why creation "science" isn't science

quote:

---

--Have I not demonstrated so? I look forward to rebutals and encourage further discussion on any topic regardless of what creationist aspect it refutes, sure I am more excited when It is the other way around, but unbias is knowledge.

---

How can I rebut something that is not formalized?
And what does "unbias is knowledge" mean?

quote:

---

--There is absolutely nothing that you can observe in biology that I would disagree with, its the conclusions they draw, such as saying this is something new, when its a variant, or if you do this thousands of times it will evolve into something else.

---

Except that in science there must be potential falsifications for a theory. What are they for creationism?

quote:

---

--This is exactly what creation science does, it deals with reality and the real world, no one has been able to show me this is wrong.

---

Then why are you not able to provide a theory? Or even better, why not identify a finding that creationists have discovered in modern biology using a creationist theory?

quote:

---

--The interperetations biologists may make will make contrast with what they feel the evidence points to, it is in need of human interperetation, thus I disagree with nothing you can observe in biology, on the other hand, I do disagree with the conclusions given by them.

---

That is nice. However, those interpretations come with potential falsifications. Please address them for evolution and provide them for creationism.

quote:

---

--Creationism, that is, contributing all the aspects of the biblical creationist, is sertainly unscientific. Creation science I see as the science involved in it. It seems you are asking for a scientific explination of origins, which automatically exits the realm of science, science cannot explain origins, we know next to nothing to explain it by any natural process.

---

So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?

quote:

---

--Correct, I wouldn't interperet my assertion on the whole scientific community, heck, some of them are striving to get a descent pay or a job in the least. The 'leading' people and the ones working under them are who I would be refering to.

---

And you are still deluded. While science professors do better than say those in the social sciences for some unexplicable mis prioritization, they aren't making millions of dollars.

quote:

---

--I heard this exact assertion in a debate with I believe Dr. Gould with Kent Hovind, actually what was quite interesting is that Gould displayed quite a lack of understanding of the theories in creationism, thus the statement is unsurprizing.

---

How can he be familiar if it isn't a formal theory. Perhaps you should identify the theory with a clear explanation of what it explains and what it does not. This should include testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and potential falsifications and not previously have been falsified.

quote:

---

--As I would emphesize that I would disagree with nothing that biology observes and sometimes even predicts, in biology, evolution technically happens, evolution as change, bacteria are a very large area of biological study and has brought out many breakthroughs and results, though it makes no relevance to whether 'E'volution has happend on a macro scale. It would change no inference if Creationists were opperating the table.

---

As I would emphasize you are completely confused about how science works. Science is about making inferences. If you want to say all inferences are relative, you are not partaking in science. Inferences are made to interpret the evidence. Those interpretations have to be able to be falsified. Saying that two mutually exclusive positions are okay to have around, is saying that science cannot make any conclusions reliably and therefore science is irrelevant. An operating table has little to do with biology in where the discoveries are coming from. Science makes inferences based on the evidence and if it can't do it reliably, it wouldn't be any more reliable in one are than in another.

quote:

---

--Creation science is scientific, but technically isn't an alternative because it is simply science that was given a name so that people would realize there is another interperetation of the facts.

---

So what is the scientific theory of creationism? Or a theory that falls under that model? You seem completely oblivious to the fact that if there are alternative models, we can test those models based on their implications and determine which is more accurate. So far, there is no way to test creationism according to you because it fits all of the facts and all of the potential facts even.

quote:

---

--Can it be observed, or mathematically tested and experimented on with contrast to reality?

