Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[mzungu]

We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)

In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).

I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism

I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)

Yet you find nothing wrong with indoctrinating your children into your personal religious beliefs?

 

[Split Rock]

You made a mistake. ToE is the only scientific theory we are aware of that explains the diversity ...etc.

Theories are human constructs. There aren't any theories out there that we are unaware of, even though I am certain there are many natural phenomona we do not understand entirely.

 

[Split Rock]

We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)

In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).

I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism

I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)

If it didn't hurt you to learn evolution, do you think it made any sense for the two Jehovas Witnesses to leave the room? Should atheist, Buddhist, Hindu or Shinto students learn creationism? Why or why not?

 

[Hespera]

We did learn creation in religious ed class (but most of us had learnt it at home before)

In science class we were taught evolution, and anybody religious was allowed to leave the room i while we discussed it if they wished (2 jehovas witnesses left the room).

I stayed in the room, and actually got an A in science, did me no harm to learn these 'facts'. I still believe in Creationism

I think all children should be given both sides of the story. (Though it feels wrong teaching my kids evolution, so I havent, they will learn it in school)

Im kind of curious what you mean, both sides of the story.

Creationism is a story, which is told and retold, but has no actual data, no facts or evidence of any sort to support it.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which has a vast body of evidence / facts / data to support it.

They are hardly comparable as in "both sides of the story"!

 

[Greg1234]

Im kind of curious what you mean, both sides of the story.

Creationism is a story, which is told and retold, but has no actual data, no facts or evidence of any sort to support it.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which has a vast body of evidence / facts / data to support it.

They are hardly comparable as in "both sides of the story"!

Actually the inadequacy of chance and necessity is not support for Darwinian evolution.

 

[her2011]

Yet you find nothing wrong with indoctrinating your children into your personal religious beliefs?

Where did I say I was indoctrinating my Children?

They have a Bible story book, they hear the stories, I do not state they must believe such and such, I do not say this is fact, that is wrong etc.

It is up to them if they want to believe, I show them what I do, they do not HAVE to do anything, I don't drum anything into them, they are children.

 

[Greg1234]

Where did I say I was indoctrinating my Children?

They have a Bible story book, they hear the stories, I do not state they must believe such and such, I do not say this is fact, that is wrong etc.

It is up to them if they want to believe, I show them what I do, they do not HAVE to do anything, I don't drum anything into them, they are children.

They also have the history story book and the physics story book.

 

[AV1611VET]

They also have the history story book and the physics story book.

When I was a kid, my parents hung the Periodic Table of the Elements in my room, and it gave me nightmares.

They had to get rid of it.

 

[Goodbook]

'evolution' should be taught correctly, if at all.

There is doctrine of evolution, that leads to woolly theories of God-less origin and ancestral linear diversity that actually there is no evidence for, and then there is genetic variation, which has little to do with evolution but is actually evidence for God's creative power and ability to design a myriad of living creatures with the DNA blueprint to adapt.

For example, evolutionists can't explain the pre-cambrian explosion, because no 'ancestors' were found for all THOSE species.
A picture of a black Pepper Moth on a tree is not evidence of evolution. Black Pepper Moths have always been around, it isn't that some magically evolved from white ones. If you read the study critically you will see flaws in the observations.

A picture of rock strata does not then prove that the rocks come from different ages. People like to label them as various ages. Geologists have a hard time accounting for DISCONFORMITIES - rocks that are out of place in their geological time scheme.

Another thing is Lucy's evidence was not misrepresented by creationists. If you read the account given by Lucy's discoverer, he himself ASSUMED Lucy's skeleton was all of one specimen, even when found miles apart. There is also detail as to her hip bones being 'unfused' so as to make it appear she walked upright- they had to smash it into place to make it appear she was upright. Also she didn't have any foot bones, so its rather assuming a lot of things to think she actually walked like a human did.

Human clothing is another speculation given by evolutionists. But it does not account for humans wearing clothing even in hot climates. Evolutionists cannot explain evolution as a basis for everything.

