Help on flaws in "Shattering the Myth of Darwinism"?

[lucaspa]

I checked out the article on protocells. While I was amazed to find protein molecules appearing to self organise into structures resembling cell membranes,no explanation for this behaviour was given. Also, term protocell is a bit misleading, as going by what I've found on the web so far, this is one plausible step in a long chain which would be required to produce something as complex as the cells we have today.

 

You have 2 different claims here:

1. Getting life from non-life.

2. Getting "something as complex as the cells we have today."

 

Those are 2 VERY different things. "Life" does not need to be like we see it today in order to be "life". The protocells are living by the basic definition of life: metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, reproduction. What protocells lack that modern cells have is directed protein synthesis. However, there are several paths (in small steps) to get from protocells to directed protein synthesis.

 

As to why the proteins would assemble into cells -- with membranes -- that is easy. The membranes of modern cells are 50-60% protein. The reason the proteins would form membranes is the same reason the proteins in modern cells make up a lot of the cell membrane: hydrophobic interaction. That is the same reason that lipids make cell membranes. Remember, most amino acids have hydrophobic (water-hating) side chains. Some amino acids have hydrophilic (water-loving) side chains. The hydrophilic side chains arrange themselves in space to be together -- because that is the lowest energy. Lipids have a hydrophilic "head" and a hydrophobic "tail". Thus ,the tails tend to be together with the hydrophilic "heads" out to make the lipid bilayer. Proteins can do something similar within themselves and by interaction with other proteins.

 

I need to look into this area but my gut instinct is that there is more going on here than chemistry as we know it.

 

Now you are back to arguing theism and god-of-the-gaps. To get from protocells to modern cells takes chemistry AND evolution. Now that you have a population that reproduces but with variation, evolution steps in. Here is a possible first step in going from protocells to directed protein synthesis:

 

"In more recent work, Fox and his colleagues have shown that basic proteinoids, rich in lysine residues, selectively associate with the homopolynucleotides poly C and poly U but not with poly A or poly G. On the other hand, arginine-rich proteinoids associate selectively with poly A and poly G. In this manner, the information in proteinoids can be used to select polynucleotides. Morever, it is striking that aminoacyl adenylates yield oligopeptides when incubated with proteinoid-polynucleotide complexes, which thus have some of the characteristics of ribosomes. Fox has suggested that proteinoids bearing this sort of primitive chemical information could have transferred it to a primitive nucleic acid; the specificity of interaction between certain proteinoids and polynucleotides suggests the beginning of the genetic code." A. Lehninger, Biochemistry, 1975, pp 1047-1048

 

I believe the “god-of-the-gaps” mentality works both ways. It is misused even by prominent scientists on both sides of the atheism vs theism debate. Both extrapolate that based on scientific problems or discoveries that God either does or does not need to exist.

 

You missed my point: theologically god-of-the-gaps is wrong. Having it used by "both sides" doesn't make it correct. So, in trying to make abiogenesis part of evolution, what you were doing was arguing theism vs atheism using god-of-the-gaps. You are still trying to use GOTG by your "gut instinct" that "there is more than chemistry". After all, WHAT is that "more"? I'm betting you are planning to say "God".

 

To put God into the "gaps" in scientific knowledge has, as its corollary, that God is absent where there is no gap. This theological mistake is what allows Dawkins and other militant atheists to misuse science to say God does not exist. Trying to "prove" the existence of God by the use of "gaps" such as abiogenesis and your "gut instinct" leads you into the position where science would "disprove" God by filling in all the gaps.

 

Judeo-Christianity long ago abandoned god-of-the-gaps partly due to the theological problems. The rejected theology has been revived by creationists and IDers. It shows that, as dreadful as creationism and ID is as science, it is even worse as theology. Since you have read Milton: does he ever state or imply that, since Darwinism is wrong, this means that God created?

 

One complaint of Richard Milton is that Darwinism no longer turns up novel facts. He classes it a degenerating paradigm. He also claims that it is un-falsifiabil. I would be greatfull if someone could put these claims in perspective. I apologise if these problems are in no particular order i'm just presenting them according to my own preference and not following the book.

