|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If evolution is wrong, is Creation right? | |||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
Flying sqirrles of course, were created with wings. My opinion, yes. I can't prove it. But you cannot prove that it came from anything else! Evolution is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5913 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
MPW,
Provide working definitions within the context of this debate. This is required of you since you have been asked to do so per forum rules. So, cut the crap and define "kinds" and "information". And to conclude, in response to my saying:Your magic ingredient is time. But there is a limit! Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else! crashfrog said:"Says you. Care to provide evidence?" Look, I don't have to provide evidence that a fish can't change to a frog. Its up to YOU to prove that it CAN or your theory is useless and not science. After being provided with examples that refute your above claim, you have been unable to counter with anything. So, Crashfrog's request for your proof is legitimate. So, get on with it unless you can't. Why do you keep asking "Why don't we see it going on now"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Science will never be able to PROVE evolution. Science can only raise the probability of evolutionary theories, in other words lower the tentativeness of the theory. This can only be done by observations and actually testing the theory by trying to falsify it. So far, there is nothing that falsifies the theory of evolution and the theory is very successful with its predictions. This is how science works, sorry if you don't like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
kinds I admit is a wishy washy term. I said genetic info being added which has never been observed. Kind is not a scientific term, but more of a common sense term. Something a 3-year-old can see.
But to satisfy everyone here goes the definitions.... Kind:1.A group of individuals linked by traits held in common. 2.A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best? 3.Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence. 4.A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color. 5.Archaic. Manner. I hope thats satisfactory. Information:1.Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction. 2.Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. 3.A collection of facts or data: statistical information. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers. 4.Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome. 5.Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment. I hope this makes everyone happy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
ITS STILL A BUG! And you'd better believe that digesting nylon already was in the gene code of at least some of the bugs. Please explain what the gene code would use the information for prior to nylon being first made in 1938.
""""""""""""""""""Not prejudice; a rational conclusion based on analysis of the evidence (Kent's published works). Ken's too far out for even most creationsists; as Answers in Genesis says at Maintaining Creationist Integrity""""""""""""""""""""""""" Again, SHOW ME where he has gone wrong. You just like saying this. Did you miss or just ignore Dan's post about Hovind's errors?
"Some bacteria today seem to cause problems. And same thing with viruses, they cause problems. But it may only be to the weaker individuals. When somebody gets a cold, if a virus is really causing this, why doesn't everybody get the cold?" "I say, you guys have to get two cells to evolve from the [primordial] soup - of the opposite sex, in the same place, at the same time. It's a big world, you know, cells are kind of small - they've got to find each other." "If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. Think about that." "The entire theory of evolution is built upon the faulty assumption that the origin of the universe was 'billions of years ago'" "And, yes, life is made of ninety two basic elements ....." "I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty." These statements are all wrong. Do you need us to explain why?
And all my arguments are no good because I have no knowledge of science! Imagine that. Pity! 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.' (Daniel Patrick Moynihan)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
Right, evolution is not science, it is believed. Nothing has ever proven Creation wrong either. The topic is "Is it science"? It is not.
Successful with predictions? I'm sure any prediction that evolution made that was correct, creation could have made the same prediction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
Would the creation model predict that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes despite being completely independently created, and that one major difference is a chromosome-fusion mutation in the human genome? Would the creation model predict that both would have the exact same mutation in a gene that creates vitamin-C synthase in other organisms, in the exact same spot in both genomes, despite each species being completely independently created? Does this really, truly constitute evidence of independent creation, or is it stretching the imagination rather egregiously?
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
I saw Dan's post, he gave quotes, but did not falsify them. And I said that , like everyone, Hovind has a few errors. But the bulk of what he says is perfectly logical and scientific. Oh and you guys are WAY off the wall with Hovind. He says all the time "
I did not even know what being a humanist meant. I was only sixteen, and the brain doesn't even start developing until about twenty." GIVE ME A BREAK that was a JOKE! He was making the crowd laugh! Almost all jokes anyone tell aren't truthful... A couple other of those statements are jokes too I believe, they were taken out of context. That is crooked what you're doing.
Please explain what the gene code would use the information for prior to nylon being first made in 1938. Flawed reasoning. The bug didn't have to know about nylon. It had the genes to produce the acids or whatever is needed to digest it. I can make a new food that your stomach acids can digest, that doesn't prove evolution.
Pity! Again, the classic "I'm smart, you're dumb" attitude. Are you saying that my arguments are invalid because of me having no knowlegde? I call that a personal attack and a sign that you are losing the argument. Also, I have seen people here saying I'm getting this stuff from websites, etc. Where are you getting your information? From the anti-hovind websites and the evolutionist ones!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
Would the creation model predict that humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes despite being completely independently created, and that one major difference is a chromosome-fusion mutation in the human genome? Would the creation model predict that both would have the exact same mutation in a gene that creates vitamin-C synthase in other organisms, in the exact same spot in both genomes, despite each species being completely independently created? Does this really, truly constitute evidence of independent creation, or is it stretching the imagination rather egregiously? Are you supporting creation, or evolution? I didn't get that. What creation model are you talking about? The chromosone numbers between humans and apes are completely different. And if the apes and humans have characteristics in common, that could be interpreted as having a common designer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that basic grey squirrels, red squirrels, and flying squirrels are all different created kinds, correct? After all, you've been pretty adamant that one cannot change to another, and that they were all created as is, without change.
quote: I don't get it. How is it a joke to say that the brain does not begin developing until you're 20? I mean... I laugh when I think "I'll bet Hovnid's didn't", but I don't think that's the punchline he was going for. "It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: Out of curiosity, how much knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction is there in DNA? Do you see why we want you to specify what definition you are using? "It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
|
|||||||||||||||||||
:æ:  Suspended Member (Idle past 7184 days) Posts: 423 Joined: |
MPW writes:
No, I'm using the standard calculation of information according to information theory. I gave you the formula and explained how it works. Wherever a few are selected out of many, information has increased. Since you conceded that selection operates (even if only within "kinds," whatever that is), you've necessarily conceded that information increases.
