The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Pasi Nurminen]

This is simply wrong.

1. Science can't "prove" anything. It only provides evidence that support or detract from the validity of a scientific hypothesis. Remember even though Newton's theories worked flawlessly in observation, it was later shown to be incomplete!

So...you're saying that evolution is a scientific fact...and admitting that it cannot be proven?

2. Direct observation is not a requirement of science, one cannot physically observe nuetrinos but we can detect their presence by the impact they have on other things, providing a means for observation. Same with evolution we can indirectly observe it by its effects!

By that exact same token, we didn't directly observe the Creation, yet we easily see the results: a living, breathing world.

3. Small scale evolution has been directly observed

This is not true.

 

[carlosMM]

Pasi:

indeed science cannot prove anything absolutely - there is always the possibility that some theoretical magic being actually created the world to look un-created. But that's like claiming there's a huge radioactive monkey sitting next to me that is invisible, insmellible, unhearable and automatically disables any radiation detector placed near it.....


so, a 'living, breathing world' is well explained by the ToE - we don't need no God for that, nor creation.

This is not true.

you are wrong!

 

[puglover]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the universe is too complex to have come about by chance.

This is not true.

Yes it is. The well-known story of the peppered moth is a perfect example of microevolution at work.


Why is it denied that religion is a part of science? It concerns the universe, how it works, and uses particular observations of that universe to come to a conclusion. Is that not what science is all about? If it doesn't agree with your views, it isn't science? If you think it's stupid, it isn't science? I don't understand.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861702307

sci·ence [ s ənss ] (plural sci·ences)

noun

1. study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment ( often used before a noun )

2. branch of science: a branch of science of a particular area of study
the life sciences

3. knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the study of the physical world

4. systematic body of knowledge: any systematically organized body of knowledge about a specific subject
the social sciences

5. something studied or performed methodically: any activity that is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a developed method
treated me to a lecture on the science of dressing for success

 

[puglover]

Creationism as in god creating the animals directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism.

Intelligent design yes. But to believe in creationism you don't nescessarily have to believe in the literal 7-day creation. I'm still shaky on that one, so I won't touch the 7-day thing.

 

[carlosMM]

puglover: religion is not a part of science (though there is a science of religion!) because religion is
1) NOT studying the physical world
2) NOT a branch of life sciences
3) NOT knowledge gained from science
4) NOT a systematic anything
5) NOT moethodically in any way!


All the above is however true of the STUDY of religion. Science can be applied to religion - never the other way round.


and you claim that the world is too compley to be a product of chance is plain wrong - and we've been over it here on this forum 100 times! Every expert you ask tells you so!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Quantum Physics merely places limits on the seemingly infinite number of E and L the electron can have. Once in an energy level, F=ma still applies. Really, Quantum physics dispels Electromagnetism, rather than Newton's laws.

This is not true. Quantum mechanics replaces the Newtonian equations of motion with the Schrödinger equation.

 

[Perfection]

So...you're saying that evolution is a scientific fact...and admitting that it cannot be proven?

Nothing in science can be proven. My claim is twofold.
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim.
2. Creationism is not.

By that exact same token, we didn't directly observe the Creation, yet we easily see the results: a living, breathing world.

That is incorrect. Creation makes no testible predictions. One can easly claim god did it. Evolution makes testible predictions, those predictions have subsequently been validated.

This is not true.

That is not true!

Population frequncy changes, antibiotic resistance, evolution by artifical selection, and speciation all provide ways to directly observe evolution in action.

Intelligent design yes. But to believe in creationism you don't nescessarily have to believe in the literal 7-day creation. I'm still shaky on that one, so I won't touch the 7-day thing.

That's why I was listing out all the permutations of creationism that I classify as creationism, such as non-literal gap creationism.

Religion is not science because it does not follow the scientific method. The scientific method being the idea of observing soemthing, making a hypothesis, making predictions based on the hypothesis, testing the predictions and subsequently confirming denying or modifying the hypothesis, continue testing.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Heh, I'll happily side with you one this one, Perfection, despite arguing for the existence of God in the other thread!

See Last-Thursdayism for a decent laugh on the subject. I don't have much more to post now, since you posted the last entry...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Last-Thursdayism! Such blasphemy! As all decent people agree, the universe was created last Wednesday! 11.34 in the morning, to be exact.

 

[Shadylookin]

So...you're saying that evolution is a scientific fact...and admitting that it cannot be proven?

it's about theories and testing them. The atomic theory is still a theory, but ask any japanese person or someone living near the trinity test site(which are probably all dead) they will gladly tell you that the theory has been experimented upon and works.