 

Darwinism is certainly falisifiable -- or was. That is, there are several pieces of data that, if found, would have falsified evolution and natural selection. Darwin suggested several of these. One of the possible falsifications of natural selection was:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection." Origin, pg 501.

 

Of course, no such structure has been found. Some structures or parts -- such as in those found in mutualistic organisms -- are there for the benefit of another species, but that also provides benefit for the species that have them. So there are not structures for the exclusive benefit of another species.

 

Irreducible complexity is supposed to be a falsification of natural selection, but it has been shown that Behe used a strawman version of natural selection and that natural selection can produce any complex biological structure: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

In terms of common ancestry, there were many possible falsifications. However, when we looked at the data, the data that was there did not falsify evolution. Nearly all the possible falsifications have been tested. About the only data not looked at that could falsify common ancestry is finding mammalian fossils in pre-Cambrian or Cambrian strata.

 

Remember, Popper never said that a theory had to be ALWAYS falsifiable. Just that, when proposed, there should be data that COULD, if found, show it false. Evolution had that. What Milton fails to see is that that tests were done and evolution was not falsified. Because all those tests were done, basically evolution is now not false and we can't think of any more tests that could possibly falsify it.

 

I find it interesting that Milton is so ignorant of the philosophy of science that he thinks evolution fails 2 different and contradictory views of science. That's right. The Kuhnian version of how science is/should be done can't be reconciled to Popper's version of how science is/should be done. Popper says theories are falsified on the data. Kuhn denies that. If Popper is right, Kuhn is wrong, and vice versa. Yet Milton tries to tell us that evolution "fails" each one?

 

Since I am a Popperian, I'll subject Milton's statements to testing to see if they are 1) falsifiable and 2) falsified. By Milton's statement, there should be NO novel or surprising facts found by evolution and that publications involving evolution should be decreasing over time (a declining paradigm):

 

One of the most surprising results in the last decade or so is that natural selection is such a good method of getting design. Natural selection -- in the form of genetic algorithms -- are so good at getting design that people now use them when the design problem is too tough for them. And then they are surprised that they don't know how the design works! A Scientific American article in 2003 discussed how natural selection is being used to get patentable inventions! And, of course, to get a patent the idea must be "novel". Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out http://www.genetic-programming.com

 

Also, if you look at PubMed using the search term "evolution" and then look at the time limits for how far back you search, you will see that the number of articles that involve evolution has been increasing over time. That is, in the last 6 months there are more articles using/describing evolution than in the 6 months before that, and that number is larger than the 6 months before that, etc. A declining "paradigm" doesn't do that.

 

In terms of medicine, evolution by natural selection is providing explanations for old problems that seemed intractable. Two of these are 1) infectious diseases and 2) the failure of cancer therapies.

 

2. RM Nesse and GC Williams, Evolution and the origins of disease. Scientific American 279: 86-93, Nov. 1998. Concepts from evolution help unify the medical sciences.

4. BR Levin, M Lipsitch, S Bonhoeffer, Evolution and disease: population biology, evolution, and infectious disease: convergence and synthesis. Science 283: 806-809, Feb. 5, 1998.

7. KC Nicolaou, CNC Boddy, Behind enemy lines. Scientific American 284: 54-61, May 2001

 

So, by Popperian science, I have falsified Milton's hypotheses by finding data that can't be there if his statements are true.

 

How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

 

Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDERsZUVn0&mode=related&search=Evolution%20Intelligent%20Design%20ID%20Creation%20evidence%20facts%20education%20DNA%20mutation%20time%20human%20chimpanzee%20common%20ancestor

 

Enjoy

 

Wait a minute! On a science forum you reference a youtube video as evidence? Are you nuts?

 

What's worse, the video presents no scientific evidence. It is all by ad hominem analogy. It compares YEC to some ideas that we know -- by other means -- are very wrong. BUT that doesn't tell us that YEC is wrong!

