| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
08 Sep 2005 02:25:39 PM |
| Object: |
Ten Questions Creationists Would Rather Dodge |
This is a companion piece to "Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather
Dodge"
1. The Fossil Record
A. Why are intelligent design creationists forced to rely on so many
fossil arguments? Their fossil record is laughable.
The most common fossil they have in their "armory" is that there are no
transitional fossils in the evolutionist armory. If they make this
repeatedly refuted claim, ask them for references (or even one
reference) to peer-reviewed papers published in refereed science
journals which demonstrate scientifically the inadequacy of the wealth
of transitional fossils which have been reported in such journals.
B. Ask them why *should* geologic strata contain an absolutely complete
record of all fossils from start to finish?
2. Natural Selection
Why do intelligent design creationists naturally select the losing
position of trying to attack evolution outside of scientific fora? If
evolution is so weak and their position so strong, what are they afraid
of? If they want their position to be accepted scientifically and
taught in schools, they need to do the same thing evolutionists had to
do to get their position accepted and taught in schools: they need to
publish their positive evidence for IDC, if they have any, in
peer-reviewed science journals.
And why do they naturally select evolution to attack when it employs
the same solid scientific method used by all other sciences? If
evolution is so flawed and weak using the same method as all other
sciences use, doesn't this make *all* science flawed and weak?
The IDC dodge: IDCers whine that they would publish but the "evolution
establishment" won't let them. Oh boo-hoo-hoo! The truth is that the
IDCers are a bunch of liars. Their position is akin to claiming
Einstein couldn't get published because his ideas were contrary to
science at the time, or that Gould and Eldredge couldn't get published
because their idea was contrary to the accepted evolution paradigm of
the time.
The *truth* is not that the scientific establishment won't accept new
ideas, but that the scientific establishment won't let bad science and
***** be published (although even this rule is breached on
occasion). If the IDCers actually had good science which positively
supported their position, they would get published. It really is that
simple.
The IDC problem: they have no good science, period., They have no
positive support for their position, period. They have no theory,
period. All they have is tired, out-dated whining about evolution, all
of which has been exposed.
3. Detecting Design
How would we detect the design of a *god*? All that the design
position can intelligently claim is that we can detect something that
was designed by humans. It really is that simple.
The IDC dodge: They claim they don't insist that a *god* created
everything, only that it was done by a higher intelligence. This
scientifically unsupported position immediately demands the answer to
the unanswered question of who or what created the higher intelligence!
If they claim this intelligence is self-existent, then this same
"argument" can also be applied to the universe, so they may then be
forced to claim that it was created by an even higher intelligence -
pretty soon they're retreating to the position of quoting from the
movie script "The Matrix" - because this is really what their argument
is! There's a scientific word for this retreating position: cowardice.
4. Molecular Machines
Why do the so-called molecular machines - biochemical systems in living
organisms - show evidence that they evolved if they were designed by a
higher intelligence from the start? Shouldn't designed organisms be
perfectly suited (not adapted or a close-fit) to their environments?
IDC supporters may claim that we know a modern car is designed from the
ground up rather than evolved from a vintage car because, although a
modern car bears great similarity to a vintage car, it does not use
parts from the old vehicle.
But this is precisely the problem for the IDC crew. Modern vehicles
have similar mechanical systems to older vehicles, but each system is
specifically designed to optimize performance/reduce cost in the new
vehicle. It has little to do (other than overall mechanical necessity)
with the design of the older vehicle.
We don't see new vehicles using the exhaust pipe from an older model as
the pipe for the air-conditioner. We don't see old gas tanks being
used to provide a roof for the car. We don't see the plastic from the
fluid reservoirs being reused as a windshield in the new car.
**BUT THIS REUSE IS PRECISELY WHAT WE SEE IN LIVING ORGANISMS**!!
Shouldn't designed organisms have competent, reliable, and
comprehensive error-correcting mechanisms? If so, why don't we see
this in nature? Instead what we see is evolution. In fact this is
almost a definition of evolution. Evolution only works *because*
genomic error-correction is inadequate.
5. Testability
What test can we employ to distinguish the work of human or human-like
intelligence from the work of a god?
If we cannot distinguish between the two, then IDC is dead, because it
ultimately gets back to the issue of a supernatural being. Science
deals with natural, not supernatural.
If we can distinguish between the two, then IDC is dead, because
everything IDC supporters claim for design, if valid, would demonstrate
only human or human-like design, not the design of a god.
