Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 151 of 336 (501361)
03-05-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:28 PM


Re: Many evolutionists have recognized this problem
Very interesting quote. I really have no idea what they're talking about, and I'm sure you don't either. But in any event, it says absolutely nothing about evolution, does it?
In addition, I'm assuming you haven't actually read that work, but are simply relying on a description of it by Morris and Parker. You are free to do so if you wish, of course, but you need to be aware that Morris, if that's Henry Morris, knows even less about the 2LOT than you do. In other words, he has more misconceptions about it.
Can you find any source for that quote that isn't a creationism work? Because creationists lie, not to put too fine a point on it.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:28 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:30 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 152 of 336 (501362)
03-05-2009 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


Re: I believe I indicated the answer somewhere in these threads
Hi again,
So let's get to grips with this creation thingy, since I think we're all none the wiser about what Creation Science according to Kelly actually is - or rather how it might differ from the Creation Science we're all familiar with.
I'd like to start with this claim:
the Second Law point back to creation
Can you explain exactly how?

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

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


Message 153 of 336 (501363)
03-05-2009 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Coyote
03-05-2009 7:20 PM


The Creation Model
I have posted plenty about what the creation Model predicts, though i think I have been mostly ignored.
Here is more.
The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all. Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
This prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all. If it were not so, it would be impossible to have a taxonomic system--one could never determine the dividing lines between similar organisms. The living world is not connected by unbroken series of intergrades but rather by distinctly separate arrays in which intermediates are basically absent.
If all varients were connected by unbroken series of intergrades Creationists would be hard-pressed to explain such a thing. However, the present array of organisms fits precisely with the expectations of the creation model and the fossil record supports this as well.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Coyote, posted 03-05-2009 7:20 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Rahvin, posted 03-05-2009 8:07 PM Kelly has not replied
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 8:08 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 159 by Granny Magda, posted 03-05-2009 8:17 PM Kelly has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 154 of 336 (501364)
03-05-2009 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


Time to Regrope
Hello Kelly:
I’m happy to see that your capacity to leave us is of the same quality as your ability to explain why our understanding of CS is a straw man. I’ve been trying to catch up on reading this since I finished my homework, and new pages were appearing as fast as I was digesting the last (we're now at 153: I started before 70). As I read I was putting together my reply, but I kept getting beaten to the punch. My intended reply was a mix between Huntard’s Message 91 and Capt Stormfield’s Message 125. Only I was going to do it all in italics while wearing a monocle, false mustache and a bowler hat.
What I’ve done instead is to comb through your last dozen posts and collected the parts that went toward answering Message 1. I edited out all the off topic references to evolution leaving those you claimed to be part of CS. I didn’t, however, arrange the statements into any type of narrative. Quite frankly, I don’t see how they fit together without adding a lot more material.
If you could just take these ideas and clean them up you’d give us all a good position to start ripping your guts out in a substantive fashion.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation,
lyx2no
What should we see if everything was initially created and is no longer being supported by a continuing natural and upward development?
Creationists are convinced that there is a universal law of degeneration.
The creation model predicts that there should be a conservational and disintegrative principle operating in nature. 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 operating today.
From the creation model, in fact, one quickly predicts two universal natural laws: (1) the law of conservation, tending to preserve the basic categories created in the begining (laws of nature, matter, energy, basic types of organisms,etc..) in order to enable them to accomplish that function for which they were created: (2) 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. 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.
Either life happened spontaneously and by chance through eons of time--or it was created instantaneously. I don't know of any other possibility.
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. 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. That is macroevolution in the vertical sense; transmutation of one type of organism into a more complex type of organism.
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.
But just to summerize, the first Law of Thermodynamics states that there can be no creation or annihilation of Mass/Energy. One form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter into another, and there can even be Matter'Energy interconversions, but the totality of Mass'Energy in the universe remains constant.
The Second Law is a little more detailed and can be expressed in several ways, all of which can be shown equivilent. There's Classical Thermodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics and Informational Thermodynamics.
In each case, entropy is a measure of the lost usefulness of the system. In classical it measures the useful energy which must be converted to nonusable heat energy. In statistical it measures the probability of the structured arrangement of the system--with the state of disorganization being most probable and in informational it measures the amount of garbled information, or noise, that accompanies the transmission of information by the system.
These Laws apply to the whole universe. These Laws predict a gloomy future for the cosmos.
The Second Law point back to creation. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order. The entropy law is a universal principle of downward change.
The Second Law has been confirmed by all sorts of scientific tests.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:36 PM lyx2no has not replied