 

If you think that ad hominem analogy is a valid form of argument and science, you really need to rethink your participation in a science forum. You are going to get very angry as scientists tell you the argumentation is wrong.

[Reaper]

Wait a minute! On a science forum you reference a youtube video as evidence? Are you nuts?

 

What's worse, the video presents no scientific evidence. It is all by ad hominem analogy. It compares YEC to some ideas that we know -- by other means -- are very wrong. BUT that doesn't tell us that YEC is wrong!

 

If you think that ad hominem analogy is a valid form of argument and science, you really need to rethink your participation in a science forum. You are going to get very angry as scientists tell you the argumentation is wrong.

 

Well, do I really need to? We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

 

Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

[lucaspa]

Well, do I really need to?

 

Yes. You need to recognize valid forms of argument and evidence from invalid forms.

 

We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

 

The point is that many people do NOT know why creationism is wrong. They have just been fed the bad info from creationists. They are unaware -- as the Advocate was unaware -- of the data that is out there. This one is most certainly ad hominem. It insults creationism by comparing it to some very insulting positions -- without showing how those positions are equivalently wrong. The logical fallacy is, yes, the positions compared to are wrong -- but there is no data showing creationism is equivalently wrong. Without such data, the argument is ad hominem.

 

And I don't care about cdk's "credentials". That itself is an appeal to the Argument from Authority -- which is also an invalid form of argumentation.

[CDarwin]

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

[ghstofmaxwll]

We all know why it is so wrong so its kind of pointless to have to repeat it over and over again. And besides, you should look at his other videos and his credentials... They are not ad hominem, and this one isn't either. The analogies are there to demonstrate a point about creationism.

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority.

Besides, I find it rather comical that despite being that wrong they still insist on forcing their beliefs on others and in the education system.

I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

[Reaper]

The point is that many people do NOT know why creationism is wrong. They have just been fed the bad info from creationists. They are unaware -- as the Advocate was unaware -- of the data that is out there.

 

But its not really meant to show any data, because you can always look it up yourself. It's basically there to put things into perspective. As far as this science site is concerned, there is a huge number of threads and posts that already explain why it is wrong so I see no need to repeat them again. After a while it just becomes redundant.

 

This one is most certainly ad hominem. It insults creationism by comparing it to some very insulting positions -- without showing how those positions are equivalently wrong. The logical fallacy is, yes, the positions compared to are wrong -- but there is no data showing creationism is equivalently wrong. Without such data, the argument is ad hominem.

 

See my earlier statement. And why can't creationism be as wrong as believing that you can hold your breath for a year, to give an example. In fact, why can't it be as wrong as saying that things fall up, or that 2+2=5, or that perpetual motion machines can be built? They have already been demonstrated to be false, so we don't really need to consider them. For all intents and purposes, all those things are taken to be self-evident.

 

 

And I don't care about cdk's "credentials". That itself is an appeal to the Argument from Authority -- which is also an invalid form of argumentation.

 

But I never meant that. I know all about the logical fallacies. What you just did was the appeal to pity fallacy (which I could tell by the way you reacted and made statements on how "insulting" they are, along with making a strawman out of my posts).

 

The reason I asked you to look at his other videos is because he (she?) does have a point and a reason to compare it to other totally wrong statements. It is not a "baseless" conclusion. Granted, credentials are purely cosmetic, but I do know that he/she at least has some sort of background in a particular field of study.

 

This "know" you speak of is in fact not knowledge but biblical assertion. We know nothing of the sort in regard to evolution being wrong whereas we know plenty about it being correct. If you look in the dictionary you will find the word "know" is the quality of seeing the underlying factuality. not the quality of being told something is true by a higher authority.

 

I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism.

 

I think you know full well that science isnt about forcing belief on anyone, but allowing students to experiment and find out through records that a finding(such as evolution) stands up.

 

And yes I am aware of that too. It wasn't a comment about science.

 

===================================================================

 

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

 

Indeed.

[ghstofmaxwll]

 

 

I'm well aware of that. All I was doing was telling lucespa that we are already aware of the arguments that discredit creationism.

