The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[King Alexander]

Frankly, this controversy should not exist. Here in Italy, no one dare to say that science is wrong because of the Bible.

EXACTLY the same happens here: no one will question science because the Bible has it's own 'sayings', even Religionists.

The position of the Church about scientific facts that seem to contradict the Bible is quite simple: the Bible should not be taken 'literally', but as a moral teaching to people.

Exactly: one more time, this is also what happens here.

 

[Masquerouge]

The position of american creationism is not endorsed in any way by the Roman Catholic Church. The position of the Church about scientific facts that seem to contradict the Bible is quite simple: the Bible should not be taken 'literally', but as a moral teaching to people. Negating science when it apparently opposes the Bible is something that could have happened 500 years ago, not now...

Just want to add this to your nice post : American creationnists are most of the time strongly opposed to the Catholic Church. Thus the position of the Pope on the matter will be of little effect to them.

 

[Stile]

More Proof of Young Earth From ABC News

link

Mo. Officials Tout New Dinosaur Exhibit
KANSAS CITY, Mo. Mar 16, 2005 — Union Station officials are hoping a 65-foot, 140-year-old dinosaur will attract up to 100,000 more visitors a year and help pull the struggling Kansas City landmark out of the red.

Finally, some proper scientific dating shows dinosaurs were contemporaries of us a mere 140 years ago, not millions a years ago as our ancestors.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Unfortunately, the creationists told us that radiometric dating doesn't work. The date must be wrong.

 

[tR1cKy]

Union Station officials are hoping a 65-foot, 140-year-old dinosaur will attract up to 100,000 more visitors a year and help pull the struggling Kansas City landmark out of the red.

EDIT: deleted - you were obviously joking...

 

[carlosMM]

EDIT: deleted - you were obviously joking...

No, it is either a typo in the city or they are referring to a dinosaur dug out 140 years ago (though I doubt that, as Camarasaurus lived roughly 140 million years ago).

 

[Stile]

I originally thought they found a living dinosaur that was 140 years old and hitched it up to a landmark so it could pull it to a new location (apparently it is stuck in red clay) as the sentence clearly says (yes, I can be a literalist). You can imagine my disappointment when I found they had dug up the bones in 1997, and that the dinosaur had died 140 years ago. That recent there might be flesh still on the bones.

 

[tR1cKy]

So you're serious then... i cannot believe it

 

[Perfection]

I don't think he is serious, that "out of the red" remark gives it away. I think we have a little Stratego.

Edit: Then again, he is from Georgia...

 

[carniflex]

the dinosaur had died 140 years ago.

The dinosaur was a contemporary of Marx ?
hmmm...
I now understand why so many people in this forum think Marx is outdated.

 

[Perfection]

In response to DuDe Fastpace here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116916&page=2&pp=20

Okay, take a look at the yellow island, this represents the galapagos islands (grossly oversized), it has birds on it with structures (body parts) that a very similar to the birds on the Blue coastline even though the climates are very different.

Now take a look at madagascar (the red island), it's got a similar climate to the galapagos, so if the climate is similar wouldn't god put similar animals on it? However the birds on madagascar have very different structures.

So if creationism is correct why is geographic distance the judge of similarity among these animals rather than environment?

 

[Perfection]

From the other thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116916&page=3

wow, perfection that was surprisingly helpful(not being sarcastic)
most of the time when they put "here ya go" for the link it ussually insults you....huh...interesting. did you make that yourself?

Oh yeah, I do all my own stunts, almost all my arguements are made by me, however I often will post a link that demonstrates that a factual assertion is incorrect, for example if one were to say there are no transitional fossils, I would post a link that would list instances where they have found some.

ok nevermind.

I hope that didn't mean to disregard the above, I found it most flattering

Well, according to the bible there could be two explanations of the top of my head,
one. When the people of Babylon were forced to split up do to differences in languaghe the [peoples who settled in that area could have brought the birds with them

But the Galapagos has no records of earlier inhabitation.

or when the world was flooded birds could have been thrown off on there normal routine(north for winter south for summer) and have been confused so they flew of in random directions and eventually settled in the nearest suitable habitat.NEAREST suitable habitat.

Wouldn't that go against the idea of storing them on the Ark?

Of course, with that idea you'd still have to explain how the flightless birds got there.

ok, also i would like to make something clear. I may not entirly get the bird thing my english isnt so great and there were a few words i didnt know in there.

I strive to keep this thread at a level which most can understand, if there are any words that you do not understand please ask me.

 

[Stile]

So if creationism is correct why is geographic distance the judge of similarity among these animals rather than environment?

So what about birds that are similar between Madagascar and the Galapagos. Both have herons, warblers, and hawks. Some are in the same genus such as the Great Blue Heron and the Grey Heron. Some are both in the same genus and endemic to their particular areas like the Madagascar Buzzard (Buteo brachypterus) and the Galapagos Hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). If geographic distance is not the only judge of similarity, then who or what else is the judge? Also, I don't agree that God would place animals purely by environment anyway.

