Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

[quote=Statler]Brush up on your logic. In a two possibility model, evidence against one possible answer is evidence for the other option.

Logical fallacies:
1) Slippery slope. The consequence does not necessarily follow from the premise.
2) Either or argument.

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You seem to think that all one has to do is refute evolution and creationism will somehow be seen as the logical alternative. Such is NEVER the case using the scientific method. Creationism must be seen as providing a better explanation than evolution. And when we look at the scientific data compiled over the last 150 years, we see that there simply is no merit whasoever in supposing that creationism explains anything, much less replaces evolution as a valid scientific argument.
[/quote]

You again? Posting two logical fallacies that I did not commit does nothing to support your position. The experts on your side of the aisle (including Darwin and Dawkins) agree that life on Earth either came about by naturalistic means or by supernatural creation. Evolution is considered the best and only option for naturalistic means, so evidence against it is evidence for supernatural creation. You should take your beef up with Dawkins and tell him to stop saying it’s a two model system. You will also see even Evolutionists try to use the Disjunctive Syllogism in peer reviewed journals.

“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
- Professor D.M.S. Watson in his article “Adaptation” in Nature Volume 124
This is a valid argument, though the way he uses it is not a sound argument because he fails to give any reasons as to why Special Creation is not possible.

Seems to me like maybe you either don’t have a firm grasp on the rules of logic, or you really need to take up issue with today’s Evolutionists because they completely agree with me from a logical perspective.

Gravity is rounded to zero in most equations in QM... Does gravity not exist?

Gravity is an empirically measured force; we are talking about the origin of life which is not observable, bad analogy.

---

Also, a low P is not a zero P. Take any group of 100,000 stars, their positions relative to each other out of every possible set of relative positions is near zero, does that mean that 100,000 stars cannot be in an arbitrary configuration? Of course not, so you cannot claim that Abiogenesiss is false because a low probability event is near zero, it's plainly illogical.

---

Actually a low P IS a zero P when it is rounded off. This is done in statistics and probability all the time, if a P value is lower than 1/50,000 it is automatically treated as P= 0. Even taking into account all the interactions between particles in the universe and throughout the history of the universe the P value is STILL so low it gets rounded off. Even when we spot you guys a few extra points, all in the spirit of Christian charity, you still lose. Nice try though.

You want to argue against the existence of improbable events? Go ahead, amuse us with your stupidity.

No, I want to argue against the occurrence (not existence) of statistically impossible events. I do find you amusing though lol.

Finding evidence for parts of the abiogenesis set does the same thing. Finding amino acids forming in predicted early-earth conditions increases the probability, having self-replicating RNA massively increases the probability, finding hundreds of extremophiles increases the probability etc, the more evidence we find corresponding to the Abiogenesis set the more likely it becomes that the set is 'true'.

Oh stop it, the fact that you can’t produce the homochirality necessary for life under the most controlled lab experiments actually decreases the probability of it happening naturally not increases it.

Any phoyosensitive system gathers solar energy and converts it to energy necessarily. Photosynthesis is an example of an nth generation photo-type structure that evolved from simple photosensitive structures.

Skin burns are an example of photo sensitivity, so is a rock blackening in the sun.

Wrong. The skin itself is not a mechanism that “converts” the energy into a form that the organism can use. The skin burning is an example of how raw energy increases entropy and actually breaks down organic material. Try lying out in the sun for a month and don’t eat and see how well your body does by just using raw energy from the sun. Not only will you most likely die from lack of usable energy (food), but your body will be burned to a crisp because of the application of raw energy.

That is false. Photosynthesis deals with turning carbon into organic compounds and is powered by solar energy, you can have (and there are literally millions of examples) of photo sensitive cells (and inorganic) that convert solar energy by some mechanism.

You really need bio 101 if you have such a piss-poor understanding of photosynthesis.

Haha false? To think you tell me to go take 101. Let’s see, in living cells energy is produced by the ATP Pump, but wait! This pump must also be assembled by using energy, where oh where would we get this energy from? Could it possibly be borrowed from other cells that produced it with their ATP Pumps? Yes! That’s what happens. This ATP pump however is built up of numerous small parts. Majority of these parts are intermediate and provide no immediate advantage to the organism. The probability of natural selection fixating one intermediate protein that does not provide an advantage is less than one in ten quintillion. This number becomes even more ridiculously small when you consider that these intermediate proteins would have to all be preserved and in the right order. Maybe you are the one who should retake (or take it for the first time) Bio101. I will confess though, I never took Bio101, rather I started at 221 because I was a Science major.

