Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[SuperJay]

EDIT: I think I should also explain that I do not believe they should teach Noah's Ark in School. That would be pointless and have nothing to do with academics.

But... you just said in the other thread that you think Creationism should be taught in science classes. I guess you've changed your mind about that?

But neither does evolution. Keep origins out of classrooms.

Err... wait. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with academics? I think there's a few thousand scientists out there - working in colleges in universities (which are academic institutions) - who might disagree with your assessment of their careers and fields of study.

Look, Dommy: if you want to believe in Creationism, that's your business. Nobody here is going to attack you over your own personal beliefs, but you keep trying to prove to others that they're "right," which means they're going to subject your claims to some scrutiny. If you're not comfortable with that scrutiny, and/or if you're unwilling or unable to participate in some discussion of the basis for those beliefs, it's probably best to just avoid these threads altogether.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But... you just said in the other thread that you think Creationism should be taught in science classes. I guess you've changed your mind about that?

I think they should either teach both evolution and Creationism or neither. Neither in science class that's for sure.

Err... wait. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with academics? I think there's a few thousand scientists out there - working in colleges in universities (which are academic institutions) who might disagree with your assessment of their careers and fields of study.

But it still isn't scientifically provable, and enough people disagree with it to make its authenticity in doubt.

Look, Dommy: if you want to believe in Creationism, that's your business. Nobody here is going to attack you over your own personal beliefs, but you keep trying to prove to others that they're "right," which means they're going to subject your claims to some scrutiny. If you're not comfortable with that scrutiny, and/or if you're unwilling or unable to participate in some discussion of the basis for those beliefs, it's probably best to just avoid these threads altogether.

I admit to being unable to prove them right, and that is probably impossible, but it can't be logically disproved either.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

what im saying is that fossils do not provide a "smooth" transition from one species to the next. all the biological changes must be assumed in the mind of the scientist since this types of changes are necessary for macro-evolution to happen. therefore macro-evolution is a faith not something based on observable science.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
X
10
11
12
13
Y
15
16
17
18
Z
20
A
22
23
B
C
D
E
28
29
30


Please solve for X, Y, Z, A, B, C, D, and E.

Impossible, because there isn't a smooth transition from 23-28, right?

We weren't there, so we can't know what D is. D might be God.

The fossil record is remarkably complete, and very very smooth.

The Biblical fossil record is remarkably incomplete, and altogether missing from existence.

 

[uppi]

But it still isn't scientifically provable, and enough people disagree with it to make its authenticity in doubt.

So we completely scrap science class altogether? After all, nothing is scientifically provable.

Hmm....no science classes would explain your ignorance.

 

[magicfan101]

Beat me to it!

Do you at least agree that the layers further to the top are younger than those below that?

sure i want to see where your line of reasoning is going

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

apparently having a phd does not make someone a "actual" scientist. plz provide a definition on what a real scientist must do. creationist have submitted in peer reviewed journals and we have are own peer reviewed journals. we do scientific research that help better humanity.

Who has a PHD?

The quoted author here was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

Now, quote the people who refute everything he just said.


You have some creation scientists?

Quote them. Quote these scientists.

Then, quote the scientists who disagree with them.

Go on, I'm waiting. Let's see the actual arguments of your scientists and how they stack up with the majority.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Who has a PHD?

The quoted author here was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

Now, quote the people who refute everything he just said.


You have some creation scientists?

Quote them. Quote these scientists.

Then, quote the scientists who disagree with them.

Go on, I'm waiting. Let's see the actual arguments of your scientists and how they stack up with the majority.

Well, the guy who tried to refute Woodmorappe's explanation still said this about it:

“anyone with a serious interest in the ark and its problems, or a student of the creationist movement should obtain a copy."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

sure i want to where your line of reasoning is going

Simply that you can at least add sequence to the fossils.

Even without attributing actual age to them, which I suspect you're going to cry foul about, that is pretty strong evidence. Having a fossil order in time which coincides with the predictions made by the Theory of Evolution. Sometimes before the actual fossils are found.

Now can you present me with similarly convincing evidence for Creationism?

Because that is avoided like the plague. Every single thread about this boils down to trying to discredit Evolution, while, as you can read from the title, this is about evidence for Creationism.

Show me.

 

[magicfan101]

Who has a PHD?

The quoted author here was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woodmorappe

Now, quote the people who refute everything he just said.


You have some creation scientists?

Quote them. Quote these scientists.

Then, quote the scientists who disagree with them.

Go on, I'm waiting. Let's see the actual arguments of your scientists and how they stack up with the majority.

so the majority opinion is always right.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Well, the guy who tried to refute Woodmorappe's explanation still said this about it:

Now quote everything ELSE he said about it.

He tore that guy's "explanation" to pieces. TO PIECES.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html



Anyone with two brains cells to rub together could refute these gems. And so the author does:

He spends very little space describing how these animals could have survived out in the turbulent flood waters.

But there is no justification given to approaching the problem in this fashion. It is not clear that solutions applicable to the care of 8,000 hogs, requiring the same food, water and space, can be applied to 8,000 different animals each requiring a different set of food, water and environmental conditions. Every care and feeding problem is attacked by this approach. And yet he suggests that some of the snakes can be coaxed into eating inert food by stuffing snake skins with meat.

