Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[frogman2x]

That's it, talk about anything just as long as you are not made to think about what it is you believe.
I have heard it takes special training to make yourself believe blatant lies, is that true?

Tell us what lies we believe. Then we will try to hep you overcome your indictrination. Don't worry, it is never to late.

 

[frogman2x]

You are forgetting that although these eagles died in a canyon; we can still discern the strata they died in to the higher placed much older strata that the dino fossils are embedded in. There are many methods that are used to date these strata.

Also another thing you seem to miss is that you will not find eagle fossils within dinosaur fossils. If such a thing were to be discovered then it would shock the foundations of ToE.

When your tag has been proven wrong, you should consider another, more accurate one.

 

[frogman2x]

No, it's you not thinking the story through, a good liar must have a good memory, creationists usually don't so they use BS to get out of conversations, creationists because of their beliefs are forced to start out wrong, they then try and put things right by making things up and getting themselves confused, then comes the BS.

When you stope beinginsulting and offer evidence for what you say, all you say is blatgher.

The reason creationists never correct other creationists is because none of them know what they are supposed to believe, if it sounds crazy enough they will either nod and go along or say nothing.
Garbage in garbage out.

Blather in, blather out.

 

[mzungu]

I was not raised that way and I beleive God did it just as Genesis says. Can yoou prove He didn't?

You are asking one to refute the existence of something unfalsifiable. Can you prove that pink polka dotted unicorns don't exist? Science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims. If you can understand that then you will see that your faith is not threatened by science. On the other hand creationists try to impose their faith onto science and this is unacceptable. Religions are static while science is an ongoing endeavour and subject to change. This alone creates a conflict when the two are mixed.

 

[nuttypiglet]

No, they didn't get it from their parents. Nylon didn't even exist before then, so they couldn't have had the ability to digest it.

Also, where did these Italian Wall Lizards get their cecal valves?

Italian wall lizard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When the lizards came to the island, they didn't have cecal valves. Now they do. Where did that come from? Their parents didn't have them.



Are all bacteria one kind? They reproduce asexually, so how does that work? Wouldn't ever bacteria be a kind unto itself, then? Why are you acting like bacteria are one kind?



Which has happened. For instance, these sheep were breed to the point where they can no longer interbreed with other sheep. They can't bring forth with other sheep anymore, so by your definition, they're a new kind.

Molecular analysis of wild and domestic sheep ... [Proc Biol Sci. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

With regards to the lizards, surely this goes against your Toe? It took decades, not millions of years for those lizards to adapt. Mine you, they are obviously still lizards.

 

[nuttypiglet]

You are asking one to refute the existence of something unfalsifiable. Can you prove that pink polka dotted unicorns don't exist? Science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims. If you can understand that then you will see that your faith is not threatened by science. On the other hand creationists try to impose their faith onto science and this is unacceptable. Religions are static while science is an ongoing endeavour and subject to change. This alone creates a conflict when the two are mixed.

At its best Toe is a hypothesis. There are similarities in DNA which you would expect with a designer. We observe adaptations all the time, yet over many thousands of years we still see dogs as dogs, cats as cats etc. With domesticated influence from man we have speeded up the production of varieties yet they are still the same kind of animal.
Dating has also been mentioned, with many ways to do this. How can you accurately date something when you don't know conditions millions of years ago? Conditions on the Earth for example would upset carbon dating. Even Miller was all excited with his research, but recently it has been shown his initial conditions are totally wrong. In a few more years it will probably be shown to be wrong again. It was assumed coal took millions of years to form, but again this has been shown as nonsense. With so much changing of minds, and theories needing adjustment, religion stands by its original information which has needed no adjustment and still hasn't been proved wrong.

 

[Sasquatchit]

Thank you!

It's too simple, and It doesn't come with theories, hypotheses, and suppositions; and they're not used to that.

Couple the fact that they probably invested a big chunk of their money getting their education to the fact that the Bible says ...

Luke 12:34 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

... and you have a recipe for scientific methodism and Biblical illiteracy.

It seems the more simple things r, the more people tend to look elswhere for more twisted answers.

I guess I missed the bandwagon when they were teaching people analysis 101: If what u see walks like a duck and quacks like it duck, it must be a goose. I don't know, am I missing something here? )

 

[JWGU]

You say that then tell me you are a literal Bible believer, one statement contradicts the other.
You believe you have made your own choices because that's what you were trained to believe.
Creationism flies in the face of reality and you are OK with that because of how you were raised.

I honestly hope that you die as a creationist because if you ever realize before then what's was done to you it will destroy you, do you not see the children in your church being indoctrinated?
of course you don't, you see them being told the truth, just as the Muslim young are told the truth.

