The Fallacy of being Creationism into schools

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Evolution isn't a hypothesis though, it is a bonafide scientific theory backed by mountains of evidence that are provided from multiple disciplines of science.

So let’s examine this so called “evidence”.

And what more proof does "God spoke and it happen" have over the Great Spirit breathing from a cave that all life emerged from? Or if you want to teach everyone came from two people who lived in a garden that was shared with a talking snake that apparently must have also had legs, why not teach a great sword was drawn from the ocean and the coral that fell from the sword created land masses?

I think an entire chapter should cover the ID theory. It shouldn’t be religious based on any particular deity, leaving the student to make up their own mind. This isn’t too much to ask, considering that evolution is being taught as an absolute fact despite most of what it covers has already been proven wrong, yet it is still continued to be taught

If you are going to teach the entire world was flooded with just 40 days of rain, with this water just mysteriously appearing and then vanishing, why not teach that a Titan, or turtle, carries the world on their back?

This is assuming that I am advocating for Christian ID, which isn’t the case at all.

You can dislike it, but the fact is evolution is science, and creationism is not.

Evolution is science? But I thought “observation” was part of the scientific method? Have you observed any animal produce a different kind of animal? I am not talking about “micro” evolution, but macroevolution. Have you observed ANY KIND OF ANIMAL produce an animal different than what it is…such as a dog producing a non-dog?? If you haven’t, then this isn’t science.

You cannot test for god creating and dictating the world, you cannot test for a Garden of Eden and literal Adam and Eve, and you cannot establish a proper scientific model for creationism.

And who is suggesting that the God hypothesis is made up for scientific inquiry? Not me. There is no scientific evidence which would lead us to believe that all living species share a common ancestor. This is pure unjustifiable speculation.

Evolution on the other hand has evidence based on knowledge of genetic replication

How does genetic replication prove that every species that has every existed share a common ancestor with a “grandpa” that lived millions and millions of years ago?

and sexual/asexual reproduction

My son’s mother gave birth to him. He didn’t “evolve” from her. How does sexual/asexual reproduction prove that both my son and his mother share a common ancestor with a aquatic whale?

the fossil record

How does a fossil in the dirt prove that the fossil that is in the dirt evolved from or into anything that lived before it or after it? Voodoo science.

Psychology

How does psychology prove evolution?

and is happening all around us as I type this post and as you read it (if you read it that is). Humans are getting taller, bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to anti-biotics with entirely new (and some of them currently untreatable) strains of bacteria
, and even dogs have in a since evolved to evolve and to be an ideal companion for human culture.

How does all these things prove that we all share a common ancestor?

Really the best thing you can do is to pick up a biology text book and read all you can about genetics.

Genetics doesn’t prove evolution.

Once you have a solid basic understanding of DNA and it's replication, including the fact that often times the coding gets switched around, omitted, added to, and a myriad of other things that can and do happen

You are right, a lot of things can and do happen. But there are limits. You won’t get changes that will allow for one animal to become a completely different kind of animal.

the rest of evolution is very easy to see and predictable as it becomes obvious as to why the fossil record puts different species only during certain time periods

Every species is limited to its own kind.

why so many different species look alike

Right, all cats look alike. There may be different species, but they all look like cats to me.

and why some that seem entirely different

Some dogs hunt in packs, others are solitary. Some cultures of people love rice. Some cultures love burritos. Some love fried chicken. So what?

 

[RedJamaX]

We can experiment with gravity...we can demonstrate it...we can observe it. That is the scientific method, unlike evolution. The only thing we know is that animals produce different varieties within their own kind. That is why we have big dogs, little dogs, hairy dogs, ugly dogs...but they are all DOGS. That is "micro-evolution" (if anything). That can/has been observed. That is a fact. What is NOT a fact is the notion that the dog of today came from a non-dog of yesterday. That is not science, that is voodoo speculation.

Wrong... All dogs evolved from wolves (non-dogs), or other dogs.

Also, gravity is one of those 4 main forces that are always discussed in science, even by the theologians that want to use it to discount "probably" of our universe (see my previous post for the contradiction of applying "odds" to natural processes).

