Evolution v. Creationism

[Calypso Jones]

haven't seen it. You made the claim. post it. Otherwise you are full of primordial much. All you gotta do is quote the post number. I'm waaaaaitin'.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

haven't seen it. You made the claim. post it.

Nope, sorry troll. If you don't care to lift a finger to understand the material, then sit there in your own poo and squeal all by yourself.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Then you got nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you got nothing.

Spot on, professor! Me and the global scientific community. We got nothing at all.

While you sit there and diddle yourself in front of a device that relies on quantum mechanical theory, relativity theory, electromagnetic theory....

I am embarrassed for you right now.

 

[Feeding Crows]

I didn't. A scientific theory is a well defined concept. I didn't define it. You embarrass yourself.

You believe what a 6000-yr earther believes, and are calling it science....

Sorry, you're mistaken. This is what Bond thinks he does on Sundays... But it's actually a dog and he believes it's a dinosaur.

 

[Feeding Crows]

He calls him "Rex" but it's actually something like this: a tiny yapper dog like him that annoys everyone around him...

Something that should be extinct if i had my way...

 

[Feeding Crows]

Yapper owners are suburban terrorists. They don't give a flying fuck about their neighbors.

 

[Feeding Crows]

They just want to put them outside and let them bark and drive their neighbors crazy! Because they don't want them inside driving themselves crazy.

So why get the fucking terrorist dogs in the first place? Unless you're a terrorist neighbor and want to be an asshole in your community. Piss everyone off...

People who own yappers are assholes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You believe what a 6000-yr earther believes, and are calling it science....

Uh....what? Confused

 

[Hollie]

Another weak link in evolutionary theory

Today, however, discoveries in molecular biology have complicated that conclusion In fact, a new paper poses one of the strongest challenges yet to the idea that all life shares common chemistry

www.christianpost.com

ANOTHER weak link in evolutionary THEORY. it's a theory forcryinoutloud.

The authors, including theoretician Sara Walker and bioinformatics analyst Dylan Gagler from Arizona State University, looked at enzyme functions across all the major groupings of life. They tallied the different functions, then plotted these against the total number of classified enzymes. They found that “as the enzyme space grows … so do the number of functions.” In other words, there are very few “specific molecules and reactions” common to all living things.

If your head just exploded, Nelson offers a helpful analogy borrowed from one of the paper’s co-authors, Chris Kempes. The English language contains many words, or synonyms, that can mean approximately the same thing. If the sky is darkened, we could just say it was “darkened.” Or, we could say that it became “murky,” “shaded,” “shadowed,” dimmed,” or “obscured.” All these words mean, more or less, the same thing but with very different spellings and histories. According to Nelson, “a strikingly similar pattern” occurs among the chemicals that make life possible.

The authors of the paper agree, writing that “[biochemical] universality cannot simply be explained due to phylogenetic relatedness.” Or, stated more simply, living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level. Instead, many different enzymes are used to accomplish similar purposes. This is precisely the opposite of what Darwinism predicts.

There's a great deal about the above which is cause for real skepticism. Firstly, when dealing with biological matters, I'd prefer to have data from chemists / biologists as opposed to a theoretician and a bioinformatics analyst. There's scant information about what enzyme data they studied and how that applies to the complex interactions that involve biological life. Secondly, when ''evolution news'' and charlatans from the Disco'tute are involved, things get very predictable.

For example, Paul Nelson being anywhere near science matters is a red flag.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Paul Nelson is a philosopher of science (apologist), young earth creationist and intelligent design advocate. He is a fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design. He is admittedly known for some strokes of insight. In an interview in Touchstone Magazine he admitted that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design at the moment, thus directly contradicting the official Discovery Institute stance. He also admitted – in an article co-written with fellow young earth creationist John Mark Reynolds (in J.P. Moreland’s “Three Views on Creation and Evolution”) – that “[n]atural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.” (That does not mean that Nelson is opposed to the wedge strategy; just that he may not be completely aware that he is contradicting it).

He is not always that honest (though one sometimes suspects non-malicious intent), and has been caught accusing “evolutionists” of breaking down over … Paley’s design argument (follow-up here). Seriously. Anyone appealing to Paley’s argument has, by definition, no clue about how evolution is supposed to work. Strawmen are expected, though, given the combination of cluelessness and confirmation bias.

