The Problem with Christians

[robvalue]

One last desperate attempt to show why the argument from ignorance doesn't prove anything.

http://youtu.be/WPUG3rVCm1k

[Pat Mustard]

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

I wouldnt call it unsupported.

Citation needed, which if you were an actual biology student, you'd be seening a lot of when your essays were returned to you.

When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims,

No, when studied with a preconception that the bible is right in every detail the student comes to believe the bible is right in every detail. When studied properly, by looking at the texts themselves, the texts and oral traditions of other cultures the jews borrowed from, the evolution of their culture, society and religious beliefs (from full on polytheism to henotheism to monotheism), and comparison of the biblical narrative to physical evidence, you'll find that the bible has little to no relation to reality, and that most of its claims are either outright lies or mythological aggrandising of a very minor Canaanite tribe.

and to what future events will come to pass.

As has been said to you (and others) before show evidence for even one single event or discovery that was predicted beforehand. And post hoc insertions of events into "prophesies" which don't actually point to them doesn't count (so if you say that the bible predicted WW2 show detailed description of the events in the bible).

To be honest though, we know the bible is a busted flush regarding predicitons, because did your precious Yeshua not say that he would come back in glory and usher in armageddon before his apostles had all died. This never happened, the world still exists and it is no hell hole.

[AAA]

They used to think it was impossible to tell the composition of the stars, but we can. They used to think we wouldn't be able to map the movement of subatomic particles. They thought we wouldn't be able to sequence the genome. "impossible" to study is a bold statement made (incorrectly) by many people over the years. We'll see.

Yeah, there's a difference between what we thought we couldn't do and what we have learned we could do through time.

However, thousands of years of human evolution have led us to computers, iPhones, and many scientific wonders, yet god has yet to be discovered.

It is clear to me.  Is it clear to you?

Yeah, what I"m saying is that maybe we will find a way to test God's identity , and it may be  a bit early to say it is impossible. Also I don't think you can blame computers/iphones on evolution. If we stopped evolving today, we would still develop better and better technologies.

[pocaracas]

But why?
Why do people believe this?
What is there that makes them accept this unsupported proposition?

I wouldnt call it unsupported. When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims, and to what future events will come to pass.

Oh goodie... the book is self consistent!

(actually, it's not self-consistent, but I don't care....)

It's not a reliable witness to anything.
I've asked before.... why are the Essenes not mentioned in that book?

Go read about it...

[AAA]

All we have are incredibly complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy and more complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy. I'm not saying that there aren't more than one ways to do it, I'm saying that it is speculative to say that one led to the other. 

Transitioning from one to the other would require invoking many enzymes that we have no idea if they ever existed. It IS speculative. It is speculation based on observation, but it is speculation none the less. Why not speculate and say that the more complex ones have degraded and lost components to become the less complex ones?

Based on semantics like that, I could call anything "speculation" with the intention of dismissing it.


Geology? That's just speculation based on what we observe about rocks.


Chemistry? That's just speculation about what we observe when we mix stuff.


Theology? That's just speculation based on what we observe in religious texts and testimonies.


That's just an intellectually dishonest word game, bro. Shame shame. 


When both genetics and metabolic processes connect older forms of life with newer ones, and the older forms of these processes appear to be more simple than what we currently observe, then yes, it is reasonable to "speculate" that these processes continued to grow and refine over time as some of these organisms evolved into newer, more complex things.


Please tell me you're not trying to throw down the "you weren't there, therefore you're just speculating" argument. You're not, are you? If that argument were sound, forensic science would be totally useless, and so would many other forms of science. We do not have to observe an event directly to know that it occurred. We can reason that an event occurred by the evidence it leaves behind. This is why field evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in both the lab and the courtroom.

There is a fine line between observations and speculation. Chemistry is not speculative, you can measure amounts of reactants and products and intermediates to develop mechanisms for reactions. Speculative chemistry would be saying that chemicals could get together to form life on their own. 