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


Message 155 of 336 (501365)
03-05-2009 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:48 PM


Re: The Creation Model
Now we have something to go on!
The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all.
Does this "creation" involve manifestation ex nihilo? As in, are you talking about literally causing something to appear where nothign was before, or are you talking about restructuring already-existing matter into the living things observed today?
Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
And so you postulate that all of the transitionals typically referred to (like Archeopteryx) are variations within a "type?"
What "type" is Archeopteryx? Is it a bird? Is it a reptile? Is it a dinosaur? Is it a mammal?
It has teeth, but birds don't have teeth. It has feathers, but reptiles don't have feathers. You see how Archeopteryx is difficult to really classify - that's one of teh reasons it's typically called a transitional.
This prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all.
"Obvious to all" isn't a good line of reasoning; clearly, its not obvious to me, or most people in this thread.
If it were not so, it would be impossible to have a taxonomic system--one could never determine the dividing lines between similar organisms.
It is, in fact, extremely difficult at times to classify organisms, due to the fact that the lines are blurred. Again, how would you classify Archeopteryx? There are examples of "half-evolved" (I hate using such terminology, but it's the best way to describe what I;m getting at despite its technical inaccuracy) features throughout the fossil record. How do you classify organisms that seem to straddle the "line" between one classification and another?
The living world is not connected by unbroken series of intergrades but rather by distinctly separate arrays in which intermediates are basically absent.
How does Creation Science address the genetic evidence that the living world is, in fact, conencted by an unbroken chain of common descent? How does Creation Science address the fact that all features of every organism now existing or found int he fossil record is not unique, but rather seems to be a slightly modified or re-purposed iteration of the same feature found in a pre-existing species? How does Creation Science address vestigial features, such as the vestigial leg/hip bones in whales, or the atrophied cecum that is the human appendix?
If all varients were connected by unbroken series of intergrades Creationists would be hard-pressed to explain such a thing.
Indeed.
However, the present array of organisms fits precisely with the expectations of the creation model.
How so? From what I can tell, genetic relationships, the fossil record that clearly shows a gradual change in organisms with various features rising in sequence, the apparent descent-with-modification of all individual features, the directly observed change over generations resulting in new species with no mechanism preventing larger cumulative differences, vestigial features, and apparent unguided, random trial-and-error approach with which species seem to form, appears to far better fit a model of gradual change over time as opposed to special Creation. If you disagree, please explain why.
In fact, were special creation to be valid, I would expect that almost no features at all would be related to one another; wholly distinct species would be found with no apparent relationship or similarity to other species should be found in the fossil record. Genetics should show no relationship between species. Vestigial organs should not exist. Obviously, none of this is true - and so it would seem that special creation is falsified. Would it not? If you disagree, please explain why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:48 PM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 156 of 336 (501366)
03-05-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:48 PM


Re: The Creation Model
The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all. Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
This prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all.
So the creation model is capable of telling us what a 'type' is, how we can know one type from another? After all, how would you know if the prediction has borne out unless you could show us some method of determining a type, right?
You of course understand that you cannot use the fossil record to make determinations about what a type is since that is the evidence of the successful prediction so you'd be caught in a circular argument.
If you don't want to get into that level of detail, if you let us in on this secret model we can derive the predictions for ourselves.
If all varients were connected by unbroken series of intergrades Creationists would be hard-pressed to explain such a thing.
You aren't using your imagination hard enough. If the variants were connected by an unbroken sequence in the fossil record then that is proof of the creator's perfection that it was able to preserve the record against the natural process of decay and destruction you were keen to tell us about earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:48 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:17 PM Modulous has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 157 of 336 (501367)
03-05-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


