|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4742 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: People Don't Know What Creation Science Is | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 761 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
But I never got to see your reply because it was censored out. With your permission, Nosy.... Kelly, things don't get censored here, just hidden. The "peek" button lets you read the original post. Replies need to go to the other thread, or Nosy, love him though we do, gets Quite Irritable. Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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)
The whole argument behind creation "science's" "devolution" claim, that is, that species are growing weaker, with a smaller gene pool, restricted ability, and are likely to become extinct, stems from from the bible and "the fall." 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. If this is not the origin of these ideas, then perhaps you can explain exactly what the origin of these ideas might be. But if you want to stand by these ideas as a test of the belief in creationism, then you have to actually demonstrate that all genetic change is negative, and that all mutations are deleterious. Otherwise the "devolution" prediction, one of the cornerstones, of creation "science" fails. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2977 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. You remember when you were complaining about origin, "obvious" design and "obvious" creation...? Now you've reduced it to macro/micro issues...? Fine, lets just make it easy. What do creation scientist say happened? How long has life existed? Has every animal that exists today always existed? And please provide links to support any argument from a creation scientist.What do creationist say about the "micro" changes, what is their purpose? "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The discovery of Tiktaalik. The transitional between fish and amphibeans. Located exactly where predicted and relating to the exact geological period predicted. Without the specific prediction of this species it would not have been found. The specific prediction of this transitional in the specific geological period in which it would have lived directly led to it's discovery in the specific location predicted and searched. How do you think palaeontologists go about the business of fossil discovery? Do you think they just stick pins in a globe, fly off to random locations around the world and then dig about aimlessly? Palaeontologists have some knowledge of the earlier form of life in the sequence they are studying and some knowledge of the later forms of life. They know the time period where the predicted transitional fossils should exist between these forms of life (if evolutionary theory is indeed true) and the geological conditions that relate to this time period. They then determine the areas on the Earth where suitably fossilising rocks from the required time period might be accessible and begin the painstaking process of fossil discovery. In many cases taking years of concerted effort in often hostile conditions (deserts, Polar Regions etc.) Lo and behold transitional forms have been discovered. Exactly as predicted. Exactly where predicted. Relating to exactly when predicted. Tiktaalik is a fine example of this process. So using knowledge of geology and the predictions of evolutionary theory we keep finding the fossilised remains of new species. Transitional species. Given IDs complete inability to discover anything at all and the success of evolutionary theory in predicting and discovering new species that have all the transitional qualities expected of evolutionary theory, how can you claim that the two theories are equally evidenced? Hiden material can be read by using the Peek button on the lower right. However do not respond to it. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island 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. Fine. What we're just dying to hear, though, is the part of CS that isn't microevolution. What you seem to be offering is science where there is no particular creation component required (eg. microevolution), and philosophy where there is something that you claim is unexplainable by conventional science. Let me give you an example that may help you understand how it looks from here. Let's imagine that I propose a concept called Scientific Last Thursdayism (SLT). SLT suggests that everything, including our memory of things that we think we remember from before then, was created last Thursday. All the stuff we can observe going on now has been going on in the normal fashion since last Thursday, but on that date something of a completely different nature took place. Studying what happened from then until now is just regular science, and isn't really affected by SLT. Now I could be busy explaining all the reasons I thought SLT was correct when somebody else showed up saying no, no, no, Scientific Last Wednesdayism is correct. What is the skeptic to do? What possible test could he undertake to find out if SLT or SLW was correct? Talking about all the stuff that happened this week doesn't help, because SLT and SLW are about what happened before things got the way they are now. Since both SLT and SLW define their creation event to have resulted in things seeming to be just the way they are, what kind of experiments could we run to tell which is correct? Would it be much different if a third person came onto the scene espousing Scientific 6000 Year Agoism ? The scientific part of SLT would be the part that explained how we could undertake tests, or examine evidence, to show that the world and all our memories of it weren't created last Thursday. My explaining why I believe in SLT without giving you a way to test it out yourself is philosophy, not science. Science is the stuff that comes out the same way no matter what you believe going in. Science is the clearly explained pathway that would disprove what you claim. This is what has been missing from all your posts to date. What can we do that would disprove creationism, and who has performed those experiments? Where are they published? What are they working on now? In any real science, these questions are easy to answer. In fact, it's sometimes difficult to get the people engaged in a particular enterprise to shut up about what they're doing. What you are giving is a philosophical (religious) testimony about why you believe what you believe. I am not interested in what you think confirms creation, I want to know what would disprove it. That is what would make creationism scientific. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
So it looks like I am not going to fare well here..
