What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Resha Caner]

I think some of us would be interested in discussing this with you (probably in a new thread) with a bit more detail needed. For example, I'm a bit confused by your nucleotide calculation...

There actually is a 5th nucleotide (U) that replaces (T) in RNA. Because of the base pairing in DNA/RNA there needs to be a matching, G to C, A to T (or to U in RNA). A 5th DNA base would only be useful if there was a 6th.

(At first I thought you were talking about the length of codons, because changing the number of nucleotides would change the number of combinations available. Length 3 codons with 4 nucleotides have 64 combinations, while a length 2 codon would only have 16, which is not enough to code for all of the 20 amino acids + the stop codon. With 5 nucleotides, length 2 codons giving 25 combinations would be mathematically possible to provide enough coverage.)

Ugh. Now I am embarrassed. Seriously embarrassed. I really mangled that part of the post, didn't I? I just noticed another error in addition to what you caught. My sincerest apologies. But, yeah, if you want to discuss in an IM or something, we could.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ugh. Now I am embarrassed. Seriously embarrassed. I really mangled that part of the post, didn't I? I just noticed another error in addition to what you caught. My sincerest apologies. But, yeah, if you want to discuss in an IM or something, we could.

That's OK, we all make mistakes. I don't use any IM system, but would be glad to interact about it here, publicly.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's OK, we all make mistakes. I don't use any IM system, but would be glad to interact about it here, publicly.

CF has IM capability. Discussing real technical detail publicly (especially here) has a lot of challenges, but if that's what you want, we can give it a try.

 

[Hans Blaster]

CF has IM capability. Discussing real technical detail publicly (especially here) has a lot of challenges, but if that's what you want, we can give it a try.

Yeah, I know it has some IM capabilities, but I don't use them. If you have something that you don't want to post publicly, just drop a note in the public board and I'll look. (I don't normally even log in except to post and never otherwise look at the various red flashes at the top when logged in.)

My suggestion for this discussion would be start a new thread with the first post being an executive summary and "rules" post (particularly for other posters), the next a background, and then the basic presentation. (Or something like that. You've clearly done technical writing and I'm not trying to force a format.) I've been on a lot more recently (hmmm, I wonder why...) so I should see it fairly soon after you start.

I joined CF to discuss scientific topics (including ones one which I was not expert) with a variety of people. I hoped to learn about things (I have) and to inform others (I hope I have). I think we can have a nice discussion.

 

[Shemjaza]

By the same population I think you mean the one celled organism in the soup primordial.

Can YOU explain the cambrian explostion? I've been asking for this...it seems like life just boomed all of a sudden.

I suspect you have got some skewed information about the Cambrian explosion. The first life of the Cambrian wasn't much like modern life. For example Cambrian "fish" were basically swimming tubes with just the beginning of a spine.

But as to explanation, it wasn't beginning of all life... it was the beginning of the ability to find evidence of life.

There is evidence of a variety of life in the Pre-Cambrian, but it is all very soft bodied. Preservation is rare to begin with and preservation for more then 500 million years rarer still.

So the Cambrian explosion just shows when life stated using calcium and other elements to make coverings or internal structure of cartilage or later bone.

It's like finding foot prints in the soft mud next to the pavement... it's not that the people suddenly teleported there, it's just that you couldn't detect where they walked on the footpath.

I'm curious about what you think occurred? Were the simple squidgy things of the Cambrian created... then destroyed only to be replaced hundreds and hundreds of times over the eons?

Science was looking for an answer as to how life began and Darwin seemed to have given the answer.
But he answered why species are different not HOW life began....he gave his theory and science just latched onto it. Some scientists have left this theory since they think it is not provable (or whatever that is called).

You are mistaken, the Theory of Evolution has never been used as an explanation for the origin of life.

It's the Origin of Species... life already existed, but it diversifies into new species via evolution.

Science latches onto it because it works, both as an explanation of evidence now and in the past... and as a method that can be use in other fields of science and engineering.

The problem with your "Some scientists" who have left the theory, is that I have never seen any that could present scientific evidence for their doubt.

People in this thread have presented the evidence. It's already completely "proven".

I wonder how old you are.
I remember back in the 60's when it became apparent that the universe had a beginning, some scientists were rather alarmed because they thought that there was all eternity for species to change into something different and then realized they were not granted so much time and wondered if a few billion years would be enough since there was no life at all for the first 2 or 3 billion years (or more).

