The naughty things creationists at AiG accept.

[rjw]

Hi All,


We get a lot of handwaving from YECs over the reality of such things as random mutation, natural selection, speciation, gene duplication, microevolution and the rest.

The latest has been over microevolution. It does not happen, but it does, but it does not.

I think part of the problem is that many forum YECs cherry pick creationist literature just as they cherry pick the Bible and mainstream research. If it's a habit with one book, then why not a habit with everything else that is read?


Anyway a quick search of AiG demonstrates that creationists publishing for the organization accept the reality of all these things mentioned at the start. (All they need to do is connect the dots). Let’s go have a look shall we?


Ooops 1. Speciation happens

“Within the resulting kinds, then, speciation (distinct from molecules-to-man evolution) likely proceeded quite rapidly after the Flood (against the backdrop of major ecological and environmental changes). Even today, speciation can happen quickly—see Rapid Speciation (Video). ”

from:-

News to Note, December 19, 2009 - Answers in Genesis



Ooops 2. Natural selection happens

”Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. The concepts are indeed different, though some mistakenly interchange the two. ”

Is Natural Selection the Same Thing as Evolution? - Answers in Genesis



Oooops 3. Random mutations happen

“While this may indeed allow the virus to escape detection, this type of genetic modification occurs by random mutation and does not change the functions of the proteins involved, which are essential to its survival.”
From:-

Bird Flu - Has It Evolved? - Answers in Genesis



Oooops 4. Speciation happens as does microevolution

”But speciation is not a kind of macroevolution; it is a type of microevolution.* Evolutionists like these two terms (micro- and macroevolution) because they imply that small changes that can produce new species eventually add up to big changes producing new kinds of organisms. Speciation (microevolution) does not involve the acquisition of new genetic information ...”

From:-

News to Note, May 28, 2011 - Answers in Genesis

The above is claiming that microevolution and speciation are the same thing.



Oooops 5. Gene duplication happens


”Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.”

From:-

Feedback: Evidence of New Genetic Information? - Answers in Genesis

Note too, that mutations alter the information, after the duplication?



It’s easy to find lots and lots of similar claims from AiG. All you do is go to their site and search. Now if only the creationists at AiG put all this together.

And finally, not from the AiG site:-

Ooooops 6. Two creationists who claim that ToE is good science

1) Todd Wood.

2) Kurt Wise.




Regards, Roland

 

[Buho]

These are not shocking to a YEC. They have been consistently affirmed by YECs for years, as your dates have shown. That this is shocking to you suggests you haven't been listening to YECs very carefully.

You ask YECs to accept by faith the lines you have drawn? There is no evidence that random mutations (3) and gene duplication (5) paired with natural selection (2) is capable of producing novel function. All observed instances of speciation (1) and microevolution (4) have not produced this. Lawlike, mindless processes have never been shown to do this. Only intelligence is known to be capable of producing function.

 

[lasthero]

What do you define as 'novel funtion'?

 

[EternalDragon]

What do you define as 'novel funtion'?

Life, which is a million times more complex and self operating than the computer you are typing on now.

Do you imagine that your computer came about by evolution? Because if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, then it did.

The Inner Life of the Cell - YouTube

 

[lasthero]

Life, which is a million times more complex and self operating than the computer you are typing on now.

I would ask that you show empirically that life is a 'million times more complex' than my computer.

Do you imagine that your computer came about by evolution? Because if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, then it did.

I know that computers are made naturally and have no a priori reason to assume otherwise. Computers do not reproduce. Your analogy fails.

 

[EternalDragon]

I would ask that you show empirically that life is a 'million times more complex' than my computer.

Computers versus Brains - Scientific American

And that's just the brain.....

I know that computers are made naturally and have no a priori reason to assume otherwise. Computers do not reproduce. Your analogy fails.

Yes, but humans reproduce, which are said to have come about by evolution, which then produced the computer. (And other things)

 

[lasthero]

And that's just the brain.....

You're link doesn't show empirically that the human brain is a 'million times' more complex than a computer.

You need some kind of metric, here. How, exactly, are you measuring complexity?

Yes, but humans reproduce, which are said to have come about by evolution, which then produced the computer.

If that's the way you want to look at it, then yes, evolution produces computers. However, that's ridiculous way to look at it. You wouldn't say that, because God made Adam and Eve, and their progeny eventually led to Hitler and the Nazis, that God is responsible for the Holocaust, for instance.

 

[EternalDragon]

You're link doesn't show empirically that the human brain is a 'million times' more complex than a computer.

You need some kind of metric, here. How, exactly, are you measuring complexity?



If that's the way you want to look at it, then yes, evolution produces computers. However, that's ridiculous way to look at it. You wouldn't say that, because God made Adam and Eve, and their progeny eventually led to Hitler and the Nazis, that God is responsible for the Holocaust, for instance.