This argument is even on AiG's "don't use these arguments because they're debunked to fuckedy" list.

Oh really? So now you are using AIG as a source? Well let’s look to see if you were even being honest. Here is the article I believe you are referring to…

[url] http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...e-dont-use[/url]

Nope! Nothing on there. Maybe you saw the “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics started at the falls” part and you thought it said, “Evolution is impossible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”? Or maybe you were just being dishonest. I don’t care either way.

Since now you seem to care what AIG says, maybe you should read their article, “12 Arguments Evolutionists Shouldn’t Use” and try not to use these arguments.

[url] http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...lutionists[/url]

Not only is the argument your analogy is based on a false premise, but you couldn't even manage to find a valid analogy. Lucky for you we can already see what you were getting at (because like I've mentioned it's debunked) else you'd be nearly totally incomprehensible.

This is a very lazy way of responding. “That’s not a valid analogy, but because I am either too lazy or I am being dishonest I am not going to give a reason why”. So actually because you did not give any reasons, and I already addressed your erroneous reasons above, my argument stands un-refuted. That was easy, you should post more often!

---

Atheism is less than a single position, it is a statement about belief. In this case from the latin "A Theos" which means literally "without belief in god". That isn't even a position on the existence of God (disbelief vs lack of belief)... Some religion.

I love that shit-stained brush you're using in this argument. It's like the "you're just as bat-shit as me" argument, which is not only misplaced in this circumstance, but it's also fucked because of the intended support for a position that necessarily cannot arise. It is like "you're just as unsupported as me therefore i'm right (or not wrong)" The reality is that this argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of the position being espoused.

---

You are actually using a revisionist’s definition of Atheism that is not used by the majority of reputable sources on the subject. I can see why you are using this illogical definition though, who wants to be religious right? It’s kind of like Dawkins seeing his purpose in life is to show everyone that life has no purpose haha.

---

Statler, if I said disproving evolution proves that we didn't get here by accident and we are infact living in a computer simulation by another race of creatures whose own universe was much better than ours at producing and sustaining life (and had come into existence through natural processes). That explanation has more going for it than the god hypothesis, which is something put there to prevent infinite regress, but fails to explain anything. I'm afraid there are more than 2 possiblities and you can keep making them up (hence as I stated a near infinite range of them could explain us, the earth our solar system etc). The best ones are the ones we have derived through the scientific method and it continues to be refined as we smash more particles together at higher speeds and as we get better telescopes. However if through the scientific method you can prove otherwise then... we are all ears. Otherwise you are just throwing spin and half/no-truths from the sidelines and spouting the same stuff (the politest word there is for it) that comes from convicted fraudsters like Hovind.

---

Why would that made up hypothesis have more going for it than the God Hypothesis? Just because you made it up? Do you always base things on your personal opinion and bias?
As I pointed out above, the guys on your aisle even admit this is a two model system. Creation by naturalistic means (Evolution) or Special Creation (Infinite source or God). The fact that creation by naturalistic means becomes more improbable (and statistically impossible) gives valid logical support to Special Creation. However, when we interpret the evidence with the special creation framework it is far more consistent than when we interpret the evidence using a naturalistic framework. I find it funny you appeal to the Scientific Method, something created by a Creationist, but you ignore the very valid logic known as the disjunctive syllogism.
So let’s play a bit of a game. You tell me, how do you know the pyramids did not arise by naturalistic means?

[quote='orogenicman' pid='109930' dateline='1292335409']

In Historical Science you never say you "know" anything for sure.

This, of course, is untrue. We know for sure that Stenos' law (the law of superposition) is true.

Sometimes I don’t even think you read my posts. You will notice that I said “Historical Sciences”, and then you run off and use an analogy that uses a principle used in Physics and Mathematics. Physics of course is not a historical science but rather an empirical science. C’mon man.

Well, now I feel lazy. theVOID has addressed my would-be points with far more coherence than I could muster.

Oh no! I was looking forward to your response. Don't sell yourself short like that. Don't let "theVOID" fool you, his posts look awesome at first because they contain a bunch of formulas and big words. However, when you really examine them, it's just a bunch of illogical, un-cited, anecdotal B.S. that he tosses out there and hopes it sticks. You should definitely write a response and not let him speak for you!