A Challenge To All Creationists

[Reggie Miller]

Pretty simple really....the evidence supports the big bang model and it has generated numerous predictions that were later confirmed.

Supposedly.

 

[omega2xx]

First, I don't see insulted you.

Saying I say stupid things, just because you disagree wit them is an insult.

All I see is you once again dodging questions.

I have answered your question, you have not answered all of mine.

Finally, I wonder if you even recognize the hypocrisy of chastising someone for being insulting, while simultaneously calling people stupid and third-graders.

I only use that when someone like you acts like a child with their childish insults. If you don't have the intellect to discuss a subject without being insulting, then the playground is where you belong.

 

[omega2xx]

Well, well, well! Let's hear about those "creaion scientist much more intelligent." Who are they? Do they include those who were defeated soundly in a US court of law in Dover, PA? How did this vaunted "intelligence" let them down so badly -- in front of a Christian judge? Could it be that their arguments were not, in fact, quite as intelligent as they might have hoped? I don't think much of the superior intelligence that can only manage inferior arguments. Still, be that as it may, please give us the top 3 names of those you consider so "much more intelligent." That will give us all the opportunity to look up their body of work, examine their scientific publications in the areas in which they specialize, and see for ourselves whether they are so much brighter than the rest of us poor slobs.

Don't be shy! Name them.

All the staff on the ICR faculty are more qualified in science than you or anyone in this forum mis.


Now, on the subject of what I understand (basic genetics), you are utterly unqualified to make any comment whatever -- since I have never written on genetics in any source to which you have access. So, it would appear that you have just made something up out of whole cloth, to be nasty and smear me.
If you believe in evolution, you do not understand genetics.

Do you include that in your "Christian values?" Where can I find that in the Gospels?

Making a truthful statement is not smearing anyone.

And since you have decided to label Canada's public school system as "failed," (especially in the 1960's when I was educated), please provide your evidence for such a claim. It would be important, I think, since many of Canada's finest contributors - in the sciences, in government, in religion, in medicine, in philosophy, in literature and so forth were educated in the same system. They might wish to know how it is you suppose that they were so "failed."

I was speaking the America's public school system. In 2014, Canada was ranked 7th best over all, pretty good, and 10th best in science, fair. Bot beat America's standing.

And finally, since you claim to know that I was "brainwashed," I think it only proper that you provide some evidence of that. Otherwise, it is at best merely a false accusation, at worst, libelous to me and to those who educated me.

My word was hyperbole, but when only one side is allowed to be tgaught, that is a form of brainwahsing. Creationism is not allowed to be taught inAmerica any more. Can it be taught in Canada.

If you have any decency at all, you will answer all of those questions. Or apologize for what you said. Or, as a last hope, see yourself for what you are.

I believe what i says is true in America. It may not be of Canada. If it offends you, I apologize.

 

[gnostic]

With no creator some form of abiogenesis is a must. Now that's a wacky theory. I just don't understand why intelligent people honestly believe the Big Bang "somehow" produced the universe we see today, i.e. Romans 1:20.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anybody is less than intelligent. I just don't get it.

Excuse me, Reggie.

But what do the Big Bang have to do with evolution and abiogenesis?

Evolution is biology, abiogenesis is chemistry and biochemistry. Both are only relate to studies of life on Earth.

If we had living specimens of alien organisms...cool. But we don't, so anything scientists write or talk about extraterrestrial life outside of earth, are purely conjectures...for now.

The Big Bang only relate to how particles and atoms form in the early universe, which later form large structures like stars (and galaxies), later still, of planets.

The Big Bang theory is more in the fields within physics (astrophysics, particle physics, astronomy, etc). The Big Bang isn't biology.

So please, I would advise you to understand the distinctions, and do a little reading what the Big Bang actually explain.

The wiser course for you, is to ask questions of things you don't know. There is no shame, if you don't understand something, to say "I don't know". That's better than to pretend like omega2xx, who continually claim to know things when he really don't know.

