Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Tabletform]

There is. And if you were involved in the research you may dispute many of the lines of information that you currently have faith in. But there is no "clear" anything in science. Everything must be retested. And if you cannot recreate an event, it's not science. What your referring to may seem scientific, but it's not science.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

Why don't you stop listening to other people and make up your own mind, have a look for yourself you can still remain a Christian, but we know that you won't because you do not want to lose your creationism, would you rather bury your head in the sand than find out the truth and lose your creationism? or is it peer pressure that stops you being true to yourself?

 

[Chalnoth]

There is. And if you were involved in the research you may dispute many of the lines of information that you currently have faith in. But there is no "clear" anything in science. Everything must be retested. And if you cannot recreate an event, it's not science. What your referring to may seem scientific, but it's not science.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

You don't know anything about science, do you?

Oh, and quote mining is bad, mkay?
Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes

Mendel showed that inheritance is particulate, that 'factors' in the genotype transmit the characters expressed by the phenotype. This discovery, combined with the growing knowledge of the chromosomes and their behaviour in the maturation of reproductive cells, was the basis of the modern discipline of genetics, which revealed how evolution by natural selection of random changes in the factors or 'genes' or in their permutations and combinations proceeds. ...

During the last fifty years genetics has unravelled many of the extremely complex phenomena of inheritance, and has show that evolution by natural selection of random mutations, generally of small size, is a logical explanation of the origin of the immense array of organisms now and in the past living on earth. The theory is so plausible that most biologists accept it as though it were a proven fact, although their conviction rests upon circumstantial evidence; it forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.

And I'd disagree with him on that last point anyway: evolution is absolutely proven fact. Although granted, the evidence for evolution has advanced by tremendous leaps and bounds in the forty years since he wrote that, even in the 1970's evolution was established fact.

 

[SkyWriting]

Say what? So, you're telling me that if I get struck by a car tomorrow and die, it's because of my genes?

I can see that happening:
http://www.coogicheap.com/images/large/coogicheap/Coogi%20Short%20JeansDS430170133_LRG.jpg

Then explain to me why you can't implant the embryo of one species of mammal into another's womb and expect that embryo to develop into a viable organism.

Only because it's a touchy process.
But people are working on it.

 

[SkyWriting]

You don't know anything about science, do you?

20 years in R&D, some of that for Amoco Oil (now B.P.) , and other in Physical Properties testing for Adhesive manufacturers.

Oh, and quote mining is bad, mkay?

OK. My bad.

And I'd disagree with him on that last point anyway: evolution is absolutely proven fact. Although granted, the evidence for evolution has advanced by tremendous leaps and bounds in the forty years since he wrote that, even in the 1970's evolution was established fact.

He not talking about the reproducible parts. He's talking about the bologna parts that can't be tested by the scientific method.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why don't you stop listening to other people and make up your own mind, have a look for yourself you can still remain a Christian, but we know that you won't because you do not want to lose your creationism, would you rather bury your head in the sand than find out the truth and lose your creationism? or is it peer pressure that stops you being true to yourself?

If your going to slam somebody, I recommend you take the time to find out where they DID come from and where they got their beliefs from. Your jabs are like wet noodles if they don't apply to my situation. You need some Barbs on your pokers. Your run-of-the-mill assumptions are stale and weak.

I should stop listen to you? OK, that's your call SignofGod. I don't listen to or read anything from "Creationist" sources, so you win that one. I don't associate with any Creationists either. I've gone to a couple meetings over the years though. Just for curiosity sake.
I don't WANT to be a Christian. Jesus said some weird stuff and did strange things. My family has no believers in a personal, active God as far as I'm aware. And that includes one minister.

I came to the conclusion that Science rules out any other explanation other than Special Creation.
For any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
SO....for everything we see......there was an equal or greater cause.
We see intelligence, order, and infinite size and complexity. That's our side.....the effect.

The other side must be equal or greater.
I CHOOSE the idea of Greater. But that's just me.
Scientifically speaking, God only needs to be equal...........to the size of our Cosmos.

 

[Chalnoth]

Only because it's a touchy process.
But people are working on it.

