Upside Down Day Comment Thread

I agree. It's been pretty boring. I wanted to talk in the areas I usually discuss, not so much getting into the areas I don't normally get into.But I have to wait until an argument is made before I can attack it. So fire away.I do need to work though, and have been here too long today as it is.

Well you HAVE used irreducible complexity, and you did say to use the best arguments.

Agreed, although I haven't used Behe's flagellum example before, or at least not as a major point. I think irreducible complexity is a very good point for ID, but will go back to bashing it in just a bit!This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 01:10 PM

The bacterial flagellum is THE standard example of IC. But I'm afraid that it isn't a good argument against evolution.You've done a reasonable job attacking it but you've missed some important points against it and if there is a decent argument using "natural bridges" then I am afraid you messed it up. (You've missed at least oen route for evolving IC systems - one especially relevant to the blood clotting cascade, another of Behe's examples. You've missed the AVIDA experiments which would be far better than your "natural bridge" argument. And you've missed examples of IC where the evidence indicates that they did evolve like the impedance-matching function of the bones in hte mammalian inner ear)

The real problem here is that the creationist position is extremely weak. It is almost impossible to come up with anything that hasn't been said before and refuted before.If I was to initiate a discussion of e.g. whale transitionals, from "creo-Ringo's" viewpoint, all I could do is repeat what "creo-randman" has already said. There is nothing else.I think it would be within the rules of the debate if you would initiate a discussion of whale transitionals - from "evo-randman's" viewpoint - showing how weak "creo-randman's" position is.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Haven't missed them Paulk. Don't be so quick to assume I'm not going to address those areas, if need be, but if we get into cellular structures, an area I have not debated, it takes longer because I need to provide links.My usual examples are more like the evolution of wings or something like that; and of course the fossil record, how evos view data as shown via convergent evolution, etc,...Edit to add that I think Behe could be right, but I've never really given his ideas on the flagellum that much thought. I haven't read his books for example, and my reasons for doubting ToE predated Behe coming out with all that anyway.I also don't know a lot about Flood geology, but will look into enough to be able to argue against it, although I really would like to know the YEC response on fossil layers. Mind you, I am not dismissing YEC claims. I just don't know what they are completely yet. So it's hard to argue against them, and I'll need to take some time there as well.What's funny, to me, is the claim that people like myself reject ToE for lack of understanding ToE when in reality I understand ToE's claims very well and don't yet understand creationist alternatives as much.This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 03:07 PM

Sorry, but any of the poitns I mentioned would have been better than the "natural bridge" argument. I don't know if the "natural bridge" argument is bad or if you just don't understand it, but you weren't able to make naything of it. So under the rules of the thread if you knew any of the points I raised well enough to argue them then you should have used them instead.[added in edit]
And I'm not really convinced that you know evolutionary theory that well. I haven't seen much sign of it - for instance your view of PE seems to be closer to a common creationist view, rather than the view put forward by Eldredge and Gould in the paper where they proposed it.This message has been edited by PaulK, 08-24-2005 05:04 PM

PaulK, I haven't finished with the natural bridge example. You need to quit jumping the gun.And the view on PE I put forth is very compatible with Gould and Etheridge, and maybe more favorable than their original contentions which did include statements they seem to have modified since then.This message has been edited by randman, 08-24-2005 05:10 PM

You've bene ignoring the questions I've raised about the "natural bridge" argument. Right now it's dead and you really should have posted answers by now - by the rules of the thread you're supposed to make the best case you can and leaving important objections unanswered is not the way to do that.

I'm afraid that your comment only tends to confirm that you don't have that good a grasp of the underpinnings. So, what's the basic idea in evolutionary theory that PE is derived from ? That should be easy if you're really familiar with the theory.

A creationist I ran into elsewhere tried arguing that reptiles typically lived in low-lying areas., while mammals would live higher up. I riased hippos as a counter-example and he had no answer. I haven't run into an answer on this particular point although it is not necessary that they lived in exactly the sme areas if YEC views are true (i.e. it is fatal to his argument but only evidence against the one I am using)

PaulK, go back and read my comments on the other thread as far as the quotes and PE, and then address either here or there what you find objectionable, and if you want to take it further, open a thread topic on PE and state what YOU think the misunderstandings are.There's plenty of stuff on my plate. Bring this up the right way and in the proper channels, if you think creationists misunderstand PE.

Which other thread ?

Meaning you can address as a creationist the accurate PE presentation as you see it, and then rebutt it, or open a new thread stating the same thing as an evolutionist but rebutting what you feel are creationist errors.The fact is though, creationists and most Americans understand the basics of ToE quite well. Very few people reject it based on a lack of knowledge of ToE since every public school student in the nation is taught ToE, and TV and popular culture are inundated with ToE.Btw, try googling creationist sources. The following is a rebuttal of my point as an evo. If you had ever listened to the YEC criticisms fully and given them a proper hearing, you would know their position concerning flood geology. Where Are All the Human Fossils? | Answers in Genesis

The other thread is for working out how well WE understand creationist ideas. So testign your knowledge isn't part of it.And I really don't know what your point on flood geology is. I've been using creationist arguments (even cutting and pasting from creationist sources without saying so as creationists do). But I've never seen a specific answer to the question of hippos and crocs - and there isn't one at the link. If you know of one then point it out. Otherwise you certainly aren;t in a position to say that I haven't given them a fair hearing on that point.