 

 

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed?

 

I jumped in late in the argument.

[Reaper]

Sorry, was you not one of the people arguing evolution is flawed?

 

No, I was one of the ones saying that creationism is wrong.

 

I jumped in late in the argument.

 

Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

[Mr Skeptic]

See the above statement. Why can't creationism be as wrong as believing that you can hold your breath for a year, to give an example. In fact, why can't it be as wrong as saying that things fall up, or that 2+2=5, or that perpetual motion machines can be built? They have already been demonstrated to be false, so we don't really need to consider them. For all intents and purposes, all those things are taken to be self-evident.

 

Since when does science prove a universal negative? Can you prove that it is impossible to hold your breath for a year, or that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built? What about cryogenics research (hold your breath for how long?), the cyclical universe theory (machines are part of the universe). You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can. What you can do is demonstrate that a creator god is unnecessary and irrelevant par Occam's Razor. And the proof for even that is not yet complete.

 

As for your other example, things fall down because down is the direction things fall, and 2+2=4 because of what 2 and 4 mean. These are definitions so you they are among the few things that can be proved.

 

In summary: Don't be an ass. Ad hominem arguments never belong on a science website, and just make you look silly.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Its okay. If you read the earlier posts, lucaspa is basically trying to lamblast me over a video I posted.

 

I'm lazy you see. I just saw you saying it was wrong(assuming you meant evolution does not fit). Some of these posts here have heavyweight references and links, so not very conducive for the casual asshole( like me) to digest.

[Reaper]

Since when does science prove a universal negative? Can you prove that it is impossible to hold your breath for a year, or that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built? What about cryogenics research (hold your breath for how long?), the cyclical universe theory (machines are part of the universe). You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can. What you can do is demonstrate that a creator god is unnecessary and irrelevant par Occam's Razor. And the proof for even that is not yet complete.

 

As for your other example, things fall down because down is the direction things fall, and 2+2=4 because of what 2 and 4 mean. These are definitions so you they are among the few things that can be proved.

 

In summary: Don't be an ass. Ad hominem arguments never belong on a science website, and just make you look silly.

 

Jesus christ! This is just so dumb. That's a rather hasty conclusion drawn from my posts, because I never claimed any of the above. All of that is strawman. It was never about God, or religion, or anything of the sort. And do I have to give specific examples as to why holding your breath for a year is impossible? Try it yourself and see how far you get! And yes we can demonstrate why perpetual motion machines can't be built, or why 2+2=4, etc. But I don't need to since you can look it up yourself. Go to the pseudoscience section for examples.

 

========================================================================

 

Why do you guys have such a hard time believing that creationism can be as wrong as 2+2=5?

[ghstofmaxwll]

Since when does science prove a universal negative? You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can.

That is true, but it all comes down to the probability of a god planting evidence, and the probability of control freaks in pointy hats making up a load of nonsense and calling it the 10000 revised biblical truth.

 

Basically it comes down to logic and reasoning versus being fooled by human nature.

[CDarwin]

Since when does science prove a universal negative? Can you prove that it is impossible to hold your breath for a year, or that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built? What about cryogenics research (hold your breath for how long?), the cyclical universe theory (machines are part of the universe). You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age), any more than you can prove any other universal negative, no matter how loudly or how many times you say you can. What you can do is demonstrate that a creator god is unnecessary and irrelevant par Occam's Razor. And the proof for even that is not yet complete.

 

Saying Young Earth Creationism is bunk doesn't require proving a universal negative. It makes demonstrably false positive claims: The earth is 6,000 years old, a flood made the Grand Canyon, all human languages derive from a singly point in Babylon, etc.

 

You're making difficulties. As far as we can possibly know, there are not perpetual motion machines. As far as we can possibly know you can't hold your breath under water for a year and survive. As far as we can possibly know the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Do the qualifiers make you feel better?

[Mr Skeptic]

Jesus christ! This is just so dumb. That's a rather hasty conclusion drawn from my posts, because I never claimed any of the above. All of that is strawman. It was never about God, or religion, or anything of the sort.