The very fact that it is a touchy process disproves your assertion completely that all the information is contained within that original cell. If it were, it wouldn't matter which animal bore the young. But it does.

 

[Chalnoth]

20 years in R&D, some of that for Amoco Oil (now B.P.) , and other in Physical Properties testing for Adhesive manufacturers.

Amazing that through all that you stubbornly refused to learn anything about science. Or promptly forgot everything you did learn.

Repeatability is absolutely, positively not a requirement of science, for one. Science is, fundamentally, about rationally approaching the world. As such it has no hard and fast rules, except that the evidence must be approached rationally. You can't stick science into a little box. It includes every possible way of learning new things in a rational, objective manner. When new ways of learning things are discovered, science incorporates them. The scientific method that is learned in schools is a very, very rough sketch of the general process of science, but that simply isn't a process that working scientists ever really consider. It absolutely isn't the arbiter of what is or is not science.

Repeatability is helpful, in that it helps to make sure the experimenters didn't make any simple mistakes. But it isn't essential. What is essential is verifiability, and that is a rather different, more general concept. Verifiability isn't just the idea of repeating experiments/observations (though that is part of it): it also includes checking the same conclusion in different ways.

The history of evolution isn't repeatable, in that we can't go back and repeat it all over again (and it wouldn't happen the same way anyway even if we could). But it is verifiable in that the history of evolution leaves behind a wide variety of evidence. And when we check one line of evidence that is completely independent upon another line of evidence, we gain confidence that the unifying idea, the theory, is accurate. And the theory of evolution has been tested nine ways 'till Sunday and found to pass every test thrown at it with flying colors. It has been verified up the wazoo, and is quite possibly the most strongly-evidenced theory in all of science (though that depends a bit upon how you measure).

 

[SkyWriting]

The very fact that it is a touchy process disproves your assertion completely that all the information is contained within that original cell. If it were, it wouldn't matter which animal bore the young. But it does.

Surrogate wombs are picky about the occupants. This is why women loose babies.
Its a scientific FACT that all the information is within the egg and the sperm cells.
Check how cloning works. The ongoing challenge is to create either a surrogate
or a totally artificial womb. The biological separation is so complete it allows for
women with AIDS to birth children without AIDS 70-90% of the time.
So even a virus can't cross the barrier.

 

[SkyWriting]

Amazing that through all that you stubbornly refused to learn anything about science. Or promptly forgot everything you did learn.

Repeatability is absolutely, positively not a requirement of science, for one. ...

Sorry. It is. The one thing you forgot was to look up definitions for things.
There are no definitions for Science that omit experiments, testing and reproducibility.
No not one.
the scientific method - Google Search

Amazing you've lasted this long and not known this. And to learn it from a Creationist..wow.

 

[Simply_Amazing]

However, I know for certain that the "old line" is still used in evolutionary thought. Don't act like it is something out of line with the truth. Every archeologist out there is looking for the common ancestor. Every find talks about it, and every find changes the evolutionary model for the human evolutionary line.

It's relevant because of what news headlines are feeding you? If you'd have read my post, you'd have seen that:

1. In-species transitional fossils are largely meaningless, as evolution doesn't predict them. (except in special cases where a species is terminated)
2. If you would look at the link, you'd see that we have transitional fossils in between things like reptiles and mammals.

It's obvious you didn't understand my post. Try reading it again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have no idea how you went from there to "morphing". But whatever.

The evidence you claimed was just a "tip of the iceberg" the rest of the evidence must morph the tip?

First of all, those fossils posted or only a teeny tiny fraction of the total number of hominid fossils found. Put together, the hominid fossils paint a very clear picture of a series of lineages, some of whom died out, but one of whom became us. So even where the fossil evidence is concerned, there is much much more.

They do not paint a clear picture and if you were told that you were told something that is not at all accurate.

Please provide just how many of the millions of fossils we have discovered are of human lineage? How many are of the ape lineage?

There is also the morphological evidence: we share a number of uniquely-ape characteristics with the other apes, such as fingernails, a lack of a tail, and our particular sort of molars.

This evidence could be used as much for common design as for common ancestry.

