Another creationist is wrong

Digit · Jul 12, 2007

I think listing a change of beliefs as evidence of how the belief is incorrect, is rather unfair. As even science has changed views about things, as part of it's self correcting nature. Anyhow, not wanting to get embroiled in a 'no it has not!' / 'yes it has!' argument, I will only point out one immediate flaw I saw which is that there were both groups of two and of 14 animals on the ark - should you indeed believe said ark existed blah de blah etc.

Gen 7:2
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Digit

Tomk80 · Jul 12, 2007

Digit said:
I think listing a change of beliefs as evidence of how the belief is incorrect, is rather unfair.

Unfair? That is rather an understatement in my opinion. I'd say it is the pure benchmark of insanity.

As even science has changed views about things, as part of it's self correcting nature. Anyhow, not wanting to get embroiled in a 'no it has not!' / 'yes it has!' argument, I will only point out one immediate flaw I saw which is that there were both groups of two and of 14 animals on the ark - should you indeed believe said ark existed blah de blah etc.

Gen 7:2
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

Digit

On the other hand:
Gen 7:8
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9
There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

MarcusHill · Jul 12, 2007

The thing about scientific theories is that all of them - every single one - only has the status of "this is the best explanation for the observed facts we have at present". Any scientific theory is consistent with facts observed both before and after its formulation. If it isn't, it is changed until it fits the facts. Most of the time, this is a gradual refinement. Sometimes we have a revolutionary shift, such as the change from Newtonian theories of gravity to General Relativity.

The beauty of science is that if anyone can come up with a better explanation that fits the facts and is testable, they can and do change current scientific theories.

Digit · Jul 12, 2007

Tomk80 said:
Unfair? That is rather an understatement in my opinion. I'd say it is the pure benchmark of insanity.

On the other hand:
Gen 7:8
Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
Gen 7:9
There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

The verses you mentioned simply say they went into the ark in pairs. As in they entered in pairs, side by side.

Cheers,
Digit

AV1611VET · Jul 12, 2007

Valkhorn said:
In fact it was you yourself who tried to claim Greenland was Brazil not too long ago.

LOL --- that was a joke --- too bad you didn't get it.

BradC · Jul 12, 2007

You haven't posted anything which supports this.

Actually this quote was lifted directly from the paper they had published in Science and Nature

About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as junk DNA.

Creationist have been pretty much saying the same thing for a while now. But do you remember saying this

Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicator of Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors.

So now junk DNA isn't a solid indicator we get,

Plus, science changes as new evidence is uncovered - it has to. In fact, I'd be more wary of anything that doesn't change in light of new evidence against it - i.e. creationism.

OK I get it. Todays undeniable facts are no longer factual because they have to change got ya!

The problem is, some scientific theories are based entirely on the interpretation of the evidence, not the actual evidence presented.

At least we agree on something

Baggins · Jul 12, 2007

BradC said:
Actually this quote was lifted directly from the paper they had published in Science and Nature
Creationist have been pretty much saying the same thing for a while now. But do you remember saying this
So now junk DNA isn't a solid indicator we get, OK I get it. Todays undeniable facts are no longer factual because they have to change got ya!
At least we agree on something

The fundie mindset is indeed bizarre and illuminating.

They think not changing a theory to fit the evidence is a good thing while changing a theory to fit the evidence is a bad thing.

That is why the period when religion ruled humanity is called the dark ages and the period when science took over is called the renaissence and the enlightenment.

Loudmouth · Jul 12, 2007

BradC said:
Actually this quote was lifted directly from the paper they had published in Science and Nature

"About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as junk DNA. "

Creationist have been pretty much saying the same thing for a while now.

I don't think the paper says what you think it says. Yes, many of these regions are trascribed into functional RNA molecules. However, they are not translated into proteins and their functional role is still unknown and may serve no beneficial role or help in survival. From this paper:

According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a warehouse for natural selection by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar.

Is that what creationists have been saying for years? That untranslated DNA sequences confer little or no benefice to the organism?

Todays undeniable facts are no longer factual because they have to change got ya!
At least we agree on something

The facts do not change. The theories change to fit the facts. It is still a fact that junk DNA is not translated into proteins and that junk DNA transcripts still have no known beneficial role in the organism. Could new facts change this conclusion? Absolutely, but scientists produce discover those facts. This is quite different from creationism which only follows dogma and ignores the facts.

