necessarily unknowable. Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe coming into existence, there are certain rules, processes and constant values which operate across time, so that some observations made now have applied to the universe since it began and some conditions of the new universe still apply today. Note especially the 2nd claim "Apart from an extremely tiny period of time following the universe coming into existence". Here they are definatly making a claim for cosmic evolution. Yet they turn around in the second essay and deny it! What the....?

Where do they deny cosmic evolution? Quote please.

Arphy writes: These two clear examples of, well not too sure what to call it, but perhaps hypocrisy, is just very bad debating. And then they try to blast the creationists for bringing up the subjects! That is just incredible!

In the first example you seem to have missed the fact that AS provided several examples of how life might have originated:

quote:

---

There are several competing theories, such as the production of amino acids from atmospheric gases and lightning as demonstrated by Miller’s experiments, or panspermia as suggested by Hoyle, where the relevant molecules came from elsewhere in the universe (which simply moves the answer further away), or the effects of ultra-violet light on the contents of ponds. Perhaps God did it. The last option removes the need for any further research into the ‘little bang’, but it says nothing about what happened afterwards. For more about abiogenesis, see here

---

And the second example is apparently not a very clear example of hypocrisy as I can't seem to find it. Then again, maybe I'm just stupid.

------------------------------------------------------

Arphy writes: Please don't be too quick to label something an unsupported claim. CMI provide an example which contains a reference for further reading. Yet you have made a judgement on the evidence even before we have discussed it. If you feel that the evidence given is insubstantial, wrong, misunderstood, or should be discarded for some other reason then you can say so. But then it is up to you to provide reasons for why this is so, otherwise you are just making unsubstantiated claims as well, i.e. you provide no evidence as to why you reached that conclusion.

Indeed, I am always willing to give CMI the benefit of the doubt, and I have not ignored their references. Anywhere I wrote "unsupported claim" I first checked their reference to see how they backed up their claim. None of my labeling of their arguments was done lightly, and I'd be willing to back up any of the assessments I have made.

In this particular case I searched their reference for support for their claim

quote:

---

Even the simplest life needs much elaborate machinery

---

I certainly couldn't find any. Can you? And it would seem that actual scientific discoveries disagree with them as well.

My favourite example of a "replicating molecule" is the QB (actually Q-Beta) virus. Without going into too much detail, its RNA was reduced to 220 nucleobases, and still it continued to function and replicate just fine. Without "much elaborate machinery". That is why I labeled it an "unsupported claim".

See here and here.

Arphy writes: There are vast hurdles for chemical evolution to overcome in order to produce life (Unsupported claim) The AS claim on this topic is also unsupported with any references. However, in the next essay the AS run away from the claim (as shown above) while CMI does go into more detail and provides references.

As I've shown you, AS does not run from their claim.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Arphy writes: Pardon me but they definatly rattle of some PRATTs about the ark and then make a whole list of claims. They don't provide a single reference in their opening essay compared to the 35 references given in the CMI opening essay!!!!!

Indeed. And this highlights an important difference in how both sides approached their first essay. Remember, neither side had seen the other's opening essay beforehand and thus did not know what to expect.

While CMI begins by presenting a host of arguments on a number of topics (what I'd call Gish Galloping), AS takes a more cautious approach by outlining their position and the creationist position. Their "list of claims" appears to me to be an attempt to establish common ground. Once both sides of the debate know what the other side actually believes, they can engage in an effective debate.

AS at first provides a list of claims for both sides, without trying to prove their list of claims, or attack the opposing ones. They then provide, in general terms, the fields of study that support their claim. The difference: CMI begins by rattling off a list of arguments, thus the need for many references. AS simply starts off by presenting their side in general terms, so that the debate can be narrowed down in the later essays.

Which brings us to our Great Debate. How are we going to do this folks? The CMI-AS debate touches on a lot of topics, and we're going to have to agree on what we want to discuss. We can continue to argue about which side were the better debators, but I'd rather we picked a few of their arguments, or related ones and discussed them.

I suggest Arphy and slevesque settle on what they think are the strongest arguments put forth by CMI. Maybe just 2 or 3, to keep our discussion focused. NosyNed and I will do the same for AS.

