The science of creationism: where is it?

dad · Aug 7, 2009

Dry Land Fish said:
Catastrophism is creationism in a nutshell.

Not at all. Creationism has to do with creation. Catastrophism is more like flood geology.

The problem with this was that geologists started seeing things that didn't fit into that theory. Progressively over the past couple hundred years we have ended up with what we have today. It will change just like the other theories changed. The thing about it is that each new discovery that geologists make takes us farther away from the creation story. The Earth has been many different ages over the years. Each time we come up with a better way to date rocks we come up with an older age.

Ho hum. They see nothing, they imagine stuff, based on belief based stuff

It's possible a God made the solar sytem 4.5 billion years ago. The problem is that creationists don't believe the Earth is that old. I hate to tell them but it is at least that old.

Tell us all you like, or tell us about the tooth fairy. Same dif.

We'll never say it's any younger because we know for a fact that it's at least that old. Advancements may make it possible for us to find out it's older...but it will never be younger that that number.

Doesn't matter what you say. The facts and evidence are what matters.

The evidence of evolution is all around us. The average person isn't expected to know about radioactive isotopes, carbon 12 and 14 or nitrogen. They aren't supposed to know about the ages of rocks, plate tectonics, or polar charges and laws of gravity. Many creationists don't even know what an atomic number is or means. I find it fitting that this is the case because if people were properly educated in science they might not be a creationist.

Maybe not. But most likely, they would be if properly educated.

It's not important what a creationist thinks because most of the time they aren't armed with the information to even know any differently.

All the info you somehow forgot to include. How nice. Dream on.

You only know what you are taught and if the Bible is the only thing you have been taught then that's the way it is.

I agree that is the way it is. But if you were taught fables, that ain't the way it is. How nice.

None of this says there is no God.

You can say that again.

It just means that some stories in the Bible are not true.

Well, no, actually. It just means that all of this you forgot to actually write down, no matter how much sense it seems to make in your head.

It's possible a God created everything...but they did it a heck of a long time ago and they didn't create man and woman on the way the Bible Says.

Thanks for that, whatever it was..!?

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Dry Land Fish said:
The science of creationsim doesn't exist. Early geologists were creationists. They subscribed to the theory of catastrophism. Catastrophism is creationism in a nutshell. The problem with this was that geologists started seeing things that didn't fit into that theory. Progressively over the past couple hundred years we have ended up with what we have today. It will change just like the other theories changed. The thing about it is that each new discovery that geologists make takes us farther away from the creation story. The Earth has been many different ages over the years. Each time we come up with a better way to date rocks we come up with an older age. It's possible a God made the solar sytem 4.5 billion years ago. The problem is that creationists don't believe the Earth is that old. I hate to tell them but it is at least that old. We'll never say it's any younger because we know for a fact that it's at least that old. Advancements may make it possible for us to find out it's older...but it will never be younger that that number. The evidence of evolution is all around us. The average person isn't expected to know about radioactive isotopes, carbon 12 and 14 or nitrogen. They aren't supposed to know about the ages of rocks, plate tectonics, or polar charges and laws of gravity. Many creationists don't even know what an atomic number is or means. I find it fitting that this is the case because if people were properly educated in science they might not be a creationist. It's not important what a creationist thinks because most of the time they aren't armed with the information to even know any differently. You only know what you are taught and if the Bible is the only thing you have been taught then that's the way it is.

None of this says there is no God. It just means that some stories in the Bible are not true. It's possible a God created everything...but they did it a heck of a long time ago and they didn't create man and woman on the way the Bible Says.

There are too many errors in this little paragraph. Grade: a very generous D. Comments will be given if asked.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Dry Land Fish said:
I'm not a biology person. I'm a rock person. However I do believe that chimps have a couple of chromosomes that are different than ours. Other than that they are exactly the same. Whales are also a mammal and a direct ancestor of ours as well as bats and all other mammals. I find it fascinating that the early stages of human development in the womb looks almost exactly the same as the early stages of development of some other animals. It's amazing how close a dolphin embryo looks like a human embryo.

I don't think anything about evolution is chaotic. Simply because it's small changes that have happened over a huge span of time. Environmental factors drive evolution. That's what animals do. They adapt to their environment and over time they lose or gain certain body parts to help them survive. Why is the question. We don't know why and we probably never will know why things evolve. There's evidence that Earth's environments have changed over time. Rivers have dried up, swamps became deserts, oceans became the great plains, etc. Animals either adapt or go extinct. Plants do the same thing.

