What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[Loudmouth]

God gives us the ability to understand the world that He created. God sends His rain on the just and the unjust. There are gifts from God that are irrevocable. That means you get to keep the gift EVEN if you do not use the gift to honor and glorify God.

These are all empty claims. Nowhere have you shown that God gives us anything, except to claim it. That gets us nowhere. You might as well claim that Prometheus gave us fire.

 

[Loudmouth]

They had medicine for a very long time. Even 20,000 years ago they found people with a medicine pouch on their belt with up to five medicines. Like aspirn which is the inside if the white willow bark. So God has provided medicine from the very beginning.

No, humans have provided medicine. When I go to see a doctor to get medicine I see a human, not a deity. Modern medicine has come from humans doing science.

I do not have a high regard for what you call modern medicine. I tend to prefer to stick to the ancient natural medicines.

So what do you take when you have a life threatening infection? What acient natural medicines did you use to innoculate yourself against polio?

 

[AV1611VET]

These are all empty claims.

If they are empty claims, don't you think it's coincidental that people throughout the ages have made some of the same claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

If they are empty claims, don't you think it's coincidental that people throughout the ages have made some of the same claims?

What is coincidental about it? If modern people can make empty claims then ancient people could make them too.

 

[Dieselman]

Another example of why scientists do not take creationists seriously. For example:

"mutations are a degenerative process that accrues more prohibitively operational damage than it can possibly overcome by any controversial or occasional “good mutation”!"

Can anyone point any scientific research that backs this claim?

I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.

"It must be assumed that duplications and mutations lead to new information/genes in order to state that the beta globin gene cluster is the evidence of multiple duplication events followed by mutations resulting in the different globin genes. It cannot be evidence for evolution if evolution must be assumed prior to examining the evidence. This is an example of circular reasoning."
source

Show me verifiable example of a creature with no genetic information for a trait that sudden sprouts that information by the Magical Mystery Mutation and I'll congratulate you on doing what nobody has ever done yet.

Since new genetic information cannot be fabricated by recombining existing information, THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL PROCESS FOR EVOLUTION. You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing. Show me a cat with wings or a hamster with gills.

If mutations can result in a loss of information and cannot result in the manufacturing of information, then adaptation is, in fact, a state of either degeneration or homeostasis.

 

[Jamin4422]

These are all empty claims.

I am just telling you want the Bible says. If you want to accept or reject the Bible is your choice to make.

 

[Jamin4422]

Modern medicine has come from humans doing science.

Clearly you know nothing at all about the history of medicine.

 

[mathetes123]

Nearly 200 posts and not a single creationist can produce viable scientific research to support their claims. Is it any wonder that creationism is ignored by scientists?

Science excludes the supernatural and will only accept natural explanations and so it will never come to an understanding of the truth. Logic tells us that everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself. Since the natural world had a beginning, it requires a cause outside of itself which by definition would be a supernatural cause. Design and information in nature tells us this cause is intelligent. Unfortunately science, while presuming design in nature, which would be necessary for anything to be deciphered from studying it, will never be able to come to an understanding of who the designer is because they have excluded the creator from consideration and will only consider causes within the creation which logic tells us could not have created itself.

 

[mathetes123]

I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.

"It must be assumed that duplications and mutations lead to new information/genes in order to state that the beta globin gene cluster is the evidence of multiple duplication events followed by mutations resulting in the different globin genes. It cannot be evidence for evolution if evolution must be assumed prior to examining the evidence. This is an example of circular reasoning."
source

Show me verifiable example of a creature with no genetic information for a trait that sudden sprouts that information by the Magical Mystery Mutation and I'll congratulate you on doing what nobody has ever done yet.

Since new genetic information cannot be fabricated by recombining existing information, THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL PROCESS FOR EVOLUTION. You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing. Show me a cat with wings or a hamster with gills.

If mutations can result in a loss of information and cannot result in the manufacturing of information, then adaptation is, in fact, a state of either degeneration or homeostasis.

I have never heard of a beneficial cancer.

 

[verysincere]

I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material; something which MUST BE COMMON for evolution to be true. There has never been an observed beneficial mutation that added new genetic information.

Rubbish. There have been MANY observed examples.