---

Yes, evolution can be observed and especially specific features of biology can be tested that fit with evolution. And they have been tested. How about creationism?Science relies on observations. Those observations aren't necessarily experiments, but tests of the implications of a theory. In the case of humans and chimps, given what we know of genetics, they should share more common genetic traits that are non-functional if they share a common ancestor. And surprise, they do. Evolution explains this, how does creationism?Cheers,
Larry

"No, you need to understand what sort of discussion is occuring. He made a specific claim regarding the finding of a fossil that would be problematic for evolution. I asked for a citation supporting that find. What exactly is unreasonable in asking for that? The claim is one of evidence and therefore logic and common sense are rather hard to use without some evidence to discuss that is nothing more than an assertion at this point."True, the example I gave you is a poor one. However, if you review your posts you will see that you keep expecting citations and literature from TrueCreation. I simply don't think you should ask so much of him all at one time, as I'm sure this is not the only thread he is posting in.Besides, I don't think TrueCreation should have to spend alot of time debating in this topic, because I think this argument is one of the weakest and most hypocritical evolutionists have to offer.You keep saying that Creationists have no real theory because the theory does not have three supposed key features you deem neccesary to consider Creation a theory. Well, perhaps you should step back and decide whether or not evolution is a real theory under your guidelines. This means you must provide:1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsificationsI believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution?And for requirement number one, I expect that you have testable hypotheses for nearly all aspects of evolution. This includes the big bang, abiogenesis, and tests that prove (to at least a reasonable degree) that all of the minor changes in nature could lead to the formation of complex creatures (birds, whales, humans, etc.)After all, if evolution can't meet all of the requirements, it is completely hypocritical to suspect Creation to. I know in your reply to this you will counter this post to a degree that you are satisfied with, but I doubt you will be able to come up with answers that would be considered reasonable under the review of unbiased individuals.What am I saying? Should we stop studying the "evil" theory of evolution? Of course not. I'm simply saying that scientists should realize that many of the conclusions they make (however reasonable they may be) are outside the realm of traditional science."So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?"I'm sorry, but this does not seem to be a very reasonable question.Creationists explain history and diversity by an almighty God who has extreme power. This almighty God created everything. If you didn't know that then you should be studying up on Creation instead of debating in this topic (whether or not you believe Creation is "real" science.)However, if you meant by the question that you want Creation to explain the diversity of life by purely natural means, then surely the question can't be serious. Creationists don't think life CAN be explained by purely natural means, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption under current evidence."Science relies on observations."No kidding. The fact that certain (tiny) bits of the theory of evolution can be observed matters little. Besides, most "observed" instances of evolution are definitely compatible with a Creation model. Speciation, mutations, change in allelic frequency, etc. all easily fall under the framework that the universe and it's life is designed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
3. Potential falsifications

​

I believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution?

---

I think you are confusing evolution as a theory and evolution as a concept here.The concept of evolution is that small changes add up to big ones....Theory of evolution places more constraints on the types of change permitted. A cow impregnated by a bull concieving and giving birth to a pegasus (horse with wings) would falsify it. (something of an extreme example but I am sure there are other more likely ones.)

​

[This message has been edited by joz, 01-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"If you prefer to view evolution as some vast conspiracy then it's far broader than that, encompassing all major universities around the world and many of the world's significant religions."
--I would not at all accuse anyone working as an evolutionist of working by a conspiracy. I simply believe that with the massive overall acceptance to the teaching of evolution in these universities and in these organizations you would be almost all alone and ready to have your science ridiculed if there be the slightest of a flaw in it. Its a strive to keep your job, the reason also considering the bias against creationists just because they are creationists.

---

Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories.Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization.You seem to have a very strange view of how science is done. Science is very, very contentious. Careers are often made when old theories held to be very important and solid are refined and changed. Like Einstein did with Newton.Presenting your work to your peers is a harrowing experience if you don't have your act together, as there are competing ideas all the time, and those holding these other viewpoints will grill you on yours. (it's harrowing even if you know your stuff, actually) Consensus is reached over time, with repeated observations. Eventually, we get nearer and nearer to reality.Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST. Positive evidence is nowhere to be found for Creationism. Creationism is not testable, as it makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.I have said this many times without ANY comment from Creationists.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-22-2002]

quote:

---

"They are quite vicious in some cases, but I'm unclear on why a creationist couldn't handle this process, but evolutionists can?"
--The ratio of creationists and evolutionists teaching in universities would be somewhat of a simmilarity of these forums or much more, about one creationist for ever so many evolutionists. And as you recognize throughout these forums, I wouldn't point anyone out, but you sense much 'bias' if the word should be used in the context, against a creationists response when they feel they have adiquately refuted their statements. Now there is no moping or groaning or crying or bickering (hopefully, I have seen bickering in some live debates), but there is bias against.