Nice to know you. I haven't met a single rock person since I have been here. What is your pet rock issue?

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

BananaSlug said:
Why would God want to make alligators so closely related to birds?

Why would God want to make birds and crocodiles share so much genetically? Why would God want to make hippos and whales so close genetically? Whales have a more similar structure to fish than hippos. Why not use the same genetic structure for whales and fish?

It would evidence for creation. If whales were mammals but were more closely related to fish, it would be evidence for creation. God could have made humans and chimps 100% unrelated.

This is not meant to be an argument against God (when did I ever say it was against God?). This is meant to be an argument against creation. The fossil evidence, the taxonomic evidence, and the genetic evidence points to birds and crocodiles having a common ancestor. Why would God create everything as if it supports evolution if evolution is false?

It is not reasonable to ask those questions. If croc and bird were not similar, but croc and horse were similar, you can ask the same question. You can not separate creation from God. God makes croc and bird similar in a certain way. That is it. We simply discovered that they are similar and be amazed by the way things are created.

Again, this extended reasoning is based on the hypothesis that they are similar. We do not really know. My genetic questions are not satisfied yet.

Split Rock · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
It is not reasonable to ask those questions. If croc and bird were not similar, but croc and horse were similar, you can ask the same question. You can not separate creation from God. God makes croc and bird similar in a certain way. That is it. We simply discovered that they are similar and be amazed by the way things are created.

Again, this extended reasoning is based on the hypothesis that they are similar. We do not really know. My genetic questions are not satisfied yet.

Funny how on the one hand you say your genetic questions are not satisfied yet, and on the other that "God just did it that way" is completely satisfactory for you. How about, "Nature just did it that way," as an answer to all your genetic questions?

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

BananaSlug said:
Well I have provided several studies that all show the relationships of crocodiles and birds compared to lizards, all using various methods:

1. A bacterial artificial chromosome library for the Australian
saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) and its utilization in gene
isolation and genome characterization
Nucleotide and amino acid sequence alignment of the C. porosus C-mos coding sequence with avian and reptilian C-mos orthologs reveals greater sequence similarity between C. porosus and birds (specifically chicken and zebra finch) than between C. porosus and squamates (green anole).

2. β-Keratins in crocodiles reveal amino acid homology with avian keratins
Near the C-terminal, these β-keratins contain a peptide rich in glycine-X and glycine-X-X, and the distinctive feature of the region is some 12-amino acid repeats, which are similar to the 13-amino acid repeats in chick scale keratin but absent from avian feather keratin. From our phylogenetic analysis, the β-keratins in crocodile have a closer relationship with avian keratins than the other keratins in reptiles.

3. Warm-Blooded Isochore Structure in Nile Crocodile and Turtle

Phylogenetic analysis of the 10 presently sequenced genes from the Nile crocodile strongly supports the Archosauria, which groups birds and crocodilians in a sister group with bootstrap values higher than 85%, except for vdr (59%) and pk (71%).

4. The complete mitochondrial genome of Alligator mississippiensis and the separation between recent archosauria (birds and crocodiles)
Birds and crocodiles represent the only archosaurian survivors of the mass extinction at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary. On the basis of mitochondrial protein- coding genes, the Haemothermia hypothesis, which defines birds and mammals as sister groups and thus challenges the traditional view, could be rejected. Maximum-likelihood branch length data of amino acid sequences suggest that the divergence between the avianand crocodilian lineages took place at approximately equal to 254MYA.

5. The mitochondrial genomes of the iguana (Iguana iguana) and the caiman (Caiman crocodylus): implications for amniote phylogeny.
Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship, lending no support to the Haematotherma hypothesis (with birds and mammals representing sister groups).

FIVE different studies using genetic analysis and/or molecular biology that support the crocodile-bird relationship. They have all consistently shown that crocodiles are more closely related to birds than lizards. The point is not that lizards are crocodiles share some genes that birds do not. The point is that every study conducted has the same conclusion- crocodiles' closest relatives are birds.

So to answer my question. If evolution is not true, why would God make birds and crocodiles so closely related? What explanation is there for this?
Why do you seem to refuse to answer this question?

