|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote: What makes a species designed? And why is it scientifically obvious?
quote: What are the predictions of creation science?
quote: You seem to be talking about the origins of life here. Evolution mentions nothing about that in its theory. Evolution can coexist with a creator.
quote: You seem again to be confused. There are species, and then there are names for a group of species. The fruit fly, again, is a good example as there are different species of fruit flies, all under the convenient name "fruit fly". Edited by Dman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
What should we see if everything is evolving in an upward and improving fashion... You tell us. That "upward and improving" has absolutely nothing to do with the biological theory of evolution. Yeah, I suppose the complexity of organisms has increased since the Ediacaran 600,000,000 years ago - when you start simple, you can't get a whole lot simpler and still be alive. But there IS NO upward and improving to it - just change with time. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I addressed the creation science makes predictions element at the end of my Message 93:
quote: I was rather hoping to learn how this 'law of decay' is a prediction of the secular Creation Science, and not for instance, a piece of Christian apologetics about thermodynamics and The Fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher) And as I've posted to you before, mutation can and does add, subtract, and change genes. You've asserted that DNA cannot be added to during replication, and yet you've failed to support your assertion of even provide the mechanism that supposedly prevents this from happening. Meanwhile, multiple people have told you repeatedly that genetic information is frequently added during DNA replication in teh form of mutations - and you've simply ignored our statements. Further, this is irrelevant to my argument. I showed you that actual, real new species have formed from pre-existing species. Your nonsense about genetic information is irrelevant to that point, Kelly. You cannot refute direct observation.
You seem to think that these species inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker. Upon what do you base this assertion Kelly? Reality seems to disagree with you. Do you remember my example of bacteria that evolve resistance to antibiotics? Scratch that - I'm rather certain you never even read it. So I'll repeat myself, despite the fact that you seem to be incapable of reading a person's post and actually responding to their points. Please prove that impression wrong and provide an honest debate by replying to my points. Bacteria reproduce asexually. Each new bacterium is actually a clone of the original - no new information can be added, right? That's what you're claiming, anyway. But if we begin an experiment with just one bacterium, a single cell, and let it reproduce into a colony something curious happens. If we introduce an antibiotic to the colony, invariably most will die - but some will live, and thrive with the new lack of competition. Continued reintroduction of the antibiotic will be less and less effective as the bacteria develop a resistance. How did this happen, if no information was added, since all of the bacteria are copies of the original? The answer is that random mutation does result in the formation of new features. All the time, Kelly. This experiment is reproduced frequently in the lab, and this exact process is what results in the so-called "superbugs" you may have read about in the news. Clearly, your assertion that new features cannot evolve is false. Once again you are contradicted by direct observations in reality, Kelly. You are wrong. So now we have demonstrated that new traits do form spontaneously as a result of mutation, despite your claims to the contrary. Further, we've demonstrated that new species do arise from pre-existing species. Exactly what part of your position remains, Kelly? All of your claims seem to have been utterly refuted. Will you continue to ignore the refutations, will you lie, will you shift the goalposts again, or will you actually admit that you were wrong and concede the point? Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This thread is about Creation Science. Not evolutionary biology.
I will now back up and hide all the off topic material until I run out of patience. Please don't add more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
As I pointed out to Rahvin in a post up above:
Real evolution (macroevolution)... Real evolution (macroevolution) requires the expansion of the gene pool, the addition of new genes and new traits as life is suppose to move from simple beginings to ever more varied and complex forms (molecules to man..fish to philosopher) You seem to think that these species' inability to breed anylonger is a sign of evolution, but I think the opposite is true. Each variety now has a smaller gene pool than the original and a restricted ability. The long term results is likely extinction because these new variations which you call new species are now weaker.__________________________ Evolutionists might classify cats into 28 species wheras creationists would classify them as one species. But cats are still cats no matter what their breeding turns out. When you can prove that you observed a cat evolve from something other than a cat, then I'll listen. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
How can you do that when the two topics run hand in hand?
These discussions are going to look awfully silly after you sabatosh them like that. If the mention of evolution is pertinent to the discussion you should allow the flow of free discussion rather than censoring things like this. It kills the spirit and the ability to really debate anything. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
This thread is for the discussion of creation science not evolutionary biology.
If creation science is on an equal footing with evolutionary biology then you will be able to fill 100's of posts with material about creation science without once having to mention evolutionary biology. Just as there are 10,000's of books on evolution written with no mention of CS and 1,000,000 ( I would guess) of papers published on it without discussing CS. When you find yourself unable to talk about anything but biology it might be because there isn't anything to say about creation science as a science. Others have given you strong hints about what you need to say. Rahvin has taken the evolution discussion over to where it belongs. You can focus on your criticisms of it there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I think you mean variations...of fruit flies. There is no added DNA information in all these fruit flies..rather, there is less information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out. No worries - I copied the contents to the other thread. You can reply there, where it will be on-topic. The reason we're so strict about maintaining topic cohesion is twofold: 1) allowing constant tangent discussions removes the entire purpose of a thread title, and significantly reduces the chance of coming to any sort of resolution to the initial post in a given thread 2) we have limited posts for each thread before the board starts to have trouble. Because of this, we typically cut off threads at around 300 posts or so (with unusually interesting/heated debates sometimes being pushed to 400). Limited posts means each post needs to be directly tied to the actual argument going on in the thread - offtopic posts just waste limited space. I understand that it feels more "natural" to simply carry the discussion however it leads, but the rules of this site are specifically set up to discourage that in favor of actually addressing the topics of each thread to the greatest degree possible. It's actually quite helpful once you get used to it, as you can target your arguments and refutations and evidence far more clearly when you do so in light of the topic. Both you and your opponent are less likely to become distracted by some new, barely-related argument. In any case, let's not risk the wrath of the admins any further - as I said, I've copied my reply to the other thread, and you can see it easily if you clock the "All Topics" link at the top of the page (this is my preferred method of navigating the site, as I can see the most recently active topics on top). Feel free to reply to me there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
is that evolution in the microsense is a part of creation science. Discussing Creation Science without being able to mention the aspects of evolution that directly confirm creation is nonsense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5495 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
and evolution are so intimately interwoven that trying to separate them is like trying to discuss what a magnet is without being able to mention the word repell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dman Member (Idle past 5017 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote: Please, please, please elaborate. I am genuinely curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Kelly, in your own words, what is Creation Science?
Give some examples of Creation scientists. Give some examples of Creation Science articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Describe how Creation Science differs from just plain "science," if at all. I assume that one of the explanatory models proposed by Creation Science is an alternative to the Theory of Evolution that biologists consider to be highly accurate. What evidence does the Creation Science model that explains the diversity of life on Earth explain better than the Theory of Evolution? What predictions are made that are more accurate than those made by "normal" biologists? Let's not talk about what the Theory of Evolution does nor does not say - that's for the other thread. Let's just talk about what Creation Science says. You've told us that we're ignorant of the subject - please, educate us, in your own words.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024