Annoying creationists

[John Hewitt]

I intend to give hammy a chance to respond; this was not it. Classic ad hominem, attempting to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger. Do you have a single thing to say, hammegk, that denies what I have said, or is this the extent of your argument against? If you have one, make it; and do so in your very next post. Fail, and be relegated again to ignore. Your choice.

Same for you, John Hewitt. Let's see even a preponderance of evidence (50%) to support your claims. Not that that level of certainty even approaches the level of certainty of actual scientific claims; nevertheless, to even assert that there is any reason to doubt whatsoever based on your claims, you must meet that minimal standard. One shot. No BS. Go for it.

The meaning of this is unclear.

 

[Schneibster]

The meaning of this is unclear.

No, it's not; present evidence to support your view that rises even to the level of a preponderance of evidence. I am giving you a serious chance to do so. If you can't, admit that instead. The third alternative is to be clearly labeled as supporting a hypothesis with a very low probability of being correct. And I see no reason to discuss low-probability hypotheses in the presence of high-probability ones.

 

[Schneibster]

Hell, for that matter, make even a credible attempt to do so. No obfuscation, no word games, no fallacies, no distortion of the level of scientific certainty. Just the facts, and why they support your views. You'll never get a better chance.

 

[Schneibster]

I'll even add kleinman to the list. Go for it, people. Good luck.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Just asking for the name of the million years in the making clinical medical breahthrough. What's the problem? Cat got your tongue? Or you can't wave your arms fast enough?

??? You're claiming you still can't find them even though you reposted the links yourself??

 

[Schneibster]

??? You're claiming you still can't find them even though you reposted the links yourself??

Doesn't bode well for attempts to produce sufficient evidence to give a 50% probability, does it?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Others may be begin to wonder why "the genius level posters here can't manage to name a medical breakthrough (that helped a patient) that required those millions of years of evolution to uncover".

But those who are literate will notice that we have.

---

So the verified facts are the least of his fears:
he just closes his eyes and he plugs up his ears,
and he carefully shuts off his brain.
When all of the lies that he loves to recite
have been proved to be wrong, he can prove that they're right
by reciting them over again.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Phew, thank god for that.

I bet over 90% of the scientific community accept that psychics, astrologers, dowsers and the Tooth Fairy are all BS as well.

Jeff: Let Randi know he can retire now ...

Not at all: since Randi's current occupation is challenging the woos to provide evidence the these "over 90%" are wrong. As Schneibster is doing re the anti-evolution crowd.

This is what skeptics do: rather than sit complacently on the laurels of scientific orthodoxy, we challenge people to prove it wrong.

 

[Schneibster]

Thanks for the endorsement, Dr. A.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The notion that every facet of human existence has been adequately explained by by natural phenomena seems to imply that all scientific problems have now been answered. That is not the case.

No, of course that is not "the case". It's a crude bundle of straw with a label attached to it saying "this is a man".

No-one claims that "every facet of human existence has been adequately explained by natural phenomena", and even if they had, this would, not, of course, "imply that all scientific problems have now been answered".

 

[The Atheist]

Not at all: since Randi's current occupation is challenging the woos to provide evidence the these "over 90%" are wrong. As Schneibster is doing re the anti-evolution crowd.

This is what skeptics do: rather than sit complacently on the laurels of scientific orthodoxy, we challenge people to prove it wrong.

Yes, well that was kind of my point.

Isn't that why this forum exists? To be part of just that challenge?

 

[articulett]

The meaning of this is unclear.

The meaning of everything you say is unclear.

At least I think so...let me ask.

John contends there are many problems with evolutionary theory--anybody know what they are yet?

John contends that his theory is better; can anyone sum it up, yet or say how it differs?

Does anyone yet know why John Hewitt says the cell is the true replicator (per Behe whom he thinks cheating scientists ignore); not the nucleic acids as he repeats over and over? Does anyone agree or see a usefulness in seeing it that way?

And while we are at it...has anyone found anything of clarity in anything Hammegk, Kleinman, or "The Atheist" is saying? Any drop of wisdom? Anything that makes you think they are worth reading?

