Anti-evolution, pro science conservatives

WorldNetDaily ^ | 3/29/2008 | Gary Bauer and Daniel Allott

[wastedpotential]

Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.

Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.

We believe most Americans

[AndrewC]

quote:...

Nice quote, but I see no mention of cancer. I do, however, see vitamin D here:

quote:

" production of vitamin D"

end quote

[AndrewC]

Really? Because it seems the just so stories about Macroevoltuion suit you just fine

I think you are confusing me with someone else. But if you are not, please point out one of my just so stories.

[Just mythoughts]

Even if those facts that you listed were in Scripture, no doubters throughout the ages would have been convinced to believe. They would have found ways to excuse it, explain it away, or otherwise discredit it, just as they do now. Believing is a choice. It’s not a matter of *can’t* believe, but *won’t* believe.

I am reminded of Daniel being told 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. ......

[CottShop]

[[Assuming for now that Schroeder got it wrong, we are left with a choice. Either the Bible creation days are “long” days, or the Bible is scientific nonsense. You are welcome to take the latter view, but I’ll go with the former.]]

Assuming he is right- however there is evidence that shows redshifts indicate shorter timespan as well

“Many creationists who take the Bible literally believe that the entire universe is about 6000 years old. Here I will try to consider this issue from a purely scientific viewpoint, without arguing the Scriptural issues one way or the other.”

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/

[CottShop]

I didn’t say you gave just so stories (that I know of anyways) but that you accept just so stories of Macroevolution

[CottShop]

woops somethign happend to my last post- here’s the link to that quote: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/universe.html

The IRC link also gives examples of young universe evidences though

[AndrewC]

I didn’t say you gave just so stories (that I know of anyways) but that you accept just so stories of Macroevolution

Okay. Which ones and where?

[Amendment10]

What attacks on creationism?

Simply pointing out that something isn’t science isn’t an attack if it is true.

Let's be a little bit more honest with ourselves about attacks on creationism.

I agree that faith-based creationism has no place in public school science classrooms any more than scientifically unverified, faith-based macroevolution ideas do. However, anti-Christian factions have a track record for dragging public schools and their creationism curriculum before constitution-ignoring, secular-minded judges. And regardless of the 10th A. protected power of the states to address religion, such judges have nonetheless been unlawfully kicking creationism out of public schools altogether on the basis of the bogus constitutional principle of absolute c&s separation. The following links list such cases.

Evolution and Creationism in Public Schools
Wikipedia: Creation and evolution in public education

[Coyoteman]

My first post mentioned skin color in relation to both vitamin D and ultraviolet radiation. This is basic stuff, which I learned years ago in my first grad level human races course.

Spin all you want, but until you read a few books on the subject you aren't even able to present a rational argument. Nor are you worth debating. Its like you were playing a game of chess and you demanded, "King me!"

[mrjesse]

Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them.

.... Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation"

I'm not quite sure how ring species prove that dogs came from non-dogs, or that mankind came from goo (via the zoo.)

All a ring species proves is that due to drift in the DNA codes, two genetic lines can become non-interbreed-able. That doesn't mean that they are a different kind of animal, however. (Now I realize some say that if it cant breed its a different species, so I use the word kind here.)

I don't know how much you know about DNA or IT, (The latter being my main field of interest) but when the internet began to expand, smart programmers figured out how to add checksums to files, so that when a file was downloaded, a calculation on all the bytes could be performed and compared against the included checksum number. If they matched, the file was probably in tact. If they didn't match, then the file got corrupted along the way.

As I said, IT, not genetics, is my familiar field of research, so I will here use IT terms and concepts to discuss DNA since I am familiar with those. (Yes, DNA contains information and interpreters.) Quite similarly to computer files, DNA also contains checksums, except they are more forgiving. When two DNA sets are joined in conception, a set of comparisons are made to make sure that not only is it the same species, but to make sure that the information isn't too far different. If a given set of DNA codes do not match close enough between the two sources, then that DNA code is disregarded and another is used instead. This is why inbreeding causes defects -- because if both parents have the same genetic defect, the comparison compares them and finds them the same, and assumes that they must be good, so then a corrupted DNA code is used, resulting in deformed offspring.

