Evolution is Not Science

JM: You missed my point entirely. Since you claim to be alive and a real person, then you are a living breathing example of evolution.Au Contraire (sp?) Since he claims to be alive and a real person, he is a child of God and His Creation. "A change in genetic material through time is all evolution is."Whoops! I've been an evolutionist all along!"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth."What I want you to do is to define this barrier scientifically. Define this barrier scientifically. Give us a way to test this."I believe that creationists have been pointing to hybridization as a classification."If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."Sorry for stepping in Penguin.

KP,You say that evolution fails to provide a begining for itself. Thats fair enough. How does creationism provide for its begining? What evidence could someone,who has never read a Bible and never even heard of God,use to determine that the world was made by God in 6 literal days? How can someone aquire this knowledge by observing the world we live in? Because science is about observation you know. We should be able to observe that the world is a young created world and the result of an all powerfull God. We should all immediatly jump to that conclusion from simply looking at the world just as we conclude that ice is cold by touching it. Do you see people who touch ice and conclude that its not cold to the touch? Well if that belief you hold about the world is so true,why is it not the self evident belief of everyone on the planet

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

"If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind. If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole family might have come from the one created kind. If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole order may have derived from the original created kind.

​

On the other hand, if two species will not hybridize, it does not necessarily prove that they are not originally from the same kind."

---

JM: ROTFL!! Is this explanation real or are you joking? You're just yanking my chain aren't you? Do creationists have a real explanation for the barrier to genetic evolution or not? If you are serious, please re-read the explanation and try to figure out why, in explaining every possible scenario, it explains nothing. For example, according to this explanation an ant and an elephant may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind. Similarly a bacteria and a human may, or may not be, descended from the same original created kind!! Isn't this what creationists have been dissing evolution about for a long time and now they reach the same conclusion???????? Too funny, I know it's a joke.CheersJoe Meert

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
If anyone needs to get serious here, it is you. Your polemic sermons of a wonderful fossil record that simply does not exist other than in your own mind, and your inordinate desire for someone to rebutt your nonsensical posts is cause for questionable concern.

---

Where is my sermon on the fossil record?

quote:

---

Either post something with some real substance or accept that you are hereby considered as irrelevant and incoherent as your previous posts have been.

---

I did post something of substance. You ignored it. Why should I post more? That would be a silly waste of time. I am still waiting for your response. Until then I will assume that you cannot answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
ahh the straw men are coming to kill us. plz actually refute his statement and argue it rather than claiming to be totally off the ground.

​

---

KP,Fortunately for us evos, straw men do not make good soldiers. If they did creation "science" would already have taken the world by storm.Jet posted a set of "myths" which actually misrepresent the arguments they claim to refute. In so doing they refute nothing. Having shown no less than four straw men in Jets "myths", my point is made & no further effort is required on my part, the ball is in his/her court (now yours). If you think they're NOT straw men, bring it on.I made two other points regarding transitionals & radiometric dating, both invited a response.1/ Perhaps you would be so kind to explain what you would accept as a transitional that wasn't in post 36. That is to say, if I brought a fossil sequence to you & said these are transitionals, what criteria would you apply that would potentially make you say, "Oh yeah, that's a transitional sequence"?2/ Also, can you explain why four different radiometric methods show such close correlation? If you are going to deny the age they give, can you then explain how these four methods are all one million percent in error? That's a massive error to BEGIN with, let alone having four DIFFERENT methods, each with different potential sources of error to be so close in the ages given.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:

​

So far, this hasn't been done, despite numerous requests.
--yes and evolution has failed to provide a beginning for itself.

​

---

Evolution works on extant life. Evolution would begin EXACTLY one generation after either abiogenesis or creation.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."

​

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth.

​

---

It is creationists that make the difference between micro & macro evolution, & that macro evolution cannot occur. Since the mechanisms are the same it is for them to show why there is this barrier, not for evolutionists, who never claimed it existed in the first place do prove it doesn't. What is being asked is separate to evolutionary evidence FOR macro evolution (see nearly any molecular/genetically derived phylogeny). I repeat, creationists have intimated that a barrier exists between micro & macro evolution, creationists need to show the barrier they claim to exist actually does. This is independent of pro macro evolutionary evidence.Mark(Sorry for labouring the point)------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

"Now, there is no point in you denying this fact, what you will now do is to invent some hypothetical barrier through which evolution cannot cross."

​

Actually, it is perfectly reasonable to create a hypothetical barrier. YOU are the one required to show that evolution can accomplish what we see here on Earth.

