Evolutionary Science is a fairytale

[JohnR7]

Creationism is not a scientific model

It depends on what you mean by "Creationism".
I am a GAP, but I do not have any problem with YEC or OEC.
It just depends on how you explain it or define your model.

All Science is Creation Science, because all Science supports Creationism.
Unless you can show me some Science somewhere that shows Creationism in some way not to be true.

It does not belong in science class rooms.

Science does not belong in the science class room? That is a little bit silly.

Additionally, it is a theistic philosophy

You must mean that evolution is atheistic philosophy.

 

[Morcova]

I did not say I would, I said I could: Evolutions a lie.

Wow, how revisionist.

A smart man would have admitted his mistake and gone on.

 

[Logic_Fault]

I did not say I would, I said I could: Evolutions a lie.

You simply cannot admit you made even the simplest of mistakes, can you? And, technically, that's still four words. "Evolution's" would be a contraction of two separate words. Still, besides that, you used a colon. Generally this would be seen as leading into an example of what you're proposing which is how I, and apparently everyone else, took it so your excuse is invalid anyway.

 

[Morcova]

You simply cannot admit you made even the simplest of mistakes, can you? And, technically, that's still four words. "Evolution's" would be a contraction of two separate words.

It appears he can't. I have five words for you John, "Pride goes before the fall".

 

[Logic_Fault]

In order to do that you would have to keep science out of the school. All the scientific evidence points toward Creationism.

And you've got the mountains of evidence to prove it. Somehow you keep neglecting to show us said evidence when we ask for it. Repeatedly.

 

[Ondoher]

It depends on what you mean by "Creationism".
I am a GAP, but I do not have any problem with YEC or OEC.
It just depends on how you explain it or define your model.

Creationism is the belief that the diversity of life is due to one or more acts of special creation. This belief does not lead to testable deductions, and as such is not scientific.

All Science is Creation Science, because all Science supports Creationism.

No, creation science would be some testable model that had the potential to falsify creationism. As mentioned earlier, you cannot support creationism as it lacks such a model.

Unless you can show me some Science somewhere that shows Creationism in some way not to be true.

As creationism is not testable, it cannot be shown wrong. It is unfalsifiable. It is not science.

Science does not belong in the science class room? That is a little bit silly.

That's not what I said. I said that creationism doesn't belong in the science class room because it isn't science.

You must mean that evolution is atheistic philosophy.

No, I said what I meant.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Creationism is not a scientific model, it produces no testable deductions. As such, there is no way to measure the evidence against it. It does not belong in science class rooms.

If you're not already aware of this, John has his own definition of "science." Apparently anything that studies "creation" is "creation science" and therefor all science is in fact creationism. Or something... it's hard to keep up with all the different creationists on this forum since they all believe something different.

EDIT: Apparently John already clarified this point before I posted.

 

[Tenka]

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, National Center of Scientific Research.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but from Jean Rostand, a much more famous French biologist (he was a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy). The precise quotation is as follows: "Transformism is a fairy tale for adults." (Age Nouveau, [a French periodical] February 1959, p. 12). But Rostand has also written that "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses [questions - ED.] the fact of evolution." (L'Evolution des Especes [i.e., The Evolution of the Species], Hachette, p. 190). Jean Rostand was ... an atheist.

My Ctrl-C Ctrl-V beats your Ctrl-C Ctrl-V

 

[Morcova]

lol

BEHOLD THE POWER OF THE CUT AND PASTE AND FEAR!!!~~

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

Supersport, I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:

There is no single list called "The Scientific Method." It is a myth.


The rules of a science-fair typically require that students follow THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, or in other words, hypothesis-experiment-conclusion. The students must propose a hypothesis and test it by experiment. This supposedly is the "Scientific Method" used by all scientists. Supposedly, if you don't follow the rigidly defined "Scientific Method" listed in K-6 textbooks, then you're not doing science. (Some science fairs even ban astronomy and paleontology projects. After all, where's the "experiment" in these?)

Unfortunately this is wrong, and there is no single "Scientific Method" as such. Scientists don't follow a rigid procedure-list called "The Scientific Method" in their daily work. The procedure-list is a myth spread by K-6 texts. It is an extremely widespread myth, and even some scientists have been taken in by it, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not how science in general is done. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them methods of science rather than "The Scientific Method.") Hypothesis / experiment / conclusion is one of these, and it's very important in experimental science such as physics and chemistry, but it's certainly not the only method. It would be a mistake to elevate it above all others. We shouldn't force children to memorize any such procedure list. And we shouldn't use it to exclude certain types of projects from science fairs! If "The Scientific Method" listed in a grade school textbook proves that Astronomy is not a science, then it's the textbook which is wrong, not Astronomy.

"Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be and he adopts an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn, because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare." - Sir Peter Medawar​

There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science, and Paleontologists don't perform Paleontology experiments... so is it not proper Science if you study stars or classify extinct creatures?


Or, if a scientist has a good idea for designing a brand new kind of measurement instrument (e.g. Newton and the reflecting telescope) ...that certainly is "doing science." Humphrey Davy says "Nothing tends so much to the advancement of knowledge as the application of a new instrument." But where is The Hypothesis? Where is The Experiment? The Atomic Force Microscope (STM/AFM) revolutionized science. Yet if a student invented the very first reflector telescope or the very first AFM, wouldn't such a device be rejected from many school science fairs? After all, it's not an experiment, and the lists called "Scientific Method" say nothing about exploratory observation. Some science teachers would reject the STM as science; calling it 'mere engineering,' yet like the Newtonian reflector, the tunneling microscope is a revolution that opened up an entire new branch of science. Since it's instrument-inventing, not hypothesis-testing, should we exclude it as science? Were the creators of the STM not doing science when they came up with that device? In defining Science, the Nobel prize committee disagrees with the science teachers and science fair judges. The researchers who created the STM won the 1986 Nobel prize in physics. I'd say that if someone wins a Nobel prize in physics, it's a good bet that their work qualifies as "science."

Forcing kids to follow a caricature of scientific research distorts science, and it really isn't necessary in the first place.

Another example: great discoveries often come about when scientists notice anomalies. They see something inexplicable during older research, and that triggers some new research. Or sometimes they notice something weird out in Nature; something not covered by modern theory. Isaac Asimov said it well:

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...' "​

This suggests that lots of important science comes NOT from proposing hypotheses or even from performing experiments, but instead comes from unguided observation and curiosity-driven exploration: from sniffing about while learning to see what nobody else can see. Scientific discovery comes from something resembling "informed messing around," or unguided play. Yet the "Scientific Method" listed in textbooks says nothing about this, their lists start out with "form a hypothesis." As a result, educators treat science as deadly serious business, and "messing around" is sometimes dealt with harshly.

What's amusing [tragic, actually] is to see the "refutations" to this.

 

[Logic_Fault]

What's amusing [tragic, actually] is to see the "refutations" to this.

What is it you're expecting to be refuted? You didn't expect that there's actually a checklist titled Scientific Method that every scientist is handed upon graduation, did you?

What's the point you're attempting to make?

 

[[serious]]

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spirtual.
Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads.

according to science, what seperates humans from other creatures is the species barrier. This is the same thing that seperates any species. One can argue that God casts special favor on our species, but one cannot argue that we are not a seperate species.

Life is something that controls and manipulates the matter it occupies.

Life must be able to:
1. maintain homeostasis
2. aquire energy
3. respond to stimuli
4. reproduce
5. be made up of cells (the only one I would argue with)

This is the scientific definition of life.

Thus, those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material -- it's metaphysical, which by defintion is in conflict with science.

metaphysical isn't in conflict with science, it occupies a seperate sphere. But anyway, what is metaphysical about bacteria?

Science is the study of the material world.

Dead on here. This is why creationism is not science.

So when evolutionists scoff at Creationists for not putting forth a scientific theory for life, I believe they are asking us to play a game, which includes defining life according to a flawed premise.

The reason they ask for a scientific explaination is because some creationists insist on calling creationism science.

But what's truly laughable about all this is that the "science" evolutionists put forth is not science at all. Like I said, "science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys." What they're attempting to sell the unsuspecting public is not to be found in nature -- it's found in their books.

Evolution describes the physical world. We have a variety of life that can be fitted onto a phylogenic tree down to the level of single celled organisms. It is falsifiable (there are a great deal of possible life forms that would be impossible under the theory of common decent) and testable (we have shown specization in the lab and have observed it in nature.)