 

Well, you and the video you posted and are defending.

 

And do I have to give specific examples as to why holding your breath for a year is impossible? Try it yourself and see how far you get!

 

But I just gave you a specific example that you can, in fact, hold your breath for over a year. Frozen people don't need to breathe.

 

And yes we can demonstrate why perpetual motion machines can't be built,

 

That one perhaps, but only if you can prove that the universe is not cyclic, as I also said.

 

or why 2+2=4, etc.

 

That is not in the domain of science. That is math, and can be proven relatively easily.

 

But I don't need to since you can look it up yourself. Go to the pseudoscience section for examples.

 

Why should I put science in the pseudoscience sections and you put ad hominems in the science section?

 

Why do you guys have such a hard time believing that creationism can be as wrong as 2+2=5?

 

Because one is a logical impossibility and the other is a universal negative.

[ghstofmaxwll]

 

 

But I just gave you a specific example that you can, in fact, hold your breath for over a year. Frozen people don't need to breathe.

 

 

.

 

Does it make no difference to you that you have moved the goal posts duing your propositions?

 

Your opening argument was that you cant prove you can hold your breath for a year( holding your breathe requires you to be alive, yes?)....So why did you move the parameters for the logical outcome to include dead people?

 

By the way, people who are being so called "cryonically frozen" after death are being defrauded...There is no known chemical solution that can prevent tissue being damaged from freezing, hence a frost bitten limb will be wholly irrecoverable. Besides who is going to keep those freezers going if alcor have squandered your money a century earlier?

[DrDNA]

By the way, people who are being so called "cryonically frozen" after death are being defrauded...There is no known chemical solution that can prevent tissue being damaged from freezing, hence a frost bitten limb will be wholly irrecoverable. Besides who is going to keep those freezers going if alcor have squandered your money a century earlier?

 

 

Exactly. That's why I'm only going to have my head frozen.

[ghstofmaxwll]

Exactly. That's why I'm only going to have my head frozen.

 

But only certain lower organs in other species have been frozen for a short time and recovered. Human brains definitely are not included.

[iNow]

Wow. This thread has certainly gone to the crapper.

[DrDNA]

I'll bet you a dollar I can keep my head frozen longer than you.

[Mr Skeptic]

Does it make no difference to you that you have moved the goal posts duing your propositions?

 

The original goal posts were to counter Lockheed's claim that holding one's breath for a year was impossible (for which he provided no evidence whatsoever).

 

Your opening argument was that you cant prove you can hold your breathe for a year( holding your breathe requires you to be alive, yes?)....So why did you move the parameters for the logical outcome to include dead people?

 

No, my argument was that it is nearly impossible to prove a universal negative. In response to Lockheed's claim that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year, I gave an example of how it might be possible. Feel free to carry on where he left off and prove that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year.

 

Also, while freezing improperly will cause massive damage, you won't actually die until you are thawed. You may need to be kept frozen until medical science advances enough. And it has been demonstrated that multicellular animals can be frozen and thawed without damage; we just haven't figured out how to apply it to people.

 

By the way, people who are being so called "cryonically frozen" after death are being defrauded...There is no known chemical solution that can prevent tissue being damaged from freezing, hence a frost bitten limb will be wholly irrecoverable. Besides who is going to keep those freezers going if alcor have squandered your money a century earlier?

 

That is probably true re current cryogenics. Frostbite is something else though; very slow freezing while the rest of the body is still alive, and without proper anti-ice crystal chemicals.

 

---

 

Funny how people react when I tell someone that ad hominem arguments don't belong here and that even if they did, they are inaccurate ad hominems.

 

Lockheed claiming that any universal negatives are, in his words, "self-evident" is just ridiculous and I told him so.

 

Lockheed probably didn't even realize that the video he linked to at least had the good grace of having the correct quantifiers as its central theme (young earth creationists are off by a factor of 1,000,000 compared to the estimated age of the earth) rather than a bunch of stupid things he pulled out of his arse.

