The Creationism Museum

[ZzZGuy]

Also why do people keep digging up this thread? It's gone on so long that everyone has long forgotten the original topic.

Also noticed that no one cares, 1/4 the views of other topics ongoing in P&N.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Also why do people keep digging up this thread? It's gone on so long that everyone has long forgotten the original topic.

Lol, the original topic was discussed for probably 3 non-sequential posts, and then the rest of the thread rapidly degenerated into religious/non-religious nonsense.

I bet the primary posters tell themselves that they won't post any more, and then some or other point gets brought up that is so patently ludicrous that they can't help responding.

And then posters like me dig up the thread when there's a slight lull with a direct-but-off-topic response to some random/recent post.

It's the people who've stayed away from the start that had the right idea in the first place. :laugh:

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Babbles
Gravity is not a scientific law; it's still theory.

Gravity can be tested by anyone. It's observable, testable, repeatable. It's not exactly understood, but there are definite laws that exist within the theory of gravity. The theory of gravity is incredibly useful in aiming a spacecraft to pluto or if you want to catapult something a certain distance, like a mortar shell.

Evolution on the other hand, has one wild conclusion supported by a lot of wild speculation, full of missing data, depends on models that make one crazy assumption after another and unproven principals. Evolution has no practical purpose or use in science. It can't be used to predict anything what so ever with any kind of accuracy.

The 2 "Theories" are nowhere near each other in terms of usefulness and testable evidence.

Laws of gravity do not exist as a subset within the theory of gravity. Your lack of being able to use basic scientific terms is essentially evidence that you do not have enough information to make informed comments.

Evolution has been put to the test when looking at genetic drift between humans and chimpanzees. Evolution predicted the fusing of two sets of chromosomes between chimps and humans, and *shazamm* the codons that would normally signify start/end were found in the middle of a human chromosome indicating that indeed two ancestral chromosomes fused. Anyhow, basically using evolution a prediction was made and that prediction was proved. Just one of many examples.

Also there is a mathematical formula to basically prove evolution, or rather it proves the null hypothesis that evolution did not occur, called Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.

So there are indeed no crazy assumptions and unproven principals.

The real problem with these sorts of arguments is that people try to tackle them without doing the background reading. It seems like in just about every endeavour people would bother to spend some time getting the facts before they make a judgement. However in instances like this, it is clear that people will jump to some sort of conclusion without having any sort of understanding.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
I'm sure this has been posted before, but I was inspired to post it again by the ignorant fools in the creationism vs evolution thread. How they managed to find idiots willing to throw 25 million at them to create this fairy tale center is absolutely fucking amazing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
http://www.creationmuseum.org/

First of all "creationism vs evolution" is an apples vs oranges argument, since they are about completely different things.:evil:

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

A current bacteria + antibiotic + evolution = science has no friggin clue. That's all I said. Of course the bacteria changes, i'll even go as far as call it evolution, but to say it's a new species or that (macro) evolution is real science and can predict what the outcome will be is pure fantasy.

:headslap:

1940's- Man treats infections (ie Staph aureus) with penicillin, infections go away.
1950's- Penicillin over usage favors Staph aureus genomes containing beta-lactamases, enzymes that promote degradation of penicillin, thereby conferring penicillin resistance
1950's continued- Man develops beta-lactam resistant antibiotics (ie methicillin, naficillin...)
1960's- Beta lactam resistant pencillin over usage favors Staph aureus genomes containing altered penicillin binding proteins, thereby conferring resistance to all classes of penicillins and Cephalosporins (hence methacillin resistant Staph aureus... MRSA)
1960's- Vancomycin becomes preferred treatment reserved for MRSA infections, thereby reducing the amount of antibiotic pressure on the MRSA population.
1990's- First isolets of Vancomycin-Methicillin resistant Staph aureus discovered in hospitals across the world
1990's to today- All MRSA infections found to be non-responsive to vancomycin treatment is currently being treated with daptomycin, linezolid, or streptogramin antibiotics
The future- Hmm I don't think it takes a PhD to figure out where this story is heading towards

You're telling me, scientist don't have a clue where this story is going? This isn't just science, its simple pattern recognition using the evolutionary model of how the environment impacts and influences gene frequencies. All it takes is some vancomycin, methicillin resistant bacteria with an altered linezolid binding site mutation on the ribosome to survive that will create the next generation of "superbug." The ID docs know where this story is going. All that can be done is to be selective in antibiotic usage, hope that newer generations of antibiotics will continue to roll out the door, and hope that alternative therapy (ie something with bacterial phages) may become the new treatment of the day.