But the best evidence we have is genetic. We can do genetic tests for the relationships between species in the exact same way we do genetic tests for the relationships between people. And we find that chimpanzees are our closest cousins.

This is really quite unremarkable when in fact the design of the ape family is so similar to us. Just to create the same design would require genetic similarity. DNA throughout the living world is similar which can attest to a designer as well. Bananas for instance have 50% of their genetic makeup similar to humans.

And then this is only talking about the evidence linking humans with the other apes.

Yes?

I don't think you know what that is. That little story was how I see the debate between the two of us.

Why is it that you atheists always counter that we don't know what a definition is or what fallacy is being used in an argument. Don't you think that we have the same resources available to us, as you do to you? This is bizarre. A straw man is the same for me as it is for you. You were attacking my argument using foolish comparison rather than arguing against my actual argument. Straw man.

 

[Greg1234]

Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.

Why would you try to use that against Creationism?

Min 16:14-21:43

Darwins Dilemma - The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record (2/2) - Intelligent Design Trilogy III - YouTube

Some have postulated

Postulates of the new paradigm



1) All living organisms consist of two substances: the material substance and the energy-informational (EI) (or subtle) substance.

2) The key property which distinguishes the EI substance, and the corresponding EI field, from all substances and fields known in modern physics is that the EI substance is omnipresent, i.e. it is present simultaneously at each point in the space of our three dimensional material world. This means, in particular, that the distance between EI substances of any two material objects in our three dimensional world is always zero, no matter how far they are located physically from each other.

3) In agreement with Postulate 1), we assume that each living organism exists at two levels: the material level and the EI level.

4) The two levels of an organism are intimately linked with each other and affect the condition of each other as well as reflect the condition of each other. Moreover, the EI level is the leading one.

5) We define life as a dynamic exchange of energy and information between a physical organism and its EI (or subtle) counterpart.
​

Cortical Inheritance - DNA Does Not Encode For Body Plans - Dr. Arthur Jones - Video


You can even follow a conversation here if you want to where ID proponents are actually using what you just used, against Darwinism.

This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.

Oh, but it may be much bigger than that.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Why is it that you atheists always counter that we don't know what a definition is or what fallacy is being used in an argument. Don't you think that we have the same resources available to us, as you do to you? This is bizarre. A straw man is the same for me as it is for you. You were attacking my argument using foolish comparison rather than arguing against my actual argument. Straw man.

A strawman is when I take a twisted version of your position that you do not actually hold and claim this is your actual position.
Proceed to refute that twisted position with whichever arguement. Then act as though my arguements against the twisted position refuted you.

I do not think Chal tried to act like you really believe water isnt wet. Which is a rather important part of strawmanning.
Nor that by proving water is wet he refuted you.

Instead it was an analogy where he tried to convey how silly the course of the discussion was from his point of view. Not a strawman.
You are free to feel that it was insulting that he considers you to be blind to the obvious and thickheaded though.(Disclaimer, I do not know if that is actually how he feels or if he meant it that way.)

 

[Chalnoth]

Surrogate wombs are picky about the occupants. This is why women loose babies.
Its a scientific FACT that all the information is within the egg and the sperm cells.
Check how cloning works. The ongoing challenge is to create either a surrogate
or a totally artificial womb. The biological separation is so complete it allows for
women with AIDS to birth children without AIDS 70-90% of the time.
So even a virus can't cross the barrier.

You keep saying that, and yet somehow you seem to have completely ignored the absolute disproof I just presented: any old uterus won't do. You need somebody from the same species (or, in rare cases, a very closely-related species).

Did you know, for instance, that clones are noticeably different from the animals they were cloned from? That most clones don't survive, despite having identical genomes?

And by the way, don't hold your breath for an artificial womb. The requirements for a womb are so exacting that it is highly unlikely we'll see one in use any time soon.

But why did you bring in the AIDS link? That doesn't even make sense. Because the mother's blood never mixes with the fetus's blood (at least not until birth, where this happens in some cases), most diseases won't be able to make it to the fetus. But lots of other things do. Otherwise it would be impossible for the fetus to grow at all: the fetus depends upon the mother for nutrients and oxygen, and to extract waste and carbon dioxide. So lots of things are able to make it across the barrier to the fetus. Just look at fetal alcohol syndrome for an example of what can go wrong there.

