Properties of Creationists

[-Demosthenes-]

By administrative decree, this thread is solely for bitching about how creationists are insane freaks with all the intellectual capacity of a doorknob (between them), and categorically not for debating creationism vs. evolution.

Oh well.

[Sayonara]

Just to speed things up really.

 

There are any number of creationism vs. evolution threads to chose from if you want a fight.

[Sayonara]

You know... I came to this fourm because I wanted to talk with open minded people about what evolution and creationisum is' date=' and speak about it without having to attack other people.

...

I know you're all happy because you've driven off yet another "creationist." But you know what, you all believe what you want.

...

Kudos to you all for breaking the will of someone who was going to study science but now thinks that all scientisis are like you guys... arrogent, closed-minded, ego maniacs.[/quote']

It looks to me like you're basing your opinions of this forum off just a couple of threads.

 

Making that post in the only thread that is explicitly dedicated to mocking creationists, which is ostensibly an extremeist view, is hardly indicative of a balanced and reasonable appraisal.

[-Demosthenes-]

There are any number of creationism vs. evolution threads to chose from if you want a fight.

If you mean me, I definely do not want a fight.

[Sayonara]

You know what I mean though, which is the important bit

[JohnB]

I must admit to being disappointed.

 

BobbyJoeCool is definately more of an "Intelligent Designer" than a "creationist". The main point he brought up was not addressed, nor even responded to. (And he was being polite the whole time.)

 

The simple, inescapable fact is that there is actually no way to prove whether life first originated in the bowl of soup by accident or by design. As it cannot be proven either way, then any view is only an opinion and the last I heard, opinion is not science.

This is a science forum, and creationism is in no way scientific. It is not falsifiable.

And how is the idea of life spontaneously generating out of the "soup" falsifiable? If that is your criteria, then you are in just as much trouble as the creationists, aren't you? This was the point he was trying to get across.

 

For the record, I am in no way a creationist. I view that since there is no proof either way, then to be dogmatic in either view is intellectually dishonest.

 

I would also point out that of the original list, personal attacks and flames were first used in this thread by the "evolutionists".

 

Mokele, as an aside, and I'm asking this as I really don't know, but I'm bloody sure you do. While modification has been observed within a species, has there ever been enough divergence observed to justify the offspring being named as a new species? I would expect not due to lack of observation time and lack of sufficient evolutionary pressures, but have you heard of it being observed?

[Mokele]

The main point he brought up was not addressed, nor even responded to.

 

Well, I tried to respond to what I percieved as his main point, about the factuality of evolution, but I came into the thread rather late, as I was on vacation.

 

The simple, inescapable fact is that there is actually no way to prove whether life first originated in the bowl of soup by accident or by design. As it cannot be proven either way, then any view is only an opinion and the last I heard, opinion is not science.

 

You can't prove diddly-squat in science above the level of raw data and observed pehnomena anyway. It's all induction and data analysis. I can't *prove* that the cycle duration for arboreal concertina locomotion is different between boas and corn snakes, but I *can* run enough experiments to say "there is a less than 1% chance that I'm wrong about this".

 

And the problem is that creationism cannot be tested scientifically, while abiogenesis can. Not the *specific* one that lead to our life, as you point out, but the concept as a whole, and specific aspects of it. I cannot test "God made the first cell like this", but I *can* test "monelerite (sp?) clays which probably existed back then (see other paper blahblah) can provide a stable substrate for the assembly of complex polymers, including RNA."

 

Technically, even if we do make life in the lab, it won't *prove* that's how it happened on earth. But it *will* make it more likely, and give us a starting point to work from, and which can be scientifically investigated further.

 

However, it's all irrelevant, since, while creationism deals with abiogenesis, evolution does not. Evolution is a process that happens to life, not how it originated, much like gravity is a process that happens to mass, and does not dictate or care where that mass came from. In fact, they're so different that people working on one rarely have much contact with those working on the other, as each finds the detailed explanations of the other's work boring as hell (which I can personally attest to, no offense chemists).

 

I would also point out that of the original list, personal attacks and flames were first used in this thread by the "evolutionists".

 

The main purpose of this thread, in my eyes, is a pressure release valve, a place to vent. Otherwise bad things* happen.

 

Mokele, as an aside, and I'm asking this as I really don't know, but I'm bloody sure you do. While modification has been observed within a species, has there ever been enough divergence observed to justify the offspring being named as a new species? I would expect not due to lack of observation time and lack of sufficient evolutionary pressures, but have you heard of it being observed?

 

Well, the thing is, you've got it backwards. The definition of "species" (though very, very highly contested due to the fact that evolution makes it a bit of a grey line) is contingent upon reproductive isolation in normal circumstances. Ideally, there should be little to no gene flow between the populations (like if all hybrids are sterile) for them to be species. Morphology is used because it's a) easier and b) can be done for dead things.

