Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 27 of 336 (500978)
03-03-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Kelly
03-03-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Again, creation science is not a study of origins per sey
Hi Kelly,
Your premise suggests that life created itself out of nothing.
This has never been stated, this is a false interpretation brought forth by creationist.
Evolution, by definition, does not suggest "creation", it, by definition, implies evolvement.
There is no "premise', there is only observed, objective evidence that supports a a gradual modification process.
Am I asking you to show me how this is so and am I suggesting that that is not very logical and requires faith and therefore must be a religion?
No one on this site can show you evidence for your strawman argument. Evolution is gradual, not a momentary creation of fully functioning species. So, I agree with you, as would most, it would be illogical to conclude that anything was "created"; whether it be a natural or supernatural process that is being invoked.
Evolutionists are trying to understand how life works, not what got it started and creationists are doing the same thing.
The first part is right, evolutionist are simply studying the evidence brought forth.
However, creationist are not doing the same. Creationist, by definition, are seeking to prove a moment of "creation" based on supernatural processes.
Studying the evidence and looking for signs of created order is a perfectly legitimate scientific endeavor even if it refutes evolution and points to a creator.
Studying evidence and looking for signs of created order is NOT legitimate science since you must first start with the premise that there is a creator capable of manifesting such an order from scratch. Can you prove that such a creator is real?
Science can prove that chemical reactions can increase order to a system, the premise is objectively seen. Science can also show how mutation, natural selection and speciation occur in nature, so the premise here too is objectively seen.
The same cannot be said for creation, no such creator has been objectively shown to exist, the premise fails to lend credence to a creation hypothesis.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 4:35 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 43 of 336 (501007)
03-03-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Kelly
03-03-2009 5:59 PM


Re: No need to address that...
Of course, you can't do that without admitting that evolution is about origins--which evolutionists completely deny.
This doesn't make sense.
If every evolutionary biologist denies that evolution is about "origin", then where are you getting your assumtion that it IS about origin?
Is evolutionary biology studied somewhere outside of the field of evolutionary biology?
Wouldn't the people - (scientist) - working directly in the field of evolutionary biology be the best at explaining what evolutionary biology is about?
Unless you are going to address the how/who or what of the origins behind evolutionary theory.
The origin of the theory? That's simple.
It's a collection of observed phenomena categorized and studied by biologist, derived from nature and assembled into a working scientific theory. - Just like every other theory.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 5:59 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 46 of 336 (501011)
03-03-2009 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:37 PM


Re: Evolution theory has not addressed the answer to how?
How did life just pop-up out of nothing?
What came first, life or planets?
If you say planets, then if life emerged on a planet, is that really coming from "nothing"?
Who pulled the trigger, so-to-speak?
You're still seeking a moment of creation, this is not evolution. By definition evolution implies evolvement.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:37 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:54 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 56 of 336 (501025)
03-03-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Kelly
03-03-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Actually, no, I am not seeking a moment of creation
Thanks for the reply. I won't take too much of your time since you are getting it from all sides on this thread.
It is the evolutionist who is insisting that I address it, and I am simply pointing out that if the evolutionist doesn't have to explain how life can pop up out of nothing in order to study the evidence, why does the creationist have to explain how life was created rather than popped out of nothing in order to study the evidence?
You have a few choice words and contradicting statements here.
Evolution does not claim anything popped out of nothing. In the spirit of good debating you will need to concede this point eventually.
The only reason we ask the creationist is because YOU ARE claiming a momentary creation of fully functioning species. This conclusion is not derived from studying any evidence, this is implied once one claims creation.
Also, the "creator" would've had to create life from absolutely nothing, since, as you claim, nothing existed before the creator created it.
Where did the creator get the materials from? - Thats a rhetorical question, unless you'd like to answer it.
No one claims "life" popped out of nothing. If you are honest about this debate then please admit that no such claim is made by biologist.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 6:54 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 7:26 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 71 of 336 (501115)
03-04-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kelly
03-03-2009 7:26 PM


