Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Arakhor]

Whether or not the theory of evolution is wrong or not, shouldn't current scientific theory be taught in science classes? Isn't that the whole point of science classes? You also agree that creationism should never be taught in schools then, Magicfan?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

as long as the "theory of evolution" is taught as a blind,random,and chance guided process and with admittance that the evidence is not "absolute" for the theory of evolution. then Im fine with it being the only one being taught in the classroom. its when we lie or mislead in the classroom that i have a problem.

Couple of things. The process is not random. The mutations are.

Second, the Theory of Evolution is as absolute as the Theory of Gravity. Only the Theory of Gravity is even less certain. When we found out the outermost stars in the galaxy were not moving according to it, the Theory almost had it. Which was incredible since it worked (and still works) so beautifully on Earth and in our Solar system. Using it we have rendezvoused an spacecraft with an asteroid which needs an incredible amount of accuracy, but all of a sudden we discovered to make it work in outer space we needed most of the Universe to be build up of Dark Matter.

That's a big blind spot right there. The Theory of Evolution doesn't have discrepancies of that size. But for some reason, you never hear anyone complain about the ToG.

And again, that species evolve is a fact. The way they do has been very well documented. Only because we can't find evidence for each and every single stage of each and every species is only down to the scarcity of fossil because of the conditions needed for a fossil to be preserved.

 

[magicfan101]

You also agree that creationism should never be taught in schools then, Magicfan?

i am absolutely confident that the theory of evolution were taught "correctly" with all its warts most students reject it as a possible explanation for origin of life on the planet.
but i would also accept creationism being taught along with evolution in public schools.the students should decide for themselves with scientific model best fits the evidence.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In that case you should also be in favour of teaching Intelligent Falling beside the Theory of Gravity.

 

[magicfan101]

Couple of things. The process is not random. The mutations are.

Second, the Theory of Evolution is as absolute as the Theory of Gravity. Only the Theory of Gravity is even less certain. When we found out the outermost stars in the galaxy were not moving according to it, the Theory almost had it. Which was incredible since it worked (and still works) so beautifully on Earth and in our Solar system. Using it we have rendezvoused an spacecraft with an asteroid which needs an incredible amount of accuracy, but all of a sudden we discovered to make it work in outer space we needed most of the Universe to be build up of Dark Matter.

That's a big blind spot right there. The Theory of Evolution doesn't have discrepancies of that size. But for some reason, you never hear anyone complain about the ToG.

And again, that species evolve is a fact. The way they do has been very well documented. Only because we can't find evidence for each and every single stage of each and every species is only down to the scarcity of fossil because of the conditions needed for a fossil to be preserved.

if dark matter exist plz provide the density and composition using testable,observable science.

evolution is chance,guided process. every time a complex organism is found it evolved in a "spontaneous" way.
all the organism that are not found or only bones are discovered must have evolved gradually over millions of years

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

if dark matter exist plz provide the density and composition using testable,observable science.

You completely missed my point. Why aren't you demanding that Intelligent Falling is taught alongside the Theory of Gravity?

Where's your claim that Gravity is a hoax because the Theory of Gravity has this huge gap called Dark Matter. And before you hit reply, try to find out what the scientific approach is to Dark Matter, since you request for density and composition shows me you don't understand in what way Science is referring to it.

evolution is chance guided process every time a complex organism is found it evolved in a "spontaneous" way.

No. Nein. Nyet.

If you are trying to refute Evolution, I propose first learning what it actually is.

And we're straying dangerously close to continuing the same old boring doomed to failure way of refuting Evolution while you should be busy providing evidence for Creationism.

We don't want to make Mathilda angry do we? We don't like Mathilda being angry. We should try to appease her by discussing evidence for Creationism.

 

[Arakhor]

If you are opposed to having deceitful, misleading information taught in schools, Magicfan, you can't support creationism being taught in science classes, unless of course your religion is giving you a double standard.

So far, all the evidence provided for creationism has either been circular, circumstantial or simply plain wrong and even that has been in the minority compared to the anti-evolution diatribes. Now, don't get me wrong, circumstantial evidence is all very well in the absence of anything better, but don't then dismiss current scientific theory as "circumstantial" and then continue to puff up creationism using even more flawed data.

 

[magicfan101]

i will appease Mathilda

here is a creationist view on starlight . which fits what we see in the universe.

here is article from a scientific journal
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

here is a summary from icr
http://www.icr.org/article/5686/


mitochondrial eve proves that all humans came from one women about ~6000 years ago.