---

CS- this was done a very long time ago. Dating methods have proved that the less advanced a fossilized creature is, the older it is.The fossil strata reinforces evolutionist theories with its distinctive "primitive to advanced" pattern, which, throught the eyes of the scientific community, is overwhelming proof of genetic evolution over vast and, quite frankly, incomprehensible periods of time.You and your fellows in the creationist camp are trying to disprove these theories, and shed doubt on its assertions and evidences. It is your responsibility to demonstrate that macro-evolution is impossible and thus did not occurr. The scientific community is already confident of its findings, and will only listen if you come up with something of interest.such preposterous claims as "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics", or that mutations are too rare to have created species over time, are rebuked, and in some cases, chuckled at in the scientific community. Why do they fail to take you seriously? Because your claims are ridiculous. Top of the line archaeologists, high calibre geologists, and experienced cosmologists know their fields like the backs of their hands, and possess a vast knowledge of science. When they are approached by occasionally naive religious-fundamentalists, dragging with them incredible and surprisingly bold claims, they know instantly the flaws and the pitfalls. They see the problems and the contradictions.Creationists rarely engage the scientific community with tough questions, and when scientists bother to rebuttle, creationists are silent. Such questions as "why does the fossil strata look the way it does", or why starlight appears to be so young, or how humans were capable of living for centuries, or why C14 dating dates more primitive fossils as older, or how non-modern animals were not fossilized, are generally ignored, or responded to with arrogant and clearly inexperienced answers.Its up to you to get the scientist's attention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
That site is typical- give the worst arguments ever used for Creation. Pretend that Creationists have never encountered these "explanations" before. (For example, the "bad design" argument is extremely weak)

---

Well that's just super- but tell me how it is weak...The human body, and life in general, is not perfectly designed. There are many flaws in genetic "design". What is so interesting is that the older a fossil (older meaning based on dating methods that are millions of times inaccurate, but for some mystery date the fossils of more primitive animals older) and the fossilized animal, the more problems we begin to see. In other situations, we see animals slowly adapting to their local climates and conditions.And here is another issue that I should bring up- scientists have discovered the fossils of many "polar dinosaurs". According to creationists, continental drift occurred primarily during the flood. If this were true, then we would see no fossils of "modern" animals (all animals existed in at the same time pre-flood) that existed post-flood fossilized in Antarctica.So what exactly does this mean? Well, it means that we should see a sudden extinction of creatures existing in tropical Antarctica (the Antarctica before the continental split, which, according to the creationists, occurred in a year's time.) But we don't- we see dinosaurs on the continent very gradually adapt to conditions in the region, which would be becoming progressively cooler. This adaptation, or evolution, would have occurred over the very long period of time that it would be required for the Antarctic continent to drift beyond a point at which life would be incapable of surviving.Creationism would not allow this adaptation. There only argument for rapid continental drifting is the world flood. Before the flood, the continents would have been drifting at their current rate, which would certainly not produce such miraculous drift rates. Thus, dinosaurs inhabiting the Antarctica would not be required to adapt to cooler conditions, as the continents would be drifting at an extremely slow rate, which could only force evolution over millions of years. When the flood occurred, there would be a mass extinction.Creationists must inescapably accept that all Antarctic creatures existed at the same time pre-flood, despite the inadvertent assertion that creatures adapted for very cold condtions would be living on a sub-tropic Antarctica. (Antarctica was much further north and was thus much warmer when it was a part of the pangaea.)I really have no idea how a creationist could explain this, but in anticipation of another episode of "Reference Wars", I will provide unbiased and highly credible sources.And just the fact that there is coal in Antarctica alongside polar dinosaurs (higher in the strata, indicating a gradual drift south) would raise some eyebrows.Basically, how could polar dinosaurs, clearly adapted for harsh and cold conditions, be found on the a continent that possesses coal, which requires very warm, moist conditions to form... If the creationist model is correct, then we could expect to find only coal and no dinosaurs, considering that Anarctica was sub-tropic right or temperate right up to the Great Flood, where it drifted, or rather, sped, to its current desolate and unihabitable position, leaving no time for the appearance of polar dinosaurs.Could the fact that dinosaurs are found to be younger than coal in Antarctica indicate a very slow and gradual drift south, and a very slow change in climate, allowing for the adaptation of polar dinosaurs? Or am I just a dumb evolutionist drone?References: http://www.oceansofkansas.com/antartic.htmlhttp://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica.shtml---coal---
do I really need a reference for the existence of coal in Anarctica- but just in case. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1137.aspIronic- this one is creationist and discussed coal in antarctica.Any criticisms of these references are welcome. My assertion above is based on my own analysis of the facts. I am yet to find a site that brings up this issue in regard to the YEC-Evo debate. My assertion is very possibly flawed.I think I will make a thread involving this.

​

[This message has been edited by quicksink, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
Not at all. The fact that we can't observe long-term evolution doesn't mean that we can't falsify it.
--absolutely correct

​

If the earth is very young, that would go a long way toward falsifying it, because evolution requires a long time scale.
--not necessarily evolution would just have had less of an impact on life or it occurs much more frequently.

​

And if the fossil record contradicted the predictions made by evolutionary theory, that would also be a falsification.
--fossil records only show that an animal died not that its structure was altered. it only shows stages not links between them.

