The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Perfection]

Perfection for pigeonholing creationists together,

I did not, see post #6 (You know what, I'll add this to post #1)

and for believing Creationism can be KOed

See post #1 for what I consider a KO

Now that that's said...

I believe in Creationism
because where did the universe come from?

When I refer to creationism I refer to antievolutionary creationism so that question is irrelevant

Science showed it cannot be static,

And how does flexibility of belief interfere with its credibility

and while they've probed an attosecond after the big bang, there is still a fundamental failure to explain the cause of the big bang.

What if an explination occurs?

 

[sir_schwick]

That does raise a serious question about origins of the universe and life. But that cannot be solve right now, so that leaves the argument open both ways. However, this thread is about 'anti-evolutionary creationism', which is pretty much been proven wrong for practical reasons. Denying the genetic adaptability of creatures is an insult of those creatures creators.

 

[Elrohir]

When I refer to creationism I refer to antievolutionary creationism so that question is irrelevant

Creationism was around first, so you actually have to say "anticreationism" for evolution instead.


That said, I'm a Christian. I believe God created the world in 7 literal days. I believe animals do indeed adapt to their enviroment over time, as this have been proven scientifically, but the idea that life could arise out of nothing, or than a "simple" life form could evolve into millions of more "complex" life forms is simply absurd and has very little scientific basis.


*Waits for repsonsese*

 

[Birdjaguar]

Creationism was around first, so you actually have to say "anticreationism" for evolution instead.

That said, I'm a Christian. I believe God created the world in 7 literal days. I believe animals do indeed adapt to their enviroment over time, as this have been proven scientifically, but the idea that life could arise out of nothing, or than a "simple" life form could evolve into millions of more "complex" life forms is simply absurd and has very little scientific basis.
*Waits for repsonsese*

Whoa! A resurection of the dead, thread. Welcome Elrohir. I hope you have read through the previous posts so you have a hint of what's been going on and who the contenders are. This thread is one of several "beat the horse until its dead" debates on OT.

 

[Elrohir]

Whoa! A resurection of the dead, thread. Welcome Elrohir. I hope you have read through the previous posts so you have a hint of what's been going on and who the contenders are. This thread is one of several "beat the horse until its dead" debates on OT.

Heh, I just noticed how old it was....ahh well. *Gets out club and starts beating the corpse*

 

[Perfection]

Creationism was around first, so you actually have to say "anticreationism" for evolution instead.

That is incorrect. Evolution and Creationism are not philosophically incompatible, if god made the universe so life could evolve, both are correct, so niether can be called the anti- of the other, this is a concept called evolutionary creationism. When I refer to "antievolutionary creationism" I refer to all creationists who deny the full power of evolution (and abiogenesis), including literal seven day creationists, old Earth creationists (they believe Earth is old but evolution is invalid), IDTers and others.

That said, I'm a Christian. I believe God created the world in 7 literal days. I believe animals do indeed adapt to their enviroment over time, as this have been proven scientifically, but the idea that life could arise out of nothing, or than a "simple" life form could evolve into millions of more "complex" life forms is simply absurd and has very little scientific basis.

Actually both have quite a bit of valid scientific data, here's a bit off the top of my head

A. For abiogeneis (Life from non-life)
1. Using geologic information about Earth's early atmophere, numerous scientists have produced a wide variety of very important monomers and polymers seen in life under very simple procedures such as electric shocks (lightning)
2. RNA has been discovered to contain both the ability to contain genetic information and to act as an enzyme, this shows that life less complex then current cellular could be possible.
3. Phopholipid bilayers, the principle componant of cellular membranes have been shown to self assemble

B. For increasing complexity
1. Hox genes have been shown to control the development of appendages, and experiments have gotten them to produce additional segments. This is useful in questions involving animal complexity
2. "Junk DNA", formerly thought to be useless, there is exciting new research into this wonderful stuff and how it acts through complex feedback processes to control devlopment, while the evolutionary details are still somewhat sketchy, it's clear from statistical evidence (more complex organisms have more of this DNA) that there's a genetic component to complexity and thus it would be uder the direction of evolution by natural selection. This excitng new field offers much potential into the advent of multicellarity
3. Mitochondrial and Plastid structures. Mitochondria and Plastids are organelles seen in eukaryotic cells, they bear striking resemblance to bacteria in that they have a single large looped chromosome, they devide on thier own, and they have membranes similar to that of bacteria. This shows evidence of another complexity increasing system, endosymbiosis, where cells eat bacteria, and have subsequently formed such a powerful symbiotic relationship that they are mutually interdependant.