 

Eh. You folks are impossible

[ghstofmaxwll]

 

 

 

No, my argument was that it is nearly impossible to prove a universal negative. In response to Lockheed's claim that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year, I gave an example of how it might be possible. Feel free to carry on where he left off and prove that it is impossible to hold one's breath for a year.

 

No! The initial premise was clearly that someone can hold their breath for a year without suffocation and the inability to prove it cant be done. It didnt imply freezing was a part of the premise.

 

Make your initial premise that their breath holding can involve means of preservation other than the normal preservation of life coming from the intake of oxygen (if indeed your belief is that frozen bodies are not in fact dead) then, otherwise your argument is not logical but a mere trick question.

[DrDNA]

The initial premise was clearly that someone can hold their breath for a hour without suffocation and the inability to prove it cant be done. It didnt imply freezing was a part of the premise.

 

Make your initial premise that their breath holding can involve means of preservation other than the normal preservation of life coming from the intake of oxygen (if indeed your belief is that frozen bodies are not in fact dead) then, otherwise your argument is not logical but a mere trick question.

 

 

An hour is definitely possible.

Quote:

""Oxygen needs are much reduced when the body is cold, therefore a permanent brain damage from low oxygen states may not occur. A 60 minute cold water submersion victim has been fully resuscitated. ""

End Quote.

http://scuba-doc.com/hypoth.htm

also

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/coastal_communities/hypothermia

[ghstofmaxwll]

An hour is definitely possible.

Quote:

""Oxygen needs are much reduced when the body is cold, therefore a permanent brain damage from low oxygen states may not occur. A 60 minute cold water submersion victim has been fully resuscitated. ""

End Quote.

http://scuba-doc.com/hypoth.htm

also

http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/coastal_communities/hypothermia

 

Yes I meant year....He said year, yeah?

 

Student brains are usually preserved by alcohol, but the side effects are obviously more instant.

[lucaspa]

I don't believe that video was meant to argue against Creationists... It's intent was to demonstrate to people who already know Creationism is whooey just how off it is, as a sort of call to arms. We needn't rake poor Lockheed over the coals, here.

 

I disagree. Here is what Lockheed wrote: "How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

 

Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDER...mon%20ancestor"

 

Taken literally, yes the video asserts how wrong creationism is. But it does not demonstrate with data on how wrong creationism is. Ironically, the video relies on the Argument from Analogy and that is exactly the argument IDers use with the "human artifacts are designed, so, since biological organisms look designed, they must also be artifacts". Lockheed doesn't accept analogy as a valid form of argument there, but is willing to accept it when the conclusion agrees with him! Isn't that exactly what creationists do?

 

Isnt science supposed to be different?

 

Since when does science prove a universal negative?

 

ALWAYS. That's what you can do with deductive logic: prove a negative.

 

Would you not agree that science has "proved" that the earth is NOT flat? Or "proved" the the earth is NOT the center of the solar system?

 

True statements cannot have false consequences. And that is what science does: tests statements (hypotheses/theories) to see if they have false consequences.

 

Can you prove that it is impossible to hold your breath for a year, or that a perpetual motion machine cannot be built? What about cryogenics research (hold your breath for how long?), the cyclical universe theory (machines are part of the universe).

 

1. Yes, it is possible to "prove" that holding your breath for a year is impossible. In fact, it's been done! People who hold their breath for over 10 minutes always pass out and start breathing again.

 

2. When you introduce cryonics, you are changing the hypothesis. You now have an ad hoc hypothesis that being frozen is the same as "holding your breath". Of course it is not.

 

3. If SLOT is true, then cyclical universe is false. So, to get cyclical universe to be true, you must have the ad hoc hypothesis that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false.

 

You can't actually prove that god didn't create the universe (possibly planting evidence re its age),

 

This is also different. The statement "God created" doesn't itself have any observational consequences. To get observational consequences you must specify a mechanism by which God created. What you specified was young earth creationism. Which you know is falsified by the data: the earth isn't 6,000 years old. What you have then done is introduce an ad hoc hypothesis: God zapped the earth into place 6,000 years ago but did so to make it look old. This is not independently testable from the hypothesis you are trying to save and is, thus, an invalid ad hoc hypothesis.

