Debunking Creationism 301 (Advanced) - Lesson 1

[loseyourname]

I agree. Luckily it's a complete fallacy to suppose that you can only know what's true by proving it.

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?

What's obvious about it?

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.

Yeah, that strategy's working really well isn't it.

It's based on another fallacy, namely that science is not a metaphysical model. In fact it is one for most people, as you have illustrated.

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.

Never heard of that one.

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.

 

[Janitor]

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. - loseyourname

Is that where they try to sell the idea that the fossil strata turned out that way because of the settling of dead bodies in Noah's flood?

 

[loseyourname]

Yes, although they do go into a little more detail.

 

[Canute]

Aside from self-knowledge, what might you attain otherwise?

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

A challenge. Attempt to never do anything. Even then, you made a choice.

I agree we make choices (although according to physical determinists we don't).

All I said was that you don't need a theory of the universe's origin to go about your daily life. I am right.

Absolutely right. But morality is arbitrary in the absence of a metaphysic so I wouldn't agree that it's the best way of going about living. .

Creation science's rebuttal to evolutionary theory is hydroplate theory. It attempts to explain the stratification of the fossil record without postulating any link between species and to refute the accepted age of the earth.

Ah. Enough said.

 

[russ_watters]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.









...however, that's not a scientific argument, which is why the restraining order is still in effect. Religion and science are and must remain separate.

 

[loseyourname]

That's a biiiig topic. Let's just say that all knowledge begins in experience.

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others. I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch. I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Unfortunately, there are very few people who can talk competently, and from personal experience, about both. So what often happens is the guy who most values self-knowledge, and hasn't been very conscientious about learning empirical skills, ends up debating the guy who values empirical understanding but doesn't know squat about self-knowledge. It's an ugly sight to see !

Here at a science site, there are a lot more people who value empirical skills over anything else, so we have plenty of input on how much can be understood about externals. I always wonder how much empirical debaters know about what can be achieved with internal skills, or if they've just assumed there isn't much to it without having done their homework.

As someone who values both internal and external knowledge, I wish there were more evenly educated thinkers participating in the debates. Failing that, at least if there were more openness on both sides that would help. In these inner-outer debates, too often threads seem to end with nobody having learned anything from other perspectives.

 

[motai]

YEC is trivially simple to prove: God created the universe/earth so he created it to look 14 billion years old even though it is only 6,000.

That seems absurd to me... created to look older than what it is? What would God be trying to prove with that? I think some of these YECs need to plan out their theories otherwise they will be left with some ethical issues (i.e. from this past statement, it is acceptible for an omniscient entity to lie to prove its point, etc.)

 

[Canute]

Begins, perhaps. But outside of self-knowledge, no knowledge is attained until the experience is confirmed to be repeatable by the experiences of others.

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

I am of course assuming that different people have the same experiences when exposed to the same sensory stimuli, but I don't think that's a stretch.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

I think it is safe to say that the scientific method is empirical.

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

 

[loseyourname]

Very true. This is why third-person 'knowledge' can only be relative and never certain.

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

We don't know. However even if it's true it does not mean that people have the same experiences. Many people do not explore their ability to experience.

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

If you mean rooted in experience then I agree.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

 

[loseyourname]

From the off-handed way you are referring to it, I suspect you are not recognizing how important self-knowledge is to some of us. In fact, I'd characterize most debates here as between those who think self-knowledge is most enlightening, and those who think knowledge of the external world is most enlightening.

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Relax there, buddy. I'm referring to it in an off-handed way because it isn't relevant to a discussion of creationism.

I am relaxed, or was when I wrote what I did. I probably should have said casual rather than "off-handed." I was trying to indicate you may be considering self-knowledge irrelevant a bit too quickly.

If the discussion were limited to myths of Biblical creationism then self-knowledge wouldn't mean much. But as usual, this discussion has broadened into the more general idea of whether some sort of universal intelligence has been/is part of the evolution and maintenance of creation. For that, I believe those who've advanced the furthest in self-knowledge offer the best subjective evidence of that (evidence which is seldom cited).