All I can say is WOW!!!!!!!
What a bunch of creationist BS.
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution. Systems do not naturally go toward higher order, but toward lower order.
First of all think about what you are saying and then think of these; snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites.
Next read what I am going to post. I will even give you the source. After you read this if you still believe the crap you have been fed, then there is no more to say. You suffer from willful ignorance and refuse to listen to logic.
1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.
4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
Source
Even more

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:08 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:53 PM Theodoric has replied

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


Message 158 of 336 (501368)
03-05-2009 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:08 PM


Re: I believe I indicated the answer somewhere in these threads
Not only does the Second Law point back to creation; it also directly contradicts evolution.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Do babies developing in the womb also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Or not?

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

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 159 of 336 (501369)
03-05-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Kelly
03-05-2009 7:48 PM


Re: The Creation Model
quote:
The creation model postulates that all the basic types of plants and animals were directly created and did not evolve from other types at all.
That is not a prediction. It is, at the most generous assessment, a hypothesis, which creation science makes no attempt to test.
quote:
Consequently the creationist predicts that no transitional sequences (except within each created type) will ever be found, either in the present array of organisms or in the fossil record.
This has already been falsified. Darwin suggested that great apes and men shared common ancestry. The obvious prediction of this was that ape-men style fossils would be found in the fossil record. They were found. They are called hominids. Evolution's prediction was upheld. Your "prediction" was falsified. it was falsified over a hundred years ago.
quote:
This prediction is borne out in the present assemblage of plants and animals and is obvious to all.
If it were this obvious, we would not be having this discussion, now would we? The fossil record shows a slow process of gradual change. the snapshots provided by the fossil record are entirely consistent with the theory of evolution.
quote:
If it were not so, it would be impossible to have a taxonomic system--one could never determine the dividing lines between similar organisms
You seem to have misunderstood how taxonomy works. A taxonomic label is not an absolute description of any life form. It is merely an arbitrary label, used to help us understand the diversity of life. Each taxon describes a portion of the spectrum of variation. The genomes of living things on the other hand, are not arbitrary and they can be directly compared to each other. These comparisons reveal a complex picture of millions of interrelated life. And gosh! That picture is entirely consistent with evolution and little else.
quote:
The living world is not connected by unbroken series of intergrades but rather by distinctly separate arrays in which intermediates are basically absent.
No they're not. Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus have already been mentioned. Perhaps you have heard f Tiktaalik? A more perfect example of a transitional fossil would be hard to imagine. What's more, it was found as a result of a prediction made by evolutionary science. The prediction was that if rocks of the right type (those related to shallow waters) and of the right age (about 375 mya, the time when fish were believed to have been in transition to amphibians) were examined, there would be the potential to find fish/amphibian transitional fossils. Guess what they found...
quote:
If all varients were connected by unbroken series of intergrades Creationists would be hard-pressed to explain such a thing. However, the present array of organisms fits precisely with the expectations of the creation model and the fossil record supports this as well.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. Do you have any examples of actual predictions, not mere post hoc reasoning? Do you have any examples of predictions made, tested and confirmed that can be compared to the Tiktaalik example?
Mutate and Survive

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 7:48 PM Kelly has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 160 of 336 (501370)
03-05-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Kelly
03-05-2009 10:19 AM


