Creationists

[Hollie]

How can you say this ? when it is on your side to produce and show natural processes can build and design things necessary for life.

It is not on my side to prove this. Evolution does not rest on abiogenesis being true. Evolution is demonstrable and observable, provable, and verifiable with fossils, DNA evidence, geologic evidence. Everything converges on evolution being true.

Abiogenesis is a theory about how that first cell formed, at which point, evolution took over.
Therefore, it is not on "my side" to prove abiogenesis in a lab in order for evolution to be true. The two are non-contingent upon each other.

How can you say this?!?!?! They absolutely are. This is a totally fallacy your side is ever prone to.

This is the issue that Christian fundies refuse to come to terms with. It is often a result of profound stupidity and / or a refusal to understand the terms being used: that the theory and fact of evolution is not contingent upon whatever mechanism ignited the first cell. Creationism is not a theist vs. atheist controversy. It is a Fundamentalist Christian vs. everybody else controversy. It is a single biblical literalist perspective versus even other Christians who have no trouble with the scientific perspective.

It is not the issue of abiogenesis that actually concerns the creationist movement. It is irrelevant to the actual disagreement with science, and many creationists already know that. The disagreement fundamentally is about evolution, not abiogenesis. And specifically, the issue is about the evolution of human beings, not the origin of the first cell.

Organisms still evolve through a combination of genetic mutation and natural selection. And all the relevant the evidence still reflects a common origin for all living things from a common ancestor via a process of descent with modification, no matter how life arose in the first place. That is the problem for creationists.

And it is the problem they are running from when they are unable to reconcile the relevant subjects of abiogensis vs. evolution.

 

[Hollie]

Prove what you are saying.

Already done. As much as science can offer "proof", there is no argument among the relevant science community as to an ancient earth, more complex biology evolving from less complex, etc.

With virtual certainty, it is only the fundie religious (Christian), haters and social misfits who are pressing an anti-science agenda.

Why do you keep describing yourself and continue to project your self-loathing existence on others?

Fundie christians, haters and social misfits tend to get defensive when their arguments are thoroughly dismantled. That is one reason why they spend entire threads avoiding any real discussion of the issues and rely instead on juvenile tactics of posting meaningless messages with garguntuan fonts.

 

[Hollie]

Typical evo fundie response.

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

A lot of pointless and unfounded generalizations that calm an emotional requirement to have someone or something to blame for self-inflicted failures.

If you need a daddy-figure to protect you from yourself (and to protect us from you), your belief in magical gods may be best for all concerned. It's the rudderless and directionless who are often the greatest threat. Being unable to get through your day without the prospect of eternal rewards for good behaviour however, is your personality fracture, not something (your hateful religious perspective), that you need to inflict on others.

 

[Gadawg73]

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observer. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.

 

[UltimateReality]

Is it as annoying as Hollie detracting from and denying others educational background while simultaneously refusing to provide any basis for her own?

Use some of you're christian superpowers of forgiveness and let it go. It's annoying as shit for the rest of us, you keep on using huge fonts in PINK COLOR.

I kind of like the pink.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The act of considered thought seems to defy you. "Organisms that are much more complex" didn't just come into existence. Biological complexity (and the evolution of greater complexity over immense time scales), is readily observed in the fosill and biological record.

What defies logic (and all of earth history) is the fantastically absurd notion of a 6000 year old earth, zapped into existence by an angry, immoral god.

Prove what you are saying.

She doesn't need to. You can learn about this yourself. Look it up. You have the internet. If you choose not to accept facts, then this debate should be over. You don't simply get to deny facts in order to continue your ridiculous assertions about a 6,000 year old earth that DEFIES ALL EVIDENCE we have. You're personal incredulity should not be made into anyone else's problem. How selfish and narcissistic can you be?!

Earlier in this thread I made the argument how mutation fixation can never happen the way evolutionist claim. I could not find it but I found an article discussing the same nine reasons why evolution through mutations can never happen. Now if you guys wish to go down this road read this article and let's get to it. In other words poop or get off the pot.



Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.


Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

 

[UltimateReality]

An appropriate response to an angry, self-hating Christian zealot who offers nothing but cutting and pasting from fundie Christian ministries.

Ah, the self-hating accusation. I can assure that I have a healthy self image and am a contrubuting, functioning member of society. By a strictly materialistic viewpoint, I have every thing the world puts value on... Fat custom house in a gated lake community, sweet car, every iGadget made, and a beautiful wife (all of which came to me by God's blessing for sure). However, the world has proven over and over again how miserable most people are who achieve any semblance of wealth. They run on the hamster wheel towards more and more STUFF and nothing satisfies. Nope, my peace and self-worth come from Christ and his amazing love for me. God's love is lasting, through eternity in fact, and not fleeting like so many things the world offers.

I guess the real point is I was self-hating to some extent, but that was BEFORE I gave my life to Christ. Hollie, it is evident to all you're still stuck there.

A lot of pointless and unfounded generalizations that calm an emotional requirement to have someone or something to blame for self-inflicted failures.