Haeckels' drawings don't actually give a shred of evidence for evolution. Since we have all have one thing in common, God, a creator who designed us, seeing similarties in the way organisms develop is not so strange. This does not mean one species evolved into another.

Bacteria is another point. From time to time species change and new traits emerge. But this does not mean bacteria ever evolve into a completely different species. And those traits can disappear again. One can't go back in time and claim evolution they way Dawkins and Darwin suggest ie. that humans evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. This connection (trying to link one species to another in some sort of chain of progression) is a fallacy.
The diagram of the evolution of plants also is such a fallacy. One simply cannot link differing species from another and claim this comes before that. Or this comes from that. Because transisitional fossils simply are not found. When fossils that appear to be missing links are found, it is not they are transitional at all but species in their own right. For example, a platypus isn't the missing link between mammals and reptiles. It is a unique creature. Likewise the archaeopteryx. Unfortunately for the archahoetperyx it became extinct. Extinction can be a result of predation or worldwide catastrophe (flood?) but not because species failed to adapt, which is often reiterated by evolutionists.
Evolutionists like to sort things into diagrams. But these man-made diagrams distort the real picture.

Evolutionists can't explain where they actually get their fossil record from, and try to avoid the simplest explanation -sedimentation deposited from a worldwide Flood. Fossils require a quick burial to form, and burial by floodwaters is how we get most fossils.

Dawkin's ancestors tales, Lyell and Huxleys fanciful stories are complete fables and fabrications. What point were they trying to make, with no evidence? That God wasn't in charge, that nothing was created, that all the diversity of life, for some reason, created ITSELF, designed itself, evolved itself, simply through sheer will to reproduce and survive. But life we see isn't like that. It simply isn't true that the whole point of life according to evolutionist thinking is to survive and reproduce ourselves. There is something more to life than that. That is something the spiritual man knows, that the natural man cannot.

Carbon-dating is accurate to about 6000 years (roughly in sync with biblical timelimes). The oldest trees are dated to about 4000-9000 years. There is no evidence anything older than that. Meterorite dating from radio-isotopes found in rocks is NOT carbon dating and is not reliable. So the 4.5 billion years is speculation, and if reading how they got to that figure you can see how dates that didn't conform to this number were thrown out. How the ratios conformed to years was never clearly explained. You can read about this in scientific journals.

So..let's throw out the confusion of God-less evolution and concentrate on the real science, the diversity of life reflecting God's creation.

Amen!

 

[Cabal]

*snip PRATT list*

So, basically, despite some of the science fans here who very kindly decided to respond to your list of frankly unoriginal points, all you're here to do is continue copy-pasting more guff into the thread instead of actually responding to the points properly?

Disappointing. But not unexpected.

 

[MoonLancer]

They also have the history story book and the physics story book.

wow your desperate

 

[Crusader05]

How about we teach alchemy as an alternative theory to chemistry? How about we teach holocaust denial in history class (you know, just to cover both sides of the issue).

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

When I was a kid, my parents hung the Periodic Table of the Elements in my room, and it gave me nightmares.

They had to get rid of it.

Knowledge...scientific method...reason...reality...aaaaggghhh!!

 

[Split Rock]

'evolution' should be taught correctly, if at all.

Why do you put evolution in quotes?

'evolution' There is doctrine of evolution, that leads to woolly theories of God-less origin and ancestral linear diversity that actually there is no evidence for, and then there is genetic variation, which has little to do with evolution but is actually evidence for God's creative power and ability to design a myriad of living creatures with the DNA blueprint to adapt.

The theory of evolution is based on nothing but evidence. Also, DNA is not a blueprint, it is more like a recipe. You cannot look at the DNA code of an organism and figure out what it will look like.

'evolution' For example, evolutionists can't explain the pre-cambrian explosion, because no 'ancestors' were found for all THOSE species.
A picture of a black Pepper Moth on a tree is not evidence of evolution. Black Pepper Moths have always been around, it isn't that some magically evolved from white ones. If you read the study critically you will see flaws in the observations.

