Master's in Creationism

Evolution is not falsifiable either. There have been TONS of evidence against evolution: it is simply dismissed, and explained away. That is not science.

Pray tell. There is no "twisting". Most of the evidence now used for evolutionary descent, was once used as proof of creation (Sedimentary rock layers, homologous structures, analogous structures, etc., which were ALL first studied, and first used by creationists)

I don't have to look that up. I am a biology student, among other things. I am taking the Biology Graduate Record Examinations this Saturday.

FYI: A post that I have already posted, and gotten no response to, regarding "the adaptation of Bacteria, and the descent of "molecules to man" religion. Someone (a creationist believing laymen {no working knowledge of biology}), said "We do not see new information being added..." I responded:

Actually bacteria have a way of incorporating and passing on new genetic material, through circular rings of DNA called "Plasmids". When a certain bacteria develops a resistance to a certain drug, it can pass this resistance to it's buddies, extremely quickly.

Also, genes are constantly undergoing addition of new material, at least in germ line (non somatic, i.e. "sex cells" or "sperm and egg") cells, through several processes such as crossing over during synapsis, genetic recombination, etc. Mutations can also "shuffle" DNA, making the codon call for a completely different amino acid (and hence, a different protein structure, and hence, a different function).

None of this really makes any difference to the debate, though. Let me give you an example.

Suppose I found a car, laying in a field, upside down. I then begin to show you calculations, graphs, and figures, which "prove" the car could have fallen out of an air plane.

Now, does that prove that the car did, in fact, fall out of an airplane? No, of course not. All I have proven, is that it is a possibility. It could have been dropped from a helicopter, it could have fallen off of a higher cliff, etc.

In order for me to "Prove" that it was dropped by an airplane, I would need direct evidence. A statement from the pilot perhaps, or a flight plan showing that the plane had been there in the right place and the right time (and even then it would not "prove" it).

Evolutionists attempt to do just this. IS it possible, that one could take an ancient bacteria, and in billions of years, possibly get a human by rearranging the DNA? Yes. Our DNA codes for the exact same proteins, and when you put the DNA in the right sequence you WILL get a human.

Does that mean it can be done in the wild? Probably not: the factors inhibiting such a possibility would be great. There are some HUGE evolutionary hurdles in that sequence (such as the eye) which would make it near impossible.

But even if it WERE possible, does that mean that it DID happen? No. Just like the car example above, proving something is POSSIBLE does not prove that it is ACTUAL.

Beyond all this, the genetic system as a whole, is far to complicated and precise a process, to have just "happened". Amino acids cannot be linked, without codons (three base sections of mRNA) placing them in the proper sequence (via tRNA) to be meaningful. And codons cannot do this, without fully functioning cellular machinery, which cannot be made without the codons and functioning machinery to make them.

Wrong. Biology is the study of life. It is science. Evolutionary Biology, is a RELIGIOUS FORM of that science, just like Creation Biology is a religious form of that same science. Evolutionary Biology, and Creation Biology teach the same facts about life systems, but interpret the "unknown" areas differently.

If Creationist beliefs are excluded, then so should be evolutionary/atheistic beliefs.

 

Why is this even a debate? ID Proponents/Creationists aren't about to admit their inherent biases; when you can trump EVERYTHING with "it's too complicated to happen on it's own, SO THERE!!", there's no point in engaging this position. It's like debating the clubhouse rules with the kid that built it; as long as he/she gets to define the rules, you'll lose every time.

My only request of these folks is PLEASE stop trying (and trying and trying…) to push these “fan fiction” versions of science on my kids.

 

Right....It's only "Science" if it's done YOUR way....

Why don't the Evolutionists admit their inherent biases? I guess the only thing we are allowed to "force" on the kids, is the fact that they have no value, and their being here is a big cosmic accident, right? I PAY for the public schools, and I have three kids. Last year, I payed nearly 4,000 dollars in taxes that went to fund education in my community. YET, despite my protests, my children are FORCED to be brainwashed in a religion (yes, common descent is a religion, not science) in a PUBLIC school.

That, sir, is ridiculous. My child should be able to learn science, without being indoctrinated into your atheistic religion.

 

Thanks, Havensdad, for carrying on the defense on this thread. It appears that we are few and far between on this forum, but you articulate the major points of this argument very well.

