|
4 registered members (M_D, AndrewAMD, Quad, Ayumi),
806
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: jcl]
#69061
05/05/06 14:50
05/05/06 14:50
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
-And I learned that the most convincing arguments for evolution are the fossils found in aged layered time zones as heavy evidence for gradual evolution. -Junk dna is kind of an unexplained aspect also which I cannot presently give account for. -I also learned how ignorant I may be. I need to continue study to develop new information...   -But I appreciate the ability to have such a discussion area for debating, it is a refreshing place to see other peoples idea and solidify my own ideas. 
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: NITRO777]
#69062
05/05/06 21:59
05/05/06 21:59
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I was referring to the fact that the unpaired proteine gained a new function.
Ok, this is where I need to start then.
First things first. The targeting mechanism of the protein. It takes effect when free radicals cause inflammation in arteries, and so this A-1 (or its variant, A-1 milano) protein is produced to counter this reaction. Simple as that. A hot spot appears, the protein appears.
The usual amino acid was switched with cysteine which has a sulfhydryl group (its important to note the sulfhydryl part). Here's how the original protein worked. It would be produced in reaction to hot spots, to help clear up bad cholesterol. After the mutation, most of the proteins began to bind together, making them essentially useless. The minority of proteins that could still react to the hot spots (or in other words target hot spots) are unable to produce HDLs in high quantities.
However, since this new amino acid changes the proteins structure to act as an anti-oxidant, you say it has a new ability. The protein isn't producing new anti-oxidants. Its not producing anything, it just happens to act as an anti-oxidant because its in the right place at the right time. But the anti-oxidant 'ability' is just a result of its new structure. It has lost specificity, and therefore this mutation is not a 'building up' of human genes. It may or may not be dispersed into the population, and ignoring our modern ways around this, it may become the only allele available, but its still destructive to the human genome (in a small way). The fact that it has positive side-effects doesn't matter to the genome. It doesn't care.
Furthermore, its specific ability to prevent hardening of arteries doesn't even lie with the mutation. It already could target. It can't produce HDLs, but its new structure mops up free radicals. Mopping up free radicals is hardly as specific as producing HDLs (one involves standing in for other molecules by allowing its own electrons to be stolen by free radicals (the protein itself doesn't do this, physics does this, the protein just has to show up), the other involves the actual creation of a particle, or HDL). Being an anti-oxidant is a passive 'abiility'. Producing HDLs is an active ability. Perhaps if the protein manufactured different particles, that might be one thing. But it doesn't. It just sits there and let's natural chemical reactions take over, while not performing any actual role in any process like it used to.
I'll agree that this is something new, its able to mop up free radicals, which it couldn't before. But it had to do this at a loss of information (it didn't lose the amount of information, just the specificity of the information). This doesn't do anything for evolution.
Quote:
After the mutation: paired proteine that produces nothing, plus unpaired proteine that produces HDL plus acts as antioxidant.
Produces HDLs at an extremely dangerously low level.
Quote:
One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.
The gene didn't even get more complex according to this definition. One amino acid was exchanged for another. Even trade. However, this just goes to show that you can't just throw any old combination of nucleotides/amino acids together and expect it to work. It has to work in the overall picture, which is why the proteins are usually useless (sulfhydryls like to bond together), and why it lost the actual ability to produce HDLs so that its chemical structure can mop up free radicals. Its an even trade of complexity, but a loss of specificity in favor of a different role.
If that's your definition of complexity, then I don't think it has any bearing on genetics in the context of mutations and evolutionary change. You'd be surprised to see which animals are more complex than us (amphibian lizards for instance) and which animals we're more complex than.
Quote:
I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.
No. While seeing a mutation that could somehow write more specificity into a genome would be damaging to my argument, it still wouldn't convince me that evolution has happened. Because the entire timeframe and scale allowed for evolution is based on huge assumptions (red shift for instance, but we don't have to jump into that right now if you don't want to). And because I know we were created, so it would just mean that I would have to fit creative mutations into the idea of a young earth creation. Moreover, seeing 1 creative mutation out of thousands and thousands of observed losses of specificity/information, would still be unconvincing.
So creative mutations don't offend my spiritual side. They offend my scientific side.
