Designed to deceive: Creation can't hold up to rigors of science

CONTRA COSTA TIMES ^ | 12 February 2006 | John Glennon

[Buggman]

This statement appears to have no basis in fact.

Go take it up with the Punk-Eekers. I'm not getting into an "Is too!" "Is not!" debate with you.

[PatrickHenry]

The material quoted by Ichneumon comes from Chapter 11 of Origin of Species, found here: Chapter 11 - On The Geological Succession Of Organic Beings.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Therefore, if they went to their deaths voluntarily for the sake of His name, it is proof that they believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they were willing to die for what they knew, firsthand, to be true.

Proof that that is what they did?

[b_sharp]

"And I'm all for scientific processes. Also love Socratic methodology. I'm just saying that EvoThink does not hold up until an Evo can demonstrate/recreate its purported processes. (the kink in EvoThinking seems to be that "over a serious amount of time, things can spontaneously create themselves" so Evos are loathe to commit to any quick demonstration.)

I shall assume you have fallen for the creationist red-herring of micro/macro evolution and are referring exclusively to macro-evolution.

Although many creationists resort to the 'macro-evolution can not be observed' canard it is simply a tactic to redirect your attention from the many lines of evidence science in general uses when developing theories. Specifically in evolution we have tell-tale markers in the DNA of extant species that links them genetically in very much the same patterns that the morphological evidence used to compile the phylogenic 'tree of life' produces.

Science does not need 'direct' observation to reach a high level of confidence in the accuracy of conclusions, indirect observation can frequently produce more than just a little convincing evidence. In fact one of the most important developments of the last 100 years - Quantum Physics (and all its parts) - is built on nothing but indirect observation.

There are many mechanisms in evolution that produce change in a species that would continue 'ad infinitum' restricted solely by the constraints imposed by the physical limits of a given environment (eg. aquatic organisms can grow larger than terrestrial organisms). For this change to not result in 'macro-evolution' a verified counter mechanism would have to be proposed. This mechanism has not been produced by the anti-evolutionists.

"And I'm saying that these purported evolutionary processes would naturally relate to the process of creating something out of nothing, i.e. creation itself.

The link between the origin of the universe and the observed variance in earthly biota is tenuous at best. It would be very easy to suppose that a God created the universe in such a way that abiogenesis would occur on at least one planet. Evolutionary processes do not rely on a specific cosmology and are independent of the origin of life. One can explore the creation of a garment without knowledge of the origin of the fabric.

[whispering out loud]

yeah, for anyone who blindly accepts what the Evo scientific community hands to them. It sickens me that any scientist who supports creationism, and or ID is automatically discounted by you evo Nazis as "A liar" or "someone who doesn't understand science", .. or several other general assumptions, as a matter of fact the only people you count as actual scientist, are supporters of evolution. When a point is argued, it is said, "bring me something from someplace other than a Creationist source" what do you expect, for us to bring support for creation from an evolutionist? That very concept is moronacy. I realize that to control the source is to control the conversation, but your control of the source is absolutely the most clear cut case of close minded thinking I have ever seen displayed. And here I thought science was supposed to be about open minded study to find the truth, not Communist methods of controlling peoples ability to question your small minded concepts. You do not fool anyone, just because you try to set the rules for a debate, that doesn't make you right, nor does it make the ABSOLUTE LIE of evolution true. Knowing that most of you closed minded evo morons will now proceed to attack my character, and intelligence, I may or may not return your post, depending upon the respect with which you respond to mine.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" It sickens me that any scientist who supports creationism, and or ID is automatically discounted by you evo Nazis...."

Godwin's Law. You lose.

If you actually have a coherent argument against evolutionary theory, please provide it or slither away.

[VadeRetro]

Go take it up with the Punk-Eekers. I'm not getting into an "Is too!" "Is not!" debate with you.

For a guy who is supposed to be better than this, the Grand Old-Timer coming back slumming, you're just running through the usual debunked canards like some newb right out of the Kent Hovind seminars.

Punk-Eek Source Number One. Note that Darwin seems to have been the first Punk-Eeker.

Punk-Eek Source Number Two. Note that Darwin seems to have been the first Punk-Eeker.

There is no "out" for you in that material. For all that, there was no question you're going to keep repeating your canard about transitionals in the fossil record forever. It isn't about the evidence. It's about the Holy War. The talking points have already been printed up.