 

[Reggie Miller]

Excuse me, Reggie.

But what do the Big Bang have to do with evolution and abiogenesis?

Evolution is biology, abiogenesis is chemistry and biochemistry. Both are only relate to studies of life on Earth.

If we had living specimens of alien organisms...cool. But we don't, so anything scientists write or talk about extraterrestrial life outside of earth, are purely conjectures...for now.

The Big Bang only relate to how particles and atoms form in the early universe, which later form large structures like stars (and galaxies), later still, of planets.

The Big Bang theory is more in the fields within physics (astrophysics, particle physics, astronomy, etc). The Big Bang isn't biology.

So please, I would advise you to understand the distinctions, and do a little reading what the Big Bang actually explain.

The wiser course for you, is to ask questions of things you don't know. There is no shame, if you don't understand something, to say "I don't know". That's better than to pretend like omega2xx, who continually claim to know things when he really don't know.

I understand the distinctions very well. Most atheists believe in the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis and macro-evolution. Hence, what I said.

 

[Jose Fly]

Saying I say stupid things, just because you disagree wit them is an insult.

The line "if you don't like being called stupid, stop saying stupid things" is my signature. That's why it appears in all my posts.

I have answered your question, you have not answered all of mine.

I only use that when someone like you acts like a child with their childish insults. If you don't have the intellect to discuss a subject without being insulting, then the playground is where you belong.

Thanks for your time.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Hmm... Are we defining Creationism in the literal sense, being the Christian ideology of "man from dirt in six days, 6,000 years ago"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing in the TOE can be proven. They have all been indoctrinated into beliving the TOE is science.

Or you've been brainwashed into thinking it's not real science because it doesn't reinforce your preconceived religious beliefs.

So let's see, we've got thousands of scientists all over the world experimenting and testing, making testable predictions and taking careful measurements and observations for the last 150+ years, replicating and compiling enough data to make evolution a robust and comprehensive scientific theory that is accepted by all major scientific organizations throughout the world. Then we've got omega2xx on a religious forum declaring that all of these people have no idea what they're talking about and that anyone who accepts these careful measurements and observations as real science to be brainwashed idiots. Hmmmm. Please tell us how biology, genomics, genetics, comparative anatomy, botany, paleobotany, paleontology, etc. are not real science.

P.S. If what you say above is true, these creation scientists that you speak of should have no problem positing their own hypothesis and reinforcing it with their careful observations and measurements and falsifying the theory of evolution should have been easily done long ago. Instead, you guys spend all your time trying to tear down the TOE, erroneously thinking that if you can destroy it, your religious beliefs will suddenly be true. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Making a truthful statement is not smearing anyone.

The statement in question was that I do not know anything about basic genetics. Since you do not know what I have studied, what degrees I might have, how can you claim that to be a "truthful statement?"

In any case, you are quite incorrect, I do have some understanding of basic genetics -- I just didn't stop at Gregor Mendel (who did not know how genes did their work, how they were constructed, only how diploid reproduction produces phenotypes based on parental characteristics). If you stop there, you will still never possibly understand Evolutionary Genetics.

And it is a fact, whether ID folks like it or not, that Evolutionary Genetics is a legitimate, university level field of study. I reproduce, for example, some lecture notes from New York University on the subject.

I can't help but wonder, actually, why you make so many claims about genetics making evolution impossible, when virtually every competent geneticist in the world says otherwise. Are you a geneticist?

Lecture notes

Evolutionary genetics: A brief perspective, NYU

I. The incorporation of genetic theory into evolutionary theory

Although Darwin was very successful at convincing his contemporaries about the fact that evolution had occurred, he was much less successful at convincing his colleagues that his mechanism of Natural Selection was the major mechanism of evolutionary change. This was mainly because there was no satisfactory explanation for inheritance, or for how variation originated. Darwin himself was plagued by his inability to understand inheritance, and was dissatisfied by his own theory of inheritance, pangenesis and blending inheritance, because blending suggested that variation should be halved each generation and would rapidly be lost. (Darwin called it his "well abused theory of Pangenesis", and postulated rapid origins of new variation. Maybe if Darwin had improved his math skills...?)

