Evolution or Creation?

[bobtheking]

No, but it's a better guess to think they came from *a* factory rather than poofing into existance because on an invisible pink unicorn

if its invisible, how can it be pink?

 

[Aegeri]

if its invisible, how can it be pink?

Because I've seen it, and it is indeed pink.

 

[Metakill]

A Honda Civic and a Geo Metro kinda look alike. Doesn't mean they came from the same factory.

Well, lets take the classic example. Whales kinda look like fish. You'll notice they are not classified together just because they kinda look alike. Their classification is based not on a casual observance, but on repeated measurements of every minute detail available, across every available specimen, species, habitat, and physical history found.

If scientists were able to dissect the Civic, as well as many other honda models, and compare it to the results of dissecting the Metro and many other Geo models, eventually patterns would become apparent that would enable a classification of these cars by the type of designs and manufacturing processes used to build them. Of course, it wouldn't even be analagous to an evolutionary chart, since cars don't evolve naturally, they are created.

Creation is of course, a human process, and in the long struggle to preserve the ethnocentricity of maintaining a God created in the image of man, creationists insist on ascribing human-like qualities to God.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

If scientists were able to dissect the Civic, as well as many other honda models, and compare it to the results of dissecting the Metro and many other Geo models, eventually patterns would become apparent that would enable a classification of these cars by the type of designs and manufacturing processes used to build them. Of course, it wouldn't even be analagous to an evolutionary chart, since cars don't evolve naturally, they are created.

But wouldn't it stand to reason that even created things are created in their "order" and any seeming similarities could be attriuted to their creation and not to "evolution"?

Creation is of course, a human process, and in the long struggle to preserve the ethnocentricity of maintaining a God created in the image of man, creationists insist on ascribing human-like qualities to God.

Why exactly couldn't he have human-like qualities? Anyway, I would argue that creation isn't a HUMAN process, but an INTELLIGENT process.

 

[Dus]

Why exactly couldn't he have human-like qualities? Anyway, I would argue that creation isn't a HUMAN process, but an INTELLIGENT process.

I wouldn't say that as such. Dolphins and chimps are intelligent too, but they've never created anything (at least to my knowledge ).

I would argue that creation is a creation process

/me runs

 

[W0RF]

It is however apparent that you are persistently anti-humourous.

No less apparent than you being persistently anti-funny. It doesn't help your argument that you base your pun on nitpicking a fairly common literary device.

A Honda Civic and a Geo Metro kinda look alike. Doesn't mean they came from the same factory.

Actually, the Metro looks exactly like the Suzuki Swift. And there's a reason for that.

No, but it's a better guess to think they came from *a* factory rather than poofing into existance because on an invisible pink unicorn.

As much as you have railed against straw men, I was hoping you would eventually move away from these absurd comparisons. By selecting an example which has absolutely no basis for belief, you draw an unfair comparison to a belief in God which in fact has a very solid basis for belief. And if there are reasons to believe that God exists, then you have to consider whether the God of the Bible is true. And if there are reasons to believe that, then you have to consider whether He did in fact create the universe, as claimed. It's a pretty simple progression of reasoning. Flights of fancy that you made up 5 seconds before typing them for the sole reason of being arbitrary, are not a good comparative analogy.

For the short answer, the fact they blatantly lie and distort even simple facts. Without these little liberties of truth they don't get very far. If you have to rely on fraudulent means to establish your position, you haven't got much of a scientific position to begin with.

I'm amused that evolutionary theory can seek the moral high ground in this case, after the grand adventures like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Cardiff Giant, Shinichi Fujimura digging up "artifacts" he buried himself... the bottom line is, people who are predisposed to certain ideas can go to great lengths to propogate their theories. This is not a "creationist" problem, this is a human problem.

In short, the entire problem with arguments of this nature is that empirical science presupposes a closed system. By its nature it can only qualify what it can quantify, therefore by default nothing can exist outside of such a system. Religion, on the other hand, is largely metaphysical in nature, and grounded in things that exist outside a closed system, or within an open system, depending on your perspective. On these grounds, science and religion are based on wholly incompatible premises (other than their common quest for truth and advancement of the human condition), because some who believe in strict science will use the closed system to demonstrate that God does not AND CANNOT exist (never mind the paradox they have created), and some who believe in a higher power will similarly conclude that science must invariably be wrong and unreliable when they appear to contradict each other. To say one or the other of these does an injustice to the efforts of the other. To do so with a high degree of confience demonstrates the kind of hubris which only goes to show how little we really know about ourselves and our universe.

 

[Renegade Retard]

I have yet, in all my time of arguing about this topic, never encountered a creationist who had any decent grasp of biology at all.

Sorry Pal, but just because someone disagrees with the evolution model doesn't mean they don't "grasp" biology. You can't deny that there are many creationists who are just as qualified as you (and I ) in the fields of study. You know your stuff and are right on in your facts (yes, I understood every word you posted, though you tried to talk above everyone heads), and I've enjoyed debating with you, but please don't be overly pompus. It would ruin the debate.

I've got several meetings here at the office today and tomorrow, so I might not be able to post many replies. I'll try to catch up later in the week if it's still going. This has been an enjoyable debate with everyone stating their arguments but not taking it too personal (other than Sam, who like usual just jumps in, flames people, then leaves without contributing anything of value).

 

[bobtheking]

I'm amused that evolutionary theory can seek the moral high ground in this case, after the grand adventures like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Cardiff Giant, Shinichi Fujimura digging up "artifacts" he buried himself... the bottom line is, people who are predisposed to certain ideas can go to great lengths to propogate their theories. This is not a "creationist" problem, this is a human problem.

science/other scientists rejects people like this (as soon as they know it of course). as far as i can tell, creationism generally does not.

you will never prevent all frauds of any field, how the rest of the field reacts is what matters.

 

[W0RF]

science/other scientists rejects people like this (as soon as they know it of course). as far as i can tell, creationism generally does not.

you will never prevent all frauds of any field, how the rest of the field reacts is what matters.

