Jump to content


Photo

Who Are The Creationist Scientists?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#21 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:34 AM

I agree.  And it implies creationism is merely a belief not a science.
There are atheist evolutionary biologists, such as Dawkins.  There are christian evolutionary biologists

View Post

Evolution is also a belief. Evolutionary biology teaches microbes to man evolution, which is a concept brought forward by the mental invention of men like Lamarck, Lyell and Darwin. Operational science has observed micro evolution--not macro. Therefore macro is an imagined implication--not a necessary implication.

When a non-necessary implication is used in logic--this is called inductive reasoning as contrasted to deductive reasoning. When this non-necessary implication is then propagated and affects the beliefs of others (e.g. college freshmen who give up their religious faith, etc.) it is operating as a belief system.

Adam might like to claim Mendel was a creation biologist, but it is a stretch because none of his research specifically points to design.  His work is purely about inheritance, not about design or special creation.

View Post

Mandel was a preist--an Augustinian abbot. His study on peas showed that traits were alleomorphic factors and inherited in a ratio from each gamete, and his paper was read in 1865. This was in conflict with Darwin's pangenesis, and the thinking of that day.

That leaves Young Earth Creationism with no science what-so-ever.  All YEC has is some philosophy of design, and some speculation about how Biblical text (as a literal history) relates to the current state of the world.  That's not a science of biology at all.

View Post

Let me ask your hypothesis on the formation of the earth. Does it have anything to do with asteroids conglomerating to form a hot molten primitive sphere? Did you observe it?

This is a model thought up in men's heads. There is not shred of evidence that this happened? In fact Newton's third law would tend to prevent this from happening! So how can you tell me I have "no science what-so-ever...?"

I don't either.  But it's still not clear what is the science in creationism.  It all looks like philosophy, and not anything  that relates to science.

View Post

For every data point an evo gives for evolution or old earth--a creation scientist can falsify or at least expose the underlying assumptions.

Not only that, an atheistic "ToEer" can not exempt themselves from a philosophical point of view. That worldview is naturalistic and materialistic--that only natural processes explain all phenomena and matter.

There is plenty of science that creation scientists are putting forth that is basically ignored--that's how science works. Mendel's work is a good example.

Looking at the Creationwiki article on taxonomy, creationists use the same taxonomic system as evolutionary biologists.

View Post


Yes, creation scientists have jobs. They have to know current science.

So how can YEC have a biology when there is no classifications.  Again it seems YEC is simply a denial of science

View Post


Is biology only taxonomy? Most of biology should be the study of biological systems and organisms themselves (not nec. their origin)---if it isn't we will quickly turn it into quibbling over terminology, what is related to what and what, and what defines a taxonomical rank like species, or what goes in this or that phylum.

Biology should be about meiosis mitosis, the mitchondra, ecosystems, the endocrine system, skeletal mechanics, muscles and tendons, etc. That's just a start.

Asking me to explain where life comes from does not answer my question.  If creationist believe life came from God, then there must be some science to it.  If not, the belief is not scientific

View Post

When you tell me where you observed a singularity in space or justify the physics of it--then I'll tell you how God created.

That being said, maybe the whole problem is that science shouldn't be addressing origins to the extent that it does. Since it is empirical in nature and the past isn't--only the relics and remnants which require interrpretation according to preconceived reasonings.

Forget what evolutionary theory has to says about the origins of life, because evolutionary theory is all bunk science anyhow.  I'm assuming creationist science is something true, so where is the science for the origins of life?

View Post

Have you read anything from anybody on this list? Scroll down when you get there. Scientists
'

Read my post again.  I said engineers do design based on science.  If Intelligent Design is God's engineering.  What is the science?

View Post

I'm sure you saw Behe's comparison of the flagellum to an electric motor. What is your opinion on that?

#22 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 08:44 AM

Let me ask your hypothesis on the formation of the earth. Does it have anything to do with asteroids conglomerating to form a hot molten primitive sphere? Did you observe it?


That argument can be turned on its head.

Did you observe the Creationist account of the birth of Earth?

The Creationist can no more claim observation of the Earths creation and subsequent development of life than a non-Creationist can.

