Evidence for Creation / against Evolution

[Dannager]

Over and over and over again, I have asked in these discussions that Talk Origins not be used by others as their support.

It is scientifically wrong in several locations.

And just as often you have been asked to provide evidence of factual inaccuracy in Talk.Origins refutations. We're not going to discard a valid, reputable and ultimately scholastically supported source just because you say it's wrong. You need to show that, and you have not. Talk.Origins stays.

 

[TheInstant]

The world will really and totally have reached the last age of Christianity when Chrisitans look to atheists or agnostics to teach us what our faith requires.

The person you quoted is a Christian.

 

[Dannager]

The world will really and totally have reached the last age of Christianity when Chrisitans look to atheists or agnostics to teach us what our faith requires.

Hi there. That's my line you used above. I'd like to direct your attention to that nifty little faith icon sitting right under my name up there. Go ahead and place your mouse cursor over it. Notice how the word "Catholic" pops up? That would be one of the various Christian denominations. About ready to remove the foot from your mouth?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

The person you quoted is a Christian.

But not a True Christian. You know, with all this "accepting reality" thing going on.

 

[Redwolf]

I see the creationists are tripping over themselves in thier haste to answer.

Ghost

Evolution is not the problem. It's origin.

As in..........whence camest that firstest ingredient from which all sprangest?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Evolution is not the problem. It's origin.

As in..........whence camest that firstest ingredient from which all sprangest?

So you only object to the idea of abiogenesis?

 

[Redwolf]

To be taken in by such things one has to want to believe in them, you can't get someone with a skeptical mindset to believe in a photo of a pterodactyl.

He wants to be deceived, because in some way it sustains his christian faith.

When you talk about deception, you are not aware that you cannot put your finger on how it all began?

You do know how it all began?

Then why don't you tell us.

 

[Redwolf]

So you only object to the idea of abiogenesis?

And?

 

[Dannager]

When you talk about deception, you are not aware that you cannot put your finger on how it all began?

You do know how it all began?

Then why don't you tell us.

This debate isn't about how the universe came to be. The answer to that question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory.

 

[TexasSky]

I am being fair and I am asking for fairness.

You object to places like AGI.
Talk Origins is biased.

There is nothing UNFAIR in asking that you sight legitimate science sites IF you demand that of others.

Since I noticed an extreme bias against any site that is linked to a Christian site, I had tried to limit any science I discuss to things like "Science Daily" or other sites that are VERY clearly NOT trying to fight on one or the other side of an arguement.

I ask that YOU people do the same thing.

Talk Origins is biased.
It is wrong.

You ask for examples.

The easiest example is when it discusses helium in the atmosphere. It touches on the fact that helium is lost. It totally ignores the fact that the rate it is lost is significantly lower than the rate at which is it produced.

Now, IF you happen to find someone that is honest enough to admit that. In discussions about problems with evolution these people will usually say, "Well, obviously there is some kind of massive loss that we don't know about yet." They will not carry that through to discuss the logical, and purely scientific, results that anything that catastrophic would have caused. They just try to avoid that part of the discussion.

There are similiar problems in many of the Talk Origins statements.

The simple fact is if Creation Scientists are sited, anti-creationists will mock them, claim they are not real scientists, delcare that they are not valid individuals to use. They often say, "Well, they are just quoting people they don't understand."

You have to hold your own sources up to the same standards you demand of others or your own arguements are bogus, biased and biggotted.

Also, I just went back and saw that a statement I quoted, thinking it came from someone else, is actually from a Christian. I apologize to the Christian for that misunderstanding. I had not looked at the icon.

I am astounded that people who ARE Christians are using such rude, mocking, taunting words against fellow Christians. It is shameful behavior.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

And?

Just to clarify: You accept evolution, but deny the possibility of abiogenesis.
What is the scientific alternative to abiogenesis?

 

[Dannager]

I am being fair and I am asking for fairness.

Asking us to throw out an unrefuted source is not fair. It's debate sabotage.

You object to places like AGI.

AIG. We object because we've refuted everything on AIG and ICR's websites literally hundreds of times over. It's not that we don't feel they warrant refutations - it's just that they've already had refutations and it gets tiresome repeating it over and over. In fact, that's a lot of the reason we use Talk.Origins. It has a database of common creationist claims (what we call PRATTs) with attached refutations and referenced source documents (most of which are scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific articles).

Talk Origins is biased.

