15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense [THE FINAL DEBUNKING]

Scientific American ^ | 17 June 2002 | John Rennie

[jennyp]

Hoo boy.  Absolutely not true.  The only areas in science that are invalidated by my argument, are those areas wherein ID has to be invalid.  To my knowledge, the only area of science claiming this is evolutionism.  Everywhere else, the art is advanced by designing experiments to test hypotheses - their very nature not only assumes, but demands ID.  If not so, then the results would be useless.

I don't understand your point. You claimed that any experiment that was intelligently designed could not rule out ID, therefore only experiments that were not designed could rule out ID. You claim that the very fact that an experiment exhibits design makes it unable to detect the cause (or rule out a certain cause) for a natural phenomenon. It's like saying "this experiment cannot apply to phenomena that exist in Japan, because none of the test equipment was made in Japan." It's a non-sequitur.

It just so happens there's a similar controversy in meteorology: Godless materialistic meteorologists claim that there's ice in the winter because the temperature drops to below freezing. But a loud, very small but well-funded minority claims in the popular press that there is an Intelligent Ice Fairy who only comes out in the winter who produces ice.

So let's try this experiment:

1. Pour some water into an icecube tray.
2. Place a thermometer in the water & note the temperature.
3. Place the icecube tray and thermometer in a freezer.
4. Check the apparatus periodically, and note the temperature when the water turns to ice.
5. Take the apparatus out onto the kitchen table.
6. Check the apparatus periodically, and note the temperature when the ice turns back to water.

Now, what can we conclude from this experiment?

A. There is ice in the winter because the temperature drops below 32^oF.

B. The experiment & apparatus were intelligently designed, therefore it cannot rule out the Intelligent Ice Fairy who only comes out in the winter.

Well! Now it becomes clear just what the IIF'ers are really saying: No amount of materialistic explanations will prove IIF theory wrong because there's always the possibility of a really sneaky Intelligent Ice Fairy out there (cousin, no doubt, to the cobbler's elves) who diabolically changes the environment in exactly the way needed to perfectly cover His tracks.

Don't you see? This would be the only reason why an experiment would never rule out IIF (or ID). And the fact that the experiment itself was "intelligently designed" is irrelevant! I'll bet you can't even describe to me a "non-designed" version of the above experiment.

[Lurking Libertarian]

999! Is that the Number of the Beast Standing on His Head?

[Gumlegs]

That's PatrickHenry's area of expertise. I believe 999 is the six dollar a minute dirty phone call number of the beast.

[Physicist]

999! Is that the Number of the Beast Standing on His Head?

"I believe...in homicide..."

[CWRWinger]

I am not a biologist. But there is a difference between genes and DNA code. DNA code is like a computer program, in a sense, and defines what the creature will look like.

This code cannot naturally be added to. And lower life forms do not have the code to move on.

In order for evolution to occure, there has to be a way to create, then patch in additional code to advance. It hasn't happened and it isn't going happen.

Evolution, in part, was invented to evolve communism.

[Nebullis]

...and there is no correlation between the complexity of organisms and the complexity of their genomes.

And there is no correlation (at least not a linear one--we just don't know yet) between number of genes and organismal complexity.

[biblewonk]

We undoubtedly would, but let's get back to the point I was addressing. CWRWinger was making the assertion that the amoeba's genome couldn't be modified to get anything like a horse or a human, because there wasn't enough code and no code could be added. As it turns out, there are several mechanisms by which code can be added, and there is no correlation between the complexity of organisms and the complexity of their genomes.

There certainly seems to be enough space to fit 3 billion bits on a 670 billion bit hard drive. His issue is probably the mechanism for changing the bits. My issue is the convent of the data. A polypeptide is a double bit word so 3 billion polypeptides = 6 billion bits of data or 750 Megabytes. Would you agree?

[Lurking Libertarian]

there is a difference between genes and DNA code. DNA code is like a computer program, in a sense, and defines what the creature will look like. This code cannot naturally be added to. And lower life forms do not have the code to move on.

And you read this where?

[Phaedrus]

But code does get added! Duplicate copies of genes arise through replication errors. Transposons spread extra copies of themselves throughout the genome. Viruses attach their own code. Extra copies of entire chromosomes can be added.

But where does this take us? We have duplicates and so on but these additions add nothing that was not already there informationally. We have quantity, not quality.

But extra code is not always necessary to create a radically different creature.

Unless I am mistaken, this is speculation.

The number of genes in a man or a mouse are not so very different.

Yes, and this is indeed amazing given that the qualitative differences are at least so seemingly vast, which to me asks more questions than it answers.