I also was pointing out why these debates get hot. Often it's because no one is debating with an open mind, listening to and trying to understand the other side. It is hard to do that when one already thinks one is right. And it always shows too . . .it comes out as intolerance and condescension. I've seen lots of it, and lots of "debunking creationism" threads as well where it's just an excuse for physicalists to sneer at the illogic of Biblical creationism. Mad about one such thread, at the old PF I started a thread called "Why Materialists Can't Think Properly." That got pretty hot! But in the end I didn't see how any of it was useful to anyone.

I'd say there are those of us here who can see real problems with physicalist theory, and so think there is "something more." I am not religious, and I don't know what that something more is, but I am willing and even eager to debate those who believe physicalist models are adequate (or one day will be) to explain things.

So rather than have threads that ridicule, I would rather see strong debates between people who can represent their side with evidence and reason. And really, here at a science site, do we really need to talk about Biblical Creationism? If someone believes it, which I am not saying is wrong, this ain't the place to debate it (or ridicule it).

 

[loseyourname]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

I am probably more conservative about what "extra" might be part of evolution than it might seem from my other posts. I don't want to bore PF members who've seen me argue this point a lot in the past, but where I've focused my criticism of purely physicalist theory before is on self organization.

I believe the most unexplained and most glossed over principle of physicalism is the lack of an adequate self-organizing force/principle that would get chemistry to organize the way it had to in order to "live" (and for functionalists, would get brain functions to organize as they must to create consciousness). Before you start citing Miller-Urey, crystals, auto-catalytic reactions, polymers, etc. . . . I already know all about that, and none are proper examples because the self-organization there is repetitive, while the self-organization that led to and continued evolving life is what I call progressive.

All purely physical (i.e., outside of life) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s progressive organization has been essentially perpetual. That's why the potential for spontaneously forming organic molecules is not the issue (besides, biology developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to show up in the right conditions).

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

Thus far the observed potentials of chemistry to spontaneously act fall vastly short of that level of self-organization.

So, I do think there is something more needed besides known physical principles to explain life and consciousness . . . Yes, I think there might be some sort of self-organizing principle we've yet to recognize. Is that what God is? It it intelligent? Good questions. I am open to any explanation that makes sense.

 

[loseyourname]

What's needed for a believable physicalist model of life is to observe in non-living chemistry the quality of self-organization that spontaneously kicks into progressive development gear; and not just progressive development, but perpetual progressive development; and not just perpetual progressive development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces, evolves, and is self-aware.

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

 

[Les Sleeth]

You do realize it took over a billion years just for the first self-replicating molecule to develop, do you not? It may be a tad bit difficult to recreate that in a lab. Once it happens, though, natural selection is a perfectly believable process for creating all the higher levels of organization observed. Experiments in which certain steps in what Michael Behe fallaciously termed "irreducibly complex systems" were removed and subsequently reappeared after several hundred generations should be enough to demonstrate that.

Even non-replicating protobionts, complete with very simple metabolism and phospholipid bilayer membranes have spontaneously assembled in lab cultures. All that should be needed to dispel your doubt is the unguided assembly of a self-replicating molecule inside of these membrane-enclosed systems. Perhaps after another billion years of laboratory experiments, we'll have that.

Well, that's the excuse physicalistst always uses . . . we need another billion years. Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously. If you factor in the intervention of consciousness in the lab actually designing and directing things, that should reduce the time expotentially.

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Remember, I am not questioning the natural selection plus genetics formula. Quite possibly once life is achieved that is enough to evolve all life forms we see. I am questioning that chemistry can alone self-organize itself into life. It is the progressive self-organizing principle which physicalists gloss over as though they've already demostrated it (i.e., because of Urey-Miller, etc.), when all they've actually shown is repetitive self-organization.

 

[Royce]

Do you believe in some form of intelligent intervention as the mechanism of evolution?

