Login

Join for Free!
114806 members


Creationism is not scientific

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby JackBean » Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:08 am

Oh mein Gott. Of course they were not for evolution, since the theory of evolution was published 100 and more years after their death!!!
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby jinx25 » Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:23 pm

Ok. NDT is a universal acid on all science.

The goal is to indoctrinate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Education_Board

"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply…The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm." - General Education Board, Occasional Papers, No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) p. 6.

'Evolution' is the tool.
jinx25
Death Adder
Death Adder
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:54 pm

Postby JackBean » Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:59 am

So? How is that related to scientists being pro-creation at times when evolution was not known?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm


Re: Creationism is not scientific

Postby Forests » Tue Nov 27, 2012 1:38 pm

Jinx your replies were filled with utter nonsence. You were asked to provide scientific evidence to why you believe creationism is scientific but you did not give any, this thread is not to discuss the evidence for evolution, it is to discuss creationism, indeed this thread was set up for you to give your evidence, but you have no scientific evidence for creationism. Read over the OP again. Creationism does not qualify for the scientific method, it is metaphysics outside of the realm of empirical science. Creationism makes no predictions, can not be observed or tested at all and cannot be falsified. You are entitled to your religious/metaphysical beliefs but it is dishonest to claim they are scientific.

You were given the chance to provide evidence for your "scientific" creationism, but you choose not to becuase like every other creationist you cannot do it. If the bible had not been written you would have no problem with accepting the evidence for evolution. nuff said.
Forests
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:57 pm

Postby thoffnagle » Wed Nov 28, 2012 7:25 pm

OK Jinx, please provide us with a better explanation for the fact that the evidence from fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, geology, genetics and biogeography (and others that I have missed) all point toward evolution. You wrote a lot of bogus stuff here. Here are my responses to some of them:

“'Evolution' ... is (conveniently) a process that is alleged to have both started an stopped happening in the unobserved and unobservable (not empirical science) past.”
No one has claimed the evolution has stopped - quite the contrary!

“Empirical investigation into both 'evolution' and Genesis 1:1-31 is unobtainable.”
You are correct that empirical investigation into creationism is unobtainable but that is not true for anything scientific. Empirical knowledge is that which is “acquired by means of observation or experimentation.” Observation does not only mean being there to witness something. We observe many things, such as:
rocks are laid down in layers
fossils in those layers differ
there is a pattern in the way that those fossils differ in relation to time
there is a pattern in the geographic location of the fossils
anatomy, physiology, morphology and genetics are more similar among some species than others
And we can conduct experiments with organisms that have short life spans to test hypotheses. These are all empirical investigations.

“Creation has written history (Genesis) where as 'evolution' has none.”
So what? You are selecting only one of the thousands of written and/or oral creation myths. Why is yours the right one? And anyone can write anything. I am the second coming of Jesus. Do you believe that, just because it is written? I’ve written that sentence many times. Does that make it more believable? If so, please send me all of your money and I will guarantee that you will be the first person taken to heaven.

“Given that abiogenesis has some SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems”
There are many hypotheses about abiogenesis, some of which are more likely than others. What “SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems” do you mean?

“the complete absence of a mechanism for adding NEW nucleotides”
Not even close to being true. Additions of nucleotides, individually or in chunks of DNA, is a well-known and observed (even witnessed) mutation.

“despite usually having not even read the cornerstone book of the evolutionism doctrine”
Have you read it? I have - it’s a hard read! But it’s also 150 years old and it’s not necessary to read it to understand evolution.

“DNAs existence proves it never happened.”
How so?

“Again we are dealing with a process that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.”
Not true. See “Observed Instances of Speciation” at talkorigins.org. I’ll point out that speciation by polyploidy is a common observation, mostly in plants but also in lizards (and others?), which, by the way, is a mechanism for adding new nucleotides.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Creationism is not scientific

Postby Forests » Sun Dec 09, 2012 5:54 pm

thoffnagle the user jinx25 was a troll. He was stumped on my first post on how creationism is not scientific and like all creationists chooses to ignore this evidence. After he had finished his spam he decided to leave the forum. He has no real interest in science and provided no scientific evidence for his version of religious creationism.

If the bible had not been written he would have no problem in accepting the fact of evolution. Creationists rarely spend any time in nature, they choose to ignore the evidence for evolution based on their religious assumptions. They misunderstand, misrepresent and twist science and ignore any data which contradicts their religious beliefs hence why most creationists are banned or ignored on internet forums becuase all they end up doing is spamming the same things over and over.

As I have already stated, creationists actually accept microevolution, and in the last 20 years they now accept that speciation occurs, of course before this they denied these things exists. Creationists are known for moving goal posts.
Forests
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:57 pm

Postby JackBean » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:37 am

No, jinx has been banned for one week. However, it seems he doesn't bother to come back.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Postby thoffnagle » Mon Dec 10, 2012 11:13 pm

Yes, I know the type. They are offended by theories of evolution and the Big Bang because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible. They say (forgetting their ninth commandment) that it is because neither has even been observed but ignore instances of observed evolution and have no problem with other scientific theories, such at Gravity and Atomic Theory - we don't know why gravity occurs and no one has seen an atom. But it's their efforts to push their religion into schools that bother me - they encourage ignorance, which, to me, is the ultimate sin.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Theodosius Dobzhansky
"Most people who hate the idea of evolution do so because if it was working properly, they'd be dead."
Anonymous
thoffnagle
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:10 pm

Re: Creationism is not scientific

Postby BillAngel » Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:19 am

Here is a paper from a Creation Ministries website that is of interest because it appears to be a scientific critique of research in evolutionary biology.:
Human chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated
The authors' conclusion is that "The human chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact."
8342643102_abf030628a_b.jpeg
BillAngel
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:08 pm

Postby JackBean » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:33 pm

on www.creation.com ? And that's supposed to be proof of what exactly?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re:

Postby BillAngel » Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:01 pm

JackBean wrote:on http://www.creation.com ? And that's supposed to be proof of what exactly?

The thrust of the author's argument seems to be that is very difficult for all of the differences in the DNA between the two species (man and chimp) to have developed by spontanious mutation in the time evolutionists give as having elapsed since man and chimp had a common ancestor, which is estimated as approximately 6 million years ago.
BillAngel
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 3:08 pm

Postby JackBean » Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:46 am

I doubt that the authors actually did some real work. IMHO they just took amount of filtered data and substracted it from the proposed homology. But there is reason to omit the data.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests

cron