Creationists

[Hollie]

When I worked in the field it was not with creationist or ID proponents but I have come to agree with their explanations over the agenda driven atheistic evolutionist.

"atheistic evolutionist"?

Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?

 

[Montrovant]

Your statement could be equally applied to the evolutionists camp.

And if any scientists refuse to look at evidence because it might refute evolution, you are correct.

However, it appears that this Institute for Creation Research actually makes it part of their mission to ignore anything that might contradict their interpretations of the bible. I am unaware of any scientific group with a mandate of ignoring anything which might refute the theory of evolution. If such groups exist, they are just as outside the realm of science as the ICR.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You should do not believe liberals!

Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.

Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours

Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube

LMAO WITH A HERMAN CAIN BANNER FOR HIS SIGNATURE!!!! LMAO!!!

that was the most ridiculous video ive ever watched. your very simple.

Here's another -

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVAzYIbh2Qg]U.S. State Senator: Earth Is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]

 

[UltimateReality]

Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins.

Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.

As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.

You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.

But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it.

Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR?

I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?

I'm not angry, just passionate. There is no oxymoron there, only an ad Hominem fallacy. Go look it up. And if you want to go there, what makes you qualified?

Here, I will give you a little hint... Pick one of Berlinski's statements in the video that you don't agree with and then provide data to support an argument against the statement. You see? Refuting a YouTube video really isn't that complicated.

By the way, nice touch on the cut and paste accusation but if you check back several posts I accused you of that first so it loses a little when you repeat it back to me. All of the arguments you've presented have been repeated here numerous times so my response is yawn. It would be so refreshing if instead of repeating the same old Christian put downs and canned evolution dribble, someone could actually update themselves on current iD Theory and present some thoughtful and intellectual arguments. Sadly Hollie, you haven't presented anything new.

I guess you need to figure out what motivates you to come on here an show us Creasionists/ID Theorists how stupid we are and how much more intellectually superior you are.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Creation Museum - Creation, Evolution, Science, Dinosaurs, Family, Christian Worldview | Creation Museum
A Visit to the Creation Museum, 11/10/07 - a set on Flickr

Is this the place that has the dinosaur with a saddle on it?

Freaky.

 

[UltimateReality]

When Darwinist find 2 pieces of a skull and then use clay to make the rest of it look like a Homo Sapien skull, I'd say we can all agree that is bogus, right?

This is simply more of your science-loathing aganda. I can understand that in the science-loathing world of Christian fundies, "Darwinism" is an oft-used term to denigrate science but do you think those childish tactics bolster your claims?

Secondly, provide details about what two "Darwinists" have done what you describe above?

You are so funny!!! Science loathing, ha. Do you realize how completely redneck ignorant you sound right now? Do you realize how many millions of Christians are responsible for the technology you see all around you? Do you know not the volumes of scientific literature that have been written by Men who believed in God? Have you picked up a history book and seen that this Christian nation we live in has produced more wealth and ingenuity, and irradicted more poverty than any nation the world has ever seen? You are either really brainwashed or really foolish. I don't think I can even respond to you anymore because your hatred has clouded your judgement so bad.

 

[UltimateReality]

No because a function is lost.

It's just this simple,let's say the offspring loses an arm due to a mutation what could the offspring gain from the mutation that would benefit the offspring ?

Can a human benefit from the loss of any function ? and what function would be a benefit this person that lost a function ?

Actually, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mutations are ubiquitous. Every human being (you included) has between 100 and 200 unique new mutations. I guess the Charlatans at the Discovery Institute forgot to teach you that.

The sickle-cell anemia mutation occurs at the rate of about 10^-5 per generation. If that mutation occurs in a human living in a region where Malaria is prevalent, it will beneficially protect that person (and any descendents) from Malaria.

That said, this is only a minor, almost irrelevant example of the role of mutation in evolution. The primary role of mutations is to increase genetic variability.

All 200 or so of your personal mutations are point mutations on your DNA, i.e. a change to a single base pair in a single DNA codon. If they occur on a length of DNA that is actually a gene (as opposed to “junk DNA&#8221, they will (at most) change a single amino acid on a single protein. I say “at most” because the DNA code is redundant, and about a quarter of even these mutations are completely silent.