I'm not that old, but I think you got some bad information in the 60s. I'm pretty sure that both the age of the Earth and in particular the age of Cambrian explosion were well established by then.

The evidence of the Earth seems to be that simple life got going pretty quickly after the surface settled down... but it's also not really relevant.

Unless people can demonstrate that the natural beginning and development of life is literally impossible, then the shear scale of the universe squashes probability arguments.

What if it's still unknowable hundreds of years from now? Will scientists still be unwilling to CONSIDER an intelligent designer?

It seems to me like this idea (theory?) will never be accepted by science and I think it should be.

Most people already do. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Christians who accept evolution and the Big Bang outnumber atheists of all stripes.

An intelligent designer as an explanation for the universe can be very appealing and convincing... it just doesn't provide any scientific arguments or evidence.

If you can't find evidence you can test, then you can't apply science to it. If not, it might as well be "That's just how it is, no one can know why."

I'm a believer in God and I do believe He created everything, somehow or other. I think we can't get beyond the BB because there was NOTHING before that.

I do believe that TIME was created at the same time as the universe...so how does one go back BEFORE TIME?

It's all interesting.

A lot of cosmologists agree that time came about with the Big Bang, so they agree with you that there was nothing before, because before doesn't even make sense. Like north of the north pole.

Finding an explanation for the unknowable in personal conviction, tradition or personal revelation is 100% undisputable by science... it's when you start applying that to things that are known, or at least reasonably inferred it becomes a problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

Can YOU explain the cambrian explostion? I've been asking for this...it seems like life just boomed all of a sudden.

I gave you a summary explanation. - You complained about the big words in it.

I wrote an expanded version of the first two points in my explanation, using simpler words and explaining some in more detail and encouraging you ask for clarification of any points that were unclear before we moved on to the later points. - you ignored that post.

Now you are asking the same question again. Why?

 

[Jimmy D]

Can YOU explain the cambrian explostion? I've been asking for this...it seems like life just boomed all of a sudden.

In addition to my previous post there is an abundance of literature explaining and examining the Cambrian Explosion.

The topic of the thread though is asking for a creationist explanation.

Is there one that fits the observations? How do you explain what we find in the fossil record?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I gave you a summary explanation. - You complained about the big words in it.

I wrote an expanded version of the first two points in my explanation, using simpler words and explaining some in more detail and encouraging you ask for clarification of any points that were unclear before we moved on to the later points. - you ignored that post.

Now you are asking the same question again. Why?

I find it difficult to speak to you.
You've told me I'm ignorant about science two times.
After the first I kept replying to your posts, after the second -- you know.

Also, I might have missed the second reply with easier words.

It's like if YOU were asking theological questions and I told you that you're ignorant about theology....that makes little sense! A person cannot be all-knowing about everything, but they could still have a somewhat informed opinion.

For instance, you don't believe God exists. I never called you ignorant because you don't agree with me,,,the is your prerogative. I'm sure you've based it on something since some scientists are theist,,,but you're experience is your experience.

Anyway, I don't dislike science and am very interested in it, so I'm not one of those that believes the two should be warring. I'm just here because I enjoy learning....that doesn't mean I have to agree with all (unless its math!)

 

[GodsGrace101]

In addition to my previous post there is an abundance of literature explaining and examining the Cambrian Explosion.

The topic of the thread though is asking for a creationist explanation.

Is there one that fits the observations? How do you explain what we find in the fossil record?

Not understanding very well, all I can see is one type of living being in one stratos and then a different one in the next layer. I'm told we have all the links in between...but I never see them pictured in any of the stuff I see --- maybe they're in scientific journals...this I can't know.

The N.T. does state that those that have not experienced God or believe in Him will not be able to understand things of the spirit. So, since, at some point, I came to believe in God, I can say that this is true. I also used to be an atheist or maybe more an agnostic.

But I'm not here to argue this with you.

As to my understanding of how everything was created...I've said a few times here that it would be nice if science discovered the HOW...and I mean going back before the BB.

The earth is not 6,000 years old. It's at least 3 or 4 billion years old. It was not always in the form it is now....it changed over time. It became habitable.
It seems to me that what Genesis is saying is that God prepared a home for humans....and then humans were created. From dirt, from a word -- who can know for sure? No one was around when Genesis was happening.