I think you mean "Cambrian Explosion"... not like you don't know what you are talking about.. right? The reason that the moths are evidence of evolution is the change in frequency of the black variant in the populations under selective pressure. No magic is involved (that would fit creationism better).. just Natural Selection.

'evolution' A picture of rock strata does not then prove that the rocks come from different ages. People like to label them as various ages. Geologists have a hard time accounting for DISCONFORMITIES - rocks that are out of place in their geological time scheme.

No. There are known mechanisms for creating DISCONFORMITIES (for whatever reason you have that in all caps). If you actually knew anything about geology, you wouldn't need to be told that.

'evolution' Another thing is Lucy's evidence was not misrepresented by creationists. If you read the account given by Lucy's discoverer, he himself ASSUMED Lucy's skeleton was all of one specimen, even when found miles apart.

You certainly have not read the accounts, or you wouldn't be making such fallacious claims in the first palce. Miles apart! Please.

There is also detail as to her hip bones being 'unfused' so as to make it appear she walked upright- they had to smash it into place to make it appear she was upright. Also she didn't have any foot bones, so its rather assuming a lot of things to think she actually walked like a human did.

This conclusion is based on many things, such as the position of the foramen magnum. I'm sure being an expert on human anatomy, that you already know what that is.. right?

Human clothing is another speculation given by evolutionists. But it does not account for humans wearing clothing even in hot climates. Evolutionists cannot explain evolution as a basis for everything.

What are you talking about? Clothing has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Haeckels' drawings don't actually give a shred of evidence for evolution. Since we have all have one thing in common, God, a creator who designed us, seeing similarties in the way organisms develop is not so strange. This does not mean one species evolved into another.

The fact that you had gill slits and a tail when you were an embryo says plenty.

Bacteria is another point. From time to time species change and new traits emerge. But this does not mean bacteria ever evolve into a completely different species. And those traits can disappear again. One can't go back in time and claim evolution they way Dawkins and Darwin suggest ie. that humans evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. This connection (trying to link one species to another in some sort of chain of progression) is a fallacy.

You are just making assertions. How about backing them up?

The diagram of the evolution of plants also is such a fallacy. One simply cannot link differing species from another and claim this comes before that. Or this comes from that. Because transisitional fossils simply are not found. When fossils that appear to be missing links are found, it is not they are transitional at all but species in their own right.

Whatever makes you think that transitionals are not species "in their own right?" Of course they are!

For example, a platypus isn't the missing link between mammals and reptiles. It is a unique creature. Likewise the archaeopteryx. Unfortunately for the archahoetperyx it became extinct. Extinction can be a result of predation or worldwide catastrophe (flood?) but not because species failed to adapt, which is often reiterated by evolutionists.

The platypus is not itself a missing link, because it is a modern species. It does however have traits of both mammals (such as hair) and reptiles (such as leathery eggs). It is thus related to a "missing link."

Evolutionists like to sort things into diagrams. But these man-made diagrams distort the real picture.

Of course... they are imperfect. Creationism, on the other hand, is a fallacy.

Evolutionists can't explain where they actually get their fossil record from, and try to avoid the simplest explanation -sedimentation deposited from a worldwide Flood. Fossils require a quick burial to form, and burial by floodwaters is how we get most fossils.

Most fossils are buried in marine sediment, not floods. There are many other forms, such as those buried under dry conditions, such as in desert sediments. How does that happen with a global flood?

Dawkin's ancestors tales, Lyell and Huxleys fanciful stories are complete fables and fabrications.

Fables? Do you mean like a talking snake, a man made from dirt, and a woman made from a rib?

What point were they trying to make, with no evidence?

Read On the Origin of Species... there is plenty of evidence there. Where is yours?

That God wasn't in charge, that nothing was created, that all the diversity of life, for some reason, created ITSELF, designed itself, evolved itself, simply through sheer will to reproduce and survive.

There are three mechanisms of evolution: Natural Selection, Genetic Drift and Gene Flow. None of them rely only on the "sheer will to reproduce and survive," though all organsims have this trait.

But life we see isn't like that. It simply isn't true that the whole point of life according to evolutionist thinking is to survive and reproduce ourselves. There is something more to life than that. That is something the spiritual man knows, that the natural man cannot.