It has become very easy and socially accepted to openly mock and ridicule those that believe in God beyond the surface-level of only faith. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that to be a Christian or a believer it God, it does not require one to ignore science or empirical evidences that can be seen. To the contrary, I believe that those that believe in God need to be that much more knowledgeable about science and the flimsy evidences that are being used to refute the existence of God.

Keep up the good work!

 

The word 'evolution' means change. Science accounts for observed phenomena in terms of natural processes acting over time in the past. It's the fact that the processes invoked by science are natural as opposed to supernatural that makes it possible for humans to hopefully come to an undertanding of what took place.

Like it or not, evolutionary thinking is fundamental to pretty much all of contemporary science. Astrophysics has its vast scale and its accounts of stellar evolution and the formation of planetary systems. Geology has its processes of tectonics, mountain building, petrogenesis and erosion. Weather evolves as storms are generated and dissipate. And biological evolution addresses the diversity of living organisms in precisely the same way.

What creationism is really attacking is scientific naturalism. Naturalism is the attempt to understand our natural world in terms of the natural processes that are observed occurring here in this world. Naturalism is contrasted with a far more ancient tendency to interpret the events of this world as results, images or signs of intentional actions performed by divinities on some higher invisible plane.

So creationism isn't just arguing with Charles Darwin, it's arguing with the whole thrust and development of Western thinking since the end of the middle ages and the scientific revolution.

There isn't really a whole lot of science in "scientific" creationism. What little scence there is consists of arguments against scientific hypotheses that the creationists believe aren't consistent with their extremely literal reading of the Biblical book of Genesis.

But when it comes to positive assertions, to their central creationist thesis itself, "scientific" creationists move far beyond the scope of science into expressions of their own particular religious faith.

 

Since the end of the middle ages???...that is a bit of a stretch.

Evolutionary biology, as it relates to attempting to explain the origins of the universe and of humanity, has really not been taken seriously until the late 19th century and many would say the mid-20th century. Your argument is sound, but the timeline is inaccurate.

You make another good point, which is a good one, about the fact that most of creation science revolves around refuting the "science" from evolutionary scientists. But is that not what science is?...trying to prove and disprove a theory or hypothesis? I fervently admit that creation came from God, but I have yet to see convincing science that compells me to believe in something else. The fact that most of the work that creation science does is poke holes in the theory of evolution and the origin of the universe does not make it any less valid work. It is almost as if some are saying, "Even though we know there are tons of holes in these theories, you have no right to point them out because you can not prove your own theory". That is not rational science. Science should involve the search for truth and if a theory cannot explain logical gaps, then it deserves to be rebuked and studied further... and I find that fundamentally scientific.

 

There's all kinds of things that could falsify evolution. A static fossil record for instance, but you don't have that. A crocoduck would falsify evolution because there's no way it could have evolved.

Yes, until they were understood instead of just saying, "See! God did it!"

Then explain ERVs and DNA from a creationist perspective that shows it isn't strong evidence for common descent other than "God put it there."

Cars aren't alive. Therefore this analogy has little to do with biology.

Yes, that's how it work. Slow incremental steps.

Evolution of the eye has been explained already.

By this logic, even if it were possible that there's a creator, does that mean it happened?

It didn't just "happen." That's the creationist perspective, it wasn't there and suddenly it was. Here's an excellent proof of concept for self-replicating chemicals: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/chemical_replicators.php

Evolution is not a religion. That's just what religious people say. We don't worship Darwin. Evidence is found and then conclusions are drawn from that. Creationist have a conclusion and try to seek out evidence.

 

Actually, a crocoduck would HELP the case for evolution, because it would demonstrate at least some type of intermediate form.

The static state of species, is an excellent proof against evolution. thousands of species have undergone NO significant change in "50 million years" or more. We see all the major groups of species appear suddenly, at one time, in the so called "fossil record". It is NOT gradual descent.

Actually, until the last 50 years or so "Thinking God's thoughts after Him" was a popular saying among scientists. Creationists formed the backbone of modern science. Evolutionists are like parasites that came in and invaded the host.

It gets down to the same argument as everything else. Either "God made it" or "It made itself".

Seeing as how many ERV play a crucial role in humans (such as placental development), my obvious answer would be that this mechanism was instituted by our creator (but you already knew I was going to say that).

Here is a good article on it here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/were-retroviruses-created-good

I can see why evolutionists fail so badly at logic. You seem to be incapable of basic reasoning. My analogy did not require for the car to be alive.
The point is, you cannot prove it happened, only that it's possible.