Just to add my $.02 worth, yes, I do. I believe the intervention is/was contained in the original DNA in the form of a direction toward more complexity and higher organization leading toward more advanced life forms. I don't believe that that direction is now dormant nor superseded by mans supposedly circumventing natural selection.
I also agree with Les Sleeeth that abiogenisis is not a proven or universally accepted fact. There is something that makes inert matter become a living organism beyond chance or accident. In my mind that something is the life force the source of which is the Creator/Designer of the universe.

 

[Canute]

Self-knowledge is no more certain. As I've pointed out previously, the only knowledge that doesn't buckle under your extremely strenuous standards of doubt is the knowledge that consciousness exists.

What makes you say that?

What exactly do you mean by "explore their ability to experience?"

I meant 'explore what they can experience' or 'know what they can know'.

Not exactly. Empirical means that it is rooted in sensory perception. There are plenty of experiences that do not involve the five senses.

In philosophy 'empirical' means derived from experience.

 

[loseyourname]

Of course, they are postulating originally abiogenesis took place spontaneously.

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Sorry buddy, but that just isn't the case. Nobody postulates that anything other than a phospholipid bilayer was spontaneously assembled, and that has been demonstrated in a lab. I don't want to just leave you hanging, so I'll be back later after I find some links about actual hypotheses for abiogenesis.

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

 

[FZ+]

But I am not inflexible. Just get chemistry to self-organize non-repetitively (or "progressively" as I call it) and keep on doing that on its own, and I'll admit chemistry left to its own devices can achieve life.

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Watch out, loseyourname. LWS has a tendency of defining progressive self-organisation very flexibly as something akin to "repeat precisely what happened in the current run of evolution". And on its own isn't correct for life, either, given that great big thing called the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather and so on and so forth.

I don't understand your point at all. All the examples you cited -- "the sun, and the periodic impulses of the tides, volcanism, chaotic weather" -- are what I call repetitive. They organize for a few steps and then get repetitive. But life, I say, although utilizing numerous repetitive processes, overall has kept adaptively organizing for several billions years. As impressive as the sun's organization is, you cannot possibly compare its organization to that of life. So I don't understand why you gave the sun, etc., as examples which make the progressive (life) concept incorrect.

Also, your "watch out" isn't accurate. I do not define progressive self-organization as "precisely what happened in the current run of evolution." In fact, I don't care about the details of evolution at all. What I compare between non-living and living self-organization is quality. Non-living self-organization gets repetitive REAL quick compared to life, which essentially never gets repetitive overall.

 

[FZ+]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution. From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life. Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

The time and specifics of weather are unpredictable, but every time it is rain, wind, snow, hot, cold, etc., just as volcanos erupt the essentially the same way everytime, tides go in and out the same way, the moon is getting further through the same repetitive cycling. The solar system is not evolving either unless you want to call the formation of new stars "evolution." Actually it is losing its coherence overall, and even in instances of constructive change none of them come close to matching the number of constructive steps we find in life.

Rain and wind and snow do not combine to make a new system, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that, which then transforms into a new system on top of that . . . seemingly ad infinitum as it does in life.

Your concept of quality, as I have encountered, is your way of saying this run of evolution.

No, that isn't my concept. I am preparing a thread that explains it better.

 

[Canute]

Weather isn't repetitive. Weather is chaotic, which by definition never repeats. Volcanism isn't repetitive either. Is it was, it would be predictable, and if you are right, you can walk out right now and claim the nobel prize. Tides are not repetitive either. Over time, the Earth is getting further from the moon - indeed, that whole solar system is evolving. The sun, really, is ultimately where most of our non-repetitiveness is coming from. It is disorder at the most bottom of scales, drawn up, and exhibited in our flaws and our imperfection.

Are you saying that living biological systems are qualitatively indistinguishable from tides and solar systems?

 

[Les Sleeth]

From what you asked for abiogenesis to produce, I can only presume that you believe the only quality to be the quality we subjectively see in this particular incarnation of life.

What do you know that I don't? Is there another known "incarnation of life" I've not heard of. As far as we know, WE and none other, are the one and only, single, unique instance of life in a universe 12+ billions years old. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

Of course it is impossible to show nonliving having the same "quality", because that quality is for you life, with all its slipperiness and fuzziness.