---

There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good.Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals.

quote:

---

There are so many scientists making millions of dollars doing research on the evolution topic,

---

ROTFLMAOPIMP!!!!! I am truly laughing so hard that I have tears in my eyes here!! LOLOLOLOL!!Most university Biologists do not make very much money, dear. We are talking in the tens of thousands of dollars for most of them. You don't even get into six figures unless you are ver important in the field. Sure, there are people like Gould who make more, but they are rare, and I would say that he makes most of his money through popular press books, not from Harvard.Every graduate student must struggle with the choice between going into industry, where they won't be able to research what they want to but will make more money, and in staying on the university track, where he will have more intellectual freedom, but will not make much money.The reason, at the end of the day, that Biology and science is supported over Creationism is because of science's enormous predictive power. Cerationism has no predictive power, because it makes no predictions which haven't been falsified.

Here is a list of 29 evidences for "mcro" evolution, complete with potential falsifications: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

quote:

---

True, the example I gave you is a poor one. However, if you review your posts you will see that you keep expecting citations and literature from TrueCreation. I simply don't think you should ask so much of him all at one time, as I'm sure this is not the only thread he is posting in.

---

Truecreation has chosen to do two things. Open multiple threads and then post assertions over and over again. There is nothing unreasonable about asking him for citations for the assertions he makes. If he can’t cite what he is asserting, then one has to ask why is asserting it in the first place.

quote:

---

Besides, I don't think TrueCreation should have to spend alot of time debating in this topic, because I think this argument is one of the weakest and most hypocritical evolutionists have to offer.
You keep saying that Creationists have no real theory because the theory does not have three supposed key features you deem neccesary to consider Creation a theory. Well, perhaps you should step back and decide whether or not evolution is a real theory under your guidelines. This means you must provide:
1. Testable hypotheses
2. Confirming evidence
3. Potential falsifications
I believe you will have trouble meeting requirement number 3. What exactly would falsify evolution?

---

Several things. In relation to specific lines of evidence, an excellent source for potential falsifications can be found at the 29 lines of evidence for common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Picking out one example here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#pred22
Genetic change is a perfect example for how one could potentially falsify evolution. If we could demonstrate that the mechanisms of evolution were inadequate to produce change it would be falsified.To falsify the overarching TOE there are two basic strategies. One would be to identify the key evidences amongst the 29 or to falsify the mechanisms of evolution. In the first case there is a great deal of evidence supporting common descent and it is available above. In the second case, all of the mechanisms we understand currently have been tested in population genetics. Falsifying them could have occurred, but didn’t.
Some additional issues with the potential falsification of evolution are here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/sep96.html

quote:

---

Evolution and common descent are certainly falsifiable. One way to disprove them would be to show that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Not surprisingly, many creationists are trying to do just that. One could also falsify evolution by showing that the various forms of life have not changed significantly over time. Finding strong evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs or trilobites, organisms that are currently known to have gone extinct millions of years ago, would be one way to do this.

---

quote:

---

And for requirement number one, I expect that you have testable hypotheses for nearly all aspects of evolution. This includes the big bang, abiogenesis,

---

First, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are not evolution they are separate theories. Either one could be wrong and have no bearing on the accuracy of biological evolution. Second, one of the recently verified tests of the Big Bang involves the testing of background microwave radiation which was detected when tested. Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang.

quote:

---

and tests that prove (to at least a reasonable degree) that all of the minor changes in nature could lead to the formation of complex creatures (birds, whales, humans, etc.)

---

See the note above about population genetics.

quote:

---

What am I saying? Should we stop studying the "evil" theory of evolution? Of course not. I'm simply saying that scientists should realize that many of the conclusions they make (however reasonable they may be) are outside the realm of traditional science.

