The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

We never said evolution was random

I enjoy the learning. Thanks.

Other people have chickened away and this thread dragged too long. So I guess I will talk to you in some other threads. God bless you so you would have His wisdom in addition to yours.

Regards to your earlier question about oxygen-rich environment at the early earth. I recently think that it is quite possible to have pocket oxygen-rich environment in a generally oxygen poor earth surface. I forgot if I said that in the earlier discussion.

 

[Naraoia]

I enjoy the learning. Thanks.

You're welcome. If you really want to learn more, though, I'd suggest finding a more knowledgeable teacher.

Other people have chickened away and this thread dragged too long. So I guess I will talk to you in some other threads. God bless you so you would have His wisdom in addition to yours.

Regards to your earlier question about oxygen-rich environment at the early earth. I recently think that it is quite possible to have pocket oxygen-rich environment in a generally oxygen poor earth surface. I forgot if I said that in the earlier discussion.

It certainly sounds possible. I don't remember that discussion very well, so I can't recall if you said it or not, but thanks anyway.

 

[dad]

We never said evolution was random

OK, so what is it, well planned? By Whom, may I ask??

 

[Alunyel]

OK, so what is it, well planned? By Whom, may I ask??

You could ask, but you'd just get laughed at for using an age-old straw man.

It's not planned.

There is a "random" element to it.

But overall, the animal that is better suited to reproduce will reproduce more. Whatever traits it had that helped it reproduce more (Whether that's the ability to survive by avoiding predators/ hunting prey, whether that's something that's more attractive to the opposite sex, whether that's the ability to defend a territory, whatever.), will get passed on to the next generation, and so on and so forth.

The only "random" element is the information changes in each generation's genetic material. Even then, those changes are regulated by the environment. The changes that are damaging to the survival of the animal get removed through a selection process (natural or artificial), the neutral changes don't make any difference, and the ones that assist with reproduction get strengthened.

However, there's more than just random genetic mutation that drives evolution.

 

[dad]

You could ask, but you'd just get laughed at for using an age-old straw man.

I might, but then again, you might be out in left field here. Let's see what you got..

It's not planned.

Is to.

There is a "random" element to it.

Yes? How nice. But was there in Noah's day? Or Adam's? Age old agruments exist for a reason, you know, they aren't random.

But overall, the animal that is better suited to reproduce will reproduce more. Whatever traits it had that helped it reproduce more (Whether that's the ability to survive by avoiding predators/ hunting prey, whether that's something that's more attractive to the opposite sex, whether that's the ability to defend a territory, whatever.), will get passed on to the next generation, and so on and so forth.

Ah, I see the logic here, and the fault in it. You attribute all things to the observed evolving that Johnny come lately science has observed. Oh, no, that cannot apply to creation. That is simply noticing certain present traits in the animal kingdom. Of course the stronger ones generally will survive, and that is how it works in this state, and environs. That has nothing at all to do with, for example, the first lion. It ALREADY was strong, and perfect, and fine, thank you very much. As were all the created kinds. What else would we expect???? The present trend for the strongest to carry on the genes is merely an adaptation to a temporal state by animals! The real question becomes how many generations has this dog eat dog nonsense been necessary? The answer is, as far as you are concerned, at least, which happens not to be very far, if you limit yourself to science of the present, ---you do not know.

I think the mistake mainstream creationism has made, is to fight the facts of the present state realities, as if they needed to, in order to explain what happened in the far past.


Yes, dog eat dog is the order of the day. No, it was not in the garden. Any more questions?

Now, if you want to say it was the same at creation, as now, you would need to prove that. And good luck with that! Ain't gonna happen.

Therefore all that science claims is literally, in effect, and reality, a statement on how things now work, and assuming that all the way to creation, and far far far beyond, in their godless little scenarios. Nothing more.

The only "random" element is the information changes in each generation's genetic material. Even then, those changes are regulated by the environment.

I see no reason why a creature would not be regulated by the current environment!!?

The changes that are damaging to the survival of the animal get removed through a selection process (natural or artificial), the neutral changes don't make any difference, and the ones that assist with reproduction get strengthened.

Nothing was damaging in the garden. Nothing needed to be removed. The devolution came with the fall of man, and his world. That included beasts. God equipped creatures with an ability to evolve, and it was sorely needed. For example, the ice age. Lots of animals needed to adapt.