If you are looking for a point in life, you need to look outside of science.

Carbon-dating is accurate to about 6000 years (roughly in sync with biblical timelimes). The oldest trees are dated to about 4000-9000 years. There is no evidence anything older than that.

Wrong. Dendrochronology shows that trees have lived on earth for longer than 11,000 years.

Trees from the same region will tend to develop the same patterns of ring widths for a given period. These patterns can be compared and matched ring for ring with trees growing in the same geographical zone and under similar climatic conditions. Following these tree-ring patterns from living trees back through time, chronologies can be built up, both for entire regions, and for sub-regions of the world. Thus wood from ancient structures can be matched to known chronologies (a technique called cross-dating) and the age of the wood determined precisely. Cross-dating was originally done by visual inspection, until computers were harnessed to do the statistical matching.

To eliminate individual variations in tree ring growth, dendrochronologists take the smoothed average of the tree ring widths of multiple tree samples to build up a ring history. This process is termed replication. A tree ring history whose beginning and end dates are not known is called a floating chronology. It can be anchored by cross-matching a section against another chronology (tree ring history) whose dates are known. Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 11,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers) and pine from Northern Ireland.[3][4][5] Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[6] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[7] In 2004 a new calibration curve INTCAL04 was internationally ratified for calibrated dates back to 26,000 Before Present (BP) based on an agreed worldwide data set of trees and marine sediments.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meterorite dating from radio-isotopes found in rocks is NOT carbon dating and is not reliable. So the 4.5 billion years is speculation, and if reading how they got to that figure you can see how dates that didn't conform to this number were thrown out. How the ratios conformed to years was never clearly explained. You can read about this in scientific journals.

Carbon dating is not used for meteorites... other radioisotopes are used (see: Geologic Time: Age of the Earth). Of course, if you really read scientific journals, you would know this. Why are you implying that you have done so, when you clearly have not? Where do you imagine the date of 4.5 billion years comes from?

So..let's throw out the confusion of God-less evolution and concentrate on the real science, the diversity of life reflecting God's creation.
Amen!

Why not let scientists determine what "real" science is, instead of someone like yourself who pretents to know what she is talking about, when she clearly does not?

 

[mzungu]

Where did I say I was indoctrinating my Children?

They have a Bible story book, they hear the stories, I do not state they must believe such and such, I do not say this is fact, that is wrong etc.

It is up to them if they want to believe, I show them what I do, they do not HAVE to do anything, I don't drum anything into them, they are children.

What will you do if your children declared that there is no God or if they declared in favour of Satan? What will you tell your children if they tell you that Science is above God?

Let us be honest here and admit the obvious.

 

[Hespera]

'evolution' should be taught correctly, if at all.

There is doctrine of evolution, that leads to woolly theories of God-less origin and ancestral linear diversity that actually there is no evidence for, and then there is genetic variation, which has little to do with evolution but is actually evidence for God's creative power and ability to design a myriad of living creatures with the DNA blueprint to adapt.

For example, evolutionists can't explain the pre-cambrian explosion, because no 'ancestors' were found for all THOSE species.
A picture of a black Pepper Moth on a tree is not evidence of evolution. Black Pepper Moths have always been around, it isn't that some magically evolved from white ones. If you read the study critically you will see flaws in the observations.

A picture of rock strata does not then prove that the rocks come from different ages. People like to label them as various ages. Geologists have a hard time accounting for DISCONFORMITIES - rocks that are out of place in their geological time scheme.

Another thing is Lucy's evidence was not misrepresented by creationists. If you read the account given by Lucy's discoverer, he himself ASSUMED Lucy's skeleton was all of one specimen, even when found miles apart. There is also detail as to her hip bones being 'unfused' so as to make it appear she walked upright- they had to smash it into place to make it appear she was upright. Also she didn't have any foot bones, so its rather assuming a lot of things to think she actually walked like a human did.

Human clothing is another speculation given by evolutionists. But it does not account for humans wearing clothing even in hot climates. Evolutionists cannot explain evolution as a basis for everything.