To me, that makes NO sense at all. Are you trying to throw me off here? Whatever you were trying to say, INFORMATION HAS NEVER BEEN ADDED TO THE GENE CODE.
Let me ask you this: What would consititute an information addition in the gene code, according to you? How would you measure it? Do you know? I'll suggest refraining from speculation if you don't.
You have just proved my point. Firstly I did not get that from Hovind's website, I got that from the second law of thermodynamics. (The entropy of the universe is always increasing)
The 2ndLoT saying nothing of what you first claimed it did. It does not say things are "running down," nor that things are "getting worse." This is the Creationist definition of the 2ndLoT, and as far as physicists know, it is not valid in this universe.
And technology, hehe, proves that it takes INTELLIGENT ENERGY to make something get better!!!
That was just an example. See crashfrog's or JonF's examples in this thread where we've observed the emergence of new traits in bacteria, including nylon digestion and phage resistance. BTW - evolution only deals with change, not with concepts of "better" or "worse."
Everything goes down the tubes with time
Again, this is not what the 2ndLoT states. "Entropy" in the thermodynamic sense has to do with the amount of useable energy in a system, and has nothing to do with "order" or "disorder." Prigogine won his Nobel Prize by demonstrating that complex and orderly dissipative structures can form spontaneously in non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
If evolution is true, where did the laws of thermodynamics come from anyway?
Why do you believe that it came from anything at all? It seems from our observations that it simply is.
Again, flawed reasoning. Pluto is in orbit.
How do you know? You've never observed it orbit the sun. Keep in mind, this is your reasoning I'm using.
Reading your pluto example mmight make sense at first, but if you think, it doesn't compare in the least. We see what pluto is doing now. It likely has gone around the sun, and will go around the sun.
We see what biological organisms are "doing now," and it is likely that they have been changing over the entire history of their existence just as we've observed them in the present.
But you cannot prove that it has reversed direction 8 times and became purple, than orange, then green, and now blue!! Thats what you are trying to tell me about the animals.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have argued none of this that you claim I have. This is an argument of your own imagination, and I'd appreciate it if you'd come back to reality and deal with the actual facts of the matter.
We see them dong the same things, cats having cats, dogs having dogs, just like pluto goes around the sun! But ten you try to tell me that they went from a fish to a frog to a dinasour to a bird, thats like saying that pluto has reversed direction 8 times and became purple, than orange, then green, and now blue!!
Sigh... so much ignorance abounds, it's disheartening. Your claim that a cat cannot become a non-cat implies that you know of a barrier that would prevent it. Please, as I've asked before, present this barrier and a methodology of testing for its existence.
Again, Your argument is evidence for my theory, not yours. Different for every animal. I already gave tons of examples.
No, you've offered nothing but unsubstantiated assertions. Not a single example was offered. You are, of course, free to run around shouting loudly that the sky is green, but the fact of the matter is that the sky is blue and no amount of shouting will change that. The same is true with the hypothetical barrier between micro and macro evolution. You can continue to shout that it exists, but if you can't demonstrate it, all you have is hot air.
Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else!
Why not? What is to stop a bunch of little changes adding up to big ones with time? If I begin piling soil in front of you with a shovel, what is to prevent the slowly forming hill from eventually becoming a mountain? If I begin walking due westward in St. Louis, MO, what's to stop my little 3-foot steps from eventually adding up to hundreds of miles? The answer to all of these questions is "Nothing." You've conceded that change happens. As a result, information increases. Over time, little changes can add up to big ones. These are the facts, and I suggest you get used to them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MPW Inactive Member |
So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that basic grey squirrels, red squirrels, and flying squirrels are all different created kinds, correct? After all, you've been pretty adamant that one cannot change to another, and that they were all created as is, without change. Actually, they are different kinds, unless you can prove that one changed to the other.
I don't get it. How is it a joke to say that the brain does not begin developing until you're 20? I could say your sense of humor is sleeping, but I won't. Just that he does more than 100 seminars every year, and every room roars with laughter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
You're right, chimpanzees have more chromosomes than humans do. Know why? Because, it seems, a mutation fused one pair long ago in the development of the human genome. These fusions have been observed in other species, too. The creation model can't account for it.
The similarities between the human and chimp genomes only support an evolutionary hypothesis, especially if we include the non-functioning parts of the genome. Like I asked, what would be the sense in creating both species with identical mistakes in the non-coding regions of the genome? The evolution model explains that they both inherited the mutation from a common ancestor. The creation model can't account for it at all. Common designer? Well, why wouldn't all organisms have identical genomes then? They presumably all have the same 'designer,' right? Only the evolutionary model explains that the degree of genetic divergence between two organisms is directly proportional to the time that has elapsed since their last common ancestor lived. The creation model doesn't explain the degree of divergence at all. [This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-02-2004] The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed. Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
quote: So, if they are different kinds (as you say they are) then you would consider evidence of a change that was equally drastic (or moreso) as, say, changing fur color from grey to red to be evidence of change between kinds?
quote: I guarantee you, I'd roll on the ground clutching my sides at a Kent Hovnid lecture. But that doesn't explain how saying that the brain doesn't begin developing until you're 20 is a joke. (As oppose to, say, rank ignorance.) [This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 02-02-2004] "It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity." -Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024