Creationism in public schools?

[createdtoworship]

Because they are at best completely ignorant, at worse deliberately lying.

they gave their sources one was a physicist...

a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology. In answering the question, “Can new information originate through mutations?” he said:

This idea is central in representations of evolution, but mutations can only cause changes in existing information. There can be no increase in information, and in general the results are injurious. New blueprints for new functions or new organs cannot arise; mutations cannot be the source of new (creative) information [emphasis added].21

L. Spetner, Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997, 131–132. Back

 

[createdtoworship]

AIG is not science.

They don't define science the same way?
secondly the mutations we hear of are always negative and bad for the host. So no science needed there. Thirdly, the mutations you always hear of are losing information. So it's not all unheard of to make conclusions that mutations can't do what evolution wants them to. Even if you have one or two or ten examples. What is the point in fighting pure logic?

 

[metherion]

L. Spetner, Not By Chance, The Judaica Press, Brooklyn, New York, 1997, 131–132

You’ll note, this is a physicist in a popular press book. So its something out of his field, where the science community at large has no chance to correct it.

Do you find this kind of thing in the science journals of the actual field, where the scientists who actually work with this stuff have the chance to keep it? No.

They don't define science the same way?

Nope. They disregard contrary evidence, they lie and misrepresent, and they have UP FRONT declared that they will NOT accept any results that contradict their faith based position. That ISN”T science.

secondly the mutations we hear of are always negative and bad for the host.

Some are. Many aren’t. Most are neutral. A cross section of what the public hears of isn’t a valid case study. If you don’t read the science journals, would you find out about most of the good ones? No.

And what about the widely published ones, like nylonase?

So no science needed there

Actually, yes you do.

[qutoe]
Thirdly, the mutations you always hear of are losing information.
[/quote]
Really? So every negative mutation you’ve heard about is losing information? Nope. Try Down’s Syndrome. An extra copy of a chromosome. Negative, more nucleotides. More information. And you’ve done the studies showing that every negative mutation is brought about by mechanisms that reduce the number of nucleotides? Bring in your sources.

So it's not all unheard of to make conclusions that mutations can't do what evolution wants them to.

Evolution is not a being that can decide what it wants or does not want. And conclusions are not necessarily CORRECT conclusions. Correct conclusions actually take into account all the information.

Even if you have one or two or ten examples. What is the point in fighting pure logic?

It’s not pure logic. It’s fallacious, and in addition, it’s wrong.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

It’s not pure logic. It’s fallacious, and in addition, it’s wrong.

Metherion

thats a bold claim for someone who has no science evidence to backup his claims. It has to be a science journal too.

 

[metherion]

thats a bold claim for someone who has no science evidence to backup his claims. It has to be a science journal too.

Really? So you haven't looked at anything laconicstudent posted?

And you still haven't posted any actual science evidence for your own side, yet you're saying I need to back up science claims that I haven't made? All I've pointed out is the EXTREME lack of evidence for anything you've posted.

The only one I can see that I've made is that Down's Syndrome is an extra chromosome.

What claim have I made that you want science journal evidence backing up?

And where are the science journal articles to back up YOUR claims? You haven't actually given backup of your claims. Any of them.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

Really? So you haven't looked at anything laconicstudent posted?

And you still haven't posted any actual science evidence for your own side, yet you're saying I need to back up science claims that I haven't made? All I've pointed out is the EXTREME lack of evidence for anything you've posted.

The only one I can see that I've made is that Down's Syndrome is an extra chromosome.

What claim have I made that you want science journal evidence backing up?

And where are the science journal articles to back up YOUR claims? You haven't actually given backup of your claims. Any of them.

Metherion

the one about down syndrome, I want a science journal. Oopps it made sense to you to make a claim and not support it with a science journal issue number behind it. But thats wrong according to you.

 

[OllieFranz]

secondly the mutations we hear of are always negative and bad for the host.

Of course they are:

As the old Newsreprter's saying goes, "Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is news." It's because dog-bites are so common that they are not reported unless something else makes them newsworthy.

Likewise with mutations: a two-headed calf (bad mutation) is newsworthy, a cow that gives an extra-rich milk (good mutation) is less so; a liver-colored cow that would otherwise have been brown (neutral mutation) is not at all newsworthy, and even the farmer might not notice anything odd about her.

 

[metherion]

I like how this turned from you being unable to defend any claim you made to having me supply a well known medical fact.

Very well.




Costa, A. C. S., and Patterson, D. Down Syndrome and Genetics- A case of linked histories. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2005, Feb. 1, Vol. 6, pg. 137-147.

That was after less than 2 minutes of my college’s library website. First line of the paper.

Now. Any citations for ANYTHING you have said? You still haven’t given any.

