Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Debunking creationist mythsPage 7 of 24    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)

The irony of this statement is threefold.

Typical Sign11 statement, and exemplary of common creationist unsubstantiated approaches.

The claim is "threefold". The presentation contains a single point. Where are the other two which are required to sum up to "threefold"?


This codon myth is an absolute fantasy with no empirical evidence to back up it's claims

Sign's here. Time to resume awaiting substantiation.
This is basic genetics at the most elementary level. Biology, paleontology, medicine, biotechnology all rely on it. For a "fantasy", it works pretty well.


Let's have a close look at the "scientific" evidence which allegedly substantiates this feather-mutated-from-scale myth

Explicitly presented as a fictional example of factual mechanisms. Next windmill, Don.

Similar situations for factual circumstances have already been provided.

Anyone seeking creationist myths or fallacies to debunk need look no further than the above poster. He's got them all down-pat, with heavy reliance on ignorance, appeal to ignorance, ad hominem [not this time], and ad nauseum.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 152
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 5:32:01 AM

Quetzalcoatl's bite was rendered harmless after he suddenly realized that he was only a mythological creature after all.


OH! The IRONY!!!

Why is it that YOUR God is real, while all other Gods are mythological creatures, hmmm...?
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 153
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:54:00 AM
But I thought we were debunking creation myths here...


The C/ID proponents don't seem to be able to actually stay on topic in this debate, ...ever. This is likely because the only argument this side can pose is a fallacious one, the myth here is that this is a valid argument. But, it's no great leap of illogic to jump from the paralogism of accepting something that has not been shown to exist - to not accepting; perceptible, tangible, palpable, sensible, corporeal and substantive evidence for that which actually does exist. Especially if the latter illustrates the complete and utter violation of the law of parsimony of the former, by complete and utter exclusion of any kind of undetectable invisible supernatural entity.

This is the myth of, "the giant red herring who swallowed the straw man".

See: Post# 212

Expect to see this myth repeated at least once every page. Also, it's almost always repeated by the same people, and often the bait is taken, this is how this particular myth propagates


And, there is a big difference between intelligent design, and an intelligent designer.


There is a big problem with the myth-nomenclature of, "intelligent design" as it misleads by not including the adjectives: imperceptible, intangible, impalpable, indefinable, indescribable, incorporeal and insubstantial designer. Get past these before you even consider the concept "intelligent" or it may as well be (and argued with the same "validity") attributed to, leprechaun boot-buckle dust.

Note: All puns intended.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 154
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:26:39 PM
No thanks to me Diva? I'm hurt.... I started the thread.
No respect I tell ya. I get no respect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrl-q9bhWVI&feature=fvw
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 155
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 3:58:53 PM
Sign11 - Do you believe mutations can happen?
Do you believe beneficial mutations can happen? (CCR5 delta 32 is a beneficial mutation)
If you do, then you believe in evolution.
If you don't, then you need to take a biology class.
Many small beneficial mutations add up you know. There is no indication to stop them from changing into another species which is substantially different than their original species.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 156
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 4:26:30 PM
The CCR5 delta 32 mutation saved people from the black plague and HIV. Both of which are fatal.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 157
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 5:30:37 PM
I believe most mutations are harmful, so I kind of hope they pass me by.

mutations are rare, all seem to be bad, [at least the great majority of them are] they are never witnessed, but the errors that they are, are what built the very itricate life we have today.

and you wonder why I doubt evolution.
 Page 2u
Joined: 1/30/2008
Msg: 158
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 5:32:20 PM
Hi--- a bit of a late comer—

Read OP.
Couple of posts front and back,,

This is such an ancient topic,
What is—verses-- what could be …
Physics –verses—Meta physics
Sciences --verses ---religion…

There is a word ‘consilience ‘ and it best describes the common thought of those living in the 1800s during the enlighten period.
Social and physical co-existed without any thought to division.

I can’t help but think of the brilliant minds like-- Newton, Faraday or Tesla ---All were reputed men of science and all played in the world of creation--- believing in something greater than who we are.
The truth is we don’t know, and its sciences job to answer questions

If the original OP was a shot at the Roman Catholic creed
I would have a hard time to debate the notion..----I agree !!!

HOWEVER---To debunk creationism is not possible---

Because we--- just don’t know-----
 BuzWeaver
Joined: 7/7/2007
Msg: 159
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 6:34:59 PM
Chandra Wickramasinghe speaking to a Judge at the Arkansas trial on creation, design or accident said. Random trail is only 1 part in 10 to the 40 thousandth power an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudice either by social beliefs or by scientific training into the convection that life originated on the earth this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of cord. The enormous information contact with even the simplest living cell cannot be in our view generated by what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on the earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly.