The genes a simple animal has are enough to produce a gigantically large number of wildly different species, if exploited to their full potential.

Perhaps, but nature, the environment, is essentially passive. What is the active agent or mechanism that moves any species or a new species toward "their full potential"? What is "full potential"? Fair questions, I think.

And finally, there do exist "genetic toolkits" in nature that are capable of making highly complex, coordinated changes to a large number of genes at a single throw.

Well, granting that the tools are available, who or what agency moves such changes in a purposive direction? Amorphous "natural selection", I would suggest, is none such. It is a chimera, and slippery. Chance and randomness beget more of the same, and I believe you would agree with this. I have a terrible problem with "chance" as an argument.

(I recommend The Wisdom of the Genes by Christopher Wills for a description of some examples of this.)

Worth looking into and so I will (hope it's not math-intensive).

The ability to evolve does itself evolve.

Reaching, I think.

Physicist, my quarrel with Evolution is that while it is nice and linear and cause-and-effect in its overall flavor, it not only has not come up with the evidence but has been responsible for a lot of chicanery over the years or, to be more direct, the "profession" has again and again perpetrated frauds upon the public. The rhetoric in its support continues to be replete with sophistry and sophistry is dishonest. You are not dishonest.

I have great respect for your abilities, for your brilliance, as you know. Nonetheless I can't "get there from here" because getting there must be based upon the evidence. We have, at best, speculation, and I know you know the difference between the two. Now this is not a personal attack, just candor, and respectful candor at that.

Evolution attempts to take us into the realm of metaphysics when it has no prayer of getting even the physics right. Why should we listen?

Well, there are more objections but I'm sure you've heard them all. What you will never hear from me is condemnation OR concurrence based upon some authority alone, whether it be the authority of religion OR science.

Thanks for "listening" and thanks for the earlier physics education (to the extent I'm educable!). Whatever our differences, I think all may agree that it's a pretty amazing Universe out there.

[Junior]

Hogwash.

Okay, that's the opening of your rebuttal; now you've got to add the meat.

[Jeff Gordon]

An evolutionist can't get beyond him/herself and don't believe in God.

That is silly. Our omnipotent God used evolution to create the universe as it is exists today.

Men of limited imagination and faith like you try to limit God's abilities to something they contain in their small minds.

[BMCDA]

We have duplicates and so on but these additions add nothing that was not already there informationally. We have quantity, not quality.

But you have more space now. This newly created space in the DNA can change over time and voilà, new information.

[Junior]

If your 670 billion is correct then that sure implies that a lot is not used in the amoeba.

Not necessarily. DNA is mostly used for making proteins; maybe the amoeba requires a greater variety of proteins to function than does a man.

[BMCDA]

... or much of it isn't needed any more.

[RightWingNilla]

DNA is a self-replicating molecule which carries information. The information, for the most part, consists of "genes" which are basically detailed instructions to create protein - molecular machines which do "things" whether it is to catalyze a chemical reaction or to serve as a shuttle to move other molecules around in the cell. During the replication process, sometimes (not often) a piece of DNA which contains a gene can duplicate itself in the genome. That this can and has occurred there is no doubt. At first you have two genes which are encode for the exact same function. Over time, one gene is free to accumulate changes (via mutation), while the other remains intact. When enough changes (sometimes it may only be a single letter) occur, the other gene may encode for a new function. Voila, you have created additional "information".

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Your argument is flawed, because Evolutionary Theorists are trying to prove that something happened by random chance when they themselves only prove that it happened by design.

And no matter how they try to get around it, evolutionists have to assume random chance, intelligent design, or a combination of both.  The last 2 are anathema to the evolutionary cultists.  Random chance has been pretty much rejected by most of the rest of the scientific world.  Even in computer science, no true random numbers (with the exception of Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins - although I consider them more of irrational numbers...) have been found.

[Junior]

But after thinking everything through, an atheist may well decide they don't need to be concerned about others' welfare (and many do decide such).

And such would quickly find themselves ostracized by the rest of the community. Humans are social critters; we need other people. If it means giving a little bit to the community in order to have that community's support, it does not require the coersion of man nor God to facilitate that giving.

[Junior]

Post 899 was, IIRC, the one where Subliminal Kid accused jlogajan of being mentally ill and needing immediate psychiatric care

medved uses that tactic on those who disagree with him all the time and no one's ever banned him. Must've been something else...

[Lurking Libertarian]

There may well have been something else, but 899 (if I'm remembering correctly) was a particularly nasty one.

[Junior]

This code cannot naturally be added to.

Why not? There are numerous manners in which extra code can be added, from the assimilation of viruses to duplications during replication.