Re: This is exactly what I didn't want to do.
Hi Kelly,
I just want everyone to understand what creation science actually is.
Seems like you are just saying it's science, but it starts with the premise that things are created. Ok, I got that.
My question is, what lead you, or "creation" scientist, to conclude this premise is valid?
The obvious conclusion in evolutionary theory-if there is no creator--is that life created itself.
Evolution only occurs with "living" things, so yes, life creates itself. Your parents(ie. living beings) created you(another living being) through a natural(hopefully - lol) process.
Personally i find that harder to believe than to believe that God created life.
How can you find it harder to belive that life changes through its history due to environmental needs, than to postulate an entity capable of creating an entire universe and everything in it from nothingness?
I would say, even if the theory of evolution is proven wrong, it still remains harder to postulate a creator that is able to manifest existance from nothingness.
My point is that if evolutionists are not required to address the how of origins, then why should creationists have to address it in order to study the evidence.
They don't. Anyone can study anything at any time they wish to. Who is holding you back?
However, it seems like you would like to by-pass the scientific method of providing objective evidence for the claims that life is created, and move right on up to a fully accepted theory having taken none of the proper steps to get this concensus amongst people of science.
There are rules to explaining a phenomenon in a new light/theory. First you present the hypothesis, then collect facts to support the hypothesis - actually this should be done first - but..., then present a proper theory and subject it to peer review. After many, many years you may/or may not gain a consensus and the theory is tentatively accepted as the best possible explanation with the current facts that have been gathered. If these steps are not taken, no one will simple accept your claims, of anything.
Preaching to the choir must get really boring.
Funny, you approach this site, make a bunch of claims about nature, provide no evidence to support your assertion or to explain what "creation science" is, and then turn around an insult the forum members for not being up-to-speed on what you personally believe. I guess you're just smarter than us, bro.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kelly, posted 03-03-2009 7:26 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:18 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 95 of 336 (501275)
03-05-2009 2:03 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?
I don't know for sure what lead them to change their minds but, maybe, the fossil records, environmental adaptation, common ancestry, age of the Earth, etc.
Also, you don't have to load your statements with words like "obvious" signs of creation. Better yet, just tell us what the obvious signs were. The above few things, if I were working directly with the evidence, would lead me to believe, obviously, that there has been some kind of gradual adaptation to the environment by the species living within specific environments and the history of fossil records would show that it has taken place for millions of years. No matter how bad you fight it, you are aware that these facts do lead to the conclusion that things evolve.
Why doesn't it convince you?
Perhaps because you start with the premise that there is a creator, and therefore nature is designed by such an entity and what we see in nature are just design specifications?
You really can't say that it was observation.
The theory is simple. Mutation(obsrevable) - Natural Selection(observable) - Speciation(observable). So yes, I would say that the mechanisms that function to make evolution happen are very much observable, and undeniably so.
If you were to be pointed to specific experiments that show each of these mechanisms at work, would you change your mind about evolution not being observable?
No one can logically extrapolate from mutation and natural selection to evolution in the Darwinian sense or even in the neo Darwinian sense by claiming they have observed any such event.
What do you mean by extrapolate from "mutation" and "natural selection" to 'evolution"...? Mutation and natural selection are evolution.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:18 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:28 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 123 of 336 (501316)
03-05-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kelly
03-05-2009 2:28 PM


Re: The difference is between
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 2:28 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 138 of 336 (501343)
03-05-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Kelly
03-05-2009 6:28 PM


Re: I am sorry Capt Stormfield
But I haven't got a clue as to what you are talking about.
If the Capt. doesn't mind, I think he means, what seperates creaTion science from any other asserted claim about nature?
Does it, or can it, provide evidence for design, creation or anything else it claims?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:28 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:42 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 143 of 336 (501350)
03-05-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Kelly
03-05-2009 6:42 PM


Re: Still not following ...
But then I would have to ask, what separates evolutionary theory from your list?
I would then say that you are not keeping with the OP in this thread.
You are evading answering questions propsed to you about creation science on a creation science thread.
If you care to debate the points of evolution I suggest you find another thread to do so on.
This thread is specific, "People don't know what creation science is"...so again, please, answer the questions pertaining to creation science.
- Oni

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:42 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 177 of 336 (501397)
03-05-2009 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


I'm calling 'shenanigans'!
But just to summerize, the first Law of Thermodynamics states that there can be no creation or annihilation of Mass/Energy.
Since creation science doesn't seem to be your stong suit, we'll deal with the above quote.
Quantum fluctuations violate your entire statement. Quantum fluctuations
quote:
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, arising from Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation;
How on Earth can you justify that if the "creator" would violate every law also?
First, you don't fully comprehend what you are talking about. Second, you contradict the very act that you claim nature couldn't do by implying that a "creator" is more than capable of doing it without explaining how. What gives here?
Do you not see the error in what you're telling us? That's why these creationist talking points are so stupid, because the only people who believe it have no clue how to see the obvious contradictions in their own worldview, let alone in an argument against a subject they've never fully grasped.
How do you expect any of what you're telling us to be comprehended if you are not making sense?
Either give us a clear-cut description of creation science and explain how you get around the "creator" violating every law YOU mentioned, or admit to it's obvious flaw.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 195 of 336 (501448)
03-06-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Kelly
03-05-2009 1:46 PM


