Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

page: 31
44
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by AmericanDaughter
 


As opposed to god forming man out of a pile of dirt/dust and women out of a rib.




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


that's a very good job explaining, now try to convince the National Science Board of that...



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


So where does their understanding differ from mine, and what's my incentive(it has to outweigh airfares)?

EDIT: Prerogative's not what I meant.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


So where does their understanding differ from mine, and what's my incentive(it has to outweigh airfares)?


National Science Board Omitts Evolution
new genetic evidence started raising new questions in 1996, the flags are going up...

And quite frankly I rather believe a geneticist over some crack-pot evolutionist because the geneticist facts are based on actual experiment not observations and theory.

I am starting to wonder too if they been lying to us about the earth not being the center of the universe ! I really don't see much wrong with that theory either


edit on 12/13/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


That isn't the first site that came up when I searched for NSB and evolution, but it is the same subject matter. I have for you this quote (which I was going to post anyway, because I find it entertaining) from when "Science" magazine asked John Bruer(?) who seems to have been partially responsible for the omission, why the "humans evolved from previous species" stats were omitted:


When Science asked Bruer if individuals who did not accept evolution or the big bang to be true could be described as scientifically literate, he said: “There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution,” adding that such questioning has led to improved understanding of evolutionary theory. When asked if he expected those academics to answer “false” to the statement about humans having evolved from earlier species, Bruer said: “On that particular point, no.”


from this site.

EDIT: I'm curious about this "new" evidence from 1996 - it's not mentioned on the site that you directed me to, so could you give me the geneticist's name(s), year of publication and the journal it was in so I can find it?

NB - from what I've studied on genetics, I have yet to learn of any real conflict between genetics and natural selection. Note that since inheritence is through genetics and epigenetics, evolution itself is currently understood to be a genetic process (Nat. Sel. is environmental/phenotypic feedback onto that genetic process).
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: in text.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

I am starting to wonder too if they been lying to us about the earth not being the center of the universe ! I really don't see much wrong with that theory either


edit on 12/13/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)


My mind is full of f#ck. Please tell me you aren't serious! I'll bet you also believe that the earth is hollow as well? This subject/view was proven false hundreds of years ago by a man a lot cleverer than you. I suggest you read up on the matter urgently
edit on 13/12/2010 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
My mind is full of f#ck. Please tell me you aren't serious! I'll bet you also believe that the earth is hollow as well? This subject/view was defused hundreds of years ago by a man a lot cleverer than you. I suggest you read up on the matter urgently


that was supposed to be a joke, maybe I should have used the "laughing" emoticon instead...

I have posted mounds of evidence and current philosophies on the last 3 to 4 pages of this topic, if people choose to believe their data is current and not over 15 years old then that's their choice.




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Griffo
 


exactly
second line



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by InertiaZero
 


Then what does the truth point to? I would love to hear this one. According to your "truth" everything in this universe is an accident and held together continuously everyday by chance. You hold true to science and scientifically speaking that is not logical. It is not scientific to say that is is all a big coincidense. Something causes everything and everything has a beginning and an end. Answer me this... According to evolutionists everything began when a mass of gas exploded and created everything from there. There are literally millions of forms of life on this planet. Each of which has it's own DNA, it's own look, it's own smell. This one gas mass exploding held all of these pieces of DNA and happened to piece it all together perfectly? How is that scientifically possible? Now, a scientist creating something in the lab is possible.
I know we cannot prove Creationism, but evolution has not been proven either. Anyone that says either have been proven is an arrogant fool.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



Each of which has it's own DNA, it's own look, it's own smell.


Sort of the point is that as much as each has it's own DNA, the DNA doesn't differ that much more between individuals of the same group as between individuals of two similar groups, and the increase in difference in DNA goes up as the groups get more different (grouped according to whatever you like - look, smell, length of caecum...).

Taking evolution (not the evolutionary hypothesis based upon it - those are not integral to evolution itself, but a suggestion - generally backed up by considerable but not exhaustive evidence - as to the historical manifestations of evolution) at its most basic level, it is the logical application of a tiny handful of assumptions - 1) that lifeforms within a group are variable, 2) that some variation is heritable and 3) that not all members of the afore-mentioned group reproduce exactly the same amount.