 

[SkyWriting]

Except it is absolutely not a programmed feature. The information in an adult is far and away greater than the information content of a single, fertilized egg. That information is generated spontaneously by interactions between the growing human (whether embryo or fetus or child) and its environment. Screw up the environment, and you get errors in development. For example, if you implanted a human embryo into a lioness, you almost certainly wouldn't get a viable human child. You wouldn't get a lion, of course, but it would most likely end in miscarriage.
This doesn't mean that all of the information exists before the child starts growing.

It all does. We ARE working on surrogate wombs for human children.
The reason that we are is...that it's entirely possible.
The only effect of environment on DNA is damage, most of which is repaired.
A smart adult is biologically identical to his....less informed twin.....or clone.

 

[Chalnoth]

It all does. We ARE working on surrogate wombs for human children.
The reason that we are is...that it's entirely possible.

Well, yes, it is possible. That doesn't contradict anything I have said. What I have said, however, is that it is extremely difficult, and isn't likely to happen any time soon. Because the requirements are so exacting. And we probably haven't even scratched the surface in discovering the details of the environment that are required.

 

[SkyWriting]

You keep saying that, and yet somehow you seem to have completely ignored the absolute disproof I just presented: any old uterus won't do. You need somebody from the same species (or, in rare cases, a very closely-related species).

Sorry. You have proven no causality or problem whatsoever. Just below, you acknowledge that artificial wombs are on the horizon. This negates your premise of information transferal in the womb. Here, let me show you:
Scientists Predict That Babies Of The Future Will Be Born To Centarians With Artificial Wombs

Did you know, for instance, that clones are noticeably different from the animals they were cloned from?

Not.
If one is fed and the other starved, then there could be a weight difference. Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

That most clones don't survive, despite having identical genomes?And by the way, don't hold your breath for an artificial womb. The requirements for a womb are so exacting that it is highly unlikely we'll see one in use any time soon.But why did you bring in the AIDS link? That doesn't even make sense. Because the mother's blood never mixes with the fetus's blood (at least not until birth, where this happens in some cases), most diseases won't be able to make it to the fetus. But lots of other things do. Otherwise it would be impossible for the fetus to grow at all: the fetus depends upon the mother for nutrients and oxygen, and to extract waste and carbon dioxide. So lots of things are able to make it across the barrier to the fetus. Just look at fetal alcohol syndrome for an example of what can go wrong there.

All of a sudden you're better informed. Amazing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Sorry. You have proven no causality or problem whatsoever. Just below, you acknowledge that artificial wombs are on the horizon. This negates your premise of information transferal in the womb. Here, let me show you:
Scientists Predict That Babies Of The Future Will Be Born To Centarians With Artificial Wombs

I have most definitely not acknowledged that artificial wombs are on the horizon. They are quite far from it. There is no artificial womb on the horizon at all. There are crazy ideas out there that maybe someday far in the future we might do it. But there are no serious proposals for doing it any time soon. We don't even yet know all of the details of the environment that are required!

The fact remains that a developing fetus requires a very specific environment to develop properly. This means that much of the information that makes up a fully-grown adult comes from the environment.

Not.
If one is fed and the other starved, then there could be a weight difference. Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome

Um, not even close. For one, clones are typically much larger than naturally-conceived young, and usually have to be delivered by c-section as a result. Most of them also tend to die prematurely. A healthy clone is quite a rare thing.

There are also a large number of birth defects that are largely determined by environment. Though genetics do play a role here, they don't determine whether or not the person has the defect. Examples include a cleft palate, spina bifida, conjoined twins, and many others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's relevant because of what news headlines are feeding you? If you'd have read my post, you'd have seen that:

1. In-species transitional fossils are largely meaningless, as evolution doesn't predict them. (except in special cases where a species is terminated)
2. If you would look at the link, you'd see that we have transitional fossils in between things like reptiles and mammals.

It's obvious you didn't understand my post. Try reading it again.

So if I grant you that transitional fossils in-species is meaningless, what falsifies evolution? Can evolution be falsified?