Exactly correct. So what is your point? The "slipperiness and fuzziness" is a physicalist problem because they can't explain it. I am simply trying to remind them that they can't and that therefore they shouldn't continue assuming (yet) physical processes can explain life and consciousness.

 

[Concept]

Old-Earth creationists might allow that there were dinosaurs tens of millions of years ago. But a problem for them is that there were clearly carnivorous dinosaurs, going by evidence such as shape of teeth. Biblical literalists like to say that prior to Adam and Eve there was no death, no pain, no suffering. But if a carnivorous predator like T. Rex didn't inflict pain on other living things, nothing has done so!

So do the Old-Earth creationists have to maintain that Adam and Eve lived even earlier than the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs?

The same issue has an article on a find of 25-million-year-old amber. The photos in the article show all kinds of creeping, crawling, stinging, biting, blood-sucking little vermin. Again, not a very nice thing for the Lord to have put on Earth before there was a sinful Adam and Eve for Him to blame it all on.

Old Earth creationists tend to believe that Adam and Eve came after the dinosaurs. The reason for this is certain translations of the bible. I can't speak Hebrew, but I know one of the reasons they use is just chalked up to a bad translation (God saying "replenish the earth" implying that there was something there before, the word translated as "replenish" really means "to fill") and the other one they use is where it says the world "became" without form, implying that it had form before. I'm not sure if this is a good translation or not.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh goody, a new debate on abiogenesis! However, if we debate this here I think it would be hijacking the overall theme of this thread. So let me start a new thread where we, and anyone else interested, can debate this issue.

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

By the way, if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims. There is no claim that we know just what caused the self-replicating molecule to come into existence; in that sense, we can only speculate.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Where is that thread? I've been away a week or so - did you ever start it?

I noticed you weren't around so I decided to discuss other things. But if you are still interested, I will work on that thread.

However, let me say your statement ". . . if your qualm is with abiogenesis, I think it should be pointed out that you really have no complaint at all. There is no generally accepted theory of it, and it is not pertinent to evolutionary theory, which begins from the existence of self-replicating molecules. Once we have that, the rest follows, and that is all that evolutionary theory claims" is not accurate.

First of all, the the issue isn't merely self-replicating molecules. Life is hardly just the replication of a single molecule; there is development and adaptation, neither of which can be explained by current physical principles. Second, there is an accepted theory, one which is quite boldly promoted to the public as "most likely." You know, "billions of years ago, in the prebiotic soup of Earth's oceans, some set of conditions 'most likely' converged to create the first self-organizing molecule which had the the ability to adapt to its environment and take advantage of available resources . . . " Want proof? Read your kid's science book, or watch science specials on TV. There you will find no mention of the fact that this "most likely" theory is utterly unconfirmed experimentally, and in reality is nothing more than physicalist propaganda. And to think how outraged the physicalists are that creationists want equal time! To someone like me, who thinks neither side can make their case, I find the physicalist outrage even more stomach-turning than creationist nonsense.

 

[loseyourname]

Sleeth, again, abiogenesis is not pertinent to evolutionary theory. The movement from self-replicating molecules packaged in a membrane to precursors of working cells - protobionts, they are called - has been documented. Granted, you do need DNA, RNA, replication enyzymes (in most, but not all, cases) and the membrane, but once you have that, evolution will take place.

Also, trust me when I say there is no generally accepted theory. I make my living in the biological sciences, and I can assure that what is being taught is only the most popular hypothesis. Another hypothesis gaining much ground involves the construction of self-replicating molecules from inorganic crystals, and even these two are not the only hypotheses. Just because one is being taught doesn't mean that it is accepted as fact by the scientific community. As you say, it has never been demonstrated, and there is really no evidence for it, only speculation. Again, though, evolutionary theory starts where abiogenesis ends. Perhaps I should qualify self-replicating molecules by saying that you must have molecules that both replicated rapidly (usually with the help of polymerase) and that mutate, so as to create variation. Once you have this, you have step-wise, cumulative selection, something that no one can dispute.