Top Ten Favorite Creationist Arguments, Parts I and II

[youngterrier]

How else are you going to verify something other than through observation? There have been multiple experiments, both in the lab, and outside in the wild at which they have made predictions and those predictions came through.

What part of evolution is not an established fact and doesn't pass the test of scientific fact? You're being extremely vague and without examples to support your position I can't really acknowledge your argument. I believe you've brought up how it hasn't been proven how cells turn into multi-cellular organism, but that doesn't invalidate the established facts of evolution theory.

Could you provide some examples of some of the experiments in which predictions based on evolutionary theory have been made and the predictions came through. I have looked for experiments like that before and have seen stuff like the document at http://www.icts.res.in/media/uploads/Ta ... Rainey.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It talks about the evolution of populations of bacteria into groups that cooperate with each other. But, as the authors state, "Undifferentiated groups of WS are a far cry from multicellularity."

What they describe is a phenomenon that is consistent with a process that could lead to the transition into multicellularity. But the transition has not been experimentally achieved.

With the germ theory, experimental documentation of the basic point (pathogens cause disease) is copious. The proposition of the idea that pathogens cause disease is much more thoroughly supported by experimental evidence than the proposition that populations of single celled organisms can transition into populationis of multicellular organisms is. And the propositioni that such transitions can occur is critical to the overal theory of evolution. It's a cornerstone.

On the question of how one can verify something other than by observation: There are two types of studies; observational and experimental. Both involve making observations. But what's known as "observational" study usually cannot be used to infer cause and effect. And I use the term "usually" only because if you see something like a diesel truck hitting a dog and the dog dies from being splattered you don't need an experiment to tell you that getting hit by the truck killed the dog. The actual rule is that observational studies can't be used to infer cause and effect.

Experiments generate observations but the observations are associated with experimental control and design. They can be used in all instances to infer cause and effect.

I honestly don't have the time to look up specific studies that I can link on here, but I could list some examples, including macroevolutionary experiments (one about behavior comes to mind.).

But the problem I have with what you are saying here is basically that evolution isn't a "fact" because we don't know how single cellular organisms turned into multicellular organisms.

That's like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

Just because I can't link you a study does not mean that there isn't an explanation. Regardless of whether or not I, as a non-expert, can provide you an explanation, or if there is one at all, does not invalidate the facts of evolution. I'm more than willing to bet that there is actually an explanation, I just can't find one that I have read through (here's one?http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/ )

Another better question would be, if not by natural processes, how else would cells become multicellular? Evolution deals with the diversity of life, and as stated multiple times, I may not have an explanation as to how unicellular to multicellular specifically happen, but whatever scientific explanation we find, that won't invalidate the current facts about evolution.

You saying evolution isn't a fact because we haven't observed unicellular organisms evolve into multicellular organisms (which is a claim I am skeptical of in the first place) is the equivalent of saying the big bang isn't a scientific fact. We can't and haven't observed anything like the big bang happening or experimented with it either, but scientifically it is still considered a fact. I'd actually make the argument that the particular evolution we are talking about could be easier proven than the big bang in this circumstance, as at least we have a chance of observing and testing it in the future.

Honestly dude, you're not making a compelling argument other than saying "we haven't observed event A take place therefore we can't say it specifically happened" but all the evidence points to it occurring, however it occurred, and the ignorance we have towards specifics of that aspect of occurrence does not invalidate things we know for sure about evolution.

[SeattleGriz]

Evolution, like any other theory, is about as high of a scientific ranking of "factualness" as one can get. A theory dictates the function of multiple interactions of a subject, whereas a law only deals with the interaction of one or two, that is the difference.

Scientific theories include Germ theory, atomic theory, big bang theory, theory of relativity, gravity, Cell theory, and plate tectonic theory. For Christ sake, quit fabricated controversy when it isn't there. There is no debate on the fact of evolution, it's as much of a fact as any scientific though we have. You wonder why there isn't debate? It's not because of conspiracy, it's because we don't debate what is considered fact.

