Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Population dynamics ? how in the world are you gonna study something you can't observe

Erm? Who says we can't observe populations? Are you drunk?




You obviously have never studied coral reefs.



If everyone in a population had the same genetic disorder, if it was a fatal one, that population would not long survive. Why are you having difficulty with this? If only 1/3 have the disorder, the ones that don't have it tend to survive to reproduce, and the disorder is mostly to entirely eliminated. THAT is evolution.



Yes, and most of them are not fatal.

You can't even come close to matching that number with beneficial mutations.

The fact that humans still exist on this planet and haven't died off due to all the mutations shows that you are wrong.

You can't study the groups of organisms that existed in the supposed distant past. You were not there to see if they even diverged and how big the population was once they diverged. Not if man was here for a short period of time vs millions of years. But remember they have been accumulating genetic disorders for as long as they have been on this planet. By all the new genetic disorders that have come in to the population in the last hundred years, it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims.

it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims

Especially for someone who thinks the 2nd Law makes sugar impossible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Erm? Who says we can't observe populations? Are you drunk?




You obviously have never studied coral reefs.



If everyone in a population had the same genetic disorder, if it was a fatal one, that population would not long survive. Why are you having difficulty with this? If only 1/3 have the disorder, the ones that don't have it tend to survive to reproduce, and the disorder is mostly to entirely eliminated. THAT is evolution.



Yes, and most of them are not fatal.



The fact that humans still exist on this planet and haven't died off due to all the mutations shows that you are wrong.

You can't study the groups of organisms that existed in the supposed distant past. You were not there to see if they even diverged and how big the population was once they diverged. Not if man was here for a short period of time vs millions of years. But remember they have been accumulating genetic disorders for as long as they have been on this planet. By all the new genetic disorders that have come in to the population in the last hundred years, it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims.

Dude, yes we can. There are millions of species of plants and animals living today. We continuously study thousands upon thousands of species every day. We have a great understanding of ecosystems, and the flora and fauna that live in them. We can very easily compare, for instance, what crinoids was doing 300 million years ago based on what they do today. And fish, and crocodiles, and pretty much any animal you can name. Furthermore, we are there, in the past, right in the middle of the fossil bone beds studying them in great detail.

Once again, I challenge you to meet me in the field, and we can see first hand what the rocks and the fossils tell us. I am a geologist with 29 years of field experience. What field experience do you have? Any at all. I'm not a mass murderer, just someone who wants to set the record straight. I've made this offer to at least ten different creationists on different forums, and not surprisingly, none have taken me up on the challenge, because, frankly, they know that their dream world would come crumbling down in the face of reality. Others have jumped at the chance. So come on grasshopper. Let me take you to the Falls of the Ohio River State Park, in Clarksville, Indiana, and show you in the field how wrong you are. My best friend is the curator/naturalist there, so we can get the run of the place.

Falls of the Ohio State Park

If that doesn't work for you, then we could meet outside of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, and I can show you how the very bedrock the museum is built on refutes everything they've spent millions of dollars lying to you about.

Let me say this a little differently. We know the current mutation rate in many organisms today. We have no reason to believe that was once lower. You can't study origins of each new kind and know the population size that is pure fantasy. I am not disputing studying groups that exist today. I would say and probably most would agree me,with each new kind the population was small, Small isolated groups would be at serious threat of survival with the problems mentioned.

You can see examples of living fossils today that for over supposed 3 millions years there is no change at all in the species. That 3 million years of experiencing mutations and natural selection. It just does not support the theory of evolution. You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed. Are we seeing change within a family ? yes but not cross genous species being developed ,in other words macroevolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

History of world population growth.

World History for Us All: Key Theme One

The thing is your supposed evidence you just offered was only assumption and numbers for a population they had no way of knowing.

Lets give you a more scientific one.

World Population Since Creation

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh my. It's true that the human population has grown in the last 6,000 years...you know.... since the gods put humans on the planet. Did the gods somehow drop the ball on this mutation thing?

Yep,the population explosion since noah is not far off from the population size at this moment. Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there.