In 1883, A. Weismann (1834-1914) proposed that the germ plasm was separate from (and thus immune to influences from) the soma. Indeed, this principle is reflected in the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. The "central dogma" of the NeoDarwinian view is that evolution can only occur by genetic change.

There are some notable exceptions, such as "gene amplification", cortical inheritance of disturbed patterns of cilia inherited in ciliated protozoa, and inherited "states of cell activation" in Daphnia.

In 1865 (only 6 years after Darwin's Origin), in an Augustinian monastery in Brno, a Czech town, Gregor Mendel discovered some of the "rules" of diploid inheritance. Mendel's work was not widely known until it was rediscovered in the 1900s.

Mendel demonstrated particulate inheritance, dispensing with the problems of blending inheritance. This mode of inheritance was initially used to argue against natural selection being a strong force: Since variants or mutants observed by early geneticists had discrete effects, and species differed discretely, species could have arisen by discrete, perhaps systemic changes (perhaps with a direction determined by orthogenesis or other mechanisms).

With the "Evolutionary (or Modern) Synthesis", Darwin's theory became reconciled with the facts of genetics, especially with the facts that (1) acquired characters are not inherited and (2) continuous variation has the same Mendelian basis as discrete variation. The theoretical foundations for evolutionary genetics were laid down in 1908 independently be Hardy, Weinberg and Tschetverikov, and subsequently developed by R. A. Fisher (1890-1962) and J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964) in England and Sewall Wright (1889-1988) in the US. Additional work (e.g., by J. Huxley, T. Dobzhansky) brought these and other fields (like paleontology) together.

II. Major tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

A. Populations have genetic variation that continuously arises by undirected processes (mutation and recombination)

B. Populations evolve by changes in gene frequencies through:
1. Genetic drift
2. Gene flow
3. Natural selection

C. Most adaptive variants have slight phenotypic effects, so that phenotypic changes are gradual

D. Diversification arises by speciation (cladogenesis), usually occurring via gradual evolution of reproductive isolation

E. These processes, continued for a sufficiently long period of time, produce changes sufficient to delineate higher taxonomic levels

 

[omega2xx]

Excuse me, Reggie.

But what do the Big Bang have to do with evolution and abiogenesis?

Evolution is biology, abiogenesis is chemistry and biochemistry. Both are only relate to studies of life on Earth.

Evolution is not biology. Biology actually refutes evolution

Abiogenesis is abut life evolving from earths elements. Life can't originate from lifeless chemicals. l It is biologically impossible.

If we had living specimens of alien organisms...cool. But we don't, so anything scientists write or talk about extraterrestrial life outside of earth, are purely conjectures...for now.

The Big Bang only relate to how particles and atoms form in the early universe, which later form large structures like stars (and galaxies), later still, of planets.

Then you need to elain how these particles and atoms originated.

]The Big Bang theory is more in the fields within physics (astrophysics, particle physics, astronomy, etc). The Big Bang isn't biology.

The BB is evolutionary hocus pocus. There is no scientific evidence for it.

]So please, I would advise you to understand the distinctions, and do a little reading what the Big Bang actually explain.

The wiser course for you, is to ask questions of things you don't know. There is no shame, if you don't understand something, to say "I don't know". That's better than to pretend like omega2xx, who continually claim to know things when he really don't know.

Right agree with the evos or you don't understand. You don't even know basic genetics. You can't explain how life began, the origin of matter and energy, but you talk like you know. I can, but like you I have to accept what I believe be faith alone. The difference is, I admit it, you won't.

 

[gnostic]

I understand the distinctions very well. Most atheists believe in the Big Bang theory, abiogenesis and macro-evolution. Hence, what I said.

I don't know about abiogenesis, because it is still relatively new field of biochemistry.