---

Please cite specific conclusions found as stated in the peer reviewed research or at least work based in the peer reviewed research .

quote:

---

"So explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. That is what evolution does. How does creation science do it?"
I'm sorry, but this does not seem to be a very reasonable question.
Creationists explain history and diversity by an almighty God who has extreme power. This almighty God created everything. If you didn't know that then you should be studying up on Creation instead of debating in this topic (whether or not you believe Creation is "real" science.)
However, if you meant by the question that you want Creation to explain the diversity of life by purely natural means, then surely the question can't be serious. Creationists don't think life CAN be explained by purely natural means, which is a perfectly reasonable assumption under current evidence.

---

It is an extremely reasonable question actually. Unless the evidence has been purposely tampered with, science should be able to study the natural world. Even if an event occurred that can’t be directly observed, it should leave all sorts of evidence lying around. Even if a supernatural event occurred, there should be evidence of said event occurring and having effects on the natural world. Where is the evidence?

quote:

---

"Science relies on observations."
No kidding. The fact that certain (tiny) bits of the theory of evolution can be observed matters little. Besides, most "observed" instances of evolution are definitely compatible with a Creation model. Speciation, mutations, change in allelic frequency, etc. all easily fall under the framework that the universe and it's life is designed.

---

To make this assertion you must first identify a creationist model. Please do so.

A creation model is very simple.An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.That is the world we live in today. The many species God created were created using the DNA code. He created them how he wanted them, with much variability. After the perfect world ended, errors in the code (mutations) began to affect all species. These errors along with the coded variation of species led to the world today in which we find many different species.The bible is a historical account. It was written by man, but the men were inspired by God. Therefore, the bible is the closest thing to the word of God.Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory.This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer."Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang."Abiogenesis is very important. If abiogenesis cannot be explained, neither can life by purely natural means. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, most (if not all) biological concepts fit fine with a Creation model.I have to go now, I will address your other points later.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
A creation model is very simple.

​

An almighty being created the universe, the earth, and life. Soon after, He created man (in his own image.) Man sinned (big suprise) and as a result the almighty being decided to cast the first humans out of the perfect world and into a world in which one must struggle to survive.

---

So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions

quote:

---

Under this very vague model, one can see easily how mutations, speciation, and change in allelic frequency all fit in easily to the theory.

---

Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified.

quote:

---

This model also agrees with another scientific idea in an alternate way. Common descent can easily be exchanged with common designer.

---

How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to.

quote:

---

"Abiogenesis on the other hand is really several different theories and no where near as well developed or certain as is biological evolution or the Big Bang."

​

Abiogenesis is very important. If abiogenesis cannot be explained, neither can life by purely natural means.

---

Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution.

quote:

---

Besides, as I pointed out earlier, most (if not all) biological concepts fit fine with a Creation model.

---

You have asserted it before. You have not demonstrated that this is true by identifying any theory. Perhaps you could explain how identical retroviral insertions in humans and chimps are explained by the 'creation model.'Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim.Larry

"So how does one test this model? What is the evidence of this theory that confirms it? How would one know if it is false? This is a scientific discussion, not a discussion by assertion. Please offer up more than vague assertions?"The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life. And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation. The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination. If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator. Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time."Assertion--please support it with testable hypotheses, confirming evidence and how it could be falsified."How about you use common sense instead?"How so? To make this claim you would have to have a scientific theory that is testable, has confirming evidence and can be falsified. You have not identified such a theory. Please do so. Saying the evidence fits both models is an assertion, you need to support this assertion by providing a scientific theory that does what you assert. To date you, nor anyone else, has been able to.""Evolution doesn't claim that. It does claim that since the first life we are able to detect, evolution accounts for the history and diversity of life on Earth. How that life started is largely irrelevant to evolution. Abiogenesis, panspermia, divine intervention, intelligent intervention, all could have started life on Earth and not affect the evidence for evolution."You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means. This intelligent being would likely be God. Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory:1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.
2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion.So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet, then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer."Also, this is a strange statement given that the unifying concept of biology is evolution and yet you seem to think it can be separated from the field on a whim."What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model?