Haha, I just read through AV1611VET's scenario and I think it is quite a bit trickier than people are giving it credit for.

The real problem with the argument, of course, is radiation dating of the surrounding strata.

It seems the more simple things r, the more people tend to look elswhere for more twisted answers.

I guess I missed the bandwagon when they were teaching people analysis 101: If what u see walks like a duck and quacks like it duck, it must be a goose. I don't know, am I missing something here? )

To paraphrase AV, it is indeed simple.

 

[JWGU]

Of course it's simple, you need to be simple or indoctrinated to believe it and who is going to admit to either of those?

You are not big on subtlety, are you?

 

[mzungu]

At its best Toe is a hypothesis.

Write a paper that refutes ToE. Get it peer reviewed and go collect your Nobel prize.

 

[lasthero]

It took decades, not millions of years for those lizards to adapt. Mine you, they are obviously still lizards.

If you'd actually read what I linked, it would explain to you why it happened so quickly in this particular instance. Regardless, evolution doesn't say how quickly a population can evolve - usually, dramatic changes take a long time. Sometimes they don't. It depends on the species in question, the change in question, how long it takes the species to reproduce, et cetera.

And of course they're still lizards. If they weren't, it wouldn't be evolution. If they evolved into something that wasn't a lizard, that would invalidate everything we know about genetics.

We observe adaptations all the time, yet over many thousands of years we still see dogs as dogs, cats as cats etc.

When did we ever 'observe' dogs coming from wolves? Is there any record of domestication? No. Nobody put it down in writing, and for a while there was debate on exactly where dogs came from. We know it happened through the same techniques we can use to determine ancestry with other animals.

Also, are all cats the same kind? How did you determine that?

Dating has also been mentioned, with many ways to do this. How can you accurately date something when you don't know conditions millions of years ago? Conditions on the Earth for example would upset carbon dating.

There are many, many methods of dating besides carbon dating - carbon dating can't even be used to date objects in the millions, anyway. If you feel there was something in the past that made everything different and would make dating by any means utterly useless, then the burden is on you to show whatever that is. You could very well be right, but there's absolutely no reason to take you concern into consideration.

Dating can be checked in a number of ways - on objects of known age, for instance, and against other methods of dating that rely on different methods. They match up.

It was assumed coal took millions of years to form, but again this has been shown as nonsense.

When has this been shown to be nonsense? What are you referring to? Please, let me know, because I'm sure coal industries would love to know quicker ways of forming coal and would pay good money for the knowledge. And even if it was, there are many, MANY other things besides coal that take millions of years to form - chalk shelves, salt mines, et cetera - so it hardly helps your argument.

With so much changing of minds, and theories needing adjustment, religion stands by its original information which has needed no adjustment and still hasn't been proved wrong.

Science has to keep changing as we get new information. If it wasn't, there would be any point to research. The ability to adapt and change in the face of new information is a strength, not a weakness - science couldn't advance, otherwise.

Religion hasn't been proven wrong because there's no real method to disprove the supernatural. There's no way to falsify it.

 

[JWGU]

It's subtlety and people keeping quiet that has allowed religions to keep going for as long as they have, if believers were not allowed the special treatment they think their craziness deserves the world would be a much better place.
The powerful people of this world encourage the crazy religions to flourish, it allows them to do as they like, they keep the poor poor and grab everything for themselves, the Kings and the powerful have been doing it for thousands of years.

Why do you keep bashing religion? This is a forum about science. The philosophy forum is thataway ->

 

[lasthero]

It does not matter when nylon was invented. They could have had that ability from the beginning but they did not need to use it. It really doesn' matter---they were still bacteria.

No, they couldn't have had that ability before. We only started finding bacteria with the structures to digest nylon AFTER nylon was created.

Oh, and we've repeated the result in lab conditions. Bacteria that didn't have the ability to digest nylon were put in conditions were only nylon was available,'and guess what? They adapted to digest nylon.

Scientists have also been able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain.[5] Other scientists were able to get the ability to generate the enzymes to transfer from the Flavobacterium strain to a strain of E. coli bacteria via a plasmid transfer.[6]

From their parents probably fom a mutation. How do y ou explain how they got them?

Mutations don't work that way. Besides, how could they get it from their parents when their parents didn't have cecal valves at all? Didn't you say that never happens?

How do you know they didn't have them.

Because the lizards were studied before they went on the island. We know what they were like before. We can compare their DNA.

Of course not.

So why do you keep saying they're 'still bacteria' like it's some sort of point. Yeah, they're still bacteria, but they're a different 'kind' of bacteria, now. If your main criteria for determining when a animal is a new 'kind' is their lack of ability to interbreed, how does that apply to animals that reproduce asexually?

I'm not.

You are. You keep saying 'they're still bacteria', the same way you keep saying 'they're still dogs' and 'they're still cats'. That would imply you think bacteria are all a kind, despite the fact that NO bacteria 'interbreed'. In fact, going by your definition, every time a bacteria reproduces, it forms a new kind, because the offspring can't interbreed with any other bacteria. I'm starting to get the impression that you're just making this stuff up as you go along.

Why are bacteria not one kind? How many kinds are there? How do you determine which bacteria are and are not the same kind when none of them interbreed?

No. You need to know why they can't interbreed.

Okay, then explain what cases of interbreeding you consider acceptable to have and still call animals the same kind, and what case you wouldn't consider it acceptable. Actually make a solid definition and stick to it.

 

[JWGU]

It's a forum about science being undermined by a crazy belief.
I am not bashing religion I am against the damage they do, I know you don't need anyone to tell you just how much damage religion does because you can see it here for yourself every day.

Actually, posting here has reaffirmed my belief that most intelligent people, whatever their beliefs, will not impede scientific progress. AV, who you keep haranguing, is a supporter of medical research into new treatments that may employ evolutionary ideas. Most of the people here have not (that I have seen) been arguing against teaching evolution in school. And many of these people, through their faith in God, have been able to get through extremely difficult situations. Where is all the damage?

And anyway: is creationism a crazy belief? Maybe after you weigh all the evidence, evolution is the clear winner, but let's be honest--it is a viewpoint that only materialized in biology after hundreds of years of data collection and analysis. There are many other fields of science--of any field--in which very smart people will routinely get the basics wrong, probably causing experts to despair of humanity. We live in a nation of increasing specialization. I would be shocked if everyone got every aspect of every subject right from the getgo. All I hope to do is to help provide people who are interested enough in the subject--as is everyone on this forum--with the evidence they need to make an informed decision.

 

[AV1611VET]

When people look to the supernatural (whatever that is) for an answer they have immediately got troubles, their brains are not working properly for them even to think straight, you said their belief in a supernatural God has got them through bad patches of their lives when you know full well it was they themselves that got them through not some imagined saviour.

Children raised to believe in unseen beings will be damaged for life, why not raise them to see and read the world as it really is and not in some imagined father figure that does not exist, is reality and the truth really that bad? are your lives so bad that you need to stay in a make believe world of Gods and angels? if you don't like your life as it is then change it, don't hide from it in a dream world.

Evolution deals in facts while religion deals in make believe, which one should we pursue? facts or make believe?

You're just sore because you found out Santa Claus doesn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When people look to the supernatural (whatever that is) for an answer they have immediately got troubles, their brains are not working properly for them even to think straight, you said their belief in a supernatural God has got them through bad patches of their lives when you know full well it was they themselves that got them through not some imagined saviour.

Children raised to believe in unseen beings will be damaged for life, why not raise them to see and read the world as it really is and not in some imagined father figure that does not exist, is reality and the truth really that bad? are your lives so bad that you need to stay in a make believe world of Gods and angels? if you don't like your life as it is then change it, don't hide from it in a dream world.

JWGU if you don't mind I would like to step in here and add my two cents worth.

I would like to ask you "Consol" if you believe that your brain is hard wired from the evolutionary process we see in nature?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you mean do I naturally look to the supernatural for answers to my worldly problems then the answer is no.
I was not raised to do that, but I have the sense to realise that had I been raised to do it I would do it now,
why don't you realise that had you not been raised to be a Christian you would very likely be like me? an Atheist.

Oh my, you really haven't changed. I wasn't raised a Christian, your indoctrination theory fails with me.

So you were raised an atheist? So I guess it is expected to conclude that all people of religious faith are somehow indoctrinated to faith as you were to faith in atheism. Did your parents not force you to believe what you believe then? Are you free to believe what you want?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Oh my, you really haven't changed. I wasn't raised a Christian, your indoctrination theory fails with me.

So you were raised an atheist? So I guess it is expected to conclude that all people of religious faith are somehow indoctrinated to faith as you were to faith in atheism. Did your parents not force you to believe what you believe then? Are you free to believe what you want?

Apparently we don't have free will and have to become what we are raised to be.

 

[Split Rock]

With regards to the lizards, surely this goes against your Toe? It took decades, not millions of years for those lizards to adapt. Mine you, they are obviously still lizards.

And they will always be lizards. Just as we are primates and mammals. You cannot escape your ancestry.

 

[Split Rock]

Apparently we don't have free will and have to become what we are raised to be.

This is another consol sock-puppet. He always pushes this little pet theory of his, despite being corrected many times. My advice is to just ignore him.