I'd believe in the theory of evolution more if there was complete consensus regarding it...it just seems to me that not all science can agree with it.

This idea of fine-tuning would be in keeping with Genesis. IOW, God created a HOME for humans, and then at some point, they also were fine-tuned and put in that home.

I think this is what fine-tuning means.
I think man is unique.
I'm not saying the other life forms did not exist....

This is the best I can do because I'm not a scientist.

The bible does not really interest itself in HOW something happened, but WHY it happened. If some Christians think the bible is a history book,,,well, that's what they believe and I'm not one to debate...let each one believe what they will....even if they're wrong.

 

[GodsGrace101]

In addition to my previous post there is an abundance of literature explaining and examining the Cambrian Explosion.

The topic of the thread though is asking for a creationist explanation.

Is there one that fits the observations? How do you explain what we find in the fossil record?

P.S. Is the O.P. asking for a Christian explanation or proof or a model....(I understood it was asking for more).

How does one prove something that is beyond nature and is metaphysical? I don't believe this can be done.

I've had one member on this thread tell me that my experiences were not real and not repeatable. My reply was that I then must surely be schizophrenic...yes, it's not so easy to speak with some on here.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I suspect you have got some skewed information about the Cambrian explosion. The first life of the Cambrian wasn't much like modern life. For example Cambrian "fish" were basically swimming tubes with just the beginning of a spine.

Thanks for such a nice reply.

I don't believe I have a skewed idea about the Cambrian Explosion. Of course, I'm not going by the same information you have. I explained my view in another post...I don't understand how we get from one stratos to the other and I don't see links in between. I'm going by images of the different time zones and the different stratos. I admit that there must surely be something I don't see since I'm sure it's much more complicated than any images makes it seem.

But, yes, how does "TUBE" get to be a "FISH"?.
I just think this is too complicated and given any amount of time it just cannot happen. I do, however, realize I may be wrong about this...but some scientists seem to agree.

But as to explanation, it wasn't beginning of all life... it was the beginning of the ability to find evidence of life.

I agree with micro evolution. I think everyone does. It's obvious to all. This would be adaptation, or the survival of the fittest, or selection, etc.
But some add to this the beginning of life...
I find this to be a totally different argument.
If we understood HOW life began,,,why could we not reproduce it? Surely there must be a reason...maybe it's just not doable?

There is evidence of a variety of life in the Pre-Cambrian, but it is all very soft bodied. Preservation is rare to begin with and preservation for more then 500 million years rarer still.

So the Cambrian explosion just shows when life stated using calcium and other elements to make coverings or internal structure of cartilage or later bone.

It's like finding foot prints in the soft mud next to the pavement... it's not that the people suddenly teleported there, it's just that you couldn't detect where they walked on the footpath.

Interesting!
I think I understand better now.
The footprints in the mud would have disappeared,,,but not the ones on the pavement.

I'm curious about what you think occurred? Were the simple squidgy things of the Cambrian created... then destroyed only to be replaced hundreds and hundreds of times over the eons?

I don't know how it all happened.
I just can't discount ID, or, as I like to call it...God.
Yes, maybe he just loves to create...
maybe He was creating a good earth for us to live in.
Maybe He's still creating....so many galaxies...
(I know this sounds silly to you).

You are mistaken, the Theory of Evolution has never been used as an explanation for the origin of life.

It's the Origin of Species... life already existed, but it diversifies into new species via evolution.

Yes, it's that changing into different life forms that gives most creationists a problem...and even some atheists. Maybe one has to be a scientist to be able to understand this.

Science latches onto it because it works, both as an explanation of evidence now and in the past... and as a method that can be use in other fields of science and engineering.

The problem with your "Some scientists" who have left the theory, is that I have never seen any that could present scientific evidence for their doubt.

Maybe they don't know the answer but have been convinced that species change into a different species? I could not like taking a certain medicine, but have nothing to replace it with. I don't have a problem with needing to know another solutions before I leave one I don't accept.

People in this thread have presented the evidence. It's already completely "proven".

Hmmm. How come every scientist agrees that gravity exists? But they don't all agree with this idea of species changing..

I'm not that old, but I think you got some bad information in the 60s. I'm pretty sure that both the age of the Earth and in particular the age of Cambrian explosion were well established by then.

The evidence of the Earth seems to be that simple life got going pretty quickly after the surface settled down... but it's also not really relevant.