Of course, I want everyone's approval of the idea before we continue.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Hi,

Arphy started a bith rough and on the offense, I'll be a bit smoother to begin and discuss the questions you asked as they are important in order to establish a good starting point.

1. ICM does not bother presenting evidence of Biblical Creation. Why is this?

Biblical creation as a framework is very vast. Simply put, it is the idea that the historic narrative writings of the book of genesis are accurate descriptions of what historically happened. This covers 6-day creation, the flood, and Babel (for the essential).

Evidence for Babel will usually come in the form of similarities within cultures around the globe that had no contact with one another. An example could be the study of similarities between constellations between such cultures. (This evidence is not discussed, as Babel is not dicussed)

Evidence for a Global flood will come from a vast array of areas. Evidence in this category won't usually be evidence for a 6000 year-old earth, for example, but it will be evidence for the flood which is an important part of the creation model.

Finally, evidence for the 6-day creation is probably the type that you say is not present. It is, of course, a bit tricky, as I doubt we could find a fact of nature that would prove that 'God created birds before humans'. However, evidence for this will usually come in the form of evidence for a young earth and evidence for a creator. And so any evidence that put a 'maximum age' for the earth (the salt in ocean one for example) will become evidence for a young earth. Obviously, it doesn't prove a 6000 year old date, nor any specific date that is. Evidence for a creator will come in the form similar to intelligent design. (information and irreducible complexity) Again in this case, it doesn't prove that the Christian God created humans specifically as described, but it only affirms that humans were created by an intelligent being. (which is a logical deduction from the creation model)

2. What is your opinion of the Gish Galloping approach taken by ICM?

As you said, I spoke against it in other threads. Here it is an unusual circumstance, since it is a written debate. Gish galloping is usually in an oral debate where one side (the creationist, I suppose) will put out a lot of claims one after the other, with the direct result that they do not support each one, (because then it wouldn't be gish galloping) and that it leaves not enough time for the other side to answer every single one because there are too many.

In a written debate, things are different. There is no temporal time limit. There is a word limit. So if in an oral debate it is the approximate numbers of arguments/second that defines it to be gish gallop. How do we evaluate it in a written debate, number of arguments/letter ?

Because the reader, unlike the listener, isn't bombarded with too much in too little time. They present multiple lines of evidence that they think are legit to a given conclusion, and almost all with a link as to support every claim. Since it is also a written debate, it permits the other side to answer every single claim briefly and with a simple link.

On the other end, the AS do a similar thing. They present multiples fields of science and say that they all point to a given conclusion. The difference being that they do not provide references, and that they are much broader in their declarations.

I don't think that, just because CMI are being specific, and AS are being broad, that the two situations are not analog. I think they are pretty much the same, and I don't have a problem with this (although I do think specific is better then broad).

So I don't that, even though it does seem like Gish Gallop, the actual effects in written form aren't the same then in oral form.(since it usually is the result of oral debating because of it's nature. (time limit, live audience, etc.)). Since the two characteristics of oral gish gallop. No support for the claims, and not enough time for them all to be answered, don't really apply to the written form.

Although I'll say that it wouldn't have been my approach to this, at least not in the opening essay.

3. Which topics would you like to narrow our discussion down to?

Well the topics you selected are all about the age of the earth, I don't mind discussing these as I've all encountered them before (except for geological strata)

I think we should discuss the magnetic fields of other planets with the other argument about our own magnetic field, as the two are related by Humprheys theory of the origin of paleomagnetic fields.

We could also discuss the creationist fossil claim. And also how mutations generate noise in the genome. On the AS side, they are very broad in their assertions, and so it's difficult to discuss any specific one. Maybe discuss their intro about what is science, and how creationism doesn't fit in it ?

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

Just one comment in this:

My favourite example of a "replicating molecule" is the QB (actually Q-Beta) virus. Without going into too much detail, its RNA was reduced to 220 nucleobases, and still it continued to function and replicate just fine. Without "much elaborate machinery". That is why I labeled it an "unsupported claim".

VIruses uses the machinery of the host bacteria in order to replicate. So even though they do not themselves possess the machinery, they still require it.

Hi slevesque,

I appreciate your friendly and direct response to the questions I posed to you. I'll try to provide some short comments on your answers before we decide on what topics this debate should cover.