You picked 5 articles that address the similarity of genes between croc and bird. And I said: "to the purpose of our argument", the use of these articles are "backward" argument. Here is why:

Why were these researches performed? Because paleontologist suggested that croc and bird share common ancestor. So, these people took samples from croc and from bird, and tried to find evidences for that, so we can have genetic evidences to support paleontological suggestions. Noticed what are the general type of conclusion: they all said: croc shared these genes with bird but not with lizard. But none of them said: croc share that genes with lizard but not with bird. I raised this question. But Split Rock boldly deny the possibility. The denial is totally unfounded. So, in simply logic, these articles say: A so B. But they did not say B so A. So the sharing of gene between croc and bird "suggests" their relationship. But it does not exclude a similar relationship, which might exist between croc and lizard.

Now, has anyone tried to do the same to croc and lizard? I don't believe so. Why? Because there is no point to do that (hard to get $ support) since paleontologist has already concluded that they are not as closely related.

That is why I said this type of argument is backward. What if people started to compare genes of croc and lizard seriously? I believe there could be more than 10 articles that show they share some DNAs (or whatever) but were not the case between croc and bird. What would be the conclusion then? In general, genetic arguments made to support paleontological suggests are partial and prejudiced. They use other people's conclusions, and try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

I am not saying this is not a scientific method. Basically creationists are doing the same thing. The critical problem is where does the conclusion come from at the first place.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Split Rock said:
Funny how on the one hand you say your genetic questions are not satisfied yet, and on the other that "God just did it that way" is completely satisfactory for you. How about, "Nature just did it that way," as an answer to all your genetic questions?

You have no faith. So you do not understand. This one is critical.

Again, I can understand what you understand. But not vise versa. This is the difference between creation science and science.

godsmission · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
You picked 5 articles that address the similarity of genes between croc and bird. And I said: "to the purpose of our argument", the use of these articles are "backward" argument. Here is why:

Why were these researches performed? Because paleontologist suggested that croc and bird share common ancestor. So, these people took samples from croc and from bird, and tried to find evidences for that, so we can have genetic evidences to support paleontological suggestions. Noticed what are the general type of conclusion: they all said: croc shared these genes with bird but not with lizard. But none of them said: croc share that genes with lizard but not with bird. I raised this question. But Split Rock boldly deny the possibility. The denial is totally unfounded. So, in simply logic, these articles say: A so B. But they did not say B so A. So the sharing of gene between croc and bird "suggests" their relationship. But it does not exclude a similar relationship, which might exist between croc and lizard.

Now, has anyone tried to do the same to croc and lizard? I don't believe so. Why? Because there is no point to do that (hard to get $ support) since paleontologist has already concluded that they are not as closely related.

That is why I said this type of argument is backward. What if people started to compare genes of croc and lizard seriously? I believe there could be more than 10 articles that show they share some DNAs (or whatever) but were not the case between croc and bird. What would be the conclusion then? In general, genetic arguments made to support paleontological suggests are partial and prejudiced. They use other people's conclusions, and try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

I am not saying this is not a scientific method. Basically creationists are doing the same thing. The critical problem is where does the conclusion come from at the first place.

So why don't creation scientists spend some of their money and do the same experiment and come up with a different answer? why don't they compare the genes of a croc and a lizard, I'll tell you why, because they would get the same answers as everyone else, crocs are related to birds and not lizards.

It's obvious to everyone juvenissun, that just like AV and dad you are only fooling yourself.

Hespera · Aug 7, 2009

godsmission sez...So why don't creation scientists spend some of their money and do the same experiment and come up with a different answer? why don't they compare the genes of a croc and a lizard, I'll tell you why, because they would get the same answers as everyone else, crocs are related to birds and not lizards.

It's obvious to everyone juvenissun, that just like AV and dad you are only fooling yourself. QUOTE////////////

H sez... the reason 'creation scientists' dont do any of those things is far more basic and deeper than that even. There is no such thing as a creation scientist. thre is no creation science.

What they have is this self-assumed 'wisdom' that makes them able to understand things with no effort.

Now, juv sez that he is a "creation petrologist" and has at least clearly implied if not stated outright... im not sure... that he is a professor, and teaches at a college of some sort.

