Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Oneatatime]

Perhaps you need to get over yourself a little. I have heard it all before.

I am not here to disprove TOE to evolutionists, my dear.

I am here to illustrate that skepticism is not solely the realm of the uncredentialed. The examples I put forward are to illustrate WHY creationists have ample reason to be skeptical of the claims and assertions that TOE makes.

It is people like you that live in Wonderland, nursing the garbage bin of delusionary, irrefuteable evidence past, with no ability to comprehend what the resulting scene may look like to others.

Everyone should be skeptical of scientific theories because it is skepticism which keeps science on its toes and opposes intellectual complacency. If you believe that scientists are lacking in skepticism then I suggest that you pick up a copy of Nature and read the lively debates going on between scientists. Even core aspects such as natural selection and genetic drift are subject to extensive experimentation, modelling and debate to establish the their relative influence on evolution under different circumstances,

 

[Onlooker]

Here is a post by Dirty_Penguin in another thread that I started:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

There is an illustration at the link I provided but think of it this way...Your dad and your mom passed on some of their genetic traits to you. You and your wife will pass on your traits to your children and in turn they will pass on their traits along with the traits of their respective husband or wife to their children...and so on and so on.....

Evolution is not about the "origin" (per se) of life. It's helpful to remember that as you enter into the various evolution debates here at RF.


the link provided was here: An introduction to evolution

Now, with THIS knowledge of Evolution, what, about the Theory of Evolution, do you disagree with and why? NOTE: I am not asking about any disagreement that you have with YOUR understanding of evolution; I am asking about what aspect of TOE, as defined above, do you disagree with and why?

Hey, great question. In my opinion, its 'purpose'. Strictly sticking with your question and its boundaries, its purpose and design. That is to say, none of its by accident. The cryptic information that drives the "descent" was a purposeful robust code, a living language that responds to not only environmental changes (nylon,citrate digestion/utilization through predetermined "tools") but to internal changes (behavior may very well encode information for "future" generations).
One more aspect that is deeply hidden in the word "descent", is the time that "evolutionist" need to prove/explain a gradual descent. The punctuated burst of life in certain time frames have been difficult to explain, that is to say, its easier to believe geological time frames (slow moving tectonic plates) than a new event that occurred in 4-10 generation time frames. "Creationist" believe in this punctuated explosion of new species during certain time frames , yes i know, the whole faith/magic man/ignorant believer/clueless hopeful/opiated minion-masses/narcotized nitwit etc.....it is what it is.

 

[barek333]

Everyone should be skeptical of scientific theories because it is skepticism which keeps science on its toes and opposes intellectual complacency. If you believe that scientists are lacking in skepticism then I suggest that you pick up a copy of Nature and read the lively debates going on between scientists. Even core aspects such as natural selection and genetic drift are subject to extensive experimentation, modelling and debate to establish the their relative influence on evolution under different circumstances,

Exactly. In the science lab where I am currently doing my Master Thesis we have a session once a week for 2-3 hours when the professor, all the PhD and all graduate students that work in the lab get together and one of us does a lecture/interpretation of a science article they found interesting. After that we all discuss what was good and what was wrong in that article, what could the results from it be used for in the future etc.. All that is done so that we(students), and even the professor get a better insight in other areas of science, see things from other perspective, and learn to think critically..and so on. Just last week we completely trashed one article that had a good concept but the graphs that showed the result were poorly done cos of the wrong interpretation of some statistics method that the person writing the article probably wasnt very familiar with. The article of course is still valid and stands like that but we sent an e-mail to the person explaining how his results actually give a bit different graph so he can correct it it and know how to do it in the future. And of course we got a response from him couple of days later in which he thanked us for the observation.

