Role Reversal

[ExistenceUnknown]

I would like to propose a game of role reversal, if everyone would be willing to entertain the idea that is.

What I would like to see happen within this thread is that for the outspoken creationists in this forum such as AV, Dove, etc. etc. to pretend to be in favor of Science and Evolution and argue against the people who are normally in support of Science and Evolution.

Evolutionists (for lack of a better word) will use sources such as AIG to make our arguments, and I would like to see the Creationists use our sources to refute or argue the points we make within this thread.

But the meat of this game is not merely a cut/paste of the material. I would like both sides to really think about the arguments they make and weigh them against the evidence they come across. I will make an attempt to view the creationist material in such a light that I actually believe what it says. Hopefully the creationists here can do the same.

This will more than likely end up being a Fail thread, but I do it in the hopes that both sides can learn a thing or two about each other.

I will start first by putting forth an argument. (taken from AiG A Tale of Two Chromosomes - Answers in Genesis)

Humans have 46 chromosomes as opposed to the 48 chromosomes found in Apes. Scientists try to explain this by suggesting that a pair of chromosomes fused together. However, scientists have to make the assumption of common ancestry before this can be true.

Second, It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes. According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes. Such profound changes were never observed; they are inferred because evolution has an atheistic basis and assumes there is no creator.

 

[Chesterton]

This will more than likely end up being a Fail thread, but I do it in the hopes that both sides can learn a thing or two about each other.

Yes, interesting idea, but I fear this thread is ripe for treachery.

 

[Cabal]

This will more than likely end up being a Fail thread, but I do it in the hopes that both sides can learn a thing or two about each other.

Like the scientismists did with Challenger? Oh no, wait, Columbia happened

(i'm playing as a creationist, so I'm derailing the thread instead of actually addressing the topic).

 

[Split Rock]

Second, It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes. According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes. Such profound changes were never observed; they are inferred because evolution has an atheistic basis and assumes there is no creator.

Also, since mutations are mostly bad, there is no way that random mutations could provide this new information. In fact, there is no evidence at all that random mutations can produce new information. Mutations produce nothing but genetic disorders, like Down Syndrome. Unless evo-loopies can show how such random mutations can produce new information, Darwinism is Dead. This leaves only one alternative... Creationism.

 

[shinbits]

role-reversal will never happen, because every last person on this forum (except me) is too proud to do such a thing, for fear they may actually make a good argument in favor of the opposite side.

 

[sandwiches]

I like this idea.

I think as a Biblical creationist, I believe that God created the universe, the solar system, and Earth and evolved us to this current state in seven actual days. He created for us a universal history that would make sense for our minds but He also left a testament of His work in the Bible. There is no embedded, apparent, or 'faked' age. There is real age as the universe and everything in it DID, IN FACT, AGE the equivalent of billions of years in just seven actual days.

This reasoning is confirmed by both empirical evidence and, more importantly, the Bible.

I challenge anyone to refute these claims.

 

[sandwiches]

every last person on this forum (except me) is too proud

I would hope you were being sarcastic as this is more than a bit cocky and presumptuous of you.

 

[paulypaul123]

Count me in. I can do the creationist thing.

 

[Tomatoman]

This is going to be fun. As a biblical creationist I feel I have every justification in going "woowoowoowoowoo". No, I must be serious. Right then. Get a grip. Where's my bible? I shall get into character. Let's try a bit of declaiming: "IN THE BEGINNING WAS A GREAT BIG OCTOPUS AND HE SAID VERILY I HAVE EIGHT LEGS, AND GOD SAW THAT HE HAD DONE WELL FOR HE HAD ALWAYS WANTED TO HAVE 8 LEGS..." That should do it. I feel ready.

Sandwiches:

Humans have 46 chromosomes as opposed to the 48 chromosomes found in Apes.

46, 48, who's counting? God wants you to have 46, BANG you've got 46. God feels you'd swing through the trees better with 48, HEY, have 48. What's the big deal?

Sarnies:

Scientists try to explain this by suggesting that a pair of chromosomes fused together.

Yeah, right, I thought we were talking genetics, not welding. You guys crack me up.

Several sandwiches short of a picnic:

However, scientists have to make the assumption of common ancestry before this can be true.

Did I hear the word 'assumption'? I think I did.

Cheese and pickle sandwiches:

Second, It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes.

So the 46/48 controversy is actually insignificant. Thank-you for admitting that.

Sandwich spread:

According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes.

Restructuring? You think a sudden leap to 2 legs, speech and consciousness can be classified as a bit of restructuring? How would you account for consciousness by the way? Sensations, pleasure, pain, agony, the sensation you feel...how would you account for those feelings without reaching for the metaphysical? Conscious experience cannot be adequately described by science. How do you account for the universe existing? It just is, is it? Why is it? Tell us that. Why is there anything at all? Have you ever, in your atheistic universe, stopped to ponder the fact that within your godless universe of atoms, some of those atoms have come together to contemplate themselves? Doesn't that strike you as an idea that science has singularly failed to tackle?

A bit of restructuring indeed. I think science has been getting a bit big for its boots, don't you? Hmm?

Well, that was easy.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

While I do understand the temptation is irresistible for some of you to take this chance and poke fun at the beliefs of others. I really would like to look at this as serious as we can.

I've seen a couple of people who are taking it serious, I suppose I will await a response from a creationist before coming to a conclusion on the direction the thread will take.

