Intelligent Design is a Load of Crap: Part Quatre

[Sauniere]

Kansas fighting back:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/22/intelligent.design.course.ap/index.html

-snip-

LAWRENCE, Kansas (AP) -- Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies."

"The KU faculty has had enough," said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

"Creationism is mythology," Mirecki said. "Intelligent design is mythology. It's not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not."

Earlier this month, the state Board of Education adopted new science teaching standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory, defying the view of science groups.

Although local school boards still decide how science is taught in the classrooms, the vote was seen as a major victory for proponents of intelligent design, which says that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher power.

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism -- a literal reading of the Bible's story of creation as the handiwork of God -- camouflaged in scientific language as a way to get around court rulings that creationism injects religion into public schools.

John Calvert, an attorney and managing director of the Intelligent Design Network in Johnson County, Kansas, said Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.

"To equate intelligent design to mythology is really an absurdity, and it's just another example of labeling anybody who proposes [intelligent design] to be simply a religious nut," Calvert said. "That's the reason for this little charade."

Mirecki said his course, limited to 120 students, would explore intelligent design as a modern American mythology. Several faculty members have volunteered to be guest lecturers, he said.

University Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Monday he didn't know all the details about the new course.

"If it's a course that's being offered in a serious and intellectually honest way, those are the kind of courses a university frequently offers," he said.

[sub_zer0]

So how isn't creationism science?

[NiteGuy]

So how isn't creationism science?


Like we have to go through all of this, yet again, with you?

[sub_zer0]

"Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan."

Yes, because that makes sense!

[Russikan]

"Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan."

Yes, because that makes sense!

Not falsifiable.

[prst31]

So how isn't creationism science?The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.

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

Simple as that Sub. It has it's place and that place is not the science classroom. I may believe it is possible that they (Creation and Evolution) are, can or might be related and someday a scientist may make a mathematical connection between six dimensions and the physical world (just an example) but until that time it's pure opinion, not to be taught as physical truth.

[sub_zer0]

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be conceivable to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.

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

So because something cannot be disproven it is thrown out? Sounds like denial of truth!

So you are saying evolution can be proven NOT correct?

Simple as that Sub. It has it's place and that place is not the science classroom. I may believe it is possible that they (Creation and Evolution) are, can or might be related and someday a scientist may make a mathematical connection between six dimensions and the physical world (just an example) but until that time it's pure opinion, not to be taught as physical truth.

Evolution is NOT physical truth either, lol... There will be no connection between the two.

[NiteGuy]

Firstly, I see we are taking wholesale sites, without attribution again. How many times do you have to be told about this?

"Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity. If it's "supernatural", it can't be observed or tested, and therefor, is not science.

2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.There's that term, "supernatural" again. Read my reply to #1, above.

3. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). B*ll*****. Already disproven in every other thread you've been in regarding this. Please quit regurgitating lies.

4. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life. See #1, and #3, above.

5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm. No, this was shown to be a fallacy in a previous thread as well. PLease try and keep up, will you?

6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator. Gee, more superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Why am I not surprised. Again though, this by definition makes it "not science".

7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order. What? Where did this come from? And more importantly, where is the science? There isn't any.

8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose. More superstitious crap. A living, active, all powerful creator can't keep his perfect little universe from falling apart? Sheesh, what next? There's still nothing in any of this that could remotely be considered science by the way. Nothing to prove or disprove.

9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan." More like, the human mind, with great capacity to explore fantasy and superstition with nothing to back it up, is able to imagine a creator, with nothing to support such a belief, and to fool others into believing their delusions as well.

As usual, sub-zer0, you've provided no scientific proof of anything, what-so-ever. All you have is pure conjecture, supposition and a few pseudo-scientific terms thrown in to make it sound good, to the uneducated. Please give up. You are beginning to look rather foolish.

[Russikan]

So because something cannot be disproven it is thrown out? Sounds like denial of truth!

IPU FSM

EDIT: I just realized how you twisted his words to make it sound like you were right. So, if it would be possible to prove it wrong if it were wrong but it can not be proven wrong because it is correct, then it is a good theory.

If it cannot be proven wrong even if it is wrong then it cannot be science.

So you are saying evolution can be proven NOT correct?

Yes

[sub_zer0]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=168

[Craig]

It's still not science sub_zer0. You notice how it mentions "utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model"? This is precisely the same flaw you erroneously applied to evolution- starting with a belief and then searching for evidence or trying to make the evidence fit to support this belief. The difference, however, is that Creationism actually does this, by positing the Biblical account of Genesis as the framework within which other scientific biological evidence will be "understood". Evolution, in contrast, was actually a theory formed as a product from a wide variety of evidence, and does not posit the existence of God, which is empirically untestable by definition.

If it's easier to understand in diagram form:

Creationism

Genesis creation account -------> Evidence----->Evidence examined in terms of how it relates to creation account.

Evolution

Evidence -----> Basic theory of evolution formed based upon evidence -----> Attempts made to falsify evolution ------> evidence now understood in relation to theory of evolution (however, evidence can force modification of the theory).

[Sauniere]

Honestly guys, why do you bother? Let him post. Don't respond.

lalalalalalalalalalalalala...

[sub_zer0]

First, know this... I recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from scientific data, but is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.

"The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’"

"The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’"

Let us be clear that we are talking about "General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." We are talking about change that increases the information content of the biosphere, right?

Dr Wells and Jay Richards wrote a critique of Lerner’s paper, rightly pointing out: ‘But the Lerner report fails to point out that students are being systematically misled about the scientific evidence, and it thereby encourages precisely the sort of bad science it pretends to criticize. …

‘The Lerner report contributes to just the sort of brainwashing Finn criticizes. Lerner wants students to learn Darwinian evolution — without being told that many textbook “evidences” for evolution have been faked. Lerner wants students to be taught scientific misconduct masquerading as good science, instead of being given accurate information and being encouraged to think for themselves.’

Lerner’s statement:

‘For the scientist, truth is never final. It is always tentative, always based on a finite amount of available information, and always amendable in the light of new information, of which there is no predeterminable limit.’

So which world bias is right then? NONE! I know that this worldly view is all that can be viewed from your side as everything else MUST be a myth. But think outside of the box for once.

Now, it is important to note that both evolution and creationism fall into the category of origins science. We all have the same data but use different interpretations to explain that data.

I get my interpretation from the authority of the Word. Which describes something supernatural or God creating the world, the universe, and everything else in 6 days. Now I use my logic and apply that with scientific creationism... you know a supernatural source.

The scientific method cannot/should not exclude evidence. And true science shouldn't define evidence away simply on a bias already established against a supernatural cause. In the end Creationism is just as explanatory, testable and falsifiable as evolution.

For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model Click here (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=154)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=187
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

[Craig]

First, know this... I recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from scientific data, but is brought to the data and used in interpreting it.



Let us be clear that we are talking about "General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." We are talking about change that increases the information content of the biosphere, right?



So which world bias is right then? NONE! I know that this worldly view is all that can be viewed from your side as everything else MUST be a myth. But think outside of the box for once.

Now, it is important to note that both evolution and creationism fall into the category of origins science. We all have the same data but use different interpretations to explain that data.

I get my interpretation from the authority of the Word. Which describes something supernatural or God creating the world, the universe, and everything else in 6 days. Now I use my logic and apply that with scientific creationism... you know a supernatural source.

The scientific method cannot/should not exclude evidence. And true science shouldn't define evidence away simply on a bias already established against a supernatural cause. In the end Creationism is just as explanatory, testable and falsifiable as evolution.