YT, this is not a hostile post. I'm trying to get you to see the differences in certainty level in some of the things you mention. I'm taking this opportunity because you mentioned the germ theory of disease. That theory can and has been directly validated through controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, it has even been validated using human subjects. You can actually design a controlled experiment in which you expose treatment subjects to a pathogen while isolating control subjects from them and demonstrate that only the treatment subjects show symptoms of a particular disease. And you can also do things like directly observe the presence of the pathogen in the disease victims system as well as the antibody responses to them.

The overall theory of evolution isn't like that. It's support is almost exclusively observational. That represents a different certainty level. It is NOT established as "as much a fact" as any scientific thought we have. It is NOT established with the same level of certainty that the germ theory of disease is.

As I've said before I do believe the theory of evolution. But this thing about every "theory" being the same in terms of level of certainty...though it is often asserted...just isn't true.

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

[youngterrier]

YT, this is not a hostile post. I'm trying to get you to see the differences in certainty level in some of the things you mention. I'm taking this opportunity because you mentioned the germ theory of disease. That theory can and has been directly validated through controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, it has even been validated using human subjects. You can actually design a controlled experiment in which you expose treatment subjects to a pathogen while isolating control subjects from them and demonstrate that only the treatment subjects show symptoms of a particular disease. And you can also do things like directly observe the presence of the pathogen in the disease victims system as well as the antibody responses to them.

The overall theory of evolution isn't like that. It's support is almost exclusively observational. That represents a different certainty level. It is NOT established as "as much a fact" as any scientific thought we have. It is NOT established with the same level of certainty that the germ theory of disease is.

As I've said before I do believe the theory of evolution. But this thing about every "theory" being the same in terms of level of certainty...though it is often asserted...just isn't true.

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

If I'm not mistaken, JSO is vague about his occupation because of reasons. He works with stats though if I'm not mistaken.

[Grizalltheway]

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

If I'm not mistaken, JSO is vague about his occupation because of reasons. He works with stats though if I'm not mistaken.

Believe he's a biologist, or something along those lines.

[JohnStOnge]

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

As others have noted, I do not like to be specific about what I do because there are only a handful of people in the country who do my particular job. As we all know, people have been penalized for what they put on the internet. As you all know, I have a lot of politically incorrect beliefs.

It's not likely that anyone from the organization I work for would ever look at the CFS message boards and identify me from my posts but there is no reason to take the chance. And I can assure you the organization I work for would not be pleased with some of the beliefs I have. Now, I'm sure someone could figure out who I am if they tried hard enough. But I just try to strike a balance so that I don't make my identity obvious. I do feel confident that nobody in my organization is going to go so far as to happen upon a FCS message board then set about trying to figure out who I am.

What I'm more worried about is Google searches. Or some other search engine.

Doesn't matter anyway. Arguments should stand on their own. They shouldn't be accepted or rejected because of the credentials and/or experience of the person making them.

But I will say that in general my education was in biology and statistics and my work experience has been in biology and environmental science. In the past I have been formally classified as a "statistician" and a "biologist." Now the formal classification is such that if I posted it people would have to ask, "what the heck is that?" But it still involves a lot of data analysis.

[JohnStOnge]

But the problem I have with what you are saying here is basically that evolution isn't a "fact" because we don't know how single cellular organisms turned into multicellular organisms.

That's like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First let me say that I'm not saying that the basic concept expressed by the overall theory of evolution is not a fact. It either is or it isn't. There is a certain reality and that reality is what it is regardless of what we know about it.

What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, that basic concept has not been established as known to be fact at the highest level of certainty that can be achieved through scientific inquiry.

On the transition from populations of single celled organisms to populations of multicellular organisms: I don't think what I'm getting at is like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First of all, I'm not saying that the idea that there was a point or points at which the transition occurred is "wrong." What I'm saying is that, to my knowledge, that idea has not been confirmed through experimentation.