But with evolution and the Big Bang, a lot of Christians and Jews, Hindus, and other theists accept them to be true.

And only a small minority of Christians, the ones that follow literal young earth creationism, and the adherents of pseudoscience ID distinguish evolution as being "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution".

I think you are ignorant if only atheists accept evolution and the Big Bang.

And the Big Bang cosmology have been accepted by the largest single Christian sect in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, and that's including popes.

Pope Pius XII, a contemporary of Georges Lemaître, was one of the popes to accept the Big Bang cosmology.

Lemaître was one of the early pioneers to the Big Bang (the other pioneer was the Russian Alexander Friedmann, who presented his hypothesis on expanding universe in 1922, 5 years before Lemaître's), was not only Belgian astrophysicist, but also a Catholic priest.

Pius was so proud of the fact that his own priest was a founder to BB, that he declared that Catholic Church was champion of BB. Pius withdrew this declaration, when Lemaître told the pope, not to make it a contest between atheism and theism. Lemaître told the pope that his discovery was his work as physicist, not as a catholic priest.

The current pope, today, accepted both the Big Bang theory and theory of evolution, without the stupid non-scientific distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution.

Science have nothing to do with atheism and theism.

 

[omega2xx]

Or you've brainwashed into thinking it's not real science because it doesn't reinforce your preconceived religious beliefs.

I was anti-evolution long befre became a creatinist. I rejected that silly idea when I was about 16.

So let's see, we've got thousands of scientists all over the world experimenting and testing, making testable predictions and taking careful measurements and observations for the last 150+ years, replicating and compiling enough data to make evolution a robust and comprehensive scientific theory that is accepted by all major scientific organizations throughout the world. Then we've got omega2xx on a religious forum declaring that all of these people have no idea what they're talking about and that anyone who accepts these careful measurements and observations as real science to be brainwashed idiots. Hmmmm. Please tell us how biology, genomics, genetics, comparative anatomy, botany, paleobotany, paleontology, etc. are not real science.

The are real science. I love all of them. They all refute evolution, especially biology and genetics.

P.S. If what you say above is true, these creation scientists that you speak of should have no problem positing their own hypothesis and reinforcing it with their careful observations and measurements and falsifying the theory of evolution should have been easily done long ago. Instead, you guys spend all your time trying to tear down the TOE, erroneously thinking that if you can destroy it, your religious beliefs will suddenly be true. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.[/QUOTE]

The ICR has been doing that for over 40 years. If you aren't afraid to have your religion shown to be unscientific, check them out some time. They are much more scientific than talk origins.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is not biology. Biology actually refutes evolution

Only ignorant creationists believe such nonsense.

Evolution is explanation of natural and biological mechanisms of HOW life evolved, over time.

You are wrong, most biologists do accept the ToE.

Your ignorance and lack of honesty has already been noted.

Sorry, but what would a 16 year or younger, know much about biology, omega2xx? Not enough to give any weights on the matter. And clearly you don't have much education in science.

Have you studied biology beyond high school science?

You keep evading questions regarding to your education history and actual qualifications. It is very clear to everyone here that you are not biologist.

 

[omega2xx]

Only ignorant creationists believe such nonsense.

Evolution is explanation of natural and biological mechanisms of HOW life evolved, over time.

It is an explanaion not based on science.

You are wrong, most biologists do accept the ToE.

I have not said most are not.

Your ignorance and lack of honesty has already been noted.

The dishonest remark of those ignorant of real science. You can't prove one thing the TOE preaches so how is being ignorant and dishonest.

Sorry, but what would a 16 year or younger, know much about biology, omega2xx? Not enough to give any weights on the matter. And clearly you don't have much education in science.

Even a cave man with a low 2 digit IQ can see all life, animal and plant life, could not have come from one source. One doesn't need a degree in biology to know that is impossible. You don't even know what the first lief form was, so ho can you know what it evolved into. The evo guess as to what the first life from was rejects evolution, if you really understood genetics.

Have you studied biology beyond high school science?

