The Strange Thing about Creationism

[YmirGF]

Staggering stupidity masked as intelligent discourse is always amusing.

Loved the thingy about ancient astronauts. Yeah, that helped your credibility.

 

[Shermana]

Staggering stupidity masked at intelligent discourse is always amusing.

Loved the thingy about ancient astronauts. Yeah, that helped your credibility.

Insults and ad hominem are expected when the other side can't actually back their claims with solid facts.

I only referenced the "Ancient Astronaut" theory when told that I had no alternative to the Evolution model once I discussed some of the gaping holes in the theory, which you can read if you go back. Perhaps you can explain how rats can turn into bats, mighty mouse. They don't all fly on their own like you.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Sorry to break it to you, but telling me to type in google doesn't disprove all the things I've said, neither does telling me to go the library.

In fact, it makes it look like....you can't find it on the internet, and you're just saying "Go find the answer somewhere" as if you don't have to actually debate with sources. Do you think no one else has said this to me before? Do you think you're offering me some kind of new insight by totally ignoring everything I said and telling me to go look it up? Yeah, that's an effective debate tactic, just ignore what I say and tell me to go look it up. Nice. The fact is, the stuff is not there. There is no proof. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Your lecture is nice but it doesn't actually support the claims made by your side of the argument, and it further proves my rebuttal to the OP that Macro-evolutionists are more concerned about the anti-Creation implication than the how, where, when, and why.

I'll bet you wouldn't even know where to begin researching how bats developed flight. You'd just say "Go research it, it's not my job to back up our silly claims like bats developing flight!"

Not like Theists are accused of blindly believing things of course.

Your job is to BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS. If you cannot BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS, then that's YOUR PROBLEM. It's not my job to find the proof for your gaps. If you want to believe that lactation came from sweat glands, without any proof, that's your business. But saying it's not your job to back up claims for your side...is as copout as it gets. I dare you to find a single source, and telling me it's "Not your job" doesn't exactly count as proof.

Let's put it this way, I am claiming that you CANNOT find the evidence with 10 minutes of searching, and that it doesn't exist, and you are simply hoping to dismiss the requests for evidence for Macro-evolutoinist claims.

I can go and cut and paste one hundred links to sites but you will not read them as you cannot be bothered to even type in a few search terms on google, really links and google search lead to the same destination, like I said its not my job to educate you, thats your job.

My job is to please myself and I do it well, no problem there.

My side?, how old are you?, never mind forget I asked.

But in the spirit of charity and throwing bones go here for a start, then after that go elsewhere http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/breast_beginnings.php


To quote my mate Vogter, peace and dont panic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Let's put it this way, I am claiming that you CANNOT find the evidence with 10 minutes of searching, and that it doesn't exist, and you are simply hoping to dismiss the requests for evidence for Macro-evolutoinist claims.

Then you are either unduly proud of your lack of knowledge, or lying all-out.

The way you talk one would think you are serious.

 

[Gunfingers]

Then you are either unduly proud of your lack of knowledge, or lying all-out.

The way you talk one would think you are serious.

What's extra cool is that ten pages ago I found evidence, both of lactation's evolution and of evolution in general, and here he is shouting that there's no evidence to be had. Just adorable, isn't he?

 

[CaptainBritain]

What's extra cool is that ten pages ago I found evidence, both of lactation's evolution and of evolution in general, and here he is shouting that there's no evidence to be had. Just adorable, isn't he?

The library story I quoted earlier fits them so well, I forget the vid I seen it in,
they never remember when an arguments been dumped, like the flagellum-irreducable complexity, famous huge court case, a scientist who also happened to be a practising Christian (roman catholic) dismantles it rank and file.

Yet yesterday on another format I use guess what got raised as the thing we cant prove? hehe

If they tried questioning the snake oil salesmen who peddle this horse s£$t, would we be bored or better off? I cant decide

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If by Evolution you mean "Microevolution", then of course, "evolution" is still correct, no argument there.

I agree.

If you mean "Theory of Macrospeciation is still correct", NOPE.

But who posits "macrospeciation" (whatever that's supposed to mean) without first acknowledging microevolution?