Haeckels' drawings don't actually give a shred of evidence for evolution. Since we have all have one thing in common, God, a creator who designed us, seeing similarties in the way organisms develop is not so strange. This does not mean one species evolved into another.

Bacteria is another point. From time to time species change and new traits emerge. But this does not mean bacteria ever evolve into a completely different species. And those traits can disappear again. One can't go back in time and claim evolution they way Dawkins and Darwin suggest ie. that humans evolved from ape or ape-like creatures. This connection (trying to link one species to another in some sort of chain of progression) is a fallacy.
The diagram of the evolution of plants also is such a fallacy. One simply cannot link differing species from another and claim this comes before that. Or this comes from that. Because transisitional fossils simply are not found. When fossils that appear to be missing links are found, it is not they are transitional at all but species in their own right. For example, a platypus isn't the missing link between mammals and reptiles. It is a unique creature. Likewise the archaeopteryx. Unfortunately for the archahoetperyx it became extinct. Extinction can be a result of predation or worldwide catastrophe (flood?) but not because species failed to adapt, which is often reiterated by evolutionists.
Evolutionists like to sort things into diagrams. But these man-made diagrams distort the real picture.

Evolutionists can't explain where they actually get their fossil record from, and try to avoid the simplest explanation -sedimentation deposited from a worldwide Flood. Fossils require a quick burial to form, and burial by floodwaters is how we get most fossils.

Dawkin's ancestors tales, Lyell and Huxleys fanciful stories are complete fables and fabrications. What point were they trying to make, with no evidence? That God wasn't in charge, that nothing was created, that all the diversity of life, for some reason, created ITSELF, designed itself, evolved itself, simply through sheer will to reproduce and survive. But life we see isn't like that. It simply isn't true that the whole point of life according to evolutionist thinking is to survive and reproduce ourselves. There is something more to life than that. That is something the spiritual man knows, that the natural man cannot.

Carbon-dating is accurate to about 6000 years (roughly in sync with biblical timelimes). The oldest trees are dated to about 4000-9000 years. There is no evidence anything older than that. Meterorite dating from radio-isotopes found in rocks is NOT carbon dating and is not reliable. So the 4.5 billion years is speculation, and if reading how they got to that figure you can see how dates that didn't conform to this number were thrown out. How the ratios conformed to years was never clearly explained. You can read about this in scientific journals.

So..let's throw out the confusion of God-less evolution and concentrate on the real science, the diversity of life reflecting God's creation.

Amen!

let us know if you ever have anything to say besides a drive -by cut and paste document dump.

You personally dont seem to know a thing about anything.

 

[jonsun80]

it's cute how lying is suddenly okay.

 

[jonsun80]

Can There Be Self Assembly? There is a creationist argument, due to William Paley (1805, Natural Theology. Late London ed. New York: American Tract Society) that a watch won't assemble itself from its parts. Are you familiar with the fact that bacteriophage T4 will do this? Bill Wood did some elegant experiments years ago on this (W. B. Wood Bacteriophage T4 assembly and the morphogenesis of subcellular structure. Harvey Lect. 753: 203-223, 1979.) He got headless mutants. He got tailless mutants. (They were suppressors, probably amber, so he could grow them on an amber suppressor bacterial strain. A suppressor strain contains a modified tRNA that reads amber stop codons.) He made extracts from the headless and tailless mutants. Alone they could not infect, but if you mixed them they would self-assemble and then be infective! He figured out an entire pathway of assembly from this method. So it is possible for things to self assemble, especially at the molecular level.A picture of the assembly pathway. (2003 May 18: The link to http://192.211.16.12/user/T4/map2.jpg is broken. Can you find it?)
T4 Image (original T4 Image)
T4 pages:

• http://moose.uvm.edu/~smorrica/research.html
• http://192.211.16.12/phage/t4websitesandmore.htm
• Bacteriophage T4 VRML Visualizations
• PhagePage

Question:

How does one know when a result is due to such basic molecular binding forces, as opposed to something else?
--- Matt Insall (montez@rollanet.org)
1999 July 20​

