Creation Science?

[Ganryu]

In case you guys didn't know, there are still people out there who believe in a flat-earth. Go type "flat earth society" into a google search and you will see what I mean.

 

[geek167]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Tominator -- Just so we have our terms straight:

A theory is a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree. It takes only one disproof to blow a theory apart.

A theorem is a proposition that is not necessarily self-evident, but that can be proven by accepted premises or scientific laws so that it is accepted as a law or principle.

Science is systematized knowledge derived from obsevation, study, and experimentation undertaken to determine the nature or principles of that which is being studied.

For example, the theory of evolution is supported by observable and observed phenomena. It is supported by repeatable and repeated experimentation, and it has never been disproven, even once. That is why it remains a valid theory.

Creation "science" is NOT science by any stretch of the imagination, and its underlying "theories" are readily disproved by observation.

You fail to realize that there is very little repeatable and repeated experimentation for evolution. Wait....

Embyro Scam

Peppered Moth Scam

Australian Aboriginees (sp?) Scam

Carbon Dating? Please, every day carbon dating is being proved more and more inacurrate. They found a hat once that when carbon dated said it was over 4,000,000 years old.

You weren't there, you can never call either a fact. Both creation science and evolution science are a theory. Can you reproduce evolution? No. Oh yes, I heard someone zapped some chemicals and created a protein. But wait, <b>someone</b> had to zap those chemicals, so I guess it doesn't support evoution.

At this point more evidence points to a young earth as opposed to an earth 500,000+ years old. The fossils found in the walls of the grand canyon are less than 15,000 years old. Evolutionists just say we must dig deeper and deeper. Well, at this point, they've dug over 8 miles into the earth and it still points to a young earth.

Where is this evidence?

In my opinion it takes more faith to believe that everything happened by chance than to believe something or someone created it. You try to process who could've created it, but your mind is too weak. As is mine, it hurts to try who created the starting matter that began the big bang or creation.

 

[geek167]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Evolution is what the rocks say.

Evolution has nothing to do with rocks and btw, any language can be interpreted wrong. Where is the missing link?

No, a giraffe's neck is longer because the giraffes with longer necks were better able to compete for resources than those with shorter necks at the time.

LOL! Explain why they are not getting longer as those with longer necks get more food. Don't their offspring survive where those with shorter necks die?

By your 'Scientific Theory' white folks are destined to rule the earth. Afterall it's just survival of the most fit!

All professional breeders know that things have limits. They're not going to randomly get a cat when they are breeding dogs with dogs.

The finches by the way just go back to short beaks again after a short time. Man, you guys are out of date, all good evolutionists know that that is a sad argument with anyone knowledgeable about creationism and evolutism.

It is impossible to debate for either side if you do not know the oppposite side.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: geek167
You weren't there, you can never call either a fact. Both creation science and evolution science are a theory. Can you reproduce evolution? No. Oh yes, I heard someone zapped some chemicals and created a protein. But wait, <b>someone</b> had to zap those chemicals, so I guess it doesn't support evoution.

Lightning. And the earth back then is totally different from the earth today.

At this point more evidence points to a young earth as opposed to an earth 500,000+ years old. The fossils found in the walls of the grand canyon are less than 15,000 years old. Evolutionists just say we must dig deeper and deeper. Well, at this point, they've dug over 8 miles into the earth and it still points to a young earth.

Erosion.

 

[exp]

LOL I see the Young Earth people have shown up. Quick, everyone point and laugh.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: geek167

Originally posted by: Tominator

Evolution is what the rocks say.

Evolution has nothing to do with rocks and btw, any language can be interpreted wrong. Where is the missing link?

No, a giraffe's neck is longer because the giraffes with longer necks were better able to compete for resources than those with shorter necks at the time.

LOL! Explain why they are not getting longer as those with longer necks get more food. Don't their offspring survive where those with shorter necks die?

