Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,813 Year: 3,070/9,624 Month: 915/1,588 Week: 98/223 Day: 9/17 Hour: 5/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   People Don't Know What Creation Science Is
olivortex
Member (Idle past 4778 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 181 of 336 (501425)
03-06-2009 8:28 AM


beating my chest
Hi. I think i may be a transitional form.

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


Message 182 of 336 (501426)
03-06-2009 8:35 AM


180 posts and nothing
Kelly has provided nothing to explain what creation science is. All we have are the old recycled attempts to discredit evolution. Most of her arguments wouldn't even be used by creationists. Have you noticed how no other creationist will support her?
I suggest that the Admins shut this thread down, since she cannot stay on or even address the topic.

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

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 183 of 336 (501429)
03-06-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Kelly
03-05-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Creation theory says that
Archaeopteryx is a bird, so?
Australopithecus is an ape, so?
This doesn't prove that birds evolved fron dinosaurs or that human beings evolved from apes. We can see similar design, but so what.
I'm afraid you've not addressed the point of my post, Kelly.
Archaeopteryx is a bird with many features intermediate between modern birds and reptiles (dinosaurs, in fact) and it was predicted by evolution there would be such a fossil discovered before it was found. Similarly with Australopithecus, it is a fossil showing features intermediate between humans and other apes as it was predicted would be found.
Now, I'm not interested in arguing about these particular examples here (start a new thread if you are), but in what it means to be a prediction. The important points are these a) that a sufficently precise prediction about something which we will find in the future is made and then b) that prediction is confirmed afterwards. This is a really key feature of a convincing scientific theory and it something that Creationism has simply not produced.
You want Creationism to be taken seriously as a science you need to start making detailed detailed predictions about things we haven't found yet.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Ungarbling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 6:39 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 AM Dr Jack has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 336 (501432)
03-06-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Kelly
03-05-2009 10:36 PM


Re: I can't win..
Kelly writes:
If you want to know more, then read the book I recommended. I can see that I am really wasting my time anyway.
Kelly, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of this discussion board. It's for debate. It's a venue for you to muster your most forceful arguments and your most persuasive evidence and see how they play out in the arena of ideas.
So please stop handing out reading assignments and denigrating your opponents. These are from the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you joined:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
  2. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
  1. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Kelly, posted 03-05-2009 10:36 PM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:24 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 185 of 336 (501434)
03-06-2009 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Modulous
03-06-2009 8:05 AM


Re: Ask yourself...
If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television docudramas insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call subspeciation (variation within kind), never transspeciation (change from one kind to others).
Also, I am not sure what you mean about not being able to use the fossil record to confirm what the creation model predicts. The creation model predicts--by its very nature of what creation is--that life appeared suddenly and fully formed and that there would be no linking fossils from one thing to another if creation is true. Upon studying the eviidence such as the fossil record, this is exactly what we find. I don't think the fossil record cannot be used to help us sort out the evidence into categories or species. I am not sure why you say the creation scientist cannot use this record to do so???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 8:05 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 10:24 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 188 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 10:29 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 11:06 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 186 of 336 (501436)
03-06-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Ask yourself...
If evolutionists really spoke and wrote only about observable variation within kind, there would be no creation-evolution controversy. But as you know, textbooks, teachers, and television docudramas insist on extrapolating from simple variation within kind to the wildest sorts of evolutionary changes. And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call subspeciation (variation within kind), never transspeciation (change from one kind to others).
I have explained that evolutionary science isn't just based on this simple extrapolation. I don't feel like doing it again. Please visit the thread I referred you to if you actually want to debate me on this subject. I am assuming that this attempt to change the subject is a result of your conceding that evolution can provide an answer to the species issue that is consistent with itself, that uses evidence and reasoning and so on.
I await the corresponding Creation Science version.
Also, I am not sure what you mean about not being able to use the fossil record to confirm what the creation model predicts. The creation model predicts--by its very nature of what creation is--that life appeared suddenly and fully formed and that there would be no linking fossils from one thing to another if creation is true. Upon studying the eviidence such as the fossil record, this is exactly what we find. I don't think the fossil record cannot be used to help us sort out the evidence into categories or species. I am not sure why you say the creation scientist cannot use this record to do so???
You can use the fossil record to confirm your prediction. That's fine. You cannot however also use the fossil record to formulate your prediction: that would be circular.
Here is your prediction:
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.
So we find a transitional sequence in the fossil record. How are we to know if it is within a created type or not? Can you tell us how the creation model makes this discrimination so that we can tell if the prediction has in fact borne out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:10 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:51 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 187 of 336 (501437)
03-06-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
03-06-2009 9:45 AM


Even when I give examples of the model for creation
and even when I post substantive arguments, the most i get is simply denial if I am not ignored completely. Taking the time to really get into it has proven to be a huge waste of time on a forum like this one where your messages are quickly lost under a barrage of posting or responded to with ad hominem posts.
Consider my message #92 which basically went unanswered.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 9:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 12:44 PM Kelly has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 188 of 336 (501438)
03-06-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:10 AM