That applies equally to religion. The difference is, I'm giving science credit for weeding out fraudulent claims.

Of course, when religion weeds out frauds and distortions, they're accused of... frauds and distortions (see also: Nicean Council).

 

[Aegeri]

As much as you have railed against straw men, I was hoping you would eventually move away from these absurd comparisons.

Disprove an Invisible Pink Unicorn please. Until then, it stands.

You see, I could have said, Zeus, Hera, Set, Ra or any number of insert "X" creation myths here. I just happen to believe the pink unicorn did it*. It's no more valid or invalid than anything you would claim.

Again, why personal beliefs should not be regarded on the same sort of level as one backed by scientific evidence.

Until you can prove that an Invisible Pink Unicorn COULDN'T have done it, then you don't have any argument here.

By selecting an example which has absolutely no basis for belief, you draw an unfair comparison to a belief in God which in fact has a very solid basis for belief.

I could select Zeus or any of the Greek Gods, simply reference the Illiad and suddenly we're back at square one again. I use the Invisible Pink Unicorn because it's typically thrown out in another boards debate, and I assure you, there is just as much evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn as any other diety.

You just can't see it

And if there are reasons to believe that God exists, then you have to consider whether the God of the Bible is true.

Except that I doubt such reasons are any more valid than aliens, invisible pink unicorns or whatever else. Beyond your personal beliefs, they have no real verifiable empiracle or testable evidence (at least similarly to aliens).

Again, philosophically argue anything you like, just don't claim it's truth or 'science'.

And if there are reasons to believe that, then you have to consider whether He did in fact create the universe, as claimed.

Again, philosophy, not science.

You've done nothing more than make a large string of completely irrelevant points so far.

It's a pretty simple progression of reasoning. Flights of fancy that you made up 5 seconds before typing them for the sole reason of being arbitrary, are not a good comparative analogy.

Yeah it is, there is just as much evidence for you to prove "God" as an invisible man in the sky, as there is to prove my invisible Pink Unicorn. For all you know, my Invisible Pink Unicorn could be identical to your invisible man in the sky. You can't disprove that concept, I cannot prove my concept.

Hence, philosophy, not science.

All you've done is establish you haven't understood any of my argument.

I'm amused that evolutionary theory can seek the moral high ground in this case, after the grand adventures like Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, the Cardiff Giant, Shinichi Fujimura digging up "artifacts" he buried himself... the bottom line is, people who are predisposed to certain ideas can go to great lengths to propogate their theories. This is not a "creationist" problem, this is a human problem.

Irrelevant point number, not sure what we are up to now. In case you didn't read what I wrote, I already mentioned Ernst Haeckel in one of my previous posts and how he was exposed as a fraud by the scientific community. I made 100% sure to bring this up much earlier becuase I knew it would come up, obviously I didn't make it blatantly obvious enough. Of course, it's worth nothingw aside from the fact I already answered it, is the evolutionary frauds were all shown as such, by other scientists. Whereas the creationists various frauds are usually maintained (because without them they cannot maintain an argument). Shall we go over the appendix again? Human dinosaur footprints?

There is a world of difference here that I'm surprised you don't see.

In short, the entire problem with arguments of this nature is that empirical science presupposes a closed system. By its nature it can only qualify what it can quantify, therefore by default nothing can exist outside of such a system.

Here is where you are wrong, no such thing is said. What is said, is that you cannot establish anything about what you cannot test. Again, you are more than probably upset that science doesn't acknowledge 'God', yet it also doesn't acknowledge Allah, Ganesh, Zeus, Set, Invisible Pink Unicorns or whatever else you can probably come up with for the same reasons. Unless you consider them all, it's merely espousing beliefs and not science.

As a result, it has very little credibility and doesn't fit in a journal, science classroom or laboratory.

You see, never once in these debates will I claim what I personally believe is more correct, I will argue merely from the evidence alone. From the evidence alone, Evolution has a massive, overwhelming amount in its favour. That is the only reason I support it, because like it or not, so does the evidence and the predictions made by evolution, AGAIN, bear out time and time again.

Again, if you can give solid evidence explaining why YOUR religions world view is MORE legitimate than what I can make up, the old gods in the past (Zeus etc) and the like, then there isn't a lot of point in what you are saying.

Religion, on the other hand, is largely metaphysical in nature, and grounded in things that exist outside a closed system, or within an open system, depending on your perspective. On these grounds, science and religion are based on wholly incompatible premises (other than their common quest for truth and advancement of the human condition), because some who believe in strict science will use the closed system to demonstrate that God does not AND CANNOT exist (never mind the paradox they have created), and some who believe in a higher power will similarly conclude that science must invariably be wrong and unreliable when they appear to contradict each other.

That isn't science either, because you can't prove anything nor is there any evidence that a God doesn't exist. I'm just as exasperated at those who think evolution 'disproves' a creator, as I am in those who think Evolution is merely evil atheist lies to disuade children from Jesus or what have you.

[qute]To say one or the other of these does an injustice to the efforts of the other. To do so with a high degree of confience demonstrates the kind of hubris which only goes to show how little we really know about ourselves and our universe.[/QUOTE]

Not really, I'm not sure what point you're making here and if it's relevant to my argument at all.

As anyone reading this should know, I've already established that I have 'beliefs' about why the world was made, but that I'm ready to admit that anyone elses 'beliefs' are just as legitimate because I can NEVER prove mine. When it comes to the actual, biological science, then I can say someone is wrong/right because now we're arguing in the realms of tangible facts and evidence that can be clearly established.

Again, my problem with creationism is because it takes a 'belief' and calls it a 'science', which is intellectually corrupt to begin with. Not that it takes a 'belief' and says here is what might have happened from a philosophical stand point.

Sorry Pal, but just because someone disagrees with the evolution model doesn't mean they don't "grasp" biology.

