|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism - a clearer picture? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: How about a small geographically and genetically isolated population (A)evolves faster than a large population where genes must take longer to reach fixation (B)... at some point the population (A) overcomes the geographical isolation and being more evolved to suit the environment supplants the population (B).... What we see in the fossil record unless we get very lucky and dig in the area of geographic confinement is an abrupt transition from the species that comprised population (B) and the initial population of (A) to the species which comprised the population (A) at the time of geographic breakout.... Is that mechanism enough for you....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Theo,
My original question for this thread still stands. I am willing to here the creatist side of things, theories and evidence, as put forth by creationists. However, no one has yet been forthcoming with scientific theory to support the creationist model. This is not an attack on straw men, it is a simple request that the creationist side be stated and supported by observable data. If you have credible science to back you up, please put it forth, something that no other creationist has done so far in this thread. I am not asking for a refutation of evolution. I am asking for strong evidence to support creationist theory. As for predicting the first and second laws, please support this statement. Where did the bible postulate the laws of thermodynamics? Where is the supporting evidence for this claim? Additionaly, what observable data did the bible publish to support this theory? (And I would be very interested to hear how evolution violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. Mind you this question is off topic, since I am asking that creationists put forth their theories and support them, not asking for a refutation of evolution. Its for my own personel curiousity that I ask why you think evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Cool, I will look into the other thread. The main reason I put up this thread is that I have repeatadly heard creationism refered to as "creationism science". If there is such a cat, I just wanted to see his stripes. Scientifically, even creationist genisis would leave tell tale signs that science could observe, and regardless of religious belief, would be supported by physical evidence if it took place."
--I'll quote myself from a former post on the subject: quote: quote: --I hope this answers some of your possible questions, or brings about new ones. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology."
--Hm.. I think you forgot some of it. "And you know what biology has taught me?"--No, but I know what It has taught me, that the old saying that 'biology makes no scence without evolution', is quite wrong, and that biology makes perfect scense untill you come to these words: 'Scientists think...', or 'scientists believe...', then you know what they are about to say. "That the Lion is a carnivore,that it is born to be a carnivore and that it starves to death if it runs out of meat and that there is no fact in science that would lend credence to the hypothesis that lions or their ancestors ever grazed the fields side by side with the antilopes and the gazelles and that ONE MUTANT LION living on vegetables in a CONTROLED ENVIRONEMENT does NOTHING to alter those FACTS."--If you can tell me two things, I will subside to your argument and withdraw it as invalid if: 1. Tell me why this lion, even being a single one, with its ability means that it is not valid for a population to do the same. 2. Avoid the assertion that because it is a single that it means nothing to alter these very flexible facts (that is if you know some basic biology, genetics, and inheritance). ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Apologies if you find the lack of comprehension on the part of subscribers to the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy (Pat. Pend.) to be so appalling. Perhaps if you'd care to educate us on the tenets of creation science, you wouldn't be confronted with such erroneous representations of your position. After all, that's literally the only thing Darwin Storm asked for in his/her OP.
quote: Rather than demanding that your opponents in the debate go read a massive two-volume apologia for creationism, if you want to be convincing, it might be better to synopsize the relevant material for us here. After all, you can always cite or quote from the books. However, you need to actually present something if you are going to argue a position. VEC proponents don't just tell you to go read Campbell's "Biology" or Margulis's "Garden of Microbial Delights" as their whole argument.
quote: Rather than just making a bald assertion, it might be useful to actually provide some of these predictions you find so compelling.
quote: Absolutely. Please enlighten us benighted VECs. Just a few bits of evidence, with examples from nature would be sufficient to start the discussion.
quote: This is a perfect example of what you discussed above concerning strawmen. Your implication here is that some incredible saltation occured between a single celled organism and man in one go. You should read Margulis's "Symbiosis" (how's it feel?).
quote: Please provide at least ONE reference for this assertion.
quote: I think you're confused. PE says nothing about cells-to-man giant saltationism, nor is it a "mechanism" per se. PE and its mechanisms (such as habitat tracking, allopatric speciation, etc) is a hypothesis that provides an explanation for the observation that species seem to appear "suddenly" (in a few million rather than tens of millions of years) in the fossil record. It is an effort to show a differential rate of speciation based on evidence. SJ Gould's claims to the contrary, it doesn't represent anything overly "revolutionary" for evolutionary theory. It IS a valid observation that helped explain one of the apparent inconsistencies in the ToE, but didn't require any major re-write of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
quote: Sounds like every piece of creationist writing I've ever read. See the thread on Specified Complexity, for instance.
quote: Really? What did Sir Karl, a true member of the VEC if there ever was one, say to give you this idea? What part of Popper's epistemology don't you understand?
quote: Provide at least one reference or evidence for this assertion, please. What definition are you using? What part of evolutionary theory is unscientific?
quote: Please provide references or evidence supporting the assertion that creationism somehow predicted the purely deterministic laws of thermodynamics (which creationism violates in toto with the demand that we accept the existence of some supernatural entity existing outside of the laws of time and space). Please also show how evolution violates physics.
