The Creationist Lie That Just Wont Die

[Audie]

Hello ChristineM. I'm a lawyer with a physics major, I'm not a biology major. That said, my studies ranged fairly broadly across the hard sciences. I'm not aware of any "overwhelming" evidence for molecule to man evolution. What is the overwhelming evidence that DNA/RNA copying errors in brainless sea sponges or nearly brainless comb jellies and their descendants (along with damage to DNA from cosmic rays, etc.) resulted in the conscious human mind?

As for abiogenesis--it cannot be truly seperated from molecule to man evolution. Both form necessary components of the naturalistic origins paradigm. Whether someone believes life arose spontaneously from non-life on earth or whether one believes in some form of panspermia, abiogenesis is the unavoidable necessity when working within a naturalistic origins paradigm. Panspermia is just an attempted escape mechanism from the difficulties of abiogenesis via infinite regression. However, it doesn't remove the abiogenesis dilemma. Extraterrestrial life itself must have originally arisen spontaneously from non-life.

If I remember my bio correctly, the comb jelly has a
nervous system but no brain at all, and, is no
more ancestral to the vertebrates than an acorn is.

As for "abio cannot be separated;..." you might
equally say that auto mechanics cannot be
separated from the origin of iron, in a super nova.

Try this: ToE is exactly the same whether
life originated via abio, or god or you name it.

So why worry about one thing at a time?
You cannot argue against ToE by arguing
against abio, not, at least, without hearing
yet again that... etc and blah, followed
eventually by the eye-roll.

 

[Audie]

I think he may have been a hit and run poster that realized he was in over his head.

If so he is a smarter than most.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's a very important consideration regarding abiogenesis experiments....
Each one which shows formation of a building block of life is a single attempt
on a very small scale lasting a very short time.
The real world is incredibly larger, & has billions of years for life to arise.
So I expect that experimental evidence will only show possible pathways for
abiogenesis, without actually resulting in a lifeform arising. And of course, even
if the unlikely happens, it still doesn't prove abiogenesis on Earth to be "true".

 

[ecco]

So I expect that experimental evidence will only show possible pathways for
abiogenesis, without actually resulting in a lifeform arising. And of course, even
if the unlikely happens, it still doesn't prove abiogenesis on Earth to be "true".

As I'm sure you know, science is not in the business of "proving" anything. Science is in the business of trying to explain nature. At this point, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is true. In the future, there will overwhelming evidence that will show the process of abiogenesis.

Not everyone will accept it. Not everyone accepts evolution. There are still people who believe the earth is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; gravity is a myth. The beliefs and opinions of people who prefer simplistic answers like GodDidIt really don't matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's a very important consideration regarding abiogenesis experiments....
Each one which shows formation of a building block of life is a single attempt
on a very small scale lasting a very short time.
The real world is incredibly larger, & has billions of years for life to arise.
So I expect that experimental evidence will only show possible pathways for
abiogenesis, without actually resulting in a lifeform arising. And of course, even
if the unlikely happens, it still doesn't prove abiogenesis on Earth to be "true".

It appears that there are several different pathways to life at least. Since there is no record we will almost certainly never know which exact path was taken.

One important fact to remember is that there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is none for creationism. I tend to accept concepts supported by evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I'm sure you know, science is not in the business of "proving" anything. Science is in the business of trying to explain nature. At this point, there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is true. In the future, there will overwhelming evidence that will show the process of abiogenesis.

Not everyone will accept it. Not everyone accepts evolution. There are still people who believe the earth is flat; the earth is the center of the universe; gravity is a myth. The beliefs and opinions of people who prefer simplistic answers like GodDidIt really don't matter.

I don't expect everyone to accept it...that's not
the goal. It's about improving our understanding.
It's OK that some will believe otherwise.

 

[Revoltingest]

One important fact to remember is that there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There is none for creationism. I tend to accept concepts supported by evidence.

Au contraire, bruderherz....there is evidence for both.
The difference lies in how the evidence supports (or doesn't support) arguments.
Creationism isn't falsifiable, & it lacks explanatory power (usefulness).

Spoiler: My favorite criticism

It's not right....it's not even wrong.

 

[Thief]

for all that it seems....it seems to me....

the planet is chemistry

it started out a hot ball of stuff
cooled down
gelled

and SOMEWHERE .....SOMETHING started to move by it's own volition

and then it reproduced

so are we trying to decide.....?
can a dead chemistry beget the living?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Au contraire, bruderherz....there is evidence for both.
The difference lies in how the evidence supports (or doesn't support) arguments.
Creationism isn't falsifiable, & it lacks explanatory power (usefulness).

Spoiler: My favorite criticism

It's not right....it's not even wrong.

Sorry but when discussing scientific concepts one uses scientific evidence. By claiming that creationism is not falsifiable you also claimed that there is no scientific evidence for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry but when discussing scientific concepts one uses scientific evidence. By claiming that creationism is not falsifiable you also claimed that there is no scientific evidence for it.

I never said the evidence supported a cogent argument for their claims.
For example, the old observation of gaps in the fossil record is indeed
evidence for them. It just fails to support their argument. And evolution
continues to be the better & more useful explanation for the evidence.

Consider an analogy....
In a court hearing, each side will offer evidence for their case.
Even if when it turns out that one side is right, & the other is wrong,
they still had evidence to offer.

