Genetics, Evolution and the Creationist Conspiracy

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

I suppose you meant scientifically backed...

Yes, thanks. I type stupid sometimes.

I don't care for the supposition opposed to that which is greater than all...

what it really eludes to is code for reality and the confines of all creation...

What code??? Remember, I'm very familiar with Fib. and the Golden Ratio. I know the patters and the application. So what code are you talking about and what is it's significance??? Don't just comment lightly on it. Give me some real heavy info for once.

Evolutionists that can't relate to relation are rather absurd and show hypocrisy anytime a creator is mentioned...

Creation allows for evolution this is factual...

Evolution is not atheism nor could anything evolve without creation for even evolution is in and of itself a form of creation...
the greatest form of flattery is copying...

You're using Creation in a very non-specific way and it's meaningless like that. What creation are you talking about???

If you say God is the Creator then Something from Nothing never happened because as God is present there was something.

If you say the Big Bang is the Creator then again Something was present.

So the whole argument of Something from Nothing also makes no sense and I don't know why you insist that "Evolutionists" are claiming it. The only Something from Nothing I've ever heard of comes from from a more Eastern philosophical concept but even then they use the word Void as opposed to nothing for a good reason.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It's not difficult to find examples of most any pattern or mathematical relation you want. Then some people make the mistake of supposing this reveals some mystical governing principle in nature. This is reinforced by ignoring equally important cases that don't fit the pattern. If the fit isn't very good, approximate or fudge the numbers. If some things remain that ought to fit but don't, just rationalize a reason why they are "special cases".

The areas of mathematically similar objects are proportional to the square of their linear dimensions, their volumes are proportional to the cube of their linear dimensions. Gravitational and electric field strengths obey an inverse square relation to distance. Radiation intensity obeys an inverse square relation to distance from a point source. All of these have an underlying reason: the geometry of the universe is very nearly Euclidean, and therefore these results are dictated by that geometric fact. It doesn't suggest there's anything mystical about the powers "2" and "3".

The ratio of the circumference to diameter of a circle, π, pops up in formulas for many geometric relations about round objects. A favorite obsession of numerologically-inclined folk is to look for π in man-made structures such as the Pyramids of Egypt. Look and ye shall find—if you are willing to select data and fudge a bit.

The five regular Pythagorean solids have faces of similar shape, either triangles, squares or pentagons. These are also known as the "Platonic solids". The tetrahedron, octahedron, cube, icosahedron and dodecahedron have 4, 8, 6, 12 and 20 faces respectively. There are no other such solids. Only one of these, 8, is a Fibonacci number. Johannes Kepler, when still in the mystical mode of thought, tried to fit these numbers to regular polyhedra to "explain" the orbital sizes of the planets. He had to fudge things too much to fit his model to reality so he wisely abandoned the project. Only when he rid himself of mystical correspondences was he able to formulate a mathematically correct set of three laws of planetary motion. These laws implicitly embodied what we now know as the conservation of angular momentum.

The reason φ shows up in nature has to do with constraints of geometry upon the way organisms grow in size. Irrational numbers (those that cannot be expressed as a ratio of integers) are often revealed in this process. The well-known irrationals are √2, φ, e, π and any multiples or products of them. To make matters more interesting, these are related. For example, phi is φ = (√5 - 1)/2. And the Euler relation, eiπ = -1 relates e, i and π where i ≡ √(-1). The natural processes that display irrationals are not governed or caused by φ in order to achieve some desired purpose or result, but rather they are constrained by the geometry of the universe and the limitations imposed by that geometry on growth processes.

Folks addicted to mystical mathematics are really motivated by a belief that there's something "magical" about certain combinations of numbers. They are obsessive pattern seekers. Pattern recognition can be a useful trait, if not carried to the point of believing that every perceived pattern represents something profound or mystical. Some patterns in nature are significant, but many are purely accidental (patterns in tea-leaves, for example) and have no deeper meaning or significance.