For a clear example of modern-day scientific predictions based on a creationist model Click here (http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=154)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=187
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp

sub_zer0, you have to understand that the scientific examination of the world is founded around empirical evidence. That is what science is defined to do. Now, I can appreciate that you have certain metaphysical commitments that you feel are true, and that science should not exclude such considerations in search for the truth. But you're asking science to do something it is not intended to do, nor is it designed to do. Metaphysical things, such as the existence and the nature of the ultimate divine reality, are the realms of philosophy and religion, not science. I know you view this as a limitation of science, but as other people have rightly pointed out, your view presupposes certain metaphysical truths that constitute "bad science" because they cannot be tested empirically in any meaningful way. Frankly, if science was to proceed on a metaphysical foundation, it would necessarily have to consider and examine all the various metaphysical foundations, not just Christianity, which is something else most Creationism/ID proponents have not considered. Simply put, there is a large gap between religious and scientific truths, and unless we can someday empirically test for the supernatural, I'm afraid that "Never the t'wain shall meet".

[sub_zer0]

sub_zer0, you have to understand that the scientific examination of the world is founded around empirical evidence. That is what science is defined to do. Now, I can appreciate that you have certain metaphysical commitments that you feel are true, and that science should not exclude such considerations in search for the truth. But you're asking science to do something it is not intended to do, nor is it designed to do. Metaphysical things, such as the existence and the nature of the ultimate divine reality, are the realms of philosophy and religion, not science. I know you view this as a limitation of science, but as other people have rightly pointed out, your view presupposes certain metaphysical truths that constitute "bad science" because they cannot be tested empirically in any meaningful way. Frankly, if science was to proceed on a metaphysical foundation, it would necessarily have to consider and examine all the various metaphysical foundations, not just Christianity, which is something else most Creationism/ID proponents have not considered. Simply put, there is a large gap between religious and scientific truths, and unless we can someday empirically test for the supernatural, I'm afraid that "Never the t'wain shall meet".

su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

As you can see it relates to various things. As far as Scientific creationism is concerned it is "of relating to existence outside the natural world", or "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces". So basically it is something that is not of this world. Nothing has been presupposed any more than the naturalistic ways of evolution have been presupposed. Now, when Scientific Biblical creationism (Genesis account) gets involved that is when I have presuppositions that extend beyond what we have already equally established (naturalism and supernatural).

Evolution has MANY tendancies towards naturalism just as creationism has its tendancies rooted in the supernatural.

Now as far as philosophy or other definitions of the word supernatural, being "Of or relating to a deity" or "Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous", I recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from scientific data - which we all have - but is brought to the data and used in interpreting it, not a naturalistic metaphysical view.

[Craig]

su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

As you can see it relates to various things. As far as Scientific creationism is concerned it is "of relating to existence outside the natural world", or "Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces". So basically it is something that is not of this world. Nothing has been presupposed any more than the naturalistic ways of evolution have been presupposed. Now, when Scientific Biblical creationism (Genesis account) gets involved that is when I have presuppositions that extend beyond what we have already equally established (naturalism and supernatural).

Evolution has MANY tendancies towards naturalism just as creationism has its tendancies rooted in the supernatural.

Now as far as philosophy or other definitions of the word supernatural, being "Of or relating to a deity" or "Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous", I recognize that a philosophy of life does not come from scientific data - which we all have - but is brought to the data and used in interpreting it, not a naturalistic metaphysical view.

I'm not really sure how this better justifies your position sub_zer0. As I've explained already in my last post, science is only interested in naturalistic views. You're right that evolution presupposes a naturalistic view and creationism presupposes the supernatural. But science is defined (in my vulger terms) as an empirical investigation into the natural world.

Put it this way. What you are asking in stating that the supernatural should be a legitemate basis for science is the same as science insisting that there should be some empirical test for God. It simply doesn't work in either case. Christianity has been pre-established thus that God cannot be empirically investigated. Science has been pre-established to only admit empirical views without positing any particular supernatural view, which cannot be tested. Hence my remark, "Ne'er the twain shall meet".

[sub_zer0]

I'm not really sure how this better justifies your position sub_zer0. As I've explained already in my last post, science is only interested in naturalistic views. You're right that evolution presupposes a naturalistic view and creationism presupposes the supernatural. But science is defined (in my vulger terms) as an empirical investigation into the natural world.

Put it this way. What you are asking in stating that the supernatural should be a legitemate basis for science is the same as science insisting that there should be some empirical test for God. It simply doesn't work in either case. Christianity has been pre-established thus that God cannot be empirically investigated. Science has been pre-established to only admit empirical views without positing any particular supernatural view, which cannot be tested. Hence my remark, "Ne'er the twain shall meet".

I understand all that, but does that mean evolution is the only way?

So the only thing not scientific is the fact that creationism is based on the supernatural?

You see that is your terms, that is a evolutionary way of thinking... Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) is most commonly defined as the investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So, something supernatural such as a creator couldn't be the truth?

[Craig]

I understand all that, but does that mean evolution is the only way?

No, it doesn't, but if you're playing in the scientific world, whatever explanation you offer cannot have a supernatural underpinning for your hypothesis.

So the only thing not scientific is the fact that creationism is based on the supernatural?

Well, that's the fundamental problem. The other problems, as I've suggested before, is that even if Creationism was not based upon the Bible or God, it still employs a lot of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies about evolution. So besides the supernatural, the problem of misrepresentation et al would need to be dealt with too.

You see that is your terms, that is a evolutionary way of thinking... Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) is most commonly defined as the investigation or study of nature through observation and reasoning, aimed at finding out the truth. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So, something supernatural such as a creator couldn't be the truth?

It could be the truth, but it's beyond the realm of science to determine whether or not such a supernatural thing is truth, because the supernatural is not empirically testable by science. Science has no method to determine the accuracy of supernatural claims. Remember, a key definition about science is that it investigates the truth, so it requires some sort of evidence (specifically empirical) before it can assert that a particular metaphysical thing is true.

[sub_zer0]

Science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observations.

What evolution has done is redifine science into only naturalistic explanations. Therefore, observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes, point blank - end of story.

That redefinition of science through the eyes of evolution become naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy of life - or origins. Creationism has a philosophy of life - or on origins as well. Accept, of course due to the 'evolution of science' so to speak, supernaturalism is not science.

Now no matter what you say, macroevolution, or evolution or naturalism has never been observed or tested... Also, the changes observed with both natural selection and mutations are the opposite of those needed for evolution to work.


“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).

A. H. Compton [1962], a creation scientist (and Nobel prize winner) stated, “Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything.”

[sub_zer0]

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=714

[Void Image]

“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December (1957).

A. H. Compton [1962], a creation scientist (and Nobel prize winner) stated, “Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything.”

Are you reading these dates, sub_zero? :lol:
Again, this has probably been copied and pasted directly from a creationist website that has purposely used 50 year old information to mislead it's readers.

[sub_zer0]

Are you reading these dates, sub_zero? :lol:
Again, this has probably been copied and pasted directly from a creationist website that has purposely used 50 year old information to mislead it's readers.

Doesn't matter still hasn't been tested.

[Void Image]

Are you honestly suggesting we should take a one celled organism, put it in a petri dish, and wait 3 billion years to see if it evolves into a human or a horse?

[mataj]

So how isn't creationism science?Can't be empirically disproved.

"Scientific Creationism
1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
2. The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
3. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
4. The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
5. Earth pre-history, as preserved especially in the crustal rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of uniformitarian process rates. There is therefore no a priori reason for not considering the many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to the scientific evidences that most of the earth's fossiliferous sediments were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
6. Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates. Since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, however, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention must be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
7. The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally perfect created order.
8. Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there does exist ultimate purpose and meaning in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
9. Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestation of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan."