Quote:
A new allele in the gene pool adds a new feature to individuals of a species. That definitely matters for evolution. I fail to see what you mean with 'specific' - what's the difference between a 'specific' allele and a 'not specific' allele?
The way you word it, it does sound pretty ridiculous. However, I hope I cleared it up with my post now, but if you need me to elaborate I can. I don't know how clear I am.
Quote:
Humans - if you mean our own species, homo sapiens - exist since 200,000 years and not 3.6 million years. Therefore there can hardly be any human foot prints from millions of years ago. They are from one of our evolutionary predecessors.
My point exactly. This is a human footprint, out of context no one would have argued the point. The proof of that is that it matches to a 'T' the footprints of modern humans. The only proof that it isn't a human's footprint is that it doesn't line up with the modern theory of evolution. That's your evidence and its circular, and flimsy as a sheet of paper. "We know this fossil wasn't made by a human. Humans aren't 3.6 million years old, which we know because they're only 200,000 years old." How do you know they're only 200,000 years old? "We haven't found any fossil evidence of humans that are older." Uh....what?
Quote:
You were complaining at the same time that a) those foot prints were labeled "whatever fits the theory" and that b) they don't fit the theory. Obviously, a) and b) contradict each other, so you should make up your mind about which mischief to accuse the evil scientists of.
I was trying to cover as many bases as possible to pre-respond to any responses.
However, here's my position and it comes in two flavors.
1). The dating method is wrong. I don't think this footprint IS 3.6 million years old, so I don't really accuse the evidence of saying humans have existed that long. I know the theory that we've only been around for 200,000 years, too, so I don't need links.
2). I accuse scientists of trying to force the evidence to fit their presupposed theory. If you view the equation 5 + X = Y You'll always get the answer right if you assume an answer for X. You can come up with an infinite set of answers, and every one of them will be right as long as you make an assumption.
What's stupid is that scientists are trying to say 5 + 1 = 90. They're denying that X is 1 because they thought X was 85. There's no telling anyone otherwise, because you can't argue with assumptions.
Quote:
I don't know about those foot prints - but I guess it's probably difficult to assign some foot prints to a certain human predecessor species.
Especially when you're looking at modern human footprints. Outside of the dating method, they would have been called human footprints. There's no denying that there is no difference, because the scientists themselves say it. Normally we would assume a human made it, but since we've already made the assumption that humans weren't alive at that time, it has to be something else. No evidence, it just has to fit the assumption. This is most of what evolution is based on.
Quote:
If the prints are really millions of years old, they were possibly left by homo habilis, an evolutionary predecessor of humans.
Yeah, it just sucks that H. Habilis wasn't even around when these prints were made. If only several hundreds of thousands of years can produce such a variety of feet, why didn't millions of years do it? This is a huge problem with your theory, and can't be answered. Why would these ape-men be walking around with ape-features, and human feet? It doesn't even begin to make sense.
Quote:
If the prints are really millions of years old
Ah! Now you're willing to admit that the dating methods are fallible?
Quote:
Creatonists don't like to discuss creationism. They definitely prefer to discuss evolution.
True. But only because it invariable leads into messy arguments about dating methods and red shift, which are hard to argue with someone. Its easier to kick the foundation out of evolution first, because then its easier for people to accept that maybe the earth isn't billions of years old.
Quote:
For this reason I still have only a vague idea about a creationist theory, or about whether such a theory exists at all.
Its not that I'm avoiding talking about it. But it would be pointless to talk about it if you still believe evolution explains life. Most of my theory is poo-pooed by modern scientific theories (the ones that are heavily steeped in assumptions).
However, you always make very bold claims about how stars (which are apparently billions of lightyears away) disprove a young earth.
I just have a quick point to bring up about that. Forgetting the shaky argument about how old stars can be explained by time being different depending on where you are, etc.
In a math class, imagine if you were given this question.
You're standing at point A. Two objects (X and Y) are moving away from A. X is travelling 10 feet per second, and Y is travelling 30 feet per second. How far away are X and Y?
What would you do? You would walk up to your math teacher and slap him in the face! Determining distance by speed alone is futile. Unless of course you're allowed to make several assumptions.
