Creationism will only destroy science

[random_guy]

If it doesn't match up with what the bible says, then I don't want any part of it. My grasp of grammar is not important. If I want to use big words that make me sound more intelligent than another, that is just a pride issue.

Here is a list of over 600 scientist who agree with me and think that evolution is silly. They see that evolution is only supported by ones opinion and view point.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

True evolutions laugh at your beliefs because they know that the bible and evolution can't go together.

If you want to believe in evolution go ahead but you are believing a lie and I hope that you will all see that it is you who keeps evolution alive. Evolution is a stumbling block that satan uses to cause good Christians to question all they believe. All the evidence of evolution that you think that you have is completely useless. If you would only look at the evidence and look at both sides and not just the one.

God loves you and I love you. I hope that you will someday see Gods true character, and not your own understanding.

Just for fun, ProjectSteve:
There are currently 749 scientists named Steve (or its derivative) that agree evolution is the best current theory that explains the diversity of life.

How many of those 600 scientists are in biological fields? It says about 2/3 of the Steves are biologists so that would be roughly 220 scientists are biologists. How about your list?

 

[sfs]

I don't have a lot to say about that except that I will never have as much faith in something I cannot see demonstrated as I do in things that I can.

Faith has nothing to do with it: scientists are interested in ideas that can explain data. Evolution explains a vast range of data in several different fields, predicts new observations all the time, and provides a useful framework for directing new research. Until something comes along that can do at least as good a job (and creationism doesn't begin to do the job), scientists will continue to use evolution.

 

[Shane Roach]

The fact that we have been breeding things like dogs

dogs interbreed freely with wolves and coyotes.
even hybrids with foxes, jackals, dingos.

where is the species boundary lines if you define them to be no interbreeding?

the point is that canids haven't become completely separated breeding populations despite being classified as a family.

Notably, they do not interbreed with cats.

These sorts of silly red herring arguments are the sort of thing that make it clear that evolutionists don't have a lot going on. Yes, we've all heard of mules as well.

 

[Shane Roach]

Speciation has been observed.

I've seen the sorts of things held out as "speciation" that has been observed and they do not fit the bill when it comes to being a source of the origin of species. If you'd like to toss one or two specifics out there that's fine.

Sort of like the dog example above, evolutionists have begun to try to blur the concept of a species solely for the rhetotical value of being able to say, "oh, we've seen it."

 

[Shane Roach]

Faith has nothing to do with it: scientists are interested in ideas that can explain data. Evolution explains a vast range of data in several different fields, predicts new observations all the time, and provides a useful framework for directing new research. Until something comes along that can do at least as good a job (and creationism doesn't begin to do the job), scientists will continue to use evolution.

Faith has everything to do with it. Evolution is not being used to "make predictions". The predictions are consistent with evolution, but they come about because of already established facts and do not depend on evolution being the origin of all species.

Here again, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the difference between verifying something through observation and simply making up something that is consistent with things that have been discovered and choosing to believe it despite the fact that it has not yet been observed. That's faith, by any other name.

 

[Mallon]

Evolution is not being used to "make predictions".

Actually, it is. Take the recent finding of Tiktaalik, a sarcop-amphibian transitional. The scientists that found the material were able to predict in advance where they would find it, based on an understanding of biostratigraphy and paleobiogeography. The fact that their prediction was supported lends strong credence to the idea that evolution is, in fact, a real process.

Here again, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the difference between verifying something through observation and simply making up something that is consistent with things that have been discovered and choosing to believe it despite the fact that it has not yet been observed. That's faith, by any other name.

Creating explanations to make sense of seemingly scattered and unrelated facts? That's science. I would hate to think where we would be in this world without such an established framework. We would probably still think God miraculously holds the planets in place and mysteriously causes the rain to fall. Thankfully, God has given us brain and encourages us to use them to study His creation in Proverbs.

 

[sfs]

Faith has everything to do with it. Evolution is not being used to "make predictions". The predictions are consistent with evolution, but they come about because of already established facts and do not depend on evolution being the origin of all species.

That's an awfully confident and sweeping statement you've just made there. You do realize that you need to have a broad, deep and up to date knowledge of the scientific literature in genetics, paleontology and ecology, in order to make that statement, don't you? Otherwise you couldn't possibly know what predictions, if any, are actually being made using evolution.

