ICR Acts and Facts

pitabread said:

Just as an aside, I find it incredibly odd how creationists will appeal to scientific authority when they think they have a quote from a scientist refuting the validity of evolution. Yet at the same time completely ignoring the multitude of authorities that staunchly affirm the science of evolution.

For example, here is a quote from Dr. Francis Collins about evolution:

As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. (emphasis added) 'God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures'​

Given that Dr. Collins was former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, he probably knows a little bit too.

Click to expand...

good for collins. the evidence shows otherwise.

nolidad said:

I was simply agreeing with either ophiolite or brightmoon who said many ancillary discoveries have been made due to researching evolution.

Click to expand...

such as?

xianghua said:

such as?

Click to expand...

Perhaps one of the more interesting, though comparatively unimportant, ancillary discoveries to emerge from evolution research was this: despite mountains of evidence for evolution a small, but often vocal majority, deny the conclusion and deny the evidence itself. One wonders if this inspired David Dunning and Justin Kruger to conduct their research in cognitive bias.

xianghua said:

good for collins. the evidence shows otherwise.

Click to expand...

Dr. Collins knows a lot more about biology than you. So you'll forgive me if I take his word over yours.

pitabread said:

The evidence shows exactly what Collins states it shows: e.g. overwhelming evidence for common ancestry.

Click to expand...

i dont think so but you are welcome to believe it.

xianghua said:

i dont think so but you are welcome to believe it.

Click to expand...

As I said in my edited post, Dr. Collins knows a lot more about biology than you've demonstrated. So I'll take his word over yours.

pitabread said:

As I said in my edited post, Dr. Collins knows a lot more about biology than you've demonstrated. So I'll take his word over yours.

Click to expand...

so your claim is base on the argument from authority:


Argument from authority - Wikipedia

xianghua said:

so your claim is base on the argument from authority:


Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

No, my claim is actually based on my understanding of the topic. I've done coursework and plenty of reading on the subject to understand why common descent is a valid scientific conclusion. And why the only people taking exception to it happen to do so because of religion and not science.

My earlier citation of Dr. Collins was simply to make a point that creationists are inconsistent about their appeal to scientific authorities.

If I did have to choose between your opinion and Dr. Collin's views on evolution, I would take his though. He has a demonstrable track record and expertise in the field. Whereas you do not.

xianghua said:

so your claim is base on the argument from authority:


Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

No, but you are textbook Dunning Kruger.

nolidad said:

Is he the final arbiter appointed by the world of evolutionism of what does or does not make sense in biology?

Click to expand...

No, there are no final arbiters in science. I am not asking you to accept Dobzhansky's word uncritically; I am asking you to examine the facts that he presented and to consider what the theory is that provides the best explanation of these facts.

Astrophile said:

No, there are no final arbiters in science. I am not asking you to accept Dobzhansky's word uncritically; I am asking you to examine the facts that he presented and to consider what the theory is that provides the best explanation of these facts.

Click to expand...

Is Hid different from the college textbooks I have read from the 90's?
Is his different that Dawkins and Coynes and Millers and legions of others who have made videos and done online teaching?

If evolution was a necessity for biology , physiology,genetics and molecular biology- then all the YEC scientists in those fields should not be able to be PHD's and do the science they do!

But many would beg to differ that TOE is the best explanation for the fossil record! Fossils only show that a creature with that structure lived! It doesn't say what it was (though we have identified most) and it certainly doesn't demonstrate the trillionsXtrillions X trillions of mutations that are "beneficial" supposedly occurred to take a simple self replicating life form and have it produce all the biodiversity we see today!

I am not even suggesting that evolutionists do not do awesome work, for they do! But the hypothesis demand change and mutations are the only known mechanism for change! What we know of mutations speaks loudly against them altering the genetics, adding new information, building more information on that information and so on and so on so you take goo to you by way of teh zoo.

Remember it is not just mutations in a population- but specific mutations that have to build on each other to create new features over X eons according to the hypothesis.

nolidad said:

I know of many people who as Christians are either theistic evolutionist s or progressive creationists! matter of fact, there is bio-logos who fights hard against YEC science.

