Creationists

[Koios]

You're here aren't you?

Creation, obviously. It's here, and got here some way. Creator? None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.

Think of it this way: There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of. Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there. No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it. A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.

Or try to understand it. Slice it and see what's inside. Maybe it's only pink on the outside. And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint. Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.

The choice is yours.

I'm sorry you've had such a terrible life. I'll keep you in my prayers.

Your sympathy is greatly appreciated, what with my having lost a leg in a skeet-shooting accident, which only hurt a little, Praise the Lord.

So, and since the Lord heals and answers our prayers, I'm hoping you and everyone else on the planet prays for my leg to regrow, if He is not too busy guiding the hand of surgeons fixing hearts and such, in medical centers across the heartland of this great country.

Thanks again for your prayers.

 

[Koios]

Creationism = Mythology

The little tree has spoken! Oh wait; I guess it's burning bushes we're supposed to heed.

My bad. Hahahahahahahahaha

 

[Hollie]

You're here aren't you?

In the relevant first world, we understand that to be a function of biological mechanisms.

In your madrassah, you were no doubt taught that "the gawds for it". Your madrassah instructor was wrong.

If you made any sense at all you'd still be dumb. My prayers go out to you and yours.

Ah, the angry, belligerent fundie persona. You're all so cute in your continuing state of being befuddled.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Can anyone prove creation?

Can anyone prove any theory ?

Not in science. They're only supported, some more than others ... and some even to an extent we call it a fact, i.e. evolution.

Contradict yourself much.

 

[Koios]

Can anyone prove any theory ?

Not in science. They're only supported, some more than others ... and some even to an extent we call it a fact, i.e. evolution.

Contradict yourself much.

I try not to. And note that calling something a fact, does not make it such. Ergo the qualifier. Noodle on that; it'll come to you.

But is there not a contradiction in using science to disprove science?

 

[Hollie]

You're here aren't you?

No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?

You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.

The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.

 

[ima]

You're here aren't you?

No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?

You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.

Cmon, you need to be nearly retarded to believe that you have to care what a non-existent invisible superhero thinks of you. And why couldn't your non-existent invisible superhero use evolution to develop life on planets? Any particular reason?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Not real science.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
• A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
• A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
• Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.

Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science

Maybe it's time for you to learn what a hypothesis really is and see how your precious theory,macroevolution should not qualify as even a hypothesis let alone a theory. They have taken changes that happen in a family of organisms and extrapolate from these changes to major changes like an ape evolving in to a human and so on.

A scientific hypothesis is the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an “educated guess,” based on prior knowledge and observation, as to the cause of a particular phenomenon. It is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. A hypothesis is the inkling of an idea that can become a theory, which is the next step in the scientific method.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.

A key function in this step in the scientific method is deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated. A hypothesis, which is often in the form of an if/then statement, is often examined by multiple scientists to ensure the integrity and veracity of the experiment. This process can take years, and in many cases hypotheses do not become theories as it is difficult to gather sufficient supporting evidence.

Upon analysis of the results, a hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proven to be correct 100 percent of the time. For example, relativity has been tested many times so it is generally accepted as true, but there could be an instance, which has not been encountered, where it is not true.

Most formal hypotheses consist of concepts that can be connected and their relationships tested. A group of hypotheses comes together to form a conceptual framework. As sufficient data and evidence are gathered to support a hypothesis, it becomes a working hypothesis, which is a milestone on the way to becoming a theory.

Now explain to me the many theories you have put forth as an explanation that truly qualifies ? be careful I am asking you a loaded question so I can use your words aginst you.

What is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis | LiveScience






A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently.

A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.

Theories are foundations for furthering scientific knowledge and for putting the information gathered to practical use. Scientists use theories to develop inventions or find a cure for a disease.

A few theories do become laws, but theories and laws have separate and distinct roles in the scientific method. A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon.


Hmm they don't point to the major theory that divides us as a solid theory.

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data—in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior.

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Creation, obviously. It's here, and got here some way. Creator? None we know of, albeit, many a religion has over the course of human history, imagined what he/they/it might be, in myriad forms.

Think of it this way: There's a cake, just sitting there, with no one taking credit for its making. We have no idea who put it there, or what it's made of. Some might think that the unknown is more-easily explained away by merely imagining God or whatever put it there. No real thought energy, or logical steps needed. Just imagine God, Santa, Easter Bunny, frog in a clown suit, or whatever put it there, and made it pink, for reasons you care to attribute to it. A 7th Pink Heaven, or whatever.

Or try to understand it. Slice it and see what's inside. Maybe it's only pink on the outside. And maybe it tastes like strawberry, and not peppermint. Or get really fucking ambitious, and do a chemical analysis ... if knowing what is real is worth the effort, in your opinion.

The choice is yours.