Without expanding on that unnecessarily (my fingers are tired and my brain is rapidly turning to thoughts of tea), saying "prove it!" is a lot like saying "prove gravity!". Stuff falls down, stuff evolves.

I'm not saying that you can't say "prove it!" that we are related to apes, because that is simply a hypothesis that is supported by molecular and paleontological (is that a word?) evidence. But with those three points (and less integral ones that I feel are just as logical) the underlying concept of "evolution" seems to me as inescapable as what would happen if I dropped a teacup.

EDIT: Please note, evolution is not here cast as an alternative to creationism... rather, like gravity, it is indifferent to it. Evolutionary hypothesis based on evolution by natural selection contradict biblical creationism, but not the concept of a creator, to which it is also indifferent.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
reply to post by Christian Voice
 



Each of which has it's own DNA, it's own look, it's own smell.


Sort of the point is that as much as each has it's own DNA, the DNA doesn't differ that much more between individuals


between individual humans you mean or all life ?

I should inform you that 1/10th of one percent speaks volumes and why all life is different in the first place.

Genetics will prove Evolutions undoing, not that I am saying evolution does not 'fit in' the problem is it trying to take the 'place of'



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


All humans or all life. The division between them is simply a matter of which point in time you choose to look at (and obviously, I can see everything, through all time... da-da-da-dun (sic.))

I am intrigued by this reference to some 1996 paradigm shift in genetics. Please give me the author's name and a brief summary so I can find and read the paper for myself.

edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: extended the delusion of grandeur (omniscience)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


mama said knock you out !





posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
As far as I am concerned, all Christian Evangelicals are insane. They are completely irrational and unable to make a logical argument. They believe they are special and only they know the "truth." They have an insatiable bloodlust and drive to impose their irrational beliefs on others. They are cultists of the highest order, but that fact and $2.50 will buy me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


And I await the genetics reference.

Please? Otherwise I'll end up buying food to keep me awake, and that never ends well.

EDIT: hang on, the "new evidence" in genetics isn't that our two major model organisms for evolution were more closely related to one another than they were to us, is it? Because the Protostomes/Deuterostomes split is OLD news... I just wish that they didn't still make us study Drosophila and Caenorhabditis now that we know that convergence of results in them is meaningless for our own group. Just shows how strong habit is as a driving force for human behaviour, eh?
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


it is posted in the previous links a page or so ago, start with the wiki one... I like to let students do their own research, I'm old school.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


A key part of the scientific method is the finding of evidence that is observable and supports a hypothesis resulting in a theory's development. Here a problem arises in the theory of evolution. Natural selection and genetic variance are commonly used as the observable evidence of evolution. However, this body of evidence only proves that variance exists within a species. From here evolutionists take a major leap of faith to presume that over time a species will change into a different species due to environmental conditions that favor a certain trait or traits than others. No species has ever been observed changing into another one. Indeed environmental conditions may favor specific traits within in a species and a characteristic like color or size may well become dominant over time, but this in no way suggests that it will eventually transform into a separate species. It merely proves that different characteristics should exist within populations that are removed from other populations. Two members of different populations would still be perfectly capable of reproducing with one another no matter how long they have been separated. In fact, natural selection could be used to explain why genetic variance exists within populations that share dominant characteristics but in no way can it be supposed that it results in species transformation. Just look at the diversity within the human race. Small, tall, white, black, 1200cc brain capacity, 1400cc brain capacity- all perfectly able to reproduce with one another and all the same species. The oldest human populations on Earth are scientifically accepted as West African groups. These groups have dominant traits that all members share and are biologically similar in appearance and physical makeup yet among themselves the highest degree of genetic variance in the human race is found. They are not changing into a different species. They carry a genetic code that proves species evolution does not occur.

www.wiebefamily.org...
edit on 12/13/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Read the wiki link...

Nothing new there. The lightspots argument is bollocks - you can detect light through parts of your epithelium not intended to do so, and flagellate single-celled protists show phototaxis. Light sensitivity is useful to single celled organisms, the "light sensitive spots" aren't exactly an irreducible leap from there. The wiki page suggests to me that it is primarily an attack on Darwin who, while a major player in our understanding of natural selection, hardly gets the last word on evolution. I, me, personally, can see the flaws in Darwin's understanding of evolution when I go through the origin of species.. More evidence HAS come to light, and it has been incorporated.