Evolution in the microsense..that is mutations and special selection are part of the creation model. You really cannot take evolution in that sense out of the discussion. Just because there is a science that names itself evolution doesn't mean evolution is explicit only to that particular study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
That was a little difficult to follow. I feel very stupid now : (
The only thing I could gather from that whole thing was that you think that creation science must study the how of creation--rather than study the creation itself. I am trying to tell you that creation science is a study of life and how it works *since* origins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
Evolution in the microsense..that is mutations and special selection are part of the creation model. You really cannot take evolution in that sense out of the discussion. Just because there is a science that names itself evolution doesn't mean evolution is explicit only to that particular study. Again, fine. But, just as Last Thursdayism is all about The Really Big Thing that happened Last Thursday, so creationism is defined by what it says about Creation. Please start to address the specific claims of SC that differentiate it from the rest of science and explain the kinds of things that would show it to be wrong. Then tell us when this science was done and how it turned out. Capt. Edited by Capt Stormfield, : typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
...a study of life and how it works *since* origins. You mean since last Thursday, when it all started? Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
If evolution were true in this sense, then there must be some innovational and integrative principle operating in the natural world which develops structure out of randomness and higher organization from lower. Since, by uniformitarianism, this principle is still in effect, scientists should be able to observe and measure it. There is no 'innovational and integrative principle' there is random mutation and natural selection. Both of which have, indeed, been observed in the laboratory.
From the creation model, in fact, one quickly predicts two universal natural laws: (1) the law of conservation ... (2) a law of decay ... Those aren't predictions, they're existing knowledge retrofitted to the idea. In order to be a meaningful prediction it needs to have been predicted before they were discovered like, for example, Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus. On many, many occasions evolution has predicted the existence of fossils based on the existing state of knowledge and then those fossils have, indeed, been found. Creationism has nothing similar to offer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Ok you can tell us (as I guess you already have the "microevolution" is part of creation science. However, just to be on the safe side you should make sure you use either the existing biological definition of microevolution or offer your own definition so we all know what is being discussed.
You have also said mutations are part of CS as well. However, there is reason to think that you do not define them in the same way as biology. Therefore it would be safer for you to find another word or, again, at least, give a clear definition of what you mean by the word. Here you use "special selection". There is no such term that I am aware of in biology. You'll have to define it. Now to save a bit of time:You are going to suggest that microevolution can not produce "macro" changes. Evolutionary biology explains how it does, in detail, with enormous detail in fact. If you think CS can match biology you will have to explain the limiting mechanism in some level of detail. If you stick with this as well as you have done and carefully read what people are offering you then you may learn something here. One thing you might learn is just what a very difficult task you have set yourself. Nothing you will bring up is new. There is a huge volume of evidence and reasoning that discusses e v e r y s i n g l e t h i n g that you will bring up. On the other side there are some scientific evidence that the creationist websites simple do not touch. A good example is in RAZD's excellent thread(s)
Windsor castle Which the younger earthers are totally unable to touch in any reasonable way. The non-YEC sorts never, ever supply the magic mechanism which limits evolution to micro only. You have a difficult job indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
I mean, anything is possible i guess. Maybe this is all an illusion or something. But I think this sort of thing is really nothing more than speculative philosophy, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
I mean, anything is possible i guess. Maybe this is all an illusion or something. But I think this sort of thing is really nothing more than speculative philosophy, yes? Yes. Exactly. Now please tell me how your "scientific creationism" differs from my claim that all your memories from last year are an illusion? Remember that when I consider my own memories of the last 50 years I find they are exactly as they would be if they had been created to look that way just last Thursday. Capt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Not "speculative philosophy", New Girl, but creationist philosophy! BTW, I just addressed you as "New Girl" in the spirit of an combat unit refering to its new member as "New Guy!", especially when his newbie ignorance caused him to do something stupid that could have jeopardized the entire unit. You're too new at this to have heard of the "Omphalos Argument" and its parodies, so you'd better start learning.
The Omphalos Argument was an early creationist attempt to counter the ever-mounting evidence for the earth's great age. Surprisingly, modern creationist continue to make Omphalos-like arguments. From the Wikipedia article (Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia):
quote: Gosse inadvertantly created a problem, because such a creator would have created deceptive fake evidence:
quote:Another issue that it raised was, just when did this false history start?: quote:Which brings us to the origin of the good Captain's point: quote: You have a lot of reading and learning to do if you ever want to catch up with us and be able to carry on a discussion about "creation science", New Girl!. But we are more than willing to help you learn what you need to know, unlike certain arrogant people who refuse to but rather insist that we first read a low-quality creationist book. Edited by dwise1, :
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kelly Member (Idle past 5522 days) Posts: 217 Joined: |
the first and second laws of thermodynamics is what limits evolution to microevolution or variation and mutations within a type or species...but never beyond. Those laws actually preclude the notion that evolution in the macrosense is even possible. That is macroevolution in the vertical sense; transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism.
I meant to say natural selection, not special selection--I am not sure why I said special. Mutations according to the creationist are almost always harmful and they could never lead to an improvement or an increase in genetic information. They are limited. Evolutionary biology does not explain how microevolution leads to macroevolution--at least, not in a way that proves it. The theory is an extrapolation, nothing more. Just because everything i bring up may be something that has been brought up doesn't mean anything to me. I think there is always a chance that you could suddenly see what I am saying--rather than what you *think* I am saying. You exhibit alot of preconceived notions and ideas against creation science and I think that it blinds you at times. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given. Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024