So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:

Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science (or non-science as science):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BTqKeP6Ks

What do you think they do by believing theories that are mostly supported by conjecture not evidence ?

 

[Bumberclyde]

Yep,the population explosion since noah is not far off from the population size at this moment. Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there.

So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

Please support your statement as mentioned above.
Don't creationists think that all the fossils were laid down by god 6000 or so years ago?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would probably blame the parents who spend $4,300 a year to send their children to brainwashing academies. Doesn't really matter though, once the kids get to a real college, or into the working world, they quickly throw away the bull shit for reality or they fail. Ever wonder why you never see an Evangelical reach VP in Fortune 500 company? Think about it, they can't deal with reality!


I believe your line, most "creationists tossed reality out like a chamber pot in favor of comforting fantasy."

Since you work at Burger King, you have no idea what executive V.P.'s believe.

I have run into extremely religious V.P. and Presidents of large companies.

You substitute your bigotry for reality, and wind up looking the fool.

 

[orogenicman]

You can't study the groups of organisms that existed in the supposed distant past. You were not there to see if they even diverged and how big the population was once they diverged. Not if man was here for a short period of time vs millions of years. But remember they have been accumulating genetic disorders for as long as they have been on this planet. By all the new genetic disorders that have come in to the population in the last hundred years, it is kinda hard to believe man has been on this planet as long as the science community claims.

Dude, yes we can. There are millions of species of plants and animals living today. We continuously study thousands upon thousands of species every day. We have a great understanding of ecosystems, and the flora and fauna that live in them. We can very easily compare, for instance, what crinoids was doing 300 million years ago based on what they do today. And fish, and crocodiles, and pretty much any animal you can name. Furthermore, we are there, in the past, right in the middle of the fossil bone beds studying them in great detail.

Once again, I challenge you to meet me in the field, and we can see first hand what the rocks and the fossils tell us. I am a geologist with 29 years of field experience. What field experience do you have? Any at all. I'm not a mass murderer, just someone who wants to set the record straight. I've made this offer to at least ten different creationists on different forums, and not surprisingly, none have taken me up on the challenge, because, frankly, they know that their dream world would come crumbling down in the face of reality. Others have jumped at the chance. So come on grasshopper. Let me take you to the Falls of the Ohio River State Park, in Clarksville, Indiana, and show you in the field how wrong you are. My best friend is the curator/naturalist there, so we can get the run of the place.

Falls of the Ohio State Park

If that doesn't work for you, then we could meet outside of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, and I can show you how the very bedrock the museum is built on refutes everything they've spent millions of dollars lying to you about.

Let me say this a little differently. We know the current mutation rate in many organisms today. We have no reason to believe that was once lower. You can't study origins of each new kind and know the population size that is pure fantasy. I am not disputing studying groups that exist today. I would say and probably most would agree me,with each new kind the population was small, Small isolated groups would be at serious threat of survival with the problems mentioned.

You are ignoring several important facts. First, most mutations are benign. Secondly, even in small populations, beneficial mutations confer a survival advantage. Third, most species produce more offspring than are needed to pass on their heritage, which increases species survival rates. Fourth, and this is where my work comes in, I've studied crinoids most of my life, and am an expert in echinoderms, having collected many fossil specimens and raised live echinoderms. While there are no living crinoid species that can be found in, for instance, Paleozoic faunal zones, all three classes are present from the Ordovician all the way to the present. That is 400 million years of evolution of all three classes of crinoids. And so when you say that you can't study their evolutionary history because you can't know the population size, I say you don't understand how population surveys are conducted. My specialty is middle Mississippian aged crinoids (late Osagean stage, to be precise). My paper I linked to in a previous post described 66 species of crinoids representing over 20 genera from all three classes, including 8 new species. The fossil bed where those specimens originated is nearly 80 feet thick and represents millions of crinoids. And so the samples of specimens was truly representative of one of the largest and diverse crinoid fauna that existed 330 million years ago, that ever existed, in fact. So yes, you certainly can know in detail the fossil population you are working with. You can even determine the currents, the depth of the water in which they lived, the substrate on which they lived, and the entire population of the rest of the flora and fauna that made up the reef in which they lived. Also present in that fauna were sharks, trilobites, blastoids, sea urchin-like animals called echinoids, and even sponges. From that survey, we could reconstruct nearly the entire reef habitat, and compare what we found at that site with other similar sites throughout the Midwest. And you can compare and contrast all of that with modern crinoid reefs today.

