Creationists

[daws101]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[daws101]

Loki ,if you tried to figure the rate of variations for all living organisms, life has not been on this planet long enough to account for all the variations that would be necessary for all the different organisms that are alive today, let alone, all the groups of organism's that have went extinct.

bullshit!

Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.

If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.

that's all I need..but you keep yammering.

 

[daws101]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

I was curious about this, so did some quick searching. Here's a short article from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes Science) which states the first ID article published in a peer-reviewed publication was done controversially, at best. :
AAAS - AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion - Evolution Resources

Here's a pretty scathing article about the overall publication of ID articles in peer-reviewed publications. I offer it only to show an extreme end of an opposing point of view, as it is simply an opinion blog.
Intelligent Design in Peer Reviewed Publications | The Sensuous Curmudgeon

I am under the impression the large majority of the science community considers ID to be non-scientific, whether it may be true or not. Most of what I've seen (which, I admit, is limited) seems to use human intelligence as the measure to determine if something was intelligently designed. In other words, the argument is something like, "Everything designed by humans shows feature X. If we see something in nature with feature X, it must be designed by an intelligence.". I'm unaware of any method to test for intelligent design accepted by the majority of scientists.

Montrovant,do you really expect the evolutionist to agree with intelligent design people. They are to heavily invested in saying everything happened through natural processes absent of an Intelligen Designer.

The point being is that your side wants to claim the ID scientists are not real scientists and they have no empirical evidence for their theory and that is just false. The more evidence discovered the less viable the theory of evolution becomes. I am speaking of macro-evolution because micro-evolution is a fact and neither side denies it.

What evolutionist observe are micro-evolutionary change, and it does happen naturally and that is why they go further with their explanations because they reason if micro-evolution can happen why not macro-evolution.

Because the creator used the same type of substances to create all,that is why evolutionist claim we are all related. But what they ignore is DNA information is vastly different and that is why we seem related but yet we are vastly different. Now that they know there is litlle to no junk DNA they have to explain why is all our DNA being used for something but yet there is no junk DNA where they can reason the junk DNA is left over from our ancestors,and they simply are not in use anymore.

But of course you will find opposing views to what I have stated but the evidence is left for each person to agree with evolutionists explanations or not. Many of us have decided that everything we see did not simply happen by chance.

another dodge!

 

[whitehall]

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.

 

[Montrovant]

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.

Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument. This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.

 

[konradv]

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.

Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.

 

[UltimateReality]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

The Discovery Institute is a non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Founded in 1990, the institute describes its purpose as promoting "ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty."[2] Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.[3][4][5][6][7]

A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis",[8] through incorrectly claiming that it is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the scientific community.[9][10][11] In 2005, a federal court ruled that the Discovery Institute pursues "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions",[8][10][12] and the institute's manifesto, the Wedge strategy,[13] describes a religious goal: to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[14][15] It was the Federal Court's opinion that Intelligent Design was merely a redressing of Creationism and that, as such, it was not a scientific proposition.

Discovery Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am well aware of who and what the Discovery Institute is. But I love the obvious bias for the "anyone can edit" Wiki comments!!! I regularly quote Wiki, but with the understanding it is relativism on steroids, and info can be manipulated with ease, unlike the old hard printed Britanica sets.

Is this the same Federal court that has shredded the Constitution and stripped American's of their CREATOR ENDOWED inalienable rights? Here are a few comments on Dover rover...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html

 

[UltimateReality]

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.

Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument. This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.

Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.

 

[Montrovant]

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.

Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument. This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.

Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.

If you truly think that anyone who believes (even conditionally) in the theory of evolution is a materialist and an atheist, well, there's no point talking to you. If you think anyone who considers discussion about evolution and ID to be just one of science a brainwashed left winger, once again, no real point talking to you.

 

[FactFinder]

Creationists

and...what the F' does an ape know about it? Were you here 6000 years ago? Do you trust scientific dating mechanisms when they were not here either and have no standard to test their supposed accurate instruments against? Where's the calibration come from? Imagination?

 

[UltimateReality]

Let's not mistake a discussion about the merits of evolution, intelligent design, etc. for some sort of political argument. This has nothing to do with the constitution, AGW, or whatever other ridiculous arguments you want to turn this into.

Really? You need to open your eyes. Evolutionionary theory, Materialism, and Atheism are intertwined. TOE is more philosophy than science, and you are just proving you are part of the left wing brainwashed flock.