"Science has no friggin clue" :roll:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy Hell, we ourselves have caused speciation to occur, the modern domestic sheep cannot mate with the ancestors we developed it from, are therefore incompatible with the old sheep, the very definition of a new species. We do the same thing with fruit flies.

EDIT: I see you've said this has never been observed. That is ridiculously false, and the above provided examples show this.

I'm still genuinely waiting for some links as evidence for this.

http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=speciation

For fuck's sake... :roll:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You keep putting words in my mouth because you take what I say out of context. Macro-evolution is an idea, the culmination of going from something simple like a mineral or one species to another, like a non-rock or another species completely incompatible with the first. CLUE TO ESKIMOSPY AND OTHERS: THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, DEMONSTRATED AND THEREFORE NEVER REPEATED EITHER.

Simply false. There is literally no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Saying you believe in micro but not macro is like saying you believe in inches but not miles because you can see that far.

Apparently you make no distinction between an ape evolving into a human and a bacteria changing to a more resistant..... bacteria.

Humans are apes, numbnuts.

It's still a bacteria. It still has the basic characterists of a bacteria, but somehow for you it's proof of evolution. Well anyone will admit the bacteria changed, but to say it did anything other than adapt using it's already present DNA or harmful mutation of already present DNA is not real science. There is no proof that the bacteria evolved into anything other than a variation of itself, another bacteria.

You have absolutely no concept for the way the nested hierarchy works. Animals will never evolve to be non-animals. Eukaryotes will never evolve to be non-eukaryotes. Chordates will never evolve to be non-chordates. Mammals will never evolve to be non-mammals. Speciation is the generation of NEW phylogenic taxa as a result of genetic diversification.

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

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You also do not fully understand the definition of evolution, the two biggest errors I have seen is thinking the theory of evolution is ALSO the theory of how life began, it is not. The theory of evolution begins AFTER life began, we still do not know how life started on earth, or even if it started on earth. ....

Why is the line always drawn at "life" like it's something special? Like "species," "life" is also an arbitrary classification determined by us. What about fire? It behaves very much like a life form, consuming material, producing waste products, reproducing itself, and eventually dying. What about viruses? Alive or not? They walk the line, not quite able to be fully classified as either. Can they reproduce? Yes. But not by themselves.

Originally posted by: Duwelon
You keep putting words in my mouth because you take what I say out of context. Macro-evolution is an idea, the culmination of going from something simple like a mineral or one species to another, like a non-rock or another species completely incompatible with the first. CLUE TO ESKIMOSPY AND OTHERS: THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, DEMONSTRATED AND THEREFORE NEVER REPEATED EITHER.

What is life at the basic level? Big collections of atoms and molecules working in some fashion to create more collections of atoms and molecules of a similar configuration. People seem to hype it up as some utterly amazing process. I can mix baking soda and vinegar together, but no one worships that as some sacred process.
To that end, I think I linked it already in this or the other thread; scientists have seen molecules in the lab which are capable of undergoing processes which mimic our definition of life. They can metabolize other substances, they produce waste products, they could use gained energy to increase in complexity, and they could reproduce themselves, among other things. This may well have been a glimpse at the precursors to what we call "life."
You want to see nonliving molecules turn into life? LMK once your lifespan has grown to several million years. Just because you don't live long enough to watch something take place, that does not invalidate it.

Apparently you make no distinction between an ape evolving into a human and a bacteria changing to a more resistant..... bacteria. It's still a bacteria. It still has the basic characterists of a bacteria, but somehow for you it's proof of evolution. Well anyone will admit the bacteria changed, but to say it did anything other than adapt using it's already present DNA or harmful mutation of already present DNA is not real science. There is no proof that the bacteria evolved into anything other than a variation of itself, another bacteria.

To reiterate in what is apparent futility, our definition of "species" is arbitrary. Our definition of "bacteria" is arbitrary. If I wanted to, I could say that a black man is a different species than a white man. Who's to say I'm wrong? Is the God of Organization going to descend and correct me? No, because humans decided what "species" meant, and the definition is sufficiently broad such that all humans alive today are homo sapiens sapiens.

How about those pesky bacteria then? If one strain is resistant to Toxin A, but another isn't, why not classify them as a new species? There's that word again, "species." You just observed one life form undergoing genetic transformation into something different. Why can you accept that, but not the idea that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of small changes can conglomerate into large changes?


And the issue of evolutionary theory making predictions: You might as well ask, "In 5000 years, what will the height of a wave at X latitude and Y longitude be?"
Is it possible to know? Maybe, assuming you could model every particle on the planet faster than realtime. Genetic changes occur at the molecular level. Equations of variables would contain trillions of interdependent terms. Our mathematical language is not yet sufficiently developed to address anything remotely close to that.