In any case, here are a few predictions about the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees that were based on common ancestry for the two species:
1) The single-base substitution rate should be about 1-1.5%.
2) The single-base substitution rate should be higher for A<->G and C<->T differences than for A<->C, A<->T, G<->C and G<->T differences (corrected for the number of availabe sites).
3) The single-base substitution rate should be even higher for the pair of nucleotides CG (again correcting for the number of available sites).
4) The level of genetic differences between the two species should be higher in parts of the genome that have high genetic diversity in humans.
5) The genetic difference should be smaller on the X chromosome than on the autosomes.

Now I would really like you to tell me why those weren't real predictions, since these were all things that I expected would proved to be true, based on evolution, before the human and chimpanzee genomes were compared. Do you want to guess how well the predictions worked out?

Here again, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the difference between verifying something through observation and simply making up something that is consistent with things that have been discovered and choosing to believe it despite the fact that it has not yet been observed. That's faith, by any other name.

Oh, I acknowledge the difference. I just happen to know that evolution (meaning common descent) has been and is still being verified through new observations.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Evolution is not being used to "make predictions".

simply not true.

one of the most interesting predictions made on the basis of TofE is the existence and social organization of naked mole rats. A researcher gave a talk on social mammals analogous to the social insects like bees and wasps, 2 years before the general knowledge of the creatures was discussed in the scientific papers. He made a number of very specific predictions, how they would suppress female development. the existence and some of the qualities of the queen. the type of animal, where it would live, and what kind of food it would eat.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

These sorts of silly red herring arguments are the sort of thing that make it clear that evolutionists don't have a lot going on.


This has nothing to do with a red herring argument, you simply slap the first error that pops into your mind and dismiss the evidence.

You contend that no one has seen evolution actually happen.
Your evidence is that all dogs are a single breeding population.
I show you that not only dogs but several genera continue to be a potential breeding population even though they are distinct not just species but genera to a family level. This represents about 15Million years of divergence, yet they still are capable of interbreeding. Do you have the time to wait for the canids to part company long enough to lose the ability to interbreed?

it is a direct evidence to your statement that no one has seen evolution, see here are dogs. Of course not, dogs haven't even separated completely from jackals and foxes yet, they will still interbreed, let alone from other dogs.

Your example is the flawed piece of evidence. My evidence is not a logical argument, except in your mind.

 

[Shane Roach]

Creating explanations to make sense of seemingly scattered and unrelated facts? That's science.

Again, you fail to acknowledge the difference between a hypothesis and the tests that confirm one. I've never once argued against forming hypothesis based on accepted and tested understanding.

I don't see any explanation here as to how looking for an amphibious creature in a shallow water area somehow has to do with evolution as the origin of species. It is already well accepted by biologists that an occasional intermediate, such as Archaeopteryx, does not represent support for evolution as the origin of species. The lack of a preponderance of intermediate species led to the development of the concept of punctuated equilibrium precisely because such discoveries simply do not address the generalized lack of intermediate species. The fact is that there are already a lot of "intermediate" species of this sort specifically in the realm of amphibious creatures, so this "discovery" is not much of a breakthrough, which probably goes a long way towards explaining why it has not been widely publicised.

 

[Shane Roach]

That's an awfully confident and sweeping statement you've just made there. You do realize that you need to have a broad, deep and up to date knowledge of the scientific literature in genetics, paleontology and ecology, in order to make that statement, don't you? Otherwise you couldn't possibly know what predictions, if any, are actually being made using evolution.

In any case, here are a few predictions about the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees that were based on common ancestry for the two species:
1) The single-base substitution rate should be about 1-1.5%.
2) The single-base substitution rate should be higher for A<->G and C<->T differences than for A<->C, A<->T, G<->C and G<->T differences (corrected for the number of availabe sites).
3) The single-base substitution rate should be even higher for the pair of nucleotides CG (again correcting for the number of available sites).
4) The level of genetic differences between the two species should be higher in parts of the genome that have high genetic diversity in humans.
5) The genetic difference should be smaller on the X chromosome than on the autosomes.

Now I would really like you to tell me why those weren't real predictions, since these were all things that I expected would proved to be true, based on evolution, before the human and chimpanzee genomes were compared. Do you want to guess how well the predictions worked out?


Oh, I acknowledge the difference. I just happen to know that evolution (meaning common descent) has been and is still being verified through new observations.

It appears to me that you are confusing common ancestry, which has not been tested, for known similarities in the genetics of each of the species that have been measured and tested, and continue to be measured and tested. These sorts of similarities suggest evolution, yes, as they have since they began to be discovered, but it is circular to then turn around and say that evolutionary theory "predicts" them.

The main thing that predicted those similarities was the previous knowledge that chimps and humans shared a lot of DNA in common. Priod to that, the "science" necessary to get the whole ball rolling was that chimps and other apes were the animals that most closely resembled man.

