Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 76 of 336 (501239)
03-05-2009 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Modulous
03-05-2009 9:59 AM


Well, the point remains
onfire asked me what caused people to study creation, as if to imply that it isn't observed first. My answer addresses the point that creation was observed first, and assumed long before evolution. I also showed that the process of evolution in the vertical sense (macroevolution) a theory that claims life evolved from disorder to order--from simpler to more complex--from molecules to man--has never been observed by any human being because it requires emmense spans of time to occur. No one lives long enough to claim they have observed such a thing. So in this respect, I can ask onfire the same question--what causes someone to look for signs of macroevolution? It is an extrpolation at best.
Mutations and special selection are the processes of microevolution, which the creation model can predict and this process does no harm to the model. However, these same mutations and selection cannot support evolution in the vertical sense because they do more harm than good.
Disproving evolution does prove creation, but I recognize that that is not a science itself. I just wanted people to read the book so that they could see that there is more to creation science than disproving evolution. There really is.
I am not really interested in posting in all sorts of different threads because i will just get lost and forget where I was and who I was talking with. In fact, I really can't put the kind of time into this that you all seem to be able to do. I would love to spend all day at this, but I just can't. I was hoping to at least get past the fact that we do not have a shared understanding of what creation science really is. I know that recommending a book is taking the easy way out for me. I just cannot sit here and type out all sorts of studies and findings from this book or any other book. It is too much work. I am sorry : (
I will check in from time to time, but I am not able to participate in the way you want me to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 9:59 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 10:44 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 160 by dwise1, posted 03-05-2009 8:46 PM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 77 of 336 (501241)
03-05-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Lithodid-Man
03-03-2009 8:21 PM


Okay then
Lithodid-Man,
I'll check back in when you have finished the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Lithodid-Man, posted 03-03-2009 8:21 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 78 of 336 (501242)
03-05-2009 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by bluescat48
03-05-2009 9:31 AM


I know what you are saying
But you seem to miss the point that no one can observe or test evolution in the vertical sense, that is macroevolution which claims that natural process within a species proves that these same processes can lead to new and completely different species over time. That aspect cannot be observed, tested or shown to be true. It is a theory. Microevolution reveals great design *within* species and types.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by bluescat48, posted 03-05-2009 9:31 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Dman, posted 03-05-2009 12:28 PM Kelly has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 79 of 336 (501243)
03-05-2009 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kelly
03-05-2009 10:19 AM


Re: Well, the point remains
onfire asked me what caused people to study creation, as if to imply that it isn't observed first. My answer addresses the point that creation was observed first, and assumed long before evolution.
You mean someone observed that life was created? Onifre asked you "My question is, what lead you, or "creation" scientist, to conclude this premise {that things were created} is valid?"
I don't think you think that the creation of life was observed, do you?
I also showed that the process of evolution in the vertical sense (macroevolution) a theory that claims life evolved from disorder to order--from simpler to more complex--from molecules to man--has never been observed by any human being because it requires emmense spans of time to occur.
Right - nor can we observe murders or any other historical event. We can look at the evidence and use it to draw conclusions.
I can ask onfire the same question--what causes someone to look for signs of macroevolution? It is an extrpolation at best.
Nope. The reason is that we go looking for it because if it were true it would explain a whole crap load of the things we have observed...the evidence. Darwin realized that not only were 'breeds' of domestic animals related to one another, but entirely different species were. He did a little extrapolation to conclude that this line of reasoning might explain where those common ancestors came from and so on and so forth. He realized that this would explain the patterns we have observed in nature, and he gave an explanation for how it might have happened.
An explanation that would have certain consequences were it true.
Consequences that over the next 150 years have broadly panned out.
Mutations and special selection are the processes of microevolution, which the creation model can predict and this process does no harm to the model.
And yet Darwin went a step further, that no creation model predicted: selection can occur by the constraints of the natural world. So called natural selection, without conscious thought or preplanning this can lead to biological change in populations over time.
I was hoping to at least get past the fact that we do not have a shared understanding of what creation science really is.
I think we all agree we do not have a shared understanding of what creation science really is. I base my understanding of creation science on the historical evidence of what creation scientists have said and done over the past several decades. You seem to base your understanding of creation science on what a creation scientist tells you creation science is in a single book and nothing more.
I will check in from time to time, but I am not able to participate in the way you want me to.
I only want you to participate to the extent you are able to and no more. I think we have a better understanding of creation science than you, since as you say, "I really can't put the kind of time into this that you all seem to be able to do.". We've put more time into it than you, so it might be the case that we know a little more about it
Incidentally, I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, so whenever you have the time I'd appreciate being surprised. I don't, however, consider 'Teleology' to be synonymous with 'creation science'.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:19 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:04 PM Modulous has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 80 of 336 (501252)
03-05-2009 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Modulous
03-05-2009 10:44 AM