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Thus there must, be thousands and thousands of common ancestors that link each creature to the next. For example, lions and tigers must have a common ancestor....man and ape must have a common ancestor...squirrels and skunks must have a common ancestor...bats and whales must have a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found -- or will ever be found -- but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science -- this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

But they have. But lets set that aside for a moment. We can all agree that humans must have a common ancestor, right? scientists believe this because of common decent, creationists because everyone must be related to Adam at a minimum. Now, we can also agree that you and I share a common ancestor at some point. Likely, a considerably more recent one than Adam. Neither one of us knows exactly who this common ancestor is or where they lived. If we are both white, we may be able to say that we should both have come from someone traveling north out of africa to europe. If we both get DNA tests done, we may be able to further refine our guess at our most recent common ancestor based on what genes we share. Under the logic you put forward, not being able to point to a single set of remains would discount all the other evidence that we share an ancestor. Science has a great wealth of evidence that a phylogenic tree exists. Genetics and the fossil record are two examples.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation. I honestly believe this is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole theory. The notion that a once-in-a-multi-million chance mutation can be beneficial and spread throughout a population via sexual reproduction is truly outrageous -- especially when you consider that populations are often separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and mutations are 99% destructive and/or deadly. Not only that, but a grand total of only 4,000 hominid bones have been dug up...(this includes humans, australopithecus, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc) Thus, there simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never -- and will never -- be witnessed.

You have a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't just sit around and wait for trouble to pop up before mutations start occuring. Mutations occur frequently and those that aren't fatal get passed on. Each generation has many such mutations and provide a variety into the collective genome. When a selection event occurs, it is primarily all of those variations that have been introducted that are selected for or against. Some example of common mutations that have been directly observed and have an effect in humans
1. repetitions and deletions of globin genes
2. repetitions and deletions of RNA coding regions
3. transposons entering and deactivating repeated genes such as globin genes and RNA coding genes (or other genes not crucial for survival such as skin or hair pigments)

There are others if you want more examples.

And the fairytale continues. THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory -- not any actual evidence.

Again, it's been observed both in the laboratory and in nature.

1. bacterial resistance
2. Finch beak size
3. moth wing color

Again, there are others if you want more examples.

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Professor Louis Bounoure, National Center of Scientific Research.

Would you mind providing a more specific citation of that quote. My preliminary research indicates the quote may be a fabrication.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

 

[Logic_Fault]

Would you mind providing a more specific citation of that quote. My preliminary research indicates the quote may be a fabrication.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

That's too bad. If that's the case then sport has moved beyond quote mining and into pure fabrication of quotes.

 

[Vimes177]

Is it just me...or does it seem like it's this little ritual of Supersport's to come here every 2 weeks or so, post a long non-sensical post, and then leave, never to comment on that post again, until he comes back 2 weeks later and creates a new thread?

I've got an idea; let's just not comment on his threads anymore. He'll think he won, and he'll leave, and we can have some peace and quiet.

On an unrelated side note, John seems to have gotten better at not posting random made-up statistics. My quote listing lies stagnant...

 

[[serious]]

That's too bad. If that's the case then sport has moved beyond quote mining and into pure fabrication of quotes.

No, don't blame him for the fabrication. He mearly didn't check out the quote someone else fabricated and didn't know it was bunk.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want short, read my posts. I can sum it all up in three words: Evolution is a lie

Uh... that's four words, John.

"Evolution" is not a word.

 

[Vimes177]

"Evolution" is not a word.

Neither is "Creationism."

 

[AV1611VET]

No, no, see the Bible talks about the Trinity so therefore all numbers are actually three.

The ungodly math of the atheists is from hell . Math is a lie. Only Creation Math is valid math

You like Bible math, Odwin --- here's some for ya:

• [bible]John 10:30[/bible]
• [bible]1 John 5:7[/bible]
• [bible]Leviticus 26:8[/bible]
• [bible]Matthew 16:9-10[/bible]

 

[Logic_Fault]

No, don't blame him for the fabrication. He mearly didn't check out the quote someone else fabricated and didn't know it was bunk.

My apologies to sport then.

 

[supersport]

Is it just me...or does it seem like it's this little ritual of Supersport's to come here every 2 weeks or so, post a long non-sensical post, and then leave, never to comment on that post again, until he comes back 2 weeks later and creates a new thread?

I've got an idea; let's just not comment on his threads anymore. He'll think he won, and he'll leave, and we can have some peace and quiet.

On an unrelated side note, John seems to have gotten better at not posting random made-up statistics. My quote listing lies stagnant...

eh...that's a pretty good observation -- but it's little more often than once every couple weeks...I try to pop in here once a week or so. There's only so much I can handle of this group of evoltuionists. They make me nervous....kind of like when you walk down a dark alley in the middle of the night.