No, it's accurate. Just because something doesn't agree with your personal standpoint doesn't make it biased. We don't object to AIG or ICR because they are biased. That would be silly. We object because we've already shown them to be wrong, hundreds upon hundreds of times over.

There is nothing UNFAIR in asking that you sight legitimate science sites IF you demand that of others.

Talk.Origins is a legitimate scientific website, referencing in plain sight the peer-reviewed articles used to support their refutations. You'd be hard-pressed to find something more scientific than that.

Since I noticed an extreme bias against any site that is linked to a Christian site, I had tried to limit any science I discuss to things like "Science Daily" or other sites that are VERY clearly NOT trying to fight on one or the other side of an arguement.

Any article that supports evolutionary theory or creationism is fighting "on one or the other side". Talk.Origins just compiles them for easy access. Again, we have no problem with AIG or ICR's affiliation. We have a problem with them being factually incorrect.

I ask that YOU people do the same thing.

We will continue to use scientifically accurate, scholastically-supported websites like Talk.Origins.

Talk Origins is biased.

No, it's correct.

It is wrong.

Seeing as how I said it is correct above, it being wrong at the same time would be at least marginally contradictory.

You ask for examples.

Yes, we do.

The easiest example is when it discusses helium in the atmosphere. It touches on the fact that helium is lost. It totally ignores the fact that the rate it is lost is significantly lower than the rate at which is it produced.

Please provide both the Talk.Origins claim and the refutation for this. So far we have hearsay.

Now, IF you happen to find someone that is honest enough to admit that. In discussions about problems with evolution these people will usually say, "Well, obviously there is some kind of massive loss that we don't know about yet." They will not carry that through to discuss the logical, and purely scientific, results that anything that catastrophic would have caused. They just try to avoid that part of the discussion.

I don't think so.

There are similiar problems in many of the Talk Origins statements.

Such as?

The simple fact is if Creation Scientists are sited, anti-creationists will mock them, claim they are not real scientists

Many of them aren't, and most of them don't hold degrees in any relevant field (hydraulic engineers discussing biology, for instance).

delcare that they are not valid individuals to use. They often say, "Well, they are just quoting people they don't understand."

This is often the case.

You have to hold your own sources up to the same standards you demand of others or your own arguements are bogus, biased and biggotted.

We do. In fact, we hold our own sources up to better standards than the creationist community will allow their sources to be held up to - the scientific peer-review process. Until you start referencing documents peer-reviewed by the field you have no right to tell us that we don't police our sources well enough. We do a darn sight better than creationists do.

Also, I just went back and saw that a statement I quoted, thinking it came from someone else, is actually from a Christian. I apologize to the Christian for that misunderstanding. I had not looked at the icon.

Thanks.

I am astounded that people who ARE Christians are using such rude, mocking, taunting words against fellow Christians. It is shameful behavior.

Well, that was a heck of thin apology. As a Christian, though, I forgive you and accept your apology all the same.

 

[Redwolf]

Just to clarify: You accept evolution, but deny the possibility of abiogenesis.
What is the scientific alternative to abiogenesis?

You have no scientific evidence for God, nor any other origin.

You lack that first ingredient, that very first one.

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You have no scientific evidence for God

Correct. So?

nor any other origin.

We can develop a hypothesis, and test some of it, like Miller and Urey did.

You lack that first ingredient, that very first one.

And what do you have?

Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to theories about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea. Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. (That idea, which has long been known to be incorrect, will be called "Aristotelian abiogenesis" in this article.)

I don't really know what you're getting to. Care to explain?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Redwolf]

EDIT: Double post.

What I'm getting at is this.
Hypotheses are like nooses on which science hangs itself.
The citation on abiogenesis I used is an example of how hypotheses work. From one guess to the next.
It's fun, tho.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Hypotheses are like nooses on which science hangs itself.

The citation on abiogenesis I used is an example of how hypotheses work. From one guess to the next.
It's fun, tho.

Your point being?

 

[Redwolf]

Your point being?

guesswork

 

[TeddyKGB]

guesswork

I don't get this. Abiogenesis researchers stake no claims to any overwhelmingly likely complete truths at this point. Why, then, do you think "gotcha" rhetoric is damaging to a field whose practitioners readily admit is partially speculative?

It should be noted, of course, that the more reputable abiogenetic theories all have experimental support.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Beat me to it. Redwolf, you still have to present a reason why abiogenesis is wrong, and if so, what the alternative would be.