By your 'Scientific Theory' white folks are destined to rule the earth. Afterall it's just survival of the most fit!

All professional breeders know that things have limits. They're not going to randomly get a cat when they are breeding dogs with dogs.


It's an old TIME PROVEN that still remains unexplained as does most of the variety of life on earth.




The finches by the way just go back to short beaks again after a short time. Man, you guys are out of date, all good evolutionists know that that is a sad argument with anyone knowledgeable about creationism and evolutism.

It is impossible to debate for either side if you do not know the oppposite side.

But you just made the point. Although the Giraffe argument is as old as the hills it remains largely unexplained. Why does the neck length not vary as the finches beaks do?

Like a thousand other episodes in nature it puts into question the whole theory.

A 'fact' is destroyed by just one instance that does not fit the model. A Theory is ever changeing with knowledge and many facts gained pertaining to the theory. Facts are never explained by Theory!

Gravity was cited as theory but I'll argue it is fact. It is without exception! Relativity the same. Although not observed we can measure and cause either an infinite number of times and without variance from the origional hypothesis. It can be proven mathamatically, again without variance. That makes it a fact.

We can throw some simple forms of life into a formulated sludge and watch them mutate and change all we want and it does ad more to the argument but is far far far from proving evolution as undeniable fact as put forth as how life evolved and the earth came to be as we know it.

 

[Orsorum]

Tominator - were you going to post something or just hit the "Reply" button? Just curious, this is a good discussion, I'd like to keep it going.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: exp
LOL I see the Young Earth people have shown up. Quick, everyone point and laugh.

Wow, hello, way to be a jackass. If you're so caught up in your own POV that you can't even take the time to play devil's advocate and examine the situation from someone elses' POV, that's sad.

By just mocking someone when they're bringing up some good points that, IMO, deserve to be addressed, you're just proving yourself to be no better than the idiots that blindly hold to creationism without examining the points behind evolutionism.

 

[geek167]

Originally posted by: exp
LOL I see the Young Earth people have shown up. Quick, everyone point and laugh.

Man I'm impressed with your debating skills.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Originally posted by: Ganryu
In case you guys didn't know, there are still people out there who believe in a flat-earth. Go type "flat earth society" into a google search and you will see what I mean.

you talk as if most people think the world isn't flat... why is that? are you trying to tell us that you don't think the earth is flat? dude just look at the people in south america. you don't see their hair standing straight up or falling off the earth do you? man if the earth wasn't flat, it would never rain in the southern hemisphere. think about that man. no, like really think about that.

 

[aniki]

You can believe in whatever you want. Don?t criticize others beliefs

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Tominator - were you going to post something or just hit the "Reply" button? Just curious, this is a good discussion, I'd like to keep it going.

Ops! Done!

Through interbreeding of 2 animals of the same species... it is shown that later generations end up weaker and sterile... ie, genetic fvck ups. So applying this to the Noah's Ark story, all the animals are fvcked.

'In the beginning' the gene pool was pure and not with the great variance found today. No chemicals or processed foods to take their toll. Disease was not common.

Theory of course.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: Zakath15
Tominator - were you going to post something or just hit the "Reply" button? Just curious, this is a good discussion, I'd like to keep it going.

Ops! Done!

Sweet action, .

 

[linuxboy]

Originally posted by: Czar
As far as I know you can catagorize people on these debates in these catagories

1. One who belives the earth is 5000 years old and God created everything.

2. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god had something to do with it.

3. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen but god might have had something to do with it.

4. One who belives that the earth is as old as scientists say and evolution did happen, god had nothing to do with it.

Science supports all catagories except nr 1., the rest is debateable but not on the grounds of science but on the grounds of religion and thats why these threads serve absolutely no purpose. Finaly I ask everyone, where do you stand in these catagories?