Yes, in the 60's the age of the earth was already established. This is NOT what I was referring to: I was referring to the existence of t he universe.
It was believed that the universe ALWAYS EXISTED...that it had no beginning. Then the BB was generally accepted. I might have mis-spoken.

Unless people can demonstrate that the natural beginning and development of life is literally impossible, then the shear scale of the universe squashes probability arguments.

People DO try to demonstrate that life can be created in a lab. Isn't the fact that this cannot be done proof enough that the beginning of life is not possible without some "spark" that may very well be metaphysical?

Most people already do. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Christians who accept evolution and the Big Bang outnumber atheists of all stripes.

An intelligent designer as an explanation for the universe can be very appealing and convincing... it just doesn't provide any scientific arguments or evidence.

If you can't find evidence you can test, then you can't apply science to it. If not, it might as well be "That's just how it is, no one can know why."


A lot of cosmologists agree that time came about with the Big Bang, so they agree with you that there was nothing before, because before doesn't even make sense. Like north of the north pole.

Finding an explanation for the unknowable in personal conviction, tradition or personal revelation is 100% undisputable by science... it's when you start applying that to things that are known, or at least reasonably inferred it becomes a problem.

Maybe there are some experiences that are repeated and can even be tested,,,,but it may not be science and certainly is not accepted by the scientific community.

Can miracles be proven?
Can NDE be proven?

Why not?

 

[GodsGrace101]

FYI, unlike CF, scientific journals do not list "faith labels" for authors, so when one is reading science the faith, or lack there of, of the authors is unstated, and likely unknown.

I'm a non-believer and the OP seemed reasonable to me.

I do believe you misunderstood my post.
No problem.

The O.P. is reasonable as an idea...
but I don't know how one would go about proving God exists in any scientific way.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That is an example of Behe's greatest failure. It is a very pretty video, but it was refuted years ago. His argument amounts to "You cannot explain this, therefore God". The process was well understood over 15 years ago. Here is a rather old video that shows the evolution of the flagellum. The YouTube info has a link to a much much more detailed paper on it and that paper has links to over 200 different peer reviewed articles that support it:

This is why scientists do not respect Behe at all. His problems have been solved and he will not admit it.

Sorry SZ,,,that video is totally not convincing.
That the correct substances got together randomly to create that motor is not convincing...
In fact, it seems pretty impossible to the normal mind.

It DOES look like it was designed and for a specific purpose.

How did cells get around before it was completed?
Same argument as for the eye....

 

[Jimmy D]

Not understanding very well, all I can see is one type of living being in one stratos and then a different one in the next layer. I'm told we have all the links in between...but I never see them pictured in any of the stuff I see --- maybe they're in scientific journals...this I can't know.

You can know!

I appreciate that we’ve all got other things to do that are more important than sitting around reading about fossils all day though.

I think that this is a major stumbling block however, a concise summary of something like the Cambrian explosion might sound vague and unconvincing but more in-depth responses can appear intimidating and too time consuming to properly absorb and research.

If you have time maybe you could have a read through this...

What does the fossil record show? - Common-questions

(written by a Christian, I try not to be biased!)

The N.T. does state that those that have not experienced God or believe in Him will not be able to understand things of the spirit. So, since, at some point, I came to believe in God, I can say that this is true. I also used to be an atheist or maybe more an agnostic.

But I'm not here to argue this with you.

Nor I you, although my profile says atheist, agnostic might have been more accurate.

It’s not my place to comment on people having faith in any religion, it’s the strange biblical literalists that bother me.

TBC.... it’s dinner time!

 

[Jimmy D]

Hmmm. How come every scientist agrees that gravity exists? But they don't all agree with this idea of species changing..

I’m not sure where you’ve picked up this idea that there is any debate whatsoever in mainstream science about the fact of common descent. It really isn’t the case.

Sure there are disagreements about things like the extent to which certain mechanisms may play a role or the rate of speciation etc.

But the fact that life has been evolving from it’s earliest forms, like micro bacterial mats, to what we see today has been settled for over a century.

The only real objection comes from religious organisations like the Discovery Institute who are in the unfortunate position of having to defend the crazy idea that the Earth is 6000 years old and that all life, with the exception of a single boat full, was wiped out by a worldwide flood.

 

[pitabread]

Hmmm. How come every scientist agrees that gravity exists? But they don't all agree with this idea of species changing..

