Most of these objections are specifically rejected by qualified creationists.
I'm sure you'd agree it's best practice to engage your opponents' strongest arguments, like this one or this one.
"Qualified creationists"? Are there "qualified flat Earthers" I should be debating the shape of the Earth with?
But anyway, here's the answer to that first link, and the second one contains a large number of false claims, as well as the assumption of substance dualism without first solving the problem of interaction. For example:
The grand theory of evolution would gain some empirical support if it could be demonstrated, in a real experiment, that information could arise from matter left to itself without the addition of intelligence
Point me to any example of information that is not reducible to the configuration and behaviors of particles. Any idea in your brain is reducible to brain activity for example. A song on a record is reducible to the grooves in the record itself.
The grand theory of atheistic evolution must attribute the origin of all information ultimately to the interaction of matter and energy, without reference to an intelligent or conscious source. A central claim of atheistic evolution must therefore be that the macro-evolutionary processes that generate biological information are fundamentally different from all other known information-generating processes. However, the natural laws described here apply equally in animate and inanimate systems and demonstrate this claim to be both false and absurd.
The video in the first part of this post shows useful information being added by evolution to the genome of bacteria, namely antibiotic resistance, in response to increasing levels of antibiotic they encounter as they spread through the petri dish.
This experiment is relatively recent, it is possible the paper you've linked me was written before it took place or that the author wasn't aware the experiment had been done. At any rate it falsifies their conclusion.
So the continents are being constantly eroded away and replaced by volcanic activity, but also there's a neatly stacked fossil record documenting hundreds of millions of years, only a few metres under our feet?
As to antibiotic resistance the site has a search bar for those looking to acquaint themselves with the arguments actually used by creationists.
Top left, can't miss it.
So the continents are being constantly eroded away and replaced by volcanic activity, but also there's a neatly stacked fossil record documenting hundreds of millions of years, only a few metres under our feet?
The link I sent has to do with a related creationist argument concerning the erosion of mountains, specifically. The first few meters, at least in most populated regions, is topsoil and compacted dirt. You don't start find fossils that shallow except in regions where erosion by wind or water has exposed previously laid down geological strata.
the site has a search bar for those looking to acquaint themselves with the arguments actually used by creationists.
That link doesn't go anywhere. Btw, the people in the photos I posted are actual creationists. The arguments they are presenting originated from creationists. The fact that there are creationists who are less dumb than the average who recognize those particular arguments are invalid doesn't make them vanish, or mean that they are false flags or something. Creationists originated those arguments, creationists use those arguments.
Anyway, I think I can save us both some time.
Supposing there was a group of people traveling about your area, led by a charismatic speaker who claims that the world is ending soon. He promises he alone can save you, but only if you sell your belongings, devote the rest of your life to him, and cut off family members who try to stop you.
He also wants to change your name, advises you to leave your home/job if necessary to follow him, and says that if you don’t love him more than your own family, you’re not worthy of him. What sort of group is that?
"A literature review found that most examples of the acquisition of resistance are not due to mutations, but in nearly all cases are a result of complex, built-in genetic and molecular biological defence systems."
I am going to bet "literature review" means "review by creationists". That was not in fact the conclusion of the biologists who performed the study, nor any non-creationist scientists who reviewed their work.
The extant literature indicates that those few examples that are due to mutations are in all cases so far due to loss mutations and do not result in a gain of genetic information.
This is false. Whoever wrote this is a liar. Which should come as no surprise given that when creationist arguments were actually dissected in court, during Kitzmiller vs. Dover, it was found that indeed they deliberately lied about many things (for example about the existence of less complete versions of the bacterial flagellum, and the prior wording of the textbook Pandas and People).
If creationist websites are your only source of information about evolution (so far you've only referenced creationist websites) and you deeply trust that they're being honest, it would go a long way towards explaining the difference between our views on this matter.
If the point of your post is that there are dumb creationists, saying dumb things, then I agree entirely.
If you want to use that observation to imply that creationism itself is flawed, then you're straw-manning.
As to erosion, I'm not sure you're grasping the scale of the discrepancy. At current, measured rates of erosion, every landmass on earth would have eroded completely, into the ocean at least 50 times over (given standard time frames for the age of the earth).
You can't shuffle the deck 50 times, then claim that the order of the cards is somehow representative of how they came out of the pack.
If the point of your post is that there are dumb creationists, saying dumb things, then I agree entirely.
Further, that there is no form of creationism that is credible. It's ultimately still based on the same errors in reasoning.
If you want to use that observation to imply that creationism itself is flawed, then you're straw-manning.
I understand why you feel that way but I don't agree.
As to erosion, I'm not sure you're grasping the scale of the discrepancy. At current, measured rates of erosion, every landmass on earth would have eroded completely, into the ocean at least 50 times over (given standard time frames for the age of the earth).
If there were no ongoing natural processes counteracting it maybe. This looks to have more complete answers to your questions about erosion, and is specifically about continents rather than just mountains.
