Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[THEWULFMAN]

The Forum analogy doesn't work. We can choose to leave this forum and never return.

The pet and children analogy are a lot better. However you guys seem to have gotten distracted and/or confused. You seem to forget I was simply making a point that I wouldn't do anything and everything God asks me to. I said,

In my belief, I don't care if God created us or not, there's nothing wrong with being homosexual unless he can come up with a really good reason. If we say "just because he created us, he can tell us what to do" then where does it end? No. I'll worship God because he deserves it, not because he tells me so. If God came to me, and told me to kill my father, I wouldn't do it. He wouldn't, but that's not my point. You can't do everything God says just because he says to do it. That's slavery.

He wouldn't, but that's not my point.

I said I wouldn't do things I don't think bind to my ethics, I wasn't trying to get you guys to find when and where God was cruel and asked unreasonable things. Because I've already shown some of those things, and there's more I didn't go into. That's simply not important though.

This whole thing with Cypher trying to say Creationism has any base in science is far more important, we should focus on that right now. I'd love to stay, but I have to go take care of my mum.

Peace.

[Darth Crater]

Alright, since Homestar doesn't seem to grasp such basic points as that I'm using homosexuality as an example rather than discussing it directly, that a Bible passage talking about the murder of infants talks about killing without cause, or that even if we agreed on the abortion issue it wouldn't matter...

Time to address Cypher.

Macro-evolution is simply the changes of micro-evolution occurring over a greater time, with consequently greater impact. Thus, it is a simple extrapolation from micro-evolution. Even if you disagree with this, there is plenty of historical evidence (see: fossils below) for its occurring. Also, note that we can compare the similarity of genomes, and animals we consider to have a closer ancestor have more similar genes (and often, more similar organs or features).

I have no clue what you're using as your definition for "historical framework". It's possible it's sufficiently broad that we are actually in agreement, or it's possible that evolution does not actually fit in it. Could you clarify what you mean?

Many fields have the problem that we cannot perfectly replicate the events under study. In fact, all physical sciences do - cosmology, geology, sociology, economics, meteorology - you get the idea. This does not make them any less valid. The phenomenon does not need to be repeatable - the experiments must be.

You claim creationism is testable and disprovable. What test can I perform that will come out differently if creationism is true than if it is false?

Onto the evidence:
1. Apparently you are not only unfamiliar with the evidence, but also not following the thread. I brought this up with Ariel before. We are constantly identifying new fossils of the type you would call "transitional". A few examples: http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils ... heory.html
2. I was unfamiliar with this argument, so had to do a bit of research. Turns out that the method you (or more accurately, whoever you're quoting from) are using is not a valid way to calculate age.

For a process to be considered a good natural clock, it must contain the following: a known initial condition, an irreversible process, a uniform rate, and a final condition. With the salt clock, the initial condition is not known. The process of salt accumulation has been proven to be reversible and in constant change. There is also no uniform rate of accumulation of salt. The only criterion met is the known final condition. Because of these factors, the salt clock can obviously not be used as a natural clock to calculate any type of age.

Also, you're arguing for a young earth, not just against evolution. In which case - like I mentioned earlier - you're disregarding all of the evidence we've gained from geology, cosmology, paleontology, and some of the older bits of archaeology.
3. Afraid I don't have the knowledge to address this one fully. You do not claim the reactions are impossible, however. In any case, this does not seem to affect natural selection.
4. Simple - the first lifeform to survive was levo-amino-based. Thus, all those descended from it are levo-based.

Please don't go down Homestar's route - disorder and entropy do not matter on the scale of biology.

Wulf, Yanoda - anything I'm wrong about or missed? Anything to add or dig back up about the abiogenesis bit?

[theavengers85]

Darth Crater, I would be happy to engage you on this subject. And yes, I will try to stay on point :P.

I am not trying to "disprove" evolution so much as attempt to demonstrate that creationism is a valid alternative explanation that utilizes the same evidence interpreted differently to produce a different conclusion. I am far less concerned with "beating" evolution as dispelling the idea that creationists are unscientific (I think you already understand my point, but just saying for anybody else who is reading).