Therefore, that your argument on that point is in error, unless of course you've borrowed a TARDIS. :blink:

Wiki link to what a TARDIS is.

#23 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:04 AM

That argument can be turned on its head.

Did you observe the Creationist account of the birth of Earth?

The Creationist can no more claim observation of the Earths creation and subsequent development of life than a non-Creationist can.

Therefore, that your argument on that point is in error, unless of course you've borrowed a TARDIS.  :blink:

Wiki link to what a TARDIS is.

View Post

I think Loungehead fired the first "belief" bullet. My point is that evolution is just as much based on a philosophy and a belief as creationism is. He then entered into "because yours is a belief you have no science." This is flawed reasoning.

#24 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 09:30 AM

I think Loungehead fired the first "belief" bullet.  My point is that evolution is just as much based on a philosophy and a belief as creationism is.  He then entered into "because yours is a belief you have no science."  This is flawed reasoning.

View Post

No. Evolution is based on evidence. And for the record, Evolution says nothing about how the Earth was made. For that, see the science of Planetology.

What predictions does TE Creationism make? I'd really like to hear one.

But then that leads you right back to the central point which regards to "If Evolution and the supporting sciences are wrong" that in no way means YEC is right. There is still Hindu beliefs in how the Vedic claims creation is done.

#25 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 10:18 AM

No.  Evolution is based on evidence.  And for the record, Evolution says nothing about how the Earth was made.  For that, see the science of Planetology.

View Post

Evolution is based on the same philosophy as the incidental formation of the earth by natural means. That is --it happened on it's own independent of anything but the physical laws of the universe.

What predictions does TE Creationism make?  I'd really like to hear one.

View Post


Here's a few off the top of my head.
1) That blood could be found in some fossils because they are young and because there was a flood that covered them quickly.
2)That marine life should be found lower in strata and in a frozen "living state" as a result of catastrophic/tectonic crust movement and massive flooding, which in turn caused rapid sediment transport world wide. Bottom dwelling phylla should be found on a matrix which would have been the seafloor.
3)That some of the higher fossil beds should contain mammals , reptiles, (etc.) and marine life together, because mammals are mostly land dwellers.
4) There should also be well preserved fossil "pieces" and mixture of them as a result of cataclysmic events in the flood.
5) That fossilized human remains should be more rare (unless buried by man) because of intelligent survival attempts--thus decomposing in water or eaten.
6)That mutations in bacteria would cause physiological trade offs which take away from it's overall fitness in other environments, or in more cases cause deleterious effects.
7) That no new biological mechanism can be produced by mutation. Redundant preexisting information--such as legs on an organism's head, or extra wings are considered deformation--not new biological mechanisms.

Is that a good start?

#26 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 11:49 AM

Evolution is based on the same philosophy as the incidental formation of the earth by natural means.  That is --it happened on it's own independent of anything but the physical laws of the universe.
Here's a few off the top of my head.
1) That  blood could be found in some fossils because they are young and because there was a flood that covered them quickly.
2)That marine life should be found lower in strata and in a frozen "living state" as a result of catastrophic/tectonic crust movement and massive flooding, which in turn caused rapid sediment transport world wide.  Bottom dwelling phylla should be found on a matrix which would have been the seafloor.
3)That some of the higher fossil beds should contain mammals , reptiles, (etc.) and marine life together, because mammals are mostly land dwellers.
4) There should also be well preserved fossil "pieces" and mixture of them as a result of cataclysmic events in the flood.
5) That fossilized human remains should be more rare (unless buried by man) because of intelligent survival attempts--thus decomposing in water or eaten.
6)That mutations in bacteria would cause physiological trade offs which take away from it's overall fitness in other environments, or in more cases cause deleterious effects.
7) That no new biological mechanism can be produced by mutation.  Redundant preexisting information--such as legs on an organism's head, or extra wings are considered deformation--not new biological mechanisms.

Is that a good start?

View Post



I understand the need people have to try to define ToE as a philosophy or a religion. It isnt, tho, and need notwithstanding, the idea that by calling it such it can be brought down is a thin and poor idea, and it wont work. If it can be brought down it has to be done the robust way, not the definition end run way.