So what happens in the case of a ring species is that due to copy errors and radiation caused DNA code mangling/corruption, eventually the "Checksums" of the two non-interbreeding ends of the ring become enough different that they fail the checksum test, and can no longer interbreed. It doesn't mean that they are a different kind, they just have different checksums -- due to accumulated errors in the DNA data -- that the DNA error checking prevents conception.

So I don't see how the ring species provides any evidence as to where the species came from beforehand or what will happen with it. To believe that it proves anything beyond sure looks like a faith to me.

How does it prove that humans came from rocks (via goo and the zoo) without resorting to the false idea that "If it could be, it is be...?"

Just what does it prove without moving into the realm of faith?

Thanks,

Jesse

[Fichori]

"The redshift of light from distant galaxies is evidence that the universe is expanding. It is also evidence of the big bang origin of the universe. Cosmologists currently estimate the age of the universe at something like 14 billion years. Exactly how they came up with that estimate is beyond me, but Hugh Ross is an expert on it."


The above bold is an example of faulty logic.

For example(paraphrased from Refuting Compromise):
Theory T predicts observation O;
O is observed;
Therefor, T is true.

To show how this is faulty:
If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
I feel very full;
Therefor, I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Just because I'm full does not mean I just ate a whole pizza (I might have eaten a dozen hamburgers) and because the universe is expanding is not evidence of the big bang.

The right way to to verify a theory would be:
Theory T predicts O will not be observed;
O is observed;
Therefore, T is false.

So lets try this out on real data:
Theory "Big Bang" predicts observation "cosmic microwave radiation indicating constant temperature throughout space to within 1 part in 100,00032", will not be observed.
Observation "cosmic microwave radiation indicating constant temperature throughout space to within 1 part in 100,00032", is observed.
Therefore, Theory "Big Bang", is False.

English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle had this to say: "Big-Bang cosmology refers to an epoch that cannot be reached by any form of astronomy, and, in more than two decades, it has not produced a single successful prediction."


And assuming Schroeder did get it wrong, who is to say there only two choices?
What if there is a third choice, namely, that the majority of those in the scientific community are wrong about the origins of the earth and that the Bible is indeed correct concerning 6, 24 hour days?
Does it not then come down to a question of faith?
Whether it be me placing my faith in the Bible, or you placing your faith in astronomers?

[modican]

AntiEvolution!

Is this like becoming a Singularity again.
What a waste of 15Bill years.

[RussP]

Faulty logic? Hey, you little twit, my little two-sentence outline of the redshift was not intended to be a doctoral dissertation. It was intended to give you a clue about something that you seemed clueless about.

[AndrewC]

My first post mentioned skin color in relation to both vitamin D and ultraviolet radiation. This is basic stuff, which I learned years ago in my first grad level human races course.

And you mentioned vitamin D for a reason. It was supposed to support your argument for an "improved" skin color. You have not shown that. But my question was what was the color which was "improved" upon. It seems to me that you imply that lighter came from dark through not so dark. That would imply light is "improved" from dark. What is that "improvement"?

P.S. I don't care what you think you learned. What matters is what and how you argue. The operating word is "improvement" because you supported an statement about an accusation concerning DNA degradation. In fact, DNA is degraded continuously but it is repaired by cellular processes. You know that.

[fabian]

perhaps you should look at the various definitions of science...many like you have tried to redefine it as only including the scientific method. This is done in an ackward attempt at discluding the pointers of a creator. The amazing dna code is most certainly part of science and has creator implications all over it. Because you have a deep denial of God does not give you the right to say what is and is not science. Just doesn’t work....never will and is very transparent to any inquistive mind.

[fabian]

he has a deep fear of his conscience and therefore is compelled to try and deny God. In a “scientific” way.

[fabian]

that’s fine, but our greatest example of how to be was Jesus and he was not highly educated at all. Actually he was a carpenter yet he had amazing understanding of everything.

[mrjesse]

The redshift of light from distant galaxies is evidence that the universe is expanding. It is also evidence of the big bang origin of the universe.

I am not so much pushing a certain point here, but rather seeking coherence, good logic, and honest answers.

I have a reasonable understanding of practical physics, but I don't see redshift as proving that the universe is expanding, and I don't see how an expanding universe would prove the big bang.

Remember, the fact that something could have happened a certain way is not proof that it did happen that way. (Unless, of course, a thing is proved to have happened, and all other possible methods have been positively disproven.)

While velocity does produce Doppler red-shift, it is possible that other things (besides velocity) can cause red-shift. Now I'm not saying that other things can cause redshift, but only that it is possible.