 

Now, one reason we can't "prove" that God didn't create is because we can hypothesize that God created by the mechanisms discovered by science! God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution. All the observational consequences match this mechanism, don't they? There is no way for science, using its legitimate methods, to say God is not involved.

 

You have to believe either that God is involved or that God is not involved. And, of course, then you are out of science into the realm of belief: either theism or atheism.

 

What you can do is demonstrate that a creator god is unnecessary and irrelevant par Occam's Razor.

 

No. What you can do is that God's direct action is not needed. However, you have here a misuse of Ockham's Razor. The Razor was intended by Ockham for describing phenomenon. His "entities" were what we today call "hypotheses" and he didn't want hypotheses added to descriptions of phenomenon. His example was the contemporary statement "an object moves because of an impetus." Impetus is a hypothesis of an innate "desire" of an object to move. Ockham noted that "movement" is change in position over time. Therefore, all you needed to describe the phenomenon was "an object moves". You don't need the hypothesis.

 

Let's take another example of misuse of Ockham's Razor done by a contemporary physicist:

 

"The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance."

"The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens."

 

Everything after the "because" is the same as Ockham's example of "impetus". The correct statement to describe the phenomenon of the movement of planets is:

"The planets move around the sun in ellipses."

 

Both the "force" and the "powerful aliens" are unnecessary. That the "force" (gravity) is a strongly supported hypothesis has nothing to do with it. In the statement describing the movement of the planets, gravity is an unnecessary entity.

 

You can't use the Razor to evaluate between hypotheses. Skeptic, in the "Global Warming" thread you have repeatedly stated that you need data to decide what hypothesis is correct. Don't bail now. Because, if you introduce the Razor to evaluate the anti-GW arguments, anthropogenic GW is simpler. AGW wins using the Razor. But you don't think it is correct even tho it is simpler.

 

What science tests is whether material mechanisms are sufficient AS material mechanisms. IOW, is evolution by natural selection sufficient to explain the origin of species or do we need another material mechanism: direct manufacture by God?

 

Don't let the use of "miracle" fool you. Creationism is an alternative material mechanism: organisms (or parts of them) were directly manufactured. That we don't know how organisms were manufactured is irrelevant to manufacturing being a material mechanism that can be tested. And shown to have false consequences.

 

In summary: Don't be an ass. Ad hominem arguments never belong on a science website, and just make you look silly.

 

Thank you for the support. All the video did was make whoever made it look silly.

[Reaper]

I disagree. Here is what Lockheed wrote: "How wrong are YEC's and advocates of intelligent design?

 

Here you go... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amDER...mon%20ancestor"

 

Taken literally, yes the video asserts how wrong creationism is. But it does not demonstrate with data on how wrong creationism is. Ironically, the video relies on the Argument from Analogy and that is exactly the argument IDers use with the "human artifacts are designed, so, since biological organisms look designed, they must also be artifacts". Lockheed doesn't accept analogy as a valid form of argument there, but is willing to accept it when the conclusion agrees with him! Isn't that exactly what creationists do?

 

Isnt science supposed to be different?

 

 

 

It is not an argument from analogy, because it isn't using analogies to prove creationism wrong (e.g. it does NOT assert that creationism is wrong because it is like believing a whole bunch of other things that are known to be wrong, which is what you are assuming and a gross misinterpretation). It is, just a CDarwin says, a video for those who already know, or are unsure, to show them just to what degree they are off by. And using analogies, it give a perspective, to make it easier to understand a point or an assertion or a theory. It's actually just the same way one explains the curvature of spacetime by using a rubber sheet and a massive ball. Using analogies to convey a point is not invalid in itself.

 

But you know what, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the video. I already gave you my reasons, you either take it or leave it. I stand by my defense of it, I don't see anything wrong with it.