Creation Science?

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
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.

New lies, old lies, lies are lies and as I've pointed out science lies all the time.

I've not been guilty of but one of the transgressions you claim except for one. Because I am not a scientist I cannot know what I'm talking about yet even my most simplistic argument cannot be disputed with fact because you and all the scientist on the globe STILL cannot claim that life originated from one or even a hundred creatures.

THAT was the purpose of the theory of evolution in the begining and that has not changed.

You and I do not know how we got here and are really no closer than we were ten years ago or a hundred. The speculation will remain the same for the forseeable future.

Sure, you have shown how humans can manipulate life, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is scientist claiming to know it all and unless you are where they are how can you possibly understand?

Bull!

Btw, I've bookmarked all your references and will read them in depth at my convience.

Look around. Now some scientists are speculateing that man was indeed around during the dinosaur era. I knew Biblical scolars that speculated about this twenty years ago! LOL! Science travels blindly on!
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Look around. Now some scientists are speculateing that man was indeed around during the dinosaur era. I knew Biblical scolars that speculated about this twenty years ago! LOL! Science travels blindly on!
You mean that some Scientists are becoming as ridiculous as Biblical Scholars?
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Stuff happens!;)

BTW, I disagree with them as much as I disagree with so-called facts regarding evolution.
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
exp,

You are accusing the theists of fitting the facts to their worldview. But that is an incomplete accusation. EVERYONE interprets facts according to their worldview. Moonbeam, for example, thinks the universe is eternal. Why is that? Could it be that Moonbeam is a pantheist? It would be quite convenient for the pantheists if the universe is eternal.

I've tried to read the book _Darwin's Black Box_, which was written by a microbiologist. It is a difficult read for me, because I'm a civil engineer. Nevertheless, I understood enough of the book to see that there are some giant gaps in the evolutionary theory down at the cellular level (not unlike the giant gaps in the fossil record). No one can explain how an eye developed, for example. Irreducible complexity, i.e. a less complete version wouldn't even function so how could the complex version arise by tiny steps?

The arrival of more complex life forms over time in sudden bursts only necessarily leads to the theory of evolution if the observer of the data has the atheistic worldview. For the theists, the observation can either lead to a belief in old earth creationism or theistic (guided) evloution. The point is that EVERYONE's worldview has EVERYTHING to do with how they interpret data. But since most folks are totally unaware of this phenomenon, they are convinced that they are right because they are right. The facts just are. I believe what I see. They do not see that they are adopting an interpretation of the data and not the data itself.

An old bone is just an old bone. Your worldview interprets the meaning behind its existence.

 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
What does this have to do with evolution being the nature of life? So we don't understand it completely, isn't that kind of a given?

Seems like evolution makes people feel insignificant, we don't want to be just another monkey, so we hide under religious scripture that tells us we are special and will go to a magical place if we perform an Irish jig in a bowl of tapioca. Anything to not be a monkey, to be worth something in the eyes of the universe. But I think that's all wrong to begin with, it's hard for us to appreciate the relativity of significance. Maybe it's time to answer "why are we here?" with "well why wouldn't we be here?"
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
So this is how you think people came to believe in a Creator:
1) Joe has a clean slate so far as worldview
2) someone proves to Joe that life has a common ancestor
3) Joe feels insignificant
4) Joe looks for a religion to satisfy his need for significance
5) Joe decides that an all powerful, all knowing Creator, than which none greater can be conceived, who's will cannot be thwarted, upon which all of the universe is dependent is the ultimate cause of the universe and that without this omnipotent, omniscient Creator, Joe wouldn't even exist.
6) Joe now feels REALLY significant

That doesn't add up. If he stuck to evolution he would at least feel like he was the end product in a long line of ever better specimens.
 

PistachioByAzul

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,132
0
71
Not quite, usually the subject has some creationist notion burned into their brain from a very young age.

As far as appreciating evolution for all that it's worth, part of that is accepting that we are no greater than monkeys, dogs, or even ants, and that we're all part of something we have no grasp of.