Usually this is the case, after all, we've already had some golden abuses of biology already. Why is it all of these gross misapplications of simple biology are concentrated on the creationist side?

You can't deny that there are many creationists who are just as qualified as you (and I ) in the fields of study.

Shame they never are able to show it, nor get significant papers published as they fail the peer review process as they can't support their arguments properly (then complain about a scientific conspiracy agains them of course).

You know your stuff and are right on in your facts, and I've enjoyed debating with you, but please don't be overly pompus. It would ruin the debate.

When you've done this enough as I have, you start noticing these little trends. Again, every debate I have ever done on this, the creationist 'side' of the debate doesn't seem to have any good grasp of even basic biological principals, or only that. Yet, many of these people swear that evolution couldn't of occured (or make similar silly statements) on nothing more than personal beliefs without knowing any actual evidence/principles.

I could happily prove this as well with some quotes from the wide variety of arguments I have had on this subject (with links so that some can see the context too, as everyone knows, context can be everything).

(yes, I understood every word you posted, though you tried to talk above everyone heads)

That is not hard, because I typically don't get very complex, or at least I try not too. If I do, I regard that as a failure as you cannot make a point in a debate if nobody understands you. For example, I probably only went into 1% of the evidence for why making a statement like "there is just as much evidence we evolved from birds as anything else" is completely wrong. I simplified it straight down to the basic differences in the skulls of those dinosaurs that became mammals and those that ultimately became birds to show how this statement is incorrect at a basic level. I could have gone further, mentioning in great detail how the mammalian jaw evolved and from what parts of the synapsid skull were critical (and why being synapsid was important anyway).

Heck, saying "you understood what I wrote" makes me pleased becuase that is what I hope people would think! If I did get too complex or if someone couldn't understand what I wrote, I would hope people ask for clarification rather than being baffled and thinking "it must be right because it's confusing".

*Disclaimer: Just for those curious, I do not believe in an invisble pink unicorn and yes, I am merely using it deliberately to be absurd. I'd love someone to prove such a being does NOT exist. I have stories of Unicorns after all, one of which SOMEWHERE will turn out to be pink to 'prove' such an deity may have existed.

 

[W0RF]

Disprove an Invisible Pink Unicorn please. Until then, it stands.

You are talking about two completely different concepts here. I didn't say God exists because you can't disprove Him. I said there ARE evidences FOR His existence. I refuse to get into a debate with you about proving negatives. As a scientific mind you should know better.

Yeah it is, there is just as much evidence for you to prove "God" as an invisible man in the sky, as there is to prove my invisible Pink Unicorn. For all you know, my Invisible Pink Unicorn could be identical to your invisible man in the sky. You can't disprove that concept, I cannot prove my concept.

If you can't prove your concept, don't front it.

Comparatively speaking, God said He was real, and He said that He would establish the Jewish people upon the earth as a reflection of His kingdom in Heaven. To this day, of the civilizations of antiquity from that period in time, the Amalakites, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Babylonians... all gone. Absorbed into other cultures within 5 generations of the ends of their empires. 2000 years after being scattered to the 4 corners of the globe, the Jews retain their cultural and national heritage.
He also said He would send a Messiah. Jesus walked the earth claiming to be the Son of God. To prove it, He died and rose on the third day. In this very small handful of simple truths are the basic outline of why I believe what I believe. It's not something I made up to be facetious and start talking about proving negatives. It's something that was documented by the people who were there to see it happen. That's not a philosophy, that's a historical framework that forms the basis of my faith. Again, you absolutely cannot compare garbage you make up just to try and make other people's beliefs sound more stupid than they are.

All you've done is establish you haven't understood any of my argument.

I've understood your argument just fine. And I utterly reject your notion that people believe in something "just because".

I made 100% sure to bring this up much earlier becuase I knew it would come up, obviously I didn't make it blatantly obvious enough. Of course, it's worth nothingw aside from the fact I already answered it, is the evolutionary frauds were all shown as such, by other scientists.

I think it's more accurate to say that the frauds were accepted by the scientific community, until such time as the evidence was such that it was then rejected by that same community. Anyone who scoffed at such notions I'm sure were dismissed as unscientific, until their claims were demonstrated to be correct. Hypothetical: if we discover that the earth is in fact 10,000 years old, who gets the credit then, the Young Earthers, or "other scientists"?

etc etc etc about how evolution is obvious and creation is a whim of the foolhardy and no one who knows anything about biology thinks it can happen

There are one or two people smarter than me who don't necessarily agree with you. I generally don't like to appeal to authority but if you're going to make it an issue than here are a few people with an alphabet soup after their name.

And some thick reading for the more thick-brained among us. Warning: heady stuff to the uninitiated. biologicamal stuffs

Frankly, I don't care if you read it or not, nor if it alters your opinion about origins in any way. I'm just done with the whole, "the only people who talk about this crap are frauds and crackpots" angle, or being asked to put it aside and place my faith in an origins model where scientists can't even agree on how it happened.

 

[bobtheking]

Hypothetical: if we discover that the earth is in fact 10,000 years old, who gets the credit then, the Young Earthers, or "other scientists"?

other scientists, absolutely. because right now Young Earthers seem like irrational crackpots. if someone proves the earth to be 10,000 years old, it will be done with science, not the bible.

where scientists can't even agree on how it happened.

they don't claim to know. they claim to have theories, some of which appear to be better than others. we will research them more, attempt to poke holes in them, etc. until we find out what really happened. this is the major difference, creationists would be satisfied to continue blindly believing the bible. if science could prove creationism right, that would be a victory for science. science is after what really happened, not to keep the religious people down (unlike what your edit: (your being religion) massive persecution complex tells you), but not one iota of empirical evidence exists to support this 'theory', so science doesn't invest much time in it.

 

[W0RF]

other scientists, absolutely. because right now Young Earthers seem like irrational crackpots. if someone proves the earth to be 10,000 years old, it will be done with science, not the bible.