There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger or better organic soup as we ourselves hope might be possible. The ACULU attorney stood up and said, but Judge anything would look like design after the fact. For example 60 thousand people may come and show up at a football game. Nobody would have expected that type of assembly or predicted that for a particular football game.

Chandra Wickramasinghe couldn’t help laughing, he said, judge I don’t think this man understands probability. The first thing I want to say to you is that whatever the example is he just used, just proves design and not accident.

Number one, they knew there was a football game going on, number two, they bought tickets for it. Had every football game they attended accidentally sat 60 thousand of them in alphabetical order every time, then he might have a case in point.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 160
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 6:44:49 PM
Buz - trying to calculate probability doesn't work with evolution on so many points. One of the main points though is that the guy who first did the equation didn't take into calculation that mutations speed up depending on the population of living organisms on the planet. Plus, he didn't calculate that more than one mutation can effect an organism at any one time. In effect, it's IMPOSSIBLE to calculate probability based on mutations because the amount of variables involved with bio-chemicals forming, shifting, and mutating is such that the variables can't be determined by conventional mathematics. It is absolutely impossible to be able to predict with mathematics anything that has a seemingly random process with countless variables.
Plus.. Chemicals dont combine do to an intelligent agent. They combine so readily because that is how those chemicals work. Hydrogen easily combines with oxygen to create water. Chemicals simply act the way they act because that's how they work.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 10:08:25 PM
Sign will never answer a straight question. It's a waste of your time to try. He's mastered the 5 Ds of dodgeball.

See: Heinlein quote posted previously.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:33:59 PM
The effects of protons and ionizing radiation are irrelevant. The myth in this case is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Other fallacies apply equally.

Most mutation involves change in order or composition of DNA as a result of errors in the duplication process.

The examples Sign11 flails on with are NOT errors in the duplication process. They are radiation induced gaps and breaks.

How do radiation caused breaks become magically equal to copying errors?

They don't. We're supposed to be gullible enough to be convinced that the most common process is identical to the rare process simply because they both have results called "mutation". By the same logic; bees must have bones and feathers, because like birds, they have wings and fly. At this point, it should be apparent every audience member, regardless of which side of the argument they might favor, that this particular debater hasn't a rational leg to stand on.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 163
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/24/2009 12:23:19 AM
It's no wonder those who believe in the Mutation Myth want to lead the discussion away from the odds

Neither Sign11 nor Wickramasinghe seem to understand probability. Multiplication, sure, but not probability.

If you are dealt 5 cards from a single deck, here are some probabilities:
4/52 chance of one jack [7.7%]
4/52 chance of one king [7.7%]
4/52 x 3/51 x 2/50 x 1/49 chance of four jacks [0.00037%]
4/52 x 3/51 x 2/50 x 1/49 chance of four kings [0.00037%]

If the first card is a king:
4/51 chance of one jack [7.8%]
3/51 chance of one more king [5.9%]
4/51 x 3/50 x 2/49 x 1/48 chance of getting 4 jacks [0.0004%]
3/51 x 2/50 x 1/49 chance of four kings [0.0048%]

If you now have the second king:
4/50 chance of one jack [8%]
2/50 chance of one more king [4%]
4/50 x 3/49 x 2/48 x 0/47 chance of getting 4 jacks [0%]
2/50 x 1/49 chance of getting 4 kings [0.12%]

If you have the third king:
4/49 chance of one jack [8.2%]
1/49 chance of one more king [2%]
4/49 x 3/48 x 0/47 chance of getting 4 jacks [0%]
1/49 chance of getting 4 kings [2%]

Note that the chances of certain complex scenarios IMPROVE rapidly because the preceding steps provide the "environment" favorable to make this happen. Some possibilities improve for a while, until the constraints of the system eliminate them, such as lacking the the code to mutate to new forms. That changes if some of the cards are duplicated - add two jacks to the deck, and your odds of one jack jump from 4/52 to 6/54.
Odds of 4 kings improves over time as follows:
0.00037%==>0.0048%==>0.12%==>2%

This is analogous to a system subject to laws of chemistry and physics and with DNA of a specific length or with limited chemical resources. Combining limited resources with specific DNA length, and further conditions are imposed which again step up some choices while moving others to the abyss.