If you assume a time that the two objects passed you can get a correct answer. Of course, even if you change this assumption, you'll still get a correct answer. The two answers are 'correct', but the two answers are different. This is because the assumption is a variable, and has no real verifiable proof.
Here's the equation for determining astronomical velocity (or in this case, distance).
V = H D
If you have two of the three values, of course, you can determine the third value.
V is velocity, H is hubble's constant and D is the distance.
Quote:
In 1929, Hubble estimated the value of the expansion factor, now called the Hubble constant, to be about 500 km/sec/Mpc. Today the value is still rather uncertain, but is generally believed to be in the range of 45-90 km/sec/Mpc.
http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses//astro201/hubbles_law.htm
Note the word estimate. In other words, your completely accurate distances are based on an estimation of even more assumptions. In fact, notice also that this estimation has been allowed to change from 500 km/sec/Mpc to 45-90. Its obviously not based on extremely accurate findings, otherwise the value wouldn't change so much. Sure, a lot of constants change (speed of light, pi), but they always remain relatively similar. Even early man had pi at about 3. But a change of that proportion (seen in the differences of Hubble's constant) is an indicator of the inaccuracy of the estimation.
Furthermore, the main reason that this value was dropped so low is because they were starting to find stars that were older than the universe! So you can change 'constants', so long as it helps fit your assumptions, once again. In that case I can just change the concept to fit my young earth theory, and we've suddenly the stars aren't so far away. The problem with this smaller value of H is that it puts the origin of stars on the spot with the origin of the universe, which isn't possible with the Big Bang because stars had to 'evolve'. So who knows, maybe the constant will be lowered again if it helps prove the theory.
We think we can determine the true color of a star (even if its red shifted) based on stars that we use as references, which is unverified (possibly unverifiable). We determine the distances to these stars without knowing the true effects on the light. Another assumption.
With so many assumptions, how can you ever not find the evidence you're looking for? I'm sure if Creationists made our own assumptions, we would come up with completely different answers.
Quote:
The Universe Shows Its Age
A cosmic embarrassment is fading. By some new measure, the oldest stars no longer appear to be older than the universe as a whole.
Four years ago, a nagging problem in cosmology looked set to erupt into a full-scale crisis. A team of astronomers led by Wendy Freedman of the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, published a long-awaited measurement of the universe's expansion rate, determined by the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of pulsating stars in a far-off cluster of galaxies. The result unnerved astronomers. The measured expansion rate was so fast that it implied that the universe has been slowing down for a mere 8 billion years since the big bang. Some earlier measurements of cosmic expansion had already pointed to worrisome young ages for the universe, but this made it billions of years younger than its oldest stars appeared to be.
The crisis intensified the next year, when Craig Hogan of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Michael Bolte of the Lick Observatory in Santa Cruz, California, published a careful study of old stars called globular clusters, which reconfirmed earlier age estimates of about 16 billion years. The universe, it seemed, was just half the age of its oldest inhabitants. Something appeared to be drastically wrong with the observations, or with cosmologists' basic picture of the universe.
Science, 13 February 1998, "The Universe Shows Its Age", page 981
Look at the diction in this article. It goes to show how scared you people get when the evidence doesn't line up with your assumptions. I wonder what that kind of internal crisis might prompt someone to do. Like say, use inconclusive evidence (its not a human if we assume it isn't), or not let people know that their supposedly accurate measurements are based on assumptions. Its not lying if you're just not telling the whole truth, right?
Certain variables in the equation have to be adjusted when the equation doesn't line up with the current theory.
So 100 different methods or not, they're based on fallible assumptions. I don't think the stars we see in the sky are really as far away as we thought.
The Big Bang still has a Big Problem. We haven't found all of the matter the theory has predicted (hardly even part of it). So if the theory that is the basis of these distances is questionable, so are the distances.
Dark matter/dark energy is another example of a magical miracle your god of naturalism has produced. Or in other words, widely accepted nonsense that is convenient because it fills in the gaping wounds of your theory. There's no evidence for either of these 'things' except that they must exist until a better answer is found.
This is the crank science that's passing for 'enlightenment' nowadays.
I'm done, now.