I'm sorry you've had such a terrible life. I'll keep you in my prayers.

Your sympathy is greatly appreciated, what with my having lost a leg in a skeet-shooting accident, which only hurt a little, Praise the Lord.

So, and since the Lord heals and answers our prayers, I'm hoping you and everyone else on the planet prays for my leg to regrow, if He is not too busy guiding the hand of surgeons fixing hearts and such, in medical centers across the heartland of this great country.

Thanks again for your prayers.

Your body isn't the only thing that has something missing. Apparently you have lost a good portion of your mind as well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?

You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.

The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

 

[Hollie]

Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.

Peer review is also essential to protect against religious quackery.

Creationists do not submit for peer review because they do no research, perform no experimentation and hold to no rigorous standards.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, slave owner. I mean creation as depicted in the bible, isn't that what you believe? Can anyone prove the 6 day thing? Or is your religion built on hot fart smoke?

You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.

Cmon, you need to be nearly retarded to believe that you have to care what a non-existent invisible superhero thinks of you. And why couldn't your non-existent invisible superhero use evolution to develop life on planets? Any particular reason?

If evolution is indeed a fact then please explain how did there come to be male and female?

I mean regardless of whether we are talking about animals, fish, or plant life, it's an undeniable fact that nearly all life forms have both male and female varieties. Why?

 

[Hollie]

You've been educated about the "6 day" thing yet you choose to remain ignorant.

I will say this, it takes no more faith to believe that God created man than it does to believe that all life began when simple chemicals built up into more complex chemicals which became a concentrated organic broth where our earliest ancestor, a bacteria like creature began.

The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.

Lesson 09: Who Are We?






There are only two options when considering the existence of the universe. Either something outside space and time or something inside of space and time has caused everything as we know it. Within the framework of these two options lies yet another question, “Who are we?” When this question is asked, we take one step away from considering our ultimate beginnings and one step toward our specific origins. We are no longer asking, “How did the universe begin to exist?” Instead, we are asking, “How did we come to exist and what is our identity?” Specifically, we are asking about human rather than universal origins.

There are essentially three positions that hold prominence in answering this question.

1. Creationism – God purposefully created us.

2. Theistic Evolution – We have evolved, but God guided the evolutionary process.

3. Evolution/Darwinism – We are the product of the blind (i.e. without reason) force of the evolutionary process.

According to a 2012 Gallup survey 46% of Americans are creationists, 32% are theistic evolutionists and 15% are evolutionists. These percentages have remained virtually the same for the past 30 years. The issue is that Creationism and Evolution are mutually exclusive. Both cannot be true because they make opposing claims. Theistic evolution attempts to provide a moderating voice for common ground among the two. However, theistic evolution also provides direct opposition to at least one aspect of the other two claims. Therefore, among the three, only one may have the ability to truly reflect reality.

What is Evolution?

When someone begins a conversation about evolution, we must be careful to ask, “What do you mean by evolution?” Most informed persons believe in some form of evolution. This is because there are two primary types of evolution.


Macroevolution
■
Macroevolution – This is evolution across “types”. Theoretically, one species may eventually become another if it is given enough time. The most stereotyped example of this is that a monkey (or its ancestor) can eventually evolve into a human. Another example is that some scientists would say that birds have evolved from dinosaurs.



Microevolution
■
Microevolution – Whereas macro means “large”, micro means “small”. This is evolution within a species. Microevolution explains the differences that occur within humans or dogs or birds.


One of the differences between the two types of evolution is that “macro” believes new species can spring from different ones while “micro” says that changes do happen, but only within the species.

The Debate

Nearly all scientists, creationists, theistic evolutionists and Darwinists/evolutionists can agree on microevolution. These are changes that can be observed from generation to generation and by scientific expermientation. However, when it comes to macroevolution it is a different story. Creationists do not think macroevolution is a viable scientific theory. Theistic evolutionists believe in the macroevolutionary theory but only if it is noted that God directed the process. Evolutionists believe that macroevolutionary theory is fact and that God has no part in the equation. What is the cause for such difference in belief?


John Scopes

The debate took its current form in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. The State of Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes trial (known as the Scopes Monkey Trial) brought evolution vs. creationism to the forefront of the American mind. Scopes was a high school science teacher who was on trial for teaching evolution in a state-funded school. In 1925, it was illegal in Tennessee to teach evolution in public school. Today, it is illegal (or at least highly discouraged) to teach creationism in public school. How America has changed! To see how this change happened, we must examine each possibility in more detail.

Why Do Creationists Not Believe in Macroevolution?