By the time you blur distinctions between science, religion and philosophy none of the words mean anything anymore. May as well call all three "gorp" or "thing" which would mean, what, exactly?

Actually that was not a very good start.

Wrong on the first concept, and sorry but all the rest of it is grossly oversimplified and for the most part factually incorrect.

You are never going to get it right as long as you try to make everything about a flood.

Look at it this way. Scientists love to work up theories that tie things together.
ToE is the unifying theory in biology,, for example. IF there had been a flood the evidence would be overwhelmingly obvious. It would be the grand unifying concept in geology. But, it just is not there. There are vast jarring incongruities with the flood theory.

Thing is that it just cannot be made to work. Nothing fits. Its useless.

There are many places where there are depositional sequences from the present dating way back before any "flood" and they show no (zero) evidence of a flood. The list of such things is endless. It was a nice theory for a while but the impossibilities are just overwhelming.

Im sure I cant convince you, but if you stop thinking you have the answer... as a good researcher HAS to do... and just start to study you will be able to come to some valid conclusions.

Sorry but at this point you are like I would be if I tried to hold forth on football at an after game show. Next thing you know id be talking about the playing rink and how many baskets they made. They'd know in seconds that i didnt know what I was talking about.

#27 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 November 2009 - 01:02 PM

Evolution is also a belief.

Even if evolution was just a belief, its negation does not make creationism a science. Stick to the issue we were discussing.

Remember, you were responding to my claim, "From what I can tell Creationism is a reactionary ideology. It reaction to the claims of evolutionary biology are only attempts to refute it."

By going on your tangent "evolution is a belief", you've proven my point. You've done nothing to show creationism is a science, all you've done is attempt to negate evolution.

BTW... Darwin's pangenesis was only presented as a hypothesis. Evolutionary biologist after him dropped the hypothesis and adopted Mendelian inheritance upon "rediscovering" Mendel's work almost 40 years later. Because Mendel's work fit better with natural selection.

But this all beside the point. You still haven't showed how Mendel's work indicates design. All you've done is, again, attempt to refute Evolutionary biology.

If creationists really want to refute evolution they need to learn it and refute it as a science, rather than these lame quasi-historical sleight-of-hand attempts at a philosophical refutation.

Evolutionary biology has changed much since Darwin's time, and your insistence to talk about evolutionary theory as a nineteenth century science ignores all the developments in evolutionary biology since.

Let me ask your hypothesis on the formation of the earth.  Does it have anything to do with asteroids conglomerating to form a hot molten primitive sphere? Did you observe it? 

What does this have to do with creationism being an ideology?

This is a model thought up in men's heads.  There is not shred of evidence that this happened? 

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about the evidence in astrophysics. So please get on with it, and tell me how this scientifically proves creationism.

... how can you tell me I have "no science what-so-ever...?"

Everything you say is in reaction to science. Nothing you have said shows that creationism is a science in its own right.

For every data point an evo gives for evolution or old earth--a creation scientist can falsify or at least expose the underlying assumptions.

I find this hard to believe. Due to the fact that scientists, such as astrophysicist, biochemist, cellular biologist... etc only ever really know their own field of study, and the points where it intersects with other fields, because so much work and research goes into aquiring a comprehensive understanding of a single field. Yet creationists proport to understand all these fields in detail and think they are qualified to speak.

All we really are discussing in this forum, and all the creationism is ever in reaction to, is popular understandings of science.

There is plenty of science that creation scientists are putting forth that is basically ignored--that's how science works.  Mendel's work is a good example.
Yes, creation scientists have jobs.  They have to know current science.

What important work of creation science is being ignored?

Mendel's work is not ignored. In fact, when I studied biological anthropology one of the first things I was taught was Mendel's work, because his inheritance theory leads into chromosome theory, which leads into genetics. To begin even understanding how evolutionary biology works Mendel must be learnt.

Is biology only taxonomy?  Most of biology should be the study of biological systems and organisms themselves (not nec. their origin)---if it isn't we will quickly turn it into quibbling over terminology, what is related to what and what, and what defines a taxonomical rank like species, or what goes in this or that phylum.