I have heard that it is a "sin" to lie.

so lets see if juv will answer this. he may have me on ig, so someone else may have to ask.

Juv- do you have a legitimate PhD? from what country, what college? are you a professor who teaches at an accredited college?

Split Rock · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
You have no faith. So you do not understand. This one is critical.

Again, I can understand what you understand. But not vise versa. This is the difference between creation science and science.

Oh, but I do understand creationists like you, Juvie. Double Standards are an important part of the Creationist mindset.

I am happy, however, to see that you do not pretend to not understand the difference between religious "faith" and common "faith." That is, the difference between having "faith" in Jesus as The Christ, and "faith" in the delivery boy bringing your pizza in 30 minutes or less. Many of your fellow creationists here like to pretend there is no difference. So, I will give you props for that.

Naraoia · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
I am not playing professor. In fact, I am playing student. Not playing, I am a student, a troubling student.

Oh, playing student? Students are usually not the ones who tell professors how to write studies.

Don't forget, I don't know anything about genetics.

How could I?

The last paragraph is what I want to see in this thread of argument: It says: there are a lot about genetics that we do not know.

It, however, doesn't say that we can't know that crocs and birds are closer than crocs and lizards. It doesn't even imply that.

Besides, you didn't tell me what you meant by your question. I thought you wanted to know something about humans and "primitive" animals?

Back to where this thing started. BananaSlug said (with confidence) that croc is more related to bird than lizard. I said: don't be so sure.

He said: we have strong evidence (and provided it).

He continued: If croc is more related to bird, why would God allow this fact which proves(?) evolution?

See it? BananaSlug is trying to catch the wind. He built his punching question upon a hypothesis.

Upon a strongly supported one, to be fair...

juvenissun said:
There are too many errors in this little paragraph. Grade: a very generous D. Comments will be given if asked.

Witness juvenissun not playing the professor.

juvenissun said:
You picked 5 articles that address the similarity of genes between croc and bird. And I said: "to the purpose of our argument", the use of these articles are "backward" argument. Here is why:

Why were these researches performed? Because paleontologist suggested that croc and bird share common ancestor. So, these people took samples from croc and from bird, and tried to find evidences for that, so we can have genetic evidences to support paleontological suggestions.

For OR against. It's not their fault that it came out "for".

Noticed what are the general type of conclusion: they all said: croc shared these genes with bird but not with lizard. But none of them said: croc share that genes with lizard but not with bird. I raised this question.

Are you suggesting that these teams just hid the data that opposed the croc-bird hypothesis? If not, clarify, please. If yes, evidence, please.

But Split Rock boldly deny the possibility. The denial is totally unfounded. So, in simply logic, these articles say: A so B. But they did not say B so A. So the sharing of gene between croc and bird "suggests" their relationship. But it does not exclude a similar relationship, which might exist between croc and lizard.

Look at those summaries again. The studies compared genes present in ALL groups in question (crocs, other reptiles, birds, mammals), and consistently grouped crocs with birds as opposed to anything else. The lizards (or turtles) were INCLUDED in the comparisons. There is no opportunity for "gene in X and Y but not Z" here.

You seem confused, to be honest.

Now, has anyone tried to do the same to croc and lizard?

Tried to do what?

I don't believe so. Why? Because there is no point to do that (hard to get $ support) since paleontologist has already concluded that they are not as closely related.

Ah, but. Molecular studies were what first suggested that the palaeontologists were wrong about the ancestry of whales (or the evolutionary history of apes, for that matter). Someone clearly saw a point in challenging them there...

That is why I said this type of argument is backward. What if people started to compare genes of croc and lizard seriously? I believe there could be more than 10 articles that show they share some DNAs (or whatever) but were not the case between croc and bird. What would be the conclusion then?

You believe on what basis? You've just said you know nothing about genetics.

In general, genetic arguments made to support paleontological suggests are partial and prejudiced. They use other people's conclusions, and try to find evidence to support the conclusion.

Evidence, please.

I am not saying this is not a scientific method. Basically creationists are doing the same thing.

Really? (My eyebrows have now united with my hair)

The critical problem is where does the conclusion come from at the first place.

Is "data" a good enough place?

Hespera · Aug 7, 2009

Naraoia said:
Originally Posted by juvenissun

the critical problem is where does the conclusion come from in the first place?

Is "data" a good enough place?

I think this means that the conclusion comes first*. That is how "creation science" works, after all. Data, as he says, is to be interpreted through creationist principles. All data can do is further confirm your prior conclusion, dont you see?

*
`Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day. `No, no!' said the Queen. `Sentence first--verdict afterwards.'
`Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. `The idea of having the sentence first!'
`Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

Washington · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
You have no faith. So you do not understand. This one is critical.

And this goes to the heart of the creationist issue. It doesn't take science to understand creationism, although some, those who assume the label "creation scientist" and promote it as "creation science," would like people to think so. So as matter of faith it has absolutely no business in any secular classroom.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Washington said:
And this goes to the heart of the creationist issue. It doesn't take science to understand creationism, although some, those who assume the label "creation scientist" and promote it as "creation science," would like people to think so. So as matter of faith it has absolutely no business in any secular classroom.

Faith is the foundation of science education. You do not see, worry or talk about the foundation of a house all the time. But it has to be there first, or it has to be developed in order to support things built on it.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

godsmission said:
So why don't creation scientists spend some of their money and do the same experiment and come up with a different answer? why don't they compare the genes of a croc and a lizard, I'll tell you why, because they would get the same answers as everyone else, crocs are related to birds and not lizards.

It's obvious to everyone juvenissun, that just like AV and dad you are only fooling yourself.

They ARE doing that.

Hespera · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
They ARE doing that.

I call fake on that. There ARE no "creation scientists".

ARE you going to tell us honestly , knowing to lie is to sin, yes or no, do you have a real PhD

Are you really a professor at a college?

Your avoiding the question says it all of course.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Split Rock said:
Oh, but I do understand creationists like you, Juvie. Double Standards are an important part of the Creationist mindset.

I am happy, however, to see that you do not pretend to not understand the difference between religious "faith" and common "faith." That is, the difference between having "faith" in Jesus as The Christ, and "faith" in the delivery boy bringing your pizza in 30 minutes or less. Many of your fellow creationists here like to pretend there is no difference. So, I will give you props for that.

No, no. I am the same as AV and dad.
The examples you give is called chance, not faith. The chance is high, does not mean you believe in it. The delivery boy may have a car accident. But Jesus is always true.

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Naraoia said:
Are you suggesting that these teams just hid the data that opposed the croc-bird hypothesis? If not, clarify, please. If yes, evidence, please.

Look at those summaries again. The studies compared genes present in ALL groups in question (crocs, other reptiles, birds, mammals), and consistently grouped crocs with birds as opposed to anything else. The lizards (or turtles) were INCLUDED in the comparisons. There is no opportunity for "gene in X and Y but not Z" here.

...

Ah, but. Molecular studies were what first suggested that the palaeontologists were wrong about the ancestry of whales (or the evolutionary history of apes, for that matter). Someone clearly saw a point in challenging them there...

I thought you said we do not have the whole gene map on any of those animals. In fact, I guess we only have a small fraction (or even less) of their gene maps. Correct? If so, how do we know the unknown part of the genes in those animals won't give different conclusions?

Is that true? Could you tell me some more about the whale story? What is the argument from paleontologists?

juvenissun · Aug 7, 2009

Hespera said:
I call fake on that. There ARE no "creation scientists".

ARE you going to tell us honestly , knowing to lie is to sin, yes or no, do you have a real PhD

Are you really a professor at a college?

Your avoiding the question says it all of course.

I have seen you dancing around in this thread for a while. Sorry that I don't find anything you said worth to reply. I do not mean to ignore you.

Split Rock · Aug 7, 2009

juvenissun said:
No, no. I am the same as AV and dad.
The examples you give is called chance, not faith. The chance is high, does not mean you believe in it. The delivery boy may have a car accident. But Jesus is always true.

You said I do not have faith. I agree. AVET's position is that I have as much faith as he has, just that it is in other scientists' research as opposed to his faith in The Bible. In other words, his faith in god and original sin is the same as my faith in data reported from other researchers. This is of course equivocation; the deliberate mixing up of different definitions of the word "faith." I don't know what dad's position on the issue is.

The science of creationism: where is it?

Undefeated!

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Conflation of Blathers

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

godsmission

Guest

Junior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Apprentice Biologist

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Junior Member

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

... and God saw that it was good.

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency