A potential debate with NtriusWhiteMoth, Creationist

[Clotifoth]

If he chooses to accept his invitation on Kongregate.com, this is where the discussion of ours will be held.

For a little backstory, we had a discussion on the site a few weeks ago about evolution and creationism. I've lost the logs over time, but I did get some whispers from Moth;

(note, these are at different times but all pertinant togeher)

First Whisper

"The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). "

Sample (Mt.St.Helens' new dome) "Age" (in millions of years)
1. "Whole Rock" 0.35 ,± 0.05
2. Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ,± 0.06
3. Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ,± 0.2
4. Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ,± 0.3
5. Pyroxene 2.8 ,± 0.6

Radioisotope testing (according to evolutionists, the best proof evolutionists have for evolution), calibrated to Mt. St. Helens ten years after the eruption,or according to the best proof for evolution, between three and four hundred thousand years, ten thousand years, between one and a half and two million years, and between two and three million years.

I await your rebuttal.

Second Whisper

As for the "nylon bug", a block of DNA being transposed from a pre-existing block of DNA to engineer an enzyme that breaks down a chemical bond that has never been observed in nature is no more a random generation of new data than is this post. The potential for this exact block of text already existed within the English language, just as the genes that allow the "nylon bug" to digest nylon already existed within the microbe's genome, though not in that specific order,just as the potential for nylon itself already existed in nature, as chemistry is a universal constant.

Third Whisper

Incidentally, that one fossil is in one stratum of sedimentary rock and another fossil is in another stratum of the same rock proves only that the first was buried lower than the other, and sedimentary rock takes days to form, not eons. For proof, see cement.

Fourth Whisper

You said you wanted proof of my position,here it is:
"¢Axiom I: That the genome is a language
"¢Axiom II: That a language must be an artificial construct
"¢Conclusion I: That the genome must be an artificial construct

"¢Conclusion I: That the genome is an artificial construct
"¢Axiom III: That an artificial construct must have an intelligent constructor
"¢Conclusion II: That the genome must have an intelligent constructor

"¢Conclusion II: That the genome has an intelligent constructor
"¢Axiom IIII: That life as we know it could not exist without the genome
"¢Conclusion III: That life as we know it could not exist without an intelligent constructor

By definition, to refute this proof you must either refute one or more of my axioms, or find fault with my logic.

And so, I reply the following:

Hey, I looked at your whispers to me.

First whisper: I assume you're attacking radiometric dating here. Please link me to whatever gave you that data? Otherwise I can only assume it false.

Second whisper: The potential for nylon was around, but nylon itself was never naturally produced on earth until our species' production of it. To assume that genes for every possible trait already exist but are not in use is ridiculous; we should see rapid and erratic mutations much more oftenly than minor ones.

Third whisper: Cement and sedimentary rock such as sandstone are NOT the same. Cement isn't even sediment; it is a mixture formed by human hands for the purpose of drying fast and having strength. Sedimentary rock is simply piece of small sediments, slowly deposited over time, then compacted together by its own weight. If sedimentary rock formed in days as you have said, surely we would see major rivers go through their cycle of aging faster than we do now. Deltas would be mostly solid rock rather than sediment, and we do not see any of this.

4th whisper: Axiom I is incorrect from the start. The genome is not a language, it is just a series of molecules that happen to react together in a certain way. We refer to it as a language because it is how we simplify it for human perception. Stars could be arranged in constellations to be a language for a race of intergalactic giant spaghetti monsters, but we do not see them as such, even though that happens to be the way they look from our particular viewpoint in space.

In addition, Axiom II is incorrect. We as a society see all our various languages evolving constantly. If it did not, we wouldn't have such a variety of languages in the world today, and most likely, we would not see the changes from past languages we do from relics such as the Domesday Book of the England of old. However, if you or I was to read the original book itself, we would most likely not be able to understand a lot of the writing within. The same could be said for, for example, Shakespeare's plays. Also; much like the evolution of creatures, language does not always evolve in a percieved correct way. If it was to be simple refinement, we might today speak some version of ultra-modern, ultra-complex Latin or another Indo-European language.

I invite you to continue this debate in a more public forum such as the League of Reason forums: www.leagueofreason.org.uk Kongregate is honestly no place for such serious manners, right?

Cheers,
-Clotifoth

Should NtriusWhiteMoth decide to join up and discuss with me, this is the thread we shall do it in. So stay tuned!

 

[Squawk]

Waste of time debating, he has already shown he has no concept of what evolution is, or more specifically random mutation.

In his rebuttal to nylonaise being a new mutation he did not imply that the genes for digesting nylon were already present. Rather he suggests that the tools for building the gene for to digest nylon were, as evidenced by his analogy about language.


This indicates that he has no issue with random mutation as it actually occurs, just with the straw man that he believes random mutation to be. He has already conceded that evolution of new traits occurs and hasn't realised it.

 

[Clotifoth]

Hah. Well, I still hold the offer good. If he wants to continue debate/discussion, maybe on the other refuted points, I invite him to

 

[mandangalo18]

Heya Clotifroth, I thought I would chime in here to demonstrate two fallacies in his argument I found; one formal and one informal. You've already identified that his first premise is not true, and that shuts down the argument right there. But I thought I'd throw these in just for fun.