Not creation itself
I think that design is observed.
Drawing conclusions based on observation is exactly what creationists and evolutionists do. There is an obvious disagreement on interpretation of this evidence.
In my opinion, creation explains the "crap load of things we observe" as well-or better-than macroevolution can. Similarity between species can be as easily explained under a design concept as it can be under an evolution in the vertical sense concept. Just because there is similar design between humans and apes--does not "prove" that we evolved from a common ancestor.
You say: "And yet Darwin went a step further, that no creation model predicted: selection can occur by the constraints of the natural world. So called natural selection, without conscious thought or preplanning this can lead to biological change in populations over time."
The idea of natural selection came first from a creation scientist named Edward Blyth who, 24 years before Darwin, described it in the context of creation. Natural selection has been observed only to produce variation within type. But evolution in the vertical sense means more than change from moth to moth or fly to fly.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 10:44 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2009 12:25 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 12:35 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 1:48 PM Kelly has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 81 of 336 (501255)
03-05-2009 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Kelly
03-05-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Not creation itself
Do you think that the ability of evolutionary theory to make specific predictions regarding new evidence which have then been later discovered as a direct result of said prediction in any way adds weight to the case for evolution?
Can creationism make verifiable predictions? Has creationism ever led to a single discovery?
Or is creationism just the term used to describe religiously inspired 'after the event' interpretation of known evidence?
What do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:04 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:59 PM Straggler has replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 82 of 336 (501256)
03-05-2009 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Kelly
03-05-2009 10:32 AM


Re: I know what you are saying
quote:
But you seem to miss the point that no one can observe or test evolution in the vertical sense, that is macroevolution which claims that natural process within a species proves that these same processes can lead to new and completely different species over time. That aspect cannot be observed, tested or shown to be true. It is a theory. Microevolution reveals great design *within* species and types.
Right, but speiciation has been observed and documented.
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook seems to have been the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or 'cladogenesis,' as opposed to 'anagenesis' or 'phyletic evolution' occurring within lineages.[1][2] Whether speciation is achieved normally via genetic drift or natural selection is the subject of much ongoing discussion.
They have done this sort of thing with fruit flies.
From the same link as above:
quote:
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas. [12] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).
The above experiment was done over 35 generations. Now imagine that on an even grander scale. What's to stop "macroevolution" from happening?
This is a question that "creation scientists" need to answer, since microevolution implies macroevolution, but have apparently come up short.
Over great periods of time, there is no barrier to stop new genetic information from being added. If there was, the scientist who discovered it would be 1 million dollars richer and hold a Nobel prize.
You seem to be misinformed, and have brought a knife to a gun fight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:32 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:52 PM Dman has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 83 of 336 (501258)
03-05-2009 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Kelly
03-05-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Not creation itself
The idea of natural selection came first from a creation scientist named Edward Blyth who, 24 years before Darwin, described it in the context of creation. Natural selection has been observed only to produce variation within type. But evolution in the vertical sense means more than change from moth to moth or fly to fly.
And as I've already mentioned to you, twice, we have directly observed the formation of new species both in nature and in the lab. That would be "evolution in the vertical sense" as you put it.
We have observed variation within species.
We have observed those variations cumulatively producing new species.
We have observed both, in both the laboratory and in the wild.
Your position is falsified by direct observation, Kelly. Many examples are shown here.
So-called "macroevolution" happens, Kelly. You can't prove it any better than directly observing it as it happens. Continued denial is identical to insisting that the Sun does not exist.
Of course, we have more beyond direct observation as well.
If you've ever seen CSI (or any TV talk show), you know that DNA can tell us how one individual is related to another; a simple blood test can tell if two individuals are brothers, or parent/child, or related more distantly.
We can do the same thing across multiple species. Genetic tests can show us how closely related two individual organisms are. Oddly enough, we see that genetically, various species (humans and chimpanzees, for example) share a common ancestor - we're very distant cousins, in effect.
You're claiming something has not happened, and yet we have mountains of evidence including direct observation showing us that it has. Why? Further, if you believe these claims to be wrong, why do you not attempt to refute them but instead ignore them?
It would seem that you're arguing from a position of ignorance, and dismissing solid scientific evidence that does not fit your pre-established conclusions. That's a poor method for debate, Kelly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:04 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 1:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 84 of 336 (501259)
03-05-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Kelly
03-05-2009 9:18 AM