These variations in our proteins are the expression of our genetic variability as a species. They are the reason that we come in different shapes, sizes, colors and all the other differences in our bodies and abilities. And this variation is the raw material upon which natural selection acts. If it is beneficial to be taller, then natural selection will favor those variations that increase height and eliminate those that reduce it.

But the eliminated variations are constantly being replenished by each generation’s new mutations. This includes some mutations that will reduce height (and be eliminated quickly) and some mutations that will increase height, even beyond the original variation of the population. In this way, over time, organisms can evolve completely beyond the limitations of their original variation. This is how mutation creates genetic novelty.

Do a bit of research and you will find that over the last several decades, the average height of the Japanese youngster has increased dramatically. The children often tower over the parents.

This is funny I attended the University of Arizona. You gave the typical answer on a so called beneficial mutation The sickle-cell anemia mutation.

I also see you are not up to date on the human genome project because they declare there is no junk DNA.



mutations

Scientific data - High Rate of Deleterious Mutations

The Myth of Beneficial Mutations - CSI

Hey YWCA, I went to U of A too. Studied mechanical engineering. What years were you there? I was 84 to 88. I actually sold the HVAC equipment on TGEN here in Phoenix and a guy that goes to our church is a researching there. And he is not even science loathing!

 

[UltimateReality]

Yes when a gene mutates the information is not lost in the other chromosome which is why it makes it all that much tougher for the mutated gene to become fixed in the gene pool. Good thing no ? or harmful mutations would pass on to us all.

What I'm saying is you can get new information but it has to be a net gain of information that does not come from mutations.

New genetic information can arise from simply crossing different lineages but you don't get new information that produces let's say humans that would produce non humans or non dogs and so on.

You're still taking as a given that all mutations are bad. The bad ones would drop out as individuals died earlier, while the good ones would spread. Even at 1000:1, bad:good, this weeding out vs concentration is more than enough to explain evolution.

What is your testable scientific definition of fitness which determines which mutations are good and which ones are bad?

 

[UltimateReality]

It is funny, in a mordant sort of way, that when the arguments from creationist websites crash to the ground in flames you bail on any refutation seeking only to find shelter in a different creationist website.

It's actually telling that the arguments you link to, such as those from the Discovery Institute, are furthered by non-scientists. I would no sooner accept facts on evolutiony science from a Psychologist than I would facts on geology from a hamburger flipper at McDonalds.

Ad Hominem ad nauseum

 

[UltimateReality]

There is no reason to believe that anyone with integrity would allow themselves to be duped by such charlatans that roam the halls of the Institute Creation Research.

You have consistently avoided taking any responsibility for the false claims and junk science that has been abandoned since the 17th century but is still forwarded by the ICR.

Scientific investigation might be described as a progressive enterprise built around the competition of ideas. Where are the theistic ones? What I find remarkable is how consistent the “god did it” arguments really are. They are not similar, they are identical. And since so many of them are identically false, it is almost inconceivable that anyone could take them seriously.

That is why it is laughable when you post link after link to various creationist webites. Without an understanding of the subject matter you dump onto various threads, it becomes an exercise in copying and pasting for scramble from one creationist website to the next, mining more material that is copied and pasted, often contradicting material copied and pasted earlier.

What is pathetic is your blindness. While you accuse Creationists of doing the EXACT same thing Evolutionists do, I.e., start with a premise and force the data to fit. You are truly lost in your bias.

 

[UltimateReality]

I consider dawkins and hawking as Ideologues.

Hollie speaks of fundies but ignores the ones on her side.

This is another of the flaws that permeates the attitudes of fundies. It’s not an issue of “taking sides”, it’s an issue of facts, evidence and the integrity of the data.

Science is the process of discovery. Fundies will want to twist data to fit their preconceived ideas and simply scream the four word “The Gods Did It”, and proceed on as though you have answered the query when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation. The Principles of Scientific Creationism furthered by the Institute for Creation Research demonstrate precisely that. It’s a complete and utter abandonment of any ethical or academic standard.

It is the fundies and charlatans who establish the “us vs. them” mentality because they are besieged on all sides by facts which dismantle their falsified and manufactured claims.
History shows us that religious institutions, (in particular the Christian Church), have, more often than not, been a yolk around the neck of science and discovery. I think people are vastly more tolerant about scientific truths than they were say, 400 years ago. In large part that’s because religion has been throttled by the secular institutions.