LOL. No it hasn't. This topic is even debated among evolutionists. But you'll notice that they debate HOW it happened, and refuse to even question IF it happened.

Nope. Both systems require faith. I am just open minded enough to admit it, and you need to justify yourself, so you must insist that your opinion is "fully scientific" and logic based.

The fact is, that you CANNOT admit there is a creator. If you did, it would require you to make some lifestyle adjustments. No more looking at those images on your computer. No more lying and stealing to get what you want.

You like those things, so you cling to your evolutionist beliefs. Either A) God does not exist at all, or B) God is detached enough from the human realm, that he doesn't really care what you do. And you can go on being your wicked little self.

But there will come a day, when you'll have to give an account. I pray your ready for it.

Bro, there is no "self replicating chemicals" here. Even the gentleman on the page admitted that. The man took existing poly and oligonucleotides (enzymes, produced by a living creature), and mixed them in a test tube.

And how, pray tell did he get enough of those chemicals for his experiment? Why, he took existing cellular machinery, and created it.

Religion does not require "worship". From the dictionary...

Religion: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

For example, Buddhism originally did not involve a creator (and for many, still does not), NOR worship. Yet it was still a religion.

Evolutionary common descent, is, by definition, a religion. I am sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

 

Creationism isn't just disputing biological evolution, an idea that was around long before Charles Darwin. (Darwin's idea was natural selection.) It's disputing the whole project of explaining natural phenomena by natural causes, which is the very essence of what science is.

Evolutionary naturalism is common to all the sciences. Geologists explain landforms by tectonic processes, igneous and sedimentary petrogenesis and weathering. Astrophysicists give accounts of the formation of planetary systems, meteorologists for the genesis and dissipation of storms. Biological evolution is exactly the same naturalistic approach being applied to living organisms. In all these cases, what is observed now is being explained by inquiry into natural processes that were operating in the past.

That's what science is. That's what it does.

Creationists don't really object to explaining things by reference to events that took place in the past. They do the same thing themselves. What distinguishes creationism from science is that creationism employs miraculous supernatural interventions as its explanatory principles.

So creationism's real argument is with the more basic principle of scientific naturalism. Creationists champion the far more ancient tendency to explain observed earthly phenomena as signs or images of heavenly events, as indications of divine purposes and intentions.

Historically, naturalism first seems to turn up in the middle of the first millenium BCE. It appears in many Greek theories and probably in Indian theories of karmic causation as well. The end of antiquity in the West saw a movement back to the older ideas (colored this time by Christian/Islamic Neoplatonism), with naturalism reemerging once again with the late medieval physical theorists and various arguments for and against Aristotelian physics. The 17'th century saw the definitive rise of modern science and things were off and running.

I guess that post-reformation theology, with its emphasis on the unbridgeable (except for the Bible and Christ) gap between creator and creation, didn't feel particularly challenged by naturalism as long as it restricted itself narrowly to physics, the mundane clock work of the created order. It was when naturalism had success in biology, when it starting having serious things to say about the nature and history of man himself, that some invisible line was finally crossed and the medieval sensibility finally started to fight back.

That reaction against science might find stronger expression over here in the United States than in Europe or Australia because so many early American immigrants were European religious enthusiasts, nonconformists and sectarians. The US has always been kind of a haven for theologically uncompromising forms of Protestantism. (Originally New England, now the American South. An interesting historical reversal.)

 

No it wouldn't. It would falsify evolution. There's no evolutionary way to get a crocoduck.

If an organism is well suited to an enviroment, then there would be no selective pressure to change.

That's the nice thing about science, it can change for the better.

See, that's the problem with creationism. Everything is "God made it."

Once again, "God did it." Now explain why it isn't good support for a branching tree of life. ERVs are in the same place in related animals and you can trace it back. The more genomes we sequence the more we'll be able to do this. Here's a good video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

And this is why creationists fail at logic. They use analogies because that's all they have. No actual evidence. Just "it's impossible" or "it's complicated" or "we don't know, so God must have done it." Once again, NOT science.

There might be a debate about exactly how it happened, but where's the evidence that God just made an eye fully formed?

You calling me a liar and thief?

Now you're calling me wicked?