Consider the frame shift mutation (a quite blatant kind of copying error if there ever was one!) which produced the new enzymes in flavobacteria which manufactured nylonase. Clearly beneficial for a bacteria that lived in a pond behind a Japanese nylon factory.

If you bothered to research the issue, you would have found many more examples of beneficial mutations.

If mutations can result in a loss of information and cannot result in the manufacturing of information, then adaptation is, in fact, a state of either degeneration or homeostasis.

More rubbish. You didn't bother to check the facts.

Consider this: You affirm that mutations can lose information. So consider this: some detrimental mutations are followed by a new mutation which REVERSES the information loss. Now wouldn't you agree that when a LOSS of information is REVERSED, that would constitute a GAIN in information? If all mutations are "degeneration", such restoration by mutation in the opposite direction could not be beneficial---and yet it is!

Most mutations are "neutral" and just don't make much difference. But mutations do add information to genomes and when those mutations help survival of the organism, natural selection works to preserve those mutations to successive generations. We know this happens with evolution because we can observe it.

I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things as if they are facts---but they aren't. You are either uninformed of the facts OR you are lying. Which is it?

Scientists affirm the facts of evolution because the evidence is inescapable. Denying the evidence is simply living outside of reality. (And lying about the evidence is living outside of Biblical morality.)

 

[CabVet]

They had medicine for a very long time. Even 20,000 years ago they found people with a medicine pouch on their belt with up to five medicines.

Alright, next time you get sick, you should use some of that 20,000 years old medicine. It will work very well!

BTW, don't you keep saying the world is 12,900 years old? How can medicine be 20,000?

 

[Dieselman]

Rubbish. There have been MANY observed examples.

Consider the frame shift mutation (a quite blatant kind of copying error if there ever was one!) which produced the new enzymes in flavobacteria which manufactured nylonase.

I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."

If you bothered to research the issue, you would have found many more examples of beneficial mutations.

The topic on the table for discussion is the magical mutation that creates new genetic information. It doesn't exist, has never been observed or replicated, yet it's the cornerstone of your religion. If gills can't turn into lungs and legs into wings then your religion has no biological foundation.
Breaking news: They can't.

More rubbish. You didn't bother to check the facts.

Consider this: You affirm that mutations can lose information. So consider this: some detrimental mutations are followed by a new mutation which REVERSES the information loss. Now wouldn't you agree that when a LOSS of information is REVERSED, that would constitute a GAIN in information?

So if you lose $5,000 playing poker but you GAIN $4,000 playing Blackjack, does that show a net gain? If so, come on over and we'll play some cards. How is reclaiming the same information that was "lost" the same as generating new information? It isn't. It doesn't happen, and your religion is pure rubbish.

Even if it CAN happen, it wouldn't mean it DID happen. However, if it CANNOT happen, then it DID NOT happen.

Most mutations are "neutral" and just don't make much difference. But mutations do add information to genomes and when those mutations help survival of the organism, natural selection works to preserve those mutations to successive generations. We know this happens with evolution because we can observe it.

Show me the peer reviewed research that shows any advanced species of animal generating new genetic information and becoming even more advanced. They tried that with fruit flies, remember? Know what they got? Messed up fruit flies.

I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things as if they are facts---but they aren't. You are either uninformed of the facts OR you are lying. Which is it?

I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things; like mutations advancing a species, as if they are facts when they are not. Such things have NEVER been observed. Either you are ignorant of this fact or you're lying. Which is it? Please post for me the information I requested.

Scientists affirm the facts of evolution because the evidence is inescapable.

Blatant lie. No scientific "fact" is ever inescapable. Consensus is the antithesis of science. Theories of evolutionary sequence change daily.

Denying the evidence is simply living outside of reality. (And lying about the evidence is living outside of Biblical morality.)

Yo, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle. Y'all got a lot in common!

 

[CabVet]

I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."

Oh, but that is really easy to test. Since no organism needs mutations to start eating something completely different, how about you start eating nylon? Please, check back with us after a week of eating only this:

 

[CabVet]

Show me a cat with wings or a hamster with gills.

If anything, that would be evidence for creationism, not evolution. Much like a chimpanzee giving birth to a human.

 

[verysincere]

I realize that comprehension is not exactly common with evolutionists, but perhaps you overlooked the statement "You can't cite changes in dietary acceptance because eating is a natural function of any living thing."

How ironic that your reading comprehension skills failed you again. You referred to "eating", the act of gathering materials into the body for purposes of sustenance. I wrote about DIGESTION. Yes, we often see organisms "eating" things they can't use. But with flavobacteria, the beneficial mutations was to generate NEW ENZYMES which allowed "digestion" (metabolizing) nylon. (And you thought no information is ever generated in the DNA. But frame shift mutations are yet another example of where your ignorance of a fact [data] doesn't prevent it from being reality.)

But I understand why denial and playing with words is necessary to sustaining a modern quasi-religion (which is a man-made tradition based on adding interpretations not intended by the scriptures.). First century Pharisaic traditions preserved at all cost did not end with that era. Cults come and go.

The topic on the table for discussion is the magical mutation that creates new genetic information. It doesn't exist, has never been observed or replicated, yet it's the cornerstone of your religion. If gills can't turn into lungs and legs into wings then your religion has no biological foundation.[/color]
Breaking news: They can't.

More rubbish. You posed four nonsensical statements here:

1) There's nothing "magical" about it. YOUR belief system could better be described as magic---because you manufacture fantasies as needed.

2) As to my religion, I'm a Bible-affirming evangelical Christian. RELIGION is about reverence for the TRANSCENDENT. You yourself would normally say (in any other context) that science is naturalistic ---which is the very opposite of an emphasis on the transcendent. But your equivocation fallacies require manipulating words for propaganda value and the most effective lying. Yet you assume that small minds will be impressed by your silly "evolution is a religion" nonsense.

3) I could give many other examples of beneficial mutations.

4) >"gills can't turn into lungs":
If you mean in one overnight change, no they can't. Which is why NOBODY believes they do that. But if you are going to declare the long series of changes impossible, DEMONSTRATE/EXPLAIN WHY you believe it is impossible. You need to learn that simply declaring your wishes does not make them true NOR does it impress anyone.

>"So if you lose $5,000 playing poker but you GAIN $4,000 playing Blackjack, does that show a net gain?" >

But the problem is that evolutionary processes "sustain" the advantageous mutation and usually ignore the disadvantageous allele because it has no survival value. Your analogy is contrary to fact. So DOCUMENT for us why your gambling analogy has anything to do with our topic! You can't. You can only pretend.


>It doesn't happen, and your religion is pure rubbish.

Christian Forums prohibit denigration of religions so I suppose the mods would say that I should not repeat this outburst back to you. But in your case, you need to discover the meaning of "religion". Absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution is a "religion".

>Even if it CAN happen, it wouldn't mean it DID happen. However, if it CANNOT happen, then it DID NOT happen.>

"If it cannot happen...." You can say that all you wish. But you've YET to tell us why we should believe you! You have a high view of your declarative powers to impact reality!

>Show me the peer reviewed research that shows any advanced species of animal generating new genetic information and becoming even more advanced.
>

I cited the nylon-digesting flavobacteria and you simply ignored it and claimed that it violated your made-up rule about "eating". You have nothing but rubbish for your arguments. So why should I list more of the research results which are easily available to you online and in science textbooks?

>I've noticed that you simply like to declare various things; like mutations advancing a species, as if they are facts when they are not
>

Work on your reading comprehension skills and then start reading the published articles. Denial is not working for you.

>Blatant lie. No scientific "fact" is ever inescapable.

Rubbish. DATA are FACTS. In any other context, you would freely admit that that is a FACT. You would concur that when you let go of an object, it falls toward the center of the earth's mass. That is a FACT. Are you going to deny it now?

>Consensus is the antithesis of science.

You just changed topics hoping that nobody would notice the deceit. And by the way, consensus (i.e., acknowledging that 153 years of attempts at falsification of a theory has yet to yield any contra-indications) is what gradually leads to confidence in a scientific theory. To say that the consensus of the scientific community that Newton's Laws of Motions are valid is "the antithesis of science" is simply more spouting of your futile science-denial. Consensus is one of the natural results of the scientific method as time solidifies our confidence in various scientific conclusions. Yes, it is ALWAYS subject to additional testing, elaborations, revisions, and the ever-advancing progress of scientific discovery. Consensus is a natural outgrowth over time.

Obviously, you are NOT a scientist and have no personal familiarity with these topics---let alone ever being invited to join a scientific faculty. (Yes. I'm a retired professor, having taught at both public and private universities in the USA and UK. These topics are not merely arm-chair pontifications for me but are related to my career as an academic.)

>Theories of evolutionary sequence change daily.

Define "evolutionary sequence" so that we can evaluate your statement. But if you are saying that science gathers more data and formulates new hypotheses and experiments to test them DAILY, then I would heartily agree. It is the very scientific method upon which science depends. Only those addicted to blind adherence to a cherished tradition demand rigid stasis that ignores new information. It is a LIE for anyone to suggest that the continual refinement of our understanding of evolutionary processes is ever understood to mean that the theory of evolution is being toppled.

Biblical scholars change their theories about the Biblical text on a daily basis. So would most creationist reason from that fact that there is no validity to the Biblical text. I doubt it. We expect changes in ideas in EVERY academic field of study.

I've wasted all the time I'm willing to devote to countering blatant lies and reality-denying propaganda. There's too many violations of the 9th commandment here for my tolerance. And if you are going to denounce evolutionary processes, AT LEAST find out what evolution theory describes. Your arguments fail because you are simply spouting creationist mantras and illogical traditions based on anything but the actual evidence. And denial of what HAS BEEN DISCOVERED and DIRECTLY OBSERVED only impresses the similarly uninformed of the reality-denial cult.

 

[Dieselman]

You referred to "eating", the act of gathering materials into the body for purposes of sustenance. I wrote about DIGESTION.

Ah, that's right. Digestion has nothing whatever to do with the process of eating. One involves taking in nourishment and the other involves... well... taking in nourishment. But I understand why denial and playing with words is necessary to sustaining your religion. On cannot be a good atheist without denying the fundamental truths of the universe.

YOUR belief system could better be described as magic

Yeah, that whole God thing is pretty fantastic. What's your belief again? That everything created itself by simple application of time and natural forces... that also created itself?

Wait. What you believe makes no sense whatever. If God is magic, than creation without God is delusional fantasy.

As to my religion, I'm a Bible-affirming evangelical Christian.

... who just happens to disbelieve everything in the Bible. So let me get this clear. Your belief affirms the Bible that you know to be a book of myths. And you think this is a religion worth promoting?

Yet you assume that small minds will be impressed by your silly "evolution is a religion" nonsense.

No, actually I think small minds are influenced by the religion of evolution, not by my statement that it is religion and not scientific.

I could give many other examples of beneficial mutations.

Show me the one where they create new genetic information and encode it to the reproductive system.

If you mean in one overnight change, no they can't. Which is why NOBODY believes they do that. But if you are going to declare the long series of changes impossible, DEMONSTRATE/EXPLAIN WHY you believe it is impossible.

Easy. Mutations cannot create new genetic information and encode it into the reproductive systems. Such an event has never been observed, validate or reproduced. It is, then, not scientific and not common; boith of which would have to be true for evolution to have a basis in scientific observation.

You need to learn that simply declaring your wishes does not make them true NOR does it impress anyone. Cite the examples that show new genetic information appearing. Better yet; show why even the simplest of life form has complex DNA when DNA has to also evolve by natural forces from nothingness.

But the problem is that evolutionary processes "sustain" the advantageous mutation and usually ignore the disadvantageous allele because it has no survival value.

That's called adaptation, which is actually a conservative process and certainly NOT evolutionary. So DOCUMENT for us why your explanation of a conservative process has anything to do with our the advancement of a species through the acquisition of new genetic information. You can't. You can only pretend.

I cited the nylon-digesting flavobacteria and you simply ignored it

Yes, because the task at hand was to show the peer reviewed research that shows any advanced species of animal generating new genetic information and becoming even more advanced. You failed to do so. You have nothing but rubbish for your arguments.

Rubbish. DATA are FACTS.

Okay, so the FACT that abiogenesis is impossible as Louis Pasteur proved is not in dispute. Move on.
The FACT that matter/energy cannot be created only changed in form means that no natural force could create the universe. Move on.
The FACT that the universe is in a constant state of decay (or increasing entropy) means that it had to have had an origination and will have an end. Move on.
The FACT that in the presence of matter the condition is absolute zero, at which point absolutely nothing can ever happen means that there is no possible explanation for the creation of the universe. Move on.