​

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 01-22-2002]

I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up:"One True Polygenic Tree"#1"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life."FALSIFICATION: Thousands of new species are discovered yearly, and new DNA and protein sequences are determined daily from previously unexamined species (Wilson 1992, Ch. 8); each and every one is a test of the theory of common descent. Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material.Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.# 2"Therefore, since common descent is a genealogical process, common descent should produce organisms that can be organized into objective nested hierarchies."CONFIRMATION: Most existing species can be organized rather easily in a nested hierarchical classification. This is evident in the use of the Linnaean classification scheme.FALSIFICATION: It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings. Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.# 3"If there is one true historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance."FALSIFICATION: In fact, in the absence of common descent or any other reason to suppose that these two types of trees should be similar, the most likely result by far is that they will be radically different. This is precisely why it is possible to falsify the macroevolutionary prediction that independently derived phylogenies should be similar.The problem with this is that the current tree that evolutionists propose now could easily be replaced by other trees. So if evolutionary assumptions lead to a certain tree, what is to say that these evolutionary assumptions are correct? Therefore, the idea that it can be falsified is not neccesarily true, because any new evidence would cause the tree to change instead of cause scientists to doubt the idea of common descent.I think you can find alot more at trueorigins.org# 4"Any fossilized animals found should conform to the standard phylogenetic tree. If all organisms are united by descent from a common ancestor, then there is one single true historical phylogeny for all organisms, just like there is one single true historical genealogy for any individual human."CONFIRMATION: In this example, we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Sereno 1999). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, and Caudipteryx which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with feathers (Chen, Dong et al. 1998; Qiang, Currie et al. 1998). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.FALSIFICATION: Any finding of a striking mammal-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent. Many other examples of prohibited intermediates can be thought of, based on the standard tree.First of all, the falsification is not really very good. Even the author admits that a mammal-bird intermediate would be merely "highly inconsistent" with the theory.Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link. Therefore, one can only assume Archaeopteryx is the best example available. But when I look at the Archaeopteryx, I see fully functional feathers. How did these get there?Thirdly, I don't see why an intermediate would not be created by an intelligent designer. Archaeopteryx seems like a wonderful creation, and if God made reptiles and birds, why should he be expected to not make an organism that has (fully functional) characteristics of both?I will add # 5 to my list when I have time.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
[B]I am reading through "29 evidences for Macroevolution." I will discuss them in groups. First up:"One True Polygenic Tree"#1"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life."...Well, to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.[UNQUOTE]"stray too far", "near-perfect system". Well I suppose that provides plenty of wriggle room. But how does that reconcile with the reality of variation in the genetic code?Robin D. Knight, Stephen J. Freeland and Laura F. Landweber (2001) "REWIRING THE KEYBOARD: EVOLVABILITY OF THE GENETIC CODE," Nature Reviews - Genetics. 2: 49-58.This is a paper which consolidates the variations which have been found in the genetic code used a number of organisms. For exmple, the UAA and UAG codons have been reassigned from Stop to Gln in some diplomonads , in several lineages of ciliates and in the green alga Acetabularia acetabulum.A diagram of the relationship between the variants and the standard genetic code is at http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7705_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.aspThis raises some interesting questions for creation and/or design. Why would the designer make some variations of the genetic code for some taxa? Is it intelligent to have slightly different codes operating across taxa? Were the organisms created with the variant codes or did their divergence from the standard genetic code occur after their creaton?Why would an intelligent designer create a "near perfect" genetic system when, presumably with a little more effort, a perfect genetic system could surely be provided? Does this mean that the capacity for mutation is designed into the genetic system? What would be the purpose of facilitating mutation? To provide variation within species to enable them to be more fit for their environment?Cobra, you may need to revisit this piece of evidence before charging onto the others.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj:This raises some interesting questions for creation and/or design. Why would the designer make some variations of the genetic code for some taxa? Is it intelligent to have slightly different codes operating across taxa? Were the organisms created with the variant codes or did their divergence from the standard genetic code occur after their creaton?Why would an intelligent designer create a "near perfect" genetic system when, presumably with a little more effort, a perfect genetic system could surely be provided? Does this mean that the capacity for mutation is designed into the genetic system? What would be the purpose of facilitating mutation? To provide variation within species to enable them to be more fit for their environment?Cobra, you may need to revisit this piece of evidence before charging onto the others.[/B][/QUOTE]First of all, you are in no position to question the way God made species if in fact he does exist. However, your points are still easily discarded.I really don't see your point in the first paragraph. Even if genetic code differs slightly, it is still relatively the same. This is not EVIDENCE for a creator, but simply saying that it is EVIDENCE for evolution is completely ridiculous.Your second point goes nowhere. First of all, you can't prove that a better system than DNA is possible. Besides, it is very likely that the system WAS perfect when God first created life. Mutations occured AFTER the sin of man. And mutations are a good idea given God's position.Seriously though, don't spend too much time lingering on this one idea. Evolutionists have much more challenging oppositions to creation.