This guy is very confident that his logic is sound, since he tried to present it in proper logical form, although that was done very poorly. When an argument is presented that way, it's kind of like daring you to find errors with it, because it's easier to scrutinize and saves you the trouble of reducing it. I can't resist dares.
Syllogism 1 and 2 are first figure BARBARA syllogisms, but the premises need to be transposed to be in proper form. I'll transpose it here, and put it in actual proper form.

Axiom I: That the genome is a language
Axiom II: That a language must be an artificial construct
Conclusion I: That the genome must be an artificial construct

transposed and put in proper form:
Axiom II: All language is an artificial construct
Axiom I: All genomes are a language
Conclusion I: All genomes are an artificial construct

Here's the formal fallacy in this syllogism. Axiom I uses material supposition, that is, "genomes" supposits for itself. Another example of material supposition is "genome is a six letter word". (Supposition is the way in which a term is referred to as existing. The medieval logicians called it suppositio).
Axiom II shifts to personal supposition, that is, it supposits for actual individual languages, i.e. those things that are signified mediately. This type of supposition carries through or extends to individual natures.
Conclusion I uses personal supposition again, suppositing for individual genomes being artificially constructed.

When a syllogism shifts supposition from premise to conclusion, therein lies the fallacy. The terms of the argument are being referred to as existing in different ways.
This creates a quanternio terminorum - the formal fallacy of four terms, rendering the argument invalid. This can be a tough one to uncover. I hope my spiel about supposition made sense, it's one of the tougher syllogistic properties in traditional logic.

Here's the second syllogism transposed and in proper logical form:
Axiom III: All artificial constructs are intelligently constructed
Conclusion I: All genomes are an artificial construct
Conclusion II: All genomes are intelligently constructed

What's another way to say "artificial construct"? How about "intelligently constructed"? Axiom III is analytical; it's a tautology. The truth of the Axiom III is evident from the meaning of the words it contains. Being constructed artificially necessitates being constructed by an intelligence. I'm sure by now I don't need to tell you what fallacy that is. Conclusion I begs the question on conclusion II. Conclusion I and conclusion II mean the exact same thing, just disguised. That's called petitio principii, an informal fallacy. He's arguing in a circle. He just doesn't want you to notice it, or he doesn't realize it himself.

He seems really cocky about his "proof" and the validity of his logic. I hope this helps you melt his face. A melted face is a humbled face.

 

[Clotifoth]

Heya Clotifroth, I thought I would chime in here to demonstrate two fallacies in his argument I found; one formal and one informal. You've already identified that his first premise is not true, and that shuts down the argument right there. But I thought I'd throw these in just for fun.

This guy is very confident that his logic is sound, since he tried to present it in proper logical form, although that was done very poorly. When an argument is presented that way, it's kind of like daring you to find errors with it, because it's easier to scrutinize and saves you the trouble of reducing it. I can't resist dares.
Syllogism 1 and 2 are first figure BARBARA syllogisms, but the premises need to be transposed to be in proper form. I'll transpose it here, and put it in actual proper form.

Axiom I: That the genome is a language
Axiom II: That a language must be an artificial construct
Conclusion I: That the genome must be an artificial construct

transposed and put in proper form:
Axiom II: All language is an artificial construct
Axiom I: All genomes are a language
Conclusion I: All genomes are an artificial construct

Here's the formal fallacy in this syllogism. Axiom I uses material supposition, that is, "genomes" supposits for itself. Another example of material supposition is "genome is a six letter word". (Supposition is the way in which a term is referred to as existing. The medieval logicians called it suppositio).
Axiom II shifts to personal supposition, that is, it supposits for actual individual languages, i.e. those things that are signified mediately. This type of supposition carries through or extends to individual natures.
Conclusion I uses personal supposition again, suppositing for individual genomes being artificially constructed.

When a syllogism shifts supposition from premise to conclusion, therein lies the fallacy. The terms of the argument are being referred to as existing in different ways.
This creates a quanternio terminorum - the formal fallacy of four terms, rendering the argument invalid. This can be a tough one to uncover. I hope my spiel about supposition made sense, it's one of the tougher syllogistic properties in traditional logic.

Here's the second syllogism transposed and in proper logical form:
Axiom III: All artificial constructs are intelligently constructed
Conclusion I: All genomes are an artificial construct
Conclusion II: All genomes are intelligently constructed

What's another way to say "artificial construct"? How about "intelligently constructed"? Axiom III is analytical; it's a tautology. The truth of the Axiom III is evident from the meaning of the words it contains. Being constructed artificially necessitates being constructed by an intelligence. I'm sure by now I don't need to tell you what fallacy that is. Conclusion I begs the question on conclusion II. Conclusion I and conclusion II mean the exact same thing, just disguised. That's called petitio principii, an informal fallacy. He's arguing in a circle. He just doesn't want you to notice it, or he doesn't realize it himself.

He seems really cocky about his "proof" and the validity of his logic. I hope this helps you melt his face. A melted face is a humbled face.

I probably never would've seen that without a good, good hard look. o_o Nicely done. Gotta love the latin(?), too; that's a nice touch of flavor into the dish of refutation.

 

[mandangalo18]

aye latin

 

[Clotifoth]

Well, he's officially told me he won't debate over an open forum. What a f-cking pansy wuss! This pisses me off to no end. I mean, whooping his ass over a chatroom is fine and well but now he doesn't want to do this.

And I did whoop his ass over a chat. Lost the logs though; Kong be damned.