The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Fox Mccloud]

Creationism and Evolution and everything are THEORIES. No one knows what happened, and Saying "God did it" or "It happened by itself" both say the same thing: "we don't know". No one will ever know how it happened, so that's why I try not to care. Both Creationism and Evolution are scientific, because their theories.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Creationism and Evolution and everything are THEORIES. No one knows what happened, and Saying "God did it" or "It happened by itself" both say the same thing: "we don't know". No one will ever know how it happened, so that's why I try not to care. Both Creationism and Evolution are scientific, because their theories.

No they are not both scientific. First of all evolution addresses life after creation and not creation itself. Once life began it started to evolve and 4.5 billion years later here we are.

Creation deals with how life began and usually claims that once created, it has not evolved. Second, science has a spcific methodology for discovering knowledge. Creation science ignores that methodology. To be a science yuou need to follow the program. Would you like me to post a short version of it?


On to 1000.

 

[Perfection]

Creationism and Evolution and everything are THEORIES. No one knows what happened, and Saying "God did it" or "It happened by itself" both say the same thing: "we don't know". No one will ever know how it happened, so that's why I try not to care. Both Creationism and Evolution are scientific, because their theories.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. Science requires a methodology. You need to be able to analyze and test the world to see if it matches your theory. Creationism does not do that. Evolutionary theory does. Creationism doesn't rely on evidence, evolution does. These are pivotal distinctions.

Also, a theory is not saying "we don't know", a theory states "We think this because of [insert physical evidence here]." Creationism doesn't use physical evidence. Evolution does. Evolution has a lot of physical evidence, some of which is discribed in my posts here. This makes it more than mere guess work and gives it a lot of validity. This is why we think it to be true. Not just because, but because there's a whole lot of organisms out there and thier morphologies (that's fancy-talk for form of body) are screaming "evolution!"

 

[Blasphemous]

Creationism and Evolution and everything are THEORIES. No one knows what happened, and Saying "God did it" or "It happened by itself" both say the same thing: "we don't know". No one will ever know how it happened, so that's why I try not to care. Both Creationism and Evolution are scientific, because their theories.

You are both surprisingly right and disastrously wrong.
You are right that there is no knowing for sure what happened, or what's happening right now right in front of your nose for that matter. This is true, has always been true, and will always be true.
However, being the thinking beings that we humans are, we do indeed formulate theories about reality. These are the working models we can use to interact with the universe. We need theories to be able to eat and drink and use tools. But there is theory - essentially suggested models of reality - and there is scientific theory.
Scientific theories are theories that are accepted as most probably true through rigorous scientific review.
Evolution is a scientific theory, and a very good one at that. Creationism is a philosophical one, and as such is subject to opinion and is not in any absolute terms correct. As it is subject to opinion, I will share my opinion that it's a very lousy philosophical theory.
Not all philosophical theories are lousy. None of them are absolutely correct. None of them have a place replacing scientific method, although it is philosophical theory that defines scientific theory and method, since these are philosophical constructs of humanity. If you accept the philosophical theory of scientific method, you cannot also accept the philosophical theory of creationism or of intelligent design, as they are blatantly unscientific and encroach on areas already illuminated by science. I mean, technically you can accept everything ever said as true, it just doesn't make much sense to accept such contradictory theories.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here it is:

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

Now can you show how any form of creation science fits this model? If creationism was a scientific theory, you should be able to show how these steps apply.Here is a simple example from another thread:

In science and social science fields, most theories or generalized statements taken as “fact” begin with data, discrete data points. You may begin with a hypothesis to guide your data collection, but it is just a starting that shapes the research. Once you have the data you organize it so that you can make a generalization: I watched TV every afternoon for a week; a news show came on at 5:00 each day. Aha! My theory is that every day at 5:00 a news show will be on. The next 2 weeks I test my theory. Well, it’s wrong because on Sat. & Sun. news does not come on at five. So I change my thinking. My new theory is that on M-F news comes on at 5:00 and on weekends, some other show. You figure out the conclusion based on the data. Not the other way around.