To me, most of the people on this thread are well worth reading--some are brilliant even--and funny. These four are the "annoying creationist" this thread is about. Or maybe "the atheist" is just deranged..he makes even less sense than Hammy. I'd love to see them talk to each other--but it doesn't seem they understand each other...much less anyone else.

 

[John Hewitt]

No, it's not; present evidence to support your view that rises even to the level of a preponderance of evidence. I am giving you a serious chance to do so. If you can't, admit that instead. The third alternative is to be clearly labeled as supporting a hypothesis with a very low probability of being correct. And I see no reason to discuss low-probability hypotheses in the presence of high-probability ones.

Do you ever take any point?

You will "give me a chance." Gosh, thanks. And how do you begin your gracious attempt to give me a chance? By applying a term like "BS" to me. Well, thank you but no thanks. You are not giving me or anyone else a chance to do anything and I do not care to persuade you of anything.

How could anyone possibly claim that your behaviour is intended to produce a serious dialogue? If that is your claim, I don't believe you - go and BS somebody else. I think your behaviour is intentional rudeness and I think there are too many such people on the JREF forum. I have seen it before from you and I don't want to see any more of it. Please put me back on your ignore list.

For the benefit of those people who can read and can manage simple logic, I will say it again. My work is evolutionary in its nature. It does not dispute the evidence for evolution that Darwin reviewed nor deny natural selection as a process.

But it is one thing to have factual support of evolution and another to have a theory of how evolution is structured or can operate at a fundamental level. There have been various theories for that but, ever since Bateson and Fisher, evolution has been more or less identified with genetics. I am a critic of that "gene theory" of evolution; it is not that I think genetics is wrong as an empirical science but that I think it is inadequate as a theory of evolution. I think evolutionary theory should be based on data, on the interpetation of that data into information and on the selection of information through the generations. Genetics is just a subset of that.

If you actually read books by IDers - rather than just ranting about them - you would read some serious, valid critiques of modern evolutionary theory. Such criticisms of evolution do not mean that ID or creationism are right, I think making that case would require strong positive evidence for their own approach, but such critiques do mean that evolutionary theory needs to be improved. Such improvement will not happen when even basic and obvious points are denied in a tirade of insults.

For example, I have seen Kleinman, on this thread say "tell us how genes arose" - or words to that effect. The question is legitimate and lies at the core of any serious attempt to understand origins. What comes back, from so-called skeptics? Well, actually, what comes back is mostly just rudeness, with no genuine content at all, but we also get "RNA ribozymes" and "parallel universes." Such notions unquestionably qualify as some of the worst drivel in modern science. They are, by any standards, "extraordinary claims" and the fact that they are even present in the scientific literature seems to reflect a determination among leaders in the field never to admit that there is anything wrong with their preconceived ideas. Are skeptics only skeptical about ID? Do we have faith about everything else? Switch on a few skeptical genes there eh!

 

[John Hewitt]

No, of course that is not "the case". It's a crude bundle of straw with a label attached to it saying "this is a man".

No-one claims that "every facet of human existence has been adequately explained by natural phenomena", and even if they had, this would, not, of course, "imply that all scientific problems have now been answered".

The take it up with Yahzi, he seems to think I should believe that.

 

[Schneibster]

You actually did it, John. I'm proud of you. And I'm serious. This is not a joke, not a taunt. You took up the gauntlet and actually said something that makes some sense.

Do you ever take any point?

Yes. I will actually read it, and give it a chance to be right if it can be. But you have to make a genuine effort, and you have to be willing to be wrong. It's OK to be wrong, John- you'll learn something that way. Skeptigirl has that in her signature, and I think it's true.

You will "give me a chance." Gosh, thanks. And how do you begin your gracious attempt to give me a chance? By applying a term like "BS" to me. Well, thank you but no thanks. You are not giving me or anyone else a chance to do anything and I do not care to persuade you of anything.