My dear Czar, as much as your kingly status may allow for assertions of seeming veracity and soundness, I do believe you have omitted the occasional foolish peasant like myself whose answer to debaters and positions inevitably entails and I daresay is:

5. All of the above.


Cheers !

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: geek167

Originally posted by: Tominator

No, a giraffe's neck is longer because the giraffes with longer necks were better able to compete for resources than those with shorter necks at the time.

LOL! Explain why they are not getting longer as those with longer necks get more food. Don't their offspring survive where those with shorter necks die?

LOL, only I'm laughing at YOU. The reason is patently obvious if you understand ANYTHING about evolution from a scientific perspective rather than a Sunday School spoon-fed perspective. Once the giraffes with longer necks were selected for, allowing these giraffes to obtain food and survive, they SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE of having a long neck was markedly reduced. There would be no further advantage to having a neck taller than the tallest tree, or even slightly taller than the next giraffe if food was available at that height -- thus, lack of food was no longer a "selective pressure," and there was not further selection for longer necks.

By your 'Scientific Theory' white folks are destined to rule the earth. Afterall it's just survival of the most fit!

I think this statement gives us an indication of how ignorant and clueless you really are.


Valsalva

 

[Tominator]

Laugh all you want. Idiots always laugh when faced with questions they cannot answer.

I understand more that you will ever admit to.

Instead of calling names an insinuations your time would be better spent refuteing such arguments with facts.

Why does the beak change and the neck does not?

Very very simple question that science has no factual answer for yet it tries to tell us how life became so diverse. Yea, right!

 

[PC166]

The truth is we're getting dumber generation after generation because of gene deterioation, pretty soon we will all be just like prehistoric that we describe about early people lol. my father is 200 percent smarter then me, and great grand father 400 percent smarter because of their knowledge gained from experience, newbie who just came into existence know next to nothing sad but true imo. Gene defect is what made man do stupid thing and stupid people always get into trouble and cause others harm as well because they never think ahead of what the outcome will be. so perfection as to god and man as to imperfect and he just keep repeating the same mistake over and over till death do he part from this world. Peace.

 

[rahvin]

Laugh all you want. Idiots always laugh when faced with questions they cannot answer.

I understand more that you will ever admit to.

Instead of calling names an insinuations your time would be better spent refuteing such arguments with facts.

Why does the beak change and the neck does not?

Very very simple question that science has no factual answer for yet it tries to tell us how life became so diverse. Yea, right!

Tom, the problem in having this discussion with you is that you lack a base understanding of the science involved in these discussions. As an analogy when a child asks why is the sky blue do you answer that it is the a result of light reflecting/refracting off of the ozone layer and is in fact the spectrographic signature of oxygen? No, because these very concepts are beyond what a child will understand. To debate these issues with you it would be necessary for you to be educated in not only the basic premises of the scientific method but the base knowledge required of all students of biology. In addtion the issues you are choosing to bring up would require not only base knowledge but higher level formal eduation in and study of evolutionary theory. Otherwise from my point of view its like trying to explain what a spectrographic signature is to a 5 year old. Or as the old saying goes, it's like trying to teach a pig to talk, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

 

[ValsalvaYourHeartOut]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Laugh all you want. Idiots always laugh when faced with questions they cannot answer.

I understand more that you will ever admit to.

Instead of calling names an insinuations your time would be better spent refuteing such arguments with facts.

Why does the beak change and the neck does not?

Very very simple question that science has no factual answer for yet it tries to tell us how life became so diverse. Yea, right!