As I've stated, there is no evidence of the actual speciation events. It is pure theory and much uphill battle for that theory at that.

What is your criteria for speciation?

If you cannot show how one thing evolved, it is like one pin in the balloon among many others that completely deflate it, bigger pins like the fact that humans have hundreds of thousands more base pairs, I've mentioned that 3 times.

But there would be no reason to show evolution....I'm guessing you mean (prove) evolution, considering we both accept the fact of "microevolution"

 

[Amill]

Insults and ad hominem are expected when the other side can't actually back their claims with solid facts.

I only referenced the "Ancient Astronaut" theory when told that I had no alternative to the Evolution model once I discussed some of the gaping holes in the theory, which you can read if you go back. Perhaps you can explain how rats can turn into bats, mighty mouse. They don't all fly on their own like you.

What exactly does aliens building the pyramids and making the Nazca lines have to do with the diversity of life?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What exactly does aliens building the pyramids and making the Nazca lines have to do with the diversity of life?

It has everything to do with absolutely nothing.....

 

[ellenjanuary]

I often see the Evolution vs Creation debate, but one thing I cannot help notice is that Creationism seems to be less about proving a creation, and more about proving the Bible's account of creation as literally true.

Surely if Creationism was only about proving a creator it would be inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, and others with other creation myths. Instead all I see is an attempt to prove the Bible's account as science.

That brings me to the question of the thread- is Creationism more about proving a creator, or more about Creationists wanting to believe that the Bible should be taken entirely literally?

Neither. Creationism is about willful ignorance.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, not just MY "education of Macro-evolution" but the theory as a whole, anyone's "education" on the subject should cause them to raise some questions and call Shenanigans on a couple of explanations, as it relies on more crater-sized gaps than any other field of science I can think of, with the exception of things like asteroids hitting venus perfectly on the pole to reverse rotation.

Yet the folks who do specialize in evolutionary biology have an opinion on the subject that is the exact opposite of yours. Thus, you present us with a choice. Either we accept the consensus view of the professionals or we accept your view.

So tell me, why should we accept your view?

Creationists don't necessarily want to use it to declare the Bible true, they just don't like buying wholesale theories from some guy in a lab coat that has no evidence whatsoever

No evidence at all? None?

Tell me, how do you know? Where exactly have you looked for evidence? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What university-level courses in evolutionary biology have you taken? What professional journals do you read? What conferences and symposiums have you attended? Please be specific.

that base pairs "evolve" on their own despite evidence to them only leading to defect.

Except we see populations evolving new traits that lead to improved fitness all the time. It's so trivial, undergraduates do it every year in basic BIO 101 level courses. In one of my courses, we took a single-clone strain of E. coli and watched it evolve resistance to ampicillin. Other examples of the evolution of beneficial traits are really easy to find...

Mutations That Increase the Life Span of C. elegans Inhibit Tumor Growth

Herbicide Resistant Weeds

Extraordinary Flux in Sex Ratio

So please explain why you would have us deny something that not only can we see happen with our own is, but is trivially easy to make happen at will?

 

[Shermana]

Yet the folks who do specialize in evolutionary biology have an opinion on the subject that is the exact opposite of yours. Thus, you present us with a choice. Either we accept the consensus view of the professionals or we accept your view.

So tell me, why should we accept your view?


No evidence at all? None?

Tell me, how do you know? Where exactly have you looked for evidence? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What university-level courses in evolutionary biology have you taken? What professional journals do you read? What conferences and symposiums have you attended? Please be specific.


Except we see populations evolving new traits that lead to improved fitness all the time. It's so trivial, undergraduates do it every year in basic BIO 101 level courses. In one of my courses, we took a single-clone strain of E. coli and watched it evolve resistance to ampicillin. Other examples of the evolution of beneficial traits are really easy to find...

Mutations That Increase the Life Span of C. elegans Inhibit Tumor Growth

Herbicide Resistant Weeds

Extraordinary Flux in Sex Ratio

So please explain why you would have us deny something that not only can we see happen with our own is, but is trivially easy to make happen at will?