USincognito · Jul 12, 2007

BradC said:
Creationist have been pretty much saying the same thing for a while now.

Actually that's not true at all. YECism has changed from fixity of the species to allowing "microevolution" to some, in order to preserve their personal interpretation of the flood story to "hyper-evolution within kinds" as they have been confronted with new genetic evidence.

Creationism also changed in the 1960s when Morris and Whitcomb stripped SDA theology from George McCready Price's flood geology when they wrote The Genesis Flood.

Valkhorn · Jul 12, 2007

LOL --- that was a joke --- too bad you didn't get it.

When its that hard to determine when a creationist is joking, don't you think it's time to jump ship?

Split Rock · Jul 12, 2007

USincognito said:
Actually that's not true at all. YECism has changed from fixity of the species to allowing "microevolution" to some, in order to preserve their personal interpretation of the flood story to "hyper-evolution within kinds" as they have been confronted with new genetic evidence.

Creationism also changed in the 1960s when Morris and Whitcomb stripped SDA theology from George McCready Price's flood geology when they wrote The Genesis Flood.

True, they have been forced to accept some things (like "microevolution") but the basics never change:

1. Man was created directly by God.

2. Adam was the first man and his sin doomed us and the whole creation.

3. The Flood was global and shaped most of the geology we see today.

4. The Earth was created about 6,000 years ago, during Creation Week.

AV1611VET · Jul 13, 2007

Valkhorn said:
When its that hard to determine when a creationist is joking, don't you think it's time to jump ship?

No.

You know why you Atheists can't tell when we're serious or joking?

Because all you guys do is poke fun of the answers (or answerer), and don't really "listen".

Then later you guys wonder why you have to ask the same questions over and over.

It'll be a hot day in Helsinki if I ever see an Atheist say:

Oh, now I understand.

BradC · Jul 13, 2007

According to ENCODE researchers, this lack of evolutionary constraint may indicate that many species genomes contain a pool of functional elements, including RNA transcripts, that provide no specific benefits in terms of survival or reproduction. As this pool turns over during evolutionary time, researchers speculate it may serve as a warehouse for natural selection by acting as a source of functional elements unique to each species and of elements that perform the similar functions among species despite having sequences that appear dissimilar.

My original post;

Like all that junk DNA we have, no wait it's not junk anymore! It's, it's, it's......"waiting for us to evolve" oooh! aaaah! wow!

The reply I was given;

Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicator of Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors. I don't know where you got the idea that it is quote 'waiting for us to evolve'.

So what everyone seems to be saying ïf we don't yet know what it's purpose is then it's junk", until we put some sort of new spin on it!

The fundie mindset is indeed bizarre and illuminating.

They think not changing a theory to fit the evidence is a good thing while changing a theory to fit the evidence is a bad thing.

But see here is your problem, it's the evidence that is changing, or to be fair our understanding of it is. Talk about rationalization, you guy's do it all the time. "this is fact, these are the facts" "no wait! these are the new facts, it's science you know we can change our minds, I mean, our facts er theories anytime. cause that's what we do in science!"

Actually that's not true at all. YECism has changed from fixity of the species to allowing "microevolution" to some, in order to preserve their personal interpretation of the flood story to "hyper-evolution within kinds" as they have been confronted with new genetic evidence.

No fixity is something you guys like to throw up in these kinds of discussions. If you bothered to find out for yourself you would discover that Edward Blyth, chemist/zoologist and creationist wrote about natural selection 1835-1837. This predates Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

The fundie mindset is indeed bizarre and illuminating.

LOL! And I'm not the one trying to convince people the T-Rex turned into a chicken
Bizarre indeed!

Split Rock · Jul 13, 2007

AV1611VET said:
No.

You know why you Atheists can't tell when we're serious or joking?

Because all you guys do is poke fun of the answers (or answerer), and don't really "listen".

Then later you guys wonder why you have to ask the same questions over and over.

It'll be a hot day in Helsinki if I ever see an Atheist say:

Oh, now I understand.