Originally posted by: Duwelon
That is definately "evolution" that is demonstrable, testable, and is in fact, scientific. What started this whole thing with eskimospy again is me saying that the principals of evolution, the whole damn theory is so shallow and so unknown, that it has no scientific principals which can be applied to a current bacteria to predict what the outcome should be.

Think of it this way: Throwing a boulder at an angle + theory of gravity we can determine almost exactly where the boulder will land, minus wind and other factors.

A current bacteria + antibiotic + evolution = science has no friggin clue. That's all I said. Of course the bacteria changes, i'll even go as far as call it evolution, but to say it's a new species or that (macro) evolution is real science and can predict what the outcome will be is pure fantasy.

"Almost exactly." Precision is just another matter of perception. Newtonian gravity theory is wrong. Simple as that. It's just not right. It's completely missing any effects from general relativity. If general relativity is ignored, planetary probes would miss their distant targets. GPS satellites would lose sync, and suddenly they'd start saying your car was 500 feet under ground.
It's just a matter of being "close enough."
"An engineer will call a horse a sphere if it simplifies the math."
And who knows, maybe general relativity is missing something too. But for what we need, it's close enough.
Gravitational acceleration. Some introductory physics classes might say G =10 m/s² and be done with it. For others, it's 9.8. Or 9.81. Still further into it, gravity changes according to how much mass is directly beneath your feet, and how far you are from the center of the mass. Go into a plane, and your weight changes because you're farther from Earth's center. Is it perceptible? No. Does it really matter to most of us? No. But ignoring it won't make it go away.

Ever use something with a sleeve bearing in it? Maybe a fan, or some wheel assembly. The differential equations for finding the velocity of a particle in the lubricating oil are more than 60-terms long. They're virtually unsolvable. But by saying that many terms are effectively zero, and looking in only two or one dimension at a time, those equations simplify to just a few variables. Are the answers right? No. Are they close enough to allow an engineer to design a good bearing? Yes, most of the time.


Point is, accuracy of predictions depends on the complexity of what is being predicted. If you want to predict changes in DNA, and what the outcome will be, you're going to need all the chalkboards on Earth to write out the equations for the individual molecules, or else you're going to have to make a lot of assumptions. When you do that, the math gets simpler, but the results get less and less accurate. How close is "close enough" going to be? That is just as arbitrary as "species."

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

You keep putting words in my mouth because you take what I say out of context. Macro-evolution is an idea, the culmination of going from something simple like a mineral or one species to another, like a non-rock or another species completely incompatible with the first. CLUE TO ESKIMOSPY AND OTHERS: THIS HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, DEMONSTRATED AND THEREFORE NEVER REPEATED EITHER.

Apparently you make no distinction between an ape evolving into a human and a bacteria changing to a more resistant..... bacteria. It's still a bacteria. It still has the basic characterists of a bacteria, but somehow for you it's proof of evolution. Well anyone will admit the bacteria changed, but to say it did anything other than adapt using it's already present DNA or harmful mutation of already present DNA is not real science. There is no proof that the bacteria evolved into anything other than a variation of itself, another bacteria.

AGAIN - As Eskimospy said, you have a FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING and a FUNDAMENTAL LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of what evolution is and how it works - and I will add a reality distortion field on as to ignore the PROOF THAT ALREADY EXISTS!. Every post you make here just shows your ignorance and stubbornness. Its like watching Ms South Carolina. Your just hilarious. LOL - give us some more! And he wonders why people think creationists are dumb as a stump. =)

I will end with just one more statement that someone else here already pointed out to you. "just because YOU personally don't understand the law of evolution and how it works, does not make it any less true. Here is a fun religious game you should try. Your ancestors were apes - now DEAL WITH IT!!! Figure out how to make it work for you, because its real, and it isnt changing.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy Hell, we ourselves have caused speciation to occur, the modern domestic sheep cannot mate with the ancestors we developed it from, are therefore incompatible with the old sheep, the very definition of a new species. We do the same thing with fruit flies.

EDIT: I see you've said this has never been observed. That is ridiculously false, and the above provided examples show this.

I'm still genuinely waiting for some links as evidence for this.

You wouldn't understand them if anyone posted them anyway. You have a lack of even the most basic grasp of biology yet you try to argue with people. You were not put on this world to get it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Babbles
Gravity is not a scientific law; it's still theory.

Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh duhhhhhhhhhhhh duh duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhh duh duh duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh <takes deep breath> duhhhhhhh duh duh fuckin' duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

There you go, fixed! You're welcome.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, he's vacationed so here is his response. I am not going to post any more in this thread

And again, gravity is a law that has been proven while evolution is a theory that only shows evidence, but has not been proven.

Wow, you really are going all out to emulate Corbett while he's gone.

You'll depart, but not before uttering a completely and domonstrably false statement. You are scary stupid, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean the fact that someone who lives in the US with all that entails, can apparently use a computer, and yet still believe something like you just wrote frightens me. But don't worry, you're in good company.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...2/islam-and-creat.html

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, he's vacationed so here is his response. I am not going to post any more in this thread

And again, gravity is a law that has been proven while evolution is a theory that only shows evidence, but has not been proven.

Wow, you really are going all out to emulate Corbett while he's gone.

You'll depart, but not before uttering a completely and domonstrably false statement. You are scary stupid, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean the fact that someone who lives in the US with all that entails, can apparently use a computer, and yet still believe something like you just wrote frightens me. But don't worry, you're in good company.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...2/islam-and-creat.html

Look asshat - I did not state that. Learn to F'n read.

Here is his reply:
********************************

You see that? Everything below that is his - not mine. sheesh.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, he's vacationed so here is his response. I am not going to post any more in this thread

And again, gravity is a law that has been proven while evolution is a theory that only shows evidence, but has not been proven.

Wow, you really are going all out to emulate Corbett while he's gone.

You'll depart, but not before uttering a completely and domonstrably false statement. You are scary stupid, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean the fact that someone who lives in the US with all that entails, can apparently use a computer, and yet still believe something like you just wrote frightens me. But don't worry, you're in good company.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...2/islam-and-creat.html

Look asshat - I did not state that. Learn to F'n read.

Here is his reply:
********************************

You see that? Everything below that is his - not mine. sheesh.

Wait, so you're posting for a banned member? I thought you were simply putting on your Corbett hat. Sounds like aiding and abetting to me. What's the point of being banned if someone will simply post for you? Let's investigate.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
You also do not fully understand the definition of evolution, the two biggest errors I have seen is thinking the theory of evolution is ALSO the theory of how life began, it is not. The theory of evolution begins AFTER life began, we still do not know how life started on earth, or even if it started on earth. ....

Why is the line always drawn at "life" like it's something special? Like "species," "life" is also an arbitrary classification determined by us. What about fire? It behaves very much like a life form, consuming material, producing waste products, reproducing itself, and eventually dying. What about viruses? Alive or not? They walk the line, not quite able to be fully classified as either. Can they reproduce? Yes. But not by themselves.

I was referring to Duwelon's reference to minerals evolving into living organisms. When we know exactly how life was created, then we can say at what point it began to evolve.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Well, he's vacationed so here is his response. I am not going to post any more in this thread

And again, gravity is a law that has been proven while evolution is a theory that only shows evidence, but has not been proven.

Wow, you really are going all out to emulate Corbett while he's gone.

You'll depart, but not before uttering a completely and domonstrably false statement. You are scary stupid, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean the fact that someone who lives in the US with all that entails, can apparently use a computer, and yet still believe something like you just wrote frightens me. But don't worry, you're in good company.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlan...2/islam-and-creat.html

Look asshat - I did not state that. Learn to F'n read.

Here is his reply:
********************************

You see that? Everything below that is his - not mine. sheesh.

Wait, so you're posting for a banned member? I thought you were simply putting on your Corbett hat. Sounds like aiding and abetting to me. What's the point of being banned if someone will simply post for you? Let's investigate.

Fine - don't like it? Wait for his answers in 3 weeks.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Fine - don't like it? Wait for his answers in 3 weeks.

No Corbett for 3 weeks? There is a God! I take back this whole evolution thing, it's clearly a crock!

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
I was referring to Duwelon's reference to minerals evolving into living organisms. When we know exactly how life was created, then we can say at what point it began to evolve.

I guess I see it as more of a continuous process, all the way back to the sea of energy from the Big Bang singularity.
But yes, biological evolution (duh, "biological" ) would refer to what happens once there is "life."

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And again, gravity is a law that has been proven while evolution is a theory that only shows evidence, but has not been proven.

Holy shit, even after it has been hammered upon to the point of silliness in this thread, you're still parroting this ignorant canard. Let me make it simple for you:

Theory > Law

Theories do not eventually "graduate" to become laws once they are "proven." Only idiots like you believe that. Theories encompass laws. Laws are actually rather boring, summarized ordinarily in simple equations. Take for example any of the several gas laws -- they're all elements of the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

Do you even realize how stupid you look?