​

---

As to the first point, thanks for acknowledging that evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and therefore valid science.As for the age of the earth, the point is that the evidence shows that evolution hasn't had less of an impact, and that it hasn't occurred more frequently. And has it occurred to you that it's contradictory to claim that evolution is stronger than "evolutionists" claim, but has has less impact?And while it's true that the fossil record only tells us that animals have died, the fact that the ones that died a long time ago are very different from the ones that died more recently is highly suggestive of an evolutionary scenario. Further down in this thread you acknowledge this, but claim there's no "proof." But science isn't about proof, it's about developing the best explanation possible for the available evidence. And at this point, evolution is it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jet:
If that is the limit of your criticisms to what was posted, I am surprised that you would remain as a proponent of evolutionary thought.

---

Yes, we feeble-brained evolutionists can only keep fifteen criticisms going in one thread, stupid and dull-witted as we are.Of course, all you do, hyper-brilliant Creationist that you are, is post thirty-five criticisms and somehow can't manage to respond substantively at all to the fifteen criticisms the mentally-deficient, bumbling evolutionists somehow manage to raise.What a piece of work you are, Jet.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: This gets tiring. Let's suppose that all the quotes and links you provide are true and are not taken out of context (as they mostly are), why would science cling to such an absurd explanation? How do you think science (or scientists) approach a problem? Why does biology cling to such a flawed notion (according to you)? Let's further suppose that evolution is completely wrong. Do you think that that would then 'prove' special creation? If you can, provide a reasoned argument without stealing out of context quotes from other websites. I get real tired of people misusing and misrepresenting the views of others in order to make a point. Do you have any of your own arguments? Arguments that you've researched and can provide us with data? Data is convincing, out-of-context quotes from webpages much less convincing. So, where's the beef?

​

Cheers

​

Joe Meert

---

I find it wonderfully ironic that you should be asking Jet to do this.At the Yahoo club, Jet required all of us to have done actual, hands-on research on a subject before he would consider us qualified to comment upon it.He says he does such research, but can't give us any details because he is doing super-secret science that nobody is ever allowed to see.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i agree with everything Jet is saying and thats what ive been trying to explain to all of you evolutionists and nonbelievers.

---

The only problem is Jet hasn't actually said much of anything that has any basis in reality, and when challenged to support his assertions with evidence, he refuses.If you want to ally yourself with somebody like that for the sole reason that you agree with him, that's just too bad.I will say that this is another reason why Creation 'science' isn't science. They allow any crackpot ideas as long as they toe the scriptural line.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
[b]If creation 'science' is scientific, please provide testable hypothese, positive evidence, and potential falsifications.

​

So far, this hasn't been done, despite numerous requests.
--yes and evolution has failed to provide a beginning for itself.[/QUOTE]

​

Um, evolution began when the first life appeared. Besides, the ToE deals with what happens to life. How life began, or when it began is not a part of the theory.

​

quote:

---

If it's real science, then it should be easy to find lots of this sort of thing on the major Creationist websites such as AiG and ICR.
--maybe they dont feel like putting up weak theories and wait until they can get a good amount of evidence.

---

​

Then they have been waiting for "a good amount of evidence" for around forty years.

​

quote:

---

Science never makes a claim to absolute truth.
--it does offer a very good explanation but even that explanation is weak at best.

---

​

Exactly how is it weak? Please be very specific.

​

[QUOTE]Creation 'science' is based upon the Bible, and spends much of it's time attempting to refute another theory instead of developing it's own.
--that is a function of science. we are in search of the truth after all.
[/b]

---

Huh? I don't quite understand your response.If Creationists want to put forth science, as they claim they do, then they should be developing their own theories, not spending all of their time trying to discredit others.You see, even if Creationists managed to refute all of Biology, Geology, Cosmology, etc., this in no way would do a single bit to support the veracity creation stories in the Bible. To do that, they need positive evidence.There ain't none that I've seen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
The point that I was trying to make on this is that evolutionists are positive that they can totally smear Creationists when it comes to evidence. So why do they also resort to ad hominem and also claim that Creation science deserves quotations around the "science"? I can write "evolution" all I want, but it doesn't really prove a point.

​

Many of you insult Jet for his arrogant and insulting nature, but I find that almost every evolutionist on this board has been extremely arrogant and extremely insulting on many occasions (although, I will admit, the evolutionists do generally have a bit more substance in their posts).

---

The short answer to your question is we resort to such behavior sometimes because we are human and we make mistakes and we become frustrated.The reason I put quotes around the word "science" when used in the phrase 'Creation "science"' is because Creation "science" is science in name only, not in practice or product, and it is important to always make this distinction. Creationists have given themselves this description, even though they do not follow any of the tenets or methods of real scientific inquiry.If you like, I could stop putting quotes around the word and say "so-called" Creation science, instead.Somehow, I don't think you would like that any better.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"