Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 1:52 AM
36 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 34 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 3977 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 1 of 301 (433576)
11-12-2007 3:47 PM


By suggestion, I'll post this discussion about the evidence that supports creation.

1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction. Evolution claims that our ancestors were all once-celled creatures. These reproduced by asexual reproduction. So, somewhere, it had to switch from asexual to bisexual. Two things are possible: a) this did happen within one generation (highly unlikely, due to the usual slow evolution usually taught), or b) both sides of the bisexual reproducing organisms were created at the same time.

2) Galaxies. The centripetal force of the spinning galaxies would rip them apart within 10,000 years. Although astronomers have given galaxies the mysterious 'Dark Matter' to account for their lack of gravity, nobody's ever seen this substance. It seems that if 70% of the universe were dark matter, we'd have found some of it by now. Logically, if 70% of our universe were dark matter, there should be some in our solar system. We'd have detected it, it seems, by now.

3) Snakes and humans. If evolution were correct, then reptiles would be genetically closer to other reptiles than, say, birds. However, when tested, snakes turned out to be closer to humans than any other. So did snakes evolve from some mammal? Or was everything created at the same time with roughly the same code.

4) (This is my idea) Life. Simply put, the basis of life is amino acids. However, that's the basis for CARBON-BASED life forms. If life was a random even, who said that it had to be carbon-based. The only life we know is carbon-based, so we think that that's the only thing that can be alive. However, if life was random, it might be centered around some other element, like iron, or oxygen, or radon, or lead, or something. It would seem that life could appear anywhere, in any atmosphere, with any gravity, with any heat. We haven't found anything but carbon-based life, though. It would also seem that there would be some other life on earth not based on carbon, but there isn't. So, either only carbon-based life was created on earth, or earth could only support carbon-based life or carbon-based life prevailed.

Please expand on these, or argue with them.

---Aquilegia753


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 4:04 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 4 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 4:09 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 6 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-12-2007 4:14 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 11 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 4:28 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 13 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 4:33 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 17 by Lithodid-Man, posted 11-12-2007 4:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 19 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 5:00 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded
 Message 22 by aviator79, posted 11-12-2007 5:48 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
 Message 61 by Doddy, posted 11-12-2007 8:24 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 301 (433581)
11-12-2007 3:53 PM


Here is your soapbox
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Here is your soapbox. Please remember to read and follow the Forum Guidelines and have fun! :)

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.



What Is A Discussion Board Anyway?

  • New Topics should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Keep them short and don't attempt to explain your entire point in the first post. Allow others to respond so that you can expand your discussion.
  • If you are warned by an administrator or moderator for any reason that is not explained in the Forum Guidelines you can argue your case here.
  • If you are not promoted, feel free to discuss your reasons with the administrator in the Proposed New Topics Forum who responded to your topic proposal. Feel free to edit and modify your topic and inform the administrator that you have done so.
    You may also take your argument here and get feedback from other administrators.
    Usually, we leave topic promotion to the first administrator that responds, unless that administrator invites others to comment.

    ************************************
    "DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU"
    AdminPhat


  •   
    Dr Jack
    Member (Idle past 181 days)
    Posts: 3507
    From: Leicester, England
    Joined: 07-14-2003


    Message 3 of 301 (433588)
    11-12-2007 4:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 3:47 PM


    Not one of your four points is "evidence that supports creationism"; they're all (incorrect) points that refute evolution. So, let me ask you a simple question: where is the evidence that supports creationism? Why do you have no positive evidence in support of a recent creation for the earth? For the story of Noah's ark? For the tower of babel?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:11 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded
     Message 7 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:16 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004


    Message 4 of 301 (433592)
    11-12-2007 4:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 3:47 PM


    You need to understand what you are supposed to be doing.
    Before you go too much further, I think you need to review How can "Creationism" be supported?. So far what you have presented (all any Creationist has ever been able to present) has nothing to do with supporting Creationism.

    I would love to see someone present a model that supported Creationism, but unfortunately, no one has ever been able to do so.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 5 of 301 (433593)
    11-12-2007 4:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
    11-12-2007 4:04 PM


    How about the Mid-Atlantic Trench? How every shoreline of the Atlantic is parallel to it and eachother? How about how every shoreline is the same, a gentle slope, then a steep drop, then the ocean floor? All these can be explained by a huge flood (see my explination on Message 229 on 'Was There a World-wide Flood').

    Sorry about my temper. I thank you all for replying.