Biology is not only taxonomy. It is also cladistics and phylogenetic trees, among other things. The point is creation science doesn't even have taxonomic system from which to begin discussing biology. It's like trying to discuss chemistry without a table of periodic elements. Impossible!

When you tell me where you observed a singularity in space or justify the physics of it--then I'll tell you how God created.

Note: you can't tell me anything, until I've said something. That is called reactionary. Hence my claim creationism is a reactionary ideology.

Have you read anything from anybody on this list?  Scroll down when you get there.  Scientists

At the top of the list it says, "Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation."

Accepting the biblical account is different from developing a field of science. I assume you have read their work, so please indicate which ones I should read on creation science.

I'm sure you saw Behe's comparison of the flagellum to an electric motor.  What is your opinion on that?

View Post

Behe is an evolutionist. He accepts common descent.

But to answer your question, the components of the flagellum arise from combinations of different components with functions of their own. And the components themselves originate from functions of their own. Therefore, natural selection can work each step of the way.

If irreducible complexity is right, the parts of the flagellum should be useless. But the type-III secretory system is a component of the flagellum (at its base), which is what bacteria like bubonic plague use to infect human cells. So a component of the flagellum (exact same combination of proteins at its base) can function in a different way as the type-III secretory system. Thus the flagellum is reducible.

Not only that, almost every protein in the flagellum is homologous with proteins that have other functions elsewhere in the cell. The parts have functions of their own. And are not, non-functional, as Behe asserts.

#28 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 04 November 2009 - 01:26 PM

Actually that was not a very good start.

Wrong on the first concept, and sorry but all the rest of it is grossly oversimplified and for the most part factually incorrect.

View Post

If you can find anything that contradicts what I say here--I welcome it. If you read Lyell, he noticed that the "older" fossils were at lower strata--that means marine life--am I correct? He dated the strata according to the fossils they contained.

According to the geologic timescale the Phanerozoic eon is divided up into three eras
Paleozoic, the beginning of which is Cambrian period--the time that marine life first appeared---the Mesozoic the era of dinosaurs and early mammals--and the Cenozoic--65 million til now. These fossils are argued by standard geology to be in a definite order--not me. The Paleozoic is purported to be universally lower strata and contains only marine life. The Mesozoic strata contains a mix of reptiles, mammals, birds, etc. The Cenozoic is also mixed and any overlap is accounted as stable niches where the species did not evolve.

So in other words, exclusive marine life is lower in the cambrian. And I am fully aware that certain areas are used as standards for others, and fossils are used as standards to relatively date strata--this comes straight from Lyell. As you move up the strata you find "younger" organisms, which also just happen to be predominantly land dwellers.

SO whatever you want to call oversimplified it is only because uniform. literature presents a nice clean "timescale" and order for our convenience. When creationist reinterpret it though--it is oversimplified.

There are many places where there are depositional sequences from the present dating  way back  before any "flood" and they show no (zero) evidence of a flood.  The list of such things is endless.  It was a nice theory for a while but the impossibilities are just overwhelming.

View Post

I am not aware that I ever said the entire crust was formed by the deluge, nor does any creationist believe such. We do believe in creative fiat which would explain "the foundations of the earth."

Let's put it your pre-flood strata on the table then. Some of it would probably include granite formations. Give me an example.

#29 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 01:27 PM

To put an exclamation point on what Loungehead stated:

If Evolution was 100% wrong, YE Creationism would not step in to fill the void. This would be true even if it were "shown somehow" that there are "supernatural forces" at work that we'll never know about, YE Creationism still doesn't "win".

There are a lot of different beliefs out there each just as right or wrong as the next. It could be the Sioux have it right, or the Hindu creation is correct, or someone who sits in their basement with an aluminum foil hat who blogs a stream of consciousness.

YE Creationism has to stand on its own and just knocking any perceived and oft refuted "weaknesses" in ToE doesn't make it stand any taller nor make it more correct.

#30 Guest_Taikoo_*

Guest_Taikoo_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 01:53 PM

If you can find anything that contradicts what I say here--I welcome it.  If you read Lyell, he noticed that the "older" fossils were at lower strata--that means marine life--am I correct?  He dated the strata according to the fossils they contained.