Fibonacci Flim-Flam, by Dr. Donald E. Simanek, Emeritus Professor of Physics Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania

Isn't confirmation bias awesome?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
those who lack the ability to mimic said results,but can observe them, are left to wonder the how and why...
This to them is therefore miraculous...
To the able one,there is no mystery at all...

Forsooth!

Religion panders to the base alloy in human nature, which is to seek the path of least resistance.

Religion gives a one-stop-shop of 'answers' (the "God hypothesis") to questions that otherwise require actual brain power to explicate. Even Isaac Newton availed plugging "God" into equations he could not fully proof or explain.

Religion is akin to information junk food: It rots the mind, leaves one feeling thoroughly empty and effete, and it addicts the victim for more of the same 'quick fix' solutions whenever their 'hunger' returns. It is no coincidence that religion's strongest constituencies (numerically speaking) are in impoverished, developing and Third World countries. For it's here that the uneducated and vulnerable mind is most susceptible to religion's mendacious miracle mithridates.

a reply to: Henshin

I would argue that being made in the image of God refers to mankind being self-aware beings with a moral compass

I find that to be a very enlightened way to look at the purpose of the Bible, and find much in common with the 'mythologist' point of view. I recommend the writings of Joseph Campbell to you - especially the four volumes of "The Masks of God".

(qualities that neither the chimps nor the deep-sea creatures you mentioned have).

ugh. Now you descend into hubris. How do you know chimps are not self-aware? How do you know chimps don't have a moral compass? What is moral from the point of view of a Chimp? Would it necessarily have something in common with humans that we could recognize? What is the highest moral purpose of humans - caring for their young? teaching their young how to be 'good' humans? Protecting family from dangers? Which of those moral imperatives do the chimps lack?

But humans do have other, more abstract, moral imperatives that would be unrecognizable to a chimp, surely. We find it morally justifiable to lock up chimps in cages and display them in a zoo, I suspect the chimp does not see the same morality. Perhaps chimps have moral concepts that are similarly unrecognizable to us. I don't see any moral justification for a chimp to sit in a tree and drop coconuts on my head or to defecate on everyone below, but perhaps it sees it as defending his family from creatures that want to put him in a cage.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Maybe to you refuting creationism is science but it is just a yelp of a dog trying to sound tough

Creationism refutes itself because it blatantly contradicts science. I'm talking about the actual science and research that was posted, which again, shows me you didn't read it. Creationists attack science on a daily basis here, so that is why people refute their claims. Just read the top few threads in this section. I know it sounds shocking but the religious fundies are the ones started this whole thing. It's good to put REAL knowledge out there. The purpose of the site is to deny ignorance and they spread ignorance, so naturally it makes sense to refute their claims WHILE talking about the actual science. You can't PREACH science. By definition preaching is proclaiming a belief. Science isn't a belief.

a reply to: ParasuvO

For me, it is never going to get close to anything of real value using this method.

Yeah, you're right, nothing of REAL value has come out of science and its slow method

Other than vaccines that wipe out entire diseases. Space shuttles. Computers. The internet. Turbines that use water currents to generate power and ones on the surface that use the wind, solar panels, nuclear power, etc. Radically better cancer treatments and medicine in general. You know just most of the advantages we have over our ancestors.

Oh but you were talking about evolution right? Well I suppose them studying super-bacteria that form by becoming resistant to anti-bacterial soap or studying how viruses evolve and change each year so they can stay on top of diseases isn't good enough for you?

I'm sort of curious as to what you want the scientists to be doing? Should they invent some kind of "human evolution accelerator ray" that makes us all grow wings or something?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

You know the vitriolic nature of your posts make me hope you live a good long life, long enough to see and experience the fulfillment of the reality of this scripture coming in the future.

Ezekiel 38:23

‘I’ll show you how great I am, how holy I am. I’ll make myself known all over the world. Then you’ll realize that I am God.’”