It just is that the way we try to anthropomorphize that by attributing it to a "creator" who is capable of having "will". Spiders scare a lot of people because we can't make eye contact with them, their appearance is too alien (vs say a dog or a cat). Creationism is imagining the universe with eyes, and then going off on that delusion and coming up with all kinds of crazy rules that we can never meet. Soothing our neurotic minds, to continue blindly chasing, all to avoid what by first account appears to be a vast emptiness of percieved insignificance, that is experienced when one stops running and starts to look around.
 

ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Senior member
Apr 30, 2001
777
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

This is absolutely irrelevant. ...whether or not you win a debate has no bearing whatsoever on whether an argument is true or not. For instance, you could "debate" against a 3 year-old in diapers that the sky is green...and you would probably win the debate...however, the conclusion that the sky is green would not necessarily be true.

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

This is rhetoric. By using the word "science" with an ambiguous denotation, and utilizing a cliched catch-phrase such as "only as solid as it's [sic] weakest link," you convince no one. You could EASILY fit anything you want into that formula. For example: "Creationism is only as solid as it's [sic] weakest link and there are quite a few around here." [/quote]

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.

This seems to be the case more with Christians, who are taught 90% of what they know about religion and the world from other religious people. I refer to this as "spoonfeeding" of knowledge. It is clearly ironic that you, being uneducated in this aspect of science, lay this claim on the scientficially-oriented members of this discussion.

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.

A few generations before you, people were taught that the world was flat too. ...and in the face of overwhelming evidence (but not 100% proof), the "uneducated" Church rejected this theory

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.

This is probably the point I want to address most. It would be very difficult to argue that Evolution is fact. We don't have enough proof for some folks who are gung-ho on Creationism. Analogy: It's kind of like how the cigarette companies deny that cigarettes cause cancer because we don't have any double-blind placebo controlled trials (unethical to do).

However, the argument I want to make is this:
That the theory of evolution is more likely to be true than creationist theory when trying to explain the origin of humans and other life forms. This assertion is based on a less reliance in "unfalsifiable claims" (aka "faith assumptions") = Occam's Razor, greater consistency with what we see in the natural world, and better laboratory reproducibility of elements of the theory (whenever possible).
The argument does NOT claim that evolution accounts for EVERYTHING, because it doesn't. It merely claims that evolution is more likely to be true than is creationism.

Valsalva
 

Maetryx

Diamond Member
Jan 18, 2001
4,849
1
81
However, the argument I want to make is this:
That the theory of evolution is more likely to be true than creationist theory when trying to explain the origin of humans and other life forms. The argument does NOT claim that evolution accounts for EVERYTHING, because it doesn't. It merely claims that evolution is more likely to be true than is creationism.

Valsalva

I respect that statement, though I disagree. The worldview that I believe is necessarily true (via the ontological and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God) interprets the data in a creationist (and not even theistic evolutionary) way. I don't believe that species have improved. They have specialized within their own kind, but I don't believe in a common ancestor. The fossil record shows punctuated equilibrium, or sudden biologic eras with little changes to the creatures within the era. Then a totally new era with radically different lifeforms emerges. There are no links. To me, this tends to show a lengthy (old earth) creation program.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: ValsalvaYourHeartOut

This seems to be the case more with Christians, who are taught 90% of what they know about religion and the world from other religious people. I refer to this as "spoonfeeding" of knowledge. It is clearly ironic that you, being uneducated in this aspect of science, lay this claim on the scientficially-oriented members of this discussion.
Valsalva

You'd be surprised what I've been taught. Coming from a family where my mother has taught science and computers for most of my lifetime (while teaching within an elementary classroom) and my father is in upper management for IBM; my sister is a lawyer; I'm planning on economics, then either law school or graduate school. I became a Christian when I was 16; while I have struggled to integrate science and the known laws of physics into my worldview, there is nothing there that inherently disproves my religious beliefs.

What I find interesting is that you refer constantly to these laboratory tests where amino acids were formed from four basic chemicals (well, you didn't mention it, but it has been done); where microbiological organisms exhibited active characteristics of evolution; etc. Yet, did it ever occur to you that this occurs because an intelligent being is designing the tests? This amazes me, this baseless arrogance, to assume that because humans can do it in a laboratory, that it can occur, on its own, at random, in the wild. I am always surprised that no one sees that link.