quote: Great! I eagerly await your enlightenment and clarification.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"And you know what biology has taught me?" --No, but I know what It has taught me, that the old saying that quote: I think you're incorrect. Biology is critically dependent on evolutionary theory, except the part that simply catalogs existing species. Anything beyond that, unless you have a mechanism for how the particular organism developed over time, you have no way of determining anything (i.e., ecosystem interractions, population dynamics, speciation, etc.) Without evolutionary theory, biology is relegated to simple gardening...
quote: The simple explanation is that your mutant fruit-eating lion is a "hopeful monster" that has literally no chance of survival in the wild. Given lion behavior, social structure, reproductive behaviors, etc, any lion that did not have the capability to harness the energy potential of meat protein (for which their digestive systems have evolved over the course of 45 million years or so) would be at a net disadvantage physically when attempting to overthrow a male group (see the lion behavior thread on this forum for ex.). I have read some general info on the so-called vegetarian lion raised in captivity in the early '20s or '30s, but haven't seen any comparative physical data on it. Do you have any references for this freak that is so often used by creationists to claim ALL carnivores were vegetarians before the putative fall?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
TrueCreation,
Well, by conceding that creationism is faith based, as such, it doesn't meet scientific standards and therefore isn't a valid model for genesis. However, you refer to science which supports a young earth. If you have evidence for such, it should stand on its own, even without faith. I am willing to examine the scientific studies which you claim support the young earth model. Truecreation:quote:Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is. Again, I am not asking you to prove creationism, which by your own standard is faithbased and religious is nature. However I doubt the veracity of your claims for science which clearly supports a young earth model. You should be able to present this without once mentioning the bible, and still be able to prove its true, by you definition. Also, I would like to see the evidence that supports other aspects of creation science.If there is no body of scientific evidence which supports your claims, then creationism is just faith, without scientific support, and as such is simply a religion who's impact only applies to those who choose to believe in it. In the US you have the right to worship how you wish, and I fully support that right. However, just because you have faith in it doesn't make it scientifically true, or relevant to the rest of the people who don't share your beliefs. I am dogged in my persuit. I am willing to listen to scientific evidence that supports "creation science". If there is none, please say so, and I won't ask it again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I think you're incorrect. Biology is critically dependent on evolutionary theory, except the part that simply catalogs existing species. Anything beyond that, unless you have a mechanism for how the particular organism developed over time, you have no way of determining anything (i.e., ecosystem interractions, population dynamics, speciation, etc.) Without evolutionary theory, biology is relegated to simple gardening..."
--I think that you are almost right, biology does infact need evolution. I should have been clearer, it would have been more appropriate to say Evolution by common descent. Variation and Speciation being a type of evolutionary process is the theoretical and well supported (to a degree) supposition on the reason for such diverse life. "The simple explanation is that your mutant fruit-eating lion is a "hopeful monster" that has literally no chance of survival in the wild."--What is this assertion based on? What would be a threat if the population of proto-lions had such a diet. "Given lion behavior, social structure, reproductive behaviors, etc, any lion that did not have the capability to harness the energy potential of meat protein (for which their digestive systems have evolved over the course of 45 million years or so) would be at a net disadvantage physically when attempting to overthrow a male group (see the lion behavior thread on this forum for ex.)."--Right, this could be a reason for why we don't see such lions anymore, could have been a recessive gene or a broken link of genes at a locus in the chromosome. I havent the material for how it attained its died accept that it was a given since birth, that is, it was an 'instinct' or built in desire. A hypothesis could be that little-tyke is what all the proto-lions were like directly post-flood and pre-flood. After a population had a taste for meat, the other dieted population would be at the disadvantage. "I have read some general info on the so-called vegetarian lion raised in captivity in the early '20s or '30s, but haven't seen any comparative physical data on it. Do you have any references for this freak that is so often used by creationists to claim ALL carnivores were vegetarians before the putative fall?"--If you go to Amazon.com you can find the book on it. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0835606058/qid=1015087639/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-5725929-4409663 --Thats the book on it. I am not sure what it would be to tell you but it by looking at the table of contents you can see that it shows greatly on its actions and its nature of living with its environment and such. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well, by conceding that creationism is faith based, as such, it doesn't meet scientific standards and therefore isn't a valid model for genesis."