You apparently haven't read anything I wrote, those are all examples of MICRO-evolution, they in no way show radical changes to other forms.

Another perfect example of when I say that Macro-evolutionists confuse Micro-evolution as proof of Macro without any evidence. Please quote from those 3 links anywhere that proves that MACROevolution is at play, I will happy to review the difference if you don't have time to read all my posts, you apparently act as if I haven't posted 3 links that descrbie Microevolution because you just posted 3 more.

If anyone can prove how herbicide resistance shows that monkeys can turn into men, please do.

Until then, the "Scientific concensus" nonetheless relies on a theory that has NO PROOF.

That's right, no proof. None. Zip.

As I've mentioned MULTIPLE TIMES, and I'm guessing you have not read anything I've said, Microevolution is proven. Saying that Macro-evolution is proven is pure dishonesty, it is a THEORY which relies on HUGE GAPS which apparently no one can explain, like the bats turning into rats and lactation developing from sweat which I can repeat over and over for people who want to ignore my points and appeal to authority because they can't actually back their own claims.

If you want to believe milk came from sweat, that's your choice, but if you do so without evidence, hmmm....well that's not very scientific is it, and yet Creationists are accused in the OP...of not being interested in the facts.

Yeah, cuz only creationists believe in things that you can't prove with empirical evidence? Uh oh, double standards!

Prove that milk came from sweat or retract your claims and admit that you believe in things that have no actual proof or evidence.

 

[Shermana]

I can go and cut and paste one hundred links to sites but you will not read them as you cannot be bothered to even type in a few search terms on google, really links and google search lead to the same destination, like I said its not my job to educate you, thats your job.

My job is to please myself and I do it well, no problem there.

My side?, how old are you?, never mind forget I asked.

But in the spirit of charity and throwing bones go here for a start, then after that go elsewhere Breast beginnings : Pharyngula


To quote my mate Vogter, peace and dont panic.

No, you cannot post 100 links, and you're just afraid that I'd point out the errors and flaws of them. I ask, have you read your own article? I don't see exactly how it forms its conclusion: He says the Molecular evidence is persuasive. Can you quote something shows how persuasive it is?

Their model for the evolution of the mammary gland is illustrated below. It's reasonable, and the molecular evidence is persuasive. Basically, the process began as the secretion of antimicrobials agents from the skin of the early mammal (something we still do) as a protective function. This function was elaborated by infoldings of epithelia to increase surface area and generate reservoirs of mucus and the antimicrobials. Eggs and infants would have benefitted from more copious secretions from the mother, coating them as well with this immunoprotective substance. The young would have also lapped up the tasty rich goo, and infant survival would have been promoted by changes that caused the secretion of ever-richer substances.

Are you aware of the fact that I've posted from Technology Review and Science daily? I've got at least 2 more links than you. I still want to see Paintedwolf explain how the conclusion and abstract of her study proves the origin of lactation in mice, I don't think it does show its origins and simply shows the properties.

Translation: "I could post 100 links for you but they wouldn't necessarily show any proof but since you won't accept it blindly at face value and accept massive gaps like bats turning into rats all of the sudden, I'm going to say you won't accept any evidence".

Peace, and try to learn to not cop out.

 

[Shermana]

A perfect example in that article of how "persuasive" the evidence is.

To further the similarities, the authors give a long list of components of signaling pathways that are typically associated with inflammatory and immune system responses and are also essential in lactation. For instance, the transcription factor NF-kB, which is also a hot candidate molecule in cancer research, is involved in regulating the expression of various cytokines and antimicrobial agents; transgenic mice that knock out this pathway also exhibit developmental failures in the differentiation of the mammary gland. They've modified other elements of this pathway (RANKL, C/EBPβ, TNF-&#945 which act in inflammation responses, and they all also induce developmental problems in mammary gland tissue and reduce or shut down lactation.

1. Is there such thing as systems that cause problems in the development of a closeby and related function? Does it mean they are one and the same or that they are closely related functions.

