Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

Evolution is based on mutation.
If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
And here is it's downfall:
Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.

Considering that there are millions of different species of insects, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds etc, if evolution is correct, every one of these millions of individual species would have needed, by random mutation, to beat the odds against the accidental badly mutated evolution of it's own species.
And for every one of the millions of species that did seem to have beaten the odds, the millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants that didn't beat the odds have never been found.

Where did you get the "millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants", from?

Honestly, your post was boilerplate Christian creationist "...what are the odds?". Another variation being, "...it's just too complicated to have happened by random chance".

Fitness for survival is a reality of evolution you should acquaint yourself with.

On the other hand, if you can't account for the fosill record, could it be that the gods have played a cruel joke on you?

 

[The Irish Ram]

So you think every mutation is a favorable one?

 

[Hollie]

its actually you and your little friend hollie that like to use it as your strawman and your translation only shows how illogical you are with your belief that when presented with compelling testimony and evidence it must be fully accepted or completely ignored ti....this philosophy does however explain much about your thought processes

You have an addiction to this conspiracy theory like a crack addict needs a fix. Why get defensive when it is noted that your OCD - like proclivities cause you to champion this conspiracy at every opportunity.

I believe it is you that has some conspiracy surrounding the sworn statements of Apollo crew and defense ministers..clearly you do not believe these statements and question the motives...

Isn't there a 12 step program for folks like yourself who are addicted to conspiracy theories?

 

[orogenicman]

Evolution is based on mutation.
If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
And here is it's downfall:
Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.

Considering that there are millions of different species of insects, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds etc, if evolution is correct, every one of these millions of individual species would have needed, by random mutation, to beat the odds against the accidental evolution of it's own species.
And for every one of the millions of species that did seem to have beaten the odds, the millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants that didn't beat the odds have never been found.

This might be true if evolution worked that way. But evolution doesn't work that way. Evolution works on populations of organisms, not individual organisms. Organisms in most populations are not genetically identical. There is genetic diversity within populations. Those which are not genetically diverse do have many of the problems you cite, and are much more prone to extinction. But genetic diversity is what allows evolution to occur most successfully.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'. You are all different, even though you are all human beings. Your genetic inheritance is in flux, it is transitioning from something to something else. As for species that never made it, well, dude, the vast majority of life that has ever lived on this planet never made it. And contrary to your lie (the biggest lie that creationists promote) many of these so-called transitional fossils have, in fact, been found. That you don't know this is just something else you don't know. And that is because you haven't studied the fossil record. I have all my life. So I do know.

 

[Hollie]

So you think every mutation is a favorable one?

The "millions and millions of mutants" was an exaggeration, right?

 

[orogenicman]

Look the only ones trying out of desperation to change the current conversation was you.

Evolutionists desperation on display.

I don't know what you are doing, but I am trying to stay on topic.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today. After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.

right...
__________________

Right. Ever hear of a guy named Carolus Linnaeus? Look him up.

 

[daws101]

how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?

Well, lets see - did Palin actually mis-quote Sinclair - or was that you, cutting and pasting from a hate site with no more discernment than a feral baboon?

And you saying SHE has no brain cells is rich irony indeed..

whoever composed the poster did exactly what I described..
and yes she a religofacist ..although she has no clue she is.
damn you're sooo easy!

I've never seen Palin advocate the use of the state to silence views she opposes.

Now YOU OTH.....

ROFL

Get thee to a baboonary....

yes dear ! you've never seen her do or say anything that takes even a fractional amount of brain power.
I never invoked or advocated silencing anybody...however asshats like you like to play the oppressed and claim anyone who disagrees with you is attempting to violate your first amendment rights.
like you're doing now.
it's far more enlightening and expedient to watch you pitch fits and shit yourselves over minutia.
a fine example is your epicly failing attempted character assassination..

 

[daws101]

So you think every mutation is a favorable one?

no ..what's your point?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Evolution is based on mutation.
If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
And here is it's downfall:
Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.

Considering that there are millions of different species of insects, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds etc, if evolution is correct, every one of these millions of individual species would have needed, by random mutation, to beat the odds against the accidental badly mutated evolution of it's own species.
And for every one of the millions of species that did seem to have beaten the odds, the millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants that didn't beat the odds have never been found.