I'll wait for a response to elaborate on that. I don't want to force things.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/06/06 08:07.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69063
05/06/06 02:52
05/06/06 02:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
I should say, my biggest lesson in all of this is how flawed creationist arguments can be. Its pretty frustrating. Probably the biggest benefit has been in getting a better idea of the viewpoint of evolutionists. Its been extremely helpful, and will serve me well in the future. Every other debate I've ever had has been with people who could only parrot tried and true proof of evolution, but couldn't explain the basis for these proofs. Mostly because they didn't understand. Kind of like someone who has strong political beliefs, but doesn't really know why. You guys (some of you), on the other hand, have real reasons for believing in evolution, and you understand the concepts. Its been a real test, but its also been a good experience in figuring out how to look at evolution from a different perspective. My understanding of evolution and creation, and the concepts contained therein have never been as solid since I've started this debate. At first I was kind of wondering (perhaps worried) that going through college might change my beliefs. But I'm confident that my beliefs have been toned rock hard by now. That's not to say I'm not going to listen to what my professor has to say, but now I know what kind of inconsistencies to look for. Whereas before, my beliefs were based on my ability to parrot simplistic creationist arguments, now they're based on a much more full understanding of the controversy. I'm looking forward to college, and maybe even using that as a start to 'test the establishment.'  Should be interesting. Thanks, guys. Its been fun, and I hope we can continue.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69064
05/06/06 23:39
05/06/06 23:39
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all. Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore. It would be flawed too much. Needless to say that I already strongly doubt the truth-value of a more literal interpretation of the texts. (Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.) -Being critical and sceptical about established scientific views is very good, but when it interferes with your view, rather than with the facts, then holding on to your own view is pretty much a strange thing to do, when you ask me. That's something I've noticed, eventhough like I've explained above I think to know why this happens. -Furthermore eventhough maybe not always, but they accuse evolutionists a lot of being 'unscientific, basing things off our imagination'. That's very amusing when you think about their creationist theory, the only real touchable indication you have is a text. No offense, but that's rather weak. We scientists would not get away with it, and yes you are right astrology is not as exact as one might think. We all know that and other sciences have there 'flaws'. Btw, what exactly did we make up then? Estimations for example are usually thoughts about certain variables based upon reliable data mixed with some unreliable data, that's still better than just making some figures up and throw it all in a mixer. Creationists tend to skip a lot of scientific explanations as having any chance at all of being true, simply because they are scientific, at least that's my impression, maybe not a fact, but still. Junk dna for example is not unexplained, at least not from the scientific perspective, but maybe unexplained from the creationist's perspective was what was meant anyway. -Arguments like 'the dating method is wrong' are signs to me that creationists either don't know much about them, or wouldn't believe them if they were correct and true anyway. Fallout is something you can meassure, any calculations with them do have a meaning, and the calculations themself will only become more and more accurate the more we get to know about it and the factors that influence it all. Eventhough no scientist likes to do it, we are infact open enough to admit errors. The ´assumptions´ you are questioning aren´t based on nothing, scientific theories require to be based on solid things. I´m not going to claim every theory to be 100% solid and proven. This isn´t even relevant in a way, like said in this thread before, theories can be falsified, not proven, but they can be made assumable with enough evidence to support the theory in question. As for your theory, where´s your proof and solid base?? Yes, so your theory isn't scientific, but it still requires more than just faith to be acceptable, let alone proven. And that's not just my opinion, but also pure common sense. Why believe in something when there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of it? As always, think of this what you like, that's your right off course. I would be interested to know 'the more exact details about the creation theory', I might be asking for the impossible, but I want to hear more than just 'God created it, and God works in mysterious ways' I guess. Sorry for that. I only believe apples can fall out of the sky if I a). can see them fall or b). it would make sense to conclude that an apple has infact fallen out of the sky, because of the position in for example the tree it was the day before and the location where is it now, being down on the floor. The evolution theory is a b)-kind of option, because the a). is impossible or possibly impossible to witness. Anyways, I'm enjoying this debate too and it's been great to read what other people think. But I do think that this debate will go on forever, only untill one of the theories gets falsified... Cheers
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69065
05/07/06 04:24
05/07/06 04:24
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Dark matter/dark energy is another example of a magical miracle your god of naturalism has produced. Or in other words, widely accepted nonsense that is convenient because it fills in the gaping wounds of your theory. There's no evidence for either of these 'things' except that they must exist until a better answer is found.