 

The basic gist of speciation is this:

1) small group becomes isolated from the rest of the population (small groups evolve faster)(isolation is usually geographic of climatological)

2) small group is exposed to a different environment and different selective pressures, which cause them to evolve in a different way than the main population.

3) by the time the two groups re-unite, they've become so different that they can no longer interbreed.

 

The problem is that we see organisms at *all* stages of the above. Some are both reproductively and morphologically distinct, some are just reproductively distinct (not enough time yet for major morphological change), some are just geographically isolated, and everything in between. This is why, on a mailing list I'm on, someone said that the best bloodsport in existence is locking a dozen biologists in a room an asking them to come up with an ironclad, universal definition of species. Life, as usual, does not fit into our neat little boxes.

 

As for what we've observed, we've seen all of the above (geographic isolation, reproductive isolation, morphological/ecological change, and all grey areas). Given that we've seen animals becomes reproductively isolated, we say that we've seen speciation, as it's currently more-or-less defined. For several species of catus-dwelling fruit flies, we've seen basically the whole process, though the morphological change isn't huge in this case (it's more a change in ecology, with some minor morphology changes), but it's enough that, if we had's seen the process leading up to it, we'd've still said "oh, this one is a separate species from the other two". Plus, hell, they're flies, there's not much *there* to change.

 

So we *have* observed the full process, but only in a very small animal with *very* short generation times. But there's no difference between a fruit fly and a blue whale as far why it shouldn't happen the same way.

 

It's one of those questions where there is no simple answer. Since reproductive isolation is the *real* criterion, then we've seen speciation *loads* of times. We've also seen morphological changes (or other changes in phenotype) *loads* of times. The observing the entire process from start to finish, though, is more daunting, and could be seen as un-necessary, unless there are any major surprises for us in that (none yet, though).

 

The short answer, though, is yes, we've seen what any rational observer would call speciation.

 

Mokele

 

* - Bad things involving the Institute for Creation Research and armies of cybernetically-enhanced atomic mutant gorillas, for instance.

[Sayonara]

BobbyJoeCool is definately more of an "Intelligent Designer" than a "creationist". The main point he brought up was not addressed, nor even responded to. (And he was being polite the whole time.)

That might have something to do with this not being the appropriate thread.

[JohnB]

So we *have* observed the full process, but only in a very small animal with *very* short generation times.

Thank you sir, that was what I was hoping to hear.

But there's no difference between a fruit fly and a blue whale as far why it shouldn't happen the same way.

Agreed, once the process is shown, then the onus would be on a detractor to show why it wouldn't hold true.

 

I thought it may have been observed in fruit flys or similar, but I didn't know. I was sure you would though. Thanks.

Technically, even if we do make life in the lab, it won't *prove* that's how it happened on earth. But it *will* make it more likely, and give us a starting point to work from, and which can be scientifically investigated further.

True. I think his main point was that since there is no evidence either way, it is perhaps unreasonable to rule out any of the possible explanations.

 

Personally I don't have a particular problem with either of the two competing ideas about the origin of life on Earth. Creator or random chance, I don't think it really matters. (I lean toward the random chance thing though) I'm more interested in the thought processes of the protagonists.

 

We have two competing ideas, neither with any evidence to prove them correct. As you say, a study of the clays of the time show that it *could* have happened one way, but it also *might* have happened the other. Consequently when we choose a side it's for no better reason than we prefer that idea.

 

I find it interesting that both sides are actually in the position of having a belief without proof whilst arguing that the other side's beliefs are wrong because they have no proof.

 

As Spock would say "Fascinating".

[swansont]

For the record' date=' I am in no way a creationist. I view that since there is no proof either way, then to be dogmatic in either view is intellectually dishonest.

 

...

 

Mokele, as an aside, and I'm asking this as I really don't know, but I'm bloody sure you do. While modification has been observed within a species, has there ever been enough divergence observed to justify the offspring being named as a new species? I would expect not due to lack of observation time and lack of sufficient evolutionary pressures, but have you heard of it being observed?

 

 

...

 

I find it interesting that both sides are actually in the position of having a belief without proof whilst arguing that the other side's beliefs are wrong because they have no proof.

 

As Spock would say "Fascinating".[/quote']

 

Fascinating, indeed. You say there's no proof either way, and then ask Mokele if there's any evidence of speciation. He says yes.

 

Then you reiterate that it's all belief without proof.

[atinymonkey]

I too suspect there is more of the devil in the advocate.

[Mokele]

Fascinating, indeed. You say there's no proof either way, and then ask Mokele if there's any evidence of speciation. He says yes.

 

Then you reiterate that it's all belief without proof.

 

He asked about speciation, but the "no proof" is referring to the specific abiogenesis on this world.