-----------------------------------------------

slevesque writes: Finally, evidence for the 6-day creation is probably the type that you say is not present. It is, of course, a bit tricky, as I doubt we could find a fact of nature that would prove that 'God created birds before humans'.

Yet most creationists (including CMI) include the six days as described in the Bible in their creation model. If there truly is no evidence to support this, and no way to falsify it, how can they claim their model is scientific? Why not make the Quran a part of the model as well? If it's just because they happen to be Christians, they have no scientific rationale for choosing any particular creation story.

-------------------------------------------------

slevesque writes: Although I'll say that it wouldn't have been my approach to this, at least not in the opening essay.

I think both sides could have improved their presentation. I also think the debate should have been more focused, that way both sides could have spent more time exploring each topic. We'll do better than they did.

------------------------------------------------------

slevesque writes: Well the topics you selected are all about the age of the earth, I don't mind discussing these as I've all encountered them before (except for geological strata) I think we should discuss the magnetic fields of other planets with the other argument about our own magnetic field, as the two are related by Humprheys theory of the origin of paleomagnetic fields. We could also discuss the creationist fossil claim. And also how mutations generate noise in the genome. On the AS side, they are very broad in their assertions, and so it's difficult to discuss any specific one. Maybe discuss their intro about what is science, and how creationism doesn't fit in it ?

You can pick any of the topics. I suggested a few that I thought seemed more convincing than the PRATTs, but it makes much more sense if you and Arphy each pick one or two arguments freely. I suggest we each present an argument from the debate. That's two for each side of the debate. That should be focused enough to start out.

I'll be presenting my argument tomorrow when I have some time. That, and whatever arguments the three of you choose, should get this debate rolling.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor

--------------------------------------------

Also, a quick response to your other post.

slevesque writes: VIruses uses the machinery of the host bacteria in order to replicate. So even though they do not themselves possess the machinery, they still require it.

True, in most cases. However, the QB virus evolved within the lab to no longer require a host cell in order to replicate. Instead, the final version of the virus was capable of simply taking whatever it needed to replicate out of a solute.

ASA writes: The Qb virus doesn't need anything as complicated as a cell in order to replicate: a test tube full of suitable chemicals is enough

Source

This simple 220 nucleobase replicating string of RNA may be analogous to early life. At the very least it proves that life does not require complex machinery to function.

Edited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Hi Meldinoor

Just a quick note.
Sorry, didn't provide a reference of where the "running away" from the AS initial claims occurs. On page 30, 2nd paragraph

Before going on, it would be worthwhile to say what evolutionary theory is not about. It neither requires nor denies the existence of a god. It is not about the origin of life. It is not about the origin of the universe.

So why bring it up in their opening essay?

Again page 31, 2nd paragraph

As I said above, there is no requirement for evolutionary theory to ‘explain the origin of first life’, because evolution is about changes over time. Scientists simply do not know how life first arose on Earth.

Again, why make claims when you don't know how it happened and you believe to talk about it would be off topic?

Anyway, I guess there are more important things to discuss, although it certainly is an interesting point.
I like your idea of picking some key topics. I haven't decided yet as to what I'd like to focus on but will get back to you about that soon.

(Slevesque, if you could maybe email me we could discuss which topics would be the best, or we could discuss it on here if you wish, or just both pick one or two topics each)

Will be traveling tomorrow and meeting up with family, so may not have a chance to reply, but will try to as soon as possible.

BTW, where's NosyNed? Any comments, suggestions?

Alright, gotta go.

I suggest the following participants: Myself NosyNed slevesque Arphy

So ... I'm not allowed to join in?

Bah.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Again, why make claims when you don't know how it happened and you believe to talk about it would be off topic?

Because the creationists (especially young earthers) have a lot of trouble with evolution itself and even more with supporting their own 'theories' they have developed a habit of trying to widen the playing field and muddy the waters.

It is necessary in these discussions to point out the boundaries of the sciences involved.

In addition, theologians would point out to them that the tactic of bringing these things in is very bad theology as well as poor logic.

That is; any attempt to distract from the weakness of support for their own ideas by trying to find unanswered questions just shows that they are, in fact, unwilling to focus attention on their own ideas.