Or maybe it's because you don't want to see the inherent cause-effect relationship, an intelligent being guiding development.

Does anyone find it strange that human beings, among the weakest animals on this planet, survived long enough to even create a fragment of a society? That, in spite of our great intelligence, that we didn't die mercifully long ago, fallen prey to the innumerable predators and diseases that befall us in the wild? We are incredibly weak creatures; we have no physical characteristics whatsoever that might give us the slightest edge, beyond opposable thumbs.

Why in the world would evolution produce us at all? Physically, we are weaker. Isn't it all about survival of the fittest? Wouldn't we develop stronger physical characteristics, then mental/cognitive ability?

Just a few questions.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,785
6,345
126
Zakath: Just because an intelligence duplicated something in a laboratory, it doesn't mean that an intelligence is necessary for such an event to occur. Not being an expert, I'd assume that the experiment attempted to duplicate possible natural conditions. If so, then a random event would be much more likely to occur.

"Survival of the fittest" != physical fitness. The "fittest" would be those organisms whose ability to survive exceeds the demands of the environmental conditions in which they live. Humans are within that group due to superior intelligence, not because of physical strength.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Zakath: Just because an intelligence duplicated something in a laboratory, it doesn't mean that an intelligence is necessary for such an event to occur. Not being an expert, I'd assume that the experiment attempted to duplicate possible natural conditions. If so, then a random event would be much more likely to occur.

"Survival of the fittest" != physical fitness. The "fittest" would be those organisms whose ability to survive exceeds the demands of the environmental conditions in which they live. Humans are within that group due to superior intelligence, not because of physical strength.

It's not just physical strength. Our entire body is weak - we're easily crippled by diseases, easily overcome by predators of quite a variety, etc. The only gift we have is our intelligence.

My main point, maybe this has already been answered. I don't see why evolution would produce us. The intelligence, with time. But intelligence with such weak bodies? I would assume that we would have evolved more complex and more rigorous physical bodies before intelligence. Just my opinion.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
My main point, maybe this has already been answered. I don't see why evolution would produce us. The intelligence, with time. But intelligence with such weak bodies? I would assume that we would have evolved more complex and more rigorous physical bodies before intelligence. Just my opinion.


our intelligence evolved so far not so we could run away from predators in clever ways, but because we are highly social creatures that form societies..survive as a group.

course you could go the gorillas route, become the top fo the food chain basically, laying around lazily all day.. big and dumb:)
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
It's not just physical strength. Our entire body is weak - we're easily crippled by diseases, easily overcome by predators of quite a variety, etc. The only gift we have is our intelligence.

I don't think we're any more succeptable to disease than any other animals. Most other animals don't live in communities with as many members and as much contact as we do. And the ones that do, say ants, aren't as easy to detect illness.

Why don't we have more gifts? One theory is the development price for intelligence is so high that it doesn't allow for ape strength, etc. There were a lot of changes from primate to human that allowed us to be born with such big heads and such intelligence.
 

Orsorum

Lifer
Dec 26, 2001
27,631
5
81
If you examine the human body... I think the brain consumes most of the blood flow and the oxygen in our body. In a sense, our brains are almost parasitic, they're so large. That's probably part of the cost of the intelligence.

I just find it interesting what kind of spontaneous evolutionary change would lead to this development. I mean... the increase in head size also leads to issues in childbirth. Babies are extremely vulnerable for years, due just to their head size. I fail to see how this could result merely from evolutionary processes alone; the babies born with the larger heads would inevitably die off; ignoring, of course, the obvious social and relationship developments that take place due to the increased intelligence.

<--- wishes he were asleep.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
I just find it interesting what kind of spontaneous evolutionary change would lead to this development. I mean... the increase in head size also leads to issues in childbirth. Babies are extremely vulnerable for years, due just to their head size. I fail to see how this could result merely from evolutionary processes alone; the babies born with the larger heads would inevitably die off; ignoring, of course, the obvious social and relationship developments that take place due to the increased intelligence.

Who says the change was spontaneous?