Since you asked...
Hi Kelly,
An important and obvious test of these two models--evolution and creation, is to compare them in terms of the types of changes that they would predict for the various systems and processes of the universe.
First, evolution and the "systems" that govern the universe are two different things. And are never explained within the same theory.
Creationists are convinced that there is a universal law of degeneration that defies the very notion of evolution in the vertical sense.
This does not apply to an ecological system that has a constant source of energy, the Sun. For your "law" to apply you would have to be talking about a closed system that does not interact with it's environment. Our planet is not categorized as a 'closed' system.
Evolvement does not have a predetermined course that it must take. Nor does the fossil record show any 'upward' development. I think you only feel this way because you consider humans to be some sort of final product that is highly complex, yet genetically we are no more complex than bacteria.
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.
This statement is moot since no such upward order is predicted by evolutionary biologist. This is a strawman.
The creation model, on-the-other-hand, predicts that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature.
Creation itself violates the Laws of Conservation, do you not see that?
Since the total quantity of matter and energy, as well as the highest degree of organization were created preternally in the begining, we could not expect to see naturalistic processes of innovation and integration, as required by evolution, operating today.
So your 'creator' can violate all those laws with no problem?
Also, can you define "higher degree of organization", and possibly give an example.
So you believe every single star formed at one single moment, or do you accept proto-star formations?
Would an example of a star forming be what you would consider "higher degree of organization"?
the law of conservation, tending to preserve the basic categories created in the begining (laws of nature, matter, energy, basic types of organisms,etc..)
I'm amazed at this contradiction! How could anything be "created" in the "beginning" without violating every single one of those things?
Also, you actually believe that organisms and matter were "created" at the same time, ie. "the beginning"?
a law of decay, tending to reduce the useful matter, energy, types, etc., as the original organization of the created cosmos runs down to chaos.
This has nothing to do with evolution. The universe is considered to be a closed system, the Earth is not. It has a continuous energy source that it interactes with, the Sun. The universe does not, that is why the universe has a law of conservation that it doesn't violate - no such law applies to ecological systems.
Further, and I cannot believe you don't see this, but wouldn't the fact that the universe is expanding and the entropy will eventually max out be a clear indication of a poor creation? It will eventually cease to exist, what type of intelligent creator/designer makes a product that eventually stops working?
As far as changes are concerned, one would expect from the creation model that there would be "horizontal" changes within limits (that is, energy conservation, variation within biological types, etc), and even "vertically-downward" changes in accordance with the law of decay (for example, mutations, wear, extinction, etc.), but never any net "vertically-upward" changes, as required by evolution.
Nothing is required by evolution. You are trying to argue against a word. The theory of evolution is simply a collection of evidence, nothing more. It doesn't require anything to have to happen, it just documents what is observed. Namely that mutations occur, natural selection occurs, speciation occurs, and there is a fossil record dating back millions of years. If we observe mutation, selection, speciation today, AND, we know that species have existed on this planet for millions of years, it is honest to conclude that mutation, selection and speciation took place throughout the history of the planet. Also, we note that genetically species share commonality and that common morphological types seem to be found in the same areas - not 100% of the time - but enough to conclude common ancestry.
What you, or creation science, needs to show are the limits to each of the evolvement functions: mutation, selection, speciation. You have not done that, and NO the 2LOT argument does not apply, for the reasons I gave above about the Earth not being a closed system.
- Oni

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 1:46 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 237 of 336 (501496)
03-06-2009 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:52 PM


Re: That's an extrapolation
The more you ignore this the more you make yourself look evassive.
It boils down to the universal laws of conservation and decay.
How does creation NOT violate the same law?
And what do you mean by decay, what is decaying?
And how does the law of conservation apply to an open system that continuously receives energy from an outside source?
The laws of conservation only apply to closed systems...

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:52 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 238 of 336 (501497)
03-06-2009 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Kelly
03-06-2009 12:54 PM


Re: You just confirm my point..
And that is that there are many of you here in this forum who just do not know what creation science really is.
Yes, mainly, you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 12:54 PM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 285 of 336 (501558)
03-06-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Kelly
03-06-2009 5:23 PM


Creationists likely recognize the futility of it in a place where they are outnumbered by a herd of people totally indoctrinated deep down to the core of their very being.
If by place you mean Earth then, yes, you are out numbered against the people who accept evolution.
If by place you mean science then, yes, you are out numbered.
If by place you mean colleges and universities then, yes, you are out numbered.
If by place you mean this forum then, yes, you are out numbered.
Do you know of any other places where evolution is either studied or discussed where you are NOT out numbered...?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 5:23 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 6:09 PM onifre has replied
 Message 294 by olivortex, posted 03-06-2009 6:53 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 289 of 336 (501565)
03-06-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Kelly
03-06-2009 6:09 PM


Re: of course,
Christian colleges, creation websites, etc.
Religious schools, religious websites, etc...
I wouldn't expect much in the senss of good, objective discussions but I would hate to be presumptous so Ok, in realms where only religion is believed you, of course, will not be out numbered.
Also, christian colleges do not teach evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 6:09 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 6:42 PM onifre has replied
 Message 297 by Coragyps, posted 03-06-2009 7:07 PM onifre 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