Many people find evolution and religion not completely mutually exclusive. Only a literal interpretation of the bible and evolution are incompatible because that means you're not specially created. And, BTW, it's "you're."

I said proof of concept, not proof.

Evolution does not require a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. It only requires critical thinking.

 

I'd also like to thank you for proving everyone's point that creationism is not science, but a religious belief because you had to bring up God, judgment, and sinning.

 

Actually, I agree with you. Of course, it is equally impossible to evolve a bunch of dirt into a CROCODILE or a DUCK, at least outside the laboratory (you could do this, possibly, in a laboratory where there is a creator).

Of course, the same problem you quote, is the problem with Duck bill platypus'. They have DNA that completely baffles the evolutionists (and cause no end of arguments 'in the ranks') because they possess DNA from three long since diverged branches of the tree.

Not so. You would really do well with a remedial biology class. In order for evolution to NOT be happening, you need five things to be true of a given population (Hardy-Weinberg):

#1 You can have no immigration or emigration.
#2 A very large population size
#3 NO net mutations
#4 NO natural selection
#5 Completely random mating (no sexual selection, or other sympatric forms of speciation).

Since, as any biologist will tell you, this is impossible in the natural world (some will argue that humans have evolved to the point that we can control our environment, and hence, stop any further genetic change, but this is a moot point. A grasshopper cannot exert this force of technological dominance).

So...you are wrong. And, BTW, it is "environment", not enviroment.

True science should not change, though the discoveries may change, and the knowledge. One of the mightiest blows to science in the 20th and 21st century, is the "just imagine" and "it could have happened" ideas of evolution. Until the evolutionist priests entered into the scene, science was "testable, repeatable, and verifiable", and unfounded, unprovable speculations were excluded.

Same problem with the Common descent religion. "God made nothing". Equally unprovable.

The problem with the ERV evidence, is that it is a circular argument. "Evolution happened, so this is evidence of evolution, so evolution happened".

I gave you an excellent article to read, that explained the presence of those ERV's, did I not?

By the way, you know that, with the exception of one, ERV's will ALWAYS code to the same section?

Funny. I am going to respond with your own statement, later in this post.

"I said proof of concept, not proof."

You know what "proof of concept" is? Since your not really "proving" anything, and showing "one way that it might have worked", it's basically like my car analogy.

No proof. Just a fancy "scientific sounding" analogy.

ROFL. Silly evolutionist.

The fact that there is debate about "how" it happened, and not "WHETHER" it happened, is proof positive that evolutionary scientists are "faith based". If there were proof showing it HAD happened, it would tell them HOW it happened.

But there is no proof. Just "it had to have happened", and my favorite "visualize it". Kind of like scientific Buddhism.

Funny.

Yep. But don't feel too bad. I have lied and stolen as well. The difference is, I acknowledge my creator, and ask for forgiveness.

Oh yes. Definitely. "desperately wicked", in fact. Your so bad, you could not even change your ways if you wanted to.

Note my "B" from above. A non involved creator. A creator that doesn't care enough to punish sin.

And btw: typically when people start correcting typing errors, they are aware of how badly they are losing a debate, and resort to such trivial tactics. Except, of course, for my sarcastic quoting of your own mistake, above.

LOL.

If an evolutionist had one scrap of logical thinking, they could look at this magnificent creation and realize their is a creator that made it.

If you looked at my car and told me it evolved, I would tell you how crazy you are. We are much more complex than a car, and a person must be brain dead to believe in evolution.

The idea that "nothing" blew up, and evolved into everything, is not critical thinking, it is scientific voodoo.

 

Actually, I didn't HAVE to bring it up. It is very obvious that your knowledge in this subject matter is very limited, from a biological view.

I CHOSE to bring it up, because you are going to die and go to hell someday, unless you repent, and believe the gospel, and I care enough to warn you.

Sue me.

 

You are THAT sure he is going to hell? What makes you so sure you are going to heaven? Save your beliefs and judgements for yourself, you don't need to force them down others throats.

Abner

 

Congratulations on flip-flopping on your position of the crocoduck.

Then show examples of static specifies and how they have made NO (ZERO) evolutionary changes in DNA in "50 million years." Prove their DNA is the same, they've had no immigration or emigration, prove their population size, prove there's no net mutations (or any DNA changes), and prove who mated with whom.

Always with "some." Like that completely disproves evolution that "some" don't agree on certain aspects.