What they don't tell you, or more likely, don't understand... is that gravity doesn't work in all the models used to explain any or all of the other major forces (electromagnetic, strong-nuclear, weak-nuclear). The other three forces can be mapped, tracked, experimented with and calculated with exacting precision in all areas of science an incredible level of accuracy...

But, when you add gravity into the mix, none of the math works! Gravity, when experimented with on it's own works fine... but that's it. And that's why we know more about evolution than we do know about gravity.

PLEASE NOTE - To all people who fully understand this relation between the forces... I realize there is way more to it than what I presented, and I personally will admit that I do not understand the finer details, so if you feel the need to over-explain, go a head, but take in mind the audience being argued with are the individuals who take scientific advice from people like William Lane Craig and Kent Hovind.

 

[RedJamaX]

I think an entire chapter should cover the ID theory

Why would you need an entire chapter to say "God did it."??

On a more serious note... Everything in Science has to be tested and proven over the period of many many years before it even makes it into a school book. Not only is ID NOT SCIENCE, but even if it was, the proponents for ID are trying to skip all of the necessary testing an proof of concept over many years of analysis before it makes it into the science books.

Example...

School books still teach that in plate tectonics, the major plates are "pushed" apart by the places where magma comes up between the plates. 10 years ago (or so) it was discovered that the plates actually "sink" back into the mantle. The weight of the plates on the earth crust pull the plates back into the earth (in places like the Marianas Trench, which pulls the plates apart from one another and that's how the magma rises to the surface.

Why should Intelligent Design get a free pass?? In fact, why should any thing with a religious basis to it get any kind of free pass?? Churches don't have to pay taxes... Child rapists are set free as long as they are clergy members... even every religious believer holds their own beliefs to a different set of logical standards than any other aspect of their own lives.

 

[Ouroboros]

Why would you need an entire chapter to say "God did it."??

And the funny thing is that in the anthropology classes I've taken, intelligent design and creationism were brought up and talked about. It took about 10-15 minutes. The teachers explained why ID isn't a scientific theory since it can't be tested or falsified.

The whole discussion about "ID must be taught in science class" is BS, because it is talked about, but there's nothing there to talk about except concluding it's a belief and it doesn't explain any natural things. Science is about what can be explained with natural means, not supernatural god-like beings. Those things belong in religion class or Sunday school.

 

[RedJamaX]

So let’s examine this so called “evidence”.
...
So what?

So, here is the fundamental problem with the way theists always approach their arguments against science. You're entire previous rebuttal is ignorant crap.

Evolutionary Theory is viewed a the collective analysis of an entire natural process. Every argument I hear from theists trying to disprove some kind of scientific fact, always take one very specific, and incomplete point, and then they argue against their misunderstanding of specific point. That's called a straw-man argument, by the way. The other problem with this tactic is that those individuals can never actually looks at all of the facts collectively and see how they all point to a single conclusion.

 

[RedJamaX]

And the funny thing is that in the anthropology classes I've taken, intelligent design and creationism were brought up and talked about. It took about 10-15 minutes. The teachers explained why ID isn't a scientific theory since it can't be tested or falsified.

The whole discussion about "ID must be taught in science class" is BS, because it is talked about, but there's nothing there to talk about except concluding it's a belief and it doesn't explain any natural things. Science is about what can be explained with natural means, not supernatural god-like beings. Those things belong in religion class or Sunday school.

I recently watched a lecture presented by the main I.D. researcher. I like to still watch debates and give the other side a chance to present... well, anything that could be conceived as convincing evidence... even plausible evidence...

It's on YouTube and he is trying to get more I.D. research to spread in the UK (ha ha, good luck with that, they all think the US is nucking futz for the amount of religious crap we have here already)

The "claim" he made is that what has been commonly viewed as "Junk DNA" is actually what could be identified as "programming code"... kind of like a how a Programming Language allows for a program to be processed and executed in software. Now, while I still think I.D. is crap, I find this very interesting and it would be very cool to have some scientists look further into that to see if there is anything to that claim.