Still with that False Dichotomy (Two Model Approach)?
Disproving evolution does prove creation, ...
No, sorry, still doesn't. Never has, never will. Haven't you read that Wikipedia article yet? How can you catch up with us, New Girl!, if you don't do your homework? It's a very short article, too: False Dilemma (AKA "False Dichotomy") at False dilemma - Wikipedia .
Rather than explain you to yet again the fact that your "Two Model Approach" (TMA) is a False Dichotomy and the problems that it thus inherits, I will direct you to go back are re-read (or finally read for the first time, New Girl!) my explaination of what "creation science" is, especially the part explaining the TMA.
This time, I'll employ the TMA's methodology in order to demonstrate what you get when you use a False Dichotomy. I'll give you my two mutually exclusive models of Presidential Assassination (PA). These are the only two possible models; either the first one is true or the second one is, but they both cannot be true and they cannot both be false. Here they are:
Model #1 -- You, Kelly, killed Lincoln.
or
Model #2 -- You, Kelly, killed Kennedy.
Now, since I can disprove Model #1, therefore I have proven Model #2. QED.
Kelly, you killed Kennedy. Do you accept or deny it? But how can you possibly deny it, when we've proven it? With our TMA.
Do you finally see the problem with "Disproving evolution does prove creation, ..."? Like my PA TMA, "creation science's" TMA artificially and falsely restricts itself to two "models" that ignore a vast number of other possible models. Remember, the only way to have a true dichotomy is to include all possible models; then and only then could you possibly find the true one by eliminating all the false ones. Are you beginning to understand that?
If you fail to include all possible models, then when you disprove one model that does nothing to prove any of the remaining models. All it does prove is that the disproven model has been disproven and that the others have not yet been disproven. Not yet!
But that leads us to the other problem with your TMA: the "models" themselves are fasle and contrived. When you disprove your "evolution model", that is all that you have disproven. Not evolution, which "creation science" never actually addresses, but rather just its "evolution model". Which ironically contains the vast majority of creation models! Remember what H. Morris (to differential him from his son, John Morris, who had succeeded him as ICR President) had written? That their "evolution model" includes most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern.
That's something interesting about the TMA. The "creation model" is very vaguely worded and is never presented -- something very vague might get quickly muttered as a token jesture, but the "model" is never presented. Furthermore, Morris, Gish, and any professional creationist who knows what he's doing will never discuss the "creation model" in a public discussion -- oh, they'd discuss it when preaching to the choir (ie, when at a church event), but never before the general public. The only way that the "creation model" would ever appear in a public debate was when their opponent would present it, at which point master debators Gish and Morris would invariably refuse to respond. Oh, and guess what their excuse would be for refusing to discuss the "creation model"? Because that would be introducing religion into a scientific debate/discussion. So much for your claim that it isn't religious. Creationists refuse to present the "creation model", to discuss it, or to defend it.
So what is this mysterious "creation model"? From their writings, we have seen what it is; as a public service, here it is from the journal, Creation/Evolution, article, "Yes, Virginia, There is a Creation Model" (Vol 1, No. 1, Summer 1980 -- Yes, Virginia, There is a Creation Model | National Center for Science Education):
quote:
Though creationists carefully avoid stating their model in debates, thereby keeping themselves off the defensive, they have one nonetheless. Here it is in bold outline as extracted from their books and publications.
  1. The Creation
    1. Accomplished by a supernatural being
    2. Everything created from nothing relatively recently.
    3. The Earth was perfectly designed for life:
      1. Protected by a vapor layer:
        1. Uniform warm climate
        2. Cosmic radiation could not penetrate


      2. No wind or rain.
      3. The land irrigated by water from underground.


    4. All kinds created separately:
      1. Each kind is unique and fixed.
      2. Each kind is genetically highly variable.


    5. Humans were uniquely created.
    6. No decay occurred.


  2. The Fall
    1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics invoked:
      1. Perfect order began to degenerate.
      2. Death, decay, and disorder began.


    2. People began to populate the Earth.
      1. All humans descended from the original couple.


    3. The vapor barrier enabled great longevity.


  3. The Flood
    1. Simultaneous, worldwide cataclysm.
    2. All land was covered within 40 days.
    3. Flood water had two sources:
      1. The vapor barrier.
      2. Underground reservoirs.


    4. The Flood began 1656 years after creation.
    5. The Flood formed and deposited the geologic column.
    6. The Flood split the land mass into the present continents.
    7. The only survivors were aboard one boat:
      1. 8 humans.
      2. One pair of most kinds of animals.
      3. Aboard boat for 371 days.



