AJ Philips: "I hope you're in this for the long-haul!"

No, probably not AJ. I am more interested in figuring out what drives Dan. Once I have done that I will probably go away. I did answer truthfully for myself anyway when I said earlier "I doubt most of the anti-ID brigade enjoy debating ID any more than they would enjoy debating about the existence of the tooth fairy".

It may turn out that my interest in Dan also ends that way: ie, his antics end up seeming about as interesting as watching a fly repeatedly and instinctively bash into a window, never seeming to be able to acknowledge its existence.

‘A fly repeatedly bashing into a window!’ With that air of futility, I’ll venture a summary.

If the idea of man’s evolution from lower life forms and lifeless chemicals is to be based on anything more than philosophical grounds, then we would expect clear evidence substantiating all major steps along that evolutionary pathway.

So where is the physical evidence we can point to?

The first major hurdle is to explain the arrival of the first living cell. Chemistry demonstrates that non-living chemicals never organise themselves in that manner. Chance over long ages (AJ,18/6) cannot achieve what chemistry shows is impossible. Sidestepping the problem by saying it’s ‘nothing to do with evolution’ (AJ,28/6), or appealing to some vague distant past where conditions on earth may have been different (AJ,15/6), does not put anything on the evidence shelf. The cupboard is still bare.

Next mystery, the volumes of information in the genome of higher animals, necessary to structure, eyes, bones, nerves, etc. Evolutionists can only attribute the addition of such genetic material to mutations. The problem is that we never observe mutations adding useful genetic material to a genome. (Note: science = observation, as opposed to musings and ideas alone).

The excitement surrounding the Lenski experiments highlights how desperate evolutionists are to point to any evidence that might help validate their philosophy. Yet, as described above, the genes in these bacteria had lost specificity, i.e. were unable to perform a function they previously completed. That’s a downhill falter, not uphill evolution.

(Rstuart,29/6) If the lack of intermediary fossils wasn’t an issue for Darwin, why did he describe it ‘the most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory? Since then a few disputed candidates have been found to help “fill the gaps”, but many are now resigned to the “missing links” never being found. With even those like AJ giving reasons for fossil rarity (28/6), you know there’s not much evidence to point to.

Lastly AJ (28/6), repeatability is indeed a vital part of the scientific method. That any theory of history cannot be repeated is why this debate will never end.

rstuart,
You say you’re interested in “what drives Dan.” So I’ll try and explain my motivations.

I enjoy participating on OLO. Since it’s usually never censored, and such freedom is not usually abused, it’s one way of interacting with real people and hearing some real opinions. By contrast, in newspapers or most mainstream media, you usually only get fed the opinion of the owners or editors, or the politically correct stuff they like to think will sell.

I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth, and guess that that may be a fair description of many who click on this website. I believe in the effectiveness of healthy debate in helping people to see things from different view points and thus help truth come to the fore.

Since AJ was honest enough to admit he had no “formal scientific qualifications”, I may as well reveal my (limited) science background. I’ve done quite a bit of undergraduate studies in mathematics, philosophy, languages, theology, and education. My only scientific qualification is a graduate diploma in Applied Science in linguistics. So without having taken a profound investigation into any one aspect of science, I feel my generalist education well enables me to investigate areas that interest me and assess their value.

I’ve been interested in the creation/evolution debate for over 20 years. I remember them conducting some debates on the university campus where I studied in the 1980s.

Being a Christian believer, acquainted with the creationist argument, I put that forward to try and stimulate debate. Though I’ve already acknowledged that a thread like this is not the best place for formal debate, I am curious to know why people might believe in evolution, other than just because it’s currently the ‘predominant view’. I am interested to see if any contributors can put forward anything compelling, coherent, or perhaps novel in an argument for evolution.

I’m happy to discuss any real evidence if presented with some.

But for now I’ll wait in expectation of the next wave of flat denials, familiar rhetoric, and name calling.

Dan,

With all due respect, your cognitive skills are simply appalling.

<<So where is the physical evidence we can point to?>>

Err... Everywhere. You honestly don't have any idea of just how much evidence there actually is, do you?

<<The first major hurdle is to explain the arrival of the first living cell.>>

Not it's not. Now you're talking about abiogenesis. Evolution explains the variety we see in nature and how existing life evolves.

The only reason you find it impossible to separate these two is because you cannot come to terms with the fact that evolution is not a religion. Nor does evolution exist to disprove God.

Evolution is nothing more than a study of the diversity of the natural word, and it would be completely irresponsible and scientifically neglectful of us to not study this. You seem to be living in fantasy world where the “Evolutionists” are out to disprove your (evidentially non-existent) God.

But if you want to talk about abiogenesis, then I suggest you educate yourself a little on it first. You're only revealing just how ignorant you are of abiogenesis if you could seriously assert that scientists think that a living cell, as complex as the ones that are around now, just sprang into existence.

<<Chance over long ages (AJ,18/6) cannot achieve what chemistry shows is impossible.>>

Now you're just making things up. Chemistry shows no such thing.

Various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in experiments. But the length of time that it may take for the entire process to occur naturally, makes it difficult to wait around for; Nor do we have the technology yet to speed the process up in order to observe it.

<<Sidestepping the problem by saying it’s ‘nothing to do with evolution’>>

The only way you could honestly consider this “sidestepping” is by actually believing that evolution is a religion out to disprove God... as contradictory as that sounds.

Either way, there's no sidestepping needed. Even if you could conclusively debunk abiogenesis, it wouldn't disprove evolution. The evidence for evolution is abundant and irrefutable.

Continued...

...Continued

But since you evidentially don't know much about biological science, you're just going to have to take my word for it.

<<...or appealing to some vague distant past where conditions on earth may have been different >>

What do you mean “may have been different”? Of course it was different! The Earth certainly didn't spring into existence looking like it does now. In fact much of it's surface would have been montmorillonite, a clay that is the perfect catalyst for nucleotides to join and become polynucleotides.

Here's a short video done by a scientist that explains abiogenesis so that you can understand better what it is that you're actually trying to refute... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

<<science = observation...>>

Wrong! Science = a deduction based on evidence.

<<... as opposed to musings and ideas alone>>

If you think this is all there is to evolution, then you need to come back when you've at least learned some of the basics.

<<The problem is that we never observe mutations adding useful genetic material to a genome.>>

We see plenty of it.

I like how you won't define “useful” though. It's one of the tricks of Creationism: Either don't define certain terms, so that when more evidence comes to light, you can still claim it's not enough; Or set ridiculous standards that we would never be able to see in a life-time.

Very slippery indeed!

<<The excitement surrounding the Lenski experiments highlights how desperate evolutionists are...>>

Any scientific benchmark is exiting.

And why would there be any “desperation” when everything in the natural world is evidence of evolution?

<<Since then a few disputed candidates have been found to help “fill the gaps”...>>

Wrong. There are fossils from all different species that help “fill the gaps”, there were only several 'early Human' frauds, but science proved that they were frauds. There are quite a few early Human fossils that are genuine.

Again, you need to educate yourself a little more on what it is that you're trying to refute.

But I'll have to continue this tomorrow as I have now reached my post limit...

...Continued from yesterday

<<With even those like AJ giving reasons for fossil rarity (28/6), you know there’s not much evidence to point to.>>

Of all the deceitful tricks; of all the examples of the shotty logic of Creationists, this remark takes the cake.

The whole reason 'fossil rarity' is mentioned, is to point out the inadequacy of the “gaps in the record” argument. Yet here you are, blatantly twisting the reason for mentioning 'fossil rarity' to make it sound like it's a desperate defense for a supposed 'lack of evidence'.

Tell me, Dan... Why is it that Creationists need to be slippery and deceitful, when normal scientists do not? Anyone one with an ounce of rational thinking would put two-and-two together here.

<<...repeatability is indeed a vital part of the scientific method.>>

Yes, observations need to be repeatable, you don't have to repeat an actual event. If this was cause to disregard evolution, then you would have to disregard many other fields of science too – yet you're not complaining about them...

And besides, like I've said before, to disregard everything we now know would be ludicrous. The fact that you are unable to see this demonstrates a marked lack of logical thinking.

<<That any theory of history cannot be repeated is why this debate will never end.>>

I disagree. Personally I think that Creationism will eventually disappear with the spread of information via technology, and the increasing amount of people realising how ridiculous, out-of-date, irrelevant and mythical religious belief is. Especially now that we're learning how historically inaccurate the Bible is – not to mention how non-existent the evidence for it's events are. Although I don't think this will happen in our life times.

<<I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth...>>

Sorry Dan, but I find this extremely difficult to believe.

If you are, then why don't you look into the evidence of that which contradicts your literalist beliefs? Over the past two threads, I've posted enough links to completely debunk Creationism, yet here you are, repeating falsehoods and misconceptions that are demonstratively false.

Continued...