You would concur that when you let go of an object, it falls toward the center of the earth's mass.

Nope. Only if it's within the gravitational force of the earth. Let go of the object on the moon and it is NOT drawn to the center of earth's mass. Gravity is a universal condition; not specific to the earth.

You just changed topics hoping that nobody would notice the deceit.

No, I just made a statement hoping you would be able to comprehend it. Sorry. I should have used smaller words.

>Theories of evolutionary sequence change daily.
Define "evolutionary sequence" so that we can evaluate your statement.

Evolutionary sequence is the sequence in which things are said to evolve. Not a particularly hard definition, I thought.

But if you are saying that science gathers more data and formulates new hypotheses and experiments to test them DAILY, then I would heartily agree.

You didn't a moment ago.

It is the very scientific method upon which science depends. Only those addicted to blind adherence to a cherished tradition demand rigid stasis that ignores new information.

Kind of like the blind adherance to the theory of evolution that bends all information to conform with its predictions.

I've wasted all the time I'm willing to devote to countering blatant lies and reality-denying propaganda from someone espousing a science they don't understand and who can't produce even a single example of a mutation creating new genetic information and advancing a species. Of course your arguments fail because you are simply spouting evolutionists mantras and illogical rubbish to support a scientific theory that you don't comprehend. Of course, this comes from a "Bible-affirming evangelical Christian" who doesn't believe what is written in the Bible.

 

[And-U-Say]

Fair enough ... let's keep dancing then. I'm sure you've got a lot of ridicule you need to get off your chest.

No. This is a discussion. When i make a point, and you dodge it, and I call you on it, that is NOT ridicule. That is NOT getting it off my chest. It IS you dodging even further. This is a discussion, try to act like it is.

That's right. The [future] doctor He may have had lined up to do the job may have been aborted.

Again, a dodge. First, are you saying that god's will can so easily be thwarted? god: I wanted this form of cancer to be cured in 2012, but the person to cure it was aborted in 1960... before Roe vs. Wade! Dang, stopped again by random human chance! I thought this omnipotence was supposed to count for something!

Second, this doesn't answer the question. God is supposed to cure the person as an answered prayer, but doesn't. That is not answered prayer.

If you ever get cancer ... and I pray you don't ... ask your mom to cure it.

This is a ridiculous response. You do not show good faith here.

Not even close ... as Bobby Fischer would say to someone who would ask for an early draw, "There's still plenty of play in the position."

Non sensical.

Unless, of course, you want to keep up the ridicule. Then I may bow out of the conversation and go to read-only mode.

This word, "ridicule", i do not think it means what you think it means. Because you think ridicule is any phrase that disagrees with you.

Yes.

Get it off your chest.

Stop it. You are not a child on a playground.

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, a dodge. First, are you saying that god's will can so easily be thwarted?

It is not God's will that any should perish, is it? people perish, don't they?

Stop it. You are not a child on a playground.

Then I'll take my toys and go home.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science excludes the supernatural and will only accept natural explanations and so it will never come to an understanding of the truth.

No, science does not include claims that have no support. The only people separating mechanisms into the natural and supernatural are creationists, not scientists. For all intents and purposes, the supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that allows you to excuse yourself from supplying evidence.

Logic tells us that everything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself. Since the natural world had a beginning, it requires a cause outside of itself which by definition would be a supernatural cause.

Not at all. There is nothing in the definition of natural that would preclude a natural beginning to our universe.

Design and information in nature tells us this cause is intelligent.

Where is the scientific research backing this claim?

Unfortunately science, while presuming design in nature, which would be necessary for anything to be deciphered from studying it, will never be able to come to an understanding of who the designer is because they have excluded the creator from consideration and will only consider causes within the creation which logic tells us could not have created itself.

What evidence allows us to include a deity?

Science is not about excluding causes. Science is about testing potential causes. So where is the research that backs the claim that a deity produced the design found in nature? Are you saying that ID researchers are excluding this designer from their research?

 

[Loudmouth]

I would be more interested in evidence of a mutation introducing new genetic material;

And there is the shift in the burden of proof. You made a claim. Now back it. This thread is not about evolution. It is about ID/creationism. Either you have the research or you don't. Where is it?

Is it any wonder that scientists ignore creationists when they use these evasive tactics?