Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You know, I took only one college course on biology, and only one small part of it involved genetics and the theory of evolution. And, I admit, I wasn't even paying attention during some of the more technical droning on and on about things I was never going to need to know in my lifetime. And yet, I still have enough passing familiarity with this stuff to easily deconstruct every single argument posed by a YEC believer.

I'm not a genius, in spite of what the intelligence quotient says. I don't believe that I am any better than anyone else here. Why is it I can understand these concepts enough to debate them properly, but others come to the debate with little or no understanding, and yet are dead certain they know more than me, and why are all of them religious?

 

[sophie]

If I put in the effort to give a decent answer to this, are you (or any of our other creationists) actually going to pay attention, to think about what I'm explaining? If so, I'll type out a long post. If not, I'm not wasting my time.

I would recommend you don't go through with it. There have already been at least 9 or 10 long explanations of a similar nature (and a very long, multi-post overview of where we stand currently in terms of the fossil record), and they either haven't bothered reading it, or else just don't care. Either way, for you to add one more I don't think would really help in any way.

Either way I'm still reading this thread for 3 reasons:

Some evidence as to why Dommy KNOWS (not believes, but knows), that the world is 8-12,000 years old (no Bibles allowed)

An observed and well documented miracle that can't be explained away through science. (From Dommy again)

And then some actual proof, peer reviewed, and unrefuted evidence that CREATIONISM is a viable scientific theory which doesn't involve blind, nit-picky (and generally not well thought out of poorly researched) attacks on evolution, which already has large volumes of evidence pointing to its validity.

 

[magicfan101]

You know, I took only one college course on biology, and only one small part of it involved genetics and the theory of evolution. And, I admit, I wasn't even paying attention during some of the more technical droning on and on about things I was never going to need to know in my lifetime. And yet, I still have enough passing familiarity with this stuff to easily deconstruct every single argument posed by a YEC believer.

I'm not a genius, in spite of what the intelligence quotient says. I don't believe that I am any better than anyone else here. Why is it I can understand these concepts enough to debate them properly, but others come to the debate with little or no understanding, and yet are dead certain they know more than me, and why are all of them religious?

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

Theory of evolution explains life (single cell) to man.

Molecules to single cell is a different theory called abiogenesis.

Do not confuse the two theories.

Name a good mutation in humans?

First read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html


How about resistance to AIDS?

HIV infects a number of cell types including T-lymphocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons. AIDS occurs when lymphocytes, particularly CD4+ T cells are killed off, leaving the patient unable to fight off opportunistic infections. The HIV virus has to attach to molecules that are expressed on the surface of the T-cells. One of these molecules is called CD4 (or CD4 receptor); another is C-C chemokine receptor 5, known variously as CCR5, CCCKR5 and CKR5. Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells. Homozygous individuals are resistant to HIV infection and AIDS. The frequency of the mutant allele is quite high in some populations that have never been exposed to AIDS so it seems likely that there was prior selection for this allele. (See Appendix IV)

Gosh that took 1 second to find. I literally googled "Good mutations in humans".

Give me something that you can't google yourself, please.

Q: Doesn't evolution depend on mutations and aren't most mutations harmful?

A: No. Most mutations are neither harmful nor helpful.

 

[sophie]

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

No kind of evolution explains "molecules to man". Evolution explains single celled organisms to man pretty damn well.

Molecules to single celled organisms is abiogenesis.

And need I remind you that this is evidence for creationism, and that your futile attempts to disprove evolution do not really further your claims to creationism. kthxbai.

 

[magicfan101]

tautology:
# (logic) a statement that is necessarily true; "the statement `he is brave or he is not brave' is a tautology"
# useless repetition; "to say that something is `adequate enough' is a tautology"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

A formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable

macro-evolution is rigged not to be wrong even though it does not solve primordial organism to man over millions of years edit

 

[negZero]

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

Thumbs, walking up right, and increase in cranial capacity.

Now give me 15 mutations that have actually been passed on and have spread to the majority of the population and are seen as negative. Good luck.

A formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable

macro-evolution is rigged not to be wrong even though it does not solve primordial organism to man over millions of years edit

What you quoted from me are the official definations tautology from Princeton. You don't know what the meaning of the words you are using mean.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

i disagree with this low classification of animals

Wait, did you just disagree with the term "species"?

.......





......WHY?

Are you a scientist that has found something which would revolutionize the way we think about species? And if not, why do you just simply "disagree" with science as if your opinion had anything to do with how the scientific community classifies things?

Your disagreement is invalid and baseless.

 

[Seon]

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

Oh yes, indeed. Name all the bad mutations that we humans have so that we can disprove the existence of a "perfect" deity who made us in "his" image .

 

[negZero]

Wait, did you just disagree with the term "species"?

.......





......WHY?

God did it

Are you a scientist that has found something which would revolutionize the way we think about species?

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah God did it blah blah blah blah blah blah

And if not, why do you just simply "disagree" with science as if your opinion had anything to do with how the scientific community classifies things?

GOD DID IT

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

A formula is satisfiable if it is true under at least one interpretation, and thus a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable

macro-evolution is rigged not to be wrong even though it does not solve primordial organism to man over millions of years edit

Let me try to decipher this obviously encrypted message.

"a tautology is a formula whose negation is unsatisfiable"

No, that's not what a tautology is. Do you know what a theory that can't be disproved is called? It's not called science.

Abiogenesis can be disproved. Evolution can be disproved. Science can be disproved. Creationism "God made the universe" can't be proven or disproved and it is NOT SCIENCE.

"macro-evolution is rigged not to be wrong"



Do you mean you've given up trying to disprove it, but your brain can't handle defeat or something? Macro-evolution can be wrong, because it can be DISPROVED.

"even though it does not solve primordial organism to man over millions of years"

That's exactly what it attempts to solve and has solved to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of most people. Could you post something more constructive please?



Like:



EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM.

 

[sophie]

dont you realize that definition of macro-evolution does not explain molecules to man. most mutations are harmful to any "species"(i disagree with this low classification of animals.) name one good mutation in humans and i can list 5 for every one.

Yes, and when mutations are harmful to an individual, that individual will fail to reproduce and carry on that mutation. However, every so often a mutation occurs which gives the species a slightly better chance to succeed and those are the ones which are passed on. You do understand how evolution works, don't you?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You do understand how evolution works, don't you?

I think we have reached the conclusion by the posts in this thread and the one prior, that the evidence for creationism is:

• "I disagree with evolution even though I don't understand it".

That's the evidence for creationism. That's what proves creationism is true: ignorance. Case closed. Thread over.



God created the universe -----> BECAUSE ------> I can't accept any other explanation. That's creation science.

 

[sanabas]

They are not, we've been doing this for two threads now, and they are still peddling the same fantasies.

I would recommend you don't go through with it. There have already been at least 9 or 10 long explanations of a similar nature (and a very long, multi-post overview of where we stand currently in terms of the fossil record), and they either haven't bothered reading it, or else just don't care. Either way, for you to add one more I don't think would really help in any way.

Been doing it for more than two threads.

But really, in the last two threads, there haven't been many posts trying to educate them, because we all assume they simply have no interest in learning anything about the topic. Magicfan in particular would fail a turing test, it's pretty easy to know which AiG talking point he'll bleat in reply to a given post, and he loves the phrase 'molecules to man'.

So because of that, most posts here are asking them yet again for one little bit of actual evidence, or pointing out just how stupid the stuff they parrot is. Which is entirely fair enough. But if I can find one of them willing to actually think about this stuff, ask questions about apparent contradictions, stuff they don't understand, whatever; rather than parroting creationist links, I reckon I can teach them something. We can even have a thread for it. Trev and Magicfan appear to be lost causes, Dommy at least seems possible to get through to. Maybe.