Having found that one unpromising little gem, I'll let the "teacher" present the rest of the case.

EDIT: you'd added a bit, so I'll reply to that:

The concept of a species is flawed and has little basis in biology outside of extinction events. I explained this in considerable length in one of my earliest posts in this thread. I'll let you find it.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)


EDIT pt ii: And of course one species doesn't change into another. Populations diverge, and once divergence is sufficient, there is poor hybrid fertility - I cite Eastman et al, 2009, who wrote concerning the two ecotypes of the streamside salamander Ambystoma barbouri, where adults can freely interbreed but adults from the two different ecotypes hybridizing produce offspring of lower fitness than adults breeding within their ecotype. Not the central point of the paper, but discussed at some length nonetheless.
edit on 13/12/2010 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


'Human Intelligence Gone Ape' disproves the theory of evolution in more ways than one. It shows how evolution is genetically impossible. It recounts space explorations of other planets which also confirm that evolution is a baseless theory. In addition, it shows how massive random genetic mutations -- the alleged mechanism behind evolution -- over a period of billions of years, instead of perpetuating an evolutionary process, would actually have wiped out an already populated planet.

I have the link to the paper from NSF but am unwilling to post it...

here's some more reading to prepare you for what you are going to find

evolutiondead.com...



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


So, I've been reading that "evolution is dead" link that you posted. Seeing as you (and Dawkins) make such a to-do about genetics, I thought I'd report back when I'd got to and through that particular section.

1) mistake in the mode of mutation - mutations are largely not due to external factors but due to errors in DNA replication.

2) selection pressure from prior to the origins of life (viroids and other self-replicating non-living units) has selected against unstable genetics. Note in particular that organisms with RNA-based genetics are exlusively single-celled and fast-reproducing, whereas most known organisms have genetics based on the much more stable DNA.

3) Most organisms, and certainly vertebrate DNA has a great many DNA repair systems, such that deletion/insertion mutations rarely last long even within an individual. In current vertebrate DNA, the only mutations which aren't HEAVILY corrected for by such DNA repair mechanisms are pyramidine/pyramidine substitutions and pyrine/pyrine substitutions, which due to the nature of the (degenerate) 3-base coding system are very often synonymous (i.e. as much as the change is observed, very rare for it to have an effect on the resultant protein, and even if it does, a large number of amino acids can be changed before protein function is lost. Cystein is an exception).

4) Further to this, over-reproduction - typical of most "lower" animals (lower implies that we are better than them, and we ain't... just better at being human) allows sexual reproduction, independent assortment, crossover and the death of a great majority of offspring (which fits with Josh's assertions! wow!) allows "weeding out" - more like mowing out, in my opinion - of deleterious alleles. That's the great thing about deleterious alleles. They remove themselves from the gene pool. The great thing about sexual reproduction, of course (other than the sex) is that deleterious alleles can be lost without the gene-line being lost.

Another flaw - with this and the last link you posted - was the assumption of "survival of the fittest". This is not your fault - certainly, evolution by natural selection is often advertised as this. More appropriately, it is survival of the satisficient - if you reproduce, your genes survive to the next generation. Of course those that reproduce more have the greatest say in the next generation, but if you reproduce at all, you get some say.

I have now worked my way through to the fossils section. He writes much as Ray Comfort and Kent Hovind talk - very engagingly, very wittily, and very enthusiastically. Also like Hovind - less so Comfort - he uses a fair amount of reasonably plausible material (which upon further examination, is misrepresented or flawed) to make his point before providing the "evolutionist" counter-point which, in light of the information he has presented, seems to be valid. And then you look more closely.

So nothing new yet. But I do like his writing style. I think it was your previous link that talked about what they see as "leap of faith" involved in evolution, and Josh (whatever his surname) uses pretty much the same thing for his arguments - he cites all his sources except the one that I would take to be most fundamental to his argument, although I suspect that this is more to do with a difference between myself and him in understanding of "obvious." I have lost a great many marks over the years by not citing sources where the idea seemed intuitive.

This will probably be my last post today, as it's past midnight and I was planning to get some lab work in this morning.





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join