Prolactin is known as a key lactogenic hormone but, depending on the cellular context, prolactin can also act as an anti-inflammatory or proinflammatory cytokine. Interestingly, it has been demonstrated that prolactin is involved in the protective as well as the nutritional role of milk. Prolactin participates in regulating the secretion of immunoglobin A (IgA), the prominent Ig in mucus and milk that inhibits the colonization of pathogenic bacteria on mucosal surfaces. Changes in the secretion of IgA are associated with the anti- inflammatory potential of epithelial tissues. In addition, prolactin stimulates the uptake of some amino acids and glucose, as well as the synthesis of casein, α-lactalbumin, lactose and milk fat droplets in the lactating mammary epithelium. Finally, prolactin and IFN-γ also stimulate the expression of XOR in mammary epithelial cells via the Jak/Stat signaling pathway. Thus, multiple small molecules and ligand-receptor systems that have critical roles in inflammatory responses exert dual and, in many cases, essential functions in immunity and mammary gland biology.

I don't see how this means that one came from the other, all it means that they are in related parts and there's a side effect. Does it prove that calcium-rich milk evolved from a protective sweat slime that somehow got fashioned in females only to take care of the young? No.

 

[painted wolf]

You accuse me of derailing the thread, the purpose of this was to prove that all of this Macro-evolutionary theory is not so much concerned about trying to look at the gaps, but cover them up. It is indeed related to the OP, turning it around on them.

If you feel I give more ammunition to the OP, that's fine, you are welcome to your opinion, but you are at least the first person to even offer a serious consideration to such a huge gap as the evolution of Lactation. If anything, it's evident that to Evolutionists, they are not so much concerned about finding the answer as they are filling in the answer based on otherwise dubious gaps and at times they have been dishonest such as in the case of Rhodocetus of "recreating" the fins and tail and pushing it off as real. I will look at this other one.

I think you need to look at what biologist are actually doing, rather than what you seem to feel they are doing.
Rhodocetus does in fact have fossilized hind limbs... there are several individuals that have been found in two distinct species of this genus.
Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan
New Whale From The Eocene Of Pakistan And The Origin Of Cetacean Swimming : Deep Blue at the University of Michigan

Really what is more important is the pelvis. It is still attached to the spine, showing it was able to support some of the animals weight... an unattached pelvis (seen in later fully aquatic species) can't support weight and means you can't come up on land.

You brushed off the 150,000 base pair thing without even realizing the implications. Each of these major gaps, the Macro-Evolutionists don't seem very concerned about the actual facts or the actual data. They aren't even aware that Lamarck's work is being checked over. Why don't you quote something from that article on the milk development that proves something substantial.

It wasn't a brush off... you are throwing a lot of claims out there demanding they get answered and one got forgotten.

Bennifical gene duplications are pretty common such as the duplication of the AMY1 gene... human populations with more copies of this gene are better able to digest starches than populations with fewer duplications of this gene. Just as a quick example.

Someone with access to your link will have to explain how the Conclusion in any way gives evidence of the how and why and when.

As for the article on mouse milk evolution, it is open source and you can read it for yourself anytime.
BioMed Central | Full text | Evolution of major milk proteins in Mus musculus and Mus spretus mouse species: a genoproteomic analysis

Here is another fun article on the subject.
The Evolution of Milk Casein Genes from Tooth Genes before the Origin of Mammals

If the how and why and when don't matter to you, my point is proven.

It is important.... but I'm not spoon feeding you.

When I say "Macrospeciation" I mean something beyond fruit flies developing partially different characteristics. I'm talking about observed instances of radical changes, not small changes, not just like wolves and dogs. Nothing of the sort of transitioning has been observed. Fruit Flies turning into different kinds of different flies cannot be compared to monkeys turning into humans by any stretch, and if you say it is, then you must define how with the specific gene changes involved, rather than just leaving it to "It just happened, so shut up!"

You seem to have a very flawed view of what evolution means. Evolution does not mean Monkeys suddenly becoming humans. And we know the specific gene changes involved with the Chimp/human divergence thanks to the human and chimp genome projects.

Again, I'm not going to list every single gene difference and how it happened, that is patently ridiculous for a forum. Like asking a historian what happened every day of every year of King Soloman's rein.

