The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Yom]

That changes nothing, because you cannot prove Species to Species, let alone molecules to Man Evolution here, so you expect to find your evidence elsewhere?

What changes nothing? We have already given tons of examples of species to species evolution earlier in the thread. Proving "molecules to Man Evolution (sic)" is not just proving evolution, but also abiogenesis. Nevertheless, many transitional hominid species have been found on the evolutionary pathway to man (and evolutionary sidebranches, such as Homo neanderthalis). For example, Australopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and many others have been found that are similar to humans in many respects, but they are also close to apes.

If such cannot be found here, why do you think that you could find it out there according to the laws you have just posted above?

I do not understand what this statement is conveying. Evolution is not a law and never can be, as it is trying to describe the history of the earth, not an intrinsic process of the universe.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

It isn't a lie if you take the philocphy of science-to-the-exclusion of all else to its logical conclusion. In terms of Morality, you can't prove Good and Evil exist because they aren't observable in the scientific sense, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they don't exist. When you limit yourself to science by human obsevation discounting the existence of all things Super-Natural as an explanation for all things, you are effectively going against one of the maxims of Science "nothing is impossible". Science by this diffinition can only be used to explain what YOU THINK IS POSSIBLE.

 

[Perfection]

The main points against Evolution are this:

1. No Transitional forms have ever been found regarding Species-to-species Evolution in the fossil record.

Well, how do you define as "regarding Species-to-species Evolution"? If you are refering to transitions between one species and it's immediate successor you may be right as the rarity of these fossils is great. The reasons however are not a fundamental flaw in evolution rather the following:
A. Mayr's synthetic theory of evolution: One of its main points is that speciation generally occurs within small isolated groups in remote locations. This lessons the chance that one of transtional animals will be fossilized
B. Gould-Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium: It's main point is that species are relatively unchanged until they undergo what is known as a "peak shift" a peak shift is caused by a group of animals losing thier ecological niche either through internal means (mutation) or external (ecosystem change, or movement into a ecologically different area) and taking on a new role. This is when the changes occur. The key is that this change is quite rapid and thus lessening the chance of fossilization of the few animals in between
C. Classification: These transtional forms may be classified as a seperate species even though if we had a more complete picture we would classify them as a member of one of the two species in the transition.

However, if you are just refering to one species becoming another species then that becoming a third there are tons of fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

What "Missing-Links" haven't been found have later been found to be a hoax,

Hoaxes are very rare, and biologists have been mucy more wary after the Piltdown Man fiasco

or can logical be explained as a young child's skeleton, or even a human skeleton(Because people with less nuitrition not grow as big).

The cannot be explained in such manner, especially young children. Young children have fissures in the skull that aren't seen in the fossils, also the ratio of the size of the head to the body is not aligned with that of children. As for adults that is untrue as well even though many adults suffering from poor nutrition are smaller the head remains about the same size, this is not the case with early hominids

2. While the Earth is not a closed system, the universe is. If the Universe is infinite, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Universe would already have reached maximum entropy...meaning that the Big Bang is impossible.

Well, first off Big Bang theory is not a requirement for evolution, after all big bang theory wasn't on the scientific scene until about 70 years after Darwin published The Origen of the species

Now as per thermodynamics with big bang theory, I'm not exactly sure what your criticism is but there are many explinations that incorperate thermodynamics into big bang theory. For brevity and simplicity I'll explain the simplest. The big bang is the start point of the universe and there was nothing before it, time before it is like negative temperature, meaningless. It was at the lowest point of entropy because it was all neatly packed in one singularity and over time entropy has been increasing.

3. No other life in the universe has been found to arise spontaniously.

We have barely begun to look. So far in human history we've encountered only about three worlds with any significant chance of life (Mars, Venus and Europa) of those we've managed to explore one significantly and are still finding it to be inconclusive. And even then we still have to worry that life on Earth kicked up in meteor collisions got there first (or that life devloped elsewhere in the solar system and got kicked up in meteor collisions landed on earth) and took over before native life could develop. And let's face it those worlds aren't exactly paradises either, Venus is hot, Mars is cold, and the conditions of Europa's underground are quite unkown. So how can you reject evolution based on this if we've only begun to look? I mean maybe in 20 million years after we finish the great galactic survey you'd have a point but let's face it as of now we've just grasped a few straws in a very large haystack!