Yes, because that makes sense!Repeat/post this a thousand times. Maybe it will become truth :shrug: :rolleyes:

Refuting the same thing over and over again is becoming a tad tedious.

[Craig]

Science can be described as what we really know to be true mainly through observations.

What evolution has done is redifine science into only naturalistic explanations. Therefore, observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes, point blank - end of story.

That redefinition of science through the eyes of evolution become naturalism. Naturalism is a philosophy of life - or origins. Creationism has a philosophy of life - or on origins as well. Accept, of course due to the 'evolution of science' so to speak, supernaturalism is not science.

Now no matter what you say, macroevolution, or evolution or naturalism has never been observed or tested... Also, the changes observed with both natural selection and mutations are the opposite of those needed for evolution to work.


“It is manifestly impossible to reproduce in the laboratory the evolution of man from the australopithecine, or of the modern horse from an Eohippus, or of a land vertebrate from a fishlike ancestor. These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible” (Theodosius Dobzhansky, American Scientist, December 1957).

A. H. Compton [1962], a creation scientist (and Nobel prize winner) stated, “Science is the glimpse of God’s purpose in nature. The very existence of the amazing world of the atom and radiation points to a purposeful creation, to the idea that there is a God and an intelligent purpose back of everything.”

Sub_zer0,

We've been over this before. If it wasn't clear before, evolutionary biologists would reject your understanding of "macroevolution" as limited, partial, and otherwise incomplete. When you are using a scientific term like "macroevolution" you need to use it properly; otherwise, people will flat out reject your assertions about the term in question. It's already been explained before that speciation is a form of macroevolution by definition. Now, you can deny this, try to redefine speciation as part of microevolution, or generally just ignore the idea that speciation is a part of macroevolution. However, people who understand macroevolution are going to flat-out reject your conclusion that it has never been observed. All you're doing is creating a straw man argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) of macroevolution so that you can refute the concept of macroevolution more easily. But I'm calling you on it now.

Moreover, my points still stand in the thread entitled Genesis View. You've made no attempt to respond to them thus far, and I find it rather absurd that you're arguing against macroevolution when I've demonstrated fatal flaws in your reasoning and understanding, flaws which you've made no attempt to respond to in the thread.

You can keep trying to spin macroevolution any way that you want, but ultimately, it just reveals a dogmatic and closed mind unwilling to accept any truth other than your own. And lest you make the silly mistake of accusing me of the same thing, I have not only a) illustrated the huge flaws in your reasoning or understanding of evolution which still have not been adequately addressed and b) I have also made allowances for the possibility of God in the form of theistic evolution, or that God may very well have created the universe. Given that evolutionary biology is a scientific field and there is no compelling empirical evidence for God, you would be hard pressed to call me "dogmatic" when I have allowed for the possibility of God in the context of science.

[sub_zer0]

Sub_zer0,

We've been over this before. If it wasn't clear before, evolutionary biologists would reject your understanding of "macroevolution" as limited, partial, and otherwise incomplete. When you are using a scientific term like "macroevolution" you need to use it properly; otherwise, people will flat out reject your assertions about the term in question. It's already been explained before that speciation is a form of macroevolution by definition. Now, you can deny this, try to redefine speciation as part of microevolution, or generally just ignore the idea that speciation is a part of macroevolution. However, people who understand macroevolution are going to flat-out reject your conclusion that it has never been observed. All you're doing is creating a straw man argument (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) of macroevolution so that you can refute the concept of macroevolution more easily. But I'm calling you on it now.

Moreover, my points still stand in the thread entitled Genesis View. You've made no attempt to respond to them thus far, and I find it rather absurd that you're arguing against macroevolution when I've demonstrated fatal flaws in your reasoning and understanding, flaws which you've made no attempt to respond to in the thread.

You can keep trying to spin macroevolution any way that you want, but ultimately, it just reveals a dogmatic and closed mind unwilling to accept any truth other than your own. And lest you make the silly mistake of accusing me of the same thing, I have not only a) illustrated the huge flaws in your reasoning or understanding of evolution which still have not been adequately addressed and b) I have also made allowances for the possibility of God in the form of theistic evolution, or that God may very well have created the universe. Given that evolutionary biology is a scientific field and there is no compelling empirical evidence for God, you would be hard pressed to call me "dogmatic" when I have allowed for the possibility of God in the context of science.

Macroevolution is proven, it fits the biblical creation model quote well. The model predicts rapid formation of new varieties and even species... Land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. Didn't Darwin think the process would take eons? The same evidence supports creationism.

Now the question is, is this type of evolution produce massive increases of genetic information into the biosphere to produce something such as you or me? I think, absolutely not... it hasn't been tested, proved, observed, etc...

[NiteGuy]

Macroevolution is proven, it fits the biblical creation model quote well. The model predicts rapid formation of new varieties and even species... Land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. Didn't Darwin think the process would take eons? The same evidence supports creationism.

Now the question is, is this type of evolution produce massive increases of genetic information into the biosphere to produce something such as you or me? I think, absolutely not... it hasn't been tested, proved, observed, etc...

No, sub-zer0, sorry. Macroevolution does not support speciation of the planet from a few animals in the course of 5,000 years or less.

We know that speciation mainly occurs because of major changes (usually) in a local environment, that forces adaptive changes. Even so, these changes may take thousands of years to produce the necessary changes.

In the last 5,000 years, tell me what has changed so drastically to produce a branch from fish to reptiles to dinosaurs and birds, to mammals, to muti-branched mammals, to primates, to humans.

You cannot, because there is nothing in either the climatic record, the geological record, or the fossil record to support such drastic changes in so short a time period. None whatsoever. Tens of millions of years, yes. In some cases even millions of years. Thousands? No.

[sub_zer0]

No, sub-zer0, sorry. Macroevolution does not support speciation of the planet from a few animals in the course of 5,000 years or less.

We know that speciation mainly occurs because of major changes (usually) in a local environment, that forces adaptive changes. Even so, these changes may take thousands of years to produce the necessary changes.

I am saying that certainly, speciation (not macroevolution as yous say... macroevolution is evolutions base), microevolution could very well be responsible for that in the last 5,000 years.

Speciation could also be defined as "species stabilizing for millions of years followed by abrupt disappearance when their ecosystem is disrupted." Either definition, wether yours our mine still supports creationism.

In the last 5,000 years, tell me what has changed so drastically to produce a branch from fish to reptiles to dinosaurs and birds, to mammals, to muti-branched mammals, to primates, to humans.

I am saying it only happened within certain species of animals exclusively not fish to reptiles or primates to humans as in macroevolution.

You cannot, because there is nothing in either the climatic record, the geological record, or the fossil record to support such drastic changes in so short a time period. None whatsoever. Tens of millions of years, yes. In some cases even millions of years. Thousands? No.

The identification of geologic ages is based on fossils in sedimentary rocks. What I see - as in creationism - is the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is evidence that each such 'fossiliferous' rock could being formed within such sedimentation is an obvious indication of global water activity. The very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, "were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited," suggests that the depositional processes must have been rapid, or that fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54

[Void Image]

The identification of geologic ages is based on fossils in sedimentary rocks. What I see - as in creationism - is the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is evidence that each such 'fossiliferous' rock could being formed within such sedimentation is an obvious indication of global water activity. The very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, "were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited," suggests that the depositional processes must have been rapid, or that fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54

Check out this link, sub_zero. There is no way a global flood could be responsible for the different sedimentary layers and the sole reason for fossilization. The proof is just a click away.
http://www.gcssepm.org/special/evolution.htm

"Those who take the non-real for the real and the real for the non-real and thus fall victims to erroneous notions, never reach the essence of reality.