If you need a daddy-figure to protect you from yourself (and to protect us from you), your belief in magical gods may be best for all concerned. It's the rudderless and directionless who are often the greatest threat. Being unable to get through your day without the prospect of eternal rewards for good behaviour however, is your personality fracture, not something (your hateful religious perspective), that you need to inflict on others.

What gives your life meaning? Your educational background you refuse to divulge?

 

[UltimateReality]

I just returned from Jamaica, a wonderful country with great people. One of the waiters was a Jamaican man with a pregnant wife with their first child. We came to know this young man well the 9 days we were there. He is very religious and also inquisitive of everything and anything science. He was praying daily for the child to be a boy. After a few discussions on the science of it all he was floored to learn that it is the male chromosome, HIM, that determines the sex of the child. He did not believe us when we informed us of that and was upset about it. The next day at breakfast he sought us out and apologized to us. We told him he owed us no apology. He again said he did because his preacher told him we were wrong and that God only decides the sex of the child. He had done his homework and found on the internet office there at the resort the science behind it.
Ditto for all science.
Creationism is NOT science.

I just returned from Kenya, a war torn country with some fabulous people. While we were there, we had the chance to visit one of the largest ghetto's in the world-1 million people living in one square mile. One of the children from the orphanage there, who had recently started his first year of college, was to be our guide. While walking we through the ghetto, we came up on dead bird, which was full of maggots. Myself and the other Creationist friend I was with began to talk about how curious spontaneous generation was. How maggots could spontaneously generate out of nothing, and overtake the dead carcass. Our guide was quick to correct us, informing us that spontaneous generation had long been dis proven. He went on to explain, that although we didn't witness it happen, flies had actually laid tiny eggs inside the dead bird, which were not visible to our human eyes, and the maggots had not really spontaneously generated, but had grown from these fly eggs. He was also quick to point out that it was our ignorance of a process which was invisible to us that had led us to an incorrect belief that the organisms had spontaneously generated out of nothing. He laughed arrogantly that we could have been so foolish as to believe that life could arise from the soil spontaneously. It was at this point I looked him straight in the eye and said, "Someone should update the evolutionary biologists on that concept." I went on to explain to him that there were some foolish scientists out there that actually believed dna and the cell spontaneously generated from this thing called primordial soup. The student was flabbergasted. How could intelligent men be so stupid as to believe such nonsense? I guess this goes to prove that like bad fashion, even really bogus science concepts comes back around.


"Spontaneous generation is an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. Typically, the idea was that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. A variant idea was that of equivocal generation, in which species such as tapeworms arose from unrelated living organisms, now understood to be their hosts."

"Ultimately, the ideas of spontaneous generation were displaced by advances in germ theory and cell theory."

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey look, ma, I can make up neat little stories too!! Hey BadDawg, how about posting up some pics of your recent trip?

 

[UltimateReality]

"I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"

Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"

How to Talk About "Evolution" - Evolution News & Views

 

[UltimateReality]

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

 

[Hollie]

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The religious nature of creationism are always apparent to an objective observe. The very supporters that claim there is scientific evidence to support creationism describe it as a religious argument. Their creator is the God of Christianity. Accordingly, creationism is a religious view ONLY. Religious views ARE NOT SCIENCE.
The goal of the creationists is to avoid scientific scrutiny, discourage critical thought and foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with creationism.
Creationists only want to promote their religious beliefs.

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

 

[ima]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.

 

[Hollie]

I really don't think anyone here, including YWC, is claiming Creationism is anything but religion. And I would disagree that creationists avoid scientific scrutiny. In fact, the exact opposite is true. While Creationists admit their beliefs about Creation are religious and faith based, they seek to prove that they are compatible with science. Materialists, on the other hand, pretend their beliefs are strictly science, and require no faith in order to accept. Evolutionists mix their metaphysical and philosophical beliefs with science, and most of the time, pseudoscience, and then desperately hope that no one will notice the difference. Either that, or they can't see it becuase they are in it. The bias and blindness of those holding the materialistic world view prevents their acknowledgement of their clearly religious beliefs about origins. The existence of God is just as easty to believe AND prove, as the belief that natural selection acting on random mutation is responsible for the complex life forms on the planet.

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.

What a laughable joke.

 

[Hollie]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

The gods work by magic.... and by preying upon the ignorant and the gullible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.

Books are full of nonfictional characters you must try again.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.

What a laughable joke.

Nope,tell me how detecting design in nature is nonscientific ?

 

[UltimateReality]

God is not science. God does not have to test study and observe to understand how things work.

God is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about him from a book.

Darwinism is fiction. Want proof? You first heard about it in a book called Origin of the Species.

 

[UltimateReality]

That was as pointless and absurd as your typical silly cut and paste babble.

You are wrong again, UR hit it out of the park.

Wrong as usual. What the fundie actually did was trash virtually all of his prior claims to creationism being "science" to finally admitting that creationism is nothing more than religion (christianity), under a fraudulent veneer.

What a laughable joke.

Ah Hollie, the only laughable joke here is your reading comprehension. I have claimed ID is science. I made no such claim about Creationism.