Nelson was also involved in concocting “Explore Evolution”, the Discovery Institute’s new “science” textbook for highschools. He has produced no scientific findings.

Diagnosis: Mild-mannered but thoroughly confused ignoramus – the kind of guy who can sit through the most careful explanation of a phenomenon attentively, and still interpret it completely randomly as being evidence for whatever he wants to believe.



Did you know that the term ''Darwinism'' is a favorite slur from the fundamentalist ministries attempting to denigrate science? It's all pretty repetitive.

I would also note that when Nelson attempts to make some silly analogy connecting language and biology, it's time to put the brakes on this runaway train of ID'iot creationerism. What Paul Nelson and charlatans at the Disco'tute fail to understand is that ID’iot creationism is not falsifiable and it creates many unresolved levels of contradiction. It is fact that biological organisms evolve over time subject to genetic drift and environmental pressures. The progression of simple to more complex life forms is undeniable except to certain religious types. The evidence is overwhelming in spite of the denials from religionists.

The linked article contains the statement: ''living things don’t look like they evolved from a common ancestor using the same basic components on a molecular level.''

I'm curious if someone from the Disco'tute could offer an explanation, something resembling a kinda', sorta' connection to a science vocabulary as to why ''looking like'' is an objective description of biology.

 

[Calypso Jones]

uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?

Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?

 

[Feeding Crows]

But the whole argument now is to not allow kids to learn science, so that they don't contradict the bible. Which way do you want it? Teach the bible and no science? Or teach science and no bible?

Bible study should be done on Wednesdays, after school, like I did. It's not a part of regular school. People who don't believe in it shouldn't be subjected to it just because parents are lazy and drunk and expect school to teach them the bible, instead of doing it themselves.

It's redneck religion.

Schools should teach Science, Math, History (real factual history), English, other languages, sex, and baseball.

 

[Hollie]

uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?

Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?

Probably a good idea. Gravity is just a theory. The "alternate belief" should be taught. What's the alternate to Germ Theory? Prayer beads, perhaps?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC: Focal points of Education
※→Hollie, Calypso Jones, et al,

uh huh so what is so inappropriate for kids to learn about 'alternative' beliefs as opposed to theory?

(COMMENT)

There is a conflict here that needs clarified. You cannot accurately compare a scientific theory with that of a religious belief. (You are mixing apples and oranges.)

◈. A theory is generally a set of accepted principles or statements, which have many interlocking facts, that yet have NOT been absolutely proven. Theories have been tested many, many times, and have not been disproven (even once).​

​

◈. A religious belief is is beyond the reach of scientific test and measurement, but taken on faith that the opinion, notion, or conviction are true.​

Theories have some basis in fact and are based on accepted scientific methodology behind the testing that have been found to be both sound and opinion or conviction whose validity has been established or proved. It consists of a hypothesis and a conclusion.

Would that be introducing kids to all concepts and then LETTING THEM CHOOSe.....or is that freedom to choose part of the problem?

Probably a good idea. Gravity is just a theory. The "alternate belief" should be taught. What's the alternate to Germ Theory? Prayer beads, perhaps?

(COMMENT)
.
Gravity is an undefined observable effect. There is no single and generally accepted theory as to what Gravity is. But it has an accepted Newtonian equation which is so accurate, that it can plot a trajectory and land on a comet 786 days and ≈ 600 million kilometers later. But yet, the Newtonian Equation is not perfectly correct.

---

If I offer a group of kids, within a western culture, cake and ice cream for breakfast (as opposed to some generally accepted menu), what would the kids choose? Free Will and Choice are not always the correct answer.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Calypso Jones]

There is such a thing as Creation Science and there is MUCH evidence to support the theory if you will of Intelligent design. I know Evolutionists don't want this to be true. So part of their agenda is to discredit and ridicule creation science.

Your belief is based on your presuppositions about Creation or evolution, your argument is based on your presuppositions. Creation Scientists and Evolutionists look at the same facts, facts are neutral and based on what you want to believe, you interpret the facts. you have your facts, perhaps Darwin yet you deny Christian scientists the courtesy of using their basis for facts and truth...God's word. you rather set the parameters in your favor and then not content with that...you must attack the character and credibility of creation scientists. That sounds like fear to me.