Having realized the essential as the essential and the nonessential as the nonessential, they by thus following correct thinking attain the essential. "
-Dhammapada

[Craig]

Macroevolution is proven, it fits the biblical creation model quote well. The model predicts rapid formation of new varieties and even species... Land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. Didn't Darwin think the process would take eons? The same evidence supports creationism.

Well, how about we throw a spanner in the works, as my English professor likes to say. Suppose we assume that the RATE guys are right and that the earth has been around for a much shorter time than it has. How do they explain red shift and Hubble's Law? You see, they support a universe between 11.2 and 20 billion years old, not one that is under 10,000 years of age. And look where this leads us:

1) The Bible claims the universe was created less than 10,000 years ago by God

2) Evidence from red shift, Hubble's Law, and new evidence about star evolution contradict this assertion.

3) Since the Bible is incorrect about the age of the universe, it cannot be trusted as realiable for the age of the Earth.

4)Therefore, we should reject any claims that the universe or earth is only a few thousand years old.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/age_universe_030103.html

Now the question is, is this type of evolution produce massive increases of genetic information into the biosphere to produce something such as you or me? I think, absolutely not... it hasn't been tested, proved, observed, etc...

You "think absolutely not" but science is not based upon conjecture, or even dialetic, but rather empirical evidence. And what does the empirical evidence indicate regarding whether or not mutations can produce new traits?

Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution:

-Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
-adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
-the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
-evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
-modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
-evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

[Craig]

So we know that mutations can produce new proteins, for instance, that were not already there. But surely, that does not indicate that evolution could produce something as complex as people? Surely, there are things that are too irreducibly complex to evolve? Guess again:

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

-deletion of parts
-addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
-change of function
-addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
-gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied; irreducibility is no obstacle to its formation (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996).


Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.


Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.


Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:

-The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.

-The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.

-In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).

-The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

Surely though, this doesn't apply to things so complex as organs, which would be useless on their own? Not so again:

This claim is an instance of the argument from incredulity. In all specific instances of this claim, there are ways for the organs and organ systems to evolve gradually. The idea that they could not evolve usually involves one or more of the following errors in thinking:

-that organ parts appear suddenly. This seems to be an artifact of creationist thinking. Evolution, however, is not creationism; parts change gradually.

-that organs less developed than what exists now must be completely useless. This is nonsense. A light-sensitive patch on the skin may not be as useful as the eyes we have now, but it is better than nothing. And just a little bit better is all that is required for the trait to evolve.

-that parts must evolve separately. Coordinated innovation between parts of an organ or organ system is possible. Indeed, if the parts evolve gradually, it is inconceivable that parts that interact would not coevolve in such a way that changes are coordinated via natural selection.

-that parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.

The invalidity of specific examples of this claim are seen in the the bombardier beetle, the giraffe neck, the woodpecker tongue, and the fangs of venomous snakes.

Sometimes multiple coordinated changes can occur when there is a mutation in a regulatory gene.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html

[Craig]

We now have three separate groups of evidence. The first bit of evidence indicates that mutations can produce new protein structures that weren't previously there before. The second bit of evidence contradicts the assertion that some things are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. And the third, expanding upon the second, explains that organs and organ systems can evolve. All three of these things directly refute the idea that macroevolution occurs. Combined with the very first thing I posted, which indicates that the even if the RATE guys are correct, (and their lack of peer reviewed scientific papers is extremely suspicious), we should reject their account of the earth's age based upon the universe's age. In other words, the earth and universe has been around much longer than creationism asserts, thus allowing the time for macroevolution to occur according to scientific terms.

All this to say: sorry, but the evidence doesn't support the idea that micro and macroevolution support creationism as well as evolution.

[mataj]

. . . it fits the biblical creation model . . . In one of our previous discussions, you managed to find an interpretation of Gen 6:1-4, that even sounded seriously. That must have been quite an achievement. If you are so good at finding the meaning of biblical words, why don't you find an interpretation that would fit the evolution theory?

[Art of War]

The identification of geologic ages is based on fossils in sedimentary rocks. What I see - as in creationism - is the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is evidence that each such 'fossiliferous' rock could being formed within such sedimentation is an obvious indication of global water activity. The very existence of sedimentary rocks all over the world which, by definition, "were formed by the erosion, transportation, and deposition of sediments by moving water with the sediments gradually converted into stone after they had been deposited," suggests that the depositional processes must have been rapid, or that fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54


This works as evidence of a global flood if you ignore one of the basic tennants of archeology. Your assertation that the mere existence of fossils in sedimentary rock is an example of a global flood simply goes against what we have as evidence. A global flood acting as you described would more or less settle a layer of fossils over the entire planet. The layer would be relatively uniform as to the depth and period of fossilization. However, we know this to be very untrue. The dispersion of fossil evidence is about as un-uniform as you can get. Fossils are typically located in areas that once exhibited high tendency to flood. Fossils are usually highly concentrated which is why large dig sites are erected. Since we do not see a more or less even dispersion of fossilized life forms we can assertain that there was not a lyaer of sediment dispersed over the surface area of the earth. In the end the evidence here you are providing for a global flood simply goes against that idea. You have misused evidence which in the end couters your claim.

I would also like to direct you here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#philosophy) for evidence citing exactly how impossible the idea of a global flood would be. Please read the article it is very informative.

I would also like to cite the laws of thermodynamics in regard to the flood. The dramatic decrease in atmospheric volume (that is to say same amount of air dramatically less space for it to occupy) would dramtically increase global temperatures. Essentially whatever was on the surface of the earth (surface of the water) would be scoched. There would be no way for Noah and his Animals to survive.

[Sauniere]

For all my threads on this subject, it is clear to me that Sub's got some increadibly strong religious beliefs. I'm not sure if he wants to missionize us, but I don't think he wants to be enlightened by us.

I can absolutely respect anyone's strong beliefs as long as they can keep an open mind. As I would advise anyone, don't become so fanatical about something to the point where you close your mind to new thoughts, ideas, and concepts.

"Keep An Open Mind" should be the mantra of WS, I think it is all we could ask of anyone here.

[sub_zer0]

We now have three separate groups of evidence. The first bit of evidence indicates that mutations can produce new protein structures that weren't previously there before. The second bit of evidence contradicts the assertion that some things are irreducibly complex and could not have evolved. And the third, expanding upon the second, explains that organs and organ systems can evolve. All three of these things directly refute the idea that macroevolution occurs. Combined with the very first thing I posted, which indicates that the even if the RATE guys are correct, (and their lack of peer reviewed scientific papers is extremely suspicious), we should reject their account of the earth's age based upon the universe's age. In other words, the earth and universe has been around much longer than creationism asserts, thus allowing the time for macroevolution to occur according to scientific terms.

All this to say: sorry, but the evidence doesn't support the idea that micro and macroevolution support creationism as well as evolution.

Microevolution supports creationism... Macro does not. But lets shy away from those useless terms and first lets make a distinction between the two main meanings of evolution. Evolution A is the principle message of evolution, that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. Evolution B is things observed.

The widely held implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A. Not true. Since Evolution B is only observed it becomes circumstantial evidence. This circumstatntial evidence is principally the fossil record and comparative anatomy, etc. This circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.

It is important to note that the claim is for Evolution A, but the proof, evidence is in Evolution B.

Now for Evolution A to come into fruition a long series of “beneficial” mutations must be possible. Each one of those continuously building on the previous one and creating a selective advantage on the organism. Not only one long series of mutations that are beneficial but there must be many, many more. These mutations are thus responsible for the present-day complexity.

Now there are beneficial types of changes in mutations. But not so much as to say for Evolution A which is the CHANCE of these mutations becoming more and more complex millions and millions of times. There is no proof for that.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

[sub_zer0]

Originally Posted by Talk Origins
Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

-deletion of parts
-addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
-change of function
-addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
-gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Have we observed this "interlocking complexity" that Muller described or is it just expected so far? Couldn't it be Genetic Variation?