This is the crank science that's passing for 'enlightenment' nowadays.
This was a very interesting post. It sheds some light on why even some intelligent people - which I assume for you - still believe in creationism in the twenty-first century.
You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.
You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge. 600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc, and is not even a constant but changes over time. And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies. Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.
There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand. On my website I've listed the 10 greatest mysteries of science; but in fact there are much more than 10. I suppose that there's still a total of more than 200 unanswered basic questions and unsolved mysteries today in all areas of science.
While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared. If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?
This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population. I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory", aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory. For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.
The only problem is that neither creationism, nor religion is the safe haven that you're looking for.
Religion also changes. Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC. And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either. It has two choices in the long run: either further isolation, or further adaption to its arch enemy, science. The latter was the creationism strategy so far in its attempt to enter the US education system; this failed. Maybe its isolation now. Indications for this are that creationists do little or no research, don't publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals, don't even want to discuss creationism with non-believers, and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers that are only taken seriously by other creationists. Whatever the future will bring for creationism - it does not look bright.
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: jcl]
#69066
05/07/06 22:23
05/07/06 22:23
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Not that I feel that it really makes a difference to post this, but I've learned that most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.
Creationists would say the same things about evolutionists. I feel its more important to focus on the science (argue the evidence) than worry about the motives and intents of anyone else. I mean, what are you some kind of conspiracy theorist?! Just kiddding.
Quote:
because of their original view, that alone will make it hard to impossible to even change their view at all.
Evolutionists must have evolved a resistance to this natural human tendancy then. Do you really claim that you're invincible to this sort of reasoning? You're a human just like everyone else, believe it or not. However, this does help put a spotlight on the arrogance of evolutionists in thinking that their way of thinking is the standard for everyone else. Imagine if christians did that? Actually they have, and we get bashed for it to this day, but its ok if its not christians doing it.
I'm not going to respond to anything else you said, Phemox, because its irrelevant. I'd rather stay focused on the 'science' of your naturalistic faith.
Quote:
(Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions.
Those other excluded texts were often excluded for good reason. If something is written by an agnostic (and so on), why would we include it? Its couter-point to everything the bible teaches. You're just parroting long-refuted atheist arguments against the bible. Of course, I parrot a lot of creationist ideas, but at least I take the time to understand them and elaborate on them when I'm questioned.
Before I continue, I want to point out once again that it appears the resevoir of evidence for evolution has dried up. That's two posts, one from someone who I consider to have more-than-average intelligence, that did nothing except tell me that I can't be believed because my faith doesn't make sense, and that I'm scared etc.
Its pretty easy to see that this argument has degenerated into this.
But that's besides the point. I'll just make a quick point to the rest of the responses before I have to run off to band practice.
Quote:
You don't have a problem with evolution. You have a problem with science. And the problem you have is that science is not a dogma.
What's your evidence of this? I've never had any problem using logic, science, common sense to refute evolution. Until now you've had no problem using those same tools to defend evolution.
Quote:
You didn't get the Hubble effect and some other things 100% correct, but the basic point that you've got is that science often leads to a change of knowledge.
No, I've pointed out the difference between scientific change, and outright guessing based on assumptions. In my equation example, the assumption of when the two objects passed by is parallel to the big bang. We assume it happened (despite lack of evidence) and then suddenly we can start coming up with all sorts of distances for celestial objects. The stars aren't really that far away.
Quote:
600 years ago, science told everyone that the earth was unmoving at the center of the universe; then suddenly they said "It's moving around the sun". Hubble measured his constant at 500 km/s/Mpc; today we know that it's in the range of 70 km/s/Mpc,
These are two completely unrelated events. The Hubble 'constant' was changed because the value we had led to us finding wrong ages for stars. Of course, that's easy to fix when your evidence is based on assumptions anyway. All you have to do is find a way to change the assumption.
Quote:
and is not even a constant but changes over time.