    Edited by Aquilegia753, : I don't want to sound mean


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 4:04 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 8 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-12-2007 4:17 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    EighteenDelta
    Inactive Member


    Message 6 of 301 (433595)
    11-12-2007 4:14 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 3:47 PM


    Your first bullet is a glaring false dichotomy. You present two options when there are innumerable other possible options. The most likely is that the first sexual reproduction was probably monoecious like many plants, or hermaphroditic animals, able to reproduces alone or with exchanging genetic materials, having both male and female reproductive organs. The common earthworm is a great example.


    "Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
    -Stephen Jay Gould
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:17 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 7 of 301 (433596)
    11-12-2007 4:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by Dr Jack
    11-12-2007 4:04 PM


    In one of the earliest written stories, The Gilgamesh Epic, there is a reference to somebody who survived a great flood by building a giant boat and saving not only himself and his family, but also every living thing. This was written close enough for Noah, or one of his sons (or grandsons), to still be alive.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 4:04 PM Dr Jack has not yet responded

    EighteenDelta
    Inactive Member


    Message 8 of 301 (433597)
    11-12-2007 4:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 4:11 PM


    You can't even stay on topic in your own thread.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:11 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:19 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 9 of 301 (433598)
    11-12-2007 4:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 6 by EighteenDelta
    11-12-2007 4:14 PM


    True

    Edited by Aquilegia753, : Spelling error


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 6 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-12-2007 4:14 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 10 of 301 (433599)
    11-12-2007 4:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by EighteenDelta
    11-12-2007 4:17 PM


    The Flood is evidence to support that the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, the creationism is true.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by EighteenDelta, posted 11-12-2007 4:17 PM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 3309
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 4.6


    Message 11 of 301 (433602)
    11-12-2007 4:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 3:47 PM


    3) Snakes and humans. If evolution were correct, then reptiles would be genetically closer to other reptiles than, say, birds. However, when tested, snakes turned out to be closer to humans than any other. So did snakes evolve from some mammal? Or was everything created at the same time with roughly the same code.

    Oh, I love this one, because it was the first creationist claim that was clearly an act of deliberate deception. Not that you are the one trying to deceive us deliberately, since you have yourself been deceived.

    May I ask where you had gotten this claim from? I mean, who's still using it? It originated with Walter Brown who based it ostensibly on his son's science fair project. At present, it's hidden away in a footnote of Brown's on-line book and, when I had last checked a few years ago, I believe that the link to that footnote was broken.

    In my page on Duane Gish's infamous "bullfrog protein" claim, I covered this rattlesnake protein claim by Brown -- here's the link to that: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/bullfrog.html#RATTLESNAKE. Quoting from my web page:

    quote:
    Brown claimed that on the basis of data from a 1978 study by Margaret Dayhoff, comparisons of cytochrome c show that the rattlesnake is more closely related to humans that to any other organism {my emphasis added; please note the wording precisely}. When Kenney asked Brown to provide the name of the scientific journal and the page number in which Dayhoff had reached this conclusion, Brown stated that he couldn't. Dayhoff had never reached such a conclusion, but rather Brown's son had used Dayhoff's data to reach that conclusion for a science fair project. It was Brown's son who had concluded that rattlesnakes are more closely related to humans by cytochrome c than to any other organism.

    For fifteen dollars, Brown sent Kenney photocopies of his son's project (apparently, Brown's price depends on who you are -- he had demanded $70 to a previous requestor). Kenney wrote:

    quote:
    "In the project I quickly found that the rattlesnake and humans differed by only fourteen amino acids. Humans and rhesus monkeys differed by one amino acid. Later, Brown called me again and then explained that of the forty-seven organisms in the study, the one closest to the RATTLESNAKE was the human, not that the one closest to the human was the rattlesnake. You see, among the forty-seven there were no other snakes."
    (Creation/Evolution Newsletter Vol.4 No.5 Sep/Oct 84, pg 16)

    Most of the other organisms in the study were as distantly related to the rattlesnake as were humans; it is coincidence that human cytochrome c was just barely less different than the others. Obviously, this is just semantic sleight-of-hand which can serve no other purpose than to mislead and it is so blatant that Brown had to know what he was doing.

    Later after a debate, Kenney found Brown telling a small group about rattlesnakes being more closely related to humans than to any other organism. When Kenney started explaining to the group how misleading that was, Brown quickly changed the subject.


    Look at the date of that article, Aquilegia753. We've known for over two decades that that claim you just repeated is not only absolutely false, but also that it is a deliberate deception. So why is it still in circulation? Why are you repeating it here? What, don't your sources believe in telling you the truth?