 

[Oneatatime]

Exactly. In the science lab where I am currently doing my Master Thesis we have a session once a week for 2-3 hours when the professor, all the PhD and all graduate students that work in the lab get together and one of us does a lecture/interpretation of a science article they found interesting. After that we all discuss what was good and what was wrong in that article, what could the results from it be used for in the future etc.. All that is done so that we(students), and even the professor get a better insight in other areas of science, see things from other perspective, and learn to think critically..and so on. Just last week we completely trashed one article that had a good concept but the graphs that showed the result were poorly done cos of the wrong interpretation of some statistics method that the person writing the article probably wasnt very familiar with. The article of course is still valid and stands like that but we sent an e-mail to the person explaining how his results actually give a bit different graph so he can correct it it and know how to do it in the future. And of course we got a response from him couple of days later in which he thanked us for the observation.

I completed my MSc back in 2006 and I really miss being able to have those kind of critical discussions of science.

 

[painted wolf]

Exactly. In the science lab where I am currently doing my Master Thesis we have a session once a week for 2-3 hours when the professor, all the PhD and all graduate students that work in the lab get together and one of us does a lecture/interpretation of a science article they found interesting. After that we all discuss what was good and what was wrong in that article, what could the results from it be used for in the future etc.. All that is done so that we(students), and even the professor get a better insight in other areas of science, see things from other perspective, and learn to think critically..and so on. Just last week we completely trashed one article that had a good concept but the graphs that showed the result were poorly done cos of the wrong interpretation of some statistics method that the person writing the article probably wasnt very familiar with. The article of course is still valid and stands like that but we sent an e-mail to the person explaining how his results actually give a bit different graph so he can correct it it and know how to do it in the future. And of course we got a response from him couple of days later in which he thanked us for the observation.

Man I can't wait to get to do this again. :yes:

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Everyone should be skeptical of scientific theories because it is skepticism which keeps science on its toes and opposes intellectual complacency. If you believe that scientists are lacking in skepticism then I suggest that you pick up a copy of Nature and read the lively debates going on between scientists. Even core aspects such as natural selection and genetic drift are subject to extensive experimentation, modelling and debate to establish the their relative influence on evolution under different circumstances,

Yes I know there is debate, and many researchers can look at same evidence and disagree. I have said as much many many times. However evo scientists propose another scientific evolutionary hypothesis.

A creationist can likewise disagree in the hypothesis made of the evidence, however they do not have another evolutionary hypothesis to propose and they are belittled for not accepting the status quo.

Creationists have good reason for their skepticism or disbelieve in the current theories and assumptions made of evidence re TOE, and it is an informed decision for most.

 

[Oneatatime]

Yes I know there is debate, and many researchers can look at same evidence and disagree. I have said as much many many times. However evo scientists propose another scientific evolutionary hypothesis.

A creationist can likewise disagree in the hypothesis made of the evidence, however they do not have another evolutionary hypothesis to propose and they are belittled for not accepting the status quo.

Creationists have good reason to base their skepticism or disbelieve in the current theories and assumptions made of evidence, and it is an informed decision for most.

Can you list some testable hypotheses for creationism please

 

[camanintx]

A creationist can likewise disagree in the hypothesis made of the evidence, however they do not have another evolutionary hypothesis to propose and they are belittled for not accepting the status quo.

If they do not have another hypothesis to present, then they should be belittled. It's not enough just to say evolution is wrong, they have to present an alternative that does better. So far, they have failed miserably.

 

[McBell]

Can you list some testable hypotheses for creationism please

All she has is "the Bible says..."

 

[McBell]

If they do not have another hypothesis to present, then they should be belittled. It's not enough just to say evolution is wrong, they have to present an alternative that does better. So far, they have failed miserably.

They should probably start with one that can stand up on its own.

 

[Onlooker]

Can you list some testable hypotheses for creationism please

Hi, a little late in this forum. But what do you mean by testable hypothesis? Can you give an example of a testable hypothesis on evolution (is that what this discussion is about?).

 

[painted wolf]

Hi, a little late in this forum. But what do you mean by testable hypothesis? Can you give an example of a testable hypothesis on evolution (is that what this discussion is about?).