 

[Hollie]

There is such a thing as Creation Science and there is MUCH evidence to support the theory if you will of Intelligent design. I know Evolutionists don't want this to be true. So part of their agenda is to discredit and ridicule creation science.

Your belief is based on your presuppositions about Creation or evolution, your argument is based on your presuppositions. Creation Scientists and Evolutionists look at the same facts, facts are neutral and based on what you want to believe, you interpret the facts. you have your facts, perhaps Darwin yet you deny Christian scientists the courtesy of using their basis for facts and truth...God's word. you rather set the parameters in your favor and then not content with that...you must attack the character and credibility of creation scientists. That sounds like fear to me.

I would disagree that there is any legitimate science to creation science. I have to note that creation science is a relatively recent label used fundamentalist Christians. Earlier attempts by fundamentalist christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry and more extremist.

There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

"Creation science", has tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by various creation ministries.

Can you provide any peer reviewed data on supernatural creation?

 

[Hollie]

RE: It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence
SUBTOPIC: Focal points of Education
※→Hollie, Calypso Jones, et al,


(COMMENT)

There is a conflict here that needs clarified. You cannot accurately compare a scientific theory with that of a religious belief. (You are mixing apples and oranges.)

◈. A theory is generally a set of accepted principles or statements, which have many interlocking facts, that yet have NOT been absolutely proven. Theories have been tested many, many times, and have not been disproven (even once).​

​

◈. A religious belief is is beyond the reach of scientific test and measurement, but taken on faith that the opinion, notion, or conviction are true.​

Theories have some basis in fact and are based on accepted scientific methodology behind the testing that have been found to be both sound and opinion or conviction whose validity has been established or proved. It consists of a hypothesis and a conclusion.



(COMMENT)
.
Gravity is an undefined observable effect. There is no single and generally accepted theory as to what Gravity is. But it has an accepted Newtonian equation which is so accurate, that it can plot a trajectory and land on a comet 786 days and ≈ 600 million kilometers later. But yet, the Newtonian Equation is not perfectly correct.

---

If I offer a group of kids, within a western culture, cake and ice cream for breakfast (as opposed to some generally accepted menu), what would the kids choose? Free Will and Choice are not always the correct answer.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

I see a bit of a contradiction in your comment about gravity. Einstein's theory of gravitation within general relativity replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. I believe Einstein's theory is a generally accepted theory.

 

[james bond]

I would disagree that there is any legitimate science to creation science. I have to note that creation science is a relatively recent label used fundamentalist Christians. Earlier attempts by fundamentalist christians to force Christian creationism into the schools made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry and more extremist.

There are various forms of fake science, bad science, and perverted science. History has seen many come, and decline, but none ever seem to die. The ideas of flat earth, hollow earth, astrology, alchemy and perpetual motion have supporters even today. These are interesting examples of the human ability to hold to an idea even without supportive evidence, and even in the face of contrary evidence. They, however, pose little threat to science, which simply ignores them and goes about its work.

"Creation science", has tried to impose the literal interpretation of Biblical accounts into science, and into the schools. This movement had considerable public support amongst fundamentalist Christians. Scientists generally ignored it as irrelevant to their work. In recent years a movement called "intelligent design" (ID) has been promoted by various creation ministries.

Can you provide any peer reviewed data on supernatural creation?

Certainly, Newton was one of the greatest scientists in history and creationist. Even Einstein paid him tribute -- Einstein on Newton. You can't just poo poo him away with your poo comments. Logic, history, observation, literature, natural sense, personal experience and more point to God. It is said, it is obstinance for atheists/ags/sinners to oppose God as they have no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Hollie]

Certainly, Newton was one of the greatest scientists in history and creationist. Even Einstein paid him tribute -- Einstein on Newton. You can't just poo poo him away with your poo comments. Logic, history, observation, literature, natural sense, personal experience and more point to God. It is said, it is obstinance for atheists/ags/sinners to oppose God as they have no evidence whatsoever.

Why continue to impose your extremist religious beliefs on someone who never identified as a creationist?

It seems really desperate to try and force your religion on others.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is such a thing as Creation Science and

No there isn't. That's why you can't produce any. Ever. And you never will.