This shows that evidence does not an argument make.
Everyone has it. Not everyone uses it well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said the evidence supported a cogent argument for their claims.
For example, the old observation of gaps in the fossil record is indeed
evidence for them. It just fails to support their argument. And evolution
continues to be the better & more useful explanation for the evidence.

Consider an analogy....
In a court hearing, each side will offer evidence for their case.
Even if when it turns out that one side is right, & the other is wrong,
they still had evidence to offer.

This shows that evidence does not an argument make.
Everyone has it. Not everyone uses it well.

But once again it is not scientific evidence. One must make a bit of a risk to have scientific evidence. It keeps people from making the obvious errors that you mentioned. To have scientific evidence for an idea one must first be willing to risk the idea by forming it as a testable hypothesis. Creationists always seem to be afraid to do this. They do not want to know, they only want to believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

But once again it is not scientific evidence.

No, tis the argument which isn't so scientific.
(Some even employ science, but the arguments are highly flawed.)

One must make a bit of a risk to have scientific evidence. It keeps people from making the obvious errors that you mentioned. To have scientific evidence for an idea one must first be willing to risk the idea by forming it as a testable hypothesis. Creationists always seem to be afraid to do this. They do not want to know, they only want to believe.

I agree with your assessment of their motives.
But I disagree with the claim that they lack evidence.

This reminds me of other discussions here, wherein someone is convinced
that they're right, & that the "facts" support them. Therefore, the other side
doesn't have facts. But both sides have facts. They just use different facts
to make their argument.
When someone believes they have "the facts", & the other side doesn't,
that's a sign of over-confidence & blindness to other perspectives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, tis the argument which isn't so scientific.
(Some even employ science, but the arguments are highly flawed.)

I agree with your assessment of their motives.
But I disagree with the claim that they lack evidence.

This reminds me of other discussions here, wherein someone is convinced
that they're right, & that the "facts" support them. Therefore, the other side
doesn't have facts. But both sides have facts. They just use different facts
to make their argument.
When someone believes they have "the facts", & the other side doesn't,
that's a sign of over-confidence & blindness to other perspectives.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls."

There are other sources that say the same. If one is not willing to risk one's idea to refutation, and that is what scientists do every day it is also what makes the scientific method so powerful, one cannot claim to have scientific evidence. Before one can claim to have scientific evidence at all one must state one's idea as a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a creationist willingly do so. When asked what reasonable test could prove them wrong they are always without an answer. I normally do not like to use the word "always" without a modifier, but in this case it seems appropriate.

 

[Revoltingest]

Before one can claim to have scientific evidence at all one must state one's idea as a testable hypothesis. I have yet to see a creationist willingly do so.

It is the lack of a testable hypothesis where creationists fail.
I've seen them offer scientific evidence, ....but it fails to make
their case when the argument is bad. (Of course, some of the
evidence is bad too.)
Example:
They offer the sophistication of they eye as evidence for the
irreducible complexity argument against evolution. The existence
of the eye's sophistication is scientific. But the argument using it
doesn't address examples of progression from no eyes to simple
eyes to advanced eyes. It's not irreducible.
Thus evolution is not disproven.
In short....
They don't lack evidence...they lack solid reasoning from it.

 

[ecco]

so are we trying to decide.....?
can a dead chemistry beget the living?

What is "dead chemistry"?
What is "the living"?

 

[ecco]

Consider an analogy....
In a court hearing, each side will offer evidence for their case.
Even if when it turns out that one side is right, & the other is wrong,
they still had evidence to offer.

This shows that evidence does not an argument make.
Everyone has it. Not everyone uses it well.

Taken in that context, we have often found that evidence can be false.

Sally said: "Joe could not be the murderer, because he was with me all night". People make up stories all the time. I suppose, linguistically, we can call these stories evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Taken in that context, we have often found that evidence can be false.

That is also true, as I pointed out.
Nonetheless, both sides have evidence.
Evidence by itself proves nothing.
The winner uses evidence to make the cromulent argument,
thereby defeating the weaker counter-argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is the lack of a testable hypothesis where creationists fail.
I've seen them offer scientific evidence, ....but it fails to make
their case when the argument is bad. (Of course, some of the
evidence is bad too.)
Example:
They offer the sophistication of they eye as evidence for the
irreducible complexity argument against evolution. The existence
of the eye's sophistication is scientific. But the argument using it
doesn't address examples of progression from no eyes to simple
eyes to advanced eyes. It's not irreducible.
Thus evolution is not disproven.
In short....
They don't lack evidence...they lack solid reasoning from it.

By definition that is not "scientific evidence" that supports them. It may be "sciency" it is not scientific.

 

[Revoltingest]

By definition that is not "scientific evidence" that supports them. It may be "sciency" it is not scientific.

I don't say that every piece of evidence offered is "scientific".
But some are, eg, complexity of the human (or other) eye.
Again, it's their argument which always fails....
1) They use erroneous reasoning to disprove evolution, eg, the probabilistic analysis.
2) They offer no testable theory regarding creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't say that every piece of evidence offered is "scientific".
But some are, eg, complexity of the human (or other) eye.
Again, it's their argument which always fails....
1) They use erroneous reasoning to disprove evolution, eg, the probabilistic analysis.
2) They offer no testable theory regarding creationism.

Right, there arguments are sciencey and not scientific. They fool those that want to believe but not those that want to learn.