According to the geologic timescale the Phanerozoic eon is divided up into three eras
Paleozoic, the beginning of which is Cambrian period--the time that marine life first appeared---the Mesozoic the era of dinosaurs and early mammals--and the Cenozoic--65 million til now.  These fossils are argued by standard geology to be in a definite order--not me.  The Paleozoic is purported to be universally lower strata and contains only marine life.  The Mesozoic strata contains a mix of reptiles, mammals, birds, etc.  The Cenozoic is also mixed and any overlap is accounted as stable niches where the species did not evolve. 

So in other words, exclusive marine life is lower in the cambrian. And I am fully aware that certain areas are used as standards for others, and fossils are used as standards to relatively date strata--this comes straight from Lyell. As you move up the strata you find "younger" organisms, which also just happen to be predominantly land dwellers.

SO whatever you want to call oversimplified it is only because uniform. literature presents a nice clean "timescale" and order for our convenience.  When creationist reinterpret it though--it is oversimplified.
I am not aware that I ever said the entire crust was formed by the deluge, nor does any creationist believe such.    We do believe in creative fiat which would explain "the foundations of the earth."

Let's put it your pre-flood strata on the  table then.  Some of it would probably include granite formations.  Give me an example.

View Post




Give me a date, not 'pre flood". There is no preflood.

However... assuming you may mean something from the last say 5,000 years.

the flood supposedly covered the whole earth even the mountain tops.

is not so?

so where is the sign of it in Antarctic and Greenland ice that has a perfect chronological record for 100.000 plus years? layer after layer, and no flood layer.

Another easy one is the peat bogs of the upper midwest and new england.
These emerged as lakes after the glaciers retreated. Cores show annual layering, and pollen types tell the vegetation that was present. Shows some fairly dramatic climate shifts indicated by changes in vegetation type, back and forth. no flood layer. Not in the last 12,000 years. Why not?

Why not? Serious question, needs a really convincing answer.

Granite is basement rock, not strata in the sense you are thinking.

marine fossils are being formed as we speak. Lots of marine fossils will dat much younger than lots of terrestrial fossils.

Why say "younger". it IS younger if its above. Toss dirty clothes in a pile for a year. The oldest will be at the bottom.

There are other parts of your post that I dont mean to just ignore. But there is too much tendency to try to take in too much territory and it all gets lost.
I had quite a different idea about oversimplified than you took it to be.

How do you explain the lack of impact on polar ice from the "flood"?

There are two people in the building im in who have been involved in polar ice drilling. Want me to ask them what they saw?

#31 urbanguru

urbanguru

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 04 November 2009 - 02:32 PM

Behe is an evolutionist.  He accepts common descent.


Is he? Maybe you should visit his blog and learn the real truth? http://behe.uncommondescent.com/ :lol:

Or maybe you should read his books "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism"?

But to answer your question, the components of the flagellum arise from combinations of different components with functions of their own.  And the components themselves originate from functions of their own.  Therefore, natural selection can work each step of the way.


Would you like to show us some proof of your claims? Show us how different parts can randomly assemble into a complex machine and then perform a task. And I don't mean something à la cdk007 (the guy on youtube). I mean, show us how something like that could happen in a cell by random mutations. Exactly where and what kind of mutations must happen in order for a part to be added to an existing biological machine? Show us that this indeed could happen, time and time and time again on the right spot at the right time. After you have a plausible explanation, show us that this is indeed what really happened in nature. Until then, your claims remain based on faith. After all, science is based on evidence and not on faith, right? While you are at it, show us where all these countless parts came from.

If irreducible complexity is right, the parts of the flagellum should be useless.


I think you've missunderstood IC. It's not the parts that are useless, it's the machine that is useless without the parts.

#32 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 04 November 2009 - 04:02 PM

Is he? Maybe you should visit his blog and learn the real truth? http://behe.uncommondescent.com/  :lol:

You're link didn't work.

Or maybe you should read his books "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism"?

Behe accepts evolutionary theory in The Edge of Evolution, he accepts evolutionary theory explains diversity. What he doesn't accept is that evolutionary theory explains diversity of species at a macro- level. Micro-evolution, for Behe, is the limits.