... because... no creationists use scientific methods?

if science could prove creationism right, that would be a victory for science.

You write off my observations as a persecution complex, but this idealistic view of science I find highly pompous. As I said before, despite the best intentions of science, people are wont to bend it to their will, much like zealots do with religious convictions. I thought I made that SYSTEMIC PROBLEM OF HUMANITY plain in an earlier reply. People DO have ulterior motives which cloud the truth. Gould himself wrote "It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—'Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…' We have not fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these grounds," even as he correctly points out that evolution is simply a scientific observation, and should not itself be the culprit writ large as the root of the problem. HE ACKNOWLEDGES exactly what I'm talking about here, and what you confirm when you suggest science as the cure-all, and creationism as the pipe dream of people who base all of their reserach on the Bible.

Please look more carefully at the debate taking place in scientific circles. Those arguing creationism or ID are not trying to supplant science, they are trying to advance it, as per the numerous articles above. And those who are opposed to evolution are not opposed to empirical science, but in the extrapolation of such science to suggest that their religion is itself false. To that end, I present "materialist evolution" as both science and philosophy, and Dawkins as its most visible proponent.

 

[Aegeri]

You are talking about two completely different concepts here. I didn't say God exists because you can't disprove Him. I said there ARE evidences FOR His existence. I refuse to get into a debate with you about proving negatives. As a scientific mind you should know better.

Iroically, this is my point, though we will disagree on the evidence part. What evidence you can come up with is just what you believe is evidence, but ultimately I can contrast events in the Illiad, which is arguably also based on historic events and cite it as 'proof' of the Greek Gods.

If you can't prove your concept, don't front it.

As I said, you can't prove yours either.

Hence what this entie point of mine is about.

Comparatively speaking, God said He was real, and He said that He would establish the Jewish people upon the earth as a reflection of His kingdom in Heaven.

And he's massacred them multiple times. He had the Christians do it three times, he had the Romans do it, he had peoples in the middle east do it, he had the Goths do it, he had the Russians do it etc etc.

I guess if that is a 'reflection' of 'his' people then it must be pretty violent up there. Aside from my being slightly snarky on this point, I could say:

"Comparatively speaking, the Unicorn said she was real, and she said that she would establish horse kind as her people on earth as a reflection of her kingdom in the meadows"

Whatever, as always, debaing philosophy won't get us very far other than espousing unprovable and usually unassailable beliefs.

To this day, of the civilizations of antiquity from that period in time, the Amalakites, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Babylonians... all gone. Absorbed into other cultures within 5 generations of the ends of their empires.

The English, the Americans and many other cultures did this too. Does this mean they are Gods people as well?

2000 years after being scattered to the 4 corners of the globe, the Jews retain their cultural and national heritage.

After being massacred multiple times and then fighting for a homeland.

He also said He would send a Messiah. Jesus walked the earth claiming to be the Son of God. To prove it, He died and rose on the third day. In this very small handful of simple truths

To you yes, where is your actual verifiable and testable evidence that A: God exists, and B: that these events actually happened in exactly the manner you describe?

are the basic outline of why I believe what I believe.

Fair enough, my point is don't call it science or something that should be taught as a scientific theory in a classroom as creationism attempts to.

It's not something I made up to be facetious and start talking about proving negatives. It's something that was documented by the people who were there to see it happen.

Two words: The Illiad.

Of course, now we have lots of fun. Does this mean Saint Georges dragon exists? Did a Chinese emporer fly around with two large flying lizards (presumably dragons) as steeds on his Chariot? Was Achilles really indestructible except for a small part of the back of his foot? People recorded these in the past, does that *automatically* make them true as well?

hat's not a philosophy

Nope, still philosophy.

Of course, now we start talking about archaeology and what you can establish with archaeology. Much of it will verify that biblical events happened, just as you can verify that yes, there was a seige at a place called troy. Does that mean that God parted the seas, because there is some evidence of such a crossing? If yes, why doesn't it also establish that the Greek God of the sun deliberately changed the course of an arrows path to slay Achilles?

Again, you're still trying to debate philosophy ultimately, because I'm more than certain you would regard archaeological evidence as proving one, YOUR world view and not the other (That the Greek Gods existed).

, that's a historical framework that forms the basis of my faith. Again, you absolutely cannot compare garbage you make up just to try and make other people's beliefs sound more stupid than they are.

Again, I can point out the many stories (and there are many) that point out fantastic creatures like Dragons, Unicorns and whatever else. I could, if I was bored enough, drag some of the old Greek legends out and make an entire cosmology around the Invisible Pink Unicorn if I felt like it. I could then 'prove' my logic in the same way you have, by claiming that because people recorded 'encounters' with Unicorns in the past, it thereby proves that my Invisible Pink Unicorn "God" must exist.

All I would be doing is what you are now, taking what historical evidence is available and putting my belief into it that it proves my case. I can't say that Jesus wasn't ressurected on the third day, you can't say that Unicorns didn't exist for the purposes I claim. I cannot disprove your argument and nor can you still disprove mine. If I decided to use the Greek Gods, it would be even harder for you, because I'd have a large amount of 'literature' and 'historical evidence' that would 'prove' that these Gods existed. None of it of course would in fact definitively prove these Gods existed, because the evidence itself does not inherently automatically mean a God existed, it could have meant a lucky shot (Paris arrow for example), brilliant thinking by a general (Troy) or a variety of other factors that are distinctly undivine.

Again, as I kept mentioning, you argue your belief and claim it is 'right' because it is your belief. I cannot prove you wrong so obviously I have to accept your position as being a possibility. The very fact you immediately dismiss an "Invisible Pink Unicorn" merely proves everything I've been saying and nothing more.

Again, your beliefs are exactly that, but don't call it science unless you can truely verify and dismiss other possibilities.

I've understood your argument just fine. And I utterly reject your notion that people believe in something "just because".