Heh, I just noticed how old it was....ahh well. *Gets out club and starts beating the corpse*

It is I who am beating the corpse, not you

 

[Phydeaux]

Actually both have quite a bit of valid scientific data, here's a bit off the top of my head

A. For abiogeneis (Life from non-life)
1. Using geologic information about Earth's early atmophere, numerous scientists have produced a wide variety of very important monomers and polymers seen in life under very simple procedures such as electric shocks (lightning)

But they never created life? I heard that the geologic information showed evidence for oxygen all through out.

2. RNA has been discovered to contain both the ability to contain genetic information and to act as an enzyme, this shows that life less complex then current cellular could be possible.

But have they ever created useful RNA?

3. Phopholipid bilayers, the principle componant of cellular membranes have been shown to self assemble

But have you ever seen them "self assemble" to form a cellular membrane?

 

[carlosMM]

But they never created life? I heard that the geologic information showed evidence for oxygen all through out.

eh, it very much depends on how much oxygen, where (air or water?), and when - if you just dump oxygen next to proteins you'll never get life.

But have they ever created useful RNA?

you didn't get what he said, i am afraid.

But have you ever seen them "self assemble" to form a cellular membrane?

I have - it is a fun experiment we did at school - all you need to do is jostle the petri dish a bit

 

[Phydeaux]

Actually both have quite a bit of valid scientific data, here's a bit off the top of my head

B. For increasing complexity
1. Hox genes have been shown to control the development of appendages, and experiments have gotten them to produce additional segments. This is useful in questions involving animal complexity

Got what to "produce additional segments"? The appendages or the hox genes?

2. "Junk DNA", formerly thought to be useless, there is exciting new research into this wonderful stuff and how it acts through complex feedback processes to control devlopment, while the evolutionary details are still somewhat sketchy, it's clear from statistical evidence (more complex organisms have more of this DNA) that there's a genetic component to complexity and thus it would be uder the direction of evolution by natural selection. This excitng new field offers much potential into the advent of multicellarity

from what you are saying, it seems that we don't know enough to know if this has any thing to do with evolution.

3. Mitochondrial and Plastid structures. Mitochondria and Plastids are organelles seen in eukaryotic cells, they bear striking resemblance to bacteria in that they have a single large looped chromosome, they devide on thier own, and they have membranes similar to that of bacteria. This shows evidence of another complexity increasing system, endosymbiosis, where cells eat bacteria, and have subsequently formed such a powerful symbiotic relationship that they are mutually interdependant.


It is I who am beating the corpse, not you

Just because they some what alike, doesn't mean that it is because of evolution.

 

[carlosMM]

Got what to "produce additional segments"? The appendages or the hox genes?

the appendages.

from what you are saying, it seems that we don't know enough to know if this has any thing to do with evolution.

hehe, wrong! we know it has to do with evolution, just not quite how exactly.

Just because they some what alike, doesn't mean that it is because of evolution.

wrong. they are so much alike that the only viable explanation is endosymbiosis. Which is a huge indication that evolution happens.

 

[Phydeaux]

eh, it very much depends on how much oxygen, where (air or water?), and when - if you just dump oxygen next to proteins you'll never get life.

On the evidence of oxygen far back when,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-109.htm

and just a little on the life in the lab.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-152b.htm

you didn't get what he said, i am afraid.

If RNA could make the cell more simple or not doesn't matter, if you can't get RNA in the first place.

I have - it is a fun experiment we did at school - all you need to do is jostle the petri dish a bit

I'm sorry I don't know what you are talking about. Is this some kind of joke?

 

[carlosMM]

On the evidence of oxygen far back when,

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-109.htm

and just a little on the life in the lab.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-152b.htm

from the first:

If deposition occurred under a reducing atmosphere all sediments would be expected to contain pyrite.

untrue. no need to further discuss this if they base their argumentation on such idiocy.

on the second: we have been over that topic with you REPEATEDLY! read it up in the old threads.

If RNA could make the cell more simple or not doesn't matter, if you can't get RNA in the first place.

doh! man, get your biochemistry straight in the first place, check out what RNA actually is.

You only need a few proteins to get RNA, and yes, them proteins be easily (relatively) assembled. Theoretically, it is no problem to produce them from organic molecules that arise spontaneously even today.

I'm sorry I don't know what you are talking about. Is this some kind of joke?

no joke.
basically, you have a 'fat' layer on the water, you jostle the dish and part of the layer gets folded unto itself. there's your cell. If it has enough enzyms and some DNA or RNA in it, you might get life.

 

[Phydeaux]

the appendages.

are the more appendages passed down through 5 generations or so, or does it stop there?

hehe, wrong! we know it has to do with evolution, just not quite how exactly.

I'm shore it looks like evolution to you, but what I meant is you do not know enough about it to know that it shows that evolution happened. If you say that you do then I give up. I can show that it doesn't have any thing to do with evolution if we do not know much about it.

wrong. they are so much alike that the only viable explanation is endosymbiosis. Which is a huge indication that evolution happens.

