Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[RickG]

They think that by disproving YEC you disprove Christianity.

Rubbish!

 

[Gottservant]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

 

[CabVet]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

You either don't know what the scientific method is or what prayer is.

 

[Gottservant]

You either don't know what the scientific method is or what prayer is.

You either want to disagree or you can't help but disagree.

 

[46AND2]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

lolwut?

 

[RickG]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

 

[Ken-1122]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

Inquiring minds wanna know; please explain how you came to this conclusion.

K

 

[Subduction Zone]

the scientific method is effectively a kind of prayer any way

No, the scientific method has been shown to generate results. The same cannot be said for prayer.

 

[verysincere]

If God exists then we should see . . .

Clear violations of the nested hierarchy.

Evidence of a recent global flood.

A young Earth.

No stars farther out than 6,000 light years.

I could keep going, but I think people get the drift. The reason that theists want to keep God out of science is because God has already failed testing, IMHO.

I assume that your four "tests of God" above are some kind of tongue-in-cheek argument???? (Or do you have some connection because each of the four and God's existence??)

None of those four in ANY way relates to the existence of God.

Clearly, they are "tests" of young earth creationism. But not one of them even mentions God or God's existence. I have no idea how God's existence or non-existence would impact the four statements. And considering that lots of theists (especially Bible-affirming Christians) deny young earth creationist while strongly embracing God's existence, I don't think I understand your point.

[And for that matter, the Christian Bible makes no statements affirming any of the above.]

 

[Lethe]

They think that by disproving YEC you disprove Christianity.

Rubbish!

Ken Ham, the Answers In Genesis head creationist, is on the record in numerous places and numerous times stating exactly this.

 

[diychristian]

Nonetheless, there are trillions upon trillions of planets. Unless you have a definitive count of the number of planets in the universe (protip: no one does), it is irrational to say that the Earth is fine-tuned for life. Even if the conditions necessary for life to develop naturally are incredibly fine and sensitive, the sheer number of planets in the universe could well vastly exceed the improbability of life forming - that is, there could be thousands, millions of life-bearing planets out there by the sheer statistics of it.

So do you think it might be irrational (being that we don't know how many planets there are) to think there are thousands and millions of life bearing planet?

OK.

I've been trying to think of away to answer you on this. Should throw up some math proof, so later we can quibble over variables or wether I used the appropriate formulas, do I refer you to Haldane's dillema or put up a bunch of hyperlinks to burden you with or what.

Here's what I will say, there seems to be way too many variables. Some people say some are not as critical as it is made out to be other maybe dependent on one another for there existence (so they are only one variable). Hugh Ross lists 501 things required for simple life http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_Part3_ver2.pdf
(my only hyperlink this response I swear). I searched my library in my spare time some critical variables that seemed to be throughout the literature I referenced was: planets location to its star, the stars stability, a balance between star's luminosity and planets greenhouse gases, plate tectonics, atmoshere's composition, several books/articles also mentioned the oxygen-ultraviolet paradox (where oxygen is needed to protect prebiotics from uv, but O is dangerous for prebiotics).

I would also like to refer a book, by an OEC with Phd. in Earth Science and physics named Gerald Schroeder, called "The Science of God". In ch 7 of his book he puts forth an argument in where just a simple light sensitive but sightless eye can come about through evolution from a single cell. He leaves out all the rest of the genome and focuses on just the part necessary for the eye. He allows only non fatal mutations, increases the mutation rate observed today by 100x, locks in all proper mutations and grants generation lengths of a couple weeks (I would think as the organism increases in complexity this would be longer). His argument is more eloborate than I am presenting here, but he concludes that with all these favorable figures the eye could be possible. He follows pointing out that this is not a real world scenario and doesn't account for the O-UV paradox and other environmental problems let alone its only an eye and not a full organism. His work is well referenced throughout (mostly to secular literature). If you would have a book that you might refer I would enjoy educating myself further.

