Evolution: the Facts.

[Meadmaker]

Atheist,

I'm not sure of your intent here. Are you trying to amass all the data, or trying to select a "best of", a sort of concise selection of very powerful arguments? I'll give a couple of brief comments based on the latter.

These are the type of issues:

Age of the earth - how can we be sure it's not 6011 years old?

My favorite argument of all comes not from Earth, but from space. We can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 light years away. Either they've been shining more than 6,000 years, or God deliberately created them in a deceptive fashion. If the former, then the universe is older than 6011 years+6 days. If the latter, there's no point studying anything, but that sure is mean of God to fool people like that.

I like that argument because it's unaffected by "flood geology". Of course "flood geology" doesn't explain anything, anyway, but its such a weird idea that it's very difficult to provide a coherent answer against it. It "explains" everything.

How did life arise? What were conditions really like at the dawn of life?

Unfortunately, this one has some problems. No one knows anything worth knowing about the answer.

What are some examples of intermediate species?

Archeopteryx, and eohippus, but I'm sure some more biologically inclined can do better.

Any algorithms and their connection to methods of proof.

There's going to be slim pickin's on this one. The algorithms and simulations aren't very convincing. (Unless you count kleinman's firm conviction that ev disproves evolution.)

Debunking popular ID myths. Questions to ask IDiots.

You say the formation of a cell was too improbable to have happened without divine guidance. Can I see your calculations?

 

[The Atheist]

Atheist,

I'm not sure of your intent here. Are you trying to amass all the data, or trying to select a "best of", a sort of concise selection of very powerful arguments? I'll give a couple of brief comments based on the latter.

Yep, you're on it, a [hopefully] convincing series of arguments for everyone to refer to as needed, with fundy trolls half-price.

I like the light idea.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Art V, great post. I like the reference to Platonic thought and keeping that in mind I think the simplist retort to the Forms argument from Creationists is, "yes, Archaeopteryx is a perfectly formed Archeopteryx, but it exhibits traits of therapod dinosaurs and modern birds and thus is transitional as that is what you're looking for Mr. Creationist."

My favorite argument of all comes not from Earth, but from space. We can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 light years away. Either they've been shining more than 6,000 years, or God deliberately created them in a deceptive fashion. If the former, then the universe is older than 6011 years+6 days. If the latter, there's no point studying anything, but that sure is mean of God to fool people like that.

I like that argument because it's unaffected by "flood geology". Of course "flood geology" doesn't explain anything, anyway, but its such a weird idea that it's very difficult to provide a coherent answer against it. It "explains" everything.

MM, you haven't heard that the speed of light has changed? You didn't notice the verse in Psalms where God stretched out the heavans and that changed relativity? Don't you realize your uniformatarianist presuppositions, assumptions and inferences are just guesses and hunches based on your bias?



Those bogus responses to the starlight issue are easily rebuffed with something I referenced in rittjc's thread - SN 1987A. I'll cross post it here when I get some time.

 

[cyborg]

Re: goal based evolution the most important fact to remember here:

Mutations are not wanted. Change is not wanted. But change happens. Mutations happen. When they happen the potential for evolution is present.

If DNA replicated perfectly every time it sure as hell wouldn't have 'tried' to become the encoding for a humanoid.

 

[arthwollipot]

Ooh, another thing I just thought of that creationists love to wave about. "Most mutations are harmful."

In fact, only a few mutations are either harmful or helpful - most are neutral. The harmful ones are weeded out of the gene pool by natural selection, while the helpful ones are locked in by the same mechanism.

 

[Meadmaker]

MM, you haven't heard that the speed of light has changed?

Sorry, forgot that one.

Is it that recently generated photons travel more slowly, or do all photons slow down? If you had one of the 6000 year old photons would it be zipping by right quickly, with newly created ones being all pokey? Or do all photons always travel at the same speed, but they slow down in flight? Hey, if you had travelled 14 billion light-years (measured with the current value of c), you would probably be losing a little zip, too.

I wonder if E equalled mc squared back then, too. If so, a little bit of mass could really get things cooking back in the old days.

your uniformatarianist presuppositions, assumptions and inferences are just guesses and hunches based on your bias?

Just stuck in the old ways, I guess.

 

[Taffer]

Thread's looking good, so far TA. I'll keep an eye out, and if I see any questions I think I feel I can answer better then the others here, I'll pipe in. Otherwise, I think it's covered pretty well.

 

[Corsair 115]

MM, you haven't heard that the speed of light has changed? You didn't notice the verse in Psalms where God stretched out the heavans and that changed relativity?

Not just that, but at one point there was no refraction of light. Prior to the Great Flood, no rainbows. After, rainbows. Since rainbows are understood to be created by the refraction of light in water droplets in the atmosphere, then prior to the flood light couldn't be refracted.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Can we make a separate FAQ solely aimed at helping Ray Comfort understand evolution? I'll start:

1. Isn't the fact that a banana fits in my hand a sign that God created both of us?

2. Why is there no such animal as the crocoduck?

(1) [swiki]Bananas: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare[/swiki]

(2) [swiki]Ray Comfort[/swiki] (see the "Bogus Challenge section in particular). Also see the article on [swiki]Intermediate Forms[/swiki].