You read what your prejudices told you into it. Read it again. You are manufacturing the grounds for a disagreement. I expect you already know what I'm going to tell you, and you intend not to accept it, and you know that you don't have any argument to counter it. So it is your intent to be insulting until I go away so you can go back to your fantasy. It's too bad that you feel you have to stick to something that's wrong.

How could anyone possibly claim that your behaviour is intended to produce a serious dialogue? If that is your claim, I don't believe you - go and BS somebody else. I think your behaviour is intentional rudeness and I think there are too many such people on the JREF forum. I have seen it before from you and I don't want to see any more of it. Please put me back on your ignore list.

More evidence of the same.

For the benefit of those people who can read and can manage simple logic, I will say it again. My work is evolutionary in its nature. It does not dispute the evidence for evolution that Darwin reviewed nor deny natural selection as a process.

But you come to a skeptical forum, and when that skepticism is exercised, you take it as an insult, and act superior. I don't know what you expect if you act like that, John- nor why, after you have insulted first, you expect anything else from anyone serious. Try not being defensive; try looking seriously at the evidence; try understanding what that evidence consists of. Just a suggestion.

But it is one thing to have factual support of evolution and another to have a theory of how evolution is structured or can operate at a fundamental level. There have been various theories for that but, ever since Bateson and Fisher, evolution has been more or less identified with genetics. I am a critic of that "gene theory" of evolution; it is not that I think genetics is wrong as an empirical science but that I think it is inadequate as a theory of evolution.

See? There's a clear, concise statement of your position. This isn't the problem. The problem is, challenged on that position, on the basis of facts, you fail to respond with facts of your own. You denigrate known facts of molecular biology, things that scientists have observed, not theorized but actually directly observed, for decades, and expect to be taken seriously. You have to account for facts, John, and when you can't, you have to abandon the idea and find one that works. That's how science is done. No other way works. You can't change the facts to fit the theory.

I think evolutionary theory should be based on data, on the interpetation of that data into information and on the selection of information through the generations. Genetics is just a subset of that.

You see, there is this thing called the "genetic code." It is well known; in fact, it is so well known that several variations on it are also well known. It specifies the order in which the twenty amino acids that make up the core proteins upon which all life on Earth is based are combined to make those proteins. Its action to create those proteins, through three different sorts of RNA, are known in exhaustive detail. This is not conjecture; it is not theory. It is observable fact. There can be no question as to the utility of this code, nor as to its functional purpose in the living cell. This is fact.

These proteins form the "toolkit" that life uses to extract energy from its environment, build, maintain, and repair its structure, excrete its waste, and eventually replicate itself; and that process of replication contains special phases in which the genes are replicated, and this happens prior to the cell itself splitting in two. ALL of the chemical work done by the cell, and that includes the process of duplicating the genes, is done by these proteins. They appear in the cell when the time is right for them to complete their tasks; that is because their creation is controlled by sites on the genes that are activated or passivated by the presence or absence of the chemicals that signal what tasks must be accomplished for life to continue. These sites are called "regulatory" sites because they regulate the production of these proteins.

The cell itself is made of these proteins. Everything in the cell is water, food, micronutrients, proteins, lipids, and DNA. There isn't anything else in there, John. It's a relatively simple structure. There just isn't anyplace but the DNA for the information needed to construct and run a new cell to BE. So when you challenge the idea that the central dogma of molecular biology is correct, and fail to indicate the location of a replacement repository of the data, what you are doing is going against the 99%. And this is the point at which you start to receive criticism, criticism you are apparently unable to accept.

If you actually read books by IDers - rather than just ranting about them - you would read some serious, valid critiques of modern evolutionary theory. Such criticisms of evolution do not mean that ID or creationism are right, I think making that case would require strong positive evidence for their own approach, but such critiques do mean that evolutionary theory needs to be improved. Such improvement will not happen when even basic and obvious points are denied in a tirade of insults.