Would you like to show us some proof of your claims? Show us how different parts can randomly assemble into a complex machine and then perform a task.

I can't show you how "different parts randomly assemble into a complex machine", I'm not a creationists, that is what creationists believe when God created the flagellum bacteria. He randomly put all the different parts together to create a motor.

I can only show the evidence that points to evolution, such as Type-III secretory system in bubonic plague and proteins in the flagellen motor that are elsewhere in the cell.

... show us how something like that could happen in a cell by random mutations.

Why? Genetic mutation is not the only what to explain it. Recombination of genes in micro-evolution could explain it just as effectively.

Show us that this indeed could happen, time and time and time again on the right spot at the right time. After you have a plausible explanation, show us that this is indeed what really happened in nature. Until then, your claims remain based on faith.

Are you denying the Type-III secretory system? And protein elsewhere in the flagellen bacteria?

After all, science is based on evidence and not on faith, right?

Yes. That is why creationism is not science. It is based in the faith of Genesis.

While you are at it, show us where all these countless parts came from.
I think you've missunderstood IC. It's not the parts that are useless, it's the machine that is useless without the parts.

View Post

Behe says, the flagellum becomes useless if any one of its constituent parts is removed, and thus could not have arisen through numerous, successive, slight modifications.

Remove everything but its base and you have the Type-III sercretory system.

#33 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:55 PM

Is he? Maybe you should visit his blog and learn the real truth? http://behe.uncommondescent.com/  :)

Behe's said several thjings but as right now he's taking money from Creationists, he's saying what they want to hear.

Or maybe you should read his books "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism"?

Yes and those are old and already dealt with here:http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/behe-review/index.html

and here: http://www.talkorigi...ehe/review.html

and here: http://pandasthumb.o...text-of-th.html

I don't know if you know this or not but Behe has been answered and his responces to his critics don't come close to responding in any meaningful way.

Would you like to show us some proof of your claims? Show us how different parts can randomly assemble

False. There was no "randomness" as you're thinking. Like just about everything in evolution, things are co-opted when it is found that they can do more than what was originally selected for.

into a complex machine and then perform a task. And I don't mean something à la cdk007 (the guy on youtube).

Here you go: http://www.newscient...-flagellum.html

I mean, show us how something like that could happen in a cell by random mutations.

Again, not random, selected for.

Exactly where and what kind of mutations must happen in order for a part to be added to an existing biological machine? Show us that this indeed could happen, time and time and time again on the right spot at the right time.

Some me your god. You're asking for 100% of the path from A to ZZZZZ with every step in between. These are soft parts that do not fossilize well if at all. But we have evidence of "half" and "quarter" steps so we can see that it is not "magic".

After you have a plausible explanation, show us that this is indeed what really happened in nature. Until then, your claims remain based on faith. After all, science is based on evidence and not on faith, right? While you are at it, show us where all these countless parts came from.

No. That is just plain wrong. By your demands, nobody can be convicted of a crime unless someone sees and recordes it for all others to see.

Science uses deduction, reasoning and testing of smaller parts.

What you've just showed all of us is that there will never be enough evidence for you as you'll look for the half step, the quarter step and on to the infinite step.

I think you've missunderstood IC. It's not the parts that are useless, it's the machine that is useless without the parts.

View Post

Not even close. The parts that are used to form other newer and more specific parts start off with being selected for.

A "1/2 wing"? Better to glide between trees and evade predators!

A "1/2 a lung"? Better to get from one mud puddle to the next instead of dying in the air.

#34 urbanguru

urbanguru

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:48 AM

Behe's said several thjings but as right now he's taking money from Creationists, he's saying what they want to hear.


So you can actually read other peoples thoughts? How fortunate. Is this supposed to be an argument?

I don't know if you know this or not but Behe has been answered and his responces to his critics don't come close to responding in any meaningful way.


Well, I guess it must be so, since you say so. :lol:

False.  There was no "randomness" as you're thinking.  Like just about everything in evolution, things are co-opted when it is found that they can do more than what was originally selected for. Here you go: http://www.newscient...-flagellum.html


So you find some similar or identical parts in living systems and this proves that new biological machines can be created by random mutations (let alone that human beings evolved from a rock)? I'm sorry but I fail to see your logic.