“Mutation” refers to a “copying error” in which the genetic code of an organism becomes corrupted.

“Genetic Variation” differs from mutation, in that the observed differences (or variations) are not the results of errors, but are normal variables, the coding for which remains resident within the organism population's genetic “pool.”

Genetic mutations are highly questionable as a valid and empirically verifiable “mechanism” for evolution. Again, it is Evolution B, variation etc, that you are trying to prove Evolution A with. There is nothing observed or to prove that because of this we have me or you. Make the connection.

[NiteGuy]

“Mutation” refers to a “copying error” in which the genetic code of an organism becomes corrupted.

“Genetic Variation” differs from mutation, in that the observed differences (or variations) are not the results of errors, but are normal variables, the coding for which remains resident within the organism population's genetic “pool.”

Genetic mutations are highly questionable as a valid and empirically verifiable “mechanism” for evolution. Again, it is Evolution B, variation etc, that you are trying to prove Evolution A with. There is nothing observed or to prove that because of this we have me or you. Make the connection.

Once again, I see that we are re-defining already well defined words to suit our own purposes.

Let's see what the true definition of "mutation is, shall we? From Dictionary.com:

3. Genetics:
a. - A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.

b. - The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.

Now let's look at the scientific definition of variation. Again, from Dictionary.com:

Biology.
Marked difference or deviation from the normal or recognized form, function, or structure.

Hmm......so a "variation" is a recognized change of form, function or structure. And "mutation" is the process by which those variations occur, and that we then observe.

Really, sub, if you are going to argue semantics here, it would be helpful if you knew what you were talking about, instead of taking sombody else's (perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of the way the words are used in science.

Mutation is far more than just a "copying error", or a "coding error". Although a mutation may occur because of a copying or coding error, that is not strictly the case at all, and anyone who tells you different is deliberately misleading you.

[sub_zer0]

Once again, I see that we are re-defining already well defined words to suit our own purposes.

3. Genetics:
a. - A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.

b. - The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.

Let's see what the true definition of "mutation is, shall we? From Dictionary.com:

Now let's look at the scientific definition of variation. Again, from Dictionary.com:

Biology.
Marked difference or deviation from the normal or recognized form, function, or structure.

Hmm......so a "variation" is a recognized change of form, function or structure. And "mutation" is the process by which those variations occur, and that we then observe.

OK fair enough variation is the change, mutation is the process by which variations occur. But if that is the case a mutation must mutate millions and millions of times over always producing something more complex. Where is the evidence to prove that? All you said is that a mutation is genetic variation - a fact that supports creationism.

Really, sub, if you are going to argue semantics here, it would be helpful if you knew what you were talking about, instead of taking sombody else's (perhaps deliberate) misunderstanding of the way the words are used in science.

Mutation is far more than just a "copying error", or a "coding error". Although a mutation may occur because of a copying or coding error, that is not strictly the case at all, and anyone who tells you different is deliberately misleading you.

Doesn't natural selection on its own always get rid of information, never the opposite? I mean what is happening to me is populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA design.

Mutations can't feed in new information each time there is variation and adaptation, without having the total information decrease then. It is impossible as natural selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population. Thus some information is lost in that population and is not evolution.

[NiteGuy]

OK fair enough variation is the change, mutation is the process by which variations occur. But if that is the case a mutation must mutate millions and millions of times over always producing something more complex. Where is the evidence to prove that? All you said is that a mutation is genetic variation - a fact that supports creationism.
And how does this support creationism? Creationism, by definition, means that there is no natural adaptation or evolving - that it's all been pre-designed and pre-ordained. That's quite a fair difference from the proofs of evolution.

Doesn't natural selection on its own always get rid of information, never the opposite? I mean what is happening to me is populations can change and adapt because they have a lot of information (variety) in their DNA design.

Mutations can't feed in new information each time there is variation and adaptation, without having the total information decrease then. It is impossible as natural selection gets rid of the unadapted portions of the population. Thus some information is lost in that population and is not evolution.
You're saying that for every advance or gain, there is, somewhere else, a loss. True enough, but so what? These are adaptations to the local environment, bear in mind. Here's an (greatly simplified) example:

We don't know why some fish (with gills, naturally) came ashore, and evolved into reptiles (without gills, but with lungs). Perhaps the seas in their area were decreasing in size and depth, or perhaps food was more plentiful near the shoreline, but just out of the water, except for what small amount hung over, and into the water.

As these fish began coming ashore, even for a short period (even seconds) to get to this food, it's quite obvious that they can't use their gills for breathing, and so, due to changes in the environment, some fish begin evolving a way to breath the atmosphere. The next problem of course, is that fins aren't very well set up to move on land, and rudimentary legs and feet develop, along with a general flatening of the body vertically, and the next thing you know, you have a land based animal. Well, relatively speaking that is - this still takes anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, but you get the idea.

Anyway, the land animals gain the ability to breath atmosphere, but lose the abilty to extract oxygen from seawater. Yes, they lost their gills but gained so much more in their ability to travel, gather food, and survive outside their original environment. More than a fair tradeoff, I would say.

[sub_zer0]

You're saying that for every advance or gain, there is, somewhere else, a loss. True enough, but so what? These are adaptations to the local environment, bear in mind. Here's an (greatly simplified) example:

We don't know why some fish (with gills, naturally) came ashore, and evolved into reptiles (without gills, but with lungs). Perhaps the seas in their area were decreasing in size and depth, or perhaps food was more plentiful near the shoreline, but just out of the water, except for what small amount hung over, and into the water.

As these fish began coming ashore, even for a short period (even seconds) to get to this food, it's quite obvious that they can't use their gills for breathing, and so, due to changes in the environment, some fish begin evolving a way to breath the atmosphere. The next problem of course, is that fins aren't very well set up to move on land, and rudimentary legs and feet develop, along with a general flatening of the body vertically, and the next thing you know, you have a land based animal. Well, relatively speaking that is - this still takes anywhere from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, but you get the idea.

Anyway, the land animals gain the ability to breath atmosphere, but lose the abilty to extract oxygen from seawater. Yes, they lost their gills but gained so much more in their ability to travel, gather food, and survive outside their original environment. More than a fair tradeoff, I would say.

But all it is, is adaptation to their enviroment like you say. I still hold my belief that all animals and humans were created independantly from one another. And the animals we have now have, came off Noahs Ark and just adapted to suite their respective enviroments with the variety of genetic information they already have designed or built-in.

Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

-deletion of parts
-addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
-change of function
-addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
-gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

These mechanisms seem to represent an increase in amount of DNA as far as the addition and deletion of parts goes. But quite the opposite is true for evolution to occur. There would need to be millions upon millions of mutations that constantly and consistently produce genetic increases that are functional genetic information, these do not.

[Craig]

These mechanisms seem to represent an increase in amount of DNA as far as the addition and deletion of parts goes. But quite the opposite is true for evolution to occur. There would need to be millions upon millions of mutations that constantly and consistently produce genetic increases that are functional genetic information, these do not.

Well, you've acknowledged that mutations can increase DNA, and I am going to hold you to it. But do you understand that mutations occur in every generation of offspring right? That is to say, you have mutations that your parents lacked, and they mutations that their parents lacked, and so forth.

Very large mutations are rare, but mutations are ubiquitous. There is roughly 0.1 to 1 mutation per genome replication in viruses and 0.003 mutations per genome per replication in microbes. Mutation rates for higher organisms vary quite a bit between organisms, but excluding the parts of the genome in which most mutations are neutral (the junk DNA), the mutation rates are also roughly 0.003 per effective genome per cell replication. Since sexual reproduction involves many cell replications, humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000).