Theoretically, if you say that populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms, you should be able to define the conditions under which such transitions would occur. And you should be able to set up experiments during which such conditions are created and transitions take place.

That kind of transition is critical to the overall theory of evolution because it is part of a sequence. If you can't show that will happen under given conditions the whole thing is, in a sense, compromised. And I'm using "compromised" in the sense of the highest level of certainty.

Contrast that to the germ theory of disease. It wouldn't be ethical to use humans but one can readily do an experiment in which one exposes "treatment" animal or plant subjects to a pathogen and leaves "control" subjects unexposed. You could do similar experiments over and over again and get similar results over and over again. Some reasonably high percentage of the "treatment" subjects will suffer each given disease and none of the "control" subjects will.

So you can say "pathogens cause disease" and easily do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that pathogens cause disease. But you can't say "populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms" then easily do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that. In fact, to my knowledge, it's never been done.

[BlueHen86]

But the problem I have with what you are saying here is basically that evolution isn't a "fact" because we don't know how single cellular organisms turned into multicellular organisms.

That's like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First let me say that I'm not saying that the basic concept expressed by the overall theory of evolution is not a fact. It either is or it isn't. There is a certain reality and that reality is what it is regardless of what we know about it.

What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, that basic concept has not been established as known to be fact at the highest level of certainty that can be achieved through scientific inquiry.

On the transition from populations of single celled organisms to populations of multicellular organisms: I don't think what I'm getting at is like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First of all, I'm not saying that the idea that there was a point or points at which the transition occurred is "wrong." What I'm saying is that, to my knowledge, that idea has not been confirmed through experimentation.

Theoretically, if you say that populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms, you should be able to define the conditions under which such transitions would occur. And you should be able to set up experiments during which such conditions are created and transitions take place.

That kind of transition is critical to the overall theory of evolution because it is part of a sequence. If you can't show that will happen under given conditions the whole thing is, in a sense, compromised. And I'm using "compromised" in the sense of the highest level of certainty.

Contrast that to the germ theory of disease. It wouldn't be ethical to use humans but one can readily do an experiment in which one exposes "treatment" animal or plant subjects to a pathogen and leaves "control" subjects unexposed. You could do similar experiments over and over again and get similar results over and over again. Some reasonably high percentage of the "treatment" subjects will suffer each given disease and none of the "control" subjects will.

So you can say "pathogens cause disease" and easily do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that pathogens cause disease. But you can't say "populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms" then do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that. In fact, to my knowledge, it's never been done.

Wow, that's some deep shit right there. You must be edjumacated to know stuff like that.

[JohnStOnge]

Wow, that's some deep **** right there. You must be edjumacated to know stuff like that.
Image

I think that the distinction is important. We say stuff like "evolution is a fact" all the time. But the question is "is it known to be a fact?"

Like if a person says they have a car and they do have a car that is a fact. And it's easily known to be a fact.

But if a person says "anthropogenic activity is causing the average temperature of the planet to rise" or "at some point populations of single celled organisms gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms" that is a different matter. They may be facts. But they are not so obviously known to be facts.

It is important to note that saying that something not being demonstrated at the highest level of certainty to be true is not demonstrating that it is false. And it is important to note that reality is what it is regardless of what we think about it. Perception is not reality unless perception is correct . Reality is reality.

[youngterrier]

But the problem I have with what you are saying here is basically that evolution isn't a "fact" because we don't know how single cellular organisms turned into multicellular organisms.

That's like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First let me say that I'm not saying that the basic concept expressed by the overall theory of evolution is not a fact. It either is or it isn't. There is a certain reality and that reality is what it is regardless of what we know about it.

What I'm saying is that, in my opinion, that basic concept has not been established as known to be fact at the highest level of certainty that can be achieved through scientific inquiry.

On the transition from populations of single celled organisms to populations of multicellular organisms: I don't think what I'm getting at is like saying gravitational theory is wrong because we don't know the gravitational pattern of one particular star.

