The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[sir_schwick]

This may seem stupid now, but I will try to direct arguments in a direction to arrive at some conclusion. It will make sense in time.

Question: Does ToE being discussed here refer to the principles of how life evolves(genetic recombination, mutation, and all others dicussed) or does it refer to the specific evolution of life and the origin of life?

Once this is answered I can pose another question.

 

[Scuffer]

I've been assuming the former.

 

[sir_schwick]

In that case Creationism deals with the origin of life and ToE deals with the principles of how it evolves. Thus, the two are not mutually exclusive. Fundamentally, there is no way to prove whether the universe was created as though it had aged billions of years or it actually had. I'll explain the argument of the first when I have mroe time bertween clas.

 

[Scuffer]

Are there any theological issues with what God created adapting over time? Would that suggest that his design was initially flawed, and be blaspheamous? I've no idea, know little about theology but that's what strikes me about the idea.

 

[Stile]

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

Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? They are called butterflies and they have sensitive hairs covering their bodies while they are caterpillars. Not only are they not vertabrates, but they are not even chordata. If you had said 'Why does no organism outside kingdom animalia have fur ?' then I would give it to you (and let someone else argue ferns.)

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I assume since Perfection is spreading this evolution fairy tale in other threads that it hasn't been debunked here.

 

[stormbind]

@Perfection,

Which varient of Creationism are you trying to KO?

Within the broader term creationist, there is no single set of beliefs, but a few general categories do exist. One classification is based on beliefs about the age of the Earth.

* Young Earth creationists believe that the Earth was created by God around 6,000 years ago, usually as described in the Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar.
* Old Earth creationists believe that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. Old Earth creationism comes in two flavors:
o Gap creationism, also called Restitution creationism — the view that life was immediately created on a pre-existing old Earth. This group generally translates Genesis 1:2 as “The earth became without form and void,” indicating a destruction of the original creation by some unknown cataclysm.
o Day-age creationism — the view that the “six days” of Genesis are not ordinary twenty-four-hour days, but rather much longer periods (for instance, each “day” could be the equivalent of millions of years of modern time).

Another classification is based on beliefs about how organisms have been created.

* Progressive creationism states that new kinds of organisms are constantly being created to replace extinct ancient forms.
* Intelligent design states that life is too complex to have evolved without the intervention of an (unnamed) intelligent designer. The originator of this view is biochemist Michael Behe.
* Evolutionary creationism (or theistic evolution) states that biological evolution happens, but that God controls the apparently random events or designed the fundamental physical laws that allow evolution.
* Deism states that the universe was created by a God who then made no further intervention in its affairs. This is often expressed by the metaphor of the “Divine Watchmaker” who created a mechanism so perfect as to be self-regulating. Deists do not believe in miracles or revelations.

 

[Blasphemous]

Are there any theological issues with what God created adapting over time? Would that suggest that his design was initially flawed, and be blaspheamous? I've no idea, know little about theology but that's what strikes me about the idea.

Well, there are those who actually interpret creation myths literally or almost literally and so they cannt accept the idea of things evolving on their own and not being created instantaneously one by one over the course of seven days (or whatever their respective creation myth is.)
Also there are those who insist that god gave humans souls and didn't do the same for animals which for some people might not fit in with evolution.
If only religion had not encroached on the field of the knowable... It would be so much easier to reconcile religion and science if they truly covered seperate magisteria.

 

[stormbind]

@CarlosMM,

'Creation Science' is a collection of theories that are not all are advocated by the same people. Someone who believes one 'Creation Science' theory may disagree with the other 'Creation Science' theories. They are collected under one topic only because they all try to undermine the credibility of ToE.

You cannot debunk all 'Creation Science' in one go. Each theory needs to be tackled seperately.

According the Wikipedia, the names of 'Creation Science' theories include: Intelligent design, Macroevolution vs. microevolution, Thermodynamics, Rock strata, Inaccuracy of radiometric dating, Relativity and time measurement. I did not read into them.