As difficult as human childbirth is compared to other animals, it can still be accomplished by just the mother...just who wants to when you can have a team of nurses and a morphine injection in your spine? :)

Sure, the babies would be more vunerable. And those species who do not develop care for vulnerable babies *cough* mammals *cough* would lose them.

I don't see how this could not result from evolution. Birds develpoed wings, rhinos developed horns, why is this so unbelieveable? Or do you just not want to believe.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
I respect that statement, though I disagree. The worldview that I believe is necessarily true (via the ontological and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God) interprets the data in a creationist (and not even theistic evolutionary) way. I don't believe that species have improved. They have specialized within their own kind, but I don't believe in a common ancestor. The fossil record shows punctuated equilibrium, or sudden biologic eras with little changes to the creatures within the era. Then a totally new era with radically different lifeforms emerges. There are no links. To me, this tends to show a lengthy (old earth) creation program

I don't think you really know what the fossil record shows. Irregardless, the proof you seek is in the Genome. Did you know that nearly all animals carry a mutation gene sequence that when activated causes massive mutation rates in the population?

What I find interesting is that you refer constantly to these laboratory tests where amino acids were formed from four basic chemicals (well, you didn't mention it, but it has been done); where microbiological organisms exhibited active characteristics of evolution; etc. Yet, did it ever occur to you that this occurs because an intelligent being is designing the tests? This amazes me, this baseless arrogance, to assume that because humans can do it in a laboratory, that it can occur, on its own, at random, in the wild. I am always surprised that no one sees that link.

Anti-biotic resistance. Hepatities C, HIV. All examples.

Does anyone find it strange that human beings, among the weakest animals on this planet, survived long enough to even create a fragment of a society? That, in spite of our great intelligence, that we didn't die mercifully long ago, fallen prey to the innumerable predators and diseases that befall us in the wild? We are incredibly weak creatures; we have no physical characteristics whatsoever that might give us the slightest edge, beyond opposable thumbs.

No I don't find it strange. We adapt our environment to suit our physical attributes. We seek group cohesion because their is safety in numbers and our intelligence gives us advantages against those animals with superiour physical attributes.

Why in the world would evolution produce us at all? Physically, we are weaker. Isn't it all about survival of the fittest? Wouldn't we develop stronger physical characteristics, then mental/cognitive ability?

Because intelligence has an advantage. The smarter you are the more likely you are to survive and reproduce. Carl Sagan covers this in Shadows of Forgotten ancestors with nearly a full chapter of the book, and you don't need to be a biologist to read it.
 

monotony

Senior member
Nov 18, 2000
201
0
0
Where else in science does order come from disorder? I'm supposed to believe that the longer we wait, the more order is restored in the universe? Things are COMING TOGETHER by chance, just because we've waited long enough? Seem strange to anyone else?
 

Ganryu

Member
Nov 29, 2001
162
0
0
Out of curiosity, what is the creationist view on earlier hominids, like homo erectus, etc.? Also, I've noticed people repeatedly using the argument that because "it does not exist in the fossil record it can't be true." The fossil record is not complete, and is often quite random as to whether we can find an intact fossil. I'm sure if we dug up the entire earth we would find more examples and possibly some of the missing links but we obviously can't do that. It's not so much that an experiment has been done and we have a negative result.
 

monotony

Senior member
Nov 18, 2000
201
0
0
Out of curiosity, what is the creationist view on earlier hominids, like homo erectus, etc.?

There remains the prominent issue of whether there has ever existed a species of animal that was decidedly sub-human and super-ape (the so-called "hominids.")

Homo erectus / Africa
"Along with the Australophithecenes, Louis Leakey found a skull cap, part of a femur, and a hip bone, and attributed them to Homo erectus. In 1975, Richard Leakey found a relatively complete cranium and parts of the rest of a skull. More finds continued. In 1984, an almost complete skeleton was found. Limited information is available regarding these latter finds. They appear to be similar to Neanderthal man in some respects and bear some resemblance also to some skeletons dug up in the Kow Swamp area in Victoria, Australia, which have been dated on the order of 10,000 years. Based upon where the bones were dug up in Africa, it must be concluded that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo Erectus lived contemporaneously. Underneath all these bones has been dug up the remains of a circular stone habitation hut which could only have been attributed to Homo sapiens. Thus, none of them could be man's ancestor, evolutionarily speaking, and one evolutionist, Geoffrey Bourne, has gone so far as to seriously suggest that apes evolved from men."