Is this going to be a fair trade or an excuse to not answer?

If it's fair trade then... one testable hypothesis on evolution is: mutations can provide novel and useful traits that can help a species survive in changing environmental conditions.

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about creationism? Your turn.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

Because your well credentialed scientists can look at the same evidence and disagree. Meaning they are all as clear as mud when it comes to Toe.

The chaos theory of evolution - life - 18 October 2010 - New Scientist

That darned evolution. It acts just like all the rest of science. So if this is what you object to, you must also object to all of the rest of science.

 

[Onlooker]

Is this going to be a fair trade or an excuse to not answer?

If it's fair trade then... one testable hypothesis on evolution is: mutations can provide novel and useful traits that can help a species survive in changing environmental conditions.

E. coli Long-term Experimental Evolution Project Site
E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about creationism? Your turn.

wa:do

I dont know about a fair trade, Im still in the learning phase.
So the question is for the "theory" of creation as compared to "theory" of evolution.
Your examples are for the microevolution instead of the macroevolution.
I guess my point is, what is the theory of creationism. We know ToE. But what is the collective theory on "creationism"?
How do you guys argue on something that every religion defines slightly different?
There needs to be a standard.
My version (7^10 power ver. 3.5.2011) has the "theory" as a directed life population (all life) on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe that was also directed.
The mechanism of the life population was through directed DNA/RNA involvement.
The peak of that life population is Homo Sapiens and the end reason is for communication with the Creator.
Testability of all the really cool parts is impossible, but then again the first presupposition of ToE is that a single cell that was able to reproduce was already there is not testable.
So I agree with your examples, it does prove that DNA is involved, its a powerful machine and we are still learning how it all works.
I honestly don't know what you or any of the other educated thinkers are looking for in testability of the metaphysics involved in both theories.
If for example we state that creationist will agree with evolutionist that DNA was involved in the population of our planet, what other tests are there.
Macroevolution may eventually have a rock solid DNA induced branch of life in the lab (I hope is a fuzzy dog like porpoise that fetches junk when I surf), we will all drop our jaws in amazment, until then, still not very testable.
As noted earlier, abiogensis will not even be mentioned (sorry, the fuzzy porpoise got me pumped), so I best not explore Gods words on how and why he started all this mess.
So no testable parts on my metaphysical beliefs, but you sir, have none either (where did that cell come from?, how much time actually does it take for macroevolution?).

 

[Autodidact]

Facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new FUNCTION (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.

All you can do is cite supposed "novel genes", but you can't cite "novel functions" because you say that takes time, well that's speculation, that's blind faith.

O.K. If I do, will it have any effect on your position? Also, will you accept the per-reviewed, published scientific articles that describe it?

 

[Autodidact]

Why is everyone most of the time agreeing with each other?

Because we subscribe to the scientific method.

Its like every Darwinist is on this forum and saying, "dude, thats totally what I think,your right!". Whats with that.

using the scientific method enables the scientific community to reach consensus on basic scientific knowledge. Neat, eh?

One key thing you guys are doing wrong is already expecting the big bang theory is 100% fact

why on earth would you bring up astronomy in a thread about Biology? Did you read the OP? Did it say anything about Big Bang?

If I am not mistaken doesn't evolution depend on a dense ball of matter exploding and turning into what we know as the universe today.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Aside from that any logical person could see that none of you are being logical. You say "cite credible facts" did by any chance you look over the facts given. Granted there were few but they were there.

Which ones?

Ok I have one heck of a question for all you Darwinists out there,

- What are the chances a none living piece of matter can create a living piece of matter.

I have a question for you. Why would you bring this question in a thread about evolution, which has nothing to do with that?

The answer: ZERO % chance. it is scientifically,mathematically, philosophically etc.. IMPOSSIBLE for something biological to originate from a none living piece of what ever.

Really? Please show your math.