  4. The Post Flood Period
    1. Left over flood energy caused the ice ages.
    2. Flood survivors repopulated the Earth.
    3. All living species are descendants of the survivors:
      1. They were modified by horizontal change to fill the Earth.
      2. The animals had original genetic variability.


    4. The vapor barrier was destroyed - longevity decreased.
    5. All species degenerate since disorder must increase.
    6. Present geological processes are different from those of the Flood.


Just in case you object that that came from an "evolutionist" source, it was also given, albeit more briefly, in the Arkansas Act 590, the 1980 "balanced treatment" law. In fact, that was part of what identified "creation science" as being badly disguised religion; during the trial, its sister law was being passed in Louisiana, where they removed the definition of "creation science" from their bill. Here it is listed from the decision of the court (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 05 Jan 1982, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education):
quote:
III

If the defendants are correct and the Court is limited to an examination of the language of the Act, the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools.
Section 4 of the Act provides:
Definitions, as used in this Act:
(a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.
(b) "Evolution-science" means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and (6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
(c) "Public schools" means public secondary and elementary schools.
The evidence establishes that the definition of "creation science" contained in 4(a) has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis. Among the many creation epics in human history, the account of sudden creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, and subsequent destruction of the world by flood is unique to Genesis. The concepts of 4(a) are the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis. Section 4(a) is unquestionably a statement of religion, with the exception of 4(a)(2) which is a negative thrust aimed at what the creationists understand to be the theory of evolution (17).
Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God.
Defendants argue that : (1) the fact that 4(a) conveys idea similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis does not make it conclusively a statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is not necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence and a sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion and justice (18); and (3) that simply teaching about the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the student is required to make a commitment to the concept of a creator.
The evidence fully answers these arguments. The idea of 4(a)(1) are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story of creation (19).
Similarly, ICR lawyer Wendell Bird published an article in an ICR newsletter (Acts & Facts, December 1978) in which he listed tenets of the "Scientific Creation Model" and the "Biblical Creation Model" side-by-side in order to demonstrate how utterly different they are and that there's nothing religious at all about the "scientific" model. Instead, he demonstrated that they are virtually identical to each other, except for some very superficial rewording for legalistic trickery^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpurposes.
All of that, plus their overwhelming emphasis on young-earth and flood-geology claims, demonstrate that that "vague" "creation model" is actually very narrowly and rather exactly defined. So narrowly defined, that it excludes the vast majority of creation models, including most of the Judeo-Christian ones, though they don't appear to be too explicit in dumping the latter into the "evolution model". Yep, the "evolution model" is a mess! All ideas that don't fit into the "creation model" get dumped into it, including all the old, out-dated early misconceptions which have long been disproven -- real handy, because they can then use scientists pointing out that an old idea was wrong as evidence against evolution.
Which raises a problem with their trying to disprove their "evolution model". Because along all that garbage, they also throw in the truth! Or at least they could have. How can we tell? Sure, you could grab a few pieces of rubbish in the "evolution model" and show them to be false, but then you're back to the old problem of that saying nothing about the rest. There's a plethora of different models in that "evolution model". The only way to disprove them all is just that, to go through and disprove each and every one of them. How else could you possibly prove the "creation model" by disproving all the alternatives if you refuse to disprove all the alternatives?
Don't look at me like that, New Girl!. You asked for the job. We just want to make sure you do it right.
BTW, completely disproving the "evolution model" is not just a monumental job (boy, is that an understatement!). It is absolutely impossible. Remember how your beloved H. Morris dumped into it "most of the world's religions, both ancient and modern"? Yeah, that's right, "creation science" teaches that the vast majority of supernatural creation stories are part of the "evolution model". How do you disprove a supernatural claim? You can't do it; it's impossible. Since most of the "evolution model" consists of such supernatural claims, you cannot possibly disprove it.
So since it's so impossible to prove the "creation model" solely by disproving the "evolution model", why don't you just present the "creation model" and your evidence FOR it? That would be so much easier and more constructive, right? So why don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:19 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 161 of 336 (501374)
03-05-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Theodoric
03-05-2009 8:09 PM