But, even IF that junk DNA provides some kind of lower-level interpretation of how the operations inside the cell are coordinated... that still doesn't provide any more leverage toward the "God did it" hypothesis... Or the "design" hypothesis at all really.

In fact, if there is any validity to their claims... the question they should be asking is... "How did this happen naturally?"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I typed out a lengthy response, but lost power, and my post. But responses like this:

Evolution is science? But I thought “observation” was part of the scientific method? Have you observed any animal produce a different kind of animal? I am not talking about “micro” evolution, but macroevolution. Have you observed ANY KIND OF ANIMAL produce an animal different than what it is…such as a dog producing a non-dog?? If you haven’t, then this isn’t science.

How does genetic replication prove that every species that has every existed share a common ancestor with a “grandpa” that lived millions and millions of years ago?

My son’s mother gave birth to him. He didn’t “evolve” from her. How does sexual/asexual reproduction prove that both my son and his mother share a common ancestor with a aquatic whale?

You are right, a lot of things can and do happen. But there are limits. You won’t get changes that will allow for one animal to become a completely different kind of animal.

Demonstrate you do not have a strong understanding of evolution. You also show a lack of understanding in genetics, which is a must for understanding evolution. Evolution is a theory based in genetics, so there is no getting around learning about genetics to have a good grasp of evolution.
You also seem to be unwilling to accept that evolution does not happen over night, and that it is anything less than species a becoming species b in the gap on one generation. In reality for the descendants of species a to even get close to species b takes the sum of all changes within a species across it's entire existence (micro-evolution), which gradually produces new species (macro-evolution). Evolution happens every time a parent has a child. Evolution happens when that child has children, and those children have their own children. There is no "poof" and here is a new species, but it is the collective changes over many generations that add differences to the gene pool that are passed to the next generation. Another change is added, and another, and another, and even then it is still often difficult to discern one species from another (back to the color spectrum example). What those voodoo fossils prove is that the further back in time you go, the fewer species there where. If we find no land animals past a certain point, but find evidence of aquatic life, then where did land animals come from if they did not evolve from aquatic life? And why do we find transitional fossils indicating a transition in which the earlier land mammals had many aquatic features, but not only that why some aquatic animals have bone structures similar to land animals if some land animals did not go back to the sea? But you must keep in mind, this is not one generation and presto-chango it's done, it's not even two, or three, and not even ten.

 

[Thief]

I laugh hearing Christians state how "Creationism" must be brought into schools. The issue with this is that Creationism is used as a cover up word for Biblical Dogmatism.

Why would only Biblical "Creationism" be taught in schools? Why exclude Islamic, Shinto, Hellenism and the varying Dharmic creationist stories?

The fact has already been proven that the Biblical account of Adam and Eve yet alone Moses, Noah, Abraham and Isaac never existed.

There is no reason to have "Creationism" taught in public schools as it is only a form of Christianity breaking the 1st Amendment.
Creationism by no means implies a scientific claim of any sorts. It is only used as a way of the Bible Literalists to have fables taught as scientific objectionable material.

Why are so many other form of "Creationism" excluded.

Well.....someone had to be first.
At some 'point'.....Man took a step the rest of the animal world did not.

And the story indicates we had some help.

 

[Sha'irullah]

So let’s examine this so called “evidence”.


I think an entire chapter should cover the ID theory. It shouldn’t be religious based on any particular deity, leaving the student to make up their own mind. This isn’t too much to ask, considering that evolution is being taught as an absolute fact despite most of what it covers has already been proven wrong, yet it is still continued to be taught



This is assuming that I am advocating for Christian ID, which isn’t the case at all.



Evolution is science? But I thought “observation” was part of the scientific method? Have you observed any animal produce a different kind of animal? I am not talking about “micro” evolution, but macroevolution. Have you observed ANY KIND OF ANIMAL produce an animal different than what it is…such as a dog producing a non-dog?? If you haven’t, then this isn’t science.