Survival of the fittest means there had to be a fittest emerge in the species, and it had to beat out all of the unfit mutants of the species.
Which means one micro organized system would not only become the fittest micro organism, but then it would have to mutate into something completely different and beat out the unfit in that species, as well. And it would have to do it for every one of the millions of species of life on earth.

There is no fossil evidence of transitional forms of all of the species on earth (and it would have to encompass all of the species).
Where all the millions of unfit fossils are hidden?

 

[daws101]

Evolution is based on mutation.
If you start with a simple micro organism, no matter how it came to be on earth, you only have that single organizational, informational unit. If you copy it sequentially time and time again, it must accumulate enough copying errors (mutations) to lead to the diversity of living forms on earth.
And here is it's downfall:
Any organized living system that developed or emerged from pond scum 4 billion years ago, if allowed to copy itself over and over would destroy itself, because for every favorable mutation there would be hundreds of unfavorable mutations.

Considering that there are millions of different species of insects, mammals, fish, reptiles, birds etc, if evolution is correct, every one of these millions of individual species would have needed, by random mutation, to beat the odds against the accidental badly mutated evolution of it's own species.
And for every one of the millions of species that did seem to have beaten the odds, the millions and millions of transitional forms of mutants that didn't beat the odds have never been found.

Survival of the fittest means there had to be a fittest emerge in the species, and it had to beat out all of the unfit mutants of the species.
Which means one micro organized system would not only become the fittest micro organism, but then it would have to mutate into something completely different and beat out the unfit in that species, as well. And it would have to do it for every one of the millions of species of life on earth.

There is no fossil evidence of transitional forms of all of the species on earth (and it would have to encompass all of the species).
Where all the millions of unfit fossils are hidden?

false
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


most famous transitional fossil..can you name it?

 

[orogenicman]

 

[daws101]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHxftS8MI

halielooya brother!

 

[The Irish Ram]

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes. They all had to mutate to become something else.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.

My point exactly. I am not identical to my parents, but I am still a human and had human babies as well. I didn't transition into a bunny. Just like monkeys didn't transition into humans. They produced the fittest monkeys, by adapting to their environment.

Siblings don't mate because of the fear of unfavorable mutation of their offspring. Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.
Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite. Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along. A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

Creationism can't be proved scientifically.

 

[Youwerecreated]

OMG! He was a pediatrician and fundamentalist theologian, and NEVER taught the theory of evolution.



I have found no evidence whatsoever that he was ever actually a chemist other than the fact that he once worked for a pharmaceutical company. We don't even know what university he is supposed to have attended. For all we know, he was a salesman, which actually better fits what he does at Answers in Genesis. He is not a geologist, and there is no history of him ever actually taking any geology classes. But he would have us believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same geologic time period. You'd have to be a complete idiot to listen to the friggin nonsense of this guy.



The only professional work of note that this man has done was his dissertation - on tadpoles. His entire career, in fact, has been involved with creationism, not evolutionary science.

Typical and predictable tactic. You really think a Dr. didn't take college science

Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school. Here is the problem. Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter. Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled. Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

 

[orogenicman]

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes. They all had to mutate to become something else.

No, this is not true. And that is not how speciation occurs. Natural selection works on populations, not individuals. 1/3 of a population can gain an advantageous mutation that the rest don't, for instance. And for that 1/3, it gets passed on, while the other 2/3ds don't have the trait to pass on to their offspring. One single individual is simply too low a number to make a difference.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.

My point exactly. I am not identical to my parents, but I am still a human and had human babies as well. I didn't transition into a bunny.

That's right, because if you did transition to a bunny, that would not only refute evolution, but all of science. Good luck with that, because that is not what evolution is about.

Just like monkeys didn't transition into humans. They produced the fittest monkeys, by adapting to their environment.

But then, no one in the scientific community is saying that monkey's transitioned into humans. Monkey's are not our direct descendants. And by the way, we are not descended from modern apes, either. Modern apes and humans are descended from an ape ancestor. Humans are, whether or not you care to accept it, apes. So it isn't simply a matter of being descended from an ape. We ARE apes. The anatomy and genetics are unmistakable.

Siblings don't mate because of the fear of unfavorable mutation of their offspring.