If this dense matter actually did explode, where did this biological matter come from.

From the existing matter.

And if someone says the dense piece of matter did have bio mass in it I will insist on knowing where in the cosmos did that come from.

Things change. Reference Biochemistry. Ever study it?

My blowing isn't it?

Yes, you are.

now you can stop this unnecessary little organism talk and think about how it got there.

How organisms get here?

Now if anyone can possibly rebuttal this argument I would love to hear it, because after all this forum is for coming to an understanding. :angel2:

As soon as you say something about evolution, I'll be happy to respond to it. May I suggest you first learn what it is? You might find it helpful, so you don't appear like a total ignoramus with no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps it is not so much about disproving evolution as it is about having robust reasons to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm as the process that resulted in life on earth.

Scientific journals now document many scientific problems and criticisms of evolutionary theory and students need to know about these as well. … Many of the scientific criticisms of which I speak are well known by scientists in various disciplines, including the disciplines of chemistry and biochemistry, in which I have done my work."
Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

chemist. Dead.

Dr. Raul Leguizamon, Pathologist, and a Professor of Medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico

doctor.

Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

Dr. Philip S. Skell, Member National Academy of Sciences, Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University

Same guy as the first time.

Dr. Michael Egnor professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

doctor.

"I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science."

Dr. Rebecca Keller, Biophysical Chemistry

Chemist. Doesn't disagree with ToE.

"To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic."
Dr. Russell Carlson, Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology at University of Georgia

No disagreement there.

So you can't find a single Biologists who disagrees with ToE?

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php　

Let’s not forget Henry Schaefer, a well credentialed scientist, regardless of whether or not he is a Nobel Prize winner.

Another chemist.

　

It appears that the majority of evolutionists on RF are simply in denial. There are many skeptics and they are not all uneducated, nor ignorant.

Nor are they Biologists. Which, I'm sure you'll agree, is the only kind of expertise that matters.

Wow, not a single Biologist who rejects the theory. It's almost as though Biology has reached consensus on this issue. Oh wait, it has. A hundred years ago.

 

[Autodidact]

Granted I have not done as much of my homework as compared to a few of you, but you're all simply getting tied up on the details. Explosion, expanssion, who gives a ****, same thing is happening. Hot dense mass or state, same frekin thing.

So you're actively promoting ignorance?

And Iasion as clearly not done any of his homework because apparently
the score so far :

Evolution :
MILLIONS in support
ZERO against

Creationism :
NONE in favour
Many against

Zero and none? Really dude? Man, if I didn't do my research you have done jack.
And if new hope is still pushing lies why don't you prove her wrong. Isn't that what scientists do? Bring opposing and more compelling evidence to the table.

the Theory of Evolution has made millions of predictions. They were borne out, and corroborated ToE, every time. Millions of times. That's why the science of Biology came to accept it as the fundamental theory.

 

[outhouse]

Im still in the learning phase.

but driving down the wrong road.

So the question is for the "theory" of creation as compared

LOL there is NO theory for creation, not even a real hypothesis.

It is however called the creation myth

I honestly don't know what you or any of the other educated thinkers are looking for in testability of the metaphysics involved in both theories

were not trying to guess at myths here. educated people dont try and test for a myth either.

 

[Onlooker]

but driving down the wrong road.



LOL there is NO theory for creation, not even a real hypothesis.

It is however called the creation myth



were not trying to guess at myths here. educated people dont try and test for a myth either.

Your assumption is that my myth doesnt involve science (as in the above DNA/RNA population of ALL life).
Im agreeing with your (wait a second, i really dont know what your beliefs are) so Im agreeing with the DNA based propagation of life. Why cant my theory of creation be similar, the difference is purpose and some explanation of the metaphysics that all on this RF groups adhere to (life came from somewhere [dont mention abiogenesis, it gets people riled]).
The wrong road is cuz i never look at the dang map, and the stupid gps is going to put me in mexico city when im driving to houston.