What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Those people are tares. True creationists (Christians) don't do that stuff. Anyway there are too few of us to make a difference.

i thought that they were Scottish

 

[pitabread]

It would likely take a blackboard size formula for just one tiny biological change, of the millions that would be needed for even a small evolutionary change. Picture a long hallway with a million locked doors, each representing a complex chemical or biological change that must take place successfully before even a small evolutionary change can occur.

Huh?

 

[MIDutch]

Many can be correct in some aspects.

There are theological aspects, philosophical aspects, scientific aspects.

In science class, scientific aspect should be taught. In philosophy class, philosophical aspect should be taught. In a church, theological aspect should be taught.

And if somebody wants to have a holistic view, he should have at least basics in all of them.

But isn't that the entire crux of what we're "debating" here on this forum? Any and all of them may have some value in philosophy or theology, but the "debate" is whether any of them have any value as a science textbook.

Obviously, the Christian creationists insist that their creation myth gets "equal footing" in science classes, despite there being no evidence that their myth is anymore scientifically valid than any of the other ones.

Also obviously, they (and you) use the word "creation", instead of existence or cosmic reality or "everything after the Big Bang", to forcibly imply a "creator" when no such implication is necessary for the Cosmos in which we live to exist.

Science has a perfectly natural explanation for the existence of the Cosmos. One that is not bogged down by the emotional (philosophical, theological) need creationists have for there to be a "creator". I'm just trying to point out that their "creator" is no more necessary from a scientific standpoint than any of the other mythological "creators".

 

[solid_core]

We should all protect our environment. Because we have no other environment to live in.

 

[MIDutch]

How about the one where manure is used for fertilizer, not ground up rocks treated with acid.

Traditional ag teacher: "Animal manures make great fertilizers."

Modern ag teacher: "Chemicals are superior to manures. In fact manure should be processed to produce energy."

I must have missed the Biblical passages about the agricultural uses of manure.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You can "believe" anything you want. Personally, I like to believe that the pixies dancing in my garden are responsible for painting the colors on the beautiful flowers that come up every spring, but I don't try to force others into "believing" that, and I certainly don't try to pass it off as science.

What am I trying to force others to believe?
What am I trying to pass off as science?

 

[solid_core]

But isn't that the entire crux of what we're "debating" here on this forum? Any and all of them may have some value in philosophy or theology, but the "debate" is whether any of them have any value as a science textbook.

Obviously, the Christian creationists insist that their creation myth gets "equal footing" in science classes, despite there being no evidence that their myth is anymore scientifically valid than any of the other ones.

Also obviously, they (and you) use the word "creation", instead of existence or cosmic reality or "everything after the Big Bang", to forcibly imply a "creator" when no such implication is necessary for the Cosmos in which we live to exist.

Science has a perfectly natural explanation for the existence of the Cosmos. One that is not bogged down by the emotional (philosophical, theological) need creationists have for there to be a "creator". I'm just trying to point out that their "creator" is no more necessary from a scientific standpoint than any of the other mythological "creators".

1. I agree that Genesis should not be taught in science class. However, it SHOULD be taught in history and philosophy class.

2. I do not agree that Genesis is simply a myth. Its quite a unique genre, I would call it poetic mythological monotheistic drama polemic with babylonians But yes, its not a scientific description.

3. Of course we use the term "creation", because we are Christians. Of course it implies a Creator, we believe there is one.

4. Science does not have a perfectly natural explanation for the existence of Cosmos. It has no idea "why" and what was before. They also do not have any explanation why is the Universe fine tuned for life and for rational beings. Christians do. Science only mapped the processes that formed our universe from its beginning. But science does not know why there are such laws, why it is possible to trace them, why mathematics works etc.

5. The fact that the story in Genesis have mythological aspects in it does not mean that God/Creator is mythological or that Jesus is mythological etc. These are different areas.

 

[GodsGrace101]

How about two words: Biological evolution.

So grass became a tree?

 

[pitabread]

So grass became a tree?

No, but they do share a common ancestor.

Incidentally, grasses appear to have evolved long after trees evolved. Trees are estimated to have evolved over 300 Mya. Grasses, about ~50-60 Mya.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Don't need to. The evidence, and scientific (human) conclusions about that evidence, is widely available in THOUSANDS of museums, universities, research laboratories, excavation sites, research hospitals, libraries, etc. in every country around the globe.

You creationists don't know because you refuse to look at, and/or understand, the vast amount of evidence. Creationists prefer to take the easy route and merely accuse everyone else of being as willfully ignorant as they are.

I'm not a creationist.

 

[Resha Caner]

Come up with a scientific theory that has equivalent or better explanatory* power for the origin and diversity of species on Earth, and equivalent or better application in fields of applied biology.

Until creationists can do that, everything else is irrelevant.

*(And for the record, "God made stuff" isn't an explanation.)