When it comes to care on the ark, Woodmorappe enlists the aid of the animals themselves. According to Woodmorappe, prior to the flood, Noah had kept a menagerie and trained the animals to defecate and urinate on command into buckets.

I would like to see someone train every single animal on the planet how to defecate and urinate ON COMMAND.

Noah is also turned into a breeder par excellence. During the time of the menagerie, Noah was engaged in modern breeding in order to "maximize the heterozygosity of the recessive alleles" to avoid inbreeding depression after the flood (p. 194). If hibernation was a desirable trait, Noah was able to breed strains of animals which were more likely to hibernate (p. 133). He was able to acclimatize reptiles to the temperatures they would find on the ark ( p. 124) and breed a pair of Koalas who would accept dried Eucalyptus leaves. This type of solution is appealed to so often, it begins to take on the appearance of an ad hoc explanation.

Wow. He was the founder of genetics!

Many of the solutions are of the nature of a "could be, might be". He suggests that the seeds of some plants were buried and then eroded back to the surface in order for them to survive the flood. He writes:

Since CO2 is normally associated with volcanism and high thermal gradients, an explanation of where the CO2 came from would seem to be in order. None is given.

Several arguments are not self-consistent. An example is the following:

"After raising some transparently absurd problems of snails and earthworms (animals not on the Ark) migrating to the Ark, Morton (1995, p. 69) then dusts off the old chestnut about the slow-moving sloth needing practically forever to reach the Ark from South America." (p. 60)

Another example of inconsistencies is on page 202 where in his discussion of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) he says that the DRB1 locus has 106 known alleles. Five pages later, he says it is 44.

Woodmorappe states (p. 27) that the urine could be drained overboard by gravity. He does not tell how this is possible from the lowest floor level which was below the water line. At one point he suggests that the animals could be trained to urinate and defecate upon command while someone holds a bucket behind the animal. Assuming that this can be accomplished for the largest quarter of the animals and that they need to be serviced three times per day, each person must service 125 animals per hour, 2 animals a minute. What a fun job that must have been.

You know what? I can't even hand-pick all the flaming contradictions. There are too many and you won't read them or respond anyway.

Read the darn thing yourself.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

 

[useless]

Damn you science with your logic, experimentation and explanations!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's great reading though.

Kind of like the Daily Show for Science.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

so the majority opinion is always right.

No, that's not what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing WHAT ARE THE REASONS that those other scientists disagree?

• What are the arguments against your argument?
• What are the defenses your argument uses?

The clue here is, there are tons and tons of arguments which DESTROY your theory.

There are ZERO plausible defenses against those arguments.

Prove me wrong. Argue it yourself, or QUOTE SOME ACTUAL SCIENTISTS and the people who refuted their arguments.

Don't straw man me.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

so the majority opinion is always right.

No the opinion backed by evidence is. You seriously don't get debating or science do you?

You just make up something in your head. And every time something comes along to contradict it you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la-la-la. I am not listening, la-la-la". Well that approach will never work, as your ignorance of reality will just leave you straded at the back of the line wondering where everything is.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am seriously getting sick and tired of being on the only side of this debate that has to argue its own points and cite sources and respond to opposing arguments.


Seriously, evolution deniers, you're wasting my time.

 

[ParkCungHee]

we have are own peer reviewed journals. we do scientific research that help better humanity.

Assuming you meant "Our own"
PEER REVIEW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

 

[uppi]

And that is a false statement, especially since Creationism can theoretically still include evolution.

Creationism in general does not have to, but Young Earth Creationism in particular does reject science.

 

[useless]

Creationist: Y'all unscientific, Mr Evolutionist smartly pants!

Evolutionist: So where's your scientific evidence?

Creationist: Tha' Bible!

 

[SuperJay]

I think they should either teach both evolution and Creationism or neither. Neither in science class that's for sure.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It was developed by scientists and has been tested by scientists via experimentation and observation. Science is taught in public schools. Creationism is based on faith. Faith is not taught in public schools.

But it still isn't scientifically provable, and enough people disagree with it to make its authenticity in doubt.

Science isn't about agreement, Dom. Conclusions reached through scientific means rest on experimentation, observation, and evidence to form questions and test ideas. Science is not a democracy that rests on consensus. Creationists choosing to "disagree" with the theory of evolution do not in any way undermine its scientific validity. As someone else said, evolution is an accepted, settled principle in science. The only way it could or would be refuted at this point is through a series of experiments and observations which accrued enough evidence (via the scientific method) to overturn the centuries of evidence that scientists have shown in favor of evolution.

I admit to being unable to prove them right, and that is probably impossible, but it can't be logically disproved either.

It can be and it has been. You just choose not to accept any logic that contradicts your religious beliefs. Again, nobody is telling you that you can't believe in God or in the Bible. You're free to do so. But you're operating under a lot of false assumptions and misunderstandings if you feel that evolution is up for debate, and that creationism has as much scientific evidence backing it up.

 

[trader/warrior]

Domination, I'm wondering about this "kinds" business. I am assuming there is a lower number of kinds than the number of species that exist today. So that means new species of all kinds of animals have evolved... How is that not what you call "macroevolution"? And how do you feel about the fact that you seem to support new species of mammals etc. evolving at a much faster rate than any "evolutionist" would propose?