And "most" will agree that human evolution is continuing despite our ability to control environment.

Oops, forgot to right click that in Firefox to correct the spelling. It finds the spelling errors, but not the simple 3rd grade grammatical errors.

That's right, because all that is "true" was already revealed.

WTF is an evolutionist priest? I haven't seen them wearing any robes one day a week.

Quite the contrary, you're the one proposing "God made it." Therefore, you have to prove it. The evidence clearly points to natural ways of evolving and common descent.

No. Creationist have the copyright on circular reasoning. "The Bible says it happened so it happened because the Bible says it happened." Creationist provide no evidence against evolution. All it can do it try to nit-pick at certain things (which get debunked anyways).

I asked for YOU to say why it doesn't support a branching tree of life (common descent). Not AiG's "God put it there in DNA" response.

Hey, that's great if an ERV is currently used to encode for things. But why do related animals have ERVs in the same spots in DNA working backwards on a branching tree of life?

Common ancestry.

Proof of concept for self replicating chemicals is much more scientific than your dropping cars out of planes. This is an advancement in knowledge, yours is an analogy of probability. One is an experiment, the other is rhetoric.

The thing about science is it doesn't claim anything is absolute. The only difference is, creationists deny the things that go against their religion. Therefore they attack evolution, big bang theory, the constant speed of light in a vacuum, etc.

And where's the creationist "proof" of either "how" or "whether?"

Great. That still doesn't change the fact you made a personal attack against all those wicked evolutionists. I guess you'll have to ask for forgiveness for that too.

#1 It's still "you're."
#2 Why would I want to change?
#3 AGAIN, you're providing evidence creationism is NOT science, but purely a religious idea.
#4 Aren't you NOT supposed to judge?

Oh I see, it's sarcastic when you do it. Great, I guess you're above me. I guess you weren't losing the debate. Actually the "your" and "you're" thing is just my pet peeve. I let misspellings and other errors slide, but that one just drives me nuts. Maybe I was created to point out the incorrect use of your. I bet I could write my master's thesis on that for my MS in creationism. There's no way to disprove it so it must be right.

Actually, your car did evolve. Your car wasn't the first car created. It was "evolved" not through biology, but by the continued efforts of living people and their creative processes. Otherwise, your car would have been the first created.


Also, evolutionary theory doesn't state "nothing blew up into everything." This is simply ad reductum absurdum.


Lastly, what practical use does creationism have outside of a religious context? How can it cure diseases? What diseases can it cure? What advancements in human knowledge can creationism give humanity? What PREDICTIONS can creationism produce?

 

A man that watches a blind man walk towards a cliff, and does nothing to stop him, is a murderer.

FYI, they are not my judgments (there is no 'e' in judgment: sorry, evolutionists habits are rubbing off on me): they are God's.

 

In all fairness, I didn't dispute the images on the computer thing. =)

 

So now you're asserting how God is going to judge others.



I'm sure He won't be happy to hear that.

 

Actually it does. Look up the definition of an "infinitesimal region" (beginning of the 'Big Bang': a small speck of matter, possibly atomic sized, that "expanded" and formed all we see today), or even worse, for those "Crazy Quantum Mechanics" guys, a literal cosmic burp in nothingness, which made matter (a scientific impossibility, but hey, anything is better than admitting there is a God, right?).

First, modern science, and the western critical mind, was birthed out of the Reformation. If it wasn't for guys like John Calvin, Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, etc., you'd be driving a buggy pulled by horses, on your way to see the pope yap about how the Church needs more money.

Second, there are TONS of modern luxuries that were birthed out of the "Creationist" vein of science: for example, the MRI, which has saved thousands of people, was invented by one of us "whacky creationists".

Also, Creationists are the only reason critical thinking is still allowed, apparently. For those who don't know, The Texas board of Education just removed rules requiring the use of "Critical reasoning" regarding different scientific theories (not just evolution), because of a bunch of activist evolutionists, that do not want their pet theory scrutinized to hard. Creationists have been more successful in other states, at keeping this vital piece of the scientific process alive.

Evolutionists are scared. If they were not, they would simply "open the flood gates" and say "Look. This is why Creationism does not make sense, scientifically." But they will never do that. Because they know they would lose.

 

They are not your judgements? But in your words you have decided that Dark Dan is going to hell when he dies? You are uttering those words, not god. You should worry about your own salvation friend.

Abner