The question arises about how they used to adapt, whether it was as now, or not. Did the plants that became weeds take millions of years to evolve into weeds at the curse?? Or, as the records indicate, was it extremely rapid? Same with mosquitoes, and the rest of the curse. Did snake poison, and bee stings, and etc all take millions of years to evolve? Or was a different order of the day in effect, where changes were rapid!? This science cannot and does not know. It merely looks at present little slow changes, and talks as if that is all that ever was in effect.

I do not disagree with present evolution, I just disagree with artificailly imposing it on the unknown dawn of history and life!

However, there's more than just random genetic mutation that drives evolution.

I think you may start to suspect, I can sure agree with that. God is behind it. That is a whole lot more than random anything.

I guess I may be an evolved creationist! A leaner, meaner, stronger version.

 

[Alunyel]

Why is it up to us to prove anything was the same? There's absolutely nothing to suggest, aside from your religious beliefs, that it was any different.

It's up to you to show evidence that things were different, not for us to show that everything progressed as it does now. If there's nothing to suggest that it would be different, then why would it be different?

"To fit my religious beliefs!" Idn't a valid answer.

Evolution can only go as fast as a species can create generations. If an animal gives birth to something that's got too many genetic mutations, then the diploid that animal passes on via either a sperm cell or an egg cell, wouldn't be compatable with the diploid cells of anything else in its species, and those mutations would die out, because there's simply nothing compatable to mate with. In essence, if there are too many mutations in an animal's genetic material, then that animal cannot pass on those genes.

As for evidence, fossils/relative depth at which they're found, mtDNA, ERVs, I could go on. All the evidence for evolution is basically all evidence that it occurs over long periods of time.

You can babble on all you like about "Not like it was in the Garden", but it's bull unless you have evidence to support it.

 

[dad]

Why is it up to us to prove anything was the same?

Why? Because that is what science of the past is! It is science that claims stuff about how evolution worked a certain way, and that way is based on how it now is! That's why! If that underlying, basic, fundamental, all pervading premise is wrong, they have nothing at all, in any field, be it cosmology, geology, or any evo pseudo science, etc!

There's absolutely nothing to suggest, aside from your religious beliefs, that it was any different.

It's up to you to show evidence that things were different, not for us to show that everything progressed as it does now. If there's nothing to suggest that it would be different, then why would it be different?

Who cares why it would be different, or the same, or some other way!??? The point is, when we assume it to be the one certain way, and build up a house of cards on that premise, one needs to be able to prove, or at least solidly evidence that premise. Of course. Why would I believe that evolving always was as it now is? Why would I cast off creation itself, and God Himself, and the bible itself, and early historical records themselves, just because someone assumes it was not true????!!! Or assumes that this temporal state was always the only thing going, the be all, end all!!?? We need a reason to toss out all that. A real good reason. You have no reason at all.

"To fit my religious beliefs!" Idn't a valid answer.

I do not cast off your religious so called science beliefs because of my beliefs alone. No. I cast them out as dirt in the streets, because they have no basis whatsoever, in their opposition to all that is good, and decent, and sound, and historical!

Evolution can only go as fast as a species can create generations. If an animal gives birth to something that's got too many genetic mutations, then the diploid that animal passes on via either a sperm cell or an egg cell, wouldn't be compatable with the diploid cells of anything else in its species, and those mutations would die out, because there's simply nothing compatable to mate with. In essence, if there are too many mutations in an animal's genetic material, then that animal cannot pass on those genes.

If...if if if...if if...if it all started in the la la land based on the foundation belief of science, so called. In reality, all you are really talking about, is as far back, in this present state, a species can create generations. That matters not at all! Not to the creation debate. If the kinds started the ball rolling for any evolving, and started it in a different state world, then none of that matters. It is useless speculation to imagine generations always having been bound to our temporal state rules. You leave reason, and reality, and evidence, and proof, and venture off into pure imagination, of what a world based on our present rules woulda coulda shoulda looked like. Meaningless.

To illustrate the same principle we just need to look to the future, as told in the bible. The lions will eat straw again, in the millennium. That means that they will evolve and change in a short time. That is impossible under the current regime! Science deals only in the present, the future and far past are way way out of it's grasp.