 

[Behind The Mask]

i will appease Mathilda

here is a creationist view on starlight . which fits what we see in the universe.

here is article from a scientific journal
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

here is a summary from icr
http://www.icr.org/article/5686/


mitochondrial eve proves that all humans came from one women about ~6000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies

Try the "Not Most Common Ancestor Shared By All Humans" section, mate.

While Wikipedia may be a weak source alot of the time; well, the fellow here is goining to creation sites so why not?

 

[Arakhor]

That's not how mitochondrial DNA works at all. It simply indicates that the earliest person we trace everyone on Earth to is a woman 200,000 years ago. Please read up on your supposed evidence first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199

 

[uppi]

i will appease Mathilda

here is a creationist view on starlight works . which fits what we see in the universe.

here is article from a scientific journal
http://creation.com/new-time-dilation-helps-creation-cosmology

here is a summary from icr
http://www.icr.org/article/5686/

That hypothesis would predict a huge blue-shift of the incoming starlight. And with "huge", I mean something like visible light -> X-rays. We are not seeing such a blue-shift, therefore this hypothesis false.

This very nicely illustrates what is wrong with creationism: There is no exploration whatsoever what the explanation they cooked up to explain one of the countless problems with creationism actually would mean and if that had any observable consequences. If they did that they would immediately notice that some of those explanations is obviously a load of crap. The cosmology you posted practically screams "blue-shift!", yet they do not even mention this.

That leaves the question that has always interested me with these "scientific" creationists: Are they this stupid (hard to imagine) or is it willful ignorance (which puts huge doubt on their honesty)?

mitochondrial eve proves that all humans came from one women about ~6000 years ago.

No it does not. Please educate yourself what the mitochondrial eve is.

 

[Arakhor]

I love ICR's strapline - "Biblical, Accurate, Certain". If there's one thing that real science never claims to be, it's being "certain". One would might suspect a certain lack of rigorous testing on ICR's part.

 

[uppi]

I love ICR's strapline - "Biblical, Accurate, Certain". If there's one thing that real science never claims to be, it's being "certain". One would might suspect a certain lack of rigorous testing on ICR's part.

Indeed.

The whole thing is exactly the kind of "research" that Feynman invented the term "cargo-cult science" for.

 

[magicfan101]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve#Common_fallacies

Try the "Not Most Common Ancestor Shared By All Humans" section, mate.

While Wikipedia may be a weak source alot of the time; well, the fellow here is goining to creation sites so why not?

this is an assumption.

here is what pro-evolutionist said.

There have been two papers that have measured unexpectedly high short term mutational rates in the control region of the mitochondrial DNA. The control region is a part of the mitochondrial DNA that does not code for proteins. The normally accepted rate is one mutation every 300 to 600 generations (6,000 to 12,000 years) and this is calibrated, as Wieland correctly says, by counting mutations in great ape and human mitochondria and regressing back to the age of their divergence as determined by fossils dated by radiometric dating

proven circular reasoning.

here is a creationist response

It is very significant that MacAndrew admits, both explicitly and implicitly, that the ‘normally accepted’ mutation rate is calibrated by evolutionary assumptions.

This is especially apparent by his misleading claim about ‘counting mutations’. They are counting no such thing, since they haven’t, in this case, seen DNA mutate (change). Rather, the differences are merely assumed to be mutations, on the basis of their belief that humans and apes have in fact descended from a common ancestor

website links:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial Eve.htm
http://creation.com/mitochondrial-e...king-good-criticism-of-young-age-is-premature

 

[El_Machinae]

You know, mitochondrial eve is deduced using gene clocking. Similar techniques are used to deduce our relationship to other organisms, and those deductions strong trend to support the fossil evidence.

 

[Behind The Mask]

here is a creationist response

Correction.

Creationist Assumption

Not Fact.
Not Logic.
Not Founded With Evidence.

A-S-S-U-M-P-T-I-O-N

 

[Arakhor]

Magicfan, do you ever read anything scientific from non-creationist sites? I ask this because Classical Hero brought up Mitochrondial Eve as some grand finishing blow as well just last thread and was just as obviously wrong then.

 

[magicfan101]

You know, mitochondrial eve is deduced using gene clocking. Similar techniques are used to deduce our relationship to other organisms, and those deductions strong trend to support the fossil evidence.

gene clocking in humans as been clocked. any relationship between human and apes is an assumption.

 

[Arakhor]

So, a 98.6% genetic similarity is an assumption?

 

[Behind The Mask]

So, a 98.6% genetic similarity is an assumption?

Obviously.

You science-types are really slow to learn