Re: The real question, onfire, is
What led people to deny the obvious signs of creation that was an accepted teaching for hundreds of years and assumed by most early scientists?
The exact same thing that led people to deny the obvious signs that the Earth sat immobile in the middle of the cosmos - new observations. If we were arguing in a coffeehouse in London in 1617, my bet would be that you would be taking the side of Robert Cardinal Bellarmine and Melanchthon that we're static and the Sun whizzes around us.
The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty- four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it.
That's precisely the argument you are supporting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:18 AM Kelly has not replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 85 of 336 (501260)
03-05-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Dman
03-05-2009 12:28 PM


I love this sentence
It's very funny that it is being used to support the idea that one species can evolve into another through time and chance:
The best-documented "creations of new species" in the laboratory were "performed" in the late 1980s.
The fruit flies remained fruit flies, by-the-way and were only able to be manipulated within the framework of DNA already present.
Need I say more?
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Dman, posted 03-05-2009 12:28 PM Dman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Dman, posted 03-05-2009 1:35 PM Kelly has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 86 of 336 (501262)
03-05-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Straggler
03-05-2009 12:25 PM


I think that which ever model
can best predict what the evidence should reveal is most likely the true model.
Yes, the creation model makes plenty of verifiable predictions that the evidence then supports.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2009 12:25 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Coragyps, posted 03-05-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 89 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2009 1:23 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 124 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2009 4:04 PM Kelly has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 87 of 336 (501263)
03-05-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kelly
03-05-2009 12:59 PM


Re: I think that which ever model
Yes, the creation model makes plenty of verifiable predictions that the evidence then supports.
Then NAME A COUPLE OF THEM< ALREADY!!!!!

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:59 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 1:46 PM Coragyps has replied

Kelly
Member (Idle past 5495 days)
Posts: 217
Joined: 03-01-2009


Message 88 of 336 (501264)
03-05-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rahvin
03-05-2009 12:35 PM


I said macroevolution in the vertical sense
Off topic material hidden.
Kelly, creation science is the topic here. Please explain it.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 12:35 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Huntard, posted 03-05-2009 1:38 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 94 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 1:57 PM Kelly has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 89 of 336 (501265)
03-05-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Kelly
03-05-2009 12:59 PM


Re: I think that which ever model
Creationism is not a model, it is a religious belief.
A model is more as follows:
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.
And creationism is not science; rather, it is the opposite of science.
Science looks at the natural world, gathers data, and attempts to explain that data.
Creationism begins with the conclusion, "goddidit" and looks around for things they can point to and say, "See!"

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:59 PM Kelly has not replied

Dman
Member (Idle past 5017 days)
Posts: 38
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 90 of 336 (501266)
03-05-2009 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Kelly
03-05-2009 12:52 PM


Re: I love this sentence
quote:
The best-documented "creations of new species" in the laboratory were "performed" in the late 1980s.
Attacking the source of evidence instead of challenging it, is not a good way to earn credibility.
quote:
The fruit flies remained fruit flies, by-the-way and were only able to be manipulated within the framework of DNA already present.
Will you ever see the forest from the trees?
First off, there are 3,000 or more described species of fruit flies. So saying "the fruit flies remained fruit flies" covers a pretty wide range. Also, what you seem to be not understanding, is that with the experiment I posted the comparison is within 35 generations. The speciation "kept on rollin" with the experiment stopping at 35 generations.
And about "manipulated within the framework of DNA already present". Surely you do realize that the new species that emerged would have slightly different DNA structure than its immediate "ancestor" species. So in effect you could trace back from the 35th generation to the original which was first in line. But why would it stop there? Was that the original fruit fly, first created? I'm sure you would say no and probably say that there was an original fruit fly created that was the ancestor to all current fruit flies. But why does this "first fruit fly" not have an ancestor? Why does logic stop there?
Tracing back to an original replicator, is completely more logical then the sudden appearance of all species as we know them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 12:52 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 3:13 PM Dman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024