So, I'm going to suggest a bible story to look at for them. One of the best things about actual science is to actually discover you were wrong. It's awesome. To feel that lightbulb go on in your head, to realise you were in a dark room and now you're not, to actually learn stuff. A simple question, 'but what if I'm wrong?' drives all sorts of curiosity, scientific thinking, discovery, etc. That sensation, that feeling of seeing the light, having an epiphany, learning something, realising you were wrong is a big part of one of the bible stories I actually remember from school, that of Saul on the road to Damascus.

One of the common creationist lines, as seen in this thread is about just how weird & wonderful living things are, just how great humans are, that there's absolutely no way all that stuff simply evolved by random chance. Which is absolutely, 100% correct. It didn't all evolve by random chance.

Given the biblical precedent for it, any of you actually want to check if there's scales that can drop from your eyes, if maybe you're currently blind, but soon you can see? And if you were right all along, won't seriously thinking, questioning & analysing your views just make them stronger?

 

[Trev]

And then some actual proof, peer reviewed, and unrefuted evidence that CREATIONISM is a viable scientific theory which doesn't involve blind, nit-picky (and generally not well thought out of poorly researched) attacks on evolution, which already has large volumes of evidence pointing to its validity.

Not possible, because science journals censor all things in favour of evolution. A look at the Behe court case shows a biased system that looked solely at what peer reviewed journals said and the opinions of scientists who supported evolution. I actually thought they were supposed to look at the facts myself, but I was wrong.

 

[sophie]

Not possible, because science journals censor all things in favour of evolution. A look at the Behe court case shows a biased system that looked solely at what peer reviewed journals said and the opinions of scientists who supported evolution. I actually thought they were supposed to look at the facts myself, but I was wrong.

This statement is contradictory. If science journals censor all things in favor of evolution then why are you also implying that there is a bias towards evolutionists?

Nevertheless, I still don't see any non-overturned, peer reviewed evidence. And until such has happened, this thread really has no purpose, as Mathilda said.

 

[magicfan101]

here is what i will try to prove to you. that humanity and all the "species" in the world are headed downwards in terms of what is happening to our DNA through mutations and deletions in our genome.

your argument is that the "species" in the world are becoming more "fit" in there environment and there is no up or down just adaption to the environmental stress or conditions(change is limitless just give it time)

the beneficial mutations involve some sort of loss of function in the genome.

Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells

the article you provided is incredibly misleading on what is happening.
point mutations in "junk dna" is a lie. junk dna has proven functions.

 

[negZero]

Not possible, because science journals censor all things in favour of evolution. A look at the Behe court case shows a biased system that looked solely at what peer reviewed journals said and the opinions of scientists who supported evolution. I actually thought they were supposed to look at the facts myself, but I was wrong.

I agree that lawyer was so mean when he asked him about peer-review of his papers and worst yet he forced himto give an honest answer too.

here is what i will try to prove to you. that humanity and all the "species" in the world are headed downwards in terms of what is happening to our DNA through mutations and deletions in our genome.

your argument is that the "species" in the world are becoming more "fit" in there environment and there is no up or down just adaption to the environmental stress or conditions

the beneficial mutations involve some sort of loss of function in the genome.

Some people carry a mutant allele of the CCR5 gene that results in lack of expression of this protein on the surface of T-cells

the article you provided is incredibly misleading on what is happening.
point mutations in "junk dna" is a lie. junk dna has proven functions.

Links man FFS, start putting some links in so we can read were you getting this from. Either way you still got 13 more negatives to go.

 

[magicfan101]

I agree that lawyer was so mean when he asked him about peer-review of his papers and worst yet he forced to give an honest answer to them.

who gets to decide what gets published in a science journals. scientist who believe in evolution.

 

[sophie]

who gets to decide what gets published in a science journals. scientist who believe in evolution.

No. Scientists who publish well researched theories supported by a crapton of evidence, such that their papers pass the large amount of scrutiny they are subjected to upon being published. If no creationist articles of this sort exist it is owed solely to the fact that these creationist articles are never supported by actual evidence.