Because the system has inherint rules which limit the potential outcomes according to preceding results, the probabilities are FAR better than creationists wish to claim.

Note that some of these probabilistic arguments apply only in specific cases. Single cards are analogous to limited resource scenarios, but not to evolution of genetic code. Where chemical reactions are concerned, the deck is slowly decreasing in size - fewer options are possible at each step. Where DNA is concerned, the deck size [choice of components] is constant, and the length of DNA [number of picks] is limited. Duplication events can increase the length of DNA.
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 164
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/24/2009 4:29:32 PM

Thread Rolled Back For House Keeping



 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 165
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 12:40:23 AM
frogo

is it fair to use a 52 card deck with 4 of one kind in it?

OR should they be all different kinds?

OR all different kinds and 1ooo cards?

OR a million cards?

AND why are we taking the rules of physics for granted?
different universes with different rules, I hear, so they did appear one day then.
that does make evolution a lot easyer to swallow, doesn't it? still impossible, but it does give the illusion of it being more probable to the non discerning mind, which is most of us.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 166
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 4:28:50 AM
is it fair to use a 52 card deck with 4 of one kind in it?

It's an analogy. It shows how probabilities CHANGE, depending upon the conditions. A standard deck of 52 cards is fine for that purpose.

The fallacy of appealing to numbers [probability] and the fallacy of appealing to ignorance are frequently brought forward to deny the possibility of evolution. Here I am specifically referring to the argument that "random chances are too small". That argument is false. It depends on several incorrect assumptions, though one is especially germane here:
*) constant probabilities. False. Evolution and biogenesis are both driven by chemistry. Chemistry is NOT random, it is strongly dependant on the chemical environment. Every time a reaction occurs, of any type, the result is a new mix of chemicals in the environment and a decrease in some resources. Here's the relevance of the analogy - each step in the process drastically INCREASES the chances of the next step.

It does not matter whether I change the deck of cards any. The fact that the probabilities change is all that matters. A tenfold improvement in chances is a tenfold improvement in chances.


AND why are we taking the rules of physics for granted?

They're called laws for a reason. That reason is, they are NEVER violated, either in fact or theory. The universe, in every example we can look at, follows these rules. You may question them if you like, but you could waste countless lifetimes looking for non-existent violations of these laws. We take them for granted because they are 100% reliable and we have far better things to do than waste our time and effort confirming them constantly. One could also doubt that the sun rises every morning, but I can't say I have ever heard of a person who doubted this so much as to verify it every day!


different universes with different rules, I hear, so they did appear one day then

Good grief. Take the time to gain an understanding of ONE field before you leapfrog to another!

Some hypotheses regarding the origin of our universe DO include multiple universes. ONE such hypothesis postulates that basic laws may differ between universes, that is correct. It is one of many such hypotheses, and like the rest, can't be tested or demonstrated. In any case, the laws HERE are constant; what they are in other universes [if such exist] is immaterial [and another fallacy of appealing to probability often interjects right about here].


that does make evolution a lot easyer to swallow, doesn't it?

Personally? No, not even in retrospect, but let me continue in this vein...

still impossible, but it does give the illusion of it being more probable

Point one - it's not impossible. Evolution is an observed fact and an inevitability. The claim of impossibility is largely the fallacy of personal incredulity. The claim is in denial of abundant evidence and derives purely from ignorance of the facts, whether incidental or willfull.
Point two - The laws of the universe are the laws of the universe. They haven't changed any time in the last 14 billion years or so. The fact that they are does in fact make chemistry, and therefore life, possible. As far as I can see, nothing is made easier to swallow, because it was all there to see in the first place.

However, it's entirely possible I have misunderstood. If you are trying to say that understanding the underlying principles of the universe and chemistry, makes the concept of evolution easier to understand, then "yes"! Obviously, a very important part of "understanding" is...um...understanding. Many of us accept evolution, not because of any dogma, but because we do have a basic understanding of chemistry, physics, probability, paleontology, and the general workings of life. I think it should be clear to pretty much anyone, that any reasonably correct understanding of a subject will require learning the basic principles behind it.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 167
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:51:30 AM
So who here knows the internet persona of VFX? Check this out...
http://www.venomfangxsite.com/

ROFL!
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 168
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:03:19 PM
Verzen...


So who here knows the internet persona of VFX? Check this out...
http://www.venomfangxsite.com/


Yeah - I've seen some of his junk. Among many on YouTube, he's known as PCS - Posterboy for Creationist Stupidity.