Hardly a difficult insight to come by, right?

Again, you simply cannot use the same evidence that forms the basis for the hypothesis as evidence to SUBSTANTIATE the hypothesis. That is circular reasoning.

I'm not saying it's not science, and I am not saying it's not on some level convincing, but it is not the same thing as actually being able to observe speciation in process, which will only happen over the course of thousands of years, assuming we stick around that long.

There is really no way around that fact. You can not prove evolution as the origin of species until it is observed to BE the origin of distinct species.

 

[Shane Roach]

Do you have the time to wait for the canids to part company long enough to lose the ability to interbreed?

Yep, and by the way, we appear as a species to have all the time in the world. If a creature can interbreed, it is obviously not yet a separate species in the sense necessary to substantiate evolution as the origin of species.

Why are you in such a hurry I wonder? Could it be there's a lot more than mere curiosity about how things work that drives your need to accept evolution in total? Something emotional that folks tend to try to pin only on the religious or the "fundamentalist"?

 

[random_guy]

Faith has everything to do with it. Evolution is not being used to "make predictions". The predictions are consistent with evolution, but they come about because of already established facts and do not depend on evolution being the origin of all species.

Here again, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the difference between verifying something through observation and simply making up something that is consistent with things that have been discovered and choosing to believe it despite the fact that it has not yet been observed. That's faith, by any other name.

Boy, you were doing so well until this point. You've already agreed that evolution was scientific, which is more than any other Creationist can admit, but then you stumble and make the same mistakes as other Creationists. Did you not remember the plant example I gave?

For example, plant biologists have long been interested in the origins of crop plants. Wheat is an ancient crop of the Middle East. Three species exist both as wild and domesticated wheats, einkorn, emmer, and breadwheat. Archeological studies have demonstrated that einkorn is the most ancient and breadwheat appeared most recently. To plant biologists this suggested that somehow einkorn gave rise to emmer, and emmer gave rise to breadwheat (an hypothesis). Further evidence was obtained from chromosome numbers that showed einkorn with 14, emmer with 28, and breadwheat with 42. Further, the chromosomes in einkorn consisted of two sets of 7 chromosomes, designated AA. Emmer had 14 chromosomes similar in shape and size, but 14 more, so they were designated AABB. Breadwheat had chromosomes similar to emmer, but 14 more, so they were designated AABBCC. To plant biologists familiar with mechanisms of speciation, these data, the chromosome numbers and sets, suggested that the emmer and breadwheat species arose via hybridization and polyploidy (an hypothesis). The Middle Eastern flora was studied to find native grasses with a chromosome number of 14, and several goatgrasses were discovered that could be the predicted parents, the sources of the BB and CC chromosomes. To test these hypotheses, plant biologists crossed einkorn and emmer wheats with goatgrasses, which produced sterile hybrids. These were treated to produce a spontaneous doubling of the chromosome number, and as predicted, the correct crosses artificially produced both the emmer and breadwheat species. No one saw the evolution of these wheat species, but logical predictions about what happened were tested by recreating likely circumstances. Grasses are wind-pollinated, so cross-pollination between wild and cultivated grasses happens all the time. Frosts and other natural events are known to cause a doubling of chromosomes. And the hypothesized sequence of speciation matches their observed appearance in the archeological record. Farmers would notice and keep new wheats, and the chromosome doubling and hybrid vigor made both emmer and breadwheat larger, more vigorous wheats. Lastly, a genetic change in breadwheat from the wild goatgrass chromosomes allowed for the chaff to be removed from the grain without heating, so glutin was not denatured, and a sourdough (yeast infected) culture of the sticky breadwheat flour would inflate (rise) from the trapped carbon dioxide.


The actual work was done by many plant biologists over many years, little by little, gathering data and testing ideas, until these evolutionary events were understood as generally described above. The hypothesized speciation events were actually recreated, an accomplishment that allows plant biologists to breed new varieties of emmer and bread wheats. Using this speciation mechanism, plant biologists hybridized wheat and rye, producing a new, vigorous, high protein cereal grain, Triticale.

And another example which I've been reading about:

To create a strain that produced artemisinic acid from amorphadiene,
we isolated genes encoding enzymes responsible for oxidizing
amorphadiene to artemisinic acid in A. annua. Artemisinin is a
sesquiterpene lactone derivative, which is the most widespread and
characteristic class of secondary metabolites found in Asteraceae
(also known as Compositae)16.We hypothesized that plants belonging to the Asteraceae family would share common ancestor enzymes for the early steps in the biosynthesis of sesquiterpene lactones, and therefore undertook a comparative genomic analysis of plants in the Asteraceae family.