Yeah, objects are decelerating. But if they were decelerating at the rate that gave us those two values within such a short range of time then all objects in space would be moving 'backwards' for quite some time now.
Quote:
And indeed, we also know that the visible matter in the universe does not explain the rotation speed of galaxies.
It doesn't explain it because you're assuming your theory is true. Maybe the fact that the physical universe (reality) doesn't match up with your theory is due to the fact that your theory is wrong.
Quote:
Only 4% of the universe consists of baryonic matter, 23% is dark matter and 73% dark energy. And those percentages might even change.
So here's your answer to that. Space magic!
I've researched scientific information on dark matter. The only proof I read for it is that it fills in the gaps left by the big bang. That's circular reasoning. It exists because of big bang. Its also caused by the big bang. Once again, did you ever just assume the theory is wrong?
Quote:
While this is fascinating for some people, others are scared.
Please, let's keep the amount of assumption-based theories I have to argue down to a minimum. I'm only one man.
Quote:
If science does not offer certainty, where do I find certainty at all? In religion? In superstition?
Religion? No. Superstition? Certainly not. Both of these things are man-made inventions. I won't argue whether or not its good to go to church, but you're missing the point. The only thing we can really be sure of is God. Traditions, imagination, stories are all irrelevant.
Quote:
This is obviously one of the reasons for the phenomena of creationism and science rejection in some parts of the US population.
I'm going to respond to this by accusing evolution as being born from the simple rejection of God. Of course, if I stereotype all evolutionists this way, does that make me more right, and you wrong? For being the frightened one based on irrational logic, at least I've stuck to scientific explanations. I may have slipped up and name-called people a few times, but those were mistakes. In general, I've avoided questioning your character, motives, etc. If your belief is the universal standard for intelligence, correctness, enlightenment, and logic, why are you doing this to me and my compatriats?
Is it possible that you're running out of ways to defend your theory? I don't want to be accusatory, but I can't think of any other explanation for people saying what they say.
This is pretty typical of my discussions with evolutionists. By about this point, it degenerates into name-calling. They'll bring up religion, question my motives, or sometimes my character. Its fairly amusing...
Quote:
I think it's also a reason for the lack of a "creationism theory"
You name the theory and then say there is no theory? Our theory is a theory, its just contrary to yours so its "Those peoples' theory." Evolution says that the variety of animals we see popped up out of non-living chemicals and evolved accidentally writing all of the well-formed creatures we see today.
Creation says that there were several created 'kinds' of animals. They speciated, gene shifted, some species or even entire kinds went extinct, and we're left with what we have today. The word 'kind' is a biblical word, but it applies to those of us who believe in creation without the biblical God. He had to start somewhere.
The proof is in Darwin's finches, in horses and zebras, in lions and tigers, and in other natural observations of rapid speciation and hybridization. Our theory exists, it makes predictions, and its proven true by observations of these predictions.
We deal with the same evidence, our conclusion/theory, is just different from yours. Why should I bore you by outlining what creation believes? Why shift the argument away from evolution? It is, after all, based on the beliefs of infallible humans, and is the standard for all scientific knowledge and truth. So why get sidetracked on 'crazy theories' like mine?
Quote:
aside from the apparent difficulty to sell a belief system as a scientific theory.
When we find evidence that genetics can not be changed very far beyond their original programming, that's evidence of creation. Not a belief system. Since we first discovered genetics, this has been the only possible conclusion we can make. You guys deny it based on your faith, that's fine.
Quote:
For delevoping a theory, you had to apply the very scientific methods that you reject.
You mean things like ignoring reality, making assumptions, and ignoring evidence? Doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.
Quote:
Christianity today is very different to Christianity in 1000 AC.
How? Society changes, so christians themselves are different (they do after all live in society) but our beliefs have always been based on the infallible word of God. So really, we have not.
Quote:
And creationism, if it wants to survive, can't remain unchanged either.