Metherion

 

[createdtoworship]

Of course they are:

As the old Newsreprter's saying goes, "Dog bites man is not news; man bites dog is news." It's because dog-bites are so common that they are not reported unless something else makes them newsworthy.

Likewise with mutations: a two-headed calf (bad mutation) is newsworthy, a cow that gives an extra-rich milk (good mutation) is less so; a liver-colored cow that would otherwise have been brown (neutral mutation) is not at all newsworthy, and even the farmer might not notice anything odd about her.

Hypothetically anything can happen. But Mutations by the very definition "Mutant" are bad things. Thats how it got it's name, you know!

 

[createdtoworship]

I like how this turned from you being unable to defend any claim you made to having me supply a well known medical fact.

Very well.




Costa, A. C. S., and Patterson, D. Down Syndrome and Genetics- A case of linked histories. Nature Reviews Genetics, 2005, Feb. 1, Vol. 6, pg. 137-147.

That was after less than 2 minutes of my college’s library website. First line of the paper.

Now. Any citations for ANYTHING you have said? You still haven’t given any.

Metherion

but I didn't go to a university, and can't speed dial up a reference like you can in two minutes.

here is an old science magazine that states there is wisdom of a creator

Mayr, Ernst, “Behavior Programs and Evolutionary Strategies,” American Scientist, vol. 62 (November/December 1974), pp. 650-659.
p. 650
“For the devout of past centuries such perfection of adaptation seemed to provide irrefutable proof of the wisdom of the Creator. For the modern biologist it is evidence for the remarkable effectiveness of natural selection.”

Here is a good peer reveiwed paper that gives a better classification of "Mutations" than evolutionists are able to do.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/classification-of-mutations

quote abstract....

Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organism’s fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral. While this is a very useful first-pass categorization of mutations, the realization that mutations are not always haphazard, but in fact may be part of a regulated design, means that creationists should be looking for a deeper classification of mutations based on whether or not they conform to their organism’s design. Design-consistent mutations are those which occur within the pattern expected by the genome’s architecture, and design-inconsistent mutations are those which occur outside of the genome’s architecture. Features such as metabolic consistency, mutational mechanism, mutation rate, reversibility, and preservation of genome semantics can be used by biologists to assess whether or not a mutation is design-consistent or design-inconsistent.




http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/classification-of-mutations
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/04/25/feedback-beneficial-mutations
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria

 

[laconicstudent]

but I didn't go to a university, and can't speed dial up a reference like you can in two minutes. But here is another link about genetics,

Towards a Creationary Classification of Mutations - Answers in Genesis

and these ones

Feedback: Are There Beneficial Mutations? - Answers in Genesis

A Creationist Perspective of Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria - Answers in Genesis

None of those are about genetics. They are about some religious organization's attempt to blend science fiction with mysticism. I categorize it under the same heading as Scientology.

 

[createdtoworship]

None of those are about genetics. They are about some religious organization's attempt to blend science fiction with mysticism. I categorize it under the same heading as Scientology.

Just because they take genesis literal doesn't mean they are science fiction. And I must confess I am a little mystic right now with my rock star I just drank.

 

[laconicstudent]

Just because they take genesis literal doesn't mean they are science fiction.

Yes, it does. A literal genesis is scientifically disproven. Therefore, you can't claim that Genesis is literally true, scientifically. Science fiction is just about the nicest thing I can honestly call AiG.

And I must confess I am a little mystic right now with my rock star I just drank.

How nice for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

Science fiction is just about the nicest thing I can honestly call AiG.

just let it all out...were adults here. jk

 

[laconicstudent]

just let it all out...

Let what out?

were adults here. jk

Does the "jk" indicate that you aren't? What?

 

[createdtoworship]

Let what out?



Does the "jk" indicate that you aren't? What?

never mind,

but here is another link on mutations that I am reading...

Ain't No Good Mutations Here - eNews for December 15, 2009

and this one

http://ezinearticles.com/?Those-Elusive-Beneficial-Mutations&id=596885

 

[metherion]

I'm sorry. AIG is not a peer reviewed science journal. AIG is a religious psuedoscience site with no scientific repute. You need ACTUAL evidence, ACTUAL citations. If they're all you have, then you have nothing. Ditto with ICR.

Metherion

 

[laconicstudent]

never mind,

but here is another link on mutations that I am reading...

Ain't No Good Mutations Here - eNews for December 15, 2009

"enews" isn't an acceptable source for scientific research. Try Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

 

[createdtoworship]

"enews" isn't an acceptable source for scientific research. Try Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

e news is good news. Or better news than boring national academy of science. At least I can understand it.

 

[laconicstudent]

e news is good news. Or better news than boring national academy of science. At least I can understand it.

That's the point the rest of us have been making in this thread. You can't understand science. You yourself have admitted to it, even call it "boring".

Feel free to stick with your enews if you want, just realize no one is going to be taking it seriously.