The article is a mess of mischaracterisations ("Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay"), disingenuous claims ("The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay"; "Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out"), and outright erroneous lies about how mutation actually occurs ("However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery"). It even argues against itself ("The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’ them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers" - if this is the case, then mutations aren't going to kill us all, contradicting the entire article).

I understand that this article is written to a laypersons audience. I think the point wasn't that the mutations themselves are lethal but their accummulative effect to the genome is. Mutations can be preserved just by not being expressed therefore are not able to be removed by n.s. The death of the genome comes from the shadows (so to speak).

I keep an open mind when people cite Creationist literature and criticise it on its own merits, but seeing article after article after article of this same, sloppy calibre is just tiring. It says something when I can predict whole sentences based on the URL alone.

I appreciate the open mind. I understand the exhaustion. I try to read/listen/watch things that challenge my faith not all arguments from the othersideS are that compelling.

Indeed, and we see the evolution of novel, advantageous features and functions in lab- and wild- species, the quintessential example being that of the nylon-eating bacteria.

Exploring the sequence space for tetracycline-dependent transcriptional activators: Novel mutations yield expanded range and sensitivity
PLOS Biology: Genome-Wide RNAi of C. elegans Using the Hypersensitive rrf-3 Strain Reveals Novel Gene Functions
Ig V Gene Mutation Status and CD38 Expression As Novel Prognostic Indicators in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
A Novel Function for the Second C2 Domain of Synaptotagmin
Analysis of a Yeast SNARE Complex Reveals Remarkable Similarity to the Neuronal SNARE Complex and a Novel Function for the C Terminus of the SNAP-25 Homolog, Sec9
Directed evolution of novel polymerase activities: Mutation of a DNA polymerase into an efficient RNA polymerase
Novel Gain-of-function Mutations of Platelet Glycoprotein Ibα by Valine Mutagenesis in the Cys209–Cys248 Disulfide Loop
A novel role for p120 catenin in E-cadherin function

Something to chew on thanks.

This is simply incorrect. Evolution posits the existence of a universal common ancestor 3.5 billion years ago as part of its explanation of the biodiversity of life. It doesn't care where the common ancestor came from - abiogenesis, aliens, God. The veracity of abiogenesis is utterly unrelated to the veracity of evolution - true or false, evolution stands on its own merits. It is a common misconception among Creationists, but a misconception nonetheless.

I see your point b/c you could posit a special creator instead. I'm guessing you don't. Then you would be a theistic evolutionist.

 

[diychristian]

Umm, no. The species that go unchanged are in very stable environments. I doubt if you could name a specie that has not evolved for hundreds of millions of years.

.

N. namaqua ( a tick from south africa) a living fossil 250 million years.PLOS ONE: Nuttalliella namaqua: A Living Fossil and Closest Relative to the Ancestral Tick Lineage: Implications for the Evolution of Blood-Feeding in Ticks

 

[CabVet]

I've been trying to think of away to answer you on this. Should throw up some math proof, so later we can quibble over variables or wether I used the appropriate formulas, do I refer you to Haldane's dillema or put up a bunch of hyperlinks to burden you with or what.

This mathematical "proof", or the statistical impossibility of evolution is the weakest of all creationist arguments. We are here, everything has already happened. The probability that the eye evolved is 100% because it already evolved.

Allow me to give an example. I personally know someone that won the lottery. The statistical argument against evolution is analogous to me going to that person and saying that it is impossible for him to have won the lottery because the chances were 1 in 75 million. He will just look at me and say that it already happened, so the calculation I just did is meaningless.

Put it in another way, here is what Richard Feynman had to say about this:

”You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

The odds of him seeing that particular plate are infinitesimally small, but he was going to see one plate, and the odds of seeing any other number are equally small. Who knows how many alternatives to the way by which life evolved on earth are there? Millions, billions, we just happen to be the lucky lottery winners on planet Earth.