By that exact same token, we didn't directly observe the Creation, yet we easily see the results: a living, breathing world.

there is evidence against creation ie. fossils and others

This is not true.

yes it is

 

[Saga of Gemini]

1. Biogeography, animals are in close proximity to structurally similar animals. Now, creationists may argue that it is because of the similar climate but they are mistaken. Take the famous example of the Galapagos Islands. The birds there are structurally close to the ones off the South American coast even though the climates are competly different. Therefore the location must be the factor in taxonomic relatedness. Additionally islands with much more similar environments have birds that are more related to the birds of thier coast than to the birds of the Galapagos. Surely if there was an intelligent designer the birds from similar islands would have similar structures to face similar challanges, however this is simply not the case. Geography is the measure of structural similarity not climatology!

Aha this is called polimorfism....nedless to say this argument is pointless.
Also if there was an intelligent designer the only way to know why or how he designs is to ask him not to say he dosnt exist.

2. Paleogeography, continental drift theory shows that around the time of the early mammals (as per the fossil record) Australia breaks free from all other continents. Today, Australian mammels are massively different from all other mammels. How can creationism account for the fact that there is such a massive difference?

Geographici isolation?...duh....
You are making your critic with a galss of evolutionism. Ypu said: "early mammls" your implyng that they evolved...wich of course makes your critic valid from evolutios point of view but since there were no "early forms" ( from creationism point of view of course) mammals were created in full form...so it dosnt matter.

3. A clear line of homologous structures. In the fossil record and among modern animals they follow a nested branching line of similarities in structure. For example all vertabrates have spines and all mammals have fur. Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur?

Actually with creationism the answer is much simplier they were designed as such...dont see a problem with that.

With creationism there is no answer, with evolution, the answer is because the predecessor to all furry creatures was a vertabrate

yeah...you see the problem is that you can say that... prove it its another thing....cough***no links**cough**

[QUOTE. Now, many creationists will argue, "well what about structures like the eye?" But when one looks at the nature of a squid eye vs. a bug eye vs. a fish eye we see that just because they have the same purpose they are very different in terms of structure. The method in which squid eyes and fish eyes focus is very different, and bug eyes look completly unlike the eyes of other animals. The structure in eyes is very different as is the way it works, however mammal fur and structure is basically the same for all mammals![/QUOTE]

Are you getting this critics from a handbook? The more differences you present the more you favor creation. I seriusly dont understand the point in this argument ( seeing it from your point of view of course)

This is clearly evidence based upon observed phenomena, so we can put the myth that evolution has no way to observe it to rest!

It dosnt has any way to observe it if not we and science faculties all over the world ( especially the US) wouldnt be having this argument.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Ah but evolution has numerous things!

It predicted the emergance of more tranistional fossils

Actually dear perfection the prediction was that if not found the detractors of the theory would be rigth. Thing that hasnt hapened yet ( the finding of such fssils)

It predicted the discovery of a means of inheritance as well as a means of changing genes without recombination (mutations)

WTH??

It predicted the emergence of more vestigial structures, embryological homologies, and a correspondance between DNA and chemical activity

WTH ^2??

It predicted that the branched nature of taxonomy would remain branched and not intertwined

Ok I have no info about that so I will remain silent in here.

It predicted the existance of beneficial mutations

I have yet to see such thing.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'm religious, so I believe in evolution.

Creationists: Explain (dinosaur) fossils.
Then make a few claims of your own rather than rebutting Perfection's, so that I have an opportunity to copy from the T.O. newsgroup.

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Yeah I forgot to say I dont want to participate in this anymore so dont throw any challenges at me since the most propable thing is that I wont reply ( maybe I will maybe I wont )

I just want to point one last thing o all ( and I do mean ALL)

The problem is that first: evolutionist know verywell the theory the theoric marc and its strong points etc... but know NOTHING about the critics.
While in the other side of the border creationist rarely ( in this case its rarely and not NOTHING because after all we do are required in school to see it rigth?) know well the actual theory etc...
But know incredibly well the critics.

Other problem I see in the side of evolutionist is the fact that when one quotes a scientist that makes a coment against evolution or a particular argument of the theory, you take it as a missinterpretetion even if the coment is something like: "evolution is false". That kind of simplistic arguments ( wich Ive made also of course hehehe) dont work. And another thing is the appeal to authority if evolutionist are going to use those shallow arguments like: "scientist are not crazy...scientist have tested it and they all belive it so it must be rigth and your way of thinking is wrong". Then for example if I present Fred Hoyle or some other authority in the matter shouldnt that be counted also?? But that is not the case scientist are always rigth if they agree with TOE while if they dont agree they are wrong and shouldnt be taking in consideration.

This is my warning to both sides.

 

[HamaticBabylon]

Perfection has too much corruption in his heart, there is no way you can "make" someone understand creationism. You have to take the humble first steps, until then you will always remain in the dark!

 

[Perfection]

Aha this is called polimorfism....nedless to say this argument is pointless.
Edit: Actually it's not polymorphism as I was doing comparisons to seperate species.