Tom, the problem in having this discussion with you is that you lack a base understanding of the science involved in these discussions. As an analogy when a child asks why is the sky blue do you answer that it is the a result of light reflecting/refracting off of the ozone layer and is in fact the spectrographic signature of oxygen? No, because these very concepts are beyond what a child will understand. To debate these issues with you it would be necessary for you to be educated in not only the basic premises of the scientific method but the base knowledge required of all students of biology. In addtion the issues you are choosing to bring up would require not only base knowledge but higher level formal eduation in and study of evolutionary theory. Otherwise from my point of view its like trying to explain what a spectrographic signature is to a 5 year old. Or as the old saying goes, it's like trying to teach a pig to talk, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Agreed. Tominator obviously has NO IDEA what natural selection and evolutionary theory entail...yet he's one of those people who, despite having zero-knowledge in a field, still insists on pretending like he does. Get this in your head, Tominator: You cannot attack what you do not understand, and you clearly do not understand evolution.

I have already explained very simply why the neck length of a giraffe does continue to grow indefinitely -- and the nature of your response indicates that you were not capable of comprehending the explanation -- thus, why do you continue to ask easily-accounted-for challenges that any of us can answer but wouldn't be able to follow anyway?? No, seriously!

Valsalva

 

[linuxboy]

Or as the old saying goes, it's like trying to teach a pig to talk, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

I disagree, I have been very successful in the past in teaching these fine creatures how to utter the word 'SUUUUUEEEE'. Baby steps...


Cheers !

 

[rahvin]

ValsalvaYourHeartOut,

I'm not necessarily agreeing with you because I didn't bother to read any of your posts so you best be carefull if you think I'm siding with you. Tom is not an idiot, he actually a very smart guy with a lifetime of experience that you can only hope for. I do know he is not formally educated in evolutionary theory nor does he have a formal scientific education but do not underestimate practical life experience. I do recogize that the arguement you are trying to make though is on dangerous ground and his life experience is going to eat your knowledge for lunch if when he spots a weakness in your arguement.

 

[Tominator]

You will never win this or any argument unless you can first address the basics.

I know quite a lot about this subject and was debateing in high school and later onto Deja.com long before there was an Anandtech...most of you were in diapers.

You'll notice how I never mentioned the Bible or creation science....whatever that is.

Science is only as solid as it's weakest link and there are quite a few around here.

It seems to hurt you if you are even questioned at all! Is it just too much to admit that you need more evidence?

Basics in debate seems to be very foreign in this specialized society. You will believe anything if said by someone you consider your superior. That is more of a failing than you will ever know.

Btw, in my generation we were taught why the sky is blue in grade school. Looks to me like you think a college degree is needed to understand why today.

I've stuck with very basic reasoning throughout all this. If you ever want to be taken as credible in life you must master the simple things before delving into territory you know little about.

I can say, "I don't know if evolution is fact. We need to know more." Can you? Or is the current blurring of right and wrong or fact and theory just too much for you to understand the reasons you are questioned? Scientists themselves can agree on little about this and thousands of other subjects.

Raise children and grandchildren. Take part in life not as some disinterested observer collecting data, but as a part of it. Watch those children grow and develop and then attempt to convince yourself it is happenstace. The revolutions revealed in life and living will make scientific discovery seem nothing!

Wasn't it your beloved scientists that labeled Einstein dumb and retarded and afflicted with various diseases.....scientist have a long long record of failure.

 

[exp]

If you're so caught up in your own POV that you can't even take the time to play devil's advocate and examine the situation from someone elses' POV, that's sad.

Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I *have* considered their POV in the past and found it baseless. Now consider mine: would you laugh at a grown man who insists that the Sun revolves around the earth? I would, and to myself and others with even a basic (read: 100-level college courses) background in science the "case" against evolution is as ridiculous as that hypothetical man's misguided argument.

I see the same points brought up again and again and again by creationists, in this and previous threads. These arguments collectively represent A) an appalling lack of knowledge with respect to evolution (a forgivable sin, but one that should have been corrected before initiating debate), B) an inexcusable refusal to perform even basic research (read: google search) before posting, which, if done, would reveal that C) their theses have already been refuted time and time again.

By just mocking someone when they're bringing up some good points that, IMO, deserve to be addressed, you're just proving yourself to be no better than the idiots that blindly hold to creationism without examining the points behind evolutionism.