What is the purpose of this OP? To prove that Creationists are not concerned about the facts? I have brought up several facts, and at best I get weak defenses. Rethink.

No to discuss the fact that creationists are obsessed with trying to disprove evolution in the false expectation that that proves creationism.... rather than trying to find genuine evidence of creationism.

Here is the full text of the OP; in case you forgot or missed it.

"I often see the Evolution vs Creation debate, but one thing I cannot help notice is that Creationism seems to be less about proving a creation, and more about proving the Bible's account of creation as literally true.

Surely if Creationism was only about proving a creator it would be inclusive of Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, and others with other creation myths. Instead all I see is an attempt to prove the Bible's account as science.

That brings me to the question of the thread- is Creationism more about proving a creator, or more about Creationists wanting to believe that the Bible should be taken entirely literally?"

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

opcorn:

 

[Jose Fly]

You apparently haven't read anything I wrote, those are all examples of MICRO-evolution, they in no way show radical changes to other forms.

I posted them in direct response to your claim of "base pairs "evolve" on their own despite evidence to them only leading to defect". Your claim has been demonstrated to be false; populations evolve beneficial traits quite easily.

If anyone can prove how herbicide resistance shows that monkeys can turn into men, please do.

Those were never offered as any sort of "proof" of anything like that. They were presented as direct opposition to your claim that evolution only leads to "defect".

Until then, the "Scientific concensus" nonetheless relies on a theory that has NO PROOF.

That's right, no proof. None. Zip.

But you're avoiding the primary questions I asked you. So again:

The folks who do specialize in evolutionary biology have an opinion on the subject that is the exact opposite of yours. Thus, you present us with a choice. Either we accept the consensus view of the professionals or we accept your view.

So tell me, why should we accept your view?

No evidence at all? None?

Tell me, how do you know? Where exactly have you looked for evidence? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What university-level courses in evolutionary biology have you taken? What professional journals do you read? What conferences and symposiums have you attended? Please be specific.

 

[YmirGF]

I only referenced the "Ancient Astronaut" theory when told that I had no alternative to the Evolution model once I discussed some of the gaping holes in the theory, which you can read if you go back. Perhaps you can explain how rats can turn into bats, mighty mouse. They don't all fly on their own like you.

So your response for an alternate model was to bring up little green men? Seriously? For the record, I didn't mean to insult you per se, my comment was just an overview on the drivel you are professing. Why squash ideas that cannot stand on their own merit?

You really should listen closely to what Painted Wolfie is telling you, she really does know what she is talking about. We don't get a lot of that on RF, so consider it a gift.

 

[Shermana]

I posted them in direct response to your claim of "base pairs "evolve" on their own despite evidence to them only leading to defect". Your claim has been demonstrated to be false; populations evolve beneficial traits quite easily.


Those were never offered as any sort of "proof" of anything like that. They were presented as direct opposition to your claim that evolution only leads to "defect".


But you're avoiding the primary questions I asked you. So again:

The folks who do specialize in evolutionary biology have an opinion on the subject that is the exact opposite of yours. Thus, you present us with a choice. Either we accept the consensus view of the professionals or we accept your view.

So tell me, why should we accept your view?

No evidence at all? None?

Tell me, how do you know? Where exactly have you looked for evidence? What scholarly books on evolutionary biology have you read? What university-level courses in evolutionary biology have you taken? What professional journals do you read? What conferences and symposiums have you attended? Please be specific.

Already went through this. Can you prove there is no Invisible Spaghetti Monster and its Pink Unicorn steed?

However, can you actually provide a single link with a single quote that conclusively states the evidence regarding anything regarding the mega-gaps (Asteroid-crater-sized) that I've mentioned?

 

[Shermana]

So your response for an alternate model was to bring up little green men? Seriously? For the record, I didn't mean to insult you per se, my comment was just an overview on the drivel you are professing. Why squash ideas that cannot stand on their own merit?

You really should listen closely to what Painted Wolfie is telling you, she really does know what she is talking about. We don't get a lot of that on RF, so consider it a gift.

'

At this point in time, anyone who says there are no such thing as aliens has to prove it. I already posted a youtube of NASA recordings.