You can see examples of living fossils today that for over supposed 3 millions years there is no change at all in the species.

That is not quite accurate. For instance, the coelacanth has been around for at least 300 million years. But the coelacanth that existed back then is not the same species as the one that existed today. There is only one species alive today and it is not represented in the fossil record.

You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed.

Yes we are. In great abundance, and throughout the classification scheme.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

Please support your statement as mentioned above.
Don't creationists think that all the fossils were laid down by god 6000 or so years ago?

Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.

 

[orogenicman]

History of world population growth.

World History for Us All: Key Theme One

The thing is your supposed evidence you just offered was only assumption and numbers for a population they had no way of knowing.

Lets give you a more scientific one.

World Population Since Creation

Wow, I've got more kindling for my fireplace. Dude, that is the most laughable piece of rubbish I've ever seen anyone post with a straight face. The flood? Really? You really need to put the bottle down and come into the field with me for one day.

 

[orogenicman]

Yep,the population explosion since noah is not far off from the population size at this moment. Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there.

So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

In order to fit the fossil record into your creation nonsense, you have to throw out more than 99% of the fossil record. Get real.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dude, yes we can. There are millions of species of plants and animals living today. We continuously study thousands upon thousands of species every day. We have a great understanding of ecosystems, and the flora and fauna that live in them. We can very easily compare, for instance, what crinoids was doing 300 million years ago based on what they do today. And fish, and crocodiles, and pretty much any animal you can name. Furthermore, we are there, in the past, right in the middle of the fossil bone beds studying them in great detail.

Once again, I challenge you to meet me in the field, and we can see first hand what the rocks and the fossils tell us. I am a geologist with 29 years of field experience. What field experience do you have? Any at all. I'm not a mass murderer, just someone who wants to set the record straight. I've made this offer to at least ten different creationists on different forums, and not surprisingly, none have taken me up on the challenge, because, frankly, they know that their dream world would come crumbling down in the face of reality. Others have jumped at the chance. So come on grasshopper. Let me take you to the Falls of the Ohio River State Park, in Clarksville, Indiana, and show you in the field how wrong you are. My best friend is the curator/naturalist there, so we can get the run of the place.

Falls of the Ohio State Park

If that doesn't work for you, then we could meet outside of the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky, and I can show you how the very bedrock the museum is built on refutes everything they've spent millions of dollars lying to you about.

Let me say this a little differently. We know the current mutation rate in many organisms today. We have no reason to believe that was once lower. You can't study origins of each new kind and know the population size that is pure fantasy. I am not disputing studying groups that exist today. I would say and probably most would agree me,with each new kind the population was small, Small isolated groups would be at serious threat of survival with the problems mentioned.

You are ignoring several important facts. First, most mutations are benign. Secondly, even in small populations, beneficial mutations confer a survival advantage. Third, most species produce more offspring than are needed to pass on their heritage, which increases species survival rates. Fourth, and this is where my work comes in, I've studied crinoids most of my life, and am an expert in echinoderms, having collected many fossil specimens and raised live echinoderms. While there are no living crinoid species that can be found in, for instance, Paleozoic faunal zones, all three classes are present from the Ordovician all the way to the present. That is 400 million years of evolution of all three classes of crinoids. And so when you say that you can't study their evolutionary history because you can't know the population size, I say you don't understand how population surveys are conducted. My specialty is middle Mississippian aged crinoids (late Osagean stage, to be precise). My paper I linked to in a previous post described 66 species of crinoids representing over 20 genera from all three classes, including 8 new species. The fossil bed where those specimens originated is nearly 80 feet thick and represents millions of crinoids. And so the samples of specimens was truly representative of one of the largest and diverse crinoid fauna that existed 330 million years ago, that ever existed, in fact. So yes, you certainly can know in detail the fossil population you are working with. You can even determine the currents, the depth of the water in which they lived, the substrate on which they lived, and the entire population of the rest of the flora and fauna that made up the reef in which they lived. Also present in that fauna were sharks, trilobites, blastoids, sea urchin-like animals called echinoids, and even sponges. From that survey, we could reconstruct nearly the entire reef habitat, and compare what we found at that site with other similar sites throughout the Midwest. And you can compare and contrast all of that with modern crinoid reefs today.