In addition, anything which says "Aha, you don't know how that happened so it must be goddidit!" is understood to be dangerous theology because we have many centuries of experiences with such gaps being closed. If a gap is used to suggest that it is support the the actions (and even the actual existance) of a god then when the gap is closed is it not logical to say it is now support for the non-existance of such a god? This is the theological danger that the most simple-minded are getting themselves into.

As well, saying that "Aha, you don't know that!" means that their opponents don't know some other thing or know nothing is recognizable by most to be so utterly silly that the more thoughtful would recommend staying away from that debate approach.

If I say "I don't know" to a specific question then the debate about that is over. If you want to say, "Well, I know!" then you have to supply actual evidence and logic. Goddidit contains neither and doesn't give an answer which supports any further exploration.

If you wish to move away from biological evolution and the time frames involved then we can discuss the origin of the universe and life. We know a lot about both areas up to a point but beyond that point the answer is "I don't know." Why not save time and just put aside these unknowns for now?

Ok, I think I have a good way to explain this.

Yet most creationists (including CMI) include the six days as described in the Bible in their creation model. If there truly is no evidence to support this, and no way to falsify it, how can they claim their model is scientific? Why not make the Quran a part of the model as well? If it's just because they happen to be Christians, they have no scientific rationale for choosing any particular creation story.

Creationists are christians. Therefore they believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. In other words, they believe that God exists, and that he spoke to humanity through his prophets. This is the primary set of axioms of their position. (It cannot be proven. This is why it is an axiom)

Now, how do you verify if the given set of axioms you choose are true ? well, you do a bit like in mathematics; you check if they are logically consistent with themselves, and with the evidence you have at hand. You can also check if logical deductions from these axioms can be shown to be valid. So the creationists are those who, at the end of all this, find that the christian axioms (you could call it a framework, or a paradigm) holds good and passes all those tests.

Note that they still have faith, because axioms can never be proven (by definition). So presupposing that a given axiom is true will always require faith. But it won't be a blind faith, it will be a logical faith. (In fact, this is close in meaning to the greek word used for faith by Paul)

And finally comes the creation model. It is because they arrived at the conclusion that their axioms are legitimate, therefore they postulate that if the Bible is the word of God (who exists), then it should be right about the question of origins. From that point of, they try to see if it is consistent with the evidence. For whatever reason that we are all here to discuss on this forum, they think that it holds up to that test as well. This is the type of arguments you will find, those that show how the biblical model is consistent, and how competing models are inconsistent.

(Note that the two axioms produce some kind of side effect. Since God exists, and since the Bible is his word, then for christians, the genesis account is actually an eye-witness testimony of what happened. But of course, since atheists do not accept the two axioms as true, this argument is of no use to them. It is more directed at christians who accep the theory of evolution)

I hope this is a bit clearer, and that you will see that it is logically valid, which doesn't man that, at the end of the day it is true. You gotta think that these two axioms were at the origin of modern science, as the primary axioms of science,(laws of nature exist, they do not change through time and space. We can logically observe nature to determine these laws. etc.) are actually theorems in the christian framework (in that they are logical conclusions of the christian axioms.). I do think that for this reason alone, the christian framework has to be evaluated very seriously.

With this said. I'll pick two subjects (probably the magnetic field and supernovae, I'll bump my old salt in ocean thread if anyone wants to discuss it over there)

---------------------

That Qb virus thing is very interesting, I had never heard of it, and CMI has no articles whatsoever about it. I'll document myself a it more on it, and send them a question about it. If your interested in their answer to this, I'll probably post it somewhere around here (although it takes a lot of time to receive answers usuallly)

slevesque writes: That Qb virus thing is very interesting, I had never heard of it, and CMI has no articles whatsoever about it. I'll document myself a it more on it, and send them a question about it. If your interested in their answer to this, I'll probably post it somewhere around here (although it takes a lot of time to receive answers usuallly)

Please do. Or e-mail me what you learn. My e-mail is in my member profile.

Sorry that I haven't gotten around to posting my argument yet as I'd planned. I'm in college and I have a number of assignments that I don't seem to be making any headway with. In the meantime, go ahead and present the arguments you've chosen.

On a sidenote:

slevesque writes: It is more directed at christians who accep the theory of evolution

That's me! I think you'll find that we share many core beliefs, yet they have influenced our perspectives differently.

Looking forward to seeing your arguments.

Respectfully,

-Meldinoor