We HAVE read them, John. They deny facts. That's their procedure. Every single one of them denies known, long proven, easily observable facts, and the only reason they get away with it among their followers is because they don't get their own microscopes out and look for themselves. You can do that too. You'll find, in every case, that they aren't denying theories, or hypotheses; they are denying observable facts, because if they weren't, if they were actually rival theories that explained the observable facts, then the majority of scientists would be looking for experiments or observations that would differentiate the central dogma of molecular biology from those alternative theories, and doing those experiments or making those observations, and winning prizes and getting famous. That's how science is done, John. And the fact that none of the biologists are doing that should tell you something; because if there really WAS something there, there is a long history of iconoclasts who have made themselves famous and won awards, and everybody is all looking to be that guy, and they'd find it, John. They really would. They all WANT to. That's how they get famous and win awards.

For example, I have seen Kleinman, on this thread say "tell us how genes arose" - or words to that effect. The question is legitimate and lies at the core of any serious attempt to understand origins.

But it doesn't address how the thing WORKS, John. How we KNOW it works, because we can LOOK AND SEE IT. He ignores that, every single time; and he ignores it because he can't explain it without admitting he's wrong.

What comes back, from so-called skeptics? Well, actually, what comes back is mostly just rudeness, with no genuine content at all, but we also get "RNA ribozymes" and "parallel universes." Such notions unquestionably qualify as some of the worst drivel in modern science. They are, by any standards, "extraordinary claims" and the fact that they are even present in the scientific literature seems to reflect a determination among leaders in the field never to admit that there is anything wrong with their preconceived ideas. Are skeptics only skeptical about ID? Do we have faith about everything else? Switch on a few skeptical genes there eh!

It is difficult to remain skeptical about the existence of gravity when one has apples falling on one's head, John. It's called EVIDENCE. And the problem here is, the evidence supports those assertions, and doesn't support yours. It's really simple, John. Get a microscope. Figure out how it works for yourself. Explain it, and do so in a manner that is consistent with what you see in that microscope. Tell what every one of those organelles is, and how it is made. Molecular biology can do that, John. In detail. All of it. When your ideas can do that, then you can challenge molecular biology; but I'm going to tell you that when they can, they will BE molecular biology. You see?

Now, I expect a storm of invective. I expect you to deny more obvious facts that everyone but you sees when they look in the microscope. And I expect more vague assertions about how "unlikely" it all is. So surprise me. Do something different. YOU break out of YOUR assumptions. Take a look around at the real world.

 

[articulett]

The take it up with Yahzi, he seems to think I should believe that.

That is a lie. Science explains things via natural phenomena--it is how we have come to understand everything in this physical world that we understand. No intelligent designer mentioned any of this stuff in any book--we just kept measuring and looking and testing and refining our tools for doing so....and asking more questions and testing and getting feedback and amassing data and honing along the way. Nobody believes that science or anything else explains everything. But if science can't explain it, nothing else can either. Science is the very best means we have at getting at the truth and understanding we human beings are ever eager for--nothing else compares when it comes to results. So if you ever have some data--not just pouting about why you think some explanations aren't worth considering or why you think they are useless--then bring it to the table. Saying that you don't think RNA is stable enough to become a self replicator is just not worth anything when there is a lot of data showing that it looks like it can be...and has been...and we've made some pretty great efforts at finding out how those molecules came to stick on mineral surfaces and become pre-biotic as the primordial soup washed over rocks and evaporated. What information have you offered except scoffing at evolution and claiming that "memes" don't exist and "scientists are liars" and you don't know what naturalism means?

And why all the dancing around the admission of your beliefs? It just seems so smarmy and dishonest. Why not admit your biases--at least to yourself. It's obvious to the majority here anyhow. Schneibster was posting on the meme thread--so he knows your "intelligent design" leanings. It's not like anyone is actually understanding your claims anyhow. And you might make a few more friends with a bit of honesty instead of your "everyone is picking on me" attitude and your obfuscating "I'm talking science--who said anything about god" claims.