First, I see no good points in this thread. Second, I have pissed away long hours of my life addressing creationist claims--you can see the record of my wasted efforts in past threads. Each time I delude myself into thinking that maybe, just maybe, this new individual is different--that they are actually interested in learning something--but inevitably my hopes are dashed.

Creationism is anti-science. They have a preconceived closely-held belief in mind and twist the truth to fit that view. Valid posts (e.g. anything that refutes their arguments) are ignored, irrelevant factoids (e.g. Bible verses) are posted for no apparent reason other than to clog up the thread, lies and half-truths are knowingly and willfully spread to advance their fraudulent views. Sadly, creationist tactics remind me of nothing quite so much as those of astrologists. Let the pseudo-scientists keep each other company, I say, and desist from smearing the name of real science with their irresponsible and intellectually dishonest devices.

I love science and I love an honest scientific debate. If someone is legitimately interested in discussing evolution my PM's are enabled so by all means contact me. Furthermore, I have no special attachment to evolution, just as I have no special attachment to any scientific theory (e.g. gravity ), so if anyone can provide new evidence that sheds real doubt on our current theory of evolution I would be forever in your debt for so enlightening me. But if all you have to offer is the same old lies and previously-refuted arguments and you present them anyway, knowing they have been dismantled in the past then do us all a favor and keep your thoughts to yourself.

 

[LordMaul]

NART!

Lay off it. This thread exists only for the purpose of a bunch of Evolutionists bashing one or two Creationists.

 

[rahvin]

I know quite a lot about this subject and was debateing in high school and later onto Deja.com long before there was an Anandtech...most of you were in diapers.

There is a difference between debating ideas and understanding science. I can debate microprocessor architectures all I want, but that does not give me the insight nor the design ability to proclaim the best way to design or manufacture processors. See for all my debating of the benefits of CISC vs. RISC or IA32 vs IA64 vs X86-64 I frankly don't have a clue on the base level how a modern microprocessor operates. Sure I have a little base knowledge in basic circuts, I've even run SPICE a couple times. But if you think for a minute debating a topic for a decade or more without a formal education or working in the subject matter gives you the ability to make concrete conclusions about anything you are in fact deluding yourself.

You will believe anything if said by someone you consider your superior. That is more of a failing than you will ever know.

The funniest part of this is the ignorance of what comprises a formal education. Throughout all my science classes I was always instructed to never believe anything anyone said without proof, including the instructor teaching the course. I have always demanded proof, and always continue to. If I had time I would still read science journals for pleasure. The first lesson in science is that everything must be proved.

Btw, in my generation we were taught why the sky is blue in grade school. Looks to me like you think a college degree is needed to understand why today.

And you were undoubtably told the same thing I was which is 1/10 of an answer. The rest was assumed and no explanation was given because a deeper explanation would have been over your head.

I can say, "I don't know if evolution is fact. We need to know more." Can you?

No I can't Tom, because I don't lie and to utter those words would be a lie. Evolution is a fact. It has been observed, it has been experimentally confirmed and half a dozen plus independent branches of science depend on it's findings. (How it operates is a theory, not the fact that it exists) The problem you face in a debate of this nature is that you can't even begin to fully grasp the vast information we have learned from evolution. I have little doubt you even have a clue what moleculer biology is or what conclusions it draws on life. I have little doubt you have never taken a human anatomy class and had evolutionary adaptions of the human body pointed out. I have little doubt that you have even an inkling of exactly what palentoligists have discovered in the fossil record. Etc..

We will always seek to know more, to understand more but quite simply evolution is a fact of life on this planet. How it operates and how life orginated are seperate theories from the massive amounts of data that prove that life in fact does evolve.

scientist have a long long record of failure

Scientists are human. Science is also setup to self correct misconceptions and incorrect data, and above all science admits it's mistakes unlike certain dogmatic teachings.