Never said that, one of the things I have spoken about is that people believe things and take whatever evidence is around to 'indicate' something. For example, many people believe in a creator simply because life exists and don't need to get any more particularly complicated than that (and why bother anyway?). All I have said is it is impossible to definitively 'prove' something that you inherently cannot prove the existance of (such as a deity) to set yourself in an unassailable position (which ultimately arguing the existance/non-existance of God IS).

Unless something can be tested through predictions that are found to be true or false, you cannot definitively say "It's because".

I think it's more accurate to say that the frauds were accepted by the scientific community, until such time as the evidence was such that it was then rejected by that same community.

Correct, missing the entire point of something called peer review and that science will correct mistakes and replace outdated ideas with new ones. The frauds made predictions, others tested their predictions and found they did not match up. Peer review caught them out and they were essentially exposed.

This is because, unlike with things you cannot test (Would you like to describe a test to verify Jesus was ressurected other than the, ultimately anecdotal accounts available?), scientific ideas and thories have to make predictions that ULTIMATELY must bear out with the available evidence. When these peoples ideas didn't, they got discredited and their ideas no longer accepted.

Again, you make a hypothesis in science to DISPROVE the concept. Creationists try to make a hypothesis that what-have-you diety did it and then prove the concept, ignoring what evidence (or lack usually) to the contrary there is.

If you do not get this point yet, you have not understood my argument.

Anyone who scoffed at such notions I'm sure were dismissed as unscientific, until their claims were demonstrated to be correct.

Actually wrong, there is still large debates as to which lineages of dinosaur gave rise to the first birds for example. Niche selection is another one of those controversial new evolutionary theories.

Actually, may I ask Worf, have you ever actually read a scientific journal to know what is currently being debated, argued about at the moment?

Hypothetical: if we discover that the earth is in fact 10,000 years old, who gets the credit then, the Young Earthers, or "other scientists"?

Whoever proved it obviously, because they've done something almost as remarkable as the evolutionary theory to begin with. Escpecially because to do so, they've proven a remarkably accurate form of radioactive decay dating, namely using Uranium/Lead encased in zirconian cages to be incorrect.

But again, the scientific community will adapt to the new idea.

How about this:

Hypothetical: The bibles first authentic age is found and reads, "To my dearest daughter Jenna. The contents and people in this book are fictitious and any similarity to real events or people is purely coincidental etc"

In this case, I would guarantee you would say that is a fake and carry on with your same beliefs.

Again, the difference between science and what someone personally believes.

There are one or two people smarter than me who don't necessarily agree with you. I generally don't like to appeal to authority but if you're going to make it an issue than here are a few people with an alphabet soup after their name.

Yes, like "Dr" Kent Hovinid.

How about:

www.nature.com

You know, a credible scientific journal?

Your appeal to authority is rejected until you get an actual scientific source. Really, I've asked continually for links to journal articles, not to people with qualifications from degree mills (look up the "University" where "Dr" Kent Hovinid got his "degree"). [To avoid further miscommunication, obviously I did not refer to the actual credible Universities that some on that site have, such as the University of Washington for example. Use your head people and think first and react after, see post below for further clarification].

And in case you are wondering, I also have a few letters after my name as well. I'm hardly intimidated.

And some thick reading for the more thick-brained among us. Warning: heady stuff to the uninitiated. biologicamal stuffs

Heady stuff? Not really. Pollination has already been answered, here is a hint, look at nature.com instead of sites with no applicable science in them (but a lot of misdirected facts).

Frankly, I don't care if you read it or not, nor if it alters your opinion about origins in any way.

Seen them before, come now worf, I've been doing this so long I know some of the URLs to these sites like the back of my hand. The same arguments come up, every single time. Every single time I've pointed out the exact same mistakes in some of those articles. Really, a poorly researched website from a biased source isn't going to amuse me particularly. A well written, proven report in a credible scientific journal will do wonders for your argument.

I'm just done with the whole, "the only people who talk about this crap are frauds and crackpots" angle

Sadly, many of them are.

, or being asked to put it aside and place my faith in an origins model where scientists can't even agree on how it happened.

Ahhhh such is why science starts with an idea and disproves it first. Nobody agrees on how it happened because it is generally accepted that the evidence can indicate multiple routes and ways of something occuring.

And we've come full circle, with you providing the last critical (and fatal) blow to your own argument. You think there is 'one' solution like those creationists up there, you've clearly started with your own conclusion and attempt to fit evidence into that conclusion and disregard evidence to the contrary. Now you know why creationists are not considered scientists, are the general joke of the scientific community and have major problems with credibility. Again, you want to think that creationism is valid, then like scientists accept multiple ways that biological evolution may have occured, you need to accept multiple ways in which supernatural/deity may have created the world.

Where belief differs from science, is I can acknowledge multiple ways of something evolving based on the evidence available, unless the evidence is rock solid enough to accept one main idea (such as reptile/mammal evolution). With belief, you just say THIS happened and fit/disregard evidence to make that fit, as those creationists you linked to do.

There is the difference between science and belief.

because no creationists use scientific methods

Eureka, he's got it folks!

Those arguing creationism or ID are not trying to supplant science, they are trying to advance it, as per the numerous articles above.

Not really, unless we have a difference in the meaning of advance now as well. I wouldn't imagine that creationism of any sort, that organisms were created as they were unchanging, would be able to explain things such as rapid aquisition of pathogenicity factors in bacteria (in response to antibiotics). That is a prediction that evolution could make, explain easily and provide explanations for. With a creation view of the world, such a thing is an impossibility because it immediately denies that organisms were created in the state they are now and that they have remained in a similar way since creation.

And as I said, those articles are not advancing anything, mostly wrong and some have some extremely incorrect or plain taken entirely out of context ideas. I may try to find the large rebuttal I wrote to one in particular, on pollination that I recall from a while back. Pollination is hardly a problem for evolution, it's just what they've made it up to be.