 

[CurtSibling]

Ok, Since I don't feel like going through the 857 posts to see it, when did he KO Creationism?

Around the first or second post...!

 

[Perfection]

Actually I kinda made I lie when I started this thread. It was already dead. I just wanted it to be a little more exciting sounding.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Plants have undergone extensive evolutionary modification. Some that have allowed a type to grow all over everything. It however, does seem that systems more efficient then the current are hard to evolve.

The key enzyme in photosynthesis, Rubisco, is terribly inefficient. The reason it's not been replaced in any lineage appears to be it's been around practically forever, and thus become integrated in the cellular chemistry so deeply that changing it would require lots of different systems to change simultaneously, which is massively unlikely.

 

[Perfection]

The key enzyme in photosynthesis, Rubisco, is terribly inefficient. The reason it's not been replaced in any lineage appears to be it's been around practically forever, and thus become integrated in the cellular chemistry so deeply that changing it would require lots of different systems to change simultaneously, which is massively unlikely.

That's why I didn't refer to photosynthesis directly, rather to other revolutions in the plant kingdom like vascularity. Although, there are some plants that adjust photosynthesis to make rubisco much more efficient. Although, this comes at the price of decreased production per watt of insolation.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

A humorous piece of commantary on this thread.

 

[tR1cKy]

Just popping in to say my 2 cents on Intelligent Design. Ok, i know it's creationism in disguise, but let's take it seriously for a moment... how is it possible to call it "intelligent"?!? The vast majority of the intelligently designed species are extinct. The surviving ones have a damn lot of inefficient or broken constructs in them. Perhaps it's time to bring the light of truth to all of you...

Yes, I DO HAVE the answer.

The answer is: SD. Stupid Design.

Postulate of ID: the existing life is too complex to have arisen casually. Therefore, an intelligent designer (usually God) must have done the job.

Postulate of SD: the existing life is too unefficient to have arisen casually. Natural selection should have weed out the crap from bloody ages. Therefore, an incredibly stupid designer should have done the job. And he/she did it so well that, despite 4 billion years of natural selection, life is still hopelessly ridden with bugs.

Long live the Stupid Designer!

 

[Dominus Romae]

Tricky, this is a brilliant joke. Now I belive in the SD theory!

 

[Smidlee]

Postulate of SD: the existing life is too unefficient to have arisen casually. Natural selection should have weed out the crap from bloody ages. Therefore, an incredibly stupid designer should have done the job. And he/she did it so well that, despite 4 billion years of natural selection, life is still hopelessly ridden with bugs.

Long live the Stupid Designer!

This is a big assumption to make. We don't know if the creatures in the past wasn't superior than those here today. There is no real evidence they were inferior.(this goes back using "a living dog is better than a dead lion" logic again.) it is a Darwinists assumption that the world is getting better than the world is running down. Since we thing else we know is running down it's seems more likely this is also true with life.

 

[tR1cKy]

The consequence of a life mechanism that worsen over time, instead of evolving toward a state of increased efficiency, is that the Designer is even more stupid than we postulated before. And if the mechanism was efficient at the beginning, then all His initial effort is completely wasted, since the initial perfection is nullified by the successive worsening. This scenario would further improve His stupidity.

In conclusion, the Postulate of Stupidity is not only confirmed, but also strenghtened. Long live the Stupid Designer! He can make Forrest Gump look like a genius!!!

EDIT: dominus romae: i cannot but rejoice for you, fellow believer! You have seen the light! Now spread the holy words around! All the world must be aware of the awesome power of the Stupid Designer! As Asimov said, against stupidity the Gods themselves fight in vain! There's nothing more awesome than the Stupid Designer! *

RE-EDIT: (*) except for Giant Death Robots, but this is another story.