Here is the problem with most of your arguments. They usually involve one or both of the following. You say: since x is true, evolution is true. But when x is false, evolution is true and it's a beautiful, majestic (evolutionists are fond of such adjectives in describing their theory) example of convergent or parallel evolution. The logically honest view would be that x can be of no 'proof' to evolution. It may deserve further scientific inquiry, but it's not proof. The other is you offer as evidence something that is not under contention. For instance no one disagrees with micro-evolution, as it's been shown by our own efforts in things such as the banana and red delicious apple I packed in my lunch tonight. I have a hunch your examples of transitional fossils are not in contention. What is the point of showing a snake with legs when the Bible says that is what we should find. And if the Lord would intervene in the physical characteristics of one life form, why not others?

So in the map you posted, some birds are similar in the yellow and blue regions, thanks to microevolution most likely. Some birds are different between the yellow and red regions due to different geographic locations. Also, though, some birds are similar between the yellow and blue regions despite location and some are different between the yellow and red regions, despite their closer proximity. So what is your point.

Another example of faulty logic is from your first post on a clear line of homologous structures. When there is no evidence of branching the convergent evolution reason is given. One of the more obvious examples would be placental mammals versus marsupial mammals. Marsupials
supposedly diverged from placentals during the Middle Cretaceous. But there are examples of mammals that are amazingly (some might say impossibly) similar from both orders. Thylacosmilus (a marsupial saber-tooth 'cat', with no known ancestors or descendents) is perhaps one of the more famous examples, but there are also 'anteaters', 'moles', and 'mice'. Even the saber-tooth structure is one that had to develop independently in vastly different regions and eras in order to force the fossil record to match theory. Teeth themselves are said to have developed independently atleast three times in fish. Again, I think the classification of life and the study of biodiversity are worthy scientific endeavors, but what you have offered as proof of evolution in action is uhhh... not worthy of Perfection.

Thanks in advance should you choose to respond to this post. I would appreciate it if you would not post with a string of quotes interjected with your comments as it's harder to follow and respond to, but if that's all you have time for I'll take what I can get.

 

[carlosMM]

uh, stile, it seems you pick what you like and ignore what you dislike:

let's just take you last example and show where you're wrong:

Marsupials
supposedly diverged from placentals during the Middle Cretaceous

indeed

But there are examples of mammals that are amazingly (some might say impossibly) similar from both orders.

Why 'but'? where is the contradiction?
the fossil record shows clearly that evolution worked on both lineages, producing similar animals in both, from similar ancestors - but they are not closely related just because similar evolutionry pressures worked on them!

Even the saber-tooth structure is one that had to develop independently in vastly different regions and eras in order to force the fossil record to match theory

force????

also, if you want to claim that saer toothed cats are all closely related to Thlycosmilus, how come there are significant differences in the skeleton indicative of even more significant differences in reproductory mode? How do you explain THAT?

Again, I think the classification of life and the study of biodiversity are worthy scientific endeavors, but what you have offered as proof of evolution in action is uhhh... not worthy of Perfection.

to me, it seems you simly do not understand how compex evolution is!

Take, e.g., sauropod skulls - you can by FEA (finite element analysis) create various skull types from bite and support forces. Interestingly, if you accidently put in one force wrong - you end up with another known species! It seems that phyiscal constrains limit skull design far more than most people will imagine. Does that mean it is not evolution?

No, it just means that our idea of how various factors, e.g. nostril position, cranial fenstra shape etc. are interconnected, are far too simple (i.e. we assume far less direct dependency than there is). Prof. Witzel, who does that rsearch, has so far failed to produce even a SINGLE skull type that doesn't exist in reality!

 

[Perfection]

So what about birds that are similar between Madagascar and the Galapagos. Both have herons, warblers, and hawks. Some are in the same genus such as the Great Blue Heron and the Grey Heron. Some are both in the same genus and endemic to their particular areas like the Madagascar Buzzard (Buteo brachypterus) and the Galapagos Hawk (Buteo galapagoensis). If geographic distance is not the only judge of similarity, then who or what else is the judge?

Of course there's similarity between the two, especially for large preditory birds, however, that's not the issue, the issue is not if they are related, because all birds are related, it's the degree of relation. And with the Galapagos there is a greater relationship between the South American shoreline then Madagascar.

Also, I don't agree that God would place animals purely by environment anyway.

Then how do you propose that we test creationism?

Here is the problem with most of your arguments. They usually involve one or both of the following. You say: since x is true, evolution is true.

quick clarification, I say it's evidenced, my example while it's evidence for evolution, it's no proof. The summation of all the little things is what gives evolution it's power

But when x is false, evolution is true and it's a beautiful, majestic (evolutionists are fond of such adjectives in describing their theory)

Hey, what do you expect for a theory that explains so much!

example of convergent or parallel evolution.

When did I say that? I said the birds on the Galapagos were more similar to the ones on the South American coast then those on Madagascar, not that they weren't similar at all. You're pulling a strawman on me.

Well, I'd love to continue to chat, but I got to go to school. So, I'll get back to this later today!