Not necessary. I have read what both sides say, and to date no evolution explanation, include evidence for what they say. He is you chance to prove me wrong and provided the evidence for natural selection. Then show the biology that causes the nose of a land animal to become the blowhole of a sea creature. If you want to talk about dishonesty, start with your whale "exerts."


Creation scientist show where evolution is not based on science.

You keep evading questions regarding to your education history and actual qualifications. It is very clear to everyone here that you are not biologist.

I have a BS in Business Administration. To graduate we had to have 2 ologies. I took zoology and archeology. You don't need a degree in science to understand basic science. I can read above a 12 grade level and understand what I read.

So now tell me what is your educational background.

 

[Reggie Miller]

I don't know about abiogenesis, because it is still relatively new field of biochemistry.

But with evolution and the Big Bang, a lot of Christians and Jews, Hindus, and other theists accept them to be true.

And only a small minority of Christians, the ones that follow literal young earth creationism, and the adherents of pseudoscience ID distinguish evolution as being "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution".

I think you are ignorant if only atheists accept evolution and the Big Bang.

And the Big Bang cosmology have been accepted by the largest single Christian sect in the world, the Roman Catholic Church, and that's including popes.

Pope Pius XII, a contemporary of Georges Lemaître, was one of the popes to accept the Big Bang cosmology.

Lemaître was one of the early pioneers to the Big Bang (the other pioneer was the Russian Alexander Friedmann, who presented his hypothesis on expanding universe in 1922, 5 years before Lemaître's), was not only Belgian astrophysicist, but also a Catholic priest.

Pius was so proud of the fact that his own priest was a founder to BB, that he declared that Catholic Church was champion of BB. Pius withdrew this declaration, when Lemaître told the pope, not to make it a contest between atheism and theism. Lemaître told the pope that his discovery was his work as physicist, not as a catholic priest.

The current pope, today, accepted both the Big Bang theory and theory of evolution, without the stupid non-scientific distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution.

Science have nothing to do with atheism and theism.

I never said that only atheists believe these things, but only that most atheists do.

I believe God's word. That includes the entire book of Genesis. I don't care how old the Earth is, it doesn't matter to me. I don't believe anyone or anything that contradicts anything in the 66 main books of the Bible, I don't care what anyone else says.

No one can prove the Genesis account of creation is incorrect because it is correct. It is impossible for God to lie.

Now you know where I stand.

 

[gnostic]

The dishonest remark of those ignorant of real science. You can't prove one thing the TOE preaches so how is being ignorant and dishonest.

I have a BS in Business Administration. To graduate we had to have 2 ologies. I took zoology and archeology. You don't need a degree in science to understand basic science. I can read above a 12 grade level and understand what I read.

I agreed that you don't have to have any degree in science.

I am not scientist. I have never claim to be one. I am more of engineer than a scientist, but a lot of what I have studied, do involved in science in one form or another, which I will explain later.

But getting back to you, omega2xx.

Actually, you don't have basic understanding of science. Even I can tell that you don't know what you are talking about.

Business Administration is not a science course. And I don't understand why your BS would involved in taking zoology and archaeology, since they have no relations to Business Administration.

And just because you had taken 2 units, this zoology and this archaeology, don't make you expert in either these two different fields.

Have you actually worked as zoologist or in the field as archaeologist?

You have argued with Metis quite a lot, revealing what little education you have in the things you have been discussing. Metis' studies in anthropology, actually involved in archaeology, and have actually worked in the fields. So, I think your one-subject in archaeology don't beat Metis' years of experiences in the field.

Science involved more than just understanding the theories.

If you actually study science at all, that reading and understanding theories only constitute 35-40% of science, the rest involved in experiments and testings...unless you are a theoretical physicist.

Theoretical physicist, don't involved much of tests or experiments, because a large part of their time, involved in finding mathematical solutions (eg solving mathematical equations, hence PROOF).

Evolution is not theoretical science, it's empirical science.