I suspect that it is a lifetime of indoctrination in evolutionary belief systems (many denominations in Christendom hold to theistic evolution) and training to think in terms of common ancestry and evolution that drives his presuppositional bias! What I love is the legions of scientists who were staunch evolutionists and who through their research in their respective fields became Christians and abandoned evolution as scientifically untenable!

why would they risk the scorn and rejection of the scientific community at large? Why would they risk their careers for many of them? Why would they reject all they were brought up on , indoctrinated in taught the methodology of how to look at evidence in light of an evolutionary presuppositon? That makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Oh boy, the "indoctrination" claim.

It's always ironic to a creationist use this claim while simultaneously defending fundamentalist Christian organizations that require their members to adhere to strict statements of faith.

It's also a claim that holds no water when examined.

For starters, it basically ignores the fact that the history of science is one of progressive change. Advancements in science do not come if the scientific community adhered to rigid dogma; in fact, evolution itself was a revolutionary idea that supplanted previously held ideas of how species came to be.

It also assumes that scientists are incapable of freedom of thought; those on the fringes of science are the ones who come up with the revolutionary ideas and receive the accolades in the long run. Just look at Darwin; he may have received some ridicule in his time, but we're still talking about him to this day.

The biggest reason indoctrination doesn't make any sense is industry. There are biology-related industries that make us of evolution, including even filing of patents based on it. The motive for industry is not to propagate the idea of evolution for the sake of it; the motive is to have the best understanding of biology possible since that directly affects their bottom line.

Why would a biotech company file a patent based on evolution just for the sake of it? That really makes no sense.

These claims of "indoctrination" sound like grasping at straws and more than a little projection to boot.

nolidad said:

Once again one can be an expert geneticist or molecular biologist or physiologist or biologist and not believe in evolution! Maybe you should read all the papers that don't even mention evolution once! I haven't but I am sure Kirchner is not lying to the world!

Click to expand...

Sure there are papers that don't mention evolution. Just like there are other papers that probably don't refer to cell biology. What's your point?

And Tang became a household drink because of research in the space program! Doesn't mean ET is true- but that in doing their research they find practical uses for things they discovered! Same with TOE doesn't make it any more true- just means in their research they found some practical applications.

Click to expand...

Your analogy is bad for two reasons. Nobody thinks that the movie ET is a real depiction of events.

Second, what you're talking about with respect to the space program is more related to engineering/inventions, as opposed to specific application of a scientific theory.

In the examples I am referring to, the theory of evolution is being directly applied. For example, in comparative genomics there are evolution-based approaches used (e.g. phylogenetic shadowing) that are used because they yield superior results than non-evolution methods. So if the ToE really was as false as creationists claim, it would be the most bizarre coincidence.

nolidad said:

Remember it is not just mutations in a population- but specific mutations that have to build on each other to create new features over X eons according to the hypothesis.

Click to expand...

The only specificity required of a mutation is that increases the fitness of the species in some way. That a series of mutations may eventually add up to a major change of some kind is purely circumstantial. Evolution has no "goal" save for the incremental increase of fitness of the next generation.

Speedwell said:

The only specificity required of a mutation is that increases the fitness of the species in some way.

Click to expand...

And even that may not explicitly be required for the creation of new structures given models of neutral evolution.

nolidad said:

Is Hid different from the college textbooks I have read from the 90's?
Is his different that Dawkins and Coynes and Millers and legions of others who have made videos and done online teaching?

Click to expand...

I cannot understand this. I suppose that the sentences 'Is Hid different etc.?' and 'Is his different that Dawkins and Coynes etc.?' are vitiated by typos; as they stand they appear to be meaningless.

nolidad said:

If evolution was a necessity for biology , physiology,genetics and molecular biology- then all the YEC scientists in those fields should not be able to be PHD's and do the science they do!

Click to expand...

There are very few practising scientists who are young Earth creationists; in particular <<1% of professional biologists are YECs. This fact alone suggests that an understanding of evolution is valuable, if not absolutely necessary, for a person who intends to pursue a career in biology.

nolidad said:

But many would beg to differ that TOE is the best explanation for the fossil record! Fossils only show that a creature with that structure lived!