 

[Metakill]

Comparatively speaking, God said He was real, and He said that He would establish the Jewish people upon the earth as a reflection of His kingdom in Heaven. To this day, of the civilizations of antiquity from that period in time, the Amalakites, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Babylonians... all gone.

The Chinese are still here.

Also, this saying God said this and did this, reminds me of when Jehovah's Witnesses try to convince me that the Bible was written by God, because "look, it says so right here...in THE BIBLE." I forget the name of this fallacy, but I'm not fooled by it.

I have seen evidence of God's existence, not in the Bible, but in math, in history, in the existence of consciousness itself, in personal experience. But none of it is sound science.

I also agree that there are definitely people who use science to further their own agendas. That is bad science. And I do truly feel sorry for people who have bought into the whole "technological superiority of the modern world" means "science = the win", and been turned off from religious experience by the spiritual tightwads who intead of spreading love and joy, seem hellbent on everyone doing it their way and ruining everyone elses fun.

Disprove an Invisible Pink Unicorn please. Until then, it stands.

That is utterly preposterous. How can an invisible unicorn be pink?

Edit: Sorry, I missed the earlier post. You guy are too fast for me.

 

[Aegeri]

I also agree that there are definitely people who use science to further their own agendas.

The irony that you have to wonder about is, does Worf realise this is all creationists are?

It's also worth noting that this has been covered, in the pages of nature no less, in relation to drug company research and stating conflicts of interest. Something that is becoming an important, but acknowledged (unlike what Worf implies) problem with certain areas of research.

That is utterly preposterous. How can an invisible unicorn be pink?

Because I saw her, and she was pink.

I know I saw it because she said I saw her.

I remember reading somewhere that the unicorn is always right.

So if the unicorn is always right, and it says I saw it, then I must have seen it and I thought it was pink.

There is no contradiction here either, she can still be invisible and pink, because the book I read said so, and as it was said by her, and she is always right, she can be both invisible and pink.

Don't believe those heretics who say she is a 'he' however, they are trying to lead you down the path of woozlewuzzle.

[Note, I don't believe in a Unicorn]

 

[bobtheking]

... because... no creationists use scientific methods?

yes. how can you possibly use a scientific method for arriving at a conclusion when you don't have any evidence to base your conclusion (one way or another) on. you can't base it on the bible, because you have no way of knowing whether that is true or not.

since i am more of a mathematician than i biologist, i will use an example that i am more familiar with. when proving a theorem, you have to prove or reference proofs of all of the operations you do (to a point of course). i can't just make up an arbitrary step and then say "well everyone's been doing it for 2000 years, of course its true!".

its a bad example, but you are a very articulate man, i'm sure you will see the point.

as for the rest of your post, i pretty much agree, both sides have extremists. i would like to think though that most scientists do not let some preconcieved ideas cloud their conclusions. i think a lot of people will twist and use their conclusions for what they will, but the ones doing the work themselves probably are very open minded.

edit: i'm not talking about evolutionists alone here, creationists will twist science much more than evolutionists. see thermodynamics.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The Chinese are still here.

Since when though

The posts are getting out of control in length. The only thing I'm going to respond to is Aegeri mentioning some of the "Gods" of other religions.

Notice that all of these Gods have many many many many many commonalities. They are all respresented as HUMANlike men, all represented as "all powerful", all represented as "elderly" (of the dominant gods, Elohim, Zeus, etc).

Wouldn't it stand to reason that they are all "related" to one another, and that some truth predates all of them?

 

[W0RF]

Iroically, this is my point, though we will disagree on the evidence part. What evidence you can come up with is just what you believe is evidence, but ultimately I can contrast events in the Illiad, which is arguably also based on historic events and cite it as 'proof' of the Greek Gods.

The Iliad is not an eyewitness account. I don't know why you keep linking incomparable examples.

"Comparatively speaking, the Unicorn said she was real, and she said that she would establish horse kind as her people on earth as a reflection of her kingdom in the meadows"

You could, but you made that up. I don't know why you keep linking incomparable examples.

The English, the Americans and many other cultures did this too. Does this mean they are Gods people as well?

I understand neither your question nor your point.

After being massacred multiple times and then fighting for a homeland.

Correct. And they are still here.

To you yes, where is your actual verifiable and testable evidence that A: God exists, and B: that these events actually happened in exactly the manner you describe?

In terms of science, I can't make an unfalsifiable claim. I have said this numerous times. My mission is not to use science to prove God, but to stop with the ludicrous notions of science somehow DISproving God.

The evidence I'm talking about is historical and archaeological in nature. Whether you regard that as empirical or not is up to you.

Again, you're still trying to debate philosophy ultimately, because I'm more than certain you would regard archaeological evidence as proving one, YOUR world view and not the other (That the Greek Gods existed).

oh, look, here we go exactly.

Again, as I kept mentioning, you argue your belief and claim it is 'right' because it is your belief. I cannot prove you wrong so obviously I have to accept your position as being a possibility. The very fact you immediately dismiss an "Invisible Pink Unicorn" merely proves everything I've been saying and nothing more.

If everything you have been saying is that you can just make up ridiculous fanciful creatures and claim that I should accept that without any evidence of any sort, then yeah I guess that proves it.

Except I'm not suggesting that such things should be accepted absent any evidence, and I doubt Creationists are either. More on that in a second.

Again, your beliefs are exactly that, but don't call it science unless you can truely verify and dismiss other possibilities.

If there are "other possibilities" for the empty tomb I'd love to hear them.

Never said that, one of the things I have spoken about is that people believe things and take whatever evidence is around to 'indicate' something. For example, many people believe in a creator simply because life exists and don't need to get any more particularly complicated than that (and why bother anyway?). All I have said is it is impossible to definitively 'prove' something that you inherently cannot prove the existance of (such as a deity) to set yourself in an unassailable position (which ultimately arguing the existance/non-existance of God IS).

Yeah, that would be creation abiogenesis as opposed to naturalist abiogenesis.