You can't shuffle the deck 50 times, then claim that the order of the cards is somehow representative of how they came out of the pack.
...What?
I noticed you ignored my question from earlier. Or maybe you didn't see it? Here it is again:
Supposing there was a group of people traveling about your area, led by a charismatic speaker who claims that the world is ending soon. He promises he alone can save you, but only if you sell your belongings, devote the rest of your life to him, and cut off family members who try to stop you.
He also wants to change your name, advises you to leave your home/job if necessary to follow him, and says that if you don’t love him more than your own family, you’re not worthy of him. What sort of group is that?
"Qualified creationists"? Are there "qualified flat Earthers" I should be debating the shape of the Earth with?
But anyway, here's the answer to that first link, and the second one contains a large number of false claims, as well as the assumption of substance dualism without first solving the problem of interaction. For example:
Here is a video of that exact thing taking place.
Point me to any example of information that is not reducible to the configuration and behaviors of particles. Any idea in your brain is reducible to brain activity for example. A song on a record is reducible to the grooves in the record itself.
The video in the first part of this post shows useful information being added by evolution to the genome of bacteria, namely antibiotic resistance, in response to increasing levels of antibiotic they encounter as they spread through the petri dish.
This experiment is relatively recent, it is possible the paper you've linked me was written before it took place or that the author wasn't aware the experiment had been done. At any rate it falsifies their conclusion.
Ha ha!
STEM doctorates mostly.
In biology? Or an unrelated field. Anyways, I edited my initial response with the information you're after.
So the continents are being constantly eroded away and replaced by volcanic activity, but also there's a neatly stacked fossil record documenting hundreds of millions of years, only a few metres under our feet?
As to antibiotic resistance the site has a search bar for those looking to acquaint themselves with the arguments actually used by creationists.
Top left, can't miss it.
The link I sent has to do with a related creationist argument concerning the erosion of mountains, specifically. The first few meters, at least in most populated regions, is topsoil and compacted dirt. You don't start find fossils that shallow except in regions where erosion by wind or water has exposed previously laid down geological strata.
That link doesn't go anywhere. Btw, the people in the photos I posted are actual creationists. The arguments they are presenting originated from creationists. The fact that there are creationists who are less dumb than the average who recognize those particular arguments are invalid doesn't make them vanish, or mean that they are false flags or something. Creationists originated those arguments, creationists use those arguments.
Anyway, I think I can save us both some time.
Supposing there was a group of people traveling about your area, led by a charismatic speaker who claims that the world is ending soon. He promises he alone can save you, but only if you sell your belongings, devote the rest of your life to him, and cut off family members who try to stop you.
He also wants to change your name, advises you to leave your home/job if necessary to follow him, and says that if you don’t love him more than your own family, you’re not worthy of him. What sort of group is that?
Worked for me. I may have copied/pasted poorly as I'm on my phone.
http://creation.com/does-the-acquisition-of-antibiotic-and-pesticide-resistance-provide-evidence-for-evolution
I've fixed the original, thanks for that.
I am going to bet "literature review" means "review by creationists". That was not in fact the conclusion of the biologists who performed the study, nor any non-creationist scientists who reviewed their work.
This is false. Whoever wrote this is a liar. Which should come as no surprise given that when creationist arguments were actually dissected in court, during Kitzmiller vs. Dover, it was found that indeed they deliberately lied about many things (for example about the existence of less complete versions of the bacterial flagellum, and the prior wording of the textbook Pandas and People).
If creationist websites are your only source of information about evolution (so far you've only referenced creationist websites) and you deeply trust that they're being honest, it would go a long way towards explaining the difference between our views on this matter.
If the point of your post is that there are dumb creationists, saying dumb things, then I agree entirely.
If you want to use that observation to imply that creationism itself is flawed, then you're straw-manning.
As to erosion, I'm not sure you're grasping the scale of the discrepancy. At current, measured rates of erosion, every landmass on earth would have eroded completely, into the ocean at least 50 times over (given standard time frames for the age of the earth).
You can't shuffle the deck 50 times, then claim that the order of the cards is somehow representative of how they came out of the pack.
Further, that there is no form of creationism that is credible. It's ultimately still based on the same errors in reasoning.
I understand why you feel that way but I don't agree.
If there were no ongoing natural processes counteracting it maybe. This looks to have more complete answers to your questions about erosion, and is specifically about continents rather than just mountains.
...What?
I noticed you ignored my question from earlier. Or maybe you didn't see it? Here it is again:
Supposing there was a group of people traveling about your area, led by a charismatic speaker who claims that the world is ending soon. He promises he alone can save you, but only if you sell your belongings, devote the rest of your life to him, and cut off family members who try to stop you.
He also wants to change your name, advises you to leave your home/job if necessary to follow him, and says that if you don’t love him more than your own family, you’re not worthy of him. What sort of group is that?