And who is suggesting that the God hypothesis is made up for scientific inquiry? Not me. There is no scientific evidence which would lead us to believe that all living species share a common ancestor. This is pure unjustifiable speculation.


How does genetic replication prove that every species that has every existed share a common ancestor with a “grandpa” that lived millions and millions of years ago?



My son’s mother gave birth to him. He didn’t “evolve” from her. How does sexual/asexual reproduction prove that both my son and his mother share a common ancestor with a aquatic whale?


How does a fossil in the dirt prove that the fossil that is in the dirt evolved from or into anything that lived before it or after it? Voodoo science.


How does psychology prove evolution?


How does all these things prove that we all share a common ancestor?


Genetics doesn’t prove evolution.


You are right, a lot of things can and do happen. But there are limits. You won’t get changes that will allow for one animal to become a completely different kind of animal.


Every species is limited to its own kind.



Right, all cats look alike. There may be different species, but they all look like cats to me.


Some dogs hunt in packs, others are solitary. Some cultures of people love rice. Some cultures love burritos. Some love fried chicken. So what?

:thud: You are entirely clueless as to how Evolution works. I cannot even begin as to how many errors you have made. The differing of species does not occur after immediate birth.

If one creature impregnates another and she begot after her own kind there is to be no immediate variance of the species. Evolution is a LONG and tedious procedure on the genetic level so different species can beget better offspring and this of course will result in a genetic mutation in the long run.


You are also denying our 97% genetic similitude with orangutans of all thing!
There is truly no excuse to why one should not accept Evolution as factual.... because it is. It occurs now and has been taken note of in tropical areas where new species are formed regularly.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well.....someone had to be first.
At some 'point'.....Man took a step the rest of the animal world did not.

And the story indicates we had some help.

I very much agree with this

 

[RedJamaX]

I very much agree with this

The process is far too gradual to pin-point when humans began. Scientists (even creationists) will "draw lines in the sand", so to speak, and identify different fossils as the human... but there was never a human born from a non-human.

100,000 years ago, we humans walked the earth, but even then we were a bit different. Also, at some point there were at least 4 hominid species in the same area of Africa at the same period of time. Some anthropologists believe that inter-breeding played a part in our history as well...

Also, once we figures out how to make fire and cook our food, archaeological evidence shows that we experienced an incredible leap of intelligence in a short amount of time just from that particular discovery. So can we say that "Humans" started after the increase in brain activity, or the moment we figured out how to start a fire?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Meh...I'm not getting into this one. Reading some of these threads is enough to make my head hurt, and not in the 'Oooh, how thought provoking' kinda way.

Anyways, I read this, and found it interesting, in case anyone is interested.

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

And a TED talk I found pretty interesting...
Juan Enriquez: Will our kids be a different species? | Video on TED.com

They're not new, but they're approachable enough.

 

[RedJamaX]

The Mystery of the Missing Chromosome (With A Special Guest Appearance from Facebook Creationists) : The Loom

.

Oh right, I forgot about the fused chromosome... So I guess....

If we could pinpoint when the first chromosome two became fused... "That" would be the first human.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wrong... All dogs evolved from wolves (non-dogs), or other dogs.

Thank you for telling me your religion. I will tell you mines, all dogs (wolves included) came from our Heavenly Father who created the beasts of the land and creatures of the sea. There .

Also, gravity is one of those 4 main forces that are always discussed in science, even by the theologians that want to use it to discount "probably" of our universe (see my previous post for the contradiction of applying "odds" to natural processes).

Um, so?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And the funny thing is that in the anthropology classes I've taken, intelligent design and creationism were brought up and talked about. It took about 10-15 minutes. The teachers explained why ID isn't a scientific theory since it can't be tested or falsified.

So since ID cant be tested or falsified, that would put naturalism in a bad spot, and most scientists (in my opinion) are radical naturalists. It is a self-refuting position.

The whole discussion about "ID must be taught in science class" is BS, because it is talked about, but there's nothing there to talk about except concluding it's a belief and it doesn't explain any natural things.