It's not because we don't "listen," its because of all the contradictory and absurd stuff Creationists come up with. Do you need to see a list of them?

1. The center of the earth is a diamond
2. Continental drift was a result of the Flood
3. There is no continental drift
4. There was no Ice Age
5. The Ice Age was a result of the Flood.
6. There is no speciation
7. Speciation occurs only within a Kind
8. Rapid speciation occurred right after the Flood, but there hasn't been any since.
9. The past world was both spiritual and physical
10. There are fossil species but no transitional fossil species
11. Fossils are nothing but a few scattered bone fragments
12. Impact craters are really sinkholes left over from the Flood.
13. The water from the Flood went up to Mars.
14. Dinosaurs were on the ark.
15. Dinosaurs died out during the Flood.
16. Dinosaurs were on the ark, but died out right after the Flood.
17. Dinosaurs were dragons.
18. Dinosaurs were just big lizards that lived a long time.
19. There was no death or decay before the Fall
20. Dinosaurs ate fruit before the Fall
21. There was no death before the Fall, but everyone ate plants.
22. There was a vapor canopy before the Flood that protected the Earth
23. The vapor canopy was made of metallic hydrogen
24. The vapor canopy was made of ice
25. Adam had a belly button
26. Adam didn't have a belly button
27. There was a pre-Adamic world before Genesis
28. The Earth is 6,000 yrs old
29. The Earth was made 6,000 yrs ago, but is really billions of yrs old.

I could go on, but why bother....

Baggins · Jul 13, 2007

BradC said:
But see here is your problem, it's the evidence that is changing, or to be fair our understanding of it is. Talk about rationalization, you guy's do it all the time. "this is fact, these are the facts" "no wait! these are the new facts, it's science you know we can change our minds, I mean, our facts er theories anytime. cause that's what we do in science!"
No fixity is something you guys like to throw up in these kinds of discussions. If you bothered to find out for yourself you would discover that Edward Blyth, chemist/zoologist and creationist wrote about natural selection 1835-1837. This predates Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.
LOL! And I'm not the one trying to convince people the T-Rex turned into a chicken
Bizarre indeed!

And this load of hooey rather makes my point for me.

You still seem to think that not changing your ideas to conform to the factual evidence is a weakness in science.

In fact it is its greatest strength.

If new evidence comes along you would have science ignore it and cling to its pre-existing theories, that is not science that is dogma.

Scientists see the over turning of theories by new evidence as the pinnacle of science, all scientists try and do this every day, very few manage it because most scientific theories are now extremely strong because they describe the evidence very accurately. But when a scientists does alter a theory fame and fortune are theirs.

Again I will point out that 1600 years of christianity gave us some great art and a lot of blood shed .

a few hundred years of science has changed humanity for the better more than religion ever did.

Baggins · Jul 13, 2007

Blyth was a great influence on Darwin, but he was also wrong. He postulated that natural selection honed species to archetypes.

We now know that that isn't correct. Darwin recognised that fact and postulated how natural selection works correctly.

That is why he why he is famous and Blyth isn't. Blyth was also no more a Creationist than any other scientist who believed in god, and that would include Darwin in his younger years.

ServantofShangDi · Jul 13, 2007

Valkhorn said:
Can you cite your sources? No real scientist says that. Theories also aren't upgraded into laws.

This was not a scientist, but an atheist. You yourself made the following statement:

Some of the old ideas are so well supported that they are facts (like the Big Bang and Evolution).

So you're really not saying anything against my point.

And you have all the answers? If so post them in a peer-reviewed journal because if you can disprove the big bang you will probably get a nobel prize.

Here is where it turns into a religion. I can't possibly prove something didn't happen in the past. It's an impossibility. By the same token I can't prove something did happen in the past. In other words, you demand I prove something didn't happen that you yourself can't prove did happen.

Since I can't provide this impossible evidence, you will continue to assert the Big Bang as a fact, and malign anyone who offers an alternative. This as much like religion as Christianity by your own judgments.

And this is a problem how? Every idea must be backed by solid evidence and facts.

My point is that a new idea can be nothing but a renewed look at the evidence. In such a case it would be impossible for this idea to be proven right as the evidence is the same being used to support the old idea.