Not responsible, no because your are talking about intelligent actions. I did not say that evolution is responsible for making computers. I am saying that if evolution happened, then evolution is responsible for creating the life that created the computer. So the computer came from random evolution processes.

Just as I would say God is responsible for creating the life that conducted the holocaust. So human intelligence and actions come from a creation, created with that intelligence, by another intelligence. You are not following the logic properly.

 

[lasthero]

I am saying that if evolution happened, then evolution is responsible for creating the life that created the computer.

Okay. So?

So the computer came from random evolution processes.

Not really random, at least not in the way you're probably thinking, but okay. So?

You are not following the logic properly.

I would suppose your argument is that intelligence can only come from intelligence. You're not demonstrating that, but even if I accept your premise, that does nothing to discredit evolution - I could simply say that God started evolution, and that would fit your criteria just fine.

Regardless, you're skipping over a question - can you provide some objective metric to determine complexity?

 

[pgp_protector]

Computers versus Brains - Scientific American

And that's just the brain.....

Yes, but humans reproduce, which are said to have come about by evolution, which then produced the computer. (And other things)

Funny, you say that life is a million more times complex than a computer, then try to use a brain vs computer rather than just something that's alive.

Prokaryote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's like complain that a kid can't build a Rocket and showing an image of a Saturn 5 vs an Estes rocket.

 

[EternalDragon]

Okay. So?



Not really random, at least not in the way you're probably thinking, but okay. So?



I would suppose your argument is that intelligence can only come from intelligence. You're not demonstrating that, but even if I accept your premise, that does nothing to discredit evolution - I could simply say that God started evolution, and that would fit your criteria just fine.

Regardless, you're skipping over a question - can you provide some objective metric to determine complexity?

So now I am your teacher? I'm sure you will figure out what complexity means eventually. One can only hope.....

 

[lasthero]

So now I am your teacher? I'm sure you will figure out what complexity means eventually. One can only hope.....

For the record, I am addressing you in a completely respectable manner, and you're being condescending. This is exactly the sort of behavior we had a discussion about.

I know what complexity is. What I'm asking you for is how you measure it. Complexity is a relative concept. You're talking about it like it's something that can be objectively determined and quantified. So how are you quantifying it?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So now I am your teacher? I'm sure you will figure out what complexity means eventually. One can only hope.....

The human brain is by far more complex than any known computer that has been designed thus far. By a lot. Sure, a computer can defeat chess champions, but that is pretty much the only thing that computer (well, really, that computer program) could do. The shear amount of information that the human brain processes all at once would make multiple computers instantly crash, no matter how high tech or well made. A computer can be designed to do a few things better than a human brain, but no computer has even come close to doing everything a human brain can at even half capacity.

 

[Queller]

Do you imagine that your computer came about by evolution? Because if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, then it did.

Not by any definition of evolution that scientists use it didn't.

 

[FredHoyle]

Like the Bible the computer came out of the minds of men.

 

[Split Rock]

These are not shocking to a YEC. They have been consistently affirmed by YECs for years, as your dates have shown. That this is shocking to you suggests you haven't been listening to YECs very carefully.

Sometimes some are, sometimes others are not. I have seen plenty of creationists here in this forum claim that speciation has never been observed, or that natural selection is a useless tautology.

You ask YECs to accept by faith the lines you have drawn? There is no evidence that random mutations (3) and gene duplication (5) paired with natural selection (2) is capable of producing novel function. All observed instances of speciation (1) and microevolution (4) have not produced this. Lawlike, mindless processes have never been shown to do this. Only intelligence is known to be capable of producing function.

Actually there is. The evolution of the nylonase gene is an example. Also the evolution of antifreeze proteins in artic fish from trypsinogen is an example. Evolution of antifreeze glycoprotein gene from a trypsinogen gene in Antarctic notothenioid fish

 

[Split Rock]

Do you imagine that your computer came about by evolution? Because if you believe in Darwinian Evolution, then it did.

Computers don't reproduce and don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Computers don't reproduce and don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

Computers are what would happen if creationism were correct. Unchanging entities designed for a specific purpose.

 

[bhsmte]

The human brain is by far more complex than any known computer that has been designed thus far. By a lot. Sure, a computer can defeat chess champions, but that is pretty much the only thing that computer (well, really, that computer program) could do. The shear amount of information that the human brain processes all at once would make multiple computers instantly crash, no matter how high tech or well made. A computer can be designed to do a few things better than a human brain, but no computer has even come close to doing everything a human brain can at even half capacity.

What about the Hal 9000?

Hal was a bad dude!

 

[PsychoSarah]

What about the Hal 9000?

Hal was a bad dude!

-_- fictional computer