--Your correct on the first part, but I'm not quite sure what you are getting at to say it 'isn't a valid model for genesis'. "However, you refer to science which supports a young earth. If you have evidence for such, it should stand on its own, even without faith."--Yes it should. "I am willing to examine the scientific studies which you claim support the young earth model."--Allright, well lets see, considering the assumption that the earth is 6000 years old if you want to base it on faith in the bible. Or if you just wan't to say the earth is young by science, you would have to lower the ages for many of the things that evolution claims is millions of years old, there is an argument in anything that claims this. "Again, I am not asking you to prove creationism, which by your own standard is faithbased and religious is nature."--Well you can never 'prove' creationism anymore than you can 'prove' atheistic evolutionism, I'm glad you didn't assert that this is what should happen to be valid as some may do. "Again, I am not asking you to prove creationism, which by your own standard is faithbased and religious is nature. However I doubt the veracity of your claims for science which clearly supports a young earth model."--It 'clearly supports a young earth model' through interperetation. "You should be able to present this without once mentioning the bible, and still be able to prove its true, by you definition."--Yes, as I stated above, you can always show that the earth is plausably young in its thousands that is. Its just as the model shows that when you apply those findings to the bible you intertwine it with faith in it and say its 6,000 as a creationist belief. "Also, I would like to see the evidence that supports other aspects of creation science."--Like what? "If there is no body of scientific evidence which supports your claims, then creationism is just faith, without scientific support, and as such is simply a religion who's impact only applies to those who choose to believe in it."--Something like that yes, though whether I would be to argue well for any YEC interperetation, keep in mind my standard, as I am not someone that you would be asking for some conclusive answer on creationism. That is, if I cannot answer your question possibly, that doesn't mean someone else can. "In the US you have the right to worship how you wish, and I fully support that right. However, just because you have faith in it doesn't make it scientifically true, or relevant to the rest of the people who don't share your beliefs."--Allright, this is true if it requires faith. "I am dogged in my persuit. I am willing to listen to scientific evidence that supports "creation science". If there is none, please say so, and I won't ask it again."--We are discussing my theory on Flood deposition in 'Falsifying creaitonism', unless you would like to bring up another specific matter that you wish to find a valid YEC answer. (as long as it isn't Radioisotopic dating or 'new' information theory, their rather poor arguments on my part ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE]By Theo: [b]This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs.[/QUOTE]
[/b] I agree so far. But which side is guilty of this?
quote: quote: By the way, ICR's main page has an article from Impact 345 on the "Anthrax Virus", whatever that is. According to ICR it exists to make sure we are all adequately punished, just for being born, after that little incident back in the Garden.
quote: To be admitted to ICR's graduate school, all prospective studentsmust believe in all their tenets of Creationism and Biblical Creationism, notably, special creation, Flood, young Earth, no evolution. quote: At least I can say that ICR doesn't discriminate based upon religion, as long as the prospective student signs their tenets and is Christian:
[QUOTE][b]The Institute for Creation Research Graduate School admits Christian students of any gender, race, color, national or ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities available to students.[/QUOTE] [/b] The Creation Research Society also begs the question before one can even join:
[QUOTE][b]The CRS advocates the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. Membership in the Society requires agreement with the CRS Statement of Belief.[/QUOTE] [/b] http://www.creationresearch.org/about_crs.htm Here are some of the beliefs members are required to adhere to before joining:
[QUOTE][b]1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.[/QUOTE] [/b] [QUOTE][b]2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds[/QUOTE] [/b] http://www.creationresearch.org/hisaims.htm What if CRS found strong evidence against their beliefs? Then the paper would not qualify for publication.
[QUOTE][b]Papers dealing with the age of the earth/universe must be either from a young-earth perspective or offer a positive/constructive criticism of that perspective. Papers from an old-earth/old-universe perspective will not be considered.[/QUOTE] [/b] International Creationism Conference call for papers, 1996
http://www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/96/cm9607.html#anchorICC So AiG, ICR, and CRS all make the starting assumption that Genesis is literally correct and ToE is wrong. How scientific "Creation Science" is after all.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: 1)The Lion in question died at age 8, average life span of lions in captivity 25... so she lived less than 25% of her expected life span... 2)Lions need certain vitamins and the like they can only get from meat, there is no record of this veggy lion ever breeding, given that it is known that malnutrition can cause infertillity I doubt that on a veggy diet she could have bred. 3)If a veggy lion can`t breed then lions as a species cannot be veggy... Well TC?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"1)The Lion in question died at age 8, average life span of lions in captivity 25... so she lived less than 25% of her expected life span..."
--Actually it was 9 years, also, do you know the cause of death? Wound infliction, heart attack, or mabye it was vitamin deficiency, you would need to get the book on Little-tyke to find the relevance. "2)Lions need certain vitamins and the like they can only get from meat, there is no record of this veggy lion ever breeding, given that it is known that malnutrition can cause infertillity I doubt that on a veggy diet she could have bred."--You doubt, but we don't know, see above. "3)If a veggy lion can`t breed then lions as a species cannot be veggy..."--You would have to know what the deficiency was, or whether it was infertile, also what the supplements were of the diet. "Well TC?"--You pose good question, though they can't be answered with out a reference to them, I think that I might wan't to get that book. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Still waiting for scientific theories in support of creationism.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
My bad, still waiting for scientific theories in support of "creationist science" , since we have established creationism is faith based, not science.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
I found something very significant on Little-tyke and her death:
Vegetarian Lioness: Little Tyke - http://www.vegetarismus.ch/vegepet/tyke.htmquote: --Turns out it was nothing along the lines of a vitamine deficiency the way I would have speculated. --This also on the significance of little-tyke in the scientific dillemma:
quote: quote: Also, it isn't the only one:
quote: ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024