---

We already have the project underway. Please jump on the bandwagon.

 

[kjkent1]

(1) [swiki]Bananas: The Atheist's Worst Nightmare[/swiki]

(2) [swiki]Ray Comfort[/swiki] (see the "Bogus Challenge section in particular). Also see the article on [swiki]Intermediate Forms[/swiki].

---

We already have the project underway. Please jump on the bandwagon.

When will the section on Alan Kleinman be added? And, who will take on the formidable challenge of authoring the section -- knowing that Alan will attempt to modify it at every opportunity?

 

[Herzblut]

My favorite argument of all comes not from Earth, but from space. We can see galaxies that are more than 6,000 light years away.

Kind of. The next neighbor of your Milky Way (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away.

Your argument is not really easy going (redshift, expansion of the Universe, ...). I wonder if geological facts aren't simpler.

Herzblut

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Here's a site that focusses specifically on Kent "Dr Dino" Hovind's drivel, a burden the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently has to bear. However, Hovind's so-called "arguments" are like litter in more ways than one: they are also frequently recycled.

As for Ray Comfort, I have bought one of his books – strictly for heeding Sun Tzu's admonition to know one's enemy, you understand – and I can say with much assurance that Comfort is quite beyond redemption. He wouldn't know a coherent argument if it "fact" him in the eye with a sharp syllogism.

'Luthon64

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sorry, forgot that one.

I'm at home and on dialup so sorry for not providing a link but if you Google Barry Setterfield (IIRC) you can find one of the YEC kooks who think the speed of light has changed. Of course his "ideas" are blown away by SN 1987A, but then again, what Creationist ideas aren't blown away by reality.

Not just that, but at one point there was no refraction of light. Prior to the Great Flood, no rainbows. After, rainbows. Since rainbows are understood to be created by the refraction of light in water droplets in the atmosphere, then prior to the flood light couldn't be refracted.

Don't inject logical thinking into the ad hoc hodgepodge of YECism! They make their case by treating every single topic as its own seperat reality.

When will the section on Alan Kleinman be added? And, who will take on the formidable challenge of authoring the section -- knowing that Alan will attempt to modify it at every opportunity?

I've been avoiding the Annoying Creationists thread for a long time because people like Kleinman et. al. are simply trolls who add nothing to the discussion. Endless discussions of how math or philosophy effects evolutionary theory - which neither do - are so boring as to make my eyes water. Algorithms don't make Tiktallik or human chromosome 22 go away. There are just too many on the face facts for evolution for me to bother wasting my time with navel gazing lint pickers.

Kind of. The next neighbor of your Milky Way (Andromeda) is 2.5 million light years away.

Just a point of fact. Our next neighbors are the Large and Small Megellanic clouds. They are not a part of the Milky Way and are significantly closer than the Andromeda galexy.

 

[sphenisc]

Just a point of fact. Our next neighbors are the Large and Small Megellanic clouds. They are not a part of the Milky Way and are significantly closer than the Andromeda galexy.

Our nearest neighbouring galaxy is the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy^WP. At only 25,000 ly, our solar system lies closer to it than to the centre of our own galaxy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

When will the section on Alan Kleinman be added?

When --- and if --- he succeeds in deceiving someone.

Otherwise, there's no point.

 

[Darat]

Hope some of this ends up as something that can be added to The Repository!

 

[The Atheist]

Hope some of this ends up as something that can be added to The Repository!

Hope so and I have to say it looks pretty likely - we have all the forum brains here, so I think it should turn out well.

Working brilliantly so far - the brains do all the work and I get all the credit!

 

[qayak]

It's been my experience that all evolution-deniers do not understand evolution.

No kidding ! And all Big Bang deniers don't understand the Big Bang.

I think this whole thread could be eliminated and replaced with the names of a few good books. Well, actually there is already a thread on good books so a simple link is all that is required.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But "read a few good books" is not a good answer to any specific question.

 

[qayak]

But "read a few good books" is not a good answer to any specific question.

I agree with this but a good answer to a specific question is meaningless without a foundation in the subject. I have often pointed out the problem with the creationist "Watch Maker" argument and yet seldom had a creationist grasp why it does not refute evolution. People who understand evolution will say, "Wow, you made that simple and clear" to which I ask "then why didn't they get it?" Let's face it, how many creationists have we managed to get through to on this forum? Not many.

I think it is a reasoning problem. These people have never been taught how to think only what to think. They come to this forum to argue with us and prove us wrong. They will not read and understand what we write. If they were truly interested, they would already have an understanding of the subject.

And when Bobblehead 1 finally gets tired of trying to convert us sinners, Bobblehaed 2 will come along with the same lack of knowledge, the same inane questions, and the same desire to convert and the whole process will start again.

But then again, arguing with them is fun!