 

Mokele

[swansont]

He asked about speciation' date=' but the "no proof" is referring to the specific abiogenesis on this world.

 

Mokele[/quote']

 

Seems to me that he was painting with a broader brush, and lumping abiogenesis in with evolution, but perhaps not. I will give JohnB the benfit of the doubt. Consider my statements retracted.

[Aardvark]

We have two competing ideas' date=' neither with any evidence to prove them correct. As you say, a study of the clays of the time show that it *could* have happened one way, but it also *might* have happened the other. Consequently when we choose a side it's for no better reason than we [i']prefer[/i] that idea.

 

I find it interesting that both sides are actually in the position of having a belief without proof whilst arguing that the other side's beliefs are wrong because they have no proof.

 

As Spock would say "Fascinating".

 

Actually you are both confusing two issues and wrong on a point of fact.

 

Evolutionary theory is not concerned with the origin of life, it is a theory of the development of life. This is an apparently frequent misconception of creationists and other morons.

 

As for their being no proof concerning the origin of life. You are again mistaken. It has not been proven how life originated but scientists have gathered indicative evidence.

 

As such to hold up a theory of divine intervention as being at the same level of reasonableness as scientific theories of abiogenesis simply shows that you do not understand these matters.

[JohnB]

Sorry to come back late.

 

Thank you Mokele, I was referring only to the abiogenesis of life on Earth. Swansont, sorry if I gave another impression, I shall have to be clearer next time.

 

Aardvark, I'm not confusing two issues at all. To be very clear, there is a process called evolution that occurred after the beginning of life on Earth, that I believe there more than sufficient evidence to conclude that the process is as described. (The theory will no doubt be revised over time to incorporate new evidence, but the basic mechanics of it will remain as they are sound.)

 

There is also a particular event. The abiogenesis of life on Earth. This is a totally different question and is in no way connected to the evolutionary process athat occurs after life has begun. (There is perhaps the argument that abiogenesis is part of the evolutionary process, but it would be hard to apply evolutionary pressures to chemicals.)

 

Perhaps it is the way I look at things, but all I'm saying is that if it came down to a court case, there is no "proof" either way. There is indicative evidence, which if you think about it is on the same level as circumstantial evidence in a court case. This is the lowest form of proof in the legal profession because it allows for individual interpretation.

 

My point about the two sides is that neither can offer concrete proof, only indicitive evidence. Just that and nothing more.

[Hellbender]

My point about the two sides is that neither can offer concrete proof, only indicitive evidence. Just that and nothing more[/i'].

Concrete proof is rare in science, especially in dealing with historical sciences. However, I am sure it has been mentioned before that scientists have synthesised RNA in a lab, giving insight into how life may have started. To me, this gives abiogenesis a one-up on the "metaphysical being magically creates life" hypothesis.

[Sayonara]

Not to mention the fact that we know the basic elements of the abiogenesis argument are things that exist and behave in specific and predictable ways, whereas the divine intervention argument relies on stories of mythical beings and magical events. Pretty ****ing big advantage, any reasonable person would conclude.

 

Trying to bring everyone down to the same level of credibility by likening the reasoning to circumstantial evidence and calling it "legally low" is a desperate measure.

[JohnB]

I was thinking about this thread as I was driving to work. I realised I should have put things differently.

 

Sayo hit it on the head. With the current evidence, which I fully accept it is far more likely that abiogenesis is the correct method for the beginnings of life. As I said earlier in this thread, I lean that way myself. (Almost to the point of falling over in fact.)

Trying to bring everyone down to the same level of credibility by likening the reasoning to circumstantial evidence and calling it "legally low" is a desperate measure.

As there is no direct evidence (and without a time machine there probably never will be. ) then all there is is circumstantial evidence. That's just how it is. Circumstantial evidence may make a good case, but it is "legally low" compared to direct evidence. This is not some desperate measure, just a statement as to the situation. If you have any direct evidence, then do tell, otherwise my statement stands.

Not to mention the fact that we know the basic elements of the abiogenesis argument are things that exist and behave in specific and predictable ways, whereas the divine intervention argument relies on stories of mythical beings and magical events. Pretty ****ing big advantage, any reasonable person would conclude.

Which is exactly what I do conclude.

 

Looking at the question dispassionately, it is at least a million times more likely that abiogenesis occurred rather than creation, but this does not rule out creation. (It is just very, very unlikely.)

 

Taking the middle ground, looking at both sides. Can either side offer direct evidence? No, they both offer circumstantial evidence. Is the circumstantial evidence of one side stronger than the other? Bloody Oath it is.

 

But the only thing that a reasonable and unbiased person can conclude from the evidence is that abiogenesis is (possibly infinately) far more likely to be the cause of life. "Far more likely" is not "is". And that, sir, is all I'm trying to say.