quote:

---

The evidence lies mostly in the extreme complexity of life.

---

How do we test this? And how is it falsifiable? You have declared creationism correct because of the current state of the worldnot by any testing with this statement.

quote:

---

And for the most part, any evidence against evolution is essentially evidence for Creation.

---

Incorrect. A theory should be able to support itself without even mentioning another theory. A theory rests on positive evidence for it, not the lack of evidence for another theory. You should be able to describe the scientific theory of creation and its supporting evidence without even mentioning evolution if it is indeed, a scientific theory. Now, after doing that you might want to compare the theories for parsimony or other aspects, but to describe the basic theory evolution should be irrelevant.

quote:

---

The universe either made itself, was made, or a combination.

---

Again, evolution doesn’t concern itself with the universe as a whole. It does explain the history and diversity of life on Earth. Scientific theories don’t explain everything, the explain specific phenomenon. Your insistence on continuing to claim it does is nothing more than a strawman argument.

quote:

---

If the universe was either made or made using methods of itself (combination), then the basic principle that we were created by an intelligent being is correct. Therefore, flaws and huge gaps in evolution are evidence of a creator.

---

No, if such flaws existedand you are completely unable to point them out without resorting to a strawman argumentit would be falsification of evolution. You must provide positive evidence of a theory for it to be accepted, not negative evidence of one alternative.

quote:

---

Abiogenesis (despite your admittance to this being an important part of evolution) is a great example. Even you admit that Abiogenesis does not have alot of evidence going for it at the current time.

---

No, it is a horrible example. It shows how devoid of content your argument is. If abiogenesis doesn’t account for the beginning of life on Earth, it is simply false, not evidence for another theory.

quote:

---

How about you use common sense instead?

---

Because common sense has little to say here. Common sense isn’t a scientific tool. You make the claim that creationism is scientific. Support that assertion. If you want to say that creationism is correct, but not scientific, you are welcome to your faith. However, you have claimed it is scientific and science has standards.

quote:

---

You're fooling yourself. If life wasn't created by natural means then it was created by intelligent means.

---

1) there are potentially other natural means besides abiogenesis
2) You need to provide a testable theory to support you contention if you are going to claim it is scientific.
3) I am not fooling myself, I am pointing out that you don’t understand science and have made erroneous statements regarding creationism being scientific.

quote:

---

This intelligent being would likely be God. Unless of course you state that aliens brought first life here. Two problems with that theory:
1. Life would of had to start on some planet at some point in time.
2. The idea that aliens brought the first cell to earth sounds much more like a fairy tale than the story of the bible, in my opinion.
So if one can say that (almost definitely) life did not start by aliens throwing the first cell on our planet, then we can assume beyond reasonable doubt that life had to of been started by an intelligent designer.

---

Assertion. Do you have a scientific theory that can test this? Yes or no? If so provide. If not, admit creationism is not scientific.

quote:

---

What is wrong with that assumption if the evidence fits into my model

---

Assumptions in science are generally testable and usually have been tested previously. Just assuming something without good scientific reason is not science. It is wishful thinking.

quote:

---

to tell you the truth, I don't want to falsify this claim because it fits perfectly to a Creation model. I strongly predict that a foreign, non-nucleic acid of genetic material will be found as well. My reason? Common creator, common system of creating. There is no reason to suspect God would stray to far from the near-perfect system of DNA he created when he developed new species.