Does your "intelligent designer" send out "data" via oscillations and the sun perhaps? Can you point to a conversation anywhere where someone seemed to correctly grasp what your "theory" is? Anyone...? Can anyone sum it up so we can look at it critically? Compare it with the data we have? See how the data fits it? It's a bit much to keep sending people over to your websites to plow through impossible to read nothingness where you try to sell your book, insult scientists in general, and gain fees to further the cause of "maverick" (e.g. creationist) scientists.

By the way--I posted a link for Kleinman which was a mathematical model that fit evolution perfectly. He wants to know how a gene could evolve via point mutation. It doesn't. Genes evolved in a continuum fashion, just like life itself. We don't need to know the math of it--we can see it...test it...see how it evolved in various species...how it changes...how it faded away...what base pairs came together and how early in the creation of the first "genomes"-- see?

It's not that you are a rare genius that has amazing insight that we are all too stupid to see--it's just that you are not adding any tool of understanding or any information of value to the journey of discovery--you're just like a whining kid in the backseat saying "Are we there yet??...I told you we should have gone to Disneyland instead..."

 

[articulett]

What the hell was up with the argument given over the past few pages? That whole crazy flame war?

Seriously, is it Atheist or Adequate's contention that Evolution is wrong? If not, then why the whole flame war, especially in this particular thread? The whole thing seems rather useless to me, but I'm just a newb here...

The Atheist pretends to accept evolution but doesn't seem to understand it, and most feel he's a creationist--or should be--but others just think he's an attention whore. Dr. A has a very thorough understanding of evolution, has written extensively about it, is glad to share the info., and feels disgust for those who lie about evolution because they prefer to promote a belief rather than the actual and very fascinating facts.

The thing about creationists is that they've learned to lie and sound all sciency (or try to) and pretend to be eager for discussion. They aren't. They're just eager to preach. They cannot and do not learn or engage in actual give and take conversation. However--it can be great fun to watch Dr. A. and other very brilliant and funny forum members give them a thorough trouncing but sometimes it takes awhile to understand the whole soap opera.

 

[John Hewitt]

You actually did it, John. I'm proud of you. And I'm serious. This is not a joke, not a taunt. You took up the gauntlet and actually said something that makes some sense.
<and content>
But you come to a skeptical forum, and when that skepticism is exercised, you take it as an insult, and act superior. I don't know what you expect if you act like that, John- nor why, after you have insulted first, you expect anything else from anyone serious. Try not being defensive; try looking seriously at the evidence; try understanding what that evidence consists of. Just a suggestion.

No its not a skeptical forum, more a patronizing, bad-mannered forum.

See? There's a clear, concise statement of your position. This isn't the problem. The problem is, challenged on that position, on the basis of facts, you fail to respond with facts of your own. You denigrate known facts of molecular biology, things that scientists have observed, not theorized but actually directly observed, for decades, and expect to be taken seriously. You have to account for facts, John, and when you can't, you have to abandon the idea and find one that works. That's how science is done. No other way works. You can't change the facts to fit the theory.

<etc>

The cell itself is made of these proteins. Everything in the cell is water, food, micronutrients, proteins, lipids, and DNA. There isn't anything else in there, John. It's a relatively simple structure. There just isn't anyplace but the DNA for the information needed to construct and run a new cell to BE. So when you challenge the idea that the central dogma of molecular biology is correct, and fail to indicate the location of a replacement repository of the data, what you are doing is going against the 99%. And this is the point at which you start to receive criticism, criticism you are apparently unable to accept.

No, it is you who doesn't get it. Molecular biology and chemistry are what I am qualified in. You give the impression of being virtually unqualified in those fields and I will thank you to stop telling me how to suck eggs.

We HAVE read them, John. They deny facts. That's their procedure. Every single one of them denies known, long proven, easily observable facts, and the only reason they get away with it among their followers is because they don't get their own microscopes out and look for themselves. You can do that too. You'll find, in every case, that they aren't denying theories, or hypotheses; they are denying observable facts, because if they weren't, if they were actually rival theories that explained the observable facts, then the majority of scientists would be looking for experiments or observations that would differentiate the central dogma of molecular biology from those alternative theories, and doing those experiments or making those observations, and winning prizes and getting famous. That's how science is done, John. And the fact that none of the biologists are doing that should tell you something; because if there really WAS something there, there is a long history of iconoclasts who have made themselves famous and won awards, and everybody is all looking to be that guy, and they'd find it, John. They really would. They all WANT to. That's how they get famous and win awards.