As for evidence, fossils/relative depth at which they're found,

So?? I agree. Does that mean that they lived, and grew and died in a present state???! No. No. No. No.

mtDNA, ERVs,

The life processes, and cellular, and molecular, and atomic realities of the future are far different that we see in this death state. So, as I read history, and the bible, were they in the past! We cannot limit the way the ancestors of ERV's were transferred to what we see now! Or limit how DNA works.

I could go on. All the evidence for evolution is basically all evidence that it occurs over long periods of time.

Which is basically NO evidence. You can't go on, you haven't even started yet. You need to impose the temporal state on eternity first! Good luck with that.

You can babble on all you like about "Not like it was in the Garden", but it's bull unless you have evidence to support it.

Useless to you maybe. But that matters not at all, because your same state universe did not exist! Babble about it all you like. For those billions thhat have felt the power of the spiritual, and the bible, it's accounts have real weight. Science is a featherweight compared to that. Feathers blown about with the wind of imagination, and dreams of men, and sleight of hand, and cunning fables.

Of course if you have anything else, do feel free to present it.

 

[Alunyel]

All I can say is, I have never, ever, in my whole life read such nonsense.

Not even from Av.

Not even in the Bible itself.

Science isn't a belief system, it is based off of empirical observation, and the logical conclusions drawn from those observations.

Saying science is only about the present is wrong, we can OBSERVE to see how the past was. There are entire branches of science dedicated to studying the past.

We can look at layers of sediment in the Earth's crust and recognising certain patterns, work out how old the things found in those layers are, we can use isotope dating methods to work out the date of organic material with some measure of accuracy, the methods used to gather evidence about the past are there, and they work. Just because what they find contradicts your religious beliefs, doesn't mean what they find can be ignored by anyone open to logic and reason.

You spout bull about science starts off with the premise without any evidence to support it, yet say smeg like;

"To illustrate the same principle we just need to look to the future, as told in the bible. The lions will eat straw again, in the millennium. That means that they will evolve and change in a short time. That is impossible under the current regime!"

A lion is specifically adapted to hunt and kill prey. Elongated canines, sharp, forward facing vision, huge claws and powerful limbs and jaws. If it became a herbivore, it'd evolve over millions of years, and by the time it was a herbivore, it would no longer resemble a lion. Its teeth, claws, muscles, everything, would be adapted to eating plants. It would be a completely new species. The problem with the Biblical prediction, is that the lion is such a good hunter, it's so good at eating meat, that it has absolutely no reason to change.

Your premise is the Bible, your evidence is nil. Science STARTS OFF gathering evidence to observe then draws conclusions from that. You're just showing us all how lacking your knowledge is on science. Not how wrong science is, just how wrong your perception of it is.

We have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to suggest that anything was ever any different, yet dating fossil records, and simple logic suggests that it was no different. What evidence is there to suggest either a change, or than anything was different?

The simple fact that I stated in my previous post, that you didn't seem to understand, how too many gene mutations (What forces evolutionary changes.), would result in the infertility of animals. THIS MEANS THAT EVOLUTION CAN'T GO TOO FAST. It's impossible. An animal can't reproduce with something who's genetic material is too different.

Your whole premise requires some primitive, outdated belief in a book that has no supporting evidence, and it requires everything to becompletely different to the way it is now.

You really are full of bovine excrement.

 

[Papias]

Sorry to bring back an old thread, but I came across the "random" comment, and had to point out this common line:

Naraoia wrote:

We never said evolution was random

Right. That's a common strawman.

The word "random", like many other words, can mean different things in different contexts. For instance, "random" can mean:

1. "outcomes having an equal probability" as in These dice are random.

Or, it could mean:

2. "No one is directing this process", as in the pattern of raindrops is random.

In the first definition, evolution is NOT random. Mutations appear to be random, but evolution, because it is guided by natural selection, is not random in anyone's worldview (except a creationist's strawman worldview). The fact that wolves and tasmanian wolves evolved to fit a predatory, forested niche, and that no blue whales are in that niche, shows that.

The creationist bait and switch is to claim “evolution is random”, hoping one will hear “random” according to whichever definition sounds true, and then switch to definition #1, making a strawman that can easily be shown to be incorrect by the 747 in junkyard analogy.

The whole “random” distraction can often be avoided by simply clarifying that evolution is not random by definition #1, and is only random in definition #2 if one is an atheist.

Papias