[Sayonara]

But the only thing that a reasonable and unbiased person can conclude from the evidence is that abiogenesis is (possibly infinately) far more likely [/i'] to be the cause of life. "Far more likely" is not "is". And that, sir, is all I'm trying to say.

And any reasonable scientist would likely agree with that principle.

 

However, the issue of "concrete proof" is not really a quest for any such thing (fundamentally, this is because we can debate whether or not what we are observing is real, and the whole discussion becomes a bit pointless).

What it really is is a quest to find the point on the sliding scale where "really quite likely" turns into "absolutely certain". When you're dealing with event probabilties that are in the order of being millions of times more likely than the alternative explanation, that point is lower on the scale and occupies a much greater range.

 

When I said a desperate measure, I was referring to the argumentative strategy of trying to "bump up" creation so that it seems more likely than it really is. In this particular instance, an inverse strategy has been chosen which involves trying to make abiogenesis seem less likely - and this is done by likening the evidence proposed for each side to the same independent entity, despite the fact that they are clearly in different classes of credibility and interpretative potential.

 

Also, you must bear in mind that while the evidence for abiogenesis at the start of life on Earth is - as you say - as circumstantial as the evidence for divine origins, the evidence for abiogenesis occurring at all is highly compelling, repeatable, and testable. Since we're going with legal metaphors, I believe that qualifies as a precedent. Or perhaps a character witness - I'm not sure who's who in this game.

[Sayonara]

First' date=' EVOLUTION ISN'T A FACT! I thought it is understood that evolution is a theory with a lot of evidence behind it but it isn't a fact. NOTHING in science is a fact and that will always be true. evolution is a theory and can in an extent be testable but it can't be considered a fact.

[/quote']

"Evolutionary theory" is a group of descriptions for processes that actually happen, so yes - it is "fact".

 

Rather than claiming "it's not a fact", it would be more accurate and less academically naive to say "the theories are not yet satisfactory or complete".

 

Even if you completely accept that "god did it" (which by the way is not something evolution questions), there still has to be a functional mechanism, and evolutionary theory would remain the way that mechanism was described.

 

 

I believe more of what Genesis says because I am a christian and because it seems to me a bit better than evolution.

What you decide to like best doesn't magically become more real.

[JohnB]

Thanks for the response Sayo.

 

I wonder if you still misunderstand my point though. I wasn't trying to "bump up" creationism or make abiogenesis seem less likely as you suggest. I was just calling it as I see it.

 

As I see it, "credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. Evidence that is credible to one person is not to another. Whether evidence is credible or not is a function of a persons belief system. To you, of the two sets of evidence one is credible, one is not. There are people who look at it the other way.

 

For the dispassionate observer, how are they to judge whos belief system is right? I'm merely trying to be impartial and dispassionate.

 

As I said, I believe in abiogenesis, I view it to be the most probable explanation. (By a long chalk ) It's just that since there is no final proof I'm not willing to say the creationist are wrong. I will say that it's extremely unlikely that they are right.

[swansont]

It's not that the creationists are wrong, it's that their view is untestable and unfalsifiable. Where they are wrong is thinking that creation can be, and is, supported scientifically.

[Aardvark]

As I see it' date=' "credibility" is in the eye of the beholder. Evidence that is credible to one person is not to another. Whether evidence is credible or not is a function of a persons belief system. To you, of the two sets of evidence one is credible, one is not. There are people who look at it the other way.[/quote']

 

You state that there are two sets of evidence to consider. That is not the case. There is some evidence to support abiogenesis. there is no evidence to support a supernatural conjuror deciding to create life.

 

For the dispassionate observer, how are they to judge whos belief system is right? I'm merely trying to be impartial and dispassionate.

 

The dispassionate observer can look at the belief systems and see which one has any evidence and which one doesn't.

 

As I said, I believe in abiogenesis, I view it to be the most probable explanation. (By a long chalk ) It's just that since there is no final proof I'm not willing to say the creationist are wrong. I will say that it's extremely unlikely that they are right.

 

Arguing that there is no final proof is a diversion. It has not been claimed that there is 'final proof', rather it is stated that there is a ggod deal of evidence, going back to the legal analogy, the forensic evidence is mounting and reasonal doubt is being eroded.

 

When you have to make a choice between two belief systems the one with logic, reasoning and physical evidence should be given more respect than one which has none of those items.

[swansont]

Arguing that there is no final proof is a diversion. It has not been claimed that there is 'final proof'' date=' rather it is stated that there is a ggod deal of evidence, going back to the legal analogy, the forensic evidence is mounting and reasonal doubt is being eroded.

[/quote']

 

A god deal of evidence. Oh, my, what an unfortunate typo.

[SorceressPol]

Thanks for pointing that out.