Since the entire sequence of T4 is now known, we have the sequences of all the parts of T4. One could make non-binding mutants in the proteins and sequence them to determine which amino acids are involved in the binding interface. One could get x-ray crystal pictures of the parts and see that they fit together nicely. (For the scientist this means that on the surfaces of the two molecules positive charges should match negative charges, van der walls surfaces are aligned, cysteines are covalently linked, hydrophobic pockets match hydrophobic residues, etc.) Then I would expect many of the mutants to be in the interface surface. I doubt that this has been done for all or even a few interfaces for T4 (it is not such a hot field these days!) but similar things have been done for zillions of other interfaces. (Look up fibritin in pubmed for an example. The latest is Biochemistry (Mosc) 1999 Jul;64(7):817-23 The carboxy-terminal domain initiates trimerization of bacteriophage T4 fibritin. Letarov AV, Londer YY, Boudko SP, Mesyanzhinov VV)
A few days after answering this question, I came across this beautiful example: Proteins 1987;2(4):273-82 , Clustering of null mutations in the EcoRI endonuclease. Yanofsky SD, Love R, McClarin JA, Rosenberg JM, Boyer HW, Greene PJ.

New explanation [2000 Feb 3]: In this work, the enzyme EcoRI was used. This protein cuts DNA. If it is free in a bacterial cell, it will destroy the cell's DNA. So how do the bacteria live with it? They have another enzyme that modifies the DNA at the same place that EcoRI cuts. So what these people did was start with a bacterium that had neither enzyme. They put the gene for EcoRI on a ring of DNA and then made random mutations in that ring. This made variations of EcoRI. They then put the variations into cells without any protection. Of course if the EcoRI still worked it would kill the cells. So the only cells that survived had mutations in the EcoRI. The neat result is that they found two kinds of mutations. One was at the surface between the protein and the DNA and the other was at the protein-protein surface. This protein binds to itself, like a yin-yang symbol

. The curved line where the two sides join is the "protein-protein" interface, and this is were the second class of mutations appeared. So here is a pretty experiment where most mutations were just where one would expect, at the interface. It demonstrates clearly that we understand the molecular binding forces that Matt Insall was asking about.
Obviously generating such extensive data takes an incredible amount of painstaking work, but I'm sure you could find some other elegant ones (including the EcoRI/DNA cocrystal structure) in the Protein Data base. In particular, when I was searching for the EcoRI structure, I came across the structure of one of the subunit interface mutations Ed144 (i.e. probably Gly144) found in the above report. So this example is getting nailed down very solidly.
The God Hypothesis violates Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation should be preferred over a more complex one. Using the concept that god created living things fails because it is not the simplest hypothesis. Indeed, it doesn't explain anything, only puts the problem off. Where did God come from? This is invariably ignored, or the response is that s/he was always there. The counter response is that one could claim that living things were always there, and at least we can conclusively demonstrate that they have been around for some billion years or more.

Where did all this come from?
God.
Where did god come from?
S/He was always there.

can be reduced to

Where did all this come from?
It was always there.

The latter may not be right, but it is simpler. Indeed, 'it was always there' fits ideas by Hawking, but is not satisfying and there are theories of larger spaces that our universe is in, but then that just puts the question back further ...
Are Proteins Too Complex To Evolve? There is an old creationist argument (from L. M. Spetner, Natural selection: an information-transmission mechanism for evolution, J Theor Biol, 7, 412-429, 1964 and H. P. Yockey, A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory, J Theor Biol, 67, 377-398, 1977) about life being improbable. This is where someone claims that the probability of forming even one protein is astronomical (and therefore there had to be a designer).