So change is the reason why Christians beliefs are fallible? But change is the only thing that can save Creationists? Hm. The way I see it, as more and more people are starting to realize that random scrambling of the genetic code cannot write new creatures, and the other impossibilities of evolution (like the evolution of sex, the evolution of mammary glands, the evolution of scales into feathers (two structures that have nothing in common), etc), combined with constantly being tossed back and forth by scientists (archaeopteryx is a transition, oops it turns out birds came first, piltdown man, finding an early bone of man only to discover that its a pig's tooth, finding a new early man only to find out its made of parts of other early men, etc) people are probably just going to continue becoming more skeptical. Can you really blame them? The evidence for creation has always been here. On the other hand, your evidence comes and goes like the wind.
Quote:
and are mostly occupied with putting up websites and papers
Evolutionists are more notorious for doing this than creationists. When I do research on any given subject, I'll find at least five times more evolutionist sites than creationist (usually more).
Not surprisingly, the first sentence on each page is usually some recombination of, "Creationists use their junk science to refute evolution." Each page is using an attack on creationist motives, while creationists tend to use science. Is it possible that this widespread use of bullying, and intimidation are a reflection of the increasing impossibility of defending evolution? Why go the hard route of defending evolution, when you can just attack anyone who goes on the offensive?
Anyway, I'd list off creation scientists, but I doubt that even if I did name past and present creation scientists who make real scientific contributions, and do peer-reviewed work would really change your mind.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
evolution vs creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69067
05/08/06 00:53
05/08/06 00:53
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
@jcl Quote:
There is a lot in nature that science does not yet know, or does not yet understand. On my website I've listed the 10 greatest mysteries of science; but in fact there are much more than 10. I suppose that there's still a total of more than 200 unanswered basic questions and unsolved mysteries today in all areas of science.
And if you made it possible for English speaking people to actually read your website perhaps people could see these things with our own eyes. I would like to be able to read your site.(Just for enjoyment, not to debate) 
@My new creationist ally(Irish_Farmer)
Quote:
Anyway, I'd list off creation scientists, but I doubt that even if I did name past and present creation scientists who make real scientific contributions, and do peer-reviewed work would really change your mind.
;
a group
some more nice guys
And stuff for you to do between band practice:
Creation Wiki
Note that evolutionists ARENT allowed to help with the wiki, so jcl and Phemox must not make any attempts. Those contributing to Creation Wiki must accept creationism a priori.
@Phemox
Explain this one buddy. Is this the darwin fish?Umm no just more proof of great catastrophic flood type events: This poor fish didnt even get a chance to finish lunch before he suddenly died.
Quote:
most creationists are amazingly stubborn and take every chance of changing the facts a bit to fit their view or at least their interpretation of things is different because of their original view,
My mind is open as much as I can open it. I admit my bias, and i will try not to let my bias effect my intellectual judgement.
Quote:
Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore. It would be flawed too much. Needless to say that I already strongly doubt the truth-value of a more literal interpretation of the texts. (Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.)
The bible actually has amazing synergy considering its authorship by scores of authors, scattered in different locations at different time periods. Especially interesting are the prophecies in which the crucifiction and crucifiction related events were accurately predicted hundreds and even thousands of years before the event actually happened.
Quote:
Admitting or believing that creation has not happened the way the bible said, would mean the bible can't be used anymore as a solid 'evidence' or simply as the basis of their religion anymore.
Who admitted such a thing, certainly not me? Im not sure what you mean here. If anybody admitted to such a thing I will send them a very nasty email
Quote:
Also remember, what's in the bible now, is a selection of texts, so it can't be original at all, let alone the influence of all the translations and reproductions. Just think about the different meanings certain Hebrew words supposedly can have and what kind of impact that can have on the meaning of the text. Especially when interpretating them literally.
As a amatuer student of the original Greek and Hebrew texts I would love to show you the meanings of certain Hebrew words and the effects they have on interpreting biblical meaning, especially as they relate to the original creation events.However, since you already speak three languages fluently (that I know of) dont you think Hebrew and Greek might unnessesarily complicate your life?
Quote:
-Being critical and sceptical about established scientific views is very good, but when it interferes with your view, rather than with the facts, then holding on to your own view is pretty much a strange thing to do, when you ask me. That's something I've noticed, eventhough like I've explained above I think to know why this happens.
Im open to the possibility of evolution, I just need to understand it on the molecular level. I am the type that needs to know things from the inside out. For example, anybody who could tell me spoecifically how histones evolved would have my rapt attention. Since I know that modern science doesnt know much about histones at all, let alone how they evolved, I tend to doubt I'll ever know the truth. Before I give up my strong belief in God however I need to be very very convinced of the evidence that proves evolution. I have a hard time believing that science will ever know enough about HOW evolution works to tell me therefore it is very doubtful that I will ever release my opinions about God. However I am still reading, every day, opinions from both sides. Much better than people who just believe everything in high school and then forget, dont you think?
Quote:
As always, think of this what you like, that's your right off course. I would be interested to know 'the more exact details about the creation theory', I might be asking for the impossible, but I want to hear more than just 'God created it, and God works in mysterious ways' I guess
I understand, Ill try to come up with something you havent heard before, something a little more scientific.
How about the ID(Intelligent Design) stance:
Quote:
if an object is complex, has a purpose and has no plausible physical cause, it implies design.
Some issues around America
Last edited by NITRO777; 05/08/06 01:37.
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69068
05/08/06 01:12
05/08/06 01:12
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Why believe in something when there is absolutely no evidence at all in favor of it?
Phemox a dichotomy exists(whether anyone likes to admit it or not).
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.
While most people like to claim that there is no dichotomy, and that it is a logical flaw, I challenge anyone on this forum to come up with a origination scenario(of living species) which I cannot reduce down to either one of two fundamental processes 1)creation or 2)evolution
|
|
|
Re: A personal résumé
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69069
05/08/06 08:00
05/08/06 08:00
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
You name the theory and then say there is no theory? Our theory is a theory, its just contrary to yours so its "Those peoples' theory." Evolution says that the variety of animals we see popped up out of non-living chemicals and evolved accidentally writing all of the well-formed creatures we see today.
Don't get me wrong: What I've posted was my personal opinion of the reasons and motivations of creationism. It was not meant as an argument against creationism. It's clear that you as a creationist have a different opinion.
For argumenting against a "creationism theory" I'd need to know that theory first. I didn't find it on any creationist website, therefore my suspicion that such a theory does not exist at all.
I'm definitely interested - also in looking for some more stuff for my website - in finally learning about the creationism theory. But a little more than the few commonplaces that you've posted. Sure, I already knew that creationists believe that species were supernaturally created. But if that's all, it's not a theory - that's still superstition. For developing a theory you'll need a consistent model about how and when this creation should have happened, and how it can be verified or falsified in observations, and how it fits into the theory system of science: mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.
BTW - please don't take my remarks about superstition as an insult. I make a distinction between religion (= belief in a higher being and/or a higher meaning of existence) and superstition (= belief in supernatural forces, like witchcraft, miracles, or spirits). Religion is consistent with science, superstition isn't. According to the above definition, creationism is not a religion, but a superstition (its based on miracles, i.e. supernatural events). But again, that's meant in a neutral way and not for offending creationists, and I accept of course that your opinion is different here.
From your remarks about Dark Matter and the Hubble Constant I see that you know less about astronomy than I thought before. You have some very wrong ideas of physics, and of the meaning of scientific theories in general. I don't have the time now, but when I'm back next week I'll post a specific answer to that topic, including a brief introduction in astronomy.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: NITRO777]
#69070
05/08/06 08:17
05/08/06 08:17
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
And if you made it possible for English speaking people to actually read your website perhaps people could see these things with our own eyes. I would like to be able to read your site.(Just for enjoyment, not to debate)
I've considered to transfer all the stuff to English, but this is really a lot of work (370 pages of text) - so I guess there won't be an English version very soon. The 10 Great Questions I was referring to are: Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Higgs-Boson, CP Violation, Neutrino Mass, Proton Decay, Quantum Computers, Extraterrestrials, Immortality, and Consciousness.
Quote:
The disproof of evolution necessitates the proof of creation. If evolution is disproven then creation must be valid.
I'm afraid what I'm saying now is another proof of the evilness of science for you. But anyway: No, when evolution were disproved by some observation one day, I am very, very sure that science would still not believe in creation. Instead, they would come up either with a modified evolution theory that explains the observation, or with a totally different theory. That would not be creationism.
|
|
|
|