 

[Perfection]

Actually, Chemistry is packed with mathematical evidence.

So is evolutionary biology, though with a greater emphasis on qualitative.

Once upon a time, scientists believed sailors who travelled too far from land, would fall off the edge of the world.

You and they share the same faith in qualitative observation.

Ummm, what qualitative observation lends to the idea of falling off Earth's edge?

@Perfection,

Which varient of Creationism are you trying to KO?

Post #6

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.

Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? They are called butterflies and they have sensitive hairs covering their bodies while they are caterpillars. Not only are they not vertabrates, but they are not even chordata. If you had said 'Why does no organism outside kingdom animalia have fur ?' then I would give it to you (and let someone else argue ferns.)

That's not fur, while Lipodoptera have sensitive hairlike setae, it is nothing like mammelian fur and is made of chitin not keratin and isn't produced in the same process. Similar features (hairlike appendages) occur, but the underlying structure is radically different and so is easly explianable by convergent evolution.

 

[stormbind]

Ummm, what qualitative observation lends to the idea of falling off Earth's edge?

You will find no emperical data to back this up, just observations:

> Ships & boats that go out too far, disapear off the horizon, and never return.

Having no emperical data, no evidence of their being anything beyond the horizon, scientists in history believed that those ships had fallen off the edge of the world.

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

 

[Perfection]

You will find no emperical data to back this up, just observations:

Observation is what emperical data is all about!

Empirical research is any activity that uses direct or indirect observation as its test of reality.

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

> Ships & boats that go out too far, disapear off the horizon, and never return.

Yeah, but they usually do return...

> Having no emperical data, no evidence of their being anything beyond the horizon, scientists in history believed that those ships had fallen off the edge of the world.

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

I have empircal data! What is the first post's arguement based off of? Summerizations and interpretations of emperical data!

 

[betazed]

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

If you want mathematical proof for evolution, then why didn't you just say so? You would have saved perfection so many posts!

Just go to amazon and do a search on mathematical biology and see how many books pop up. There are dozens. I specifically suggest that you read this one. Perhaps then you would be satisfied.

I also suggest that you do a search on population genetics. Entirely based on evolution concepts and statistics, perhaps you will consider its deductions mathematical enough.

 

[carlosMM]

@CarlosMM,

'Creation Science' is a collection of theories that are not all are advocated by the same people. Someone who believes one 'Creation Science' theory may disagree with the other 'Creation Science' theories. They are collected under one topic only because they all try to undermine the credibility of ToE.

You cannot debunk all 'Creation Science' in one go. Each theory needs to be tackled seperately.

According the Wikipedia, the names of 'Creation Science' theories include: Intelligent design, Macroevolution vs. microevolution, Thermodynamics, Rock strata, Inaccuracy of radiometric dating, Relativity and time measurement. I did not read into them.

We can KO them all in one thread, can't we?

Each time creation 'science' sticks its head up it gets a bloody nose!

Why is it that no animals besides vertabrates have fur? They are called butterflies and they have sensitive hairs covering their bodies while they are caterpillars. Not only are they not vertabrates, but they are not even chordata. If you had said 'Why does no organism outside kingdom animalia have fur ?' then I would give it to you (and let someone else argue ferns.)

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I assume since Perfection is spreading this evolution fairy tale in other threads that it hasn't been debunked here.

If you look at the way these hariy coverings on butterflies and moths etc develop then you will see that they LOOK like hair and FEEL like hair and indeed have the same FUNCTION like hair - but the cellular way they grow is totally different!

It is similar to both penguins and sharks having a torpedo-shaped body - they both adapted to a certain problem. But if you look at the details then you will find differences.

OTOH, if you look for what animals have hair (definition of 'hair' is here meant by perfection and me as the kind that grows from the hair buldge cells thingy, not the insect one!) - then you'll find that only mammals (in the broader sense of Theria) have hair.