Re: Ask yourself...
And, of course, as long as they insist on such extrapolation, creationists will point out the limits to such change and explore creation, instead, as the more logical inference from our observations. All we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call subspeciation (variation within kind), never transspeciation (change from one kind to others).
First, if you are going to deal with science you need to use the language of science. That means you need to stop using "kinds" as that is a biblical term, not a scientific one.
Second, creationists have never been able to specify a mechanism that prevents speciation. They agree to what they call microevolution, but draw an artificial line (inspired by the bible, not by scientific evidence) at what they call macroevolution. But, they are unable to specify a mechanism that prevents the micros from adding up to a macro.
Next, the "limits" you point out to macroevolution are all in your mind. They are not supported by the evidence. Only by ignoring the logical extrapolations of the evidence can creationists justify their a priori beliefs. But that's not science and no amount of creation "science" can make it into science.
Finally, you don't know the data yourself, and can only rely on creationist websites and literature for their opinions. And, sadly, there are very few scientists in the creationist network; the few that we see generally ignore the scientific method and substitute religious belief (creation "science" if you will) in its place. Their conclusions are reached in advance, from scripture and revelation, not through the scientific evidence. As such, their statements regarding science are suspect.
On this website you will likely find a number of posters who are familiar with the evidence. I studied evolution and fossil man in graduate school, to the Ph.D. level, although I don't practice in that field. Others here are well versed in other fields related to evolution. We don't need creationists to tell us how to interpret the data; through long years of study we have learned to do quite well on our own.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:10 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:43 AM Coyote has not replied

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


Message 189 of 336 (501440)
03-06-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Dr Jack
03-06-2009 8:49 AM


That is just so ridiculous
According to the creation model, birds have always been birds.
The discovery of Archaeopteryx, which is a bird, should dispell the notion that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds from a time when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 8:49 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dman, posted 03-06-2009 10:47 AM Kelly has not replied
 Message 193 by Dr Jack, posted 03-06-2009 10:53 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 194 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 11:03 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 190 of 336 (501443)
03-06-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Coyote
03-06-2009 10:29 AM


That's not true...
Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible. Stop tooting your own horn so much. You all do this and I am unimpressed, really.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Coyote, posted 03-06-2009 10:29 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-06-2009 11:10 AM Kelly has replied
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 03-06-2009 12:46 PM Kelly has replied

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


Message 191 of 336 (501444)
03-06-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:40 AM


Re: That is just so ridiculous
quote:
According to the creation model, birds have always been birds.
The discovery of Archaeopteryx, which is a bird, should dispell the notion that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. Some specimens of this bird are so perfectly fossilized that even the microscopic detail of its feathers is clearly visible. So, having alleged missing links of dinosaurs changing into birds from a time when birds already exist doesn’t help the case for evolution.
How does CS explain the reptilian features of the Archaeopteryx?
Also, Ambulocetus, how does CS categorize this?
As a side note, I find it funny when evolutionists were predicting that a mammal such as Ambulocetus should have existed, creationists made fun of such a notion. Then the fossil was found and there was a hush in their community.
Edited by Dman, : A side though after I posted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 AM Kelly has not replied

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


Message 192 of 336 (501445)
03-06-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Modulous
03-06-2009 10:24 AM


Creationists disagree
There are no real transitional fossils in the fossil record. In fact, if evolution were true, it would seem that all forms ought to be transitional forms. But they are not. The fact is that the same gaps that exist in the living world, also exist in the fossil record. This is why scientists have had to tweak their theory..from Darwinism, to neo Darwinisn to post neo Darwinism. What you have had to do at this point is rely on hopeful monsters... the fossil record is in complete harmony with what creationists expect and we have not had to alter our model to fit the evidence.
Edited by Kelly, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 10:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 03-06-2009 11:13 AM Kelly has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 193 of 336 (501446)
03-06-2009 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:40 AM


Concentrating on the wrong thing
Hi Kelly,
I realise that a lot of people are posting at you in this thread and others, which makes it hard to make quality replies to every message, and I thank you for replying at all.
However, you've not still not addressed the point I'm making; instead you're concentrating on the example. Let's drop Archaeopteryx and Evolution altogether and hop over to another science: physics. After Einstein formulated his Theory of Relativity he made a prediction: that during the solar eclipse we would be able to see a certain star behind the sun because the gravity of the sun would bend the light - something that Newtonian physics states wouldn't happen. Lo and behold, that star was observed, and it provided utterly compelling evidence that Einstein's theories were correct*.
What I'm looking for from you, and Creationism, is a similar prediction. It's not enough to pattern match things that are already known, to convince people of a new scientific idea you need to make predictions about things we haven't seen yet, and then have those predictions confirmed. Further, those predictions need to be detailed enough and follow coherently enough from the evidence and theory to be convincing.
Can you give me such an example? Can you state any predictions that Creationism makes for the still undiscovered?
* - technically, of course, Einstein's theories are "correct" - science doesn't really work like that - but the demonstration with the star clearly showed that Einstein was "more correct" than Newton.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 AM Kelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 11:15 AM Dr Jack has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 194 of 336 (501447)
03-06-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Kelly
03-06-2009 10:40 AM


Re: That is just so ridiculous
Stop tooting your own horn so much. You all do this and I am unimpressed, really.
I have a horn worth tooting, as do many others here. Unlike creation "scientists" we actually study our fields, often for decades. We do this so we can learn; creation "scientists" start off with all the answers and are just looking for tidbits to cherry pick. Learning is the last thing they want. They just want to find something, anything to support their a priori beliefs.
Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics is the mechanism that makes macroevolution impossible.
That is absolutely incorrect, but unfortunately it is typical. No creationist has been able to document what you have claimed.
Here is a good essay that covers the subject: The Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability.
Warning: this essay is loaded with mathematical equations!
Here are the final paragraphs:
Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.
The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are very well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy, emf characteristics of voltaic cells, equilibrium constants, refrigeration cycles, steam turbine operating parameters, and a host of other parameters. The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.
Until creationists stop using religious belief as scientific evidence and start to propose scientific mechanisms, they will be widely ignored by science, and rightfully so. When you pass on ridiculous claims, such as the one about the second law of thermodynamics, you only show your lack of actual familiarity with the subject and your reliance on belief instead of scientific investigation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Kelly, posted 03-06-2009 10:40 AM Kelly has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 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

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024