Vitriolic? Everything I said was true. You've been caught in lies numerous times and you just parrot them over and over even after the misunderstandings are corrected. You may not like this, but it's true. If you want to talk about preachy look no further than this post, not the OP. Science isn't preached. It isn't a belief.

originally posted by: ParasuvO
Evolution claims a process started somehow, and that the SOMEHOW is irrelevant and likely has no effect on things after the process began.

Um, you can't have genetic mutations before the emergence of genes. So yeah, abiogenesis is unrelated to evolution. It's a completely different process. One is a chemical reaction, the other is biological process that is caused by radiation, errors in copying genes and more that mutates genes.

It wants nothing to do with the harder questions, and so it never gets solid answers to the other questions it asks.

No, it's because we don't know the complete answer for how life originally started. Science admits this. It's not about harder questions, it's about what CAN BE VERIFIED.

Because of the limited view it uses, it advances EXTREMELY slowly, so slowly I grew bored of it by age 7.

For me, it is never going to get close to anything of real value using this method.

Yet you are using a computer right now, a product that was made using scientific knowledge derived from the scientific method. But yeah, totally, nothing of value. I guess you don't have a car or a fridge or anything electronic then, right?

And somehow the scientists are unable to see that they are wasting a lot of time considering and proposing things that will NOT lead to any satisfactory answers.

And somehow science deniers still attack science based on complete ignorance. You are way off base. New things are learned in science almost every day. The more knowledge we have, the better. Denial of this basic fact makes me question your integrity.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
those who lack the ability to mimic said results,but can observe them, are left to wonder the how and why...
This to them is therefore miraculous...

To the able one,there is no mystery at all...

That is probably the truest thing you've ever said on this website. If you don't understand evolution you think it is miraculous. There is no mystery at all if you understand how science works.

Funny how you can find the Fibonacci sequence in most everything in the universe, that includes man made things...
Like computer code...

Funny how you think a common pattern proves anything about intelligent design.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Every time this argument comes up it seems as though someone wants to convince others that it has to be one way or the other.

We are created, we evolve and we most likely have genetics in common with many species, including those that we consider to be alien, the building blocks of life are scattered throughout the entire Universe and the creation is the same for all, while evolution is determined by many factors.

you mean creationism and evolution together?

but see, thats just the same thing to a smaller degree. to make up for the information they havent acquired (be it by will or by circumstance) those who attempt to fuse creationism with evolution are doing so out of ignorance. they dont understand parts of evolution so they need a place holder for that missing information. and eventually, they get tired of looking or waiting for that information and decide that the placeholder doesnt look so bad as a permanent fixture in their personal comprehension of evolutionary theory. but that doesnt make it any less of a placeholder. it doesnt BELONG there, its just convenient and we all have better things to do than fix a leaky hypothesis.

a reply to: Barcs

That was funny the truest thing I've ever said huh...

Ok seeing as I am so uninformed on evolution let's see your proof man evolved from apes dinosaurs fish or what have you...

No hop skip jumps or giant leaps are permitted...

Should be no miracle to you...

Funny how you take my statement out of context and twist it for your own means...
this shows you are somewhat familiar with evolution after all because it has to behave in the same fashion...
Lol

a reply to: 5StarOracle

The statement I quoted was dead accurate and applies to both situations. It wasn't twisted. It's generally true that when folks don't understand something (whether it's science, religion, god, nuclear fusion, etc) they are more likely to think it is miraculous or impossible, when it's really just lack of understanding. You made a true statement and accurately reflected exactly why you think evolution is so unrealistic. I couldn't have scripted it better, myself.

a reply to: Barcs

I never said ever that evolution does not take place...

I have said creation allows for evolution...

But there you go making things up again claiming what I believe for me falsely, that's quite delusional of you...

Guess you have no miracles or truth...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

I never said ever that evolution does not take place...

I have said creation allows for evolution...

But there you go making things up again claiming what I believe for me falsely, that's quite delusional of you...