How much interest would you have in such a venture? IOW, is the issue whether people think evolution is True (with a capital T) or just a useful model? Would you consider the case proven if new mechanisms were found for changes in allele frequency (e.g. not a descent of species), or would it have to be shown that allele frequency has changed differently than claimed, or that it hasn't changed at all? Just wonder what you're really looking for. "Explanatory power" is a vague term with no real scientific usage beyond the colloquial - at least as far as I'm aware.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not upset with you.

I didn't think you were. My post was intended to convey that I was upset with you. Denial of personal ignorance always upsets me.

I just think the conversation is over once one of the parties believes the other is too ignorant about a subject that they are familiar with...and I do mean ignorant, not stupid..

I don't believe you are ignorant of the topic. I know you are ignorant of the topic. You made multiple statements indicating clearly that you did not know that several questions you thought had not been answered had been answered. Worse than that you rejected an offer to educate you on those points. The initial ignorance is not an issue. The refusal to open yourself to an answer is an issue.

I'm not a creationist,,,I'm not trying to win anything,
my eyes are not closed but I don't see any massive evidence.

IF you are not seeing massive evidence you are not looking in the right places. There is so much evidence it is doubtful one person could review all of it in a lifetime.

The pronouncements I make are what I believe to be true. I've asked several times for those on this thread to explain the cambrian explosion..even on other threads. So far, no explanation..

I missed your requests for those. To present the answer properly would take a book length treatment. In the meantime I shall give you a headline summary. I can and shall expand upon any of these points with relevant citations if you ask. If and when you do please ask one thing at a time so I can provide a full and focused answer. If you agree to engage in this way I shall open a new thread for the purpose so as not to interrupt this one further.

The Cambrian explosion.

• Early geological field work recognised the "sudden" appearance of fossils in the Cambrian period, with most major animal phyla appearing within a few tens of millions of years. The Pre-Cambrian was apparently barren of life.
• Subsequent research has revealed that prokaryotes, "simple", single celled organisms without a nucleus were active 3.5 billion years ago, almost 3 billion years before the Cambrian
• Eukaryotes, more complex organisms with nuclei and various organelles appeared possibly as early as 2.5 billion years ago.
• Atmospheric oxygen levels also began to rise at this time as a consequence of the outputs of photosynthetic organisms.
• Increased oxygen levels, along with the diversification of eukaryotes, led to the appearance of multi-celllular organisms and then to metazoans, organisms in which cells are differentiated into different tissue types. This is an area of active research with frequent new discoveries. It occurred over a period from 1.8 billion down to some 700 million years ago.
• Over the latter part of this period the biosphere was subjected to the shock of several global glaciations, popularly known as Snowball Earth.
• Shortly after the end of the last of these, in the Ediacaran, those metazoans had diversified into a wide range organisms, almost a 100 million years before the Cambrian.
• Then as we approach the Cambrian organisms stumbled on the benefit of having a hard outer shell and the "explosion" began.

Against that background the only thing left to explain about the Cambrian explosion is the details.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, but they do share a common ancestor.

Sure, but how did the changes occur?
Where do we see them in the before and after?

I think I should bow out of this discussion so you guys could get back to having some serious talk.

I did want to say regarding the eyes and even the ears, to which I have not received a reply yet....that Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that such a complex organ could have developed over a very short period of time that it would destroy his entire theory.

I think the eye is a good example of this....
I believe animals/humans/fish would have HAD to have eyes or they would not have been able to survive. (to even get to the next level of evolution).

 

[GodsGrace101]

I didn't think you were. My post was intended to convey that I was upset with you. Denial of personal ignorance always upsets me.

I don't believe you are ignorant of the topic. I know you are ignorant of the topic. You made multiple statements indicating clearly that you did not know that several questions you thought had not been answered had been answered. Worse than that you rejected an offer to educate you on those points. The initial ignorance is not an issue. The refusal to open yourself to an answer is an issue.

IF you are not seeing massive evidence you are not looking in the right places. There is so much evidence it is doubtful one person could review all of it in a lifetime.

I missed your requests for those. To present the answer properly would take a book length treatment. In the meantime I shall give you a headline summary. I can and shall expand upon any of these points with relevant citations if you ask. If and when you do please ask one thing at a time so I can provide a full and focused answer. If you agree to engage in this way I shall open a new thread for the purpose so as not to interrupt this one further.

The Cambrian explosion.

