What is creationism?

[metis]

I did not accuse scientists of being ignorant nor dishonest. Consider what a believer in evolution says; " Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.” (Was Life Created?)

If I were to cherry-pick what some Christian ministers have preached that are patently absurd, would that prove to you that Christianity as a whole is absurd?

"Some" is not the same as "most". Studies have shown that the vast majority of scientists are not atheists. A great many are agnostics (uncertain as to whether there are any deities) or are theists. Biologists are almost an even split between being theists and agnostics/atheists, and yet they rely very heavily on the basic ToE.

Evolution makes for common sense: all material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. There is not one shred of evidence that suggests that somehow it stops before the "macro-evolution" level-- quite the reverse, as the fossil record along with the genome testing shows that it cannot possibly stop prior to that level.

Therefore, we know that there has been and continues to be an evolutionary process that all life is involved in and affected by. As one researcher said some years ago, there is for more evidence that there has been an evolutionary process than there is that a human has ever walked on the moon. And yet, most people don't question the fact that there have been moon walks.

So, why would a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, teach that there hasn't been an evolutionary process with all the evidence that we have collected for more than a century, and also defy that which is just plain old common sense? Why would they teach followers to ignore the evidence and ignore common sense? I used to belong to one of those churches, btw.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Both the finch and the fruit fly have been used to support macro-evolution, as I suspect you know already.

Your point? Like I said, evolution works by organisms splitting into various subsets. Nothing stops being what it is. Humans never stopped being apes. Apes never stopped being primates. Primates never stopped being mammals. Mammals never stopped being vertebrates.

 

[rusra02]

Your point? Like I said, evolution works by organisms splitting into various subsets. Nothing stops being what it is. Humans never stopped being apes. Apes never stopped being primates. Primates never stopped being mammals. Mammals never stopped being vertebrates.

There is strong evidence that variation within animal and plant families have definite limits that cannot be successfully breached, despite long decades of experimentation to do so. Having similar body features does not prove common descent.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

There is strong evidence that variation within animal and plant families have definite limits that cannot be successfully breached, despite long decades of experimentation to do so. Having similar body features does not prove common descent.

Where's the strong evidence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is strong evidence that variation within animal and plant families have definite limits that cannot be successfully breached, despite long decades of experimentation to do so. Having similar body features does not prove common descent.

What strong evidence?

 

[rusra02]

Where's the strong evidence?

That barrier of sterility that separates animal and plant families, and the failure of decades of efforts to produce hybrids across these.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

That barrier of sterility that separates animal and plant families, and the failure of decades of efforts to produce hybrids across these.

Macroevolution doesn't require hybridization. I don't know where you got that from. No one has claimed that the diversity of lifeforms is due to hybridization.

Like I said, argue against what evolution claims. Don't say it claims something it doesn't, then argue against that claim. I don't know what religion you are, but if you're Christian for example, and I said "Christianity is false because there's no proof of the Greek God Poseidon", would that be a fair argument?

 

[metis]

There is strong evidence that variation within animal and plant families have definite limits that cannot be successfully breached...

Where's the "strong evidence"?

Seems like there's an echo here.

 

[McBell]

That barrier of sterility that separates animal and plant families, and the failure of decades of efforts to produce hybrids across these.

this is nothing but a bold empty claim in support of a bold empty claim.

Now if this is all the "strong evidence" you have, you really need to do a serious upgrading on your standard for evidence.

If this is not the best "strong evidence" you got, please present it.

 

[Skwim]

You may believe that evolutionists are unbiased and base their actions solely on science. I do not, and I suspect neither do those scientists and educators who have suffered career damage for even acknowledging the possibility that ID has merit. As to the scientific basis for ID, simply Google Intelligent Design to find websites both pro and anti-ID.

In other words, you have no scientific research that underpins the validity of the ID scientific theory to share. Of course you don't. Nobody does. But this doesn't prevent the creationist crowd from claiming it does. Why should it? Lying isn't against the law.

 

[rusra02]

Macroevolution doesn't require hybridization. I don't know where you got that from. No one has claimed that the diversity of lifeforms is due to hybridization.

Like I said, argue against what evolution claims. Don't say it claims something it doesn't, then argue against that claim. I don't know what religion you are, but if you're Christian for example, and I said "Christianity is false because there's no proof of the Greek God Poseidon", would that be a fair argument?

I was asked what limits variation in animals and plants. Sterility limits such variation. Attempts have long been made to transgress these limits and have failed.

 

[rusra02]

In other words, you have no scientific research that underpins the validity of the ID scientific theory to share. Of course you don't. Nobody does. But this doesn't prevent the creationist crowd from claiming it does. Why should it? Lying isn't against the law.

I won't accuse you of lying. I simply repeat that anyone interested in the facts can google Intelligent Design and find both pro and anti ID websites.

 

[LuisDantas]

I won't accuse you of lying. I simply repeat that anyone interested in the facts can google Intelligent Design and find both pro and anti ID websites.

Sure... but that only underscores how embarrassing ID is.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I was asked what limits variation in animals and plants. Sterility limits such variation. Attempts have long been made to transgress these limits and have failed.

And you claimed that this was "strong evidence" against common descent. It isn't. That's like saying evolution is false because cakes and rocks can't interbreed. It's nonsense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I won't accuse you of lying. I simply repeat that anyone interested in the facts can google Intelligent Design and find both pro and anti ID websites.

Sure. And anyone can google "flat earth" and find both pro and anti-flat earth websites. It doesn't mean anything.

The point is that you cannot provide a single piece of scientific evidence of I.D.

 

[viole]

That barrier of sterility that separates animal and plant families, and the failure of decades of efforts to produce hybrids across these.

So, evolution is false because I cannot produce overly smart lettuce by mating with lettuce with an average IQ?

I wonder how scientists could have missed such a huge flaw in their theory.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

So, evolution is false because I cannot produce overly smart lettuce by mating with lettuce with an average IQ?

I wonder how scientists could have missed such a huge flaw in their theory.

Ciao

- viole

Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution. Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

 

[metis]

Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached.

Absolutely false, and constantly repeating that doesn't make it true. You've been asked many times before to supply scientific sources for that, but you don't produce them.

When dealing with science, it's important to use scientific sources and scientific evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution. Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Except that the evidence doesn't show that. And you haven't been able to demonstrate that it does. Nobody has.

Quote mining will get you nowhere.

 

[viole]

Evolution is false because the evidence shows there are limits to variations in animals and plants that cannot be successfully breached. Since these variations are limited, they are like stop signs to evolution. Here is a comment from Donald E. Chiddick; "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Would you say that we look like apes because we and apes are the same kind? I hope we agree that we are much closer to an ape than to, say, a piece of lettuce.

So, why, in your opinion, God likes hairless gorillas so much to create the whole Universe just for them?

Ciao

- viole