Just as an aside, there are a couple things we know about light. One is that the shorter wavelength/higher frequency light has more energy per photon. IR warms us nicely, but doesn't harm us on account of its properties as light. UV, on the other hand, sunburns us and actually disintegrates all sort of solid objects. Xrays are even worse. (If you put your hand in the rays of a running germicidal lamp for 3 seconds then smell it, it will smell like burning skin, just as if you had touched a red-hot burner. I've tried both, incidentally.)

Now consider this: We know that light passing through a gas interacts with it in some way, because it is slowed and refracted where appropriate. What if a photon, as it passed over an extremely long distance, through lots of sparse gas atoms -- what if it lost a little bit of its energy, causing a lengthening of wavelength -- this would also be redshift, not as a result of velocity, but as a result of distance and passing through giant gas clouds.

So red-shift could be caused by other things.

As to the expanding universe, if it were proved, how does this prove the big bang? Lets learn a little bit about dat der big bang. Quoting from Berkley we read that "Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy,.."

Okay, so we're being asked to believe that there was a time when the laws of physics as we know them did not exist. Now that sort of takes, well that really takes quite a lot of faith!

So let us assume that it is proved that the universe is expanding, if we don't accept any idea of causation that doesn't require faith, then we just don't know.

But if we decide we can accept some things as a faith, two new opportunities arise: We can then have faith that the big bang (which violates the known laws of physics and was never witnessed) and we can also instead have faith that God created the universe and set it in motion and expanding.

Ahah!, one might say! Jesse's just attributing to God something because there is no other known possible cause. That's not even scientific!

Well, true enough. But the big bang is exactly the same thing, in that it also is an unproven story made up to explain the expanding universe (and even the source of all matter), because there is no other known possible cause.

Let us briefly examine the word and concept of "Supernatural."

The universe either came to be or it always or never was.

It obviously is, so it either always was or came to be.

But if either of us believed that it always was, we would not be having this conversation, so that leaves one thing: It came to be. Thus arises the question, "how."

Considering that the universe came to be, it either came to be by natural means (that is to say conforming to the known natural laws of physics) or it didn't.

If it didn't come into being solely by the natural laws of physics, then it came in a way that was beyond natural -- or literally -- super natural.

So whether it's the big bang or special creation, either way it is a super-natural event.

So I believe, as part of my faith, that God created the world in 6 twenty-four hour days, but I freely admit that it is a faith.

But mine is no more a faith then for those who believe in the big bang, it's just that they generally won't admit that it is a faith, and they say that it is scientific fact.

The big bang has not even been proved possible!

(And we know that just being possible isn't even proof of being true.)

So who am I going to believe? A bunch of evolutionists who believe that all came to exist randomly for no reason, and who believe that there's no such thing as wrong? Or the Bible, which teaches that wrong does exist, and that lying is wrong?

Well, at least the Bible sets forth a reason that lying is wrong, and that it is true, whereas the pure strict naturalistic evolutionist believes that there is no such thing as wrong because it all came to be without a purpose, and that there is no law greater then mans law, that no such thing as wrong exist (and therefor lying is not wrong) -- the only rule is that of the jungle, specifically don't get caught.

But so many people believe in evolution. They can't all be wrong, can they? Remember, truth is not determined by popular opinion. So yes, they could all be wrong.

Thus it is entirely possible, and even likely that thousands of evolution-believing professors and teachers teach it as absolute true proven fact, when they know themselves that they take it as a faith, not as proven science.

The result is that all their students end up not knowing evolution but believing it, being confident that their professors and other experts know it to be true.

So, without resorting to faith, how does redshift really give evidence that the universe is billions of years old or that the big bang happened?

Thanks and keep up the good work,

-Jesse

[metmom]

Wisdom and knowledge are two different things.

[freespirited]

A scientist ignoring evoidence for an intelligent causation, and insists that there MUST be a ntaural causation, and who maligns any other position who opposes a natural explanation, is NOT practicing science, but rather a religious dogmatic BELIEF that is inconsistent with the scientific facts and evidneces.

You seem to think that the maligning is a one-way street. I have heard ID folks say plenty of malign things about those who accept evolutionary theory.

My point about ID is simply that those who seek acceptance of it for purposes of science as opposed to other disciplines have no chance of success until they proceed in accordance with the scientific method.