Of course there is randomness. First you have nothing on the cell membrane, and then a part is added... randomly. Next part is also added randomly. And the next one too. Then some of these parts might change a bit... yes randomly, and then change some more, and then another part might be added, and another etc., until you have the bacterial flagellum. If this is not randomness, what is? No matter how much time you add between these events, they are still random. Either you have randomness or you have guidance, there is no third option. You might respond with "but natural selection isn't random", yes I know that, and I don't have a problem with natural selection. But natural selection isn't responsible for adding new parts or changing an existing part. That's the job of random mutations. Natural selection is a preserving force, not a creative one. Now, I want to know how these parts can randomly assemble or change, into an incredibly complex and intricat, fully functioning machine. Where is the proof of that? Where is the proof that randomness can create such incredible systems? What kind of mutations are able to do that? Where is the evidence? Like I said, the mere existance of similar parts in differenet machines doesn't proove that a new system can be "evolved" from them.

Some me your god.


But I'm not imposing "my god" on you, now am I?

You're asking for 100% of the path from A to ZZZZZ with every step in between.  These are soft parts that do not fossilize well if at all.  But we have evidence of "half" and "quarter" steps so we can see that it is not "magic".No.  That is just plain wrong.  By your demands, nobody can be convicted of a crime unless someone sees and recordes it for all others to see. What you've just showed all of us is that there will never be enough evidence for you as you'll look for the half step, the quarter step and on to the infinite step.


I am asking for evidence, that's all (read the above). You can't convict someone unless you have good amount of evidence of his crime. Thank God evolutionists aren't into law. :D

Science uses deduction, reasoning and testing of smaller parts.


Yes, evolutionists should try that for a change.


A "1/2 wing"?  Better to glide between trees and evade predators!

A "1/2 a lung"?  Better to get from one mud puddle to the next instead of dying in the air.


Yes, the only problem is, there is no such thing as "1/2 a wing" or "1/2 a lung" in nature. They are all fully functioning organs and body parts that are doing a specific task. You don't need an eagles wings just to glide from tree to tree.

But I'm afraid we are digressing from the thread, and I apologize.

#35 Guest_Alcatraz_*

Guest_Alcatraz_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2009 - 05:43 AM

I am asking for evidence, that's all (read the above). You can't convict someone unless you have good amount of evidence of his crime. Thank God evolutionists aren't into law.


I'm an evolutionist, and I'm into law.

In fact my occupation requires me to have a greater than average understanding of the law, elst I wouldn't be able to investigate crimes nor arrest people. :lol:

I think you may also find that in most countries, many lawyers, solicitors, barristers, QC's etc, etc, also believe in evolution..

I know your statemnt was in jest, but it kinda backfired there now didn't it? :D

PS. You live in one of the most secular countries in the World (Norway) so I'm very sure that there are a lot of Norwegian Evolutionists who are into law.

#36 urbanguru

urbanguru

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 46 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Muslim
  • Creationist
  • Norway

Posted 06 November 2009 - 08:10 PM

I'm an evolutionist, and I'm into law.

In fact my occupation requires me to have a greater than average understanding of the law, elst I wouldn't be able to investigate crimes nor arrest people.  :lol:

I think you may also find that in most countries, many lawyers, solicitors, barristers, QC's etc, etc, also believe in evolution..

I know your statemnt was in jest, but it kinda backfired there now didn't it?  :lol:

PS. You live in one of the most secular countries in the World (Norway) so I'm very sure that there are a lot of Norwegian Evolutionists who are into law.

View Post


Yes, you are right. But very few of them take the time to investigate the evidence for evolution, and even fewer understand it, be that lawyers or just some random people. If they did, they would think twice before they compared the two (evolution and law). It's apples and oranges. Case closed. :D

#37 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 November 2009 - 03:55 AM


Behe's said several thjings but as right now he's taking money from Creationists, he's saying what they want to hear.

View Post

So you can actually read other peoples thoughts? How fortunate. Is this supposed to be an argument?