 

[The Last Conformist]

The cannot be explained in such manner, especially young children. Young children have fissures in the skull that aren't seen in the fossils, also the ratio of the size of the head to the body is not aligned with that of children. As for adults that is untrue as well even though many adults suffering from poor nutrition are smaller the head remains about the same size, this is not the case with early hominids

To expand on the last point, while you'll find the odd healthy adult modern human with an erectid-sized brain, the person in question will be small overall; a small skull and a small body to go along with a small brain. Erectids have small brains with big skulls and big bodies (or very small brains with small skulls and small bodies) - the proportions are entirely different.

The brain, incidentally, is the body's top priority energy sink. There's no way in heaven or on earth that malnutrition is gonna give you an undersize brain with oversize muscles.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It isn't a lie if you take the philocphy of science-to-the-exclusion of all else to its logical conclusion.

It's a lie when you say an "evolution purist" has to accept that extreme.

In terms of Morality, you can't prove Good and Evil exist because they aren't observable in the scientific sense, therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they don't exist.

No, the only logical conclusion is that they're irrelevant to scientific inquiry.

When you limit yourself to science by human obsevation discounting the existence of all things Super-Natural as an explanation for all things, you are effectively going against one of the maxims of Science "nothing is impossible". Science by this diffinition can only be used to explain what YOU THINK IS POSSIBLE.

Feel like restarting the thread on what it means to be "supernatural"?

Since when is "nothing is impossible" a maxim of science? Well, I'll tell you; it never was. Science, by its very nature, assumes a lot of things, incl self-consistency, which rules out a lot of things from the realm of the possible.

 

[Perfection]

The Scientific Method states that a theory can only become a law after it has been analyzed and tested and shown to be repeatable. This is impossible with all forms of Orgins science.

Incorrect, origins science is testible and repeatable. However, the method of testing is different then say chemistry experiments. The test is by making a prediction of observed behavior. A great example is found in Big Bang theory, one of the predictions of big bang theory is that there should be a microwave afterglow. So to test Big Bang theory we built devices to pick it up, and sure enough we did. The experiment is repeatable because we can build new machines and test it again.

In evolution it's more subtle but very much present, predictions of convergences transitional forms and genetic links all give it much credence

Therefore, point number 3 is still valid. If you can't prove a theory, then it can never be described as True.

In science you can never absolutly prove a theory, even laws have been shown as only approximations to reality. Newton's laws are not completly correct, yet we still consider them laws.

To believe it is true...would require a leap of......faith

No, it requires a leap of logic, if the evidence points to something happening some way its' logical to believe it happens that way.

 

[Perfection]

There is because you can never see Evolution as in Species-to Species occuring, because it takes Millions of years. That is one of the requirements of the scientific method.

1. Speciation can take a lot less time than millions of years and there have been observed instances of it
2. Observation doesn't neccesarily mean staring at something as you do something to it in a lab. You can observe evolution through the fossil record genetics and comparisons of body plans of extant creatures. Indirect observation is allowed

 

[Perfection]

To expand on the last point, while you'll find the odd healthy adult modern human with an erectid-sized brain, the person in question will be small overall; a small skull and a small body to go along with a small brain. Erectids have small brains with big skulls and big bodies (or very small brains with small skulls and small bodies) - the proportions are entirely different.

I was refering to hominids earlier than erectids

 

[The Last Conformist]

I wasn't contradicting you, but expanding on what you said to show that the "malnutrition" argument doesn't work on erectids either.

 

[Perfection]

I wasn't contradicting you, but expanding on what you said to show that the "malnutrition" argument doesn't work on erectids either.

Just making sure

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

1. Speciation can take a lot less time than millions of years and there have been observed instances of it
2. Observation doesn't neccesarily mean staring at something as you do something to it in a lab. You can observe evolution through the fossil record genetics and comparisons of body plans of extant creatures. Indirect observation is allowed

And what has been found threw the fossil record so far? Cockroaches are pretty much the same as they have always been. Supposed Prehistoric ancient fish which went extinct long ago was found in the Indian Ocean...

 

[Perfection]

And what has been found threw the fossil record so far?

Transitional fossils tons upon literal tons oftranstional fossils
Take a look http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Cockroaches are pretty much the same as they have always been.

Nope, they used to not exist, then they evolved.

Supposed Prehistoric ancient fish which went extinct long ago was found in the Indian Ocean...