First of all, I'm not saying that the idea that there was a point or points at which the transition occurred is "wrong." What I'm saying is that, to my knowledge, that idea has not been confirmed through experimentation.

Theoretically, if you say that populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms, you should be able to define the conditions under which such transitions would occur. And you should be able to set up experiments during which such conditions are created and transitions take place.

That kind of transition is critical to the overall theory of evolution because it is part of a sequence. If you can't show that will happen under given conditions the whole thing is, in a sense, compromised. And I'm using "compromised" in the sense of the highest level of certainty.

Contrast that to the germ theory of disease. It wouldn't be ethical to use humans but one can readily do an experiment in which one exposes "treatment" animal or plant subjects to a pathogen and leaves "control" subjects unexposed. You could do similar experiments over and over again and get similar results over and over again. Some reasonably high percentage of the "treatment" subjects will suffer each given disease and none of the "control" subjects will.

So you can say "pathogens cause disease" and easily do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that pathogens cause disease. But you can't say "populations of single celled organisms can give rise to populations of multicellular organisms" then easily do experiments ending in sufficient evidence to infer that. In fact, to my knowledge, it's never been done.

It's been done with yeast cells, and the yeast cells showed a division of labor as well. But you reject that premise because I believe you said something along the lines of "they're still yeast cells" (which is a dumb thing to say, like saying a dog didn't evolve "because it's still a dog").

Again, your playing semantics here. The facts about evolution that are fortified with experimentation as facts MAKE EVOLUTION A FACT. I don't know how much more simple it can be explained.

You're endorsing this concept that we have to know every single detail about a concept before we can say the theory or concept is true, which is nonsensical. I mean, you're only mentioning one concept, and thinking that one concept collapses the house of cards.....but it doesn't. That lack of knowledge there doesn't invalidate the theory, or make it less of a fact, because we're going to figure it out eventually anyway. If the answer isn't evolutionary, then what is it?
What could it be other than a natural process? And, don't say an intelligent designer, because that's just a God of the Gaps kind of theory that is totally acceptable while you are ignorant on a subject, but once a naturalistic answer is found, it's disproven. Once we find an answer, it will be part of the theory of evolution....and has no effect on the factualness of the aspects of the theory we already know

[youngterrier]

Wow, that's some deep **** right there. You must be edjumacated to know stuff like that.
Image

I think that the distinction is important. We say stuff like "evolution is a fact" all the time. But the question is "is it known to be a fact?"

Like if a person says they have a car and they do have a car that is a fact. And it's easily known to be a fact.

But if a person says "anthropogenic activity is causing the average temperature of the planet to rise" or "at some point populations of single celled organisms gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms" that is a different matter. They may be facts. But they are not so obviously known to be facts.

It is important to note that saying that something not being demonstrated at the highest level of certainty to be true is not demonstrating that it is false. And it is important to note that reality is what it is regardless of what we think about it. Perception is not reality unless perception is correct . Reality is reality.

The problem you're having here is that you're trying to invalidate the ENTIRE theory, based off ONE circumstance (that has been proven to happen).
We consider dissent with modification, gene drift, natural selection, random mutation, phylogeny, etc to ALL be facts. They can be proven, or in the case of phylogeny be rationalized. Rationalization and induction is just as important as testing, as the field of theoretical physics has shown.

[Chizzang]

I think that the distinction is important. We say stuff like "evolution is a fact" all the time. But the question is "is it known to be a fact?"

Like if a person says they have a car and they do have a car that is a fact. And it's easily known to be a fact.

But if a person says "anthropogenic activity is causing the average temperature of the planet to rise" or "at some point populations of single celled organisms gave rise to populations of multicellular organisms" that is a different matter. They may be facts. But they are not so obviously known to be facts.

It is important to note that saying that something not being demonstrated at the highest level of certainty to be true is not demonstrating that it is false. And it is important to note that reality is what it is regardless of what we think about it. Perception is not reality unless perception is correct . Reality is reality.