Unless something can be tested through predictions that are found to be true or false, you cannot definitively say "It's because".

Like abiogenesis?

Correct, missing the entire point of something called peer review and that science will correct mistakes and replace outdated ideas with new ones. The frauds made predictions, others tested their predictions and found they did not match up. Peer review caught them out and they were essentially exposed.

Peer review did not "catch them out". Experimentation did not "catch them out". What caught them out was that their evidence was FORGED. It wasn't a testing of predictions, it was examining the evidence that THEY FORGED. That is a different issue ALTOGETHER from the general idea of science through falsification.

Yes, like "Dr" Kent Hovinid.

Your appeal to authority is rejected until you get an actual scientific source. Really, I've asked continually for links to journal articles, not to people with qualifications from degree mills (look up the "University" where "Dr" Kent Hovinid got his "degree".

This is a new low for you, briachie. Is UC Berkeley a degree mill? Harvard? Michigan State? Case Western? Clemson? SDSU? UCLA? Cincinnati? Ball State? Brown? Wisconsin? Illinois? Iowa? Kentucky?

NO!

But of course, I doubt you really believe those are fake universities. I think you chose instead to drag up some fraudulent hack, WHOM I HAVE NEVER MENTIONED BY NAME AND CATEGORICALLY DETEST, as an excuse not to even LOOK at the credentials of other people with legitimate degrees in science and other relevant fields.

This is genuinely disgusting.

And in case you are wondering, I also have a few letters after my name as well. I'm hardly intimidated.

Let me say it again, since you must not have understood the first time: I'm not trying to intimidate you, only to point out that some theories are not necessarily held by kooks and crackpots. Quite frankly I don't know what else to say to this because I'm still pissed at you for invoking Hovinid.

You think there is 'one' solution like those creationists up there, you've clearly started with your own conclusion and attempt to fit evidence into that conclusion and disregard evidence to the contrary.

If it's so clear, what is the conclusion with which I started? I'd love to hear this one.

Again, you want to think that creationism is valid, then like scientists accept multiple ways that biological evolution may have occured, you need to accept multiple ways in which supernatural/deity may have created the world.

See above.

Eureka, he's got it folks!

Haven't you insulted enough people for one day? Here's one guy you owe an apology (partial list):

Gish, Duane T. "The Application of p-Nitrobenzyl Chloroformate to Peptide Synthesis" (F. H. Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1952. Vol. 74. p. 3818.

Gish, Duane T "p-Nitrobenzyloxcarbonyl Derivatives of Amino Acids" (F. H .Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1953. Vol. 75. p. 950.

Gish, Duane T "Preparation of Arginyl Peptides" (F. H .Carpenter, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1953. Vol. 75. p. 5872.

Gish, Duane T. "A Synthetic Preparation Possessing Biological Properties Associated with Arginine-Vasopressin".(V. du Vigneaud and P. G. Katsoyannis, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1954 Vol. 76. p. 4751.

Gish, Duane T. "Unexpected Formation of Anhydro Compounds in the Synthesis of Arginyl and Glutaminyl Peptides" (P. G. Katsoyannis, G. P. Hess, and R. J. Stedman, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1956. Vol. 78. p. 5954.

Gish, Duane T. Synthesis of Peptides Related to Arginine-Vasopressin" (V. du Vigneaud, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1957. Vol. 79. p. 3579.

Gish, Duane T. "Synthesis of Two Protected Hexapeptides Containing the N-Terminal and C-Terminal Sequences of Arginine-Vasopressin" (P. G. Katsoyannis, G. P. Hess, and V. du Vigneaud, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1958. Vol. 80. p. 2558.

Gish, Duane T. "Synthesis of the Pressor-Antidiuretic Hormone, Arginine-Vasopressin" (V. du Vigneaud, P. G. Katsoyannis, and G. P. Hess, co-authors). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1958. Vol. 80. p. 3355.

Gish, Duane T. "Lysine Tolerance in Infants" (E. Dubow, A. Maher, and V. Erk, co-authors). Journal of Pediatrics. 1958. Vol. 52. p. 30.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein I. Fractionation of Products of Tryptic Hydrolysis by Countercurrent Distribution" (L. K. Ramachandran and W. M. Stanley, co-authors). Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics 1958. Vol. 78. p. 433.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein II. The Amino Acid Sequences of Six Peptides Obtained from a Tryptic Digest" (L. K. Ramachandran, co-author). Journal of American Chemical Society. 1959. Vol. 81. p. 884.

Gish, Duane T. "The Amino Acid Sequence of a Pentadeca-peptide Obtained from a Tryptic Digest of the Protein of Tobacco Mosaic Virus" Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1959. Vol. 35. p. 557.

Gish, Duane T. "The Isolation of the C-Terminal Peptide from a Tryptic Digest of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein Establishing a Third Tryptophan Reside in TMV" Biochemical and Biophysical Research Committee. 1959. Vol. 1,p. 67.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus Protein III. The Amino Acid Sequence of a Pentadecapeptide From a Tryptic Digest" Journal of American Chemical Society. 1960. Vol. 82. p. 6329.

Gish, Duane T. "The Complete Amino Acid Sequence of the Protein of Tobacco Mosaic Virus" (A. Tsugita, J. Young, H. Fraenkel-Conrat, C.A. Knight, and W. M. Stanley, co-authors). Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 1960. Vol. 46. p. 1463.

Gish, Duane T. "Studies on the Amino Acid Sequence of Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV) Protein IV. The Amino Acid Sequences of An Eicosapeptide and a Heptadecapeptide Isolated From a Tryptic Digest of TMV Protein" Journal of American Chemical Society. 1961. Vol. 83. p. 3303.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 11. Synthesis of 5'-Esters of 1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine Possessing Antileukemic and Immunosuppressive Activity" (R. C. Kelly, G. W. Camiener, and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1971. Vol. 14. p. 1159.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acids. 12. Synthesis of the L-Enantiomer of 1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine and of 2, 2-Anhydro-1-B-D-Arabinofuranosylcytosine" (G. L. Neil and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1971. Vol. 14. p. 882.