Also if there was an intelligent designer the only way to know why or how he designs is to ask him not to say he dosnt exist.

Unfortuantly that's not scientifically possible. My point was to show that generalizations based on the idea that "god did it" do not show up in expiramental evidence

Geographici isolation?...duh....
You are making your critic with a galss of evolutionism. Ypu said: "early mammls" your implyng that they evolved...wich of course makes your critic valid from evolutios point of view but since there were no "early forms" ( from creationism point of view of course) mammals were created in full form...so it dosnt matter.

Well, I was just showing how geological isolation fits into the evolutionary scheme it's difficult to express the multifaceted nature of evolutionary evidence. However there's evidence to show that marsupials have less mammalian traits then eutharians, consider that they lack the placenta and give birth very early in development. This is further bolstered by the exstance of monotremes an even earlier egg laying mammal. With the convergence of geographical isolation by continental drift, the fossel record, and the differences in reproduction we end up with a strong case that evoltution occured.

Actually with creationism the answer is much simplier they were designed as such...dont see a problem with that.

Science is rarely simple.

yeah...you see the problem is that you can say that... prove it its another thing....cough***no links**cough**

Are you getting this critics from a handbook? The more differences you present the more you favor creation. I seriusly dont understand the point in this argument ( seeing it from your point of view of course)

The point is as follows:
If we sort animals by similarities in the shape and composition of basic structures in organisms we see a nested organisation system works best instead of a scattered system.

Creationists take some structures like eyes and wings and assert that they do not fit the nested organisation, however when one looks at thier shape and composition one finds they are not alike in shape or composition so the idea of a nested system works!

It dosnt has any way to observe it if not we and science faculties all over the world ( especially the US) wouldnt be having this argument.

Sure it has been observed, both massively in indirect ways, and to a lessor extent directly. Additionally, it's not the science faculties (for the large extant) that are arguing against evolution, the vast majority believe in it's validity; it's the religious fundys that take issue. There is no massive debate in the scientific community about the existance of evolution.

Actually dear perfection the prediction was that if not found the detractors of the theory would be rigth. Thing that hasnt hapened yet ( the finding of such fssils)

No, it's happened. A good reference for transtional fossils is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

WTH??

WTH ^2??

Those are some mighty fine arguements, there

I have yet to see such thing.

Well here ya go!

2. Bacteria that eat nylon
Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes. Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period.

These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme. This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities. This would appear to be an example of documented occurrence of beneficial mutations in the lab.

There's more here

 

[Perfection]

Yeah I forgot to say I dont want to participate in this anymore so dont throw any challenges at me since the most propable thing is that I wont reply ( maybe I will maybe I wont )

If you don't want me to challange you, don't post. Just because your angry doesn't mean the opposition should give up!

I just want to point one last thing o all ( and I do mean ALL)

The problem is that first: evolutionist know verywell the theory the theoric marc and its strong points etc... but know NOTHING about the critics.

I know plenty about the critiques, however, I view them to be incorrect, viewing something to being incorrect does not mean that they do not know about it!


While in the other side of the border creationist rarely ( in this case its rarely and not NOTHING because after all we do are required in school to see it rigth?) know well the actual theory etc...
But know incredibly well the critics.

Other problem I see in the side of evolutionist is the fact that when one quotes a scientist that makes a coment against evolution or a particular argument of the theory, you take it as a missinterpretetion even if the coment is something like: "evolution is false". That kind of simplistic arguments ( wich Ive made also of course hehehe) dont work. And another thing is the appeal to authority if evolutionist are going to use those shallow arguments like: "scientist are not crazy...scientist have tested it and they all belive it so it must be rigth and your way of thinking is wrong". Then for example if I present Fred Hoyle or some other authority in the matter shouldnt that be counted also?? But that is not the case scientist are always rigth if they agree with TOE while if they dont agree they are wrong and shouldnt be taking in consideration.

This is my warning to both sides.

Note how little authority appeal I have used, I rejected a single opposition's use because it was blatently taken out of context. Let's not start accusing me of that!

 

[Saga of Gemini]

Note how little authority appeal I have used, I rejected a single opposition's use because it was blatently taken out of context. Let's not start accusing me of that!

Perfection if you feel aluded then u feel guilty of the acusation. However I wasnt refering to you but to most evolutionist and other ppl Ive debated in this forum. BTW i agree with the rest u said.

 

[carlosMM]

Saga: nice rethorics, sounds a bit like GWB selling the Iraq war

 

[Smidlee]

I'm religious, so I believe in evolution.

Creationists: Explain (dinosaur) fossils.
Then make a few claims of your own rather than rebutting Perfection's, so that I have an opportunity to copy from the T.O. newsgroup.

So if you attack creation over the fact it can't explain something then evolution is in serious trouble also. Some has even questioned how could evolution be falsiable. Creationists says God did it while evolutionists gives the credit to Mother Nature and Father Time.