Not too many weathermen being burned at the stake these days because they predict a solar eclipse or a drought.

Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah

 

[Hollie]

Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah

Somehow, I didn't find blah,blah blah to encapsulate a compelling argument.

One of the many parts of the creationist argument you left out was the inability of peer review. As of today, ID is only a hypothesis, whereas evolution has theory status and factual data to present. Further, if ID cannot make testable predictions (as evolution does), then it has little or no usefulness as a scientific theory.

I also believe that attempting to censor ID does more to support it, because now you give its supporters fodder for yet more conspiracy theories, as we can see by reading this thread and others.

No, the answer is to allow the supporters of ID to publish a peer reviewed paper, and to examine it thoroughly. I have already seen the scientific and legal community has already dismissed ID / creationism as not meeting the standard of the Scientific Method and we have already seen that these examinations of ID / creationism prove it as either false or useless from a scientific point of view. And there is little difference. Even if a hypothesis might be true, but is unable to make predictions, or is unfalsifiable (or unverifiable), then it is useless, which makes it false by default.

Take it out or leave it in per your desire. In any event, gods / supernaturalism are outside the realm of science.

Science is a process that will assiduously test and challenge, there's the difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead?

 

[UltimateReality]

Blah, blah, discriminatory hate, blah, blah, anger, blah,blah blah, mass generalizations blah blah

Somehow, I didn't find blah,blah blah to encapsulate a compelling argument.

One of the many parts of the creationist argument you left out was the inability of peer review. As of today, ID is only a hypothesis, whereas evolution has theory status and factual data to present. Further, if ID cannot make testable predictions (as evolution does), then it has little or no usefulness as a scientific theory.

I also believe that attempting to censor ID does more to support it, because now you give its supporters fodder for yet more conspiracy theories, as we can see by reading this thread and others.

No, the answer is to allow the supporters of ID to publish a peer reviewed paper, and to examine it thoroughly. I have already seen the scientific and legal community has already dismissed ID / creationism as not meeting the standard of the Scientific Method and we have already seen that these examinations of ID / creationism prove it as either false or useless from a scientific point of view. And there is little difference. Even if a hypothesis might be true, but is unable to make predictions, or is unfalsifiable (or unverifiable), then it is useless, which makes it false by default.

Take it out or leave it in per your desire. In any event, gods / supernaturalism are outside the realm of science.

Science is a process that will assiduously test and challenge, there's the difference. Theistic principles are undemonstrated whereas materialist ones are testable, falsifiable, and empirically constant.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or men rise from the dead?

The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers.
Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.

Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.

 

[Hollie]

The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers.
Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.

Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.

The following is from a 2007 article.

Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal | News Blogs - CNET News

Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.

The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.

Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.

"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.

In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."


If not mystical, "who" or what is the intellegent (supernatural) designer in your theory?

 

[UltimateReality]

"atheistic evolutionist"?

Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?

How is that name calling? Most lay folks like yourself that come here to argue have blindly subscribed to the "fact" of evolution in their zealous need to deny God. There are really no true atheist only folks angry with God.

 

[UltimateReality]

The blah blah blah was regarding your tired rehash. There have been many peer reviewed ID papers.
Why do you assume all Theists are Christians? Berlinski's is Jewish, and not even a practicing one.

Finally, either you are thick are you having reading comprehension issues. I am advocating ID Theory. Creationism is a religious belief. I'm not sue why you keep intermixing the two. ID makes no mystical claims.

The following is from a 2007 article.

Creationists launch peer-reviewed journal | News Blogs - CNET News

Creationists are adapting another element of the traditional scientific realm to their cause: the peer-reviewed journal.

The Institute for Creation Research, a prominent believer that the scientific method can validate a literal reading of the Bible's account of the creation of the universe, Earth and humanity, has begun soliciting papers for the International Journal for Creation Research.

Peer review, in which a scientist's paper is scrutinized by a group of colleagues, is designed to find errors and weed out half-baked ideas. And although some have criticized peer review for rejecting new ideas just because they're too radical for the establishment to stomach, in the long run, science has marched along through various paradigm shifts.
The IJCR, though, has a few extra requirements to make sure scientific findings stay subordinate to creationist tenets.

"IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global flood, the nonevolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that correlate to the biblical accounts," according to the institute's description.

In the call for papers, it adds, "Papers can be in any scientific, or social scientific, field, but must be from a young-earth perspective and aim to assist the development of the creation model of origins." And the three or more people who reviewer each paper are advised that each paper must "provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatico-historical/normative interpretation of scripture."


If not mystical, "who" or what is the intellegent (supernatural) designer in your theory?

Seriously? I've stated peviously I am not a young earth Creationists and I don't know anything about ICR nor have I ever visited their website. Boy do you lump everyone into the same mold. I suppose you believe all blacks are on welfare too.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm familiar with several of the "quotes" you mined. You might want to review some sources which you will stumble over as part of your "quote mining".

Be careful though, you fall into the creationist trap of selectively "quote mining" from creationist sources that will alter the "quotes" you are "quoting".

Yours is a common tactic of creationists hacks who, like your bretheren at the ICR will lie, cheat and steal to press your creationist agenda.

Quote Mine Project: "Sudden Appearance and Stasis"

What ? you hate hearing evolutionists that are in a better situation to actually know about what they are saying agreeing with me a believer.

Take hack and shove it lady, I have made my credentials known. What are your credentials ?

Just admit it,the truth hurts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"atheistic evolutionist"?

Has it gotten so bad for you that juvenile name-calling is you last resort?

No, if the shoe fits wear it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And if any scientists refuse to look at evidence because it might refute evolution, you are correct.

However, it appears that this Institute for Creation Research actually makes it part of their mission to ignore anything that might contradict their interpretations of the bible. I am unaware of any scientific group with a mandate of ignoring anything which might refute the theory of evolution. If such groups exist, they are just as outside the realm of science as the ICR.

Sorry partner but God comes first with believers,the same can be said for non-believers.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, your whole post is the ad Hominem fallacy. Instead addressing Belinski's arguments, you attack his qualifications... A typical ploy by Darwinists. I guarantee the man is 10 times smarter than you.

As for your post above, you are correct when it comes to Creationism but not ID Theory. By continuing to make the statement you are either a liar or jus ignorant. Here is a video outlining an ID scientific theory. I am 99% sure you won't watch it, because your anger with Christians and God is hard to hide and your underlying agenda prevents you from having an open mind to other truths. There is a certain amount of arrogance that comes with denial of God, which is where the whole "fact of evolution" comes from with such a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I see through you.

You're an angry guy. And yes, I "attack" the qualifications of Berlinski because in connection with the biological sciences, geology, etc., he has no qualifications. Your comment is thus a bit of an oxymoron.

But first, it's a bit difficult to refute a youtube video. It's not as though Berlinski is available to defend his comments. You and the other guy seem to believe that your only obligation in supporting your position is to copy and paste from creationist websites. Your position is predictable because you have predefined your conclusions in spite of the data dismantling it.

Secondly, why would I take Berlinski seriously when representing the ICR, he is explicitly pressing a religious agenda and explicitly ignoring what data will refute his position as a shill for the ICR?

I don't see any arrogance that comes from denial of god, (your particular god). I see arrogance in your insistence that I am required to accept your position and ignore the facts dismantling it. I find arrogance in you, using your religion like a bloody truncheon to make me believe or else. Or else what?

I'm not angry, just passionate. There is no oxymoron there, only an ad Hominem fallacy. Go look it up. And if you want to go there, what makes you qualified?

Here, I will give you a little hint... Pick one of Berlinski's statements in the video that you don't agree with and then provide data to support an argument against the statement. You see? Refuting a YouTube video really isn't that complicated.

By the way, nice touch on the cut and paste accusation but if you check back several posts I accused you of that first so it loses a little when you repeat it back to me. All of the arguments you've presented have been repeated here numerous times so my response is yawn. It would be so refreshing if instead of repeating the same old Christian put downs and canned evolution dribble, someone could actually update themselves on current iD Theory and present some thoughtful and intellectual arguments. Sadly Hollie, you haven't presented anything new.

I guess you need to figure out what motivates you to come on here an show us Creasionists/ID Theorists how stupid we are and how much more intellectually superior you are.