But it doesn't address how the thing WORKS, John. How we KNOW it works, because we can LOOK AND SEE IT. He ignores that, every single time; and he ignores it because he can't explain it without admitting he's wrong.

It is difficult to remain skeptical about the existence of gravity when one has apples falling on one's head, John. It's called EVIDENCE. And the problem here is, the evidence supports those assertions, and doesn't support yours. It's really simple, John. Get a microscope. Figure out how it works for yourself. Explain it, and do so in a manner that is consistent with what you see in that microscope. Tell what every one of those organelles is, and how it is made. Molecular biology can do that, John. In detail. All of it. When your ideas can do that, then you can challenge molecular biology; but I'm going to tell you that when they can, they will BE molecular biology. You see?

This is just patronizing. As I have said before - genetics should be seen as a subset of a properly constructed theory of evolution. There is no genetic result that is inconsistent with bioepistemic evolution.

Now, I expect a storm of invective. I expect you to deny more obvious facts that everyone but you sees when they look in the microscope. And I expect more vague assertions about how "unlikely" it all is. So surprise me. Do something different. YOU break out of YOUR assumptions. Take a look around at the real world.

I don't do invective, I leave that to you.
Let's look at the real world and real humans. Humans have about 1000 times as much data in their brains, encoding socially inherited knowledge, as they have in their genes. (Sagan's estimate not mine but, in this respect humans are unique.) What is more, every single day, humans throw away far more sensory data than they store encoded as social knowledge. And you tell me that the only data that matters for human evolution is in genes? Perhaps you would like to reveal your reasoning?

Sorry, but I just think that attitude is ridiculous. Julian Huxley once wrote an essay entitled "The Uniqueness of Man" and he especially considered human biological uniqueness - noting, for example, our unusual sexuality and the phenomenon of humour. I suggest you read him and ask yourself, as I asked myself, whether such unique biological traits might, perhaps, have something to do with all that unique, stored data.

In addition, I refer you yet again to the question of abiogenesis, prebiotic evolution. It seems clear to me that genes did not arise by the chance emergence of some replicator in a random chemical mixture - that notion is totally unworkable, as are similar chance emergences of hypercycles or autocatalytic sets. I hold that living things arose as a result of some prebiotic evolutionary process and a genuinely satisfactory theory of evolution will, at least in principle, be capable of describing that process. Genetics is not capable of doing so and, on that ground as on others, it is unsatisfactory as a general theory of evolution.

 

[hammegk]

??? You're claiming you still can't find them even though you reposted the links yourself??

Unfortunately, Dr Richards made the claim. And I give up asking for facts regarding 'medical breakthroughs dependent on millions of years of evolution'. If what you are nominating is the cross-species relationship of insulin that sfaik adds nothing to clinical medicine.

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate
Not at all: since Randi's current occupation is challenging the woos to provide evidence the these "over 90%" are wrong. As Schneibster is doing re the anti-evolution crowd.

This is what skeptics do: rather than sit complacently on the laurels of scientific orthodoxy, we challenge people to prove it wrong.

A set of statements that overturn science, and burden of proof; why am I not surprised?

Schneibster: I've previously mentioned we are in 99.99% agreement, but I choose to retain my right to discuss matters in that highly improbable area.

I also note that your wholly arbitrary assignments of probabilities do yourself, and science no favors.

Maybe y'all should vote on the values to assign.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Unfortunately, Dr Richards made the claim. And I give up asking for facts regarding 'medical breakthroughs dependent on millions of years of evolution'. If what you are nominating is the cross-species relationship of insulin that sfaik adds nothing to clinical medicine.

OK I suppose. But then do you accept my claim, which was "merely" that we've found new knowledge through interspecies comparisons that depend on us being related across millions of years?