Homo erectus / Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
"A Dutch physician by the name of Dubois found a skullcap (1891), a femur and two teeth (1892), and a third tooth (1898) near Trinil, Java. The leg bone appeared human, while the skull resembled that of an ape. These fossils were found 45 feet apart at a level in the rock which also contained two human skulls, which Dubois concealed for 30 years (until 1922). Dubois announced at the end of his life that the fossils did not belong to an ape-man, but that in fact the skull belonged to a giant gibbon. Further study by anthropologists ascribed the first two teeth to an orang and the third tooth to a human. "

Homo erectus / Peking Man (Sinanthropus pekinensis)
"In 1921, Davidson Black found a couple of teeth and, on the basis of this find, immediately declared that this established evidence for a hominid. In 1928-1929, 30 skulls and 11 mandibles (lower jaws) and 147 teeth were found at Choukoutien (near Peking, China). The skulls were all bashed in at the rear, evidence that they were all killed by hunters for food. The question was, who was the hunter? All the bones mysteriously disappeared sometime during the period of 1941-1945. A major limestone quarrying industry existed in ancient Choukoutien, and the skulls were all allegedly found in heaps of debris from a collapsed limestone hill. Without tangible evidence we are left with the skeletal reconstructions and work of a man who would declare that he found a hominid based on a couple of teeth. It has been suggested that Sinanthropus was either a large macaque or baboon, and that the workers at the quarry killed them and ate their brains for food."

Basically I believe that the common belief among creationists is that true, substantial evidence of the hominid does not exist. If you'd like me to continue this through the Neanderthal man as well, I can do that. I just didn't want this post being TOO long...

 

DielsAlder

Member
Jan 17, 2001
99
0
0
Originally posted by: 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.

How is his "life experience" even relevent! If live my entire life as a ditch digger then does my "life experience" give me the "knowledge" and understanding to have a meaningful discussion about high energy particle physics?



 

ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Senior member
Apr 30, 2001
777
0
0
Originally posted by: DielsAlder
Originally posted by: 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.

How is his "life experience" even relevent! If live my entire life as a ditch digger then does my "life experience" give me the "knowledge" and understanding to have a meaningful discussion about high energy particle physics?

He committed a fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority (non-sequitur). Don't even bother, Diels.

Valsalva
 

ValsalvaYourHeartOut

Senior member
Apr 30, 2001
777
0
0
Originally posted by: monotony
Where else in science does order come from disorder? I'm supposed to believe that the longer we wait, the more order is restored in the universe? Things are COMING TOGETHER by chance, just because we've waited long enough? Seem strange to anyone else?

It would only seem strange to someone not well-versed in biology. They teach this in AP/Honors Biology in High School or in any biology class in any half-rate college...even at UC Riverside, I would surmise.

The answer to this question is two-fold:
1) Let's consider two oxygen atoms at a reasonable temperature. When these two oxygen atoms approach each other, the will spontaneously form a covalent bond and become O2. The lay person might argue that this is "order" coming from "disorder" and that this violates thermodynamic laws. In reality, each individual oxygen atom is more stable (at a lower energy state) when bonded to the other -- that is, as O2. In effect, the combined arrangement of orbitals and shared electrons is actually more disorderly. Thus, when you use the terms "order" and "disorder," you have to use them strictly in thermodynamic terms (e.g. Gibbs energy), not in semantic terms.

2) However, more orderly molecules arise spontaneously all the time. How do you think you store sugar as glycogen in your muscles? Our body has a buttload of so-called ANABOLIC pathways that produce substances that are more thermodynamically orderly (less entropy) and at a higher energy state. The reason we are able to do this is something called the coupled reaction. Our biochemical pathways use the energy released from breaking down a complex substance into simpler ones in order to construct more complex ones from simpler ones.

This concept is very basic for anyone in the natural sciences. Thus, an increase in order might seem strange to you, but not to anyone with basic science knowledge (and i'm not talking about anything advanced here.)

Valsalva