• Early geological field work recognised the "sudden" appearance of fossils in the Cambrian period, with most major animal phyla appearing within a few tens of millions of years. The Pre-Cambrian was apparently barren of life.
• Subsequent research has revealed that prokaryotes, "simple", single celled organisms without a nucleus were active 3.5 billion years ago, almost 3 billion years before the Cambrian
• Eukaryotes, more complex organisms with nuclei and various organelles appeared possibly as early as 2.5 billion years ago.
• Atmospheric oxygen levels also began to rise at this time as a consequence of the outputs of photosynthetic organisms.
• Increased oxygen levels, along with the diversification of eukaryotes, led to the appearance of multi-celllular organisms and then to metazoans, organisms in which cells are differentiated into different tissue types. This is an area of active research with frequent new discoveries. It occurred over a period from 1.8 billion down to some 700 million years ago.
• Over the latter part of this period the biosphere was subjected to the shock of several global glaciations, popularly known as Snowball Earth.
• Shortly after the end of the last of these, in the Ediacaran, those metazoans had diversified into a wide range organisms, almost a 100 million years before the Cambrian.
• Then as we approach the Cambrian organisms stumbled on the benefit of having a hard outer shell and the "explosion" began.

Against that background the only thing left to explain about the Cambrian explosion is the details.

Are the above YOUR words?

 

[GodsGrace101]

You made a claim. That places a burden of proof upon you. Dodging and ducking when one needs to support a claim is roughly the same as admitting that one is wrong.

What claim did I make?
I don't dodge and duck.

 

[MIDutch]

Mythology is not fables and certainly not fairy tales.

Mythology is a pre-scientific view of the world. First tries of humanity to grasp the reality around them. To make sense of the world.

Later it was replaced by natural philosophy and very, very recently by science. We should not look down at these eras, they are shoulders we stand on.

I have nothing against mythology or fables or fairy tales. In fact, I rather like them. And they are certainly important aspects of human history that we can learn from, but I would certainly NOT use a COLLECTION of myths, fables and tall tales (see what I did there, listed them separately to indicate that they are different literary vehicles) as a scientific textbook since those "first tries of humanity to grasp the reality around them" were generally wrong, i.e. lightning and thunder being caused by Thor's hammer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's an actual, real time, example of how science often operates.

Many have heard me complain about the dirty lakes in my county.

I am currently discussing one lake that is particularly bad. There is a civic group that is trying to clean it up by addressing the watershed runoff issue, with the stated goal of improving the lake itself. This 'statement of purpose' rings hollow as the lake gets worse year after year, and attracted my interest, and my knowledge.

After getting the runaround by the groups chairperson I went into the 'public comments' section of their website and made the following suggestions: "Cut the weeds, remove the carp, and you'll have a clean lake for everyone to enjoy."

I received an immediate response from the group's spokesperson who, surprisingly, agreed with me, but stated that while they too advocated this approach there were 'certain roadblocks' that needed to be overcome.

Having prior knowledge of what these roadblocks likely were I can assure myself and others that the lake will never be cleaned up.

The lake is a 'study project' for our university science departments, which many years ago revealed that they were studying how a lake 'dies', becoming hyper-eutrophic and finally returns to woodland. They even have a laboratory right on the shore of the lake.

The State Department of Natural Resources is also involved. This department has authority over all 'navigable' bodies of water in the state, and in cooperation with the university is 'managing' this lake as well as one other for the production of big game fish, notably hybrid muskellunge.

A hyper-eutrophic lake serves both purposes, but at the expense of the pleasurable use of the community.

Thus science in this case is self-serving at the expense of the community at large. Sad.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Your answer is demonstrably false.

Math is a human made tool based at least partially on observation. The universe does not add. It is a very useful tool. And that was a rather pointless question.

You are still trying not to learn. That may be a way to maintain your beliefs, but it will not bring you any closer to the truth.

The theory of evolution does not "refute God". People that try to claim that are no different from Flat Earthers that deny gravity. Most Flat Earthers have those beliefs based upon a very literalistic interpretation of the Bible. Too much literalism is harmful to one's faith.

Math was here long before man was.
Someone/thing had to INVENT it,,,and it wasn't us.

I'm leaving this site now.

 

[pitabread]

Sure, but how did the changes occur?
Where do we see them in the before and after?

The changes occur the same way any genetic changes occurs in populations; reproduction and variation.

Now if you wanted to research the evolutionary history of plants, that's a topic all unto itself. I'd suggest hitting up Google Scholar for that.

I did want to say regarding the eyes and even the ears, to which I have not received a reply yet....that Darwin himself said that if it could be shown that such a complex organ could have developed over a very short period of time that it would destroy his entire theory.

I think the eye is a good example of this....
I believe animals/humans/fish would have HAD to have eyes or they would not have been able to survive. (to even get to the next level of evolution).

Here's the full Darwin quote in question. Most people only quote the first part thus missing the entire context of Darwin's actual point; which is that the eye is not a barrier to evolution.

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. ​

(my emphasis)

Further, since Darwin's time there are numerous models for and lines of evidence for how eyes could have evolved; it's a widely studied topic. There is nothing in nature suggesting that eyes did not or could not have evolved.

As per Darwin's own writing, the eye is not a barrier for evolution.

 

[GodsGrace101]

But that is merely because you refuse to study the topic.

Twenty five words or less would guarantee a fairly poor explanation. Why ask for that?

Because IF someone understands how something works, they should be able to explain it in 25 words or less.