Detail, detail, detail - that's why it is so cumbersome to argue with creationists - most vocal proposers are religiously educated, but lack the detailed scientific knowledge!

Question: Does ToE being discussed here refer to the principles of how life evolves(genetic recombination, mutation, and all others dicussed) or does it refer to the specific evolution of life and the origin of life?

Both the cellular level and the population level are meant!
Evolution started the second the first living being came into existence. Abiogenesis is still a bit difficult to explain, there's a load of theories, some good some bad, but once it HAS happen - that's where evolution starts!

You will find no emperical data to back this up, just observations:

> Ships & boats that go out too far, disapear off the horizon, and never return.

Having no emperical data, no evidence of their being anything beyond the horizon, scientists in history believed that those ships had fallen off the edge of the world.

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

stormbind, I am sorry to reign on your parade, but calling these people scientists is the largest misconception I ahve come across in a long time!

it is a total myth that clerical sceintists believed such nonsense. Not one scientific work of that ancient and middle ages makes such claims. There's two books that do to my knowledge - both written by people who were regarded as religious nuts and of possessing a lot of zeal but little intelligence.

Interestingly, these two books, much inored before, were picked out in late renaissance times to illustrate how 'dark' the middle ages had been and how smart, in contrast, people were now. This is a myth, if you don't belive me, then go to Rome, go to St. Peters, left crossaisle, there's a little chapel with a huge skeleton figure of death resting his foot on earth - a sphere with Europe, Asia & Africa asily recognizable. no trace of the Americas but a vague speck of land - conformal to the 'Vinland myth' going around Europe at that time.

Dated: 1475!







any questions?

 

[Scuffer]

@Blasphemous

I was reading stormbind's post (no# 486) and the same thing is apparent there. There is a spectrum of beliefs in the involvement of God in the process from absolute to very subtle. I wonder what opinion the pope might have on progressive creationism.

 

[Sims2789]

You will find no emperical data to back this up, just observations:

> Ships & boats that go out too far, disapear off the horizon, and never return.

Having no emperical data, no evidence of their being anything beyond the horizon, scientists in history believed that those ships had fallen off the edge of the world.

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

I usually stay out of Evolution/Creationism debates, as I grow tired of re-stating information and having the other side ignore it. But today I cannot help it, so I answer your post with a picture, because I am too lazy to write a lengthy report on the evidence of Evolution:

 

[Birdjaguar]

Your diplodocus only has three legs. It's obviously a fake. God would never make a land animal with three legs.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think if there is any proof of evolution, it is Keith Richards. He has managed to evolve for the copious amounts of substances he consumes without dieing. This has to be proof of evolution, or the existance of vampires.

 

[The Last Conformist]

You will find no emperical data to back this up, just observations:

> Ships & boats that go out too far, disapear off the horizon, and never return.

Having no emperical data, no evidence of their being anything beyond the horizon, scientists in history believed that those ships had fallen off the edge of the world.

Perfection, you have no emperical data. Your faith in ToE may seem logical, but could be just as flawed as the above.

How about a source? The earliest texts I've heard of mentioning ships disappearing over the horizon are Greek ones mentioning it as proof of the spherical shape of the Earth ...

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Wizard's First Rule all the way, on all sides of the debate.
Perfection for pigeonholing creationists together, and for believing Creationism can be KOed
Literal creationists for believing such a stupid theory
And me too, for thinking I can evade it. You can never outrun the Wizard's First Rule.

Now that that's said...

I believe in Creationism
because where did the universe come from? Science showed it cannot be static, 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.

 

[carlosMM]

I believe in Creationism
because where did the universe come from? Science showed it cannot be static, 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.

Erik mesoy slapped on the ehad with a dead fish for not reading the opening post at all!

Get your bearings: what is creationism in the sense of this thread?