Scientific Theories vs. Paranormal "Poofing"

[WinAce]

Socrates was trying to divert attention from his and other creationists' total failure to rationalize away evidence for common ancestry, so he instead made the obligatory off-topic references to:

• Abiogenesis (unrelated to evolution completely).
• Complex molecular structures (which, if mutation and natural selection can't produce, is only an indictment against currently known mechanisms of evolution, not common ancestry itself).

But to humor our readers regardless, let's see Socrates (A) demonstrate that "IC" structures are a problem to evolution (keeping in mind that Darwin himself refuted them in his book ) and (B) compare the predictive power of modern hypotheses of abiogenesis vs. Biblical mud-to-you evolution in terms of explanatory and predictive power.

Bonus points if you can define the tests that can be used to infer Biblical creationism vs. time travellers from the future vs. panspermia vs. extraterrestrial genetic engineering vs abiogenesis. Whereas the latter option is probably testable, I can't really think of any evidence that can falsify the first four.

[EvoUK]

odd, no one has responded to this... i would have thought creationists would have leapt at the chnce to finally show the worth of their hypothesis...

[Socratism]

Why respond to a false dichotomy?

[Gilgaron]

Socratism:

Why respond to a false dichotomy?

You could point out the false dichotomy, for one.

[EvoUK]

You could point out the false dichotomy, for one.

it seems merely claiming that it's a false dichotomy is about the limits of their abilities in this case...

[Meatros]

This would be very interesting to see and it would support the creationist's idea.

[EvoUK]

concidering socrates' AiG thread spamming campaign (how many threads was that in about ten minutes?), i'm suprised that he hasn't found time to answer such a relatively simple question. if i didn't know any better, i'd say there was a reason for it.

[Jet Black]

Today @ 10:26 AM post located here
EvoUK:

concidering socrates' AiG thread spamming campaign (how many threads was that in about ten minutes?), i'm suprised that he hasn't found time to answer such a relatively simple question. if i didn't know any better, i'd say there was a reason for it.

there isn't a relevant AIG link to post?

I think this all comes back to the extraordinarily wooly Information/specificity thing.

last I heard the idea was that proteins can only become less specific (since an increase in protein specificity would mean an increase in information which is in violation of some unknown law that has in itself, never been specified)

however this is of course, very very wrong.

[Sher]

Today @ 06:28 AM post located here
Jet Black:

there isn't a relevant AIG link to post?

Did you actually have proof against the ones that were posted? Or did you just arrive here to whinge?

[Jet Black]

Today @ 03:18 PM post located here
Sher:



Did you actually have proof against the ones that were posted? Or did you just arrive here to whinge?

the proof card again. is there any need to ask for the same thing in two different threads? I would like you to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. You can't do it can you? You see inductive proof is not proof in science like it is in maths. at the very best you can say that "the preponderance of evidence suggests that the sun will come up tomorrow"

[Sher]

Today @ 10:20 AM post located here
Jet Black:

the proof card again. is there any need to ask for the same thing in two different threads? I would like you to prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. You can't do it can you? You see inductive proof is not proof in science like it is in maths. at the very best you can say that "the preponderance of evidence suggests that the sun will come up tomorrow"

Hey ... you whinged in several threads ... and then complain about me? It was a response to the "point" made ... quit responding if you don't like my answers

The best I can say ... as I've already said, but bears repeating ... is the proof is in the historical record from the Creator of the universe ... born out in the evidence all around us.

[Jet Black]

(as a housekeeping note, I will continue this argument in the other thread, there is no point having the same discussion twice)

[Sher]

Today @ 10:25 AM post located here
Jet Black:

(as a housekeeping note, I will continue this argument in the other thread, there is no point having the same discussion twice)

But this did allow you to be the last on the thread again, didn't it?

You slay me. Have to get in the final word ... even if it is just to say that you won't be responding any longer

Go ahead ... bump yourself on the thread one more time ... I dare ya

[Socrates]

04-27-2003 @ 02:48 AM post located here
WinAce:

Socrates was trying to divert attention from his and other creationists' total failure to rationalize away evidence for common ancestry,

No, Socrates was pointing out the many holes in evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

... so he instead made the obligatory off-topic references to:

• Abiogenesis (unrelated to evolution completely).

Whom do we believe, a teenage rebel antitheist or Scientific American, New Scientist, biology professor Gerald Kerkut, paleontology prefessor Roberto Fondi, or even the "how stuff works" site? Even the anto-creationist Burgy agreed that I had made my case.

• Complex molecular structures (which, if mutation and natural selection can't produce, is only an indictment against currently known mechanisms of evolution, not common ancestry itself).

Double standards -- the whole point of evolution is to provide a mechanism to explain life without God. As it stands, the evidence I provided is a serious anomaly to Winace's atheistic faith. But as I said, evolutionists are allowed to have major aomalies, while creationists are supposed to give up at the slightest problem, as Morton the non-biblical creationist did.

But to humor our readers regardless, let's see Socrates (A) demonstrate that "IC" structures are a problem to evolution (keeping in mind that Darwin himself refuted them in his book )

Wow, I could find any of the ones I referenced in Darwin's book.

... and (B) compare the predictive power of modern hypotheses of abiogenesis vs. Biblical mud-to-you evolution in terms of explanatory and predictive power.

I have threads showing why chemical evolution fails tests of real chemistry.

Bonus points if you can define the tests that can be used to infer Biblical creationism vs. time travellers from the future vs. panspermia vs. extraterrestrial genetic engineering vs abiogenesis.

Even better -- we have reliable eye-witness evidence supporting the first

Whereas the latter option is probably testable, I can't really think of any evidence that can falsify the first four.

How pathetic can you get -- elsewhere, this teenager who needs to learn science and logic has told us how certain things prove biblical creation to be wrong, IOW to falsify it!

[Jet Black]

Today @ 06:17 AM post located here
Socrates:
Double standards -- the whole point of evolution is to provide a mechanism to explain life without God.

false, evolution is a mechanism for explaining the variety of life.

for your benefit, there is a definition from a proper book:

"Thus, evolution, in a broad sense is descent with modification, and often with diversification. Many kinds of systems are evolutionary ... In all such systems there are populations, or groups, of entities; there is variation in one or more characteristics among the members of the population; there is HEREDITARY SIMILARITY between parent and offspring entities; and over the course of generations there may be changes in the proportions of individuals with different characteristics within populations. This process consitutes descent with modification. Populations may become subdivided so that several populations are derived from a COMMON ANCESTRAL POPULATION. If different changes in the proportions of variant individuals transpire in te several populations,the populations DIVERGE, OR DIVERSIFY. ... All these properties of an evolutionary process pertain to populations of organisms, in which there is hereditary transmission of characteristics (based on genes, composed of DNA or, in a few cases, RNA), variation owing to mutation, and sorting of variation by several kinds of processes. Chief among these sorting processes are CHANCE (random variation in the survival or reproduction of different variants), and natural selection (consistent, nonrandom differences among variants in their rates of survival or reproduction). It is natural selection that causes adaptation -- improvement in function. Thus biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms , or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. ... Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans." Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, (1999) pg 4.

Even better -- we have reliable eye-witness evidence supporting the first

please demonstrate the existance of your eyewitness.