So you're suggesting that how commonly understood a "fact" might be - is relevant..?
and that point is somehow related to Reality being reality...

[D1B]

YT, this is not a hostile post. I'm trying to get you to see the differences in certainty level in some of the things you mention. I'm taking this opportunity because you mentioned the germ theory of disease. That theory can and has been directly validated through controlled experimentation. Unfortunately, it has even been validated using human subjects. You can actually design a controlled experiment in which you expose treatment subjects to a pathogen while isolating control subjects from them and demonstrate that only the treatment subjects show symptoms of a particular disease. And you can also do things like directly observe the presence of the pathogen in the disease victims system as well as the antibody responses to them.

The overall theory of evolution isn't like that. It's support is almost exclusively observational. That represents a different certainty level. It is NOT established as "as much a fact" as any scientific thought we have. It is NOT established with the same level of certainty that the germ theory of disease is.

As I've said before I do believe the theory of evolution. But this thing about every "theory" being the same in terms of level of certainty...though it is often asserted...just isn't true.

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

SG, have you ever read the Origin of Species?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, while science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to other animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.

The book was written for non-specialist readers and attracted widespread interest upon its publication. As Darwin was an eminent scientist, his findings were taken seriously and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X Club to secularise science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred, but scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate. During the "eclipse of Darwinism" from the 1880s to the 1930s, various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s, Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, now the unifying concept of the life sciences.

[SeattleGriz]

Just out of curiosity, what is your occupation StOnge?

SG, have you ever read the Origin of Species?

Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a work of scientific literature which is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection. It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation.

Various evolutionary ideas had already been proposed to explain new findings in biology. There was growing support for such ideas among dissident anatomists and the general public, but during the first half of the 19th century the English scientific establishment was closely tied to the Church of England, while science was part of natural theology. Ideas about the transmutation of species were controversial as they conflicted with the beliefs that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy and that humans were unique, unrelated to other animals. The political and theological implications were intensely debated, but transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream.

The book was written for non-specialist readers and attracted widespread interest upon its publication. As Darwin was an eminent scientist, his findings were taken seriously and the evidence he presented generated scientific, philosophical, and religious discussion. The debate over the book contributed to the campaign by T.H. Huxley and his fellow members of the X Club to secularise science by promoting scientific naturalism. Within two decades there was widespread scientific agreement that evolution, with a branching pattern of common descent, had occurred, but scientists were slow to give natural selection the significance that Darwin thought appropriate. During the "eclipse of Darwinism" from the 1880s to the 1930s, various other mechanisms of evolution were given more credit. With the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s, Darwin's concept of evolutionary adaptation through natural selection became central to modern evolutionary theory, now the unifying concept of the life sciences.

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

[D1B]

SG, have you ever read the Origin of Species?

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

It's amazing. I think you'll enjoy it.

[SeattleGriz]

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

It's amazing. I think you'll enjoy it.

As I have recently become a junkie of the local library, I will see if they have it when I return my Outlook 2007 for Dummies book.

[youngterrier]

SG, have you ever read the Origin of Species?

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

Dawkins>Darwin

[SeattleGriz]

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

Dawkins>Darwin

Nice one. You wish man!

[D1B]

No I haven't, but suppose I should if I want to keep starting threads like these. And, yes I realize I didn't start this thread. Now that I have a new job, am not stressed all the time and can leave my work at work, I finally can absorb something.

Dawkins>Darwin

[JMU DJ]

Dawkins>Darwin

[D1B]

Oh, then

[youngterrier]

Dawkins>Darwin

Nice one. You wish man!

I haven't read Darwin, I have to confess. I'm intimidated by 19th century vernacular and syntax...

[D1B]

Nice one. You wish man!

I haven't read Darwin, I have to confess. I'm intimidated by 19th century vernacular and syntax...

Just read it, you smug little shit. It's poetry.

[Cap'n Cat]

[Cap'n Cat]

[JoltinJoe]

Irony: the most under-educated people here copy material right off the internet in purported demonstration of their enlightenment.