There is arguably more debate about gravity than evolution in scientific communities. Do you know that scientists can't even agree on what gravity is?

I mean, just look at all these different theories of gravitation: Gravity - Wikipedia

 

[Resha Caner]

There is arguably more debate about gravity than evolution in scientific communities. Do you know that scientists can't even agree on what gravity is?

I mean, just look at all these different theories of gravitation: Gravity - Wikipedia

I don't know if gravity is debated more, but you make a valid point. One of the first things laymen have to get over is the fact that scientists are human and they argue. To some extent, many scientists themselves, along with the media and superhero movies, paint an unrealistic picture of science. So, when laymen find evidence of biologists arguing, they interpret it as evolution on its knees. When, in fact, I argue with my cube mate about mechanics on a regular basis. It's part of the norm.

And, FYI, we're still using Galileo's model of gravity - not even Newton's, let alone Einstein. It's the only model I was ever really taught, outside of a brief mention of the others in a physics class.

 

[Resha Caner]

My suggestion for this discussion would be start a new thread with the first post being an executive summary and "rules" post (particularly for other posters), the next a background, and then the basic presentation. (Or something like that. You've clearly done technical writing and I'm not trying to force a format.) I've been on a lot more recently (hmmm, I wonder why...) so I should see it fairly soon after you start.

It's not an unreasonable approach, but it sounds like a lot of work on my part. Just being honest. The other approach would be for you to start a thread that asks a question. I dunno. I'll poke around and see if I can make some time this weekend to throw something together.

As a concession to my ever-so-friendly opponents, I will admit to what is probably a fringe philosophy of science. I'm a minority among my engineering colleagues due to an existential crisis many years ago. Most of them exhibit a strong realism, which makes my instrumentalism distasteful. Even more than that, most of them don't think philosophy plays any role at all. It just is. But (sigh) that is a philosophy - a typical realist attitude. Anymore I just smile and move on.

Biology has a strong history of positivism - Darwin's school of thought. Officially, biologists have disavowed it, but in transferring the Darwinian framework into an empiricist philosophy, interesting things happened.

Sorry, I can't help myself. In addition to engineering, I've been schooled in history. Point is, you might need to understand the more deeply rooted basis of where I started from to understand where I ended up.

I joined CF to discuss scientific topics (including ones one which I was not expert) with a variety of people. I hoped to learn about things (I have) and to inform others (I hope I have). I think we can have a nice discussion.

What is your background? If you're looking to learn biology from me, that might be a mistake. I have a poor background in biology, simply because it didn't interest me and so I never really paid attention to my teachers - just got the grades and moved on. I only got dragged into this because of my historical interests and the way Genesis is constantly attached to the discussion. It took me considerable time to shed my misconceptions about biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry SZ,,,that video is totally not convincing.
That the correct substances got together randomly to create that motor is not convincing...
In fact, it seems pretty impossible to the normal mind.

It DOES look like it was designed and for a specific purpose.

How did cells get around before it was completed?
Same argument as for the eye....

Then you did not understand the video. First off they do not get together randomly. Also you have just demonstrated both bias and ignorance. You showed that you did not understand the video by your statement. And then rather than following the link to YouTube and checking out the paper you simply denied it. You bought an argument from ignorance as well. That is all that your video was. It amounted to "We don't know, therefore God". That is very poor reasoning.

It does refute Behe's work. He said that there is no possible step by step evolution of the rotor and this showed that there was one. It was "fully functional" all throughout its evolution.

Please stop looking for excuses to believe a long ago refuted story and try to look for answers instead. It is the honest thing to do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know if gravity is debated more, but you make a valid point. One of the first things laymen have to get over is the fact that scientists are human and they argue. To some extent, many scientists themselves, along with the media and superhero movies, paint an unrealistic picture of science. So, when laymen find evidence of biologists arguing, they interpret it as evolution on its knees. When, in fact, I argue with my cube mate about mechanics on a regular basis. It's part of the norm.

And, FYI, we're still using Galileo's model of gravity - not even Newton's, let alone Einstein. It's the only model I was ever really taught, outside of a brief mention of the others in a physics class.

When I took physics I enrolled in the same classes that physics majors had to take. And I even got to apply some of it in a upper level geophysics class. When doing gravity surveys one needs to understand Newtonian gravity to apply it. But I too point out for the most part we only deal with Galilean gravity. And even at a majors level, relativity is barely touched in first year physics.