If you truly think that anyone who believes (even conditionally) in the theory of evolution is a materialist and an atheist, well, there's no point talking to you. If you think anyone who considers discussion about evolution and ID to be just one of science a brainwashed left winger, once again, no real point talking to you.

Sorry. I should have been more clear. The global warming thing comes from a socialist and communist agenda and is anti-capitalism. It tends to be aligned with the same folks preaching the TOE.

 

[Youwerecreated]

~4,000,000,000 years seems alot less like "suddenly" and more like "plenty of time" to me.

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.

Very good point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For those intellectually dishonest folks among us that keep claiming no peer reviewed papers (you know who you are)... Here you go so you can shut up once and for all..

CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

There are some great articles listed here. Loki seems convinced that we can't come up with objective criteria to detect design by an intelligent agent in the modern world. This is childish and foolish to believe that these criteria could not only be developed but also be tested. These criteria can then be used to detect design from the distant past. This methodology is totally scientific and testable.

it's a creationist site....therefore breaking the first rule of science objectivity .....so it pseudoscience.

pseudoscience is not practiced by the ones that are rational with their explanations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit!

Is that all you have junior,are you forgetting the theory of punctuated equilibrium ? Stasis is evidence agains't all of these so called variations that lead to macro-evolution. The rate of change would have had to been very fast to produce all the living organism's that once lived.

If life was evolving that fast we would see it happening before our eyes.

that's all I need..but you keep yammering.

You call it yammering because you chose not to believe evolutionist have it so wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So-called "creationists" have been maligned by bigots for years, it's nothing new. The bigots try to distort the argument but the issue really centers around the Constitutional right to say the word "God" in school without risking arrest. You could say that the left wing religion of "man-made global warming" is far more insidious than creationism. Warmers operate on faith and they seem to think the world started either... #1 the day George Bush was inaugurated or #2 about 150 years ago when the industrial revolution started. Warmers toss out evidence, fudge figures and and pay shaman priests disguised as "scientists" to come up with outlandish theories that the left accepts on faith. You could laugh at the left's greenie religion if it was harmless but it ain't. Greenie religion is an extortion scheme designed to ruin the United States of America.

Either the evidence supports your theory or it does not.I don't have to distort anything. Your theory defies rational thinking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.

Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.

No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.

 

[cooky]

Sorry that is how long the planet has been around 4 or 4.5 billion years. Life has been on the planet according to evolutionist only 2 billion years.

If all organism's are related that means every family had to evolve from the first family group in succession unless you are saying cross breeding was a means of family variations. I am giving you a reality check.

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.

The TOE doesnt include an explanation of how life began on the planet. In a Scientific circles, the two most widely accepted hypothesis for how life began on earth are abiogenesis and panspermia. It is not definitely known how long life has existed on the planet. The earliest 'credible' evidence of life consists of microfossils/biomarkers found in the akili formation- a gealogic formation in greenland containing evidence of microorganisms that date to ~3.87bya. It is widely accepted that the earth was to hot to support life for the first 500-600 million years as the planets heat of formation was such that liquid water could not exist- preventing the existence of life as we know it. Consequently, if the microfossils in the akili formation are bonafide it would suggest that life on earth began on earth VERY SOON after there was liquid water on the planet.

Evolution is a non-random process driven by a number of different mechanisms. As such it may occur rapidly on large scale i.e. punctuated equilibrium or very slowly i.e. (Selachimorpha ) sharks. In the context of human evolution, there are more than a dozen known species in the Homo genus, the oldest of which date back to almost 2 million years ago. However, most of the known represenatives of the homo genus occured in the last 1 million years. In my opinion just the fossil record for the Homo genus is powerful evidence for the evolution.

Genus Homo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Homo

While the sequencing of the human genome has revealed a great deal human genetics there is still quite a bit about human DNA/RNA that we do not understand. It is not known how many protein coding genes are in the human genome. It is estimated that 1.5% of the genome consists of genes encoding proteins of which amounts to 20,000-25,000 different genes. As such, only about 1.5% of the human genome codes for protein. The other 98.5% non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA. Our understanding of non coding DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA, has in many instances been found to serve regulatory or structural purposes though it is still thought that a large component of human DNA is functional useless.

As a scientist I get frustrated by the assertion that the TOE is a conspiracy designed to purge god from society that is built from fraudulent science. The TOE is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. As such, there are instances where significant changes are made to the theory. However, no data has been published that challenges the primary tenet of the TOE- the common descent of all life from a common ancestor.