 

[Astridhere]

Let's see if I can post links now.

Homo Rudolfensis
Man's Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed


Here is your (F) Rudolfensis, above...an ape.

Lluc, the flat faced ape 12myo.


Lucy
Lucy: The First Hominid Skeleton

Above is Lucy, with curved fingers, no heavy eye brow ridging...and still an ape.



http://truthopia.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/turkana-boy-he.jpg?w=497&h=378

Above is Turkana Boy, Erectus or eragaster, they haven't made up their mind...as you see the side view shows...an ape...and an ape with heavy eyebrow ridging. If you square his chin up by tilting the head back a little even more does he look like an ape.


Another Homo Erectus from Wiki......just a heavily eyebrow ridged ape.

None of these are intermediates. They are varieties of apes.

You do not know what these creatures actually look like with flesh on. Nor do you know what the common ancestor looked like, nor do I know what the first ape kind looked like. Regardless of arm length, disputes over whether or not fossils are from one or more individuals, these are all apes and are obviously discontinuous with mankind. They are incapable of complex and sophisticated speech and high level reasoning and perceptive ability.

This is the kind of misrepresentation that can be demonstrated with much of the fossil record.

Rather a huge variety of apes and mankind suddenly appearing in the fossil record demonstrates evidence for creation.

I could be gracious and say it is a matter of interpretation. However, I think these are clearly apes, and only someone that needs intermediates would ever think they were anything but apes.

Creation=Science.

Hey Greg1234, & Simply Amazing. It appears that some evolutionists are unable to refute my/our claim that the majority of the so called 'intermediates' are nothing more than apes. It is no different to many so called 'intermediates'. All sorts of asides are coming up, but none that address the real issues I raised.

Ardi is being challenged as being nothing more than an ape ancestor.

Was “Ardi” not a human ancestor after all? New review raises doubts
Genetic findings often underscore the notion that organisms with similar-looking body parts aren’t always close evolutionary relatives. Wings for flying or sharp teeth for ripping into food can be the result of convergent evolution, in which natural selection results in similar-looking solutions to problems faced by different species—whether they are distantly or closely related.


"I think it’s equally likely, or perhaps even preferable, that it is an ancestral form or an early representative of the African great ape" group—that "it’s not necessarily uniquely linked to humans," Harrison said of Ardipithecus in the podcast.
Was “Ardi” not a human ancestor after all? New review raises doubts | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network

I wonder if anyone is still game to use Ardi as an example of an ape transitioning to mankind.
http://au.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0zv...rs&sigb=133tgd4li&type=JPG&.crumb=/jzOnKoYn2I
I would like to see an evolutionist explain 1. why Lucy does not have pronounced eyebrow ridging, yet Homo erectus, 2my later, has pronounced eye brow ridging, as indicated in the above quote? This so called 'graduation' in the fossil record is a myth.

Further, in light of Lluc, 2. what makes evolutionists believe that their best homo erectus example, Turkana Boy, reconstructed from shattered pieces, is anything more than a flat faced ape?

The overall KNM-WT 15000 skeleton still had features (such as a low sloping forehead, strong brow ridges, and the absence of a chin) not seen in H. sapiens. The arms were slightly longer. We think that Turkana Boy had a projecting nose rather than the open flat nose seen in apes.[9]
Turkana Boy's thoracic vertebrae are narrower than in Homo sapiens.[11] This would have allowed him less motor control over the thoracic muscles that are used in modern humans to modify respiration to enable the sequencing upon single out breaths of complex vocalizations.[12]
Turkana boy - Ask Jeeves Encyclopedia



And Question 3, Why are there few examples of chimpanzee ancestry? The evidence appears to indicate that any variety of ape is thrown into the human line like Ardi was, as I previously suggested.

I tend to think Ardi, Lucy & Turkana Boy as well as most of the homo erectus fossils are nothing more than apes and have been humanized in an attempt to illustrate an ancestry that just isn't there. Apes and mankind is all that the fossil record demonstrates and agrees with a creationist paradigm.

There are no human/ape intermediates...

Creation=Science. Evolution=Philosophy.