But the more significant thing, as I see it, is that your points here are invalidated by the material from the article you just quoted. Let's look at it again:


deletion of parts
addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
change of function
addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
gradual modification of parts

Remember that the article states that all these things have actually been observed. We've seen them happen. Your argument against mutations suggests that these sort of things should not be able to occur, and yet they do. So, you're probably simply mistaken about what mutations can cause over time, because we have seen the above changes. Either that, or there's some other mechanism responsible for the above changes; in that case, we still have evidence to support macroevolution.

[sub_zer0]

Well, you've acknowledged that mutations can increase DNA, and I am going to hold you to it. But do you understand that mutations occur in every generation of offspring right? That is to say, you have mutations that your parents lacked, and they mutations that their parents lacked, and so forth.

They increase the amount of DNA. That increased amount is not new genetic information - but are just changes.

But the more significant thing, as I see it, is that your points here are invalidated by the material from the article you just quoted. Let's look at it again:

Remember that the article states that all these things have actually been observed. We've seen them happen. Your argument against mutations suggests that these sort of things should not be able to occur, and yet they do. So, you're probably simply mistaken about what mutations can cause over time, because we have seen the above changes. Either that, or there's some other mechanism responsible for the above changes; in that case, we still have evidence to support macroevolution.

You are misunderstanding me. Those do happen, of course. But as far as addition and deletion of parts goes, it just increases the amount of present DNA. That increase is never new genetic information. On the molecular level mutations cause things to lose information.

[Craig]

They increase the amount of DNA. That increased amount is not new genetic information - but are just changes.



You are misunderstanding me. Those do happen, of course. But as far as addition and deletion of parts goes, it just increases the amount of present DNA. That increase is never new genetic information. On the molecular level mutations cause things to lose information.

That's not actually the case sub_zer0. Everything in your body is coded by long sequences of ATCG in the DNA double helix. So as long as you have the capacity to add, subtract, or change chemicals in this sequence, you can have new genetic information.

Think of it this way. With the periodic table of elements, we can account for every single physical thing in the world. Now, as you are no doubt aware, there is an immense amount of variety in things in the world, but all things comprise of the same 100 or so elements, (excluded artificially created ones), composed in different manners. The chemicals ATCG function in the same way- the variety we see is due to different arrangements of long strings of these chemicals in DNA. So yes, there is new genetic information that can occur.

[Art of War]

But all it is, is adaptation to their enviroment like you say. I still hold my belief that all animals and humans were created independantly from one another. And the animals we have now have, came off Noahs Ark and just adapted to suite their respective enviroments with the variety of genetic information they already have designed or built-in.

Once again we are at the Ark dilema. The idea that the world was covered completely by a layer of water is simply impossible. It violates all the natural laws of science. You have too many things going against it, thermodynamics, geological records and even the salinity of the oceans. None of these incredibly damaging points can be accounted for scientifically or through the study of Genesis. The idea of a global flood that allowed the Earth to survive as it does today is simply impossible. Not to mention the animals which were supposed to survive the flood. It is a simple case of logistics, it is simply impossible for two of every animal to make it to the Euphates river valley much less survive the journey. Not to mention that nearly all sea life would be exterminated by the sudden desalinization of the oceans.

[Craig]

The problem Art of War is that in a non Leibnizian understanding of omnipotence, a creationist can be satisfied that such problems are not impossible, because God can overcome them, and even if there is no explanation as to what He did in the Bible, (or even that He did anything special other than flood the earth), they feel it's still sufficient to justify their beliefs.

[sub_zer0]

The problem Art of War is that in a non Leibnizian understanding of omnipotence, a creationist can be satisfied that such problems are not impossible, because God can overcome them, and even if there is no explanation as to what He did in the Bible, (or even that He did anything special other than flood the earth), they feel it's still sufficient to justify their beliefs.

You are right, all I need is the word of God.

[Dangerrmouse]

Why not Allah, Buddha, Ra?

[NiteGuy]

You are right, all I need is the word of God.

Then I tell you what, sub.

If you want to know what we think, fine. But you asked, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of listening to lame reasoning, from people who wouldn't know which end of a microscope to look through, as to why evolution is wrong. And having to defend every lame argument of theirs you bring in here.

And then they have the gall, the unmitigated gall, to say that because they think they found a hole in one part of evolution (and they didn't), that that means there can be only one other answer: God.

These people don't give a good damn about science, except how they can twist it to further their religious aims. They have no open mind. It's all about attacking something they think will bring down their mythology, because they can't stand the thought that they might have been believing in the non-existant all this time.

If you want to understand, really understand the evolutionary process and what we know about it, I can teach you. Craig can probably teach you. If you want we can recommend any number of books.

If you want to discuss religion as a philosophy and way of life, I'm more than happy to do that, as well.

But please, quit bringing every other crackpot's lame explanation and theory for why evolution is wrong, or subserviant to the Bible. Each and every one has been proven to be a mistake in their methods, a twisting straw man argument of what the real science is, or an outright fraud.

Quite frankly, it's just not worth my time anymore. Now, I'm sure you'll think that means you won the argument. Far from it.

You want honest debate on the issues? Bring an honest argument. Until then, I'm outta here.

[Craig]

Might I also add sub_zer0, that pretty much every single "problem" with evolution that you can come up with has already been addressed at Talk Origins. Nothing you have suggested is particularly novel, nor is it something that has not already been previously refuted. Essentially, all that I have to do is look up the relevant information and then explain it in the context of our particular discussion, using my own knowledge and reasoning to supplement the Talk Origins responses if necessary.

In other words sub, you're kind of wasting your time trying to find loopholes and problems with evolution, because these problems have been already dealt with, and part of dealing with the so-called "problems" includes providing evidence in support of evolution, such as the changing of parts etc. seen in my post from earlier in this discussion.

The other thing I might point out is that look how many of your points were based on a misconception or distortion of evolution. For instance, the idea that we should be able to see sudden major macroevolutionary changes is not consistent with evolution. Nor is it correct to say that there is no new genetic information with mutations involving addition, deletions or replacements. Ditto for the claim that speciation is part of microevolution, rather than macroevolution. Likewise for the claim that there can be transitional fossils whose transitions are "too insignificant" or "too great" to constitute a transition. And so forth.

As I've asserted for longer than you've been here, Creationism and ID's attacks on evolution are based upon distortion, misunderstanding, deceit and outright lies. We've got solid evidence just from the above examples that I raised that this is the truth.

[Art of War]

The problem Art of War is that in a non Leibnizian understanding of omnipotence, a creationist can be satisfied that such problems are not impossible, because God can overcome them, and even if there is no explanation as to what He did in the Bible, (or even that He did anything special other than flood the earth), they feel it's still sufficient to justify their beliefs.

I did think about this and I am prepared to point out why it is illogical. For God to accomplish this he would have to go against every law of nature he created when he assembled the universe. The laws of physics are the laws of God himself, laws that have existed since the begining of the universe. Since God is infailible his laws are infailible leading to the assertion that even he can not break his own laws because if he did he would become failible. You are left with a choice in belief. Either God is failible thus his word is failible or God is infailible and could not overcome the laws of nature he himself set down thus making Genesis impossible.

That is to assume you take the words as Genesis as the word God. This then creates a paradox. If God is infailible how could he relate a story that simply can not be true? A story that goes against the very nature of God. The simple solution to this paradox is by recognizing that the story of Genesis is a story from man who is quite failible and thus quite capable of being wrong. In the end the story of the flood is a story created by man thus it is a story that can be emperically wrong. That is to say Noah may have taken part in a very real flood but the idea that this flood covered the entire world is preposterous.