 

[sandwiches]

This is going to be fun. As a biblical creationist I feel I have every justification in going "woowoowoowoowoo". No, I must be serious. Right then. Get a grip. Where's my bible? I shall get into character. Let's try a bit of declaiming: "IN THE BEGINNING WAS A GREAT BIG OCTOPUS AND HE SAID VERILY I HAVE EIGHT LEGS, AND GOD SAW THAT HE HAD DONE WELL FOR HE HAD ALWAYS WANTED TO HAVE 8 LEGS..." That should do it. I feel ready.

Sandwiches:
46, 48, who's counting? God wants you to have 46, BANG you've got 46. God feels you'd swing through the trees better with 48, HEY, have 48. What's the big deal?

Sarnies:
Yeah, right, I thought we were talking genetics, not welding. You guys crack me up.

Several sandwiches short of a picnic:
Did I hear the word 'assumption'? I think I did.

Cheese and pickle sandwiches:
So the 46/48 controversy is actually insignificant. Thank-you for admitting that.

Sandwich spread:
Restructuring? You think a sudden leap to 2 legs, speech and consciousness can be classified as a bit of restructuring? How would you account for consciousness by the way? Sensations, pleasure, pain, agony, the sensation you feel...how would you account for those feelings without reaching for the metaphysical? Conscious experience cannot be adequately described by science. How do you account for the universe existing? It just is, is it? Why is it? Tell us that. Why is there anything at all? Have you ever, in your atheistic universe, stopped to ponder the fact that within your godless universe of atoms, some of those atoms have come together to contemplate themselves? Doesn't that strike you as an idea that science has singularly failed to tackle?

A bit of restructuring indeed. I think science has been getting a bit big for its boots, don't you? Hmm?

Well, that was easy.

That post you quoted wasn't mine. Also, no offense, but I'm not quite sure you got the point of the post you quoted as he's on the creationists side, like you, in this thread. =P

 

[Tomatoman]

That post you quoted wasn't mine. Also, no offense, but I'm not quite sure you got the point of the post you quoted as he's on the creationists side, like you, in this thread. =P

Sorry, sandwiches. I got a bit carried away, and was writing in a hurry as usual.

He's a creationist? My God. Let me go back and check. Golly. lol. I did get a in a muddle. Oh well, I'm being a creationist, anything's allowed. It wasn't my fault: God made me do it.

 

[plindboe]

We have 46 chromosomes and the apes have 48. After the proposed fusion the hypothetical fused chromosome would have had two functional centromeres. A viable organism can't have two functional centromeres on a single chromosome. Microtubulus from the two poles will adhere randomly to centromeres via kinetochores during prometaphase and during anaphase they will shorten and pull the chromosomes towards the two poles. This means that in 50% of cell divisions, microtubules, attached to the two centromeres via kinetochores, will pull the chromosome to opposite poles and thereby causing it to break. An organism wouldn't be able to survive if cell divisions go wrong with such a high frequency, therefore the fusion couldn't have happened.

Take that Darwin!

/creationist mode

I don't actually know the answer to this one. I could look it up of course, but if I had looked it up and found the answer, I wouldn't have felt like it was an argument I could make honestly.

Peter

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

I don't actually know the answer to this one. I could look it up of course, but if I had looked it up and found the answer, I wouldn't have felt like it was an argument I could make honestly.

Peter

Very good.

That's where I'm hoping the creationists will come in and attempt to falsify your statement above about how the chromosome could not have two centromeres.

I do not know the answer myself, as I am not a scientist, but I take the same stance you do. I could look up how and why but then I could not rightfully make arguments against it.

So as it stands I am currently under the impression that the creationists have stumped scientists because I know of no reason an organism could survive if its chromosome had two centromeres.

 

[Vatis]

Were are those devilworshipping scientists now?
They can't compete against the overwhelming evidence for creationism....
Another piece of face-smacking evidence right here:

Every baby will tell you that those are human footprints next to dinosaur footprints.

OOC: I think the absence of "evolutionists" here speaks it's own language.
It's really easy being a creationist, all you need to know is "goddidit" and "falldidit",
however in order to defend evolution, one has to understand it. And I think 99% of all creationists don't.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, since mutations are mostly bad, there is no way that random mutations could provide this new information.

What makes you think these mutations are 'random'?

Calling it 'random' sets up a mental block that will end up confusing you.

When something mutates, it can only mutate into the shape that forces are applying on it.

If I bend a metal rod, the metal rod stops bending when I stop applying downward force.

I submit that what you think are 'random mutations', are nothing more than DNA molecules obeying the forces of nature that are being applied to them.

And as far as 'new information' is concerned, the new shape, of course, would allow for additional information to arise.

If I bend a metal rod into the shape of a tuning fork, it can do something it couldn't do before -- resonate a new tune.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

OOC: I think the absence of "evolutionists" here speaks it's own language.
It's really easy being a creationist, all you need to know is "goddidit" and "falldidit",
however in order to defend evolution, one has to understand it. And I think 99% of all creationists don't.

I was afraid of this to be honest, but lets give them some more time to try and formulate a response. Even AV admits he is ignorant of science so it might require some time to do the research. *crosses fingers*

Edit to Add: AV responded above as soon as I posted this

 

[AV1611VET]

Another piece of face-smacking evidence right here:

Not hardly.

If I remember correctly, those tracks were chiseled into the rock by an artist seeking fame and fortune.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even AV admits he is ignorant of science so it might require some time to do the research. *crosses fingers*

I'll admit it's harder for me -- I feel handicapped in this thread.

 

[selfinflikted]

GOD DID IT -- CASE CLOSED.