I think a better term for historical framework is historical theory.

Ok, now to address some of your replies:

1) (and your point about macro/microevolution)
As far as your first point of small changes leading inevitably to large changes, you are stating a very common defense of macro-evolution. However, the problem is that there is no definitive proof of these large changes playing out, and this is therefore an unproven assumption. Similarity does not necessarily imply that things are related, however I would agree that it could point in this direction. I am no paleontologist, so my point here is a bit weak. It seems that many are assuming that because there seems to be progressions in skeletal structures, it means that simpler evolved into more complex. However, isn't it also possible that there is degeneration from more complex to simpler? You probable answer would be that the simpler forms are found lower in the fossil record. This is indisputable, and is the major reason that evolution is held to be valid. However, creationists who believe in the Nohaic flood hold that the majority of the fossil record was produced by the flood (simpler, smaller creatures would have often gotten buried first, more mobile, larger creatures would have lasted longer etc).

Also, considering how many kinds of creatures we have today (and how many more went extinct over time), shouldn't the fossil record be absolutely filled with transitional forms?


Yes, unfortunately I didn't both to read the whole thread (it is 70+ pages long), but I tried to get a general sense of it.

My background in genetics is much better, so I will concentrate here. Yes, there are huge similarities in the genomes of say dogs and cats. Again, this is seemingly strong support for evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, understands this in two ways. 1) Some evolution occurred within what creationists call Genesis "kinds". These are clearly not species, or even necessarily genera (maybe classes?). Transitions between species/genera within kinds creationists would agree with. 2) Creationists would argue that similarities between organisms in different types point to a common design plan, and thus a common Designer (i.e. God had a very good basic body plan, and used it repeatedly; if you have a good basic design of something, why not use it again and again) Also, if two creatures both have tails, isn't it logical that they should have similar DNA to produce these structures?

Also, there is another problem with saying genomes are similar. What exactly is meant by "similar"? Scientists often claim that the human and chimpanzee genomes are 99% similar. Sadly, I don't have the sources anymore, but I have read that this is overstated, overlooking many differences like transposable elements, etc. Admittedly, this is another weak point, due to my lack of sources, but I would encourage you to look into this.

2) A valid rebuttal, and quite plausible (yes this is geology, not evolution, but evolution requires long ages, so if they don't exist, evolution could not occur). However, it brings up an interesting question. The tool used to determined (and assign) long age dates to fossils is radiometric dating, and it is subject to the same issues. Flood geologists contend that the long "apparent" age of the rocks was produced by the effects of a violent worldwide flood depleting the measured isotopes.

Creationists are not discarding any evidence, merely reinterpreting it under a different paradigm. It is true creationists do not have an answer for all the evidence used to support evolution, but I think they have a good basic handle on it (the hard part is that much of the nitty gritty details in creation theory are not that old, so there is admittedly a good bit of room for growth.

3) Yes, this is a pretty technical point (biochemistry is intense and mindtwistingly complex, easily my hardest bio class), but I agree it does not disprove evolution. It is, however, another factor that works against it. I realize that trying to make probability arguments against evolution (or creationism) is futile, since the someone will say "well, we are here, so it had to work somehow." A creationist could make the same statement. The reason they come to different conclusions is that they have different starting philosophies.

4) Your argument is also a reasonable one. However, are you really stating that there was only 1 original lifeform that produced all life? Couldn't it happen twice? Also, wereall the amino acids of that original organism levo? The odds are against that (again, I know probability arguments are futile, but I am just pointing out some difficulties).

I would disagree that disorder and entropy don't er in biology (biological reactions totally depend on it). I will comply and not go too far down this route, but I will say that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases in any reaction in a closed system.


As far as your comment about testing Creationism, I will offer the following:
Claim: evolution occurs only within kinds, not between them. Therefore, there should be no transitions between kinds.

Test: do we observe transitional forms between kinds?