One lineage didn't change as much as another, pretty simple really. Absolutly no challange to evolution. Some creatures in niche roles don't evolve much.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Transitional fossils tons upon literal tons oftranstional fossils
Take a look http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html Nope, they used to not exist, then they evolved.
One lineage didn't change as much as another, pretty simple really. Absolutly no challange to evolution. Some creatures in niche roles don't evolve much.

Wheres your proof though Profection? If the Cockroach Evolved, show me its common ancestor.

And how do you know that the transitional fossils were transitional? Between what two organisms do you site as an example?

 

[Perfection]

Wheres your proof though Profection? If the Cockroach Evolved, show me its common ancestor.

Sheesh, I ain't no entomology paleontologist. I'm not going to give you the evolutionary history of every damn organism you can think of.

And how do you know that the transitional fossils were transitional?

The follow a very clear path of commonalities as the traits of one diminish and the traits of the other emerge

Between what two organisms do you site as an example?

Reptiles and mammals are a good example http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm

 

[Birdjaguar]

Wheres your proof though Profection? If the Cockroach Evolved, show me its common ancestor.

And how do you know that the transitional fossils were transitional? Between what two organisms do you site as an example?

SoG if we assume that you are correct and evolution is not the best explanation for life in the world, can you offer a better explanation for these claims made by science:

1. The many creatures that are extinct? Did god make thousands and thousands of different types of dinosaurs and then just kill them off after a few years?
2. The scores of different hominid bones that have been discovered?
3. The movement of the vulcanic hot spot under the pacific ocean that produced the Hawaiian Islands and is producing a new island today?
4. Are all modern dating systems completely wrong, or just error prone?

Please don't just answer "because god made it so." I'm not looking for long elaborate answers or links to web sites. I want to know in your own words how you fit these things into your view of the world. How do you stuff the wealth of data that science has produced and stuff it into genesis? What "rules" of science are to your mind most wrong?

Thanks.

 

[anarres]

So to test Big Bang theory we built devices to pick it up, and sure enough we did. The experiment is repeatable because we can build new machines and test it again.

Not that it really matters, but wasn't microwave radiation from the big bang picked up by accident when we build recievers to pick up nuclear activity?

I watched a program this week that claimed the recievers were put in to action by the US to monitor world-wide nuclear activity (as you would pick up the 2 spikes of a nuke blast), but they started reading background noise a LOT more than they ever expected.

After investigating somone claimed they were from supernova, but further investigation revealed they were coming from outside the milky way and from much much farther away, which is when they made the connection.

You may be right Perf (you usually are), but in unless you can find me links showing we went looking for it deliberatly I will believe the TV.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I don't have the time to find the details ATM, but Penzias and the other guy were not looking for the cosmic background. They first thought the 2.7K background was instrumental error, and, among other things, had their apparatus cleaned of pidgeon droppings in the hope it would make the 2.7K signal go away.

 

[Perfection]

Here's the tale told by almighty wikipedia

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

 

[tR1cKy]

Hi! Interesting thread. I haven't read everything (too much stuff), but i'd like to add my 2 cents.

I'm evolutionist. And i'm creationist.

I'm evolutionist in the sense that i see evolution of species as a valid scientific theory.
And i'm creationist in the sense that i believe in God and i'm sure that an act of creation took place somewhere and sometimes, at least in the origin of Universe.

Frankly, this controversy should not exist. Here in Italy, no one dare to say that science is wrong because of the Bible. Surely the Pope of Rome doesn't think that evolution is false because God created life in earth. 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...

Probably, the evolution theory was cherry-picked, in order to choose an affordable target. Many people have an incorrect vision about how evolution works. They tend to think at is as something compex and mysterious, while the whole process is in fact quite simple. Some people even thinks as evolution in terms of Pokemon's morphing!

If the heads behind this creationist momement had choose other facts to fight, say, the "earth around the sun" problem, or the actual age of earth, they would surely have been judged as ridicolous, and no one would have followed them. Evolution is different. It may be attacked in a lot of ways, enough for the gullible people to bring them into thinking that it's false because "it cannot prove anything"

In a few words, this creationist movement in USA is just a prank. Or a scam (i'm not sure of the best word to use). Something useful to drive the heads of some dumb people into thinking what "they" want, and acting the way "they" want, being "they" those who take advantage of creationism.

 

[CurtSibling]

Interesting post!