 

[ybbor]

to me, it seems you simly do not understand how compex evolution is!

seems to me Stile just predictedn you would say that 2 posts ago

Take, e.g., sauropod skulls - you can by FEA (finite element analysis) create various skull types from bite and support forces. Interestingly, if you accidently put in one force wrong - you end up with another known species! It seems that phyiscal constrains limit skull design far more than most people will imagine. Does that mean it is not evolution?

No, it just means that our idea of how various factors, e.g. nostril position, cranial fenstra shape etc. are interconnected, are far too simple (i.e. we assume far less direct dependency than there is). Prof. Witzel, who does that rsearch, has so far failed to produce even a SINGLE skull type that doesn't exist in reality!

wouldn't that interconnection make major evolutiopn hard? the entire skull would have to shifted, not just more centered eyes, or a lower nostril, which it seems would be too interconnected

 

[tR1cKy]

wouldn't that interconnection make major evolutiopn hard? the entire skull would have to shifted, not just more centered eyes, or a lower nostril, which it seems would be too interconnected

why? please explain better. I'm a foreigner trying to understand both points, but if your semantics is so mangled you end up being understood by no one but yourself...

 

[Perfection]

The logically honest view would be that x can be of no 'proof' to evolution. It may deserve further scientific inquiry, but it's not proof. The other is you offer as evidence something that is not under contention. For instance no one disagrees with micro-evolution,

Okay, first off people do disagree with microevolution, they're more off-base then the standard creationist but they still are around. That said, most of my examples are not microevolution, they involve changes at higher then species level.

as it's been shown by our own efforts in things such as the banana and red delicious apple I packed in my lunch tonight. I have a hunch your examples of transitional fossils are not in contention.

I posted talk origin's mostly. Those are clearly examples of macroevolution.

What is the point of showing a snake with legs when the Bible says that is what we should find.

Where did the bible say that?

And if the Lord would intervene in the physical characteristics of one life form, why not others?

Let's not stop there, let's say the lord intervenes at every single gap between tranistional fossils, and if evolutionists find a new one, then it was merely a work of god in between! I have no way to prove it wrong, but the idea is completly untestable and therefore not science.

So in the map you posted, some birds are similar in the yellow and blue regions, thanks to microevolution most likely.

You keep dismissing all my tranisitonal forms as microeveolution so where's the cutoff? When is it macroevolution.

Some birds are different between the yellow and red regions due to different geographic locations. Also, though, some birds are similar between the yellow and blue regions despite location and some are different between the yellow and red regions, despite their closer proximity. So what is your point.

What are you talking about? The yellow region is closer to the blue region then the red region! Please try to rephrase that.

Another example of faulty logic is from your first post on a clear line of homologous structures. When there is no evidence of branching the convergent evolution reason is given.

I gave mammalian hair as an example, how does that not work?

One of the more obvious examples would be placental mammals versus marsupial mammals. Marsupials
supposedly diverged from placentals during the Middle Cretaceous. But there are examples of mammals that are amazingly (some might say impossibly) similar from both orders. Thylacosmilus (a marsupial saber-tooth 'cat', with no known ancestors or descendents) is perhaps one of the more famous examples, but there are also 'anteaters', 'moles', and 'mice'. Even the saber-tooth structure is one that had to develop independently in vastly different regions and eras in order to force the fossil record to match theory. Teeth themselves are said to have developed independently atleast three times in fish. Again, I think the classification of life and the study of biodiversity are worthy scientific endeavors, but what you have offered as proof of evolution in action is uhhh... not worthy of Perfection.

Well, the fundamental fallacy is you posit that similar body style or similar purposed organs is equivalent to same structure. That is false. Body styles are repeated all throughout the animal kingdom (actually it applies to fungi and plants as well) because similar evolutionary pressure will lead to similar shapes. Note that while the shapes are similar the internal componants, the structure, is radically different. That's the real key, structure, not shape. Same with similar organs (your teeth example), take the eye, it's evolved many times as well, however even though the eye is similar in funtion the structure is different, compare your eye to that of an ants and you'll get an excellent idea of the difference between similar organs and homologous structures.

Thanks in advance should you choose to respond to this post. I would appreciate it if you would not post with a string of quotes interjected with your comments as it's harder to follow and respond to, but if that's all you have time for I'll take what I can get.

It's somewhat broken down, but I think it's not the real nitpicking that I often do.

 

[ybbor]

why? please explain better. I'm a foreigner trying to understand both points, but if your semantics is so mangled you end up being understood by no one but yourself...

if macro-evolution is the accumlation of micro-evolution, then macro-evolution can only be advanced if variation that contributes to micro-evolution is able. If a skull cannot be changed in one area without the other areas having to change, variation would not be able to produce a new skull unless severall mutations occured in the right place simultaniously; a near immpossible feat.

 

[tR1cKy]

Thanks for the clarification, but who said that "a skull cannot be changed in one area without the other areas having to change" ?!? I don't see why such a thing cannot happen. (i mean, a skull changing in only 1 area with no other areas changed)