Click to expand...

Fossils show a lot more than that. They show that living things have changed during the geological periods during which fossils have been formed; fossils of most extant genera of animals and plants are found only a few million years back in the geological record, and, conversely, more than 90% of fossil genera from the distant past are extinct.

Since all life comes from life (i.e. spontaneous generation does not occur), extant living species and fossil species and genera from younger rocks (e.g. the Cenozoic) must be descended from the different species and genera of fossils that occur in older (Mesozoic, Palaeozoic and Precambrian rocks). The fossil record thus demonstrates the reality of descent with modification, or, in one word, evolution. What other possible explanation is there for the observed changes in fossil species?

Furthermore, the presence of index fossils, i.e. fossils that occur in only a narrow stratigraphic range, such as a geological stage, both makes it possible to correlate sedimentary rocks over wide areas and demonstrates that the geological record represents long periods of time. The fact that each rock formation has its characteristic and distinct fossil species disproves the hypothesis that all the rocks were deposited in a single short-lived episode of sedimentation.

nolidad said:

They don't say what it was (though we have identified most) and it certainly doesn't demonstrate the trillionsXtrillions X trillions of mutations that are "beneficial" supposedly occurred to take a simple self replicating life form and have it produce all the biodiversity we see today!

I am not even suggesting that evolutionists do not do awesome work, for they do! But the hypothesis demand change and mutations are the only known mechanism for change! What we know of mutations speaks loudly against them altering the genetics, adding new information, building more information on that information and so on and so on so you take goo to you by way of the zoo.

Remember it is not just mutations in a population- but specific mutations that have to build on each other to create new features over X eons according to the hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Genetics is not my field. If you want to learn more about it, you will have to read books and websites on the subject. However, whether or not mutations are the only mechanism for change and are capable of effecting evolutionary change, the fact is that the fossil record demonstrates the reality of changes of kinds over geological time. If everything that we supposedly know about genetics turned out to be false, the fossil record would still constitute evidence for evolution.

Jimmy D said:

What does this even mean?

Click to expand...

Well lovejoy said in that video that after being broken and shattered by a most likely grazing animal, somehow, someway, by some mysterious fashion that bone from an A. Afarenses somehow refused together. He invokes natural miracles to do something that just can't happen by itself.

VirOptimus said:

Why do you keep making assertions that are false?

Click to expand...

Well most bios of scientists include their awards.

So I kind of acted like evolutionists do! They see speciation and they see similarity in genetics and then they just assume that everything started fro that first living goo.

At least I apoologized whern I realized their bios did not include their awards. Evos won't apologize for their error cuz their is too much money and their integrity would be shot!

nolidad said:

Well most bios of scientists include their awards.

So I kind of acted like evolutionists do! They see speciation and they see similarity in genetics and then they just assume that everything started fro that first living goo.

At least I apoologized whern I realized their bios did not include their awards. Evos won't apologize for their error cuz their is too much money and their integrity would be shot!

Click to expand...

You are again making empty assertions that you wont be able to back up.

Science is built on peer-review where everything is out in the open for everyone to see. The ToE is incridebly well established science and denying that is tin-foil hat territory.

nolidad said:

Well lovejoy said in that video that after being broken and shattered by a most likely grazing animal,

Click to expand...

I see you are resorting to lies now.

nolidad said:

by some mysterious fashion that bone from an A. Afarenses somehow refused together. He invokes natural miracles to do something that just can't happen by itself.

Click to expand...

Please, just give it up, this is getting more ridiculous by the post. You are just making things up as you go along now, who says that bones don't fuse together during fossilization, where did you read that?


Fused vertebrae



(I realize by now of course that you won't accept anything that might contradict a three minute video of a creationist on stage mocking a TV program. I'm merely correcting your strange and woefully ignorant posts for the benefit of lurkers etc).


Edit: Don't bother responding, I'm bored of talking about this now, I've had more productive conversations with my cat.

Hopefully you have learned that it's best not to get your scientific education from creationist conferences on Youtube.