    OBTW, Dayhoff's study had not included chimpanzees, but when we compare chimpanzee cytochrome c to human cytochrome c, we find that they are identical. Zero differences. Compared to 14 differences between human and rattlesnake cytochrome c. Would you like to make any comment on this?

    Please, do tell us where you had gotten that claim from. If it's a web site, then may I suggest a little experiment? Write to the webmaster of that site and inform them that their claim is false and explain to them why it's false. Share with us here what you write to them. Then share with us what their response is. You should find the results of that experiment very enlightening.

    As a preview, read this article, "A FAILED ATTEMPT TO DIALOG WITH
    "YOUNG EARTH" CREATION SCIENTISTS", at http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_dialog.htm. There's a perennial creationist claim, also apparently originating with Walter Brown around 1979, which through a completely misunderstanding of what a leap second is came up with a grossly inflated rate at which the earth's spin has been decreasing over time, such that they claim that millions of years ago the earth would have been spinning impossibly fast. Even though it was soundly refuted in the early 1980's, creationists continue to use it, including Kent Hovind. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, whose page I just pointed you to, found 15 web sites that repeated this long-refuted claim and conducted the exercise I just suggested to you. They contacted the webmasters of each of those sites and informed them of the falsehood of that claim. They got a few responses, but none of the web sites made any correction. Obviously, creationists care nothing for the truth.

    Do let us know what your results are.

    Edited by dwise1, : Added the OBTW about chimpanzee cytochrome c


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:32 PM dwise1 has responded

      
    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 12 of 301 (433604)
    11-12-2007 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 11 by dwise1
    11-12-2007 4:28 PM


    I got that claim from the book In the Beginning (which I will get more information about over Thanksgiving). Sorry, I had no idea. It's probably an old book, too.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 4:28 PM dwise1 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 4:42 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    RAZD
    Member
    Posts: 19756
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004
    Member Rating: 5.5


    Message 13 of 301 (433605)
    11-12-2007 4:33 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 3:47 PM


    1) Asexual/Bisexual reproduction.

    See EighteenDelta, Message 6

    2) Galaxies. The centripetal force of the spinning galaxies would rip them apart within 10,000 years.

    Scientific answer - "we don't know yet"
    Creationist answer - Gosh, they don't know so it must be GOD!!! (and not just any god but our very own personal version ...)

    This is known as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

    3) Snakes and humans.

    False. Now you can prove me wrong by actually providing evidence and substantiating your claim.

    4) (This is my idea) Life. Simply put, the basis of life is amino acids.

    This is a typical post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

    None of this is evidence for any special creation one way or the other.

    Message 5
    How about the Mid-Atlantic Trench?

    Proves plate tectonics.

    Message 10
    The Flood is evidence to support that the Bible is true, and if the Bible is true, the creationism is true.

    There is no evidence of a world wide flood.

    Enjoy.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 3:47 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:40 PM RAZD has responded

    Aquilegia753
    Member (Idle past 3977 days)
    Posts: 113
    Joined: 11-08-2007


    Message 14 of 301 (433610)
    11-12-2007 4:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by RAZD
    11-12-2007 4:33 PM


    I never said that 'It must be God,'. I think, however, that because galaxies are intact, the universe must be younger than 10,000 years.

    I understand the snake thing.

    However, the plate tectonics. At the pressure that the earth is under at the depth of molten rock, it seems that all of the cracks would seal themselves up. So, although plate tectonics might be true, it seems that they could not cause volcanoes, like we think they do. There would be no way, under that pressure, that molten rock would escape. And even if it could, it seems like volcanoes wouldn't stop erupting, but erupt with much more force, the force of molten rock under 50 miles of earth.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 4:33 PM RAZD has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 4:54 PM Aquilegia753 has responded
     Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 5:06 PM Aquilegia753 has not yet responded

    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 3309
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 4.6


    Message 15 of 301 (433614)
    11-12-2007 4:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Aquilegia753
    11-12-2007 4:32 PM


    I got that claim from the book In the Beginning (which I will get more information about over Thanksgiving). Sorry, I had no idea. It's probably an old book, too.

    The one by -- gee, who would have guessed? -- Walter Brown? amazon.com says April 2001, but then it's the 7th edition. Now, if he were honest and since he does know for a fact that that rattlesnake claim is a deliberate deception, he should have editted it out of this latest edition -- I assume that you have the 7th edition. But he didn't.

    Tell me, does he also include the claim about the earth's rotation slowing down? I couldn't find it in his on-line book, so that at least had led me to consider him smarter than Hovind since he realized that he should drop that particular coproform.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:32 PM Aquilegia753 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 4:48 PM dwise1 has responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    21NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019