 

[Dominus Romae]

EDIT: dominus romae: i cannot but rejoice for you, fellow believer! You have seen the light! Now spread the holy words around! All the world must be aware of the awesome power of the Stupid Designer! As Asimov said, against stupidity the Gods themselves fight in vain! There's nothing more awesome than the Stupid Designer! *

All hail the holy Lord, the Stupid Designer!!!!!

 

[Perfection]

This is a big assumption to make. We don't know if the creatures in the past wasn't superior than those here today. There is no real evidence they were inferior.(this goes back using "a living dog is better than a dead lion" logic again.) it is a Darwinists assumption that the world is getting better than the world is running down. Since we thing else we know is running down it's seems more likely this is also true with life.

Smidlee you are aware that there is a general consensus among paleontologists that life is more complex and specialized then it used to be, aren't you?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Those interested in the variations in the diversity of marine animals over phanerozoic time might google for the name "Sepkoski". Very briefly, the diversity rose rapidly in the Cambrian and Ordovician, remained remarkably constant for the rest of the Palaeozoic, fell like a rock at the Permo-Triassic transition, and has since been rising more-or-less exponentially thru the Meso- and Cenozoic, with a moderate setback at the Cretaceous-Tertiary* transition.

So, life appears to be more diverse and specialized today than at almost any point in the past.

*It ought probably be called the Cretaceous-Palaeogene transition these days, but everyone in the business is still calling it the 'KT' event, so I think I'm forgiven for using older but more familiar nomenclature.

 

[Blasphemous]

Smidlee you are aware that there is a general consensus among paleontologists that life is more complex and specialized then it used to be, aren't you?

Peh, don't let scientists or logic get in the way of improving our understanding of nature.

 

[Sophie 378]

Just adding a couple more reasons against SamE's "theory" of post #749 ...

About 6000 years ago, GOD created every kind of animal. A "kind" is what any 1st grader knows as a kind, such as a cat, dog, finch, bacteria, whale, bat, etc. When the world was created, there was a layer of water above the atmosphere (like Saturn's rings, except liquid and everywhere). This layer of water doubled the barometric pressure on earth, and oxygen was much more abundant on earth. Thus, and because there were no genetic anomalies, all organisms lived about eight times longer than today. Because reptiles keep growing all of their lives, some grew as big as, well...dinosaurs! Yes, the dinosaurs never died off; they were just old (and therefore big) reptiles. Of course, the humans were also quite big, around 11 to 14 feet tall.

Wouldn't the excess oxygen make organisms grow faster but also age faster? Every cosmetics company goes on about how oxidative damage causes aging. (Oxygen, the ultimate oxidising agent.) So they wouldn't live longer. On the other hand, if there were no anomalies, (Wikipedia: "An anomaly is a deviation from the common rule. It is an irregularity that is difficult to explain using existing rules or theory."), there would be only one species, one sex, everyone and everything would be identical... so how would there be kinds that could reproduce themselves? Using your rule there of god creating everything with perfect genes!

After about a millenium and a half (less than two lifetimes), the human population of earth had grown tremendously. Not only had they grown huge, they were also very wicked, except for a man called Noah. God told Noah to build a HUGE boat (remember, his measurements were bigger than today) and to take a pair of each kind of animal that God brought him (and seven of the sacrificial birds). 110 years later, when the boat was complete, all of the animals and Noah and his family boarded the ark and the Lord shut them in.

But if there were no genetic anomalies = NO VARIATION, then a) how could they have changed to become wicked, except if god was incompetent enough to have made them with wickedness inherent? b) if no variation, how could some be wicked and some not? Yes, I know this is later on after the creation, but why would change over time have occurred if you say that

ToE is incorrect, dangerous and just plain silly religious dogma

?

 

[tR1cKy]

Sophie, it's useless to argue against it. What you call "SamE's theory" is more likely a psychotic drug-induced hallucination. Would you argue against an ill-minded man because he is convinced to be Napoleon, or Julius Caesar?