It is not known how life began and there are many aspects of the history of life on earth that is not known. However, in my opinion the evidence for the TOE is overwhelming.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And that couldn't have happened in 2 billion years? Once life starts it's been shown repeatedly, that it's hard to keep it down.

Every living oranism that had to evolve not near enough time. You are talking many changes from one group to another. We have living organism's alive today that show no change from fossils of their ancestors that was dated back to over 400 million years ago.

With that evidence it is just another obstacle for the evolutionist to get around. For it to be even viable changes would have to happen in such a short time we would see it happening today.

Scientist have estimasted that currently their are 5 to 100 million different organism's that live on the planet today. They have also estimated billions of organism's have gone extinct.

Sorry but the theory is just not viable when measured agains't the evidence.

The TOE doesnt include an explanation of how life began on the planet. In a Scientific circles, the two most widely accepted hypothesis for how life began on earth are abiogenesis and panspermia. It is not definitely known how long life has existed on the planet. The earliest 'credible' evidence of life consists of microfossils/biomarkers found in the akili formation- a gealogic formation in greenland containing evidence of microorganisms that date to ~3.87bya. It is widely accepted that the earth was to hot to support life for the first 500-600 million years as the planets heat of formation was such that liquid water could not exist- preventing the existence of life as we know it. Consequently, if the microfossils in the akili formation are bonafide it would suggest that life on earth began on earth VERY SOON after there was liquid water on the planet.

Evolution is a non-random process driven by a number of different mechanisms. As such it may occur rapidly on large scale i.e. punctuated equilibrium or very slowly i.e. (Selachimorpha ) sharks. In the context of human evolution, there are more than a dozen known species in the Homo genus, the oldest of which date back to almost 2 million years ago. However, most of the known represenatives of the homo genus occured in the last 1 million years. In my opinion just the fossil record for the Homo genus is powerful evidence for the evolution.

Genus Homo
Template:Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the sequencing of the human genome has revealed a great deal human genetics there is still quite a bit about human DNA/RNA that we do not understand. It is not known how many protein coding genes are in the human genome. It is estimated that 1.5% of the genome consists of genes encoding proteins of which amounts to 20,000-25,000 different genes. As such, only about 1.5% of the human genome codes for protein. The other 98.5% non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, and noncoding DNA. Our understanding of non coding DNA, sometimes referred to as junk DNA, has in many instances been found to serve regulatory or structural purposes though it is still thought that a large component of human DNA is functional useless.

As a scientist I get frustrated by the assertion that the TOE is a conspiracy designed to purge god from society that is built from fraudulent science. The TOE is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. As such, there are instances where significant changes are made to the theory. However, no data has been published that challenges the primary tenet of the TOE- the common descent of all life from a common ancestor.

It is not known how life began and there are many aspects of the history of life on earth that is not known. However, in my opinion the evidence for the TOE is overwhelming.

Look it is clear there is a movement within the scienctific community to explain everything is a product of chance and a natural process absent of a creator,to deny this fact is to deny a fact. I'm Not saying all scientists deny a creator that simply is not true.

So if evolutionist have no idea when or how life started how is the evidence overwhelmingly supporting their theory ? Why do you think evolutionist have accurate knowledge and creationist and ID are wrong ?

Is not evidence explained in a way to support presuppositions ?

The more holes that get poked in the theories supporting macro-evolution the less credeibility the theory seems to possess. The same can be said for the ones who defend it ,atleast attempt it.

I do like your honesty admitting evolutionist don't know when or how life started and it also presents problems for their extinction events They use to explain away evidence contradictory to creation and design.

 

[konradv]

... the 2 billion does not take into account some extinction events that started the process over or severely set it back if you are looking at it from a darwinists perspective.

Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.

No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.

Life didn't have to come back into existence. While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Right, so 2 billion years is plenty of time, unless there's a theory of "Recreation" to explain where the next set of life came from after the major extictions.

No,if life had to start all over again from an extinction event and if it was that easy it would be contantly happening. It took over 2 billlion years for life to begin when the planet supposedly came into existence.

Life didn't have to come back into existence. While up to 95% died in some extinctions, that isn't 100% and it didn't have to start from scratch.

Say's who ? Do we need to list the extinction events that affected the entire planet that was proposed by evolutionist.