Guess you have no miracles or truth...

and your arguments fall neatly into what i described in my previous post. creationism is a placeholder for the information you have decided not to pursue or to ignore outright.

a reply to: TzarChasm

that's like saying nothing has been or is ever created...

More fallacy...

evolution chooses to ignore creation like it has no place in the grand scheme of things...

evolution will never disprove creation they are intertwined...

creation was needed for evolution to begin yet evolution never creates instead it only alters creation...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

It's just as easy to say that it's Evolution that allows for Creation to exist. That it's actually Evolution itself which is the only real process happening. What you call Creation is simply Evolution taking place moment by moment. After all it's Evolution which Created the various creatures we know of.

There may not be a moment of creation at all. Every moment is actually Evolution. Changing from one state to another. Only looking at it slowly it looks like nothing new is happening at all. When looking at it quickly it seems as if things are being created all the time. However, it's just perception. Slowly all you see is tiny changes. But quickly those tiny changes create new things.

At this point it's just semantics and word play.

a reply to: [post=19739227]mOjOm[/post

You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...

Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...

Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...

You don't get to tell me what I can and cannot do. Nor am I putting spin on anything.

Why do I have to prove something can evolve from nothing?? I've never claimed any such thing. You're the one who keeps saying "something from nothing" not me.

Therefore, as I said before. Evolution is the process that does the Creating. In the same way Evolution created everything else, one tiny step at a time. There was a time long ago when there were a completely different set of creatures roaming the earth. Now they're gone and there are different creatures roaming the earth. They didn't just all pop into existence already complete. Evolution slowly changed them over time until what they are now. Further along they'll be gone and some other creatures will be roaming around.

What you call creation is actually just evolution.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: [post=19739227]mOjOm[/post

You can't just make things up and put your own spin on it unless you can prove to me something can evolve from nothing...

Therefore Creation predates any and all evolution...

Nor can you just create your own arbitrary parameters regarding what various scientific disciplines study, state, hypothesize etc...

Evolution, at its simplest interpretation is a study and measurement of changes in allele frequency over time. It has nothing to do with creation in any way. Nowhere in evolutionary biology has it ever been stated that something evolved from nothing.

If you want to go right back to the very beginning of everything, even the big bang doesn't postulate "something from nothing". The only one insisting on that being the case(creation first and then everything else next) is you. It just shows that you are arguing against science that you haven't bothered to actually try to understand before arguing against it.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TzarChasm

that's like saying nothing has been or is ever created...

More fallacy...

evolution chooses to ignore creation like it has no place in the grand scheme of things...

evolution will never disprove creation they are intertwined...

creation was needed for evolution to begin yet evolution never creates instead it only alters creation...

You may be wrong about creation. There is a distinct possibility that the universe is infinite. In other words, there was no "creation" event.

Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning

by Tia Ghose, Senior Writer | February 26, 2015 08:43am ET

"If a new theory turns out to be true, the universe may not have started with a bang.

In the new formulation, the universe was never a singularity, or an infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter. In fact, the universe may have no beginning at all.

"Our theory suggests that the age of the universe could be infinite," said study co-author Saurya Das, a theoretical physicist at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada"

www.livescience.com...

Regardless how the theory falls out, creation is not a prerequisite to evolution. The only prerequisite is an organism which has a genetic code built from fundamental nucleosides which form DNA, has the ability to reproduce and modify its genetic code. That's it.

Nucleosides can self assemble - that means they don't need any outside intervention to assume a structure like DNA or RNA.

Purines and Pyrimidines - adenine, guanine, cytosine, uracil and thymine - also self assemble from simple compounds like bicarbonate and ammonia. It's a natural process which requires no outside intervention.

I think you're fixed on the "something from nothing" notion i.e. that in the beginning there was "nothing" and then something or someone created "something". There's always a chance that it could be the case. But so far, everything in the universe - from atoms to black holes to this planet to living organisms - required absolutely no outside intervention to form.