I'm not saying you can't speculate. I'm saying that speculation is not the same as empiricism. You can compare multiple speculations against the evidence to see which one is more likely to have happened. But if you have only have one hypothesis that works after centuries of the brightest people in the world trying to come up with an alternative, then you can reasonably say that it is likely to be true.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Based on semantics like that, I could call anything "speculation" with the intention of dismissing it.


Geology? That's just speculation based on what we observe about rocks.


Chemistry? That's just speculation about what we observe when we mix stuff.


Theology? That's just speculation based on what we observe in religious texts and testimonies.


That's just an intellectually dishonest word game, bro. Shame shame. 


When both genetics and metabolic processes connect older forms of life with newer ones, and the older forms of these processes appear to be more simple than what we currently observe, then yes, it is reasonable to "speculate" that these processes continued to grow and refine over time as some of these organisms evolved into newer, more complex things.


Please tell me you're not trying to throw down the "you weren't there, therefore you're just speculating" argument. You're not, are you? If that argument were sound, forensic science would be totally useless, and so would many other forms of science. We do not have to observe an event directly to know that it occurred. We can reason that an event occurred by the evidence it leaves behind. This is why field evidence trumps eyewitness testimony in both the lab and the courtroom.

There is a fine line between observations and speculation. Chemistry is not speculative, you can measure amounts of reactants and products and intermediates to develop mechanisms for reactions. Speculative chemistry would be saying that chemicals could get together to form life on their own. 

I'm not saying you can't speculate. I'm saying that speculation is not the same as empiricism. You can compare multiple speculations against the evidence to see which one is more likely to have happened. But if you have only have one hypothesis that works after centuries of the brightest people in the world trying to come up with an alternative, then you can reasonably say that it is likely to be true.

Bingo. That is why the Theory of Evolution is likely to be true and probably won't be overturned any time soon. It is the best explanation for a lot of empirical evidence (most notably genetics and the fossil record) according to centuries of work by the most gifted academic minds (many of whom are Theists even today). The question of whether or not the Theory of Evolution is true has practically nothing to do with whether a divine creator exists, although the evidence does pretty much rule out the story told in Genesis. Even if Evolution were proven false tomorrow, though, it still wouldn't get us any closer to knowing there's a god, or which one it is. Building away from one conclusion does not inherently build toward another one. That's a false dichotomy.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

There is a fine line between observations and speculation. Chemistry is not speculative, you can measure amounts of reactants and products and intermediates to develop mechanisms for reactions. Speculative chemistry would be saying that chemicals could get together to form life on their own. 

I'm not saying you can't speculate. I'm saying that speculation is not the same as empiricism. You can compare multiple speculations against the evidence to see which one is more likely to have happened. But if you have only have one hypothesis that works after centuries of the brightest people in the world trying to come up with an alternative, then you can reasonably say that it is likely to be true.

Chemistry is not speculative; it's just physics applied to become Atomic Theory, which forms the basis of chemistry.

However, because there are literally billions of ways you can react a few basic chemicals (especially ones involving Carbon), it's hardly surprising that after only a few decades to a century of "modern" chemistry, we haven't nailed down the full process of how life began over four billion years ago. What we HAVE done, amazingly, is to nail down several of the steps of how the precursor chemicals form in the first place (in interstellar cometary ice, which I think is awesome!) and done experiments that show how those chemicals can arrange into higher order complexity, given an energy input and the right conditions.

The very complexity of proteins/enzymes you seem to think is impossible seems to begin to appear any time we even come close to the right conditions. I would be surprised if we have not solved this puzzle within the next 20 years. However, given the fact that we see these reactions happening at all means we are on the right track-- while it is speculative to say that life arose from basic chemical reactions, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion given what we do know.

It's NOT reasonable to say "Well we haven't solved the problem yet, so... magic!"

You're also being unreasonable when you look only at the modern versions of those long-evolved DNA sequences and declare that it's impossible to get from low complexity to what exists now. What you're doing is looking at a fully-constructed cathedral and declaring that it cannot be built because bricks cannot stack on top of one another in that way...ignoring the scaffolding that it took to get the arches and flying buttresses erected, which was then later removed.

DNA works like that, in a population, particularly where duplication mutations (fairly common) are involved, and one of the duplicated genes mutates in a new direction and eventually acquires a new function after numerous generations, while the original gene keeps doing its job. When Michael Behe first proposed some of his "irreducibly complex" systems, biologists (mainly grad students, since PhDs in biochem typically have more important things to do) showed the steps by which the "mousetrap" was built from previously-existing systems. Behe, of course, along with the ID/IC crowd, completely ignored the implications of showing that System A did in fact evolve, even after they claimed ID/IC, and instead moved on to declare that System B could not have evolved. So the teams solved that one. And now it's System C. Really, guys?

When pressed, on the stand, in the Dover case, Behe admitted he had not read the dozens of papers which showed the things he was claiming (under oath!) could not possibly happen did in fact happen. It's the reason one of the most conservative federal judges in that district ruled strongly against the Intelligent Design crowd, in his Opinion. You should read it--no joke, it really goes into detail about why your ideas don't hold water--and cease making arguments that cannot withstand actual scrutiny.

Does evolutionary biology have every single possible issue solved? Of course not. Likely, it never will, as the universe has innumerable mysteries for us to solve. But pointing out that things are really complicated, and we just don't know is not an argument. You may be a biology student, but many of your arguments I've read here make it sound like you're expecting one individual DNA set to evolve sequentially, and that's not how it works. When you've completed your Genetics course, and learned how population genetics work, we can talk about it. But please, check your biases at the door and just learn, while you're paying for college.

[IATIA]

When studied carefully, the Scripture proves to be a reliable witness to what it claims, and to what future events will come to pass.

In what way?

It is no more accurate than 'Star Wars', 'Blade Runner', 'Moby Dick' or any other fictional writings. There are bits and pieces of information that pertain to the histories of the writers, but as a whole, the myth is just that, a myth, a story for the peoples of the time, just as we read fiction today. I see the messages presented by the authors of the various myths, legends and fictional stories, but in no way do I believe in dragons, wizards, invisible people, etc..

Do you believe the doctors in 'General hospital' are real doctors? Then why would you believe something as silly as the ramblings of a small nomadic tribe of uneducated peoples?

[AAA]

There is a fine line between observations and speculation. Chemistry is not speculative, you can measure amounts of reactants and products and intermediates to develop mechanisms for reactions. Speculative chemistry would be saying that chemicals could get together to form life on their own. 

I'm not saying you can't speculate. I'm saying that speculation is not the same as empiricism. You can compare multiple speculations against the evidence to see which one is more likely to have happened. But if you have only have one hypothesis that works after centuries of the brightest people in the world trying to come up with an alternative, then you can reasonably say that it is likely to be true.

Chemistry is not speculative; it's just physics applied to become Atomic Theory, which forms the basis of chemistry.

However, because there are literally billions of ways you can react a few basic chemicals (especially ones involving Carbon), it's hardly surprising that after only a few decades to a century of "modern" chemistry, we haven't nailed down the full process of how life began over four billion years ago. What we HAVE done, amazingly, is to nail down several of the steps of how the precursor chemicals form in the first place (in interstellar cometary ice, which I think is awesome!) and done experiments that show how those chemicals can arrange into higher order complexity, given an energy input and the right conditions.

The very complexity of proteins/enzymes you seem to think is impossible seems to begin to appear any time we even come close to the right conditions. I would be surprised if we have not solved this puzzle within the next 20 years. However, given the fact that we see these reactions happening at all means we are on the right track-- while it is speculative to say that life arose from basic chemical reactions, it's a pretty reasonable conclusion given what we do know.

It's NOT reasonable to say "Well we haven't solved the problem yet, so... magic!"

You're also being unreasonable when you look only at the modern versions of those long-evolved DNA sequences and declare that it's impossible to get from low complexity to what exists now. What you're doing is looking at a fully-constructed cathedral and declaring that it cannot be built because bricks cannot stack on top of one another in that way...ignoring the scaffolding that it took to get the arches and flying buttresses erected, which was then later removed.

DNA works like that, in a population, particularly where duplication mutations (fairly common) are involved, and one of the duplicated genes mutates in a new direction and eventually acquires a new function after numerous generations, while the original gene keeps doing its job. When Michael Behe first proposed some of his "irreducibly complex" systems, biologists (mainly grad students, since PhDs in biochem typically have more important things to do) showed the steps by which the "mousetrap" was built from previously-existing systems. Behe, of course, along with the ID/IC crowd, completely ignored the implications of showing that System A did in fact evolve, even after they claimed ID/IC, and instead moved on to declare that System B could not have evolved. So the teams solved that one. And now it's System C. Really, guys?

When pressed, on the stand, in the Dover case, Behe admitted he had not read the dozens of papers which showed the things he was claiming (under oath!) could not possibly happen did in fact happen. It's the reason one of the most conservative federal judges in that district ruled strongly against the Intelligent Design crowd, in his Opinion. You should read it--no joke, it really goes into detail about why your ideas don't hold water--and cease making arguments that cannot withstand actual scrutiny.

Does evolutionary biology have every single possible issue solved? Of course not. Likely, it never will, as the universe has innumerable mysteries for us to solve. But pointing out that things are really complicated, and we just don't know is not an argument. You may be a biology student, but many of your arguments I've read here make it sound like you're expecting one individual DNA set to evolve sequentially, and that's not how it works. When you've completed your Genetics course, and learned how population genetics work, we can talk about it. But please, check your biases at the door and just learn, while you're paying for college.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I think you must be lying if you say that the very complex proteins begin to appear any time we have close to the right conditions. If you're talking about naturally occurring amino acids, then that isn't the same a proteins. That's like saying we see lightning in nature, therefore computers may form if the electricity strikes the right thing in the right sequence. 

And it is reasonable to say we see a feature that is created all the time by intelligence. If we are trying to explain that same feature (irregular sequential information), then there is no reason that intelligence should not be considered as a possible cause. 

I like the cathedral example. It would be completely illogical to assume that the bricks were ordered that way on their own. They needed a designer. I realize that this wasn't the point of the example though. We can invoke unobserved scaffolding as well, but if it is not empirical to invoke unobserved processes/enzymes in order to explain how it arose. It is just as speculative as saying it all came into existence at once because we see parts that depend on each other. 

There are videos where Behe counters the mousetrap response. But I'm not overly concerned with that. Obviously there is a lot more combined brain power trying to debunk ID than to support it. But I recommend that you read Signature in the Cell. It is an excellent book about the scientific credibility of ID. 


And I've already completed genetics, and I understand how allele frequencies change in a population, but that is hardly an explanation of intricate mechanisms arising. For example I have a test monday in Biochemistry, and one of the topics is how glycogen breakdown and synthesis are inversely regulated. Simple version: Glucagon leads to cAMP which causes protein kinase A to phosphorylate both phosphoryl kinase (now active) and glycogen synthase (now inactiv). Phosphoryl kinase then phosphorylates glycogen phosphorylase (now active), which then becomes active and binds protein phosphatase 1 and degrades glycogen. When there is plenty of glucose, then glycogen phosphorylase switches to its inactive conformation which causes protein phosphatase 1(PP1) to unbind. PP1 then dephosphorylates both glycogen phosphorylase (now inactive ) and glycogen synthase (now active). This elegant mechanism ensures that glycogen breakdown and glycogen synthesis are not occurring at the same time. Failure of these mechanisms lead to pathologies, some of which are lethal. How did they reproduce before they had these mechanisms and how could it evolve without them surviving to reproduce? 

As you can see, evolving this is not the same as evolving a larger beak size (which can probably be explained just be a mutation in the consensus sequence to increase the expression of the protein that leads to beak formation). I'm not too concerned with the ID people, I was doubting all out evolution long before I discovered their arguments.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I think that you are rephrasing the points to make your case.  If I rephrase your arguments, to "I can't see how this evidence could happen without evolution..." would that mean that the case for evolution is nothing but negative arguments?

---

I'm not rephrasing anything, and you couldn't do that with my arguments either. Do I really have to show you the difference between a positive and negative evidence?

The key claim at the core of irreducible complexity is that certain biological forms are irreducibly complex, I don't think I'm being controversial in thinking that, yes? But that claim is fundamentally negative in nature, it's solely a suggestion that the claimant cannot think of a way that a given form could have evolved, and has therefore concluded that it could not happen: they cannot find a way to reduce the components without robbing the organism of its function, so there must not be a way for that to happen. That's the lynchpin of irreducible complexity as an argument, there is no argument without it, and the sole purpose of that lynchpin is to take evolution off the table as an answer to the question. In this way, it is a negative argument.

It starts with a simple basis, that a correlation between irreducible complexity to an intelligent causes.  That irreducible complexity is caused by a purposeful choice and design, that without this; it would not function.  This is making the positive case that the explanation is best induced by a complete assembly of the parts and not by multiple stepwise alterations.  You can attempt to falsify this through knockout experiments and engineering analysis.

Meanwhile, take my piece on Samotherium, for example. I was asked how I could determine that the fossil Samotherium was related to modern day giraffes, and what I sought to do was not just eliminate all the other options, which would have constituted a negative argument. Starting with a simple basis, that genetic similarity tends to correlate with morphological similarity, and that genetic similarity is also an indicator of two organisms being related, I constructed a case for the idea that the two were related: we have a modern short-necked giraffid species with which to make a comparison of neck bones, and if we compare all three, what we find is perfect similarity (down to the angle the vertebrae sit at) with both short and long-necked giraffids in the lower vertebrae, and at the higher vertebrae we find a similarity only between Samotherium and modern giraffes, which is what we'd expect because obviously the short-necked animal wouldn't have the longer neck bones. Establishing a remarkably identical morphological profile allows us to conclude a genetic similarity due to the previously established gene/morphology connection, and that is how we reasonably conclude that Samotherium is a relative of the giraffe. This is what a positive argument looks like: it's a case building toward one conclusion, and not away from the alternative.

So, some similar bones, and a similar angle of those bones.   What are the differences?   Or is this, just a giraffe with a short neck?

Now, yes, by definition a positive case will also lead one away from the alternatives, but what matters is how you get there, not where you get to. It's like if you're on a road leading to destination A and destination B, and what I'm talking about here is the difference between traveling to destination A because that's where you're going, and ending up in destination B simply because you're reversing away from A. If you end up in B because of the latter motivation, did you really end up in B because of a reasonable, conscious conclusion on your part?

So you are saying that you can't think of any other cause... therefore evolution?   Do we see some of these changes in the fossil record?

We can get into the claims of complex specified information, and irreducible complexity.  I think that your statement that in every instance an answer has been found is overstated.  But; again, I don't want to go into too many directions at once (nothing really get's discussed then).

I think the larger issue is that, even if we have an example of supposed irreducible complexity that doesn't currently have an evolutionary response, all you're left with is an argument from ignorance that there isn't an evolutionary response, so irreducible complexity wins by default. That's sort of the problem with all of this: in a world without responses to your ID arguments, you're still left with no positive evidence indicating ID, just problems with evolution.
[/quote]

You seem to be assuming evolution, and saying that evolution is the cause, until it is falsified (or even if it is falsified)  Isn't that the argument from ignorance?