That is completely false. ID does not stop science. ID is only used because creationists like myself refuse to believe that science can be used to explain the origin of nature (the universe), or the origin of life. Nothing in science can be used to explain the origin of itself...and science cannot be used to explain the origins of its own domain. The problem is when science is used in an effort to explain absolute origins. This is something that science CAN'T do.

Science is about what can be explained with natural means

No disagreements here.

not supernatural god-like beings. Those things belong in religion class or Sunday school.

And the questions of origins is not something that can be explained with natural means. You cannot use science to explain the ORIGINS of itself. You need an external cause for this. And that is: GOD.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The process is far too gradual to pin-point when humans began. Scientists (even creationists) will "draw lines in the sand", so to speak, and identify different fossils as the human... but there was never a human born from a non-human.

100,000 years ago, we humans walked the earth, but even then we were a bit different. Also, at some point there were at least 4 hominid species in the same area of Africa at the same period of time. Some anthropologists believe that inter-breeding played a part in our history as well...

Also, once we figures out how to make fire and cook our food, archaeological evidence shows that we experienced an incredible leap of intelligence in a short amount of time just from that particular discovery. So can we say that "Humans" started after the increase in brain activity, or the moment we figured out how to start a fire?

I am familiar with this theory. It is sated that the interbreeding of Homo Neanderthalensis with the Cro-Magnon resulted int he primary evolution of Homo sapiens. But I never dove much into this theory.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Oh right, I forgot about the fused chromosome... So I guess....

If we could pinpoint when the first chromosome two became fused... "That" would be the first human.

Dunno. To be honest, there wouldn't be a discernible difference, unless testing the DNA. But it would be one measure. I just don't think the 'magic spot' exists.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, here is the fundamental problem with the way theists always approach their arguments against science. You're entire previous rebuttal is ignorant crap.

Ignorant crap? I said dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish...now how is that ignorant? That is OBSERVATION. You are the one going the extra route by positing dogs coming from non-dogs and such. You have absolutely no reason to believe that unless you just don't want to accept theism as a more plausible option.

Evolutionary Theory is viewed a the collective analysis of an entire natural process.

Like?

Every argument I hear from theists trying to disprove some kind of scientific fact, always take one very specific, and incomplete point, and then they argue against their misunderstanding of specific point. That's called a straw-man argument, by the way. The other problem with this tactic is that those individuals can never actually looks at all of the facts collectively and see how they all point to a single conclusion.

Nothing that I said was false. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, bears produce bears. Have you ever seen otherwise?? So why am I to believe that the animals that I see today that are consistently producing their own kind...why am I to believe that the cycle of dogs/dogs and cats/cats ever changed, even millions of years ago when people were (conveniently) not around to see it occur?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why am I to believe that the cycle of dogs/dogs and cats/cats ever changed, even millions of years ago when people were (conveniently) not around to see it occur?

First off, it's in no way convenient. There is no reason for the scientific community to falsify evidence or make-up conclusions.
(Obviously, I am talking about the community as a whole. Individual people could do pretty much anything)
It would be much more convenient if there were people around to record what happened, or we could time travel back, or whatever. But, as you rightly point out, we can't. So we can't know, in the sense of observing in the first person.

What can be done is to form a hypothesis (or many, really...there isn't really a single Theory of Evolution), and then test it against the available evidence. And as more evidence becomes available, develop the hypothesis. In time, the hypothesis becomes sophisticated enough to actually predict accurately.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[Thief]

The process is far too gradual to pin-point when humans began. Scientists (even creationists) will "draw lines in the sand", so to speak, and identify different fossils as the human... but there was never a human born from a non-human.

100,000 years ago, we humans walked the earth, but even then we were a bit different. Also, at some point there were at least 4 hominid species in the same area of Africa at the same period of time. Some anthropologists believe that inter-breeding played a part in our history as well...

Also, once we figures out how to make fire and cook our food, archaeological evidence shows that we experienced an incredible leap of intelligence in a short amount of time just from that particular discovery. So can we say that "Humans" started after the increase in brain activity, or the moment we figured out how to start a fire?

How about the moment we learned to say...."I AM"....?