Ok, this is why I am emphatic about this being a historical science (i.e. no one was there to see it, so we cannot ever be sure who is right, only relatively well supported or not). This is all a er of interpretation, so I cannot "disprove" evolution, because interpretations can always be adjusted to new evidence, so I don't think you can actually disprove it. Creationism does the same thing. So I am just saying that if I can demonstrate that creationism can reasonably explain the evidence, I will have accomplished my goal.

I argue that we do not see any convincing transitional forms, but I know this is a great debate. The classic one is between birds and dinosaurs, namely that the latter evolved into the former. Take Archaeopteryx. Evolutionists claim that it is a transition between dinos and birds. However,could it be that this is really a bird:

Because it had teeth, Archaeopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form. However, it has been found that certain living birds also have teeth (http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/09/ ... ith-teeth/). Could it be that the other transitional features are also found in certain unresearched birds? Even if not, could this just be a unique type of bird.

I am merely postulating an alternative explanation.

Still, I ask again, why are there relatively few transitional forms in existence if evolution claims there should have been millions or billions of them (why only say a few hundred)? Occam's razor states that the simplest explanation is usually the best, so why not just assume that this is a unique bird rather than a transitional form?

So, did I succesfully test Creationism: yes.
Supported or disproved: in my opinion, supported, but again, this is a historical science, so you can use the same evidence to support evolution and thus "disprove" my position. So I am going to have to say that neither creationism nor evolution is an empirical science. They are merely historical-scientific theories that use scientific evidence interpreted according to a prior assumptions to explain why we are here and why things are the way they are.

Sorry if I appear to not address some of your points in detail, but I would rather not try to base my arguments on points that I don't have a good background (or good sources) for. Also, some of my topics are a bit rusty, since I've been out of college for a few years, and haven't gone into a high level of depth since (I still understand the basics).

Dang, so few posts, but so many pages.

Ok, I need a breather, my fingers are about to fall off. And I'm sure that I'm not the only one.

[The Master]

The Forum analogy doesn't work. We can choose to leave this forum and never return.

The pet and children analogy are a lot better. However you guys seem to have gotten distracted and/or confused. You seem to forget I was simply making a point that I wouldn't do anything and everything God asks me to. I said,

In my belief, I don't care if God created us or not, there's nothing wrong with being homosexual unless he can come up with a really good reason. If we say "just because he created us, he can tell us what to do" then where does it end? No. I'll worship God because he deserves it, not because he tells me so. If God came to me, and told me to kill my father, I wouldn't do it. He wouldn't, but that's not my point. You can't do everything God says just because he says to do it. That's slavery.

He wouldn't, but that's not my point.

I said I wouldn't do things I don't think bind to my ethics, I wasn't trying to get you guys to find when and where God was cruel and asked unreasonable things. Because I've already shown some of those things, and there's more I didn't go into. That's simply not important though.


This whole thing with Cypher trying to say Creationism has any base in science is far more important, we should focus on that right now. I'd love to stay, but I have to go take care of my mum.

Peace.

I don't think the last few posting have been about what you were saying. Darth Crater hates Honestar and Homestar hares Darth Crater.

Homestar even popped his stitches fighting with him That was a joke Col.

[THEWULFMAN]

Bueno, you still haven't said anything of worth in this thread. I am still shocked you necro'd this thread.

I guess we're shooting for 100 pages now people?

[FaiL.?]

Bueno, you still haven't said anything of worth in this thread. I am still shocked you necro'd this thread.

I guess we're shooting for 100 pages now people?

YES

[theavengers85]

Bueno, you still haven't said anything of worth in this thread. I am still shocked you necro'd this thread.

I guess we're shooting for 100 pages now people?

Groan

Yes, why not?

Our poor fingers

[The Master]

Hey everyone. Come on up up and away to 100 pages. What's wrong why isn't anyone debating more.

[theavengers85]

Our brains are willing but the fingers are weak

[Darth Crater]

Weird sleep schedule and real life stuff have precluded any lengthy responses. Still owe one each to Cypher and Ariel; will get to those sometime.