The argument goes like this. A protein is made out of about 300 amino acids. There are 20 kinds of amino acid, so the number of possible proteins is 20300. That number is so big it would be impossible to explore only a portion of the possible proteins. So getting the first protein to function is impossible by generation of a random sequence.​

Only recently (around 1998) did I pinpoint the reason this is wrong.Spetner computed his number by multiplying the probabilities of getting each base independently of each other base in the sequence. His number is the probability of getting everything just right in a single random shot.
But as everybody learns in school, only independent probabilities can be multiplied. Every step in the evolution of a protein is dependent on the previous steps. Therefore it is incorrect to multiply amino acid probabilities, and the computation is wrong. Selective processes can work with even a slight advantage and as many computer simulations show will rapidly converge on a good solution. This has spawned the field of designing things like airplane wings by selective processes.
A simulation of the evolution of information in molecular systems also demonstrates that that Spetner's computation was incorrect.

• 
  [*]Contradiction in Genesis: order of creation. Kansas has mud on its face. In August of 1999, the Kansas school board of education voted 6-4 to remove questions about the theory of evolution on their statewide science assessment test. During a debate between Prof. Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University and Rev. Jerry Falwell, Chancellor, Liberty University a question posed by the press was:
  There are two stories: There's one and two. In Genesis, first chapter, God created the earth, then he created all the other animals, then he created man and woman. In the second chapter, he created the earth, then he created Adam, then he created all the other animals, then he created Eve. Now, if we're going to take the Bible literally, we're going to teach creationism, which version do we teach and who decides?​

[SIZE=-1](The debate was recorded at CNN, but the original link is now broken. Apparently CNN transcripts are not kept by CNN, but rather somewhere at Lexis-Nexis.) [/SIZE]

• 
  [*]Genesis and the Big Bang are not compatible. Some people claim that the Big Bang is consistent with Genesis. In Genesis, there was darkness across the waters, then there was light. But in the Big Bang model there was first a plasma, then hydrogen. Stars condensed and started burning hydrogen to get helium. Then stars exploded in super novae and during those explosions higher elements were produced, including oxygen. So water - H2O - formed after light first appeared, in contradiction with the Genesis account.

• 
  [*]Mathematics. My work with molecular information theory shows that patterns in biological systems can be explained purely by a scientific account. So one doesn't need to explain living organisms as having been created externally because it all comes down to evolution and mathematics. An objection some people raise to this is that mathematics itself would come from god. But the famous coding theorist R. W. Hamming wrote an interesting article, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics, that points out that we selected mathematics to fit our problems

• 
  [*]Horizontal Transfer is Rare. In a letter to the editor, Jeffrey Shallit points out
  A human designing a computer program is free to incorporate improvements from programs developed by other humans in other parts of the world. On the other hand, this is precisely what we do *not* see in biological systems. (Horizontal transfer does occur, but not separated by space and time.) The genome of humans does not include evolutionary improvements discovered by flowering plants, for example. If today's biological diversity is the product of "intelligent design", it is entirely remarkable that this designer chose to make life appear to be arranged in a branching hierarchy consistent with common descent, without incorporating improvements across different branches. If life is designed, why does it look so much as if it evolved?​

 

[jonsun80]

Ain't C&P awesome. It's like it can make a poster seem as if they have the faintest idea of what they're talking about. suddenly they are biologist experts with two clicks of the mouse! why the more complex jargon contained and the longer it is, the more convincing it seems.

 

[driewerf]

Well I do have some questions. Why is evolution so stupid? Whats the point of it?
Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God? Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite? Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory? What practical use is evolution? Why do evolutionists confuse variation within species with variation BETWEEN species. What evidence is there for uniformatism? Why do evolutionist think ancestors can be different species? Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants? Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man? Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories? Why does the evolutionary story sound just like science fiction? Why does Richard Dawkins make up animals in his 'Ancestor's tale'? Isn't a meme another figment of Dawkin's imagination?
How do you explain the evolution of sex? Wouldn't it have been just easier if sex wasn't invented and we just divided/cloned ourselves for survival of the fittest? Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks? The same with heckel's drawings? Aren't the names for the rocks divisions simply arbitrary? Why can't one find rock strata that reflects the diagrams in textbooks? Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright? How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart? How do evolutionists explain humans wearing clothing? How do they explain why we would think we have souls if we didn't have any? Why can't the natural man understand spiritual things? Does time have a beginning? If not, explain why time is circular. Why is it that when genes mutate there is always a loss off function and not an add of function? Why do evolutionist think that mutation leads to more functions if it is demonstrated the opposite?
I could go on..but if there is some to start with. Have fun trying to explain yourself.

Dear Goodbook,
although I ansewerd a few of your - ahum - questions, I want to reevalute my position to you.
I clearly showed you some very gros mistakes that you made. But you ignored my post - and ignored Wiccan Child's post - and went on. So I will be more explicit.

You know nothing about science.

The little you think to know comes from people who lied to you. And presumably you didn't even understand them. So your posts are filled with very gros mistakes, and outright lies. You have not showed any tendency to honest learning. You have posted very loaded questions, formulated that way as to either insult people who accept the Theory of Evolution, or to mock that theory. Still other of your questionse were formulated that way to doubt the honesty of the scientists active in the field. Shall show it in your face?

Why is evolution so stupid?

A very loaded question. So the ToE is stupid. You have declared it that way, the only question that needs to be answered is why. But the stupidity of it is already stated as a fact.

Why can't evolutionists admit to existence of God?

Another fallacious question. And a false on for two reasons. First, the validity of the ToE does NOT depend on the religion of the scientists. Does the theory of relativity fails, just because Einstein was jewish? Is the raman effect real, just because Chandrasekara Raman was hindu? No. At least not in the real world.
The second reason your question is stupid is just because many, many scientists in the field of evolution are religious. Many of them even christian. I mentioned already some, but Ken Miller deserves a special honorific place. He was - as Catholic- one of the key witnesses in the case Katzmiller vs Dover.

Why do they think the world is 4 billion years old based on a mathematical formulas based on radiation decay from a meterorite?

This is a pearl, I didn't want to miss.

1. a mathematical formulas -a signals something singular. But formulas is plural. Learn some English.
2. radiation decay. There is no such thing. It's radioactive decay.
3. meterorite - it's meteorite.
4. Bon, to the point. They don't think it's 4.5 billion years. The age of the earth has been measured by very many different means. And on very many different samples. Rocks from Greenland, Moon rocks and indeed meteorites. Plural.
5. Just highlighting the denigrating and diminishing way your frased your question. The "think" - no they measured. A meteorite - no, many samples.

Why did they chuck out all the data that didn't fit in with their theory?

So again a very loaded question. Goodbook has stated -and who are we to question her statements? - that scientists have chuck out embarassing data. Thanks heavens, lady Goodbook has knowledge of this data and will be so kind as to publish this chucked data, won't you, Goodbook? Don't hesitate. You can be portrayed as the new Jesus who cleansed the Temple of the Merchants. See yourself cleansing the universities of these fellons who hide embarassing data for the world. I'm really keen to see this happen.

What evidence is there for uniformatism?

SN1987A. Next question.

Why do evolutionists have a evolutionary tree exclusively for animals but have nothing for plants?

Again, GB. You state as a fact something and ask why. While the stated fact isn't true. It took me 5 seconds to find an evolutionary tree for plants. It shows - again - the huge gap in your knowledge.

Why do Lyell, huxley and Darwin's theories have in common with Kipling's 'Just So' stories?

Why do grammar English creationists fail?

Why did evolutionists cover up frauds for years eg piltdown man?Why was the Pepper Moth study fabricated for school textbooks?
...Why was lucy's femur twisted to fit in with the idea that she walked upright?
...How could scientists be sure that all the bones belonged to one body when they were found miles apart?

So again, you are stating -without any knowledge on the amtter - the dishonesty of the peoplein the field.


Look, GB,you have shown to be a deluded and ignorant person. None of these are a shame. We are all ignorant of many things. As for the delsuion, the people who lied to you have to be blamed.

You are now before an important choice.
There, here on this forum, quite a lot of people who are well educated in science, and who will be glad to share parts of their knowledge. IF you really want to learn. And therefor you will have to change the tone of your postings.
You don't need to answer this. Your actions will speak louder than your words anyway.

But if you think you can challenge the ToE with the kind of stuff you posted above, the believe me, the only thing that waits for you is disappointment.

Yours sincerely,
driewerf.