For creationists, there are generally two reasons for not believing in macroevolution. One has to do with the fact the his or her authority (some form of Scriptures, most usually the Bible) shows that humans were specially created by God. For example, the Bible says in Genesis 1:26,


Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

Not only does this Scripture show that mankind is made in the image of God (Imago Deo), but mankind is also to rule over all other living creatures on the earth. Further, the Bible speaks directly against macroevolution when it states that both animals (Genesis 1:24) and plants (Genesis 1:11) will reproduce according to its own kind and seed. For example, an apple contains an apple seed which will always make an apple. In the same way, a human contains human seed and will always produce another human.

The second reason creationists do not believe in macroevolution is science. Remember, science does not interpret the facts. It is the scientists who interpret their findings. The branch of science who finds that scientific evidence points to a creator is called “Intelligent Design”. Whereas a creationist will generally say that the One who created is specifically the God of the Bible, an Intelligent Design scientist withholds identification of who the designer is. He simply says, “The scientific facts show us that there must be a grand designer who is intelligent.” However, creationists and Intelligent Design scientists find common ground by agreeing that human life is the result of special design rather than spontaneous generation and chance. Popular proponents of Intelligent Design are Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

Why Do Theistic Evolutionists Believe in God-guided Macroevolution?

Whereas many creationists interpret science through the lens of Scripture, Theistic-evolutionists interpret Scripture through the lens of science. In other words they believe Scripture is correct; it is just up to science to tell us how the events of Scripture happened. However, there is no good reason to actually believe Theistic Evolution. It is simply a moderate position that does not want to deny the reliability of authority or popular science. However, some will interpret the Quran in 21:30 as being in agreement with macroevolution that all life indeed comes from water.

Why Do Evolutionists Believe in Macroevolution?

Bill Nye the “Science Guy” recently waded into the debate. Nye is vehemently opposed to creationism because of the undeniable evolutionary facts that science produce. The scientist appeals to his teacher Carl Sagan who was famous for saying that we are made of “star stuff” in his PBS series “Cosmos” a few decades ago.

One Molecular Biologist writes that the most common answers scientists give for believing in evolution are:
■
a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;

■
the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;

■
similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;

■
pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;

■
Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;

■
peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;

■
Darwin’s finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;

■
fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;

■
a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and

■
drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.


Would Charles Darwin be a Darwinist Today?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.

Conclusion

One small article can just begin to see the tip of the iceberg in the debate of Creationism vs. Darwinism. These two ideologies also just barely begin to describe the reasons for what it means to either be created in the image of God or to have evolved without ultimate purpose. There are innumerable books and resources that will further your understand of the subject. However, after being introduced to the debate there are some things we must keep in mind.
■Macroevolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of different species, but not the ultimate beginning.
■Evolution is not the same thing as the “Big Bang”.
■Evolution and Creationism are contradictory. Therefore, both cannot be correct answers to the question, “Who Are We?”. This also means that the mediating position of Theistic Evolution must by default be wrong as well.
■Creationists cannot discount the claims of science. True science is a genuine pursuit of the truth. Good science is the friend, rather than foe, of religion.
■Scientific theories such as evolution are interpretations of the facts by scientists. Science does not interpret itself.

Lesson 09: Who Are We? « Truth Matters

 

[Youwerecreated]

The continually befuddled. It requires no faith to understand biological mechanisms.

What's remarkable is belief in partisan gawds with no more intellectual rigor than choosing the color of your socks. fundies simply inherit belief in a version of gawds with unthinking, uncaring mindlesness.

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.

Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?


VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?


ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?


MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

 

[daws101]

Can anyone prove creation?

You're here aren't you?

that's not proof, it's a wish.

 

[daws101]

Not real science.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
• A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
• A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
• Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.

Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science

edited for wall of text and dodging the facts.

 

[Hollie]

Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.
acts?

You obviously missed my earlier comment about religious quackery.

 

[daws101]

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.

Lesson 09: Who Are We?
edited for non science content, wall of text and religious bias.

 

[daws101]

Evolution has neven been proven. To believe that life was created from some primordial soup takes quite a leap of faith.

All you have going for you are insults. I pity people like you. You must live a sad and lonely life.

The prayer leader at your madrassah has lied to you. As much as science can "prove" anything, there is ample proof of evolution. You shouldn't let your limited imagination and need to believe that all of science being a conspiracy be a limitation on thinking minds.

What a shame that christianity still vacates the mind.

Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who asks 10 Questions to evolutionists.

ORIGIN OF LIFE. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth -- when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


DARWIN'S TREE OF LIFE. Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor -- thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


HOMOLOGY. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry -- a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?


VERTEBRATE EMBRYOS. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry -- even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?


ARCHAEOPTERYX. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


PEPPERED MOTHS. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection -- when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?


DARWIN'S FINCHES. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection -- even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?


MUTANT FRUIT FLIES. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution -- even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists' drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident -- when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


EVOLUTION A FACT? Why are we told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact -- even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

sorry should have neg reped you for this post not the last one