6. Who designed the designers?
The problem with IDC is that it is nothing more than the first cause
argument dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb. IDC proponents claim
that we could not have evolved therefore we had to be designed by an
intelligence. They try to pretend that this intelligence could have
been anything, not necessarily a supernatural god, yet every IDC
supporter is a theist. I don't see any atheists or agnostics on their
team. Why not? Why is it that the Theory of Evolution has literally
millions of supporters from the entire spectrum of religious belief
whereas IDC has only supporters of the Christian god?
If the intelligence that did all this designing is not a god, then it
was at least more advanced than humanity can boast at this stage, but
this begs the question as to who designed this advanced intelligence!
The question repeats itself over and over back to the start of the
universe, whereupon the IDC supporters are forced to call a god to
their service, thereby removing IDC from the realm of science - again.
IDC has no science and it has no theory. It cannot escape from the
issue of who designed the designer.
7. What is the scientific definition of "kind"?
If there is no evolution, if organisms were designed from the ground up
and possess no ability to vary beyond a limited amount of change within
their "kind" we should see no connection between "kinds" and
defining"kind" should be the easiest thing in the world.
Yet there isn't a single creationist or intelligent design advocate on
the planet who can give a scientific definition of "kind"! Why is
this?
8. What mechanism prevents small variations accumulating in the genome
of an organism to the point where one "kind" becomes a new "kind"?
If there is no evolution, if organisms were designed from the ground up
and possess no ability to vary beyond a limited amount of change within
their "kind" we should see some sort of barrier to evolution -
something in a genome or in an organism's biochemistry, or in the
"mechanics" of how the body operates that forms a definite blockade
such that the genome of one organism cannot change into the genome of
another no matter what.
Yet there isn't a single creationist or intelligent design advocate on
the planet who can point to *anything* in the body which does any such
thing! Why is this?
9. Where does IDC go when we find another planet with life on it?
Their "science" is unquestionably rooted in the Bible as we've seen.
The Bible makes no mention whatsoever of life elsewhere in the
universe. It makes it plain that there is only life on Earth, so where
does IDC go when life is found elsewhere?
Likewise, the Bible makes it clear that there is only one universe, so
what happens when evidence turns up that there is more than one? Where
does IDC go then?
10. Why do creationists insist on looking at anatomical change
(phenotype) instead of looking at genomic change (genotype)? Are they
so dumb that they think change doesn't start in the genome and is then
reflected in the phenotype? What are they afraid of? That their straw
theory will fall apart and blow away if people look at how easy it is
to make changes in a gene?
Recent genetic mapping has demonstrated that mice have 80% of our DNA
(or we theirs) with each species having only some 300 genes that the
other didn't have. Creationism has no intelligent explanation for
this.
What this means though, is that since the mouse and ourselves split
from our common ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes out
of some 30,000 each. Maybe these are new genes or maybe we lost some
that the mouse didn't and vice versa. But the one thing that has the
creationists on their backs with their legs in the air like dead bugs
on a window ledge is that such diversification is completely plausible.
In other words, a mouse-like organism could as readily have evolved
into a mouse as it could into a human.
Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had a
basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human, it
had to "grow" 300 new genes. Is that a tall order? No - not for
evolution!
We know there were critters not dissimilar to mice running around in
the finale to the dinosaur era. So let's set a starting point 60
million years ago and say this is where we and mice took off. We each
had to grow 300 new genes in 60 million years.
Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that? Not hard
at all given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals.
What mechanism prevents it? Nothing! The creationists cannot offer a
single argument against it, and this is the worst possible case they
can throw at evolution. The worse case that can be made and
creationists cannot argue a single thing against it! That's how
pathetic their position is.
Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists lose.
No surprises there.
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Ten Questions Creationists Would Rather Dodge |
20 Sep 2005 09:27:10 AM |
|
|
I see creationists are still dodging these ten questions, and Disaster
Dave is still running from the evidence I gave him for so-called
macroevolution on three occasions with more to come:
http://tinyurl.com/dxqjc
http://tinyurl.com/b5sjn
http://tinyurl.com/7lvwr
But Disaster Dave is too cowardly to even acknowledge them, let alone
provide the discussion he's so afraid of - the discussion he lied the
evolutionists would run from but he would not.
You know, if he and the creationists don't evolve their thinking,
they're going to become extinct.
I guess the evolutionists win.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