[sub_zer0]

Then I tell you what, sub.

If you want to know what we think, fine. But you asked, and quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of listening to lame reasoning, from people who wouldn't know which end of a microscope to look through, as to why evolution is wrong. And having to defend every lame argument of theirs you bring in here.

Well, in the end evolution is wrong... but we will wait for you to see that. I am no scientist and frankly I though you would of realized that after I said that.

And then they have the gall, the unmitigated gall, to say that because they think they found a hole in one part of evolution (and they didn't), that that means there can be only one other answer: God.

There are PLENTY of holes in evolution. And yes the ONLY answer is God.

These people don't give a good damn about science, except how they can twist it to further their religious aims. They have no open mind. It's all about attacking something they think will bring down their mythology, because they can't stand the thought that they might have been believing in the non-existant all this time.

Sounds like evolutionists to me.

Professor Fleishmann: "The DDarwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination"

Robert A. Millikan: "The pathetic thing is that we have sceientists who are
trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."

Roger Lewin: "The Darwinists approach has consistenly been to find supporting fossil evidence, claim it as 'proof' for 'evolution', and then ifnore all the difficulties. It is, in face, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. Data are as often molded to fit preferrred conclusions."

All evolutionists...

If you want to understand, really understand the evolutionary process and what we know about it, I can teach you. Craig can probably teach you. If you want we can recommend any number of books.

No thanks, I research each side, accordingly. Isn't this what we are doing?

If you want to discuss religion as a philosophy and way of life, I'm more than happy to do that, as well.

No thanks, I research each side, accordingly. But isn't that what we are doing?

But please, quit bringing every other crackpot's lame explanation and theory for why evolution is wrong, or subserviant to the Bible. Each and every one has been proven to be a mistake in their methods, a twisting straw man argument of what the real science is, or an outright fraud.

Yours and all the other evolutionists agree on that.

Quite frankly, it's just not worth my time anymore. Now, I'm sure you'll think that means you won the argument. Far from it.

You want honest debate on the issues? Bring an honest argument. Until then, I'm outta here.

Honest, lol... when have I lied outright? Never. I am simply bringing presuppositions to the table just as everybody else does.

[sub_zer0]

Might I also add sub_zer0, that pretty much every single "problem" with evolution that you can come up with has already been addressed at Talk Origins. Nothing you have suggested is particularly novel, nor is it something that has not already been previously refuted. Essentially, all that I have to do is look up the relevant information and then explain it in the context of our particular discussion, using my own knowledge and reasoning to supplement the Talk Origins responses if necessary.

Nor has it been answered, just addressed. I am sorry but you can never prove evolution without fossils and without the observation of it.

In other words sub, you're kind of wasting your time trying to find loopholes and problems with evolution, because these problems have been already dealt with, and part of dealing with the so-called "problems" includes providing evidence in support of evolution, such as the changing of parts etc. seen in my post from earlier in this discussion.

You have yet to convince me that evolution is the ONLY way it happened. So to me, there are still problems with it. Big problems.

The other thing I might point out is that look how many of your points were based on a misconception or distortion of evolution. For instance, the idea that we should be able to see sudden major macroevolutionary changes is not consistent with evolution.[/quote]

I never though that was even possible. The fact that you can't see sudden major macroevolutionary changes means that evolution has never been observed.

Nor is it correct to say that there is no new genetic information with mutations involving addition, deletions or replacements. Ditto for the claim that speciation is part of microevolution, rather than macroevolution.

[quote]Likewise for the claim that there can be transitional fossils whose transitions are "too insignificant" or "too great" to constitute a transition. And so forth.

Fossils are to insignificant to prove evolution.

As I've asserted for longer than you've been here, Creationism and ID's attacks on evolution are based upon distortion, misunderstanding, deceit and outright lies. We've got solid evidence just from the above examples that I raised that this is the truth.

But it isn't MACROEVOLUTION which is evolution. Macro has never been observed. As far as speciation is concerned Does speciation produce NEW GENETIC INFORMATION?

[mataj]

Well, in the end evolution is wrong... but we will wait for you to see that. I am no scientist and frankly I though you would of realized that after I said that.You are no scientist, and that's why you know science is wrong, right?

There are PLENTY of holes in evolution. And yes the ONLY answer is God.Of course. Scientific facts are like dots, and theories are like lines connecting thieese dots. Everything else is unknown, one great big hole. Science is not just about answering questions, it's also about opening new, unanswered ones in the process. New questions, that have to be investigated, and eventually answered. Unanswered questions ("holes") is exactly what distinguishes science from religion. Religions offes answers only, and allows no questions.

Professor Fleishmann: "The DDarwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of the imagination"

Robert A. Millikan: "The pathetic thing is that we have sceientists who are
trying to prove evolution which no scientist can ever prove."

Roger Lewin: "The Darwinists approach has consistenly been to find supporting fossil evidence, claim it as 'proof' for 'evolution', and then ifnore all the difficulties. It is, in face, a common fantasy, promulgated mostly by the scientific profession itself, that in the search for objective truth, data dictate conclusions. Data are as often molded to fit preferrred conclusions."
Only facts matter, authority is inconsequential. I'd say that's the main reason why religion hates science so much.

[Dangerrmouse]

So in summary. There is no evidence that will persuade you of anything but that "Goddidit"

[Art of War]

I'm going to readress this to subzero:


I did think about this and I am prepared to point out why it is illogical. For God to accomplish this he would have to go against every law of nature he created when he assembled the universe. The laws of physics are the laws of God himself, laws that have existed since the begining of the universe. Since God is infailible his laws are infailible leading to the assertion that even he can not break his own laws because if he did he would become failible. You are left with a choice in belief. Either God is failible thus his word is failible or God is infailible and could not overcome the laws of nature he himself set down thus making Genesis impossible.

That is to assume you take the words as Genesis as the word God. This then creates a paradox. If God is infailible how could he relate a story that simply can not be true? A story that goes against the very nature of God. The simple solution to this paradox is by recognizing that the story of Genesis is a story from man who is quite failible and thus quite capable of being wrong. In the end the story of the flood is a story created by man thus it is a story that can be emperically wrong. That is to say Noah may have taken part in a very real flood but the idea that this flood covered the entire world is preposterous.

[USA-1]

There was a flood, it killed nearly everyone in the valley for as far as the eye could see with the exception of Noah.
You see, Noah had accumilated great wealth as a shipping merchant. He saved much of his earnings by having his family work the business with him. One day he realized that insead of having several small boats, that are imossible to navigate when his sons all decide to go fishing once each week, he would build one very large one. So if they were not around heck he could sail the thing by hisself.
People laughed at Noah for building such a large boat. They had never seen anything like it and couldn't understand how a boat could be so big.

One very bad monsoon season, it rained for a whole week straight. The rivers overflowed like never before. Noahs family was on the big boat because of the fact that all the houses were underwater. Then without warning, a massive wall of water came rushing upon the area as far as the eye could see. And everyone in every village all through the valley as far as the eye could see was drowned. But Noah was safe on his boat with all his family and all the farm animals that they needed to keep safe.
Later, after the waters resided, Noah went back to his farm land and lived out his life for many years. As time went on, people began to come from afar and settle in the valley where Noah lived. Everyone used to gather around on Sunday's to listen to Noah and his story of the great flood.