To make a long story short, they used the model of common descent in plants to find the correct enzyme needed so that they were able to create cheap source of antimalarial drugs. To say that it's all on faith or that there's no predictions seems like you're falling right into the Creationist's antiscience beliefs. Scientific theories make predictions and are not accepted on faith. This is why I said I accept science as science (scientific theories all have to make predictions and are not taken on faith) while Creationists take some science as science, and other science as not science. You seem to belong in the second group.

 

[Pats]

If it doesn't match up with what the bible says, then I don't want any part of it.

Me neither. And I certainly, don't want any part of anything that would pervert the intended meaning of the scriptures. Turning Genesis into a pseudo-scientfic analysis is certainly doing just that.

My grasp of grammar is not important. If I want to use big words that make me sound more intelligent than another, that is just a pride issue.

This is part of the reason we are miscomunicating. If you cannot differentiate between simple concepts such as grammar and vocabulary, how we can we respect your opinion on scientific theories like evolution?

True evolutions laugh at your beliefs because they know that the bible and evolution can't go together.

You are debating with "true evolutionists" right here in this very forum who know the TofE does not conflict with the scriptures. However, the understanding that the TofE does not conflict with Christianity is not limited to TEs.

This post was made by an atheist. If you spent any time in the Crevo forum here on CF, you'd find the majority of the nonChristian evolutionists down there make posts very much to the effect that evolution does not conflict with religion.

Evolution is a stumbling block that satan uses to cause good Christians to question all they believe. All the evidence of evolution that you think that you have is completely useless. If you would only look at the evidence and look at both sides and not just the one.

One could also say that YECism is a stumbling block that confuses some former YECs into atheism, and distracts from the message of the cross for anyone schooled enough to know it isn't accurate.

I have definately looked at both sides. I was a YEC for over 20 years.

God loves you and I love you.

Thank you. I love all of my fellow human beings as Christ did.

I hope that you will someday see Gods true character, and not your own understanding.

You have no idea how blinded you are to infer that your literalism grants you God's understanding and only literalists see God's true character. Like I'm some kind of sub-Christian. You not only drive away would be fundamentalists who find your attitued distastefull, but your attitude is at risk of turning the lost away from the true message of the scripture. I find that truly sad indeed.

 

[Shane Roach]

Boy, you were doing so well until this point. You've already agreed that evolution was scientific, which is more than any other Creationist can admit, but then you stumble and make the same mistakes as other Creationists. Did you not remember the plant example I gave?



And another example which I've been reading about:


To make a long story short, they used the model of common descent in plants to find the correct enzyme needed so that they were able to create cheap source of antimalarial drugs. To say that it's all on faith or that there's no predictions seems like you're falling right into the Creationist's antiscience beliefs. Scientific theories make predictions and are not accepted on faith. This is why I said I accept science as science (scientific theories all have to make predictions and are not taken on faith) while Creationists take some science as science, and other science as not science. You seem to belong in the second group.

You're hiding behind your examples. There is nothing about common ancestry necessary to make these connections. These sorts of connections, having been discovered, are the SOURCE of the common ancestry argument. You can not use them for both.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'll post it again since it seems to be getting missed. A: things that can be observed and repeatedly demonstrated are more reliable than things that are only consistent with things that can be repeatedly demonstrated. B: Until enough time has passed and enough research has been done to substantiate evolution as the origin of species directly, it will not be all that convincing.

 

[Mallon]

I don't see any explanation here as to how looking for an amphibious creature in a shallow water area somehow has to do with evolution as the origin of species.

Then I will explain further for you.
Firstly, it's worth pointing out that Tiktaalik is an extinct amphibious creature. It was found in the rock; not in shallow water.
Given one of the goals of evolutionary science is to explain the diversity of life through the framework of descent with modification, scientists have managed to develop a phylogeny (i.e. "tree of life") that depicts the relation of all the earth's species to one another. Such phylogenies are developed through appeal to various lines of evidence, such as comparative anatomy, biogeography, genetics, biostratigraphy, etc. These lines of evidence can be mapped onto phylogenies in order to make predictions about where in the world as-yet-undiscovered fossil ancestors might be found. Palaeontologists predicted that they might find the fish-amphibian transition to have occurred in Late Devonian-aged rocks as latitudonally high as Ellesmere Island (which was much more temperate then than now, having been located at the equator some 375 mya). And lo and behold, Ted Daeschler et al. have recently come to support their prediction, based on the evolutionary framework, with this spectacular find:

I have yet to see the creationist model reveal any such tangible results.