Gish, Duane T. "Immunosuppressive, Antiviral and Antitumor Activities of Cytarabine Derivatives" (G. D. Gray, F. R. Nichol, M.M. Michelson, G. W. Camiener, R. C. Kelly, W. J. Wechter, T. E. Moxley, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Biochemical Pharmacology. 1972. Vol. 21. p. 465.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 14. Synthesis and Antiviral Activity of Some 5'Esters of 9-B-D-Arabinofuranosyladenine (Ara-A)" (H. E. Renis, B.A. Court, E.E. Eidson, and W. J. Wechter, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1973. Vol. 16. p. 754.

Gish, Duane T. "The Continuing Search for the Magic Bullet: Cytarabine, 1974 Symposium Aph-Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences" (with 16 co-authors). Abstract of American Pharmacology Association. 1973. Vol. 3. p. 70.

Gish, Duane T. "Ara-Cytidine Acylates, Use of Drug Design Predictors in Structure-Activity Relationship Correlation" (W. J. Wechter, M.A. Johnson, C. M. Hall, D.T. Warner, A.E. Berger, A. H. Wenzel, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1975. Vol. 18. p. 339.

Gish, Duane T. "Nucleic Acis. 16. Orally Active Derivatives of Ara-Cytidine" (W. J. Wechter, M.E. Greig, G. D. Gray, T. E. Moxley, S. L. Kuentzel, L. G. Gray, A. J. Gibbons, R. L. Brivvin, and G. L. Neil, co-authors). Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1976. Vol. 19. p. 1013.

Gish, Duane T. "Peptide Synthesis" Protein Sequence Determination. (Ed. S. B. Neddleman: Springer-Verlag, Berlin). 1970.

 

[Aegeri]

As I'm currently at my lab right now, I'll just answer a few things.

Like abiogenesis?

Incorrect, I suggest www.nature.com to find information on this topic. There are more than a few experiments on a wide range of molecules to provide justification on certain ideas.

This is a new low for you, briachie. Is UC Berkeley a degree mill? Harvard? Michigan State? Case Western? Clemson? SDSU? UCLA? Cincinnati? Ball State? Brown? Wisconsin? Illinois? Iowa? Kentucky?

NO!

Unfortunately for your point, many creationists do indeed get their degrees from places that nobody has ever heard of before. I asked you to look up Hovinid, because he is one of the leading creationists in America (and extremely well known) who got his degree in such a manner. There are many others like him as well.

I didn't say that every creationist has, but enough of the prominent ones do to paint them with a bad brush. Partly why many of them don't get published.

Also:

He received a B.A. in Biblical Studies from John Brown University, a M.A. in Biblical Education from Columbia Bible College, and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from The Australian National University.

This man is a qualified scientist? Could have fooled me?

John Brown University? Is that on your list by chance? I've heard of the ones you listed, but certainly not a few, even some that appear in the 'alphabet' soup as you put it.

But of course, I doubt you really believe those are fake universities. I think you chose instead to drag up some fraudulent hack, WHOM I HAVE NEVER MENTIONED BY NAME AND CATEGORICALLY DETEST, as an excuse not to even LOOK at the credentials of other people with legitimate degrees in science and other relevant fields.

How ironic you call Hovinid a fraudulent hack, when he uses many of the same arguments, theories and ideas that very site you linked to does? *Shrug*. Do you dislike him because he's the atypical creationist or do you dislike him because he so blatantly exposes creationism for what it is?

I guess a genuine alphabet soup suddenly makes anything you say right then?

This is genuinely disgusting.

It's up to you how you want to overreact. I do observe that a few people that used to be there aren't anymore, and a few of them still don't look particularly credible (see above example I quoted).

Let me say it again, since you must not have understood the first time: I'm not trying to intimidate you, only to point out that some theories are not necessarily held by kooks and crackpots.

Just shared by them?

Quite frankly I don't know what else to say to this because I'm still pissed at you for invoking Hovinid.

Again, Hovinid uses many of same ideas, tricks and similar that those people do. You only dislike me bringing him up because his blatant abuses of scientific method are already well known and established.

If it's so clear, what is the conclusion with which I started? I'd love to hear this one.

Obviously that God started everything.

Haven't you insulted enough people for one day? Here's one guy you owe an apology (partial list):

Not really, if you misinterpreted my statement that is your perogative although I will give you that I badly worded it. That quite a disturbing few prominent creationists have their degrees from a degree mill or just plain obscure places is quite true. I asked you to look up the example, as it would have also led you to several others. I am well aware of that there are many respectable Universities in America and probably should have given slightly more thought to what I said first.

I'm not exactly sure what your point here is, because this doesn't seem particularly relevant as none of those papers have anything to do with creationism. Unless of course, you are saying his man is a creationist, who is publishing papers on a subject that has nothing to do with evolution or creation, and so would have no reason to abuse the scientific methods to prove a point as creationists have to do.

However, I did find this:

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...al/v336/n6201/full/336704b0.html&filetype=PDF

Which is a news article where the ICR had it's ability to give its graduates science degrees was 'revoked' because they weren't teaching proper science.

The evaluation committee first voted 3 to 2 to approve the institutes programmes, despite the lack of scientific substance.

Your example of a creationist following the scientific method just drips with irony as the institute he teaches at got its ability to grant science degrees cut, because they WEREN'T teaching proper science.

Who would of thought, oh, and game set and match. No apology required from me afterall on the topic of their credibility then eh?

[Note to others: I do apologise if my initial statement seems to inclusive of everyone or the Universities that are present on that site. It was not my intention and was mostly made without the context of a previous debate I had involving the 'qualifications' of a list of random Creationists/evolutionists. Without the previous context of that debate I understand that it may have come accross differently than I intended, and if anyone was offended I apologise].