View Post

If it is, it isn't one that's supposed to be consistently applied. Not hard to see the funding sources of a lot of evolutionist "research".

#38 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 November 2009 - 06:02 AM

So you can actually read other peoples thoughts? How fortunate. Is this supposed to be an argument?

I don't have to read Behe's thoughts anymore than I have to read a scientist who publishes papers on how CO2 is NOT warming up the atmosphere when their funding comes straight from the petroleum industry.

Behe's been doing "his work" as an apologist for the "Discovery Institute" or DI or my personal favorite, "Disco 'Tute". He's paid as a "star witness" for Creationists trying to show their religion into science classes (when they should be in "Comparative Religions" as with as many as can be taught and all issues with them brought up, hey "Teach the Controversies" right? I can't think of anythmore controversial than Religion.)

The Behe's writing books, eagerly bought by Creationists to "prove their point" when all they are being is duped and their money taken from them.

So yeah, Dr. Behe has sold out as he makes money that way. No mind reading involved.

Well, I guess it must be so, since you say so. :rolleyes:

Don't be snide nor condescending.

Here's a great resource for you on what is actually published on "evolution". CTD, please take notice as "evolutionists", actually real scientists, do their work.

Check out "Pub Med": http://www.ncbi.nlm....ed/medline.html

As to direct refutations of Behe's stance (I refuse to call the "issues" he raises "work" as I can raise "issues" all day long without on stitch of work), some scientists, seeing the danger of already dumbing down a populous with an abysmal understanding in the sciences did this:

http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/fitness/ 5 years after Behe's "DBB"

http://www.ncbi.nlm....8?dopt=Abstract About Behe's immune system "issues".

There are more.

You can go here: http://www.talkorigi...he/publish.html to get all the stuff you want to read on why Behe isn't doing science but raising his hands in surrender and saying, "I can't think that deep".

See it's just a few of them that are out to answer Anti-evolutionists (who spend money in courts and PR as they can't do the science to back up what they want to see) claims as that's like saying to a aircraft mechanic, "Show me the molecules going over the supposed wing of this thing or admit it's Zephyrs that actually lift the airplane up!"

"Scientists" after hearing the outlandish claims by those who would rather say something doesn't work than find out on their own how it's different as there is no such thing as YEC research unless you count "Quote Mining", "Arguing perceived problems" and re-reading whatever book they think has the "truth" in it.

So you find some similar or identical parts in living systems and this proves that new biological machines can be created by random mutations (let alone that human beings evolved from a rock)?

The greatest of all Creationist Anti-Evolution lie, "Humans evolved form a rock". Humans evolved from primates that evolved from near primate like creatures, on and on and on.

Richard Dawkins, "Ancestors Tale" is a good place to start.

I'm sorry but I fail to see your logic.

As you want to see your god. No mystery why there at all.

Tell me, have you really studied Biology? I say that not "evolution" because Biology is built on Evolutionary principles. No, this is not "scientists desperately trying to do something to save Evolution, it is done so because it works. Yes, you can do biological studies without really touching on evolution, but the scope of that work is limited indeed.

More later on the rest of your post but I'm off now.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 November 2009 - 12:42 PM

Here's a great resource for you on what is actually published on "evolution".  CTD, please take notice as "evolutionists", actually real scientists, do their work.

Check out "Pub Med": http://www.ncbi.nlm....ed/medline.html

View Post

Do you have any actual point which you'd bring to my attention?

I am aware "Pub Med" exists. Had you been here longer, you might've even noticed that I've linked to "Pub Med" articles more than once. "I can post irrelevant links" is not generally considered a strong argument.

#40 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2009 - 08:57 AM

[quote name='CTD' date='Nov 7 2009, 03:55 AM']So you can actually read other peoples thoughts? How fortunate. Is this supposed to be an argument?

View Post

[/quote]If it is, it isn't one that's supposed to be consistently applied. Not hard to see the funding sources of a lot of evolutionist "research".

View Post

[/quote]It is and when the research is fraudulent, it is found and the reputations of those who created the fraud are shot.

do you have any frauds you'd like to expose with evidence you have that shows them to be frauds?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users