You can see examples of living fossils today that for over supposed 3 millions years there is no change at all in the species.

That is not quite accurate. For instance, the coelacanth has been around for at least 300 million years. But the coelacanth that existed back then is not the same species as the one that existed today. There is only one species alive today and it is not represented in the fossil record.

You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed.

Yes we are. In great abundance, and throughout the classification scheme.

You defeat your own argument when you claim beneficial mutations because they are very rare, there is a reason for that.

 

[orogenicman]

I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:

Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science (or non-science as science):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BTqKeP6Ks

What do you think they do by believing theories that are mostly supported by conjecture not evidence ?

Erm, large hadron collider is not conjecture. A sigma 5 rating is not conjecture. Anyone who thinks it is conjecture is stupid beyond belief. Congratulations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So now the creationist side is using fossils in their arguments? That must be new.

But please support this statement: "Can you imagine how big the population would be if we actually were on the planet as long as the science community claims or how many fossils and graves would be out there." Ok, give me a number, and why. Or are you just blowing fartsmoke?

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

In order to fit the fossil record into your creation nonsense, you have to throw out more than 99% of the fossil record. Get real.

Do you realize how they put a fossil tree together ? it's like a putting a puzzle together they have all these fossils and determine their order that best fits the theory ,hardly scientific. Explain the many fossils found in the wrong strata. How do you explain the fossil graveyards ?

 

[orogenicman]

The fossil record has always been used by creationists. The fossil record better fits the creation model.

Please support your statement as mentioned above.
Don't creationists think that all the fossils were laid down by god 6000 or so years ago?

Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.

Well, then, you won't mind joining me on a field trip and proving that statement to me in person, in the field, on some fossil beds. Right? Say, these, for instance?

Falls of the Ohio State Park

Come on, grasshopper. Come out into the field with me, and put your money where your mouth is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.

YWC, I try to keep an open mind, I really do. But the creationist sites are absurd, at least those I've visited. Calling them "pseudo science" is overly kind.

Sorry the crap on those sites simply cannot be taken seriously.

 

[orogenicman]

Let me say this a little differently. We know the current mutation rate in many organisms today. We have no reason to believe that was once lower. You can't study origins of each new kind and know the population size that is pure fantasy. I am not disputing studying groups that exist today. I would say and probably most would agree me,with each new kind the population was small, Small isolated groups would be at serious threat of survival with the problems mentioned.

You are ignoring several important facts. First, most mutations are benign. Secondly, even in small populations, beneficial mutations confer a survival advantage. Third, most species produce more offspring than are needed to pass on their heritage, which increases species survival rates. Fourth, and this is where my work comes in, I've studied crinoids most of my life, and am an expert in echinoderms, having collected many fossil specimens and raised live echinoderms. While there are no living crinoid species that can be found in, for instance, Paleozoic faunal zones, all three classes are present from the Ordovician all the way to the present. That is 400 million years of evolution of all three classes of crinoids. And so when you say that you can't study their evolutionary history because you can't know the population size, I say you don't understand how population surveys are conducted. My specialty is middle Mississippian aged crinoids (late Osagean stage, to be precise). My paper I linked to in a previous post described 66 species of crinoids representing over 20 genera from all three classes, including 8 new species. The fossil bed where those specimens originated is nearly 80 feet thick and represents millions of crinoids. And so the samples of specimens was truly representative of one of the largest and diverse crinoid fauna that existed 330 million years ago, that ever existed, in fact. So yes, you certainly can know in detail the fossil population you are working with. You can even determine the currents, the depth of the water in which they lived, the substrate on which they lived, and the entire population of the rest of the flora and fauna that made up the reef in which they lived. Also present in that fauna were sharks, trilobites, blastoids, sea urchin-like animals called echinoids, and even sponges. From that survey, we could reconstruct nearly the entire reef habitat, and compare what we found at that site with other similar sites throughout the Midwest. And you can compare and contrast all of that with modern crinoid reefs today.