After Noah's death, and the death of all his immediate family members, his story carried on without him. But each time it was told it changed a little. Finally one day, this priest from afar heard the story and thought that if all he did was change it around a little bit he could make people think God was involved and convince people to believe the ideas he had so he could continue being a priest. It was after all nice to be a priest when you didn't have to work and you could get people to give you food just for telling a few stories about God.
So he did, and it worked! He then decided to do it again. He took many old legends and myths from far away lands and changed them so that God was involved and each story could hold a lesson for people on how God wants everyone to behave.
Well, it went over so nice. He soon became a rich man. He quickly got together with some scribes that could write on clay tablets and had them record every story he told. When asked were he got the information he would just say that God spoke to him personally and that was enough for them.
One day he died. And he was standing in a place that was very strange. He heard a voice that came out of nowhere. It was loud and angry, it said, " Do you realize what you have done! I''ll never get those people down there to understand me now!"

[mataj]

So in summary. There is no evidence that will persuade you of anything but that "Goddidit"Exactly, that the essence of it, whether subzero admits it, or not. Science is just a lame excuse for not being grateful to our Creator, and not expressing the gratitude by paying generous tithes to His earthly agents.

[USA-1]

Exactly, that the essence of it, whether subzero admits it, or not. Science is just a lame excuse for not being grateful to our Creator, and not expressing the gratitude by paying generous tithes to His earthly agents.
Yes someday the faithful will finally figure out that religion is all about money and power.

[sub_zer0]

I'm going to readress this to subzero:

I did think about this and I am prepared to point out why it is illogical. For God to accomplish this he would have to go against every law of nature he created when he assembled the universe. The laws of physics are the laws of God himself, laws that have existed since the begining of the universe. Since God is infailible his laws are infailible leading to the assertion that even he can not break his own laws because if he did he would become failible.

Accomplish what exactly?

You are left with a choice in belief. Either God is failible thus his word is failible or God is infailible and could not overcome the laws of nature he himself set down thus making Genesis impossible.

I think you are getting the order of creation wrong...

That is to assume you take the words as Genesis as the word God. This then creates a paradox. If God is infailible how could he relate a story that simply can not be true?

God wrote it, that is how He relates to it.

A story that goes against the very nature of God.

And how does it go against the very nature of God?

The simple solution to this paradox is by recognizing that the story of Genesis is a story from man who is quite failible and thus quite capable of being wrong.

Yes, man is failible, but with the Holy Spirit guiding the person, does that make the story not from God? Of course not. I believe it is exactly what God wanted man to see and understand about creation.

In the end the story of the flood is a story created by man thus it is a story that can be emperically wrong.

That is what you think. But it is divinely inspired writing in the author that is taking place, it is not emperically wrong.

That is to say Noah may have taken part in a very real flood but the idea that this flood covered the entire world is preposterous.

Name the evidence that makes it preposterous... all I have to do is give a hint of possibility of that not even mattering or what not and it is still possible.

[sub_zer0]

Exactly, that the essence of it, whether subzero admits it, or not. Science is just a lame excuse for not being grateful to our Creator, and not expressing the gratitude by paying generous tithes to His earthly agents.

Oh, you are admitting things for me now.... please don't...

You are wrong anyway... I believe Science to be a search for the truths about our universe and creation... Evolution is a poor product of that. That is all.

[Dangerrmouse]

When did the supposed flood event happen?

[sub_zer0]

When did the supposed flood event happen?

4,500 years or so ago.

[Soc.Dem.]

4,500 years or so ago.

Some of the pyramids of Egypt are older than that, how did they survive the flood?

[sub_zer0]

Some of the pyramids of Egypt are older than that, how did they survive the flood?

That is an estimated date... how much older are the pyramids?

Also, mountains survived to... whats the difference?

[Soc.Dem.]

And why are there no mention of a global flood in any of the Egyptian sources?

[sub_zer0]

And why are there no mention of a global flood in any of the Egyptian sources?

Actually there is one from Egypt despite flood stories from Africa being rare. It tells of an ancient creation god, Tem, who 'was responsible for the primeval flood. That flood covered the entire earth and destroyed all of mankind except those in Tem's boat'.

[Art of War]

Accomplish what exactly?

The flood story being an integral part of your belief is an important part to the idea of creationism.

I think you are getting the order of creation wrong...

I am not working with creationism as a whole just the flood myth right now.

God wrote it, that is how He relates to it.

The point that I am making is this story could not be directly from God because the story itself goes against the laws of nature and thus the laws of God. God set down the laws of nature when he created the universe.

And how does it go against the very nature of God?

For God to break these laws the laws would have to be failible and being that the laws are failible the one who created those laws would be failible. The very nature of God is that he is infailible and thus the story of Genesis violates the nature of an infailible God because either the story is flawed or the laws of nature (which God created) is flawed.


Yes, man is failible, but with the Holy Spirit guiding the person, does that make the story not from God? Of course not. I believe it is exactly what God wanted man to see and understand about creation.


Therefore it is possible God was trying to teach man a lesson rather than provide an accurate history to the world.


That is what you think. But it is divinely inspired writing in the author that is taking place, it is not emperically wrong.

The point that the story is wrong implies that the source was wrong. When we hold true that God can not be wrongthat leads to the conclusion that he could not be the source of the story. Therefore the story of Genesis is just as capable of being flawed as man is.


Name the evidence that makes it preposterous... all I have to do is give a hint of possibility of that not even mattering or what not and it is still possible.

The very violation of the laws of nature make it preposterous. As I stated thermodynamics and such. The idea that God can not be wrong means that the laws of nature can not be violated, since the laws of nature can not be violated (for that would violate God) the very real impossiblity posed by the laws of nature can not be discounted.

[sub_zer0]

The flood story being an integral part of your belief is an important part to the idea of creationism.

I see...

I am not working with creationism as a whole just the flood myth right now.

But youu cannot have one without the other.

The point that I am making is this story could not be directly from God because the story itself goes against the laws of nature and thus the laws of God. God set down the laws of nature when he created the universe.

How did it go against the laws of nature? How is it not possible for it to happen?

For God to break these laws the laws would have to be failible and being that the laws are failible the one who created those laws would be failible. The very nature of God is that he is infailible and thus the story of Genesis violates the nature of an infailible God because either the story is flawed or the laws of nature (which God created) is flawed.

Why would the laws have to be broken, maybe the laws we have now are not the original laws we had before the flood or perhaps before sin.

Therefore it is possible God was trying to teach man a lesson rather than provide an accurate history to the world.

I feel it is both.

The point that the story is wrong implies that the source was wrong. When we hold true that God can not be wrongthat leads to the conclusion that he could not be the source of the story. Therefore the story of Genesis is just as capable of being flawed as man is.

If you view it in the light you are casting.

The very violation of the laws of nature make it preposterous. As I stated thermodynamics and such. The idea that God can not be wrong means that the laws of nature can not be violated, since the laws of nature can not be violated (for that would violate God) the very real impossiblity posed by the laws of nature can not be discounted.

How does the flood affect the laws of nature?

[Art of War]

But youu cannot have one without the other.

Exactly which is why I am focusing on the idea of the flood. According to you without a flood there is no creationism.

How did it go against the laws of nature? How is it not possible for it to happen?

Go back and read some of my earlier posts. Most specifically the laws of thermodynamics would raise the temperature of the Earth to levels that would not allow life to exist. Not to mention the lack of records left in the Earth. Even action follows a series of laws created by God at the beginning of the universe. Especially actions on the face of the earth. The point is had the flood followed natural laws there would definitely be some record of it, other than verbal.

Why would the laws have to be broken, maybe the laws we have now are not the original laws we had before the flood or perhaps before sin.

If you hold God to be infaillible that would mean there is no cause for the laws to change. The laws were perfect from the beginning of time. If the laws were changed that would imply that the laws were flawed from the beginning thus a fallible God. This creates the paradox of either accepting the flood myth as the word of God or accepting the fact that God is infaillible. You can not accept both.

I feel it is both.

But the ver