He's had to apologize for slandering other users, he had the PayPal account for his website discontinued when it was discovered that he was misusing his 'donations' for personal use instead of sending it on to Sick Kids' Hospital as he promised.

Total nut-job...
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 169
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:20:07 PM
I've wanted to jump on this point for a while now but I've been...um...away.

Anyway, something I saw that always seems to come up from the creations/ID side. And it boils down to "either/or." This came up when the mutation that provides resistence to AIDS and the black plague and sign11 said something about it also causing some cancer.

To which my thought was....so? How does that weaken the idea of evolution and mutation as a driving force in any way, shape or form? It seems perfectly plausible to me that what evolutionary processes can give with one hand, so to speak, it can take away with another. But since that won't express itself equally throughout the population, so it's not relevant.

Indeed, it seems the logic is reversed as this is actually an argument against intelligence behind the design. After all, it seems to me that if there was something guiding the course of evolution and, presumably it's pinnacle humans, then S/He/It would be introducing only beneficial changes. Doesn't that sound more logical?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:25:20 PM
RE Msg: 333 by stargazer1000:

I've been avoiding this thread, because I'm not pro or anti. But I just felt that I could clarify this:
Indeed, it seems the logic is reversed as this is actually an argument against intelligence behind the design. After all, it seems to me that if there was something guiding the course of evolution and, presumably it's pinnacle humans, then S/He/It would be introducing only beneficial changes. Doesn't that sound more logical?
Not really. That would be suggesting that all guiding systems work only in one direction, and they don't. In reality, guidance systems have to work in all directions, as they have to continually make course corrections, by making a correction in one direction, then another in the opposite to correct any resulting over-correction, then back in the original direction, etc, etc. Same for any guidance system.

Of course, if you don't believe me, then try it for yourself. Get any baby, and raise it by giving it everything it wants or asks for, and never discipline it at all, or tell it what it shouldn't do, or restrict it in any way. See how long it takes until your kid starts kicking other kids for fun, and doesn't stop until it's taken away by social services.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 171
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/25/2009 8:41:36 PM
So, ID is cmpletely inconsistent and unpredictable? Gotcha. I think we had that part figured out.

Mind you, the scientific explanations tend to differ.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 172
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:34:31 AM

Not really. That would be suggesting that all guiding systems work only in one direction, and they don't. In reality, guidance systems have to work in all directions


Well, the faulty logic in that has already been pointed out but I'll also point out that this is a tremendous way of hedging one's bets. "Yes there's an intelligent designer but occasionally he makes mistakes so he has to go back and correct his work."

In other words, I want to have my cake and eat it too. Again, it assumes there's a "point" to the development of life. Indeed, the logic fails again because, again, we see no evidence of the "creator's" work beyond biology itself. Sorry, but you're going to have to do better to convince this agnostic.

Sorry, the baby thing is also a false analogy. A baby isn't an entire biological system. And the issue isn't one of behaviour...you're using "development" in the entirely wrong context.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 173
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/26/2009 5:42:20 PM
RE Msg: 338 by vichycycl and Msg: 339 by stargazer1000:

I read a while back that Dr Norbert Wiener showed that systems that use regular course corrections in a dynamic environment, like missiles flying to a target on the Earth, are far more efficient than systems that just aim straight for their target. He worked for the US government during World War II, and used these concepts to develop an unerring method of keeping missiles on target. Simply put, it's much more efficient that a straight-line linear approach.

I just posted here to help stargazer not make a fatal flaw in his arguments, one that is bound to cause anyone who uses it, to have egg on their face. But, if you guys wish to continue using such an argument, that is your right, by the right of free speech.

Adieu, and good night.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 174
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:55:16 PM

I just posted here to help stargazer not make a fatal flaw in his arguments, one that is bound to cause anyone who uses it, to have egg on their face


Unless you realize that a missile is not the same as evolution. And you realize that it's a very poor analogy.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Debunking creationist myths
Posted: 9/27/2009 5:14:39 AM
RE Msg: 327 by stargazer1000 and Msg: 328 by vichycycl:

Stargazer brought up guidance systems. Either you see the comparison or you don't want to. Those who agree with you, won't change their opinions by your words, and for those who don't, don't see a point in taking 10 pages to just explain the comparison, only to have you just ignore your acceptance, and start trying to argue some other point. So your words are irrelevant.

Find something constructive to say.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Debunking creationist myths