this response doesn't work
The response by evolutionists to this obvious conflict between evolution and entropy that the earth is an open system and that there is enough energy from the sun to energize the evolutionary process throughout geologic time ignores the elemental fact that an influx of heat energy into an open system directly corresponds to an increase in entropy (and therefore a decrease in "functional information") in that system. There must, therefore, be certain other constraints applied to an open systen before the information or organization of that system can be increased. Creationists have maintained that the necessary additional constraints include at least a directing program and a conversion mechanism. These are available in such cases as a growing plant or the errection of a building--but not in the supposed billion year evolution of the biosphere.
Without some kind of biochemical predestinating code to direct the hypothetical evolutionary growth of the biosphere, it would become a heterogeneous blob if it grows at all. And without some kind of complex global energy conversion mechanism to store and transform the incoming solar energy, the sun's heat would destroy, not build-up, any organized systems that might exist on the earth. Without a code and such a mechanism, the naturally increasing entropy simply precludes a naturalistic increase of complexity on the earth, even though the earth is, indeed, an "open system" and even though there is, indeed, enough energy coming in from the sun to initiate and sustain evolution.
"What is Creation Science?" Morris/Parker
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Theodoric, posted 03-05-2009 8:09 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 9:57 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 163 by lyx2no, posted 03-05-2009 10:15 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 180 by Theodoric, posted 03-06-2009 8:14 AM Kelly has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 162 of 336 (501375)
03-05-2009 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Kelly
03-05-2009 9:53 PM


Re: this response doesn't work
If it were really that simple, every competent scientist would be aware of the fact.
This means one of the following is true:
1. Every competent scientist knows the truth but is lying.
2. Creationists are lying.
Which of those two do you really think is more likely? Be honest.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:53 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:25 PM subbie has replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 163 of 336 (501376)
03-05-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Kelly
03-05-2009 9:53 PM


Whose Words are These?
Whoever it is, they are off topic.
The topic is "People Don't Know What Creation Science Is". Unless your answer to the question is, and only is, "Not evolution." then it is off topic.
Please, you said the ideas people have of CS not being scientific are incorrect. You have yet to supply any evidence to that end. In fact, you have convinced me that I was not deluded in my original conception.
Please, describe CS for it's own sake and leave Here, let me see if I can make it easier for you; for the sake of argument, evolution is a fairy tale invented by atheists to thumb their noses at God. If any part of the ToE is true it's an artifact of happenstance or plagiarism of CS works of science.
There! Now it is no longer necessary for you to dissuade me of heretical thoughts and can concentrate on explaining the scientific merits of CS.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason, only thought there was.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 9:53 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:28 PM lyx2no has replied

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


Message 164 of 336 (501377)
03-05-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
03-05-2009 8:08 PM


Ask yourself...
How could the existence of distinct species be justified by a theory (evolution) that proclaims ceaseless change as the most fundamental fact of nature? For you, why should there be species or "types" at all? If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small begining gene pool, organisms should really just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. You cannot take comfort in the fossil record since it is used so well at classifying species and types. Living things were created to multiply after type, and that these created types could be rationally grouped in a hierarchical pattern reflecting themes and variations of the designer was well understood by pre-Darwinian scientists such as Karl Von Linne'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 03-05-2009 8:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by lyx2no, posted 03-05-2009 10:38 PM Kelly has replied
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 8:05 AM Kelly has replied

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


Message 165 of 336 (501379)
03-05-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by subbie
03-05-2009 9:57 PM


I am as honest as they come..
And I am sure you know exactly what I think. The only thing truly evolving from one type into another is the the theory of evolution itself! Post Neo-Darwinians are now turning to hopeful monsters instead of simple mutations and "survival of the luckiest" rather than selection. Creationists are making more use of mutations and selection than evolutionists because these things support the creation model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 9:57 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by subbie, posted 03-05-2009 10:31 PM Kelly has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024