---

To make this claim you would need to have a scientific theory of creationism. It may be true that some evidence could be equally handledhowever, there would have to be a competing theory to judge such an issue. Please provide said theory.

quote:

---

.
As for the confirmation, I don't find it a big suprise. On a side note, Linneaus was a Christian (which you probably knew).

---

So am I and a person’s religion is largely irrelevant to the scientific evidence.

quote:

---

As for the falsification, firstly I doubt evolutionists would stop considering macroevolution fact if some mammals had wings.

---

Some do. I have no idea why you made the above claim. External features such as wings or fins are not at issue, but more at issue would be a shark and dolphin sharing identical features internally.

quote:

---

Secondly, I don't see why scientists think God would of done it any other way! Anyways, this point is another moot one because it fits a Creation model.

---

What creation model? Fine, it fits the creation model. Could you be bothered to provide said model instead of just asserting that it fits everything?

quote:

---

The problem with this is that the current tree that evolutionists propose now could easily be replaced by other trees. So if evolutionary assumptions lead to a certain tree, what is to say that these evolutionary assumptions are correct? Therefore, the idea that it can be falsified is not neccesarily true, because any new evidence would cause the tree to change instead of cause scientists to doubt the idea of common descent.
I think you can find alot more at trueorigins.org

---

You are confused over what the line of evidence states. The TOE as it is formulated, postulates one true phylogenic treeand that is what we find. If we didn’t find that the TOE that is being argued for by science today, would be false. Perhaps there could be two trees or something, but that would be an entirely different theory. You are confused because you have conflated falsifications of evolution as being evidence of creation. They aren’t, they are evidence of the current theory as formulated. The current theory could be falsified, and then other theories would be formulated. Those theories may be similar to evolution as formulated, but they would be different in key points. Your argument is silly because it is based on the assumption that creationism is correct. If creationism is correct, then you should be able to produce a theory. Because there is a successful theory that explains part of creationism claims to explain, does not mean that if that successful theory were to be falsified, that the other alternative is only creationism.

quote:

---

First of all, the falsification is not really very good. Even the author admits that a mammal-bird intermediate would be merely "highly inconsistent" with the theory.

---

So such a finding would certainly falsify the tree we are working with. What is the problem here? I have no idea why the falsification is not goodbecause we don’t observe it is only a sign of the accuracy of evolution. [QUOTE] Secondly, I find it very odd that Archaeopteryx is the only example with a link.

quote:

---

We also have an exquisitely complete series of fossils for the reptile-mammal intermediates, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia (Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-152). Another impressive example is the collection of land mammal-to-whale fossil intermediates.
One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.1 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

---

It isn’t. And the references are there so why is a link the standard? I find it strange you are complaining given the references are available and a link to land mammals and whales is also included.

quote:

---

Therefore, one can only assume Archaeopteryx is the best example available.

---

Why would you assume that? Why don’t you bother to go and read some sources actually instead of making poor assumptions? Additionally, you don’t bother even addressing the example? Why not?

quote:

---

But when I look at the Archaeopteryx, I see fully functional feathers. How did these get there?

---

Scales that were selected for over generations?

quote:

---

Thirdly, I don't see why an intermediate would not be created by an intelligent designer.

---

1) Then it wouldn’t be an intermediate
2) I have no idea since there is no way to evaluate claims concerning what an intelligent designer would or would not doyou don’t have a theory and everything seems to fit with what an intelligent designer might do
3) an Ider would then seem to be planting evidence to fool us.

quote:

---

Archaeopteryx seems like a wonderful creation, and if God made reptiles and birds, why should he be expected to not make an organism that has (fully functional) characteristics of both?

---

So again, all evidence fits the designer? You have the responsibility of explaining such cases in the framework of a scientific theory. Please do and stop this, well God could have done it this way argument that does nothing in supporting a scientific theory.

quote:

---

I will add # 5 to my list when I have time.

---

When you do, why don’t you address the science this time?