 

[CabVet]

N. namaqua ( a tick from south africa) a living fossil 250 million years.PLOS ONE: Nuttalliella namaqua: A Living Fossil and Closest Relative to the Ancestral Tick Lineage: Implications for the Evolution of Blood-Feeding in Ticks

Did you read the paper? It explains right there, very plainly, for all to see, why the species didn't change much for a long time: "a lifestyle maintained for more than 250 million years" (from the conclusions). The species didn't change much because it's lifestyle didn't change. Similarly, as already explained to you, the lifestyle of the coelacanth didn't change, so the species didn't change much (although it did change). Likewise, this species of tick didn't change much, but it did change.

You should read a little about stabilizing selection:

Stabilizing selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Googling "living fossils" does not count

 

[diychristian]

If they were doing objective research and publishing you might have a point.

People - Biologic Institute some hold positions as professor at various college and all seem to be doing research (some even affecting cancer research) and publishing. There are links to their publications through the website.

 

[diychristian]

This mathematical "proof", or the statistical impossibility of evolution is the weakest of all creationist arguments. We are here, everything has already happened. The probability that the eye evolved is 100% because it already evolved.

Allow me to give an example. I personally know someone that won the lottery. The statistical argument against evolution is analogous to me going to that person and saying that it is impossible for him to have won the lottery because the chances were 1 in 75 million. He will just look at me and say that it already happened, so the calculation I just did is meaningless.

Put it in another way, here is what Richard Feynman had to say about this:

”You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!"

The odds of him seeing that particular plate are infinitesimally small, but he was going to see one plate, and the odds of seeing any other number are equally small. Who knows how many alternatives to the way by which life evolved on earth are there? Millions, billions, we just happen to be the lucky lottery winners on planet Earth.

ok so using your analogy of the lottery winner how many other people can win that same lottery using alternative numbers? Even if there's a planet out there with life there is nothing saying it is complex intelligent life. If we are talking about even simple life there's nothing saying that life would survive for any length of time. Everyday is a lottery and as it seems every evolutionary step is a lottery. How many times can life win a row. If it loses once it can't play again.

 

[CabVet]

People - Biologic Institute some hold positions as professor at various college and all seem to be doing research (some even affecting cancer research) and publishing. There are links to their publications through the website.

I reviewed the extensive list of publications here:

Research - Biologic Institute

I could find only two types: 1) publications not related to intelligent design or 2) publications in journals that are not peer-reviewed.

Most researchers listed in the staff list are not biologists. The ones that are biologists are not publishing scientific evidence for intelligent design.

 

[CabVet]

ok so using your analogy of the lottery winner how many other people can win that same lottery using alternative numbers?

It does not matter one bit. We are here and had the right numbers, we are the lottery winners.

Even if there's a planet out there with life there is nothing saying it is complex intelligent life. If we are talking about even simple life there's nothing saying that life would survive for any length of time. Everyday is a lottery and as it seems every evolutionary step is a lottery. How many times can life win a row. If it loses once it can't play again.

Absolutely wrong, life loses often, and it can play again, many, many times, that's what makes it special. More than 99% of all the species that lived on earth are extinct, they were evolutionary dead-ends for several reasons. Yet, there are many that are alive and well today, including one that we like to call "human".

 

[diychristian]

Did you read the paper? It explains right there, very plainly, for all to see, why the species didn't change much for a long time: "a lifestyle maintained for more than 250 million years" (from the conclusions). The species didn't change much because it's lifestyle didn't change. Similarly, as already explained to you, the lifestyle of the coelacanth didn't change, so the species didn't change much (although it did change). Likewise, this species of tick didn't change much, but it did change.

You should read a little about stabilizing selection:

Stabilizing selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Googling "living fossils" does not count

You asked for one and I gave one. maybe not the best example sorry. I've got a plethora of reading I'm trying to do, but I will get to your hyperlink thanks. What happened you think in 250 million years?

 

[variant]

People - Biologic Institute some hold positions as professor at various college and all seem to be doing research (some even affecting cancer research) and publishing. There are links to their publications through the website.

I have no doubt that creationists can do proper science.

I am saying that their creationism is not justified through scientific study.

Please cite those primary sources if you wish. I would enjoy reading such a document.