It is already well accepted by biologists that an occasional intermediate, such as Archaeopteryx, does not represent support for evolution as the origin of species.

"Well accepted" by whom? Not biologists. Creationists. For what it's worth, most creationists are NOT biologists. And most biologists are NOT creationists. If you believe otherwise, then I please support yourself with some sources or statistics.

The lack of a preponderance of intermediate species led to the development of the concept of punctuated equilibrium precisely because such discoveries simply do not address the generalized lack of intermediate species.

It's probably worth pointing out that the dichotomy of anagenesis vs. "punk eek" that you're subscribing to is most likely a false one (as most dichotomies are). Punctuated equilibrium and anagenetic evolution are not mutually exclusive, and in fact, there is evidence that both modes of evolution can operate given different selective scenarios and environments.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

If a creature can interbreed, it is obviously not yet a separate species in the sense necessary to substantiate evolution as the origin of species.


the canids in general can interbreed. They are a FAMILY composed of several genera. They are more than separate species yet can interbreed, the mechanisms of isolation are not yet complete between them and as long as so much interbreeding as between wolves-coyotes-dogs occurs it will never happen. (which is one reason that wolves-dogs are the same species, plus the information coming out of the genetic sequencing)

look at it from another angle:

why are wolves-coyotes-dogs-jackals-dingos-foxes separate species? and not mastiffs and chihuahuas? When was the last time you heard of a mastiff-chihuahua mix, coyote-dog-wolves are very common. We have a coyote-dog that you can not tell from a small german shepard unless you look closely. Even after several million years the canids are not reproductively isolated populations.

 

[random_guy]

I'll post it again since it seems to be getting missed. A: things that can be observed and repeatedly demonstrated are more reliable than things that are only consistent with things that can be repeatedly demonstrated. B: Until enough time has passed and enough research has been done to substantiate evolution as the origin of species directly, it will not be all that convincing.

You said evolution doesn't make predictions. The botanists made a prediction based on evolutionary theory (plant xxx is an ancestor of wheat, based on the chromosome count, polyploid had to occur) and then did an experiment to confirm the prediction. This used the evolutionary model, whether you liked it or not. Just because it did go far back in the tree of life doesn't mean that evolution wasn't used.

As for the second example, the scientists at Berkeley used the common ancestory model built from the idea of evolution to figure out where to search to find the ancestorial enzyme. I'm not sure if you're aware, but according to evolution, all life share a common ancestor, and using this, they built a tree of life. Now, for some crazy reason, we can use this tree of life in comparative genomics and it's quite accurate. How would the Creationist model come up with something similar? They wouldn't because kinds don't cross lines.

Here's an example:

,=============== Eubacteria
|
| ,== Euryarchaeota
=====| ,=Archaea=|
`==| `== Crenarchaeota-Eocytes
|
`============ Eukaryotes

So why is it that life falls so neatly into this tree? Why is it that Creationists still haven't been able to come up with a more accurate model if there are only "kinds"? I think it's pretty obvious you don't think evolution is a science anymore since you think it's based on faith and makes no predictions.

 

[sfs]

It appears to me that you are confusing common ancestry, which has not been tested, for known similarities in the genetics of each of the species that have been measured and tested, and continue to be measured and tested. These sorts of similarities suggest evolution, yes, as they have since they began to be discovered, but it is circular to then turn around and say that evolutionary theory "predicts" them.

The main thing that predicted those similarities was the previous knowledge that chimps and humans shared a lot of DNA in common. Priod to that, the "science" necessary to get the whole ball rolling was that chimps and other apes were the animals that most closely resembled man.

Did you not read what I wrote, or did you just ignore it? The "main thing that predicted those similarities" was the hypothesis of common descent for the two species. The predictions were not based on previous DNA studies, or on known genetic similarities. These were new kinds of comparisons that had not been done before, not similarities that had already been measured. (The predictions were also not based on similarity in function between the two organisms' DNA, because I assumed that the bulk of the differences would have no functional effect.)

One hypothesis, common descent, permitted numerous quantitative predictions about observations that had not been made yet. No other hypothesis offered any predictive ability. The predictions were confirmed by the genetic data, which had not been collected at the time the predictions were made. Therefore the data provide strong evidence that the hypothesis is correct. That's how science works.

I have a serious question for you. Did you actually know anything about human/chimpanzee genetic comparisons, and about the specific predictions I listed, when you made this reply? Because it sure looks to me like you're simply making stuff up here.

Hardly a difficult insight to come by, right?

Since you seem to be completely confused about what the insight was, perhaps you should reconsider your assessment of difficulty.