There is truth to the fact that mating among siblings cause genetic problems. It is also true that siblings have mated throughout the history of life on this planet.

Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.
Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.

You cannot expect every species that ever lived to be represented in the fossil record. The nature of fossilization is such that that will never be the case. There, however many examples of mutations in the fossil record.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite. Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along. A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.

Nonsense. Not every unfavorable mutation is always fatal. Moreover, not every unfavorable mutation is a dominant trait in every individual that has it. The mutation can be recessive in one individual and dominant in other. And it is true that favorable mutations are anomalous. They are, after all, mutations. But being anomalous is not equivalent to being fatal. Einstein's brain was likely anomalous. And yet his was the most brilliant mind of the 20th century.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You really ought to read the transcript of the trial. The Judge (a conservative Bush appointee) affirmed that ID was nothing more than creationism (a religious belief) intentionally re-named to try to bypass the previous the Supreme Court ruling against it.

Maybe you should do more research.


CSC Header Graphic
CSC - About CSC CSC - Contact CSC - Search CSC - Links CSC - Home
Printer Friendly Version
Dotted Line
A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs� Proposed �Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law�
By: David DeWolf & John West
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006

Ha! The Discovery Institute was one of the plaintiffs in the case. They had their hat handed to them by a conservative judge. One would think that if they still had a prayer in the matter, that they would have appealed to the Supreme Court. That fact is that they didn't because they knew they would lose. End of story.

You are full of crap buddy. Did you click on the link showing you the closing statements from the Aclu and that activist Judge ? By the way what was your point because the Judge was appointed by Reagan ?

I am dealing with another Ideologue, biased in his opinions,got it!

 

[Youwerecreated]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Cheers,

Cheers my butt you are doing the same thing people in that video eots posted are doing. This also shows your ignorance of evolution.

What? You mean presenting the evidence that was asked for? Yeah, what an evil thing for me to do.

Dr. Theobald showed speciation or microadaptations and tried passing it off as macro evolution, it didn't change kinds so how is this macroevolution.

Typical bate and switch tactics.

That is because "kinds" is not a scientific term.

"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level."

Speciation has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab, in the field, and in the fossil record.

The relatedness of all life on this planet has been described in minute detail via genetic analysis, and is ongoing. For anyone to deny these findings, you'd have to be completely scientifically illiterate.

I hate to embarrass you but Speciation is not macroevolution

 

[orogenicman]

Typical and predictable tactic. You really think a Dr. didn't take college science

Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school. Here is the problem. Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter. Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled. Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.

I don't know who you are referring to.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.

Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)

Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.

Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Hell my education don't seem to impress anyone because I disagree with the nonsense you have been brainwashed with. This is a tactic used by your side ,never mind addressing the questions just attack ones background ,A sign of you losing.

Your education doesn't impress anyone because you've not demonstrated to us that you have a relevant education.

By the way, I want to see a bibliography for each and every one of your so-called experts. After all, if they are the experts you say they are, surely they've published relevant peer reviewed scientific publications to back up their claims. And while you are doing that, I will post one of my publications:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN)

Secondly, this is all you have? Really? None of the people you've cited have ever been known to conduct research in evolutionary science. Not a one. So for any of them to say "I was a fervent believer in evolution but no longer am" is less than meaningless.

 

[Hollie]

Individuals make up a population and all in the population have a single informational unit regardless of what that particular unit envelopes. They all had to mutate to become something else.

As for your argument about transitional species, it is a misnomer. ALL species are transitional. Your genes are not identical to your parents, nor is theirs identical to their parents'.

My point exactly. I am not identical to my parents, but I am still a human and had human babies as well. I didn't transition into a bunny. Just like monkeys didn't transition into humans. They produced the fittest monkeys, by adapting to their environment.

Siblings don't mate because of the fear of unfavorable mutation of their offspring. Evolution suggests they should be able to mate and produce favorable mutations that go on to become the fittest of their species.
Where are all the unfavorable mutated fossils stemming from the population of simple organisms? There should be substantial mutant fossil record for every species' lineage.

Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile. It's just the opposite. Unfavorable mutation would over whelm every species that mutates, before a favorable mutant came along. A fit transitional example would be an anomaly.

"Evolution tells us mutation is upwardly mobile."

Evolution says no such thing.