That is not quite accurate. For instance, the coelacanth has been around for at least 300 million years. But the coelacanth that existed back then is not the same species as the one that existed today. There is only one species alive today and it is not represented in the fossil record.

You might say so what ? but every group of organisms are experiencing these mutations and natural selection and we are not seeing new kinds being developed.

Yes we are. In great abundance, and throughout the classification scheme.

You defeat your own argument when you claim beneficial mutations because they are very rare, there is a reason for that.

That is not true. If they were very rare, you wouldn't be here. If that is all you got out of my response, then you are well and truly fucked up. You have my sympathy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought this ought to be said somewhere in this thread:

Brian Cox: it is not acceptable to promote bad science (or non-science as science):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7BTqKeP6Ks

What do you think they do by believing theories that are mostly supported by conjecture not evidence ?

Erm, large hadron collider is not conjecture. A sigma 5 rating is not conjecture. Anyone who thinks it is conjecture is stupid beyond belief. Congratulations.

Do you realize hadron collider is just under development ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please support your statement as mentioned above.
Don't creationists think that all the fossils were laid down by god 6000 or so years ago?

Do a search on google fossil record and check the creationist sites. A couple of problems for evolutionists are graveyards of fossils all over the planet,and fossils found in the wrong strata.

Well, then, you won't mind joining me on a field trip and proving that statement to me in person, in the field, on some fossil beds. Right? Say, these, for instance?

Falls of the Ohio State Park

Come on, grasshopper. Come out into the field with me, and put your money where your mouth is.

I would be more than happy if you will make a trip to the grand canyon with our crew.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are ignoring several important facts. First, most mutations are benign. Secondly, even in small populations, beneficial mutations confer a survival advantage. Third, most species produce more offspring than are needed to pass on their heritage, which increases species survival rates. Fourth, and this is where my work comes in, I've studied crinoids most of my life, and am an expert in echinoderms, having collected many fossil specimens and raised live echinoderms. While there are no living crinoid species that can be found in, for instance, Paleozoic faunal zones, all three classes are present from the Ordovician all the way to the present. That is 400 million years of evolution of all three classes of crinoids. And so when you say that you can't study their evolutionary history because you can't know the population size, I say you don't understand how population surveys are conducted. My specialty is middle Mississippian aged crinoids (late Osagean stage, to be precise). My paper I linked to in a previous post described 66 species of crinoids representing over 20 genera from all three classes, including 8 new species. The fossil bed where those specimens originated is nearly 80 feet thick and represents millions of crinoids. And so the samples of specimens was truly representative of one of the largest and diverse crinoid fauna that existed 330 million years ago, that ever existed, in fact. So yes, you certainly can know in detail the fossil population you are working with. You can even determine the currents, the depth of the water in which they lived, the substrate on which they lived, and the entire population of the rest of the flora and fauna that made up the reef in which they lived. Also present in that fauna were sharks, trilobites, blastoids, sea urchin-like animals called echinoids, and even sponges. From that survey, we could reconstruct nearly the entire reef habitat, and compare what we found at that site with other similar sites throughout the Midwest. And you can compare and contrast all of that with modern crinoid reefs today.



That is not quite accurate. For instance, the coelacanth has been around for at least 300 million years. But the coelacanth that existed back then is not the same species as the one that existed today. There is only one species alive today and it is not represented in the fossil record.



Yes we are. In great abundance, and throughout the classification scheme.

You defeat your own argument when you claim beneficial mutations because they are very rare, there is a reason for that.

That is not true. If they were very rare, you wouldn't be here. If that is all you got out of my response, then you are well and truly fucked up. You have my sympathy.

I don't believe I am here from a cell evolving. I believe I was created and given the ability to adapt not evolve biologically. You want to believe you are a mutation have at it but you don't possess evidence to support that view.