Then again the change is huge, from a cells stand point. It could just as well be that God created it that way. And just because man can imagine that because they look alike means that they evolved, doesn't mean that God is trying to make us think that things evolved. It's not really science to say that things evolved because they look alike. That may be a good guess, but it doesn't mean that was what happened.

 

[carlosMM]

are the more appendages passed down through 5 generations or so, or does it stop there?

this has to my knowledge not been tested - it is a bit tough to breed mice with totally nonfunctional legs. It was done to illustrate how the genes work and how they may influence evolution, not to produce well-working new organisms.

I'm shore it looks like evolution to you, but what I meant is you do not know enough about it to know that it shows that evolution happened. If you say that you do then I give up. I can show that it doesn't have any thing to do with evolution if we do not know much about it.

nice try: look at ONE pice of evidence and if it alone doesn't prove the entire concept - dimiss it.

That's like me demanding you prove the existence of God from each SINGLE word in the bible.

Now, DO show it has nothing to do with evolution though

Then again the change is huge, from a cells stand point.

I'd like to see you explain how and why. or do you just state that?

It could just as well be that God created it that way.

yeah, yeah, the old fart is really out to deceive us, isn't he? Creating everything so that it looks like he didn't......

And just because man can imagine that because they look alike means that they evolved, doesn't mean that God is trying to make us think that things evolved. It's not really science to say that things evolved because they look alike. That may be a good guess, but it doesn't mean that was what happened.

doh!

let me prarphrase that one for you:

'What I claim is illogical, idiotic, false and partly totally theoretical. But, I'll jsut make a claim I have no idication to be true that there's a God that is omnipotent and a cheeky son of a gun, so I don't have to admit I was talking nonsens.'

 

[Phydeaux]

from the first:
untrue. no need to further discuss this if they base their argumentation on such idiocy.

What about the rocks that must have been formed with oxygen? This does not mean that you can just forget about them does it?

doh! man, get your biochemistry straight in the first place, check out what RNA actually is.

I don't see what I said wrong, but I already knew that.

You only need a few proteins to get RNA, and yes, them proteins be easily (relatively) assembled. Theoretically, it is no problem to produce them from organic molecules that arise spontaneously even today.

I heard the chance for one to form is one followed 113 zeros. I don't see how it could be easy.

no joke.
basically, you have a 'fat' layer on the water, you jostle the dish and part of the layer gets folded unto itself. there's your cell. If it has enough enzyms and some DNA or RNA in it, you might get life.

Still not enough evidence to show that a cell could come from nothing though. And I doubt just mixing the things needed for life would create it.

 

[Mr. Do]

Why did you dispute that membranes can form like that if being convinced that they can would have no bearing whatsoever upon whether you think evolution may have happened?

 

[Perfection]

But they never created life?

The created a mountain, is geology wrong? They never created a tornado, is meteorology wrong? Your arguement is stupid

I heard that the geologic information showed evidence for oxygen all through out.

You heard wrong. Where did you get that?

But have they ever created useful RNA?

Yes, they've expirementally shown that it can act as an enzyme

But have you ever seen them "self assemble" to form a cellular membrane?

I've seen them form the phospholipid bilayer which is the basic structure of the membrane (but it lacked integral protiens)

What about the rocks that must have been formed with oxygen? This does not mean that you can just forget about them does it?

Hematite can be formed by aqueous processes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematite

Water can act as a pretty good oxidizing agent

I don't see what I said wrong, but I already knew that.

I heard the chance for one to form is one followed 113 zeros. I don't see how it could be easy.

Ummm, a few things:
1. Get your creationist lies straight! Creationists lie with that big number when they talk about protiens not RNA. If your going to spout creationist lies at least make it consistant with other creationists.
2. It's unfounded for protiens because it's based on the assumption that we're just looking for a single protien when many will be useful
3. It's unfounded for nucleic acids because the've been produced

Still not enough evidence to show that a cell could come from nothing though.

No but it's good evidence that it could come from the conditions on early earth.

And I doubt just mixing the things needed for life would create it.

Of course, it's a far more complex process then that.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Do you enjoy destroying people's faith perfection? I thought you better than that.

 

[Perfection]

I don't particularly enjoy it, as it is not my intention to make people disbelieve in whatever deity they pray to, but if someone's faith requires them to discredit a valid scientific theory because it conflicts with a literal interpretation of thier holy texts with poor science or attempt to block children from learning about science, I feel that disrupting their faith is a valid means to an end.

Besides I didn't make anyone look at this, they all did it on thier own free will.

 

[Mauer]

This is probably the one and only time I can come to perfection's defense. The only faith he is destroying is his own. It would appear it is a faith the he thinks he doesn't need though. Good intentions I think Sword, but I don't think he can destroy true faith. He can only contribute in guiding one way or the other the faith of a person who is undecided.