In fact, why don't you or BradC post their evidence against Evolution in this or another thread? So far they haven't posted any nor do they really know what they're talking about.

The problem is, my aim isn't to prove Evolution wrong. I believe the theory is quite sound. That doesn't mean man evolved from ape and bird from dinosaur. I can no more prove that wrong than you can prove it right.

Split Rock · Jul 13, 2007

ServantofShangDi said:
This was not a scientist, but an atheist. You yourself made the following statement:

So you're really not saying anything against my point.

No, he said theories do not graduate into laws.

ServantofShangDi said:
Here is where it turns into a religion. I can't possibly prove something didn't happen in the past. It's an impossibility. By the same token I can't prove something did happen in the past. In other words, you demand I prove something didn't happen that you yourself can't prove did happen.

One cannot prove anything in science, but one can falsify a theory concerning what happened in the past. Events in the past leave their footprints in the present.

ServantofShangDi said:
Since I can't provide this impossible evidence, you will continue to assert the Big Bang as a fact, and malign anyone who offers an alternative. This as much like religion as Christianity by your own judgments.

Wrong.

ServantofShangDi said:
My point is that a new idea can be nothing but a renewed look at the evidence. In such a case it would be impossible for this idea to be proven right as the evidence is the same being used to support the old idea.

Wrong. Evidence is the same for everyone.

ServantofShangDi said:
The problem is, my aim isn't to prove Evolution wrong. I believe the theory is quite sound. That doesn't mean man evolved from ape and bird from dinosaur. I can no more prove that wrong than you can prove it right.

You cannot prove it wrong, because you have no evidence. Either theory is potentially falsifiable.

Valkhorn · Jul 13, 2007

Here is where it turns into a religion. I can't possibly prove something didn't happen in the past.

Proofs are for math and alcohol. You can show that is extremely likely that something did occur though. If all of the evidence points towards something then that's a pretty big sign.

It's an impossibility. By the same token I can't prove something did happen in the past.

But you can show that it is very likely that something did happen in the past. Just last night on a geology show they showed an escarpment north of Lake Huron. They showed a lot of glacial till which had aggregate rocks in it from other places. Some of the rocks were NON NATIVE. Plus the rocks were pinkish and the same in composition from what is in the Canadian shield to the north.

So the facts in that case showed that there was likely glacial progression which created the till and carried the rock from the Shield to the north.

That is how science works. And to falsify a claim you need evidence against it. What would falsify this claim would be no glacial till for example.

In other words, you demand I prove something didn't happen that you yourself can't prove did happen.

Since I can't provide this impossible evidence, you will continue to assert the Big Bang as a fact, and malign anyone who offers an alternative.

You do realize there is ample evidence for the Big Bang, right? I suggest you study it because you seem to be rather clueless. It isn't some random non-evidenced guess. And to disprove the Big Bang (or to falsify it) you'd need some serious evidence.

This as much like religion as Christianity by your own judgments.

No it isn't. Stop putting words into my mouth.

Oh and Split Rock, thanks for responding before I got the chance to.

USincognito · Jul 13, 2007

BradC said:
No fixity is something you guys like to throw up in these kinds of discussions. If you bothered to find out for yourself you would discover that Edward Blyth, chemist/zoologist and creationist wrote about natural selection 1835-1837. This predates Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Baggins said:
Blyth was a great influence on Darwin, but he was also wrong. He postulated that natural selection honed species to archetypes.

We now know that that isn't correct. Darwin recognised that fact and postulated how natural selection works correctly.

That is why he why he is famous and Blyth isn't. Blyth was also no more a Creationist than any other scientist who believed in god, and that would include Darwin in his younger years.

Brad, can you please note who you're quoting when responding to a bunch of people. You can use the multi-quote function, it's quite easy to do.

I'd add to what Baggins wrote about Blyth by noting that Modern Creationism really began in the 1930s with Price and other Flood Geologists and they ascribed to fixity of the species. If you want to get an idea of how Creationism has evolved over time I'd suggest finding a copy of Ronald L. Numbers The Creationists.

Another creationist is wrong

Senior Veteran

Titleless

Educator and learner

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

a post by Alan Smithee

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

ServantofShangDi

Guest

Conflation of Blathers

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

a post by Alan Smithee

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency