Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8124 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2014 12:14 PM
133 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: taiji2
Post Volume:
Total: 736,333 Year: 22,174/28,606 Month: 1,261/1,410 Week: 48/415 Day: 21/27 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of Creationism
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 25 of 60 (503936)
03-23-2009 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Von Cullen
03-23-2009 3:22 PM


As a molecular biologist I find it rather comical how the so called evolutionists here accuse creationists of "PRATTS", when you yourselves repeatedly do the exact same thing; only you refuse to recognize that scientific literature consistently refutes 99% of your arguments.

You must also presumably find it "comical" how the scientists who produce all this scientific literature also "refuse to recognize" exactly the same thing.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Acadmie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Acadmie des Sciences et Techniques du Sngal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Fsicas, Matemticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

You'd think that they'd know what was in the scientific literature, but presumably in your crazy fantasy world, they don't.

---

To return to the topic, this, at least, is one aspect of creationism that hasn't changed --- they have been claiming victory for the last 200 years or so. Ex-creationist Glenn Morton has called it The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism.

Their arguments may have been abandoned one by one ... but their nutty and dishonest claim that victory is in just within their grasp has been passed down from generation to generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Von Cullen, posted 03-23-2009 3:22 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 28 of 60 (503944)
03-23-2009 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Archer Opteryx
10-16-2006 7:45 PM


One interesting way that creationism evolves is simplification.

A creationist argument usually starts off with a creationist reading something about science and misunderstanding it --- the original "mutation" that converts it into a creationist argument. So, when the creationist argument is first produced, it will have a certain amount of complexity and subtlety inherited from the ancestral scientific idea from which it evolved.

As it passes from one creationist to another, anything that makes it simpler makes it easier to infect a creationist brain, and therefore is a selective advantage.

Unlike a genuine scientific idea, it doesn't have to be able to do anything but propagate itself --- no-one ever uses it for anything. And because it only has to pass between creationist brains, it doesn't have to be sophisticated enough to deceive anyone who knows anything about science.

So, like all parasitic organisms, it becomes simpler and simpler in form.

One interesting aspect of this --- I don't know if it has an analogue in biology --- is that this progressive simplification helps prevent the mounting of an immune response. When, for example, creationists are wrong about the neck of the giraffe, it would be much easier to debunk their nonsense if the called the rete mirabile the rete mirabile. If they call it a "special sponge", it becomes much harder for anyone to find out that they're wrong, because it would first be necessary to find out what the heck they're being wrong about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-16-2006 7:45 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 29 of 60 (503945)
03-23-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Von Cullen
03-23-2009 4:22 PM


I didn't say I wasn't an evolutionist ...

And yet you believe that the scientific literature consistently refutes 99% of evolutionary arguments?

I guess you must think that the remaining 1% are really, really good, then?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Von Cullen, posted 03-23-2009 4:22 PM Von Cullen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Von Cullen, posted 03-23-2009 5:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 34 of 60 (503961)
03-23-2009 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Von Cullen
03-23-2009 5:38 PM


It refutes 99% of the arguments made on this and many other on line forums.

Someone should tell the creationists ... they haven't managed to refute any of our arguments. But you've just joined today and already you know how flawed 99% of our arguments are. Lucky you!

I think you should help 'em out with your vast knowledge of the scientific literature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Von Cullen, posted 03-23-2009 5:38 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12746
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 36 of 60 (503969)
03-23-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Von Cullen
03-23-2009 5:47 PM


Contrary to one posters previous quote, science cannot explain the origins of life.

Can you point me to this quote?

It cannot explain the thousands of molecular mechanisms needed in order for change to take place across an entire species, and so on.

I wonder what you think you're talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Von Cullen, posted 03-23-2009 5:47 PM Von Cullen has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014