Your wilful ignorance is not recognising that there are ample evidences to support evolution (that's why it is not theoretical), and I don't mean just fossils. Anyone involved in biological researches, particularly in modern medicine and pathology, especially in the areas of vaccines and antibiotics, have to have solid grounding in evolution, in order to understand viruses and viral diseases.

So now tell me what is your educational background.

I have actually several times already, I did two different courses:

1. Civil Engineering (1984 - 1987)
2. Computer Science (1996 - 1999)

Both courses are bachelors in Applied Science, one majoring .

And both involved in a lot of (applied) physics and (applied) mathematics. My civil engineering course does involved chemistry too, but also a fraction of the course did involve some biology, none of them involved me learning evolution.

Engineering Materials, involved me to learn have some knowledge about woods, which can be materials used in construction. The other essential subject, Soil Engineering involved in me learning that organic materials can be mixed in with foundation, eg organic matters in clay. None of these require me to know about evolution.

I have many interests, and when I want to understand them, particularly in science, I would just purchase a textbook, read and understand them. My knowledge in evolution in just reading biology textbook, which I had borrowed back in 2004-2005, as well as understanding the pioneer work of Charles Darwin, in Origin of Species.

It doesn't make me an expert in biology, especially in evolution, but I can understand what I read, and even in areas, which I don't understand, I am not afraid to admit that "I don't know", and attempt to understand, by asking someone who do know biology.

One of my childhood dream, was being an astronomer, but in high school, I realise that there are not many places where I can study astronomy. But that didn't lessen my interest in astronomy, so if I want to learn astronomy, I had to learn them in my free time, by borrowing or buying textbooks on the subject.

And when I mean "textbook", I mean what high school and university used in their studies, not books that you could purchased from Popular Science section in bookshops. These books in Popular Science are mainly directed at general mass, where people don't require science to read. I have not touch these books since I was a teenager, because they are generally not reliable or useful.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Evolution is not biology. Biology actually refutes evolution

Absolutely preposterous. Do you know, for instance, that the full title of "Evolution" is the "Theory of Biological Evolution"?

But please. Do explain to us the purpose of the appendix, or wisdom teeth, if evolution is so refuted by biology.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I was anti-evolution long befre became a creatinist. I rejected that silly idea when I was about 16.

Then you rejected them BEFORE you had the educational opportunity to actually learn anything about them. Do you do this with all topics?

Please tell us how biology, genomics, genetics, comparative anatomy, botany, paleobotany, paleontology, etc. are not real science.

The are real science. I love all of them. They all refute evolution, especially biology and genetics.

And this is simply and patently false -- as in untrue. All of them, by a very, very large majority, support, not refute evolution. You simply do not actually know what you are talking about, and yet speak as if you had some actual authority -- which you clearly do not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Anybody can write all that they like about the "science" being done by ICR (Institute for Creation Research) and other such entities, but the reality is this: their notion of "science" has been tested in court, under the rigorous rules of evidence (see Kitzmiller et al v. Dover), and found to be not science at all. There is a reason for that -- even with the dedicated help of Behe himself, they simply could not make a case even before a Christian, non-scientific judge (a Republican, by the way, appointed by George W. Bush).

To show you how silly the defense was, the primary witness, Behe, was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. He uin fact conceded, during his testimony in favour of ID, that "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." In response to a question about astrology, he explained: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well."

The judge was quite rightly dismissive. These are facts, and the quotes are from the trial records. I know that the anti-evolutionists can't stand this, but I would hope that they could -- if nothing else -- at least try honesty. I understand that honesty has been said to be "the best policy."

 

[Jose Fly]

Anybody can write all that they like about the "science" being done by ICR (Institute for Creation Research) and other such entities, but the reality is this: their notion of "science" has been tested in court, under the rigorous rules of evidence (see Kitzmiller et al v. Dover), and found to be not science at all.

Not only that, but there's the fact that creationism hasn't contributed a single thing to our scientific understanding in at least the last 100 years. It remains 100% scientifically irrelevant.