[b_sharp]

" If you've never seen an indy car do 400 miles per hour, it would not be reasonable to assume that it could do so. If you've seen one pushed to the redline to do 220, then it becomes unreasonable to assume they can go much faster because you know the care is redlining at 220 - which means the engine is near blowing."

Change the gearing in an Indy car and 220 will not be a limit. Place an Indy car on a flat straight track and with current gearing 220 would not be a limit. CART cars were averaging 230mph at Indy and at Detroit. For the average to be 230mph on an oval, the straightaway speed would have to be a fare bit higher.
Our 'observation' of the limits of the current architecture (eg. redline point) does not make 400mph 'unreasonable'. What would affect the 'reasonableness' of 400mph is the understanding of the underlying physics involved in getting the car to reach that speed given its environment.

"How then can one claim it reasonable to assume that 14C was remaining constant in the atmosphere when it isn't currently.

When using Carbon 14 to date recent ages, potential variances are taken into consideration. Do you really think scientists would miss something as obvious as that? I'm afraid that with your level of knowledge you would be extremely hard pressed to come up with any problems with dating that scientists have not already considered.

"How can one "reasonably assume that half-lives remain constant over time if you have no basis in knowledge as to whether such an assumption is reasonable or not.

E=MC².

If half-lives were shorter in the past there would be evidence of such.

[Buggman]

Vade, I said right up front in the posts that caught your attention that I don't have the time for this that I used to, so please stop trying to goad me into writing a few thousand pages to refute every last argument and counter-argument in this thread and every thread that I've missed for the last five years. It's not going to happen unless I win the lottery and retire from my day job.

[VadeRetro]

Your claim is without factual basis. When you get the chance, look into it. It would look good if you did that before you showed up trolling for suckers with the same old false talking points.

[andysandmikesmom]

I will take a crack at this...

A few weeks ago, I watched a TV program, on one of the religious channels, which was supposed to be showing a 'scientific' study of why evolution was incorrect...so I tuned in...whether you care to believe this or not, there was NO scientific evidence offered...a speaker came on, give a few anecdotal stories(none of them having to do with Creationism/ID/evolution)...then a commercial came on, selling creationism tapes and book...back to the speaker...more anecdotal stories...back to more commercials...this was only a 1/2 hr program, almost at its end,I am wondering when is the scientific stuff coming on...finally he gets out a paper, puts it up on the screen, complains about some squiggly lines, showing, I guess, some sort of supposed evolution, and then the program ends....more commercials follow...Now, I was all set and ready to see what they had to offer in the way of scientific evidence, and was disappointed because there was none...still dont know what to make of this...

When someone says, that they will support evolution, when say, a dog gives birth to a cat(or some such), within a generation or two, and they can be shown this, I must believe that they do not know what the ToE states...because what they have put forth is certainly not something the ToE would ever say or support...it shows a lack of understanding of what the ToE states...now, why is it wrong to point that out?...

The other thing that does upset me, is when someone who supports ID/creationism, states, as a fact, that no one who supports ToE can possibly be a Christian...now, that may be their own personal subjective view on the matter, it is hardly a fact...I take someones word for it, that if they say they are a Christian, then they do believe themselves to be a Christian...but often that is not good enough for a creationist/Id supporter...in other words, if one does not believe the Bible, in their own particular subjective personal way, then they cannot be a Christian...that is sickening as well...

And as far as being a liar...if anyone lies, no matter on side of this debate they find themselves, they should be called out on it...and often this is done, with posts from other threads to prove the lie...a lie is a lie, and when there are posts that show it to be so, there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, no matter who is doing the lying, or who is calling them on it...

I have remained civil, have not called you any names, not have I called into question your intelligence...just tried to answer some of your concerns...

[Buggman]

Perhaps you should go correct Professor Schwarz then, since you are so well educated in all things Darwinian and he seems to understand Darwin's theory and the fossil record as I do. Apparently, you are so well versed in Darwinism that you've left all of your fellows, people actually doing the research, in the dust. Clearly you are too good to be wasting your talents on FR.

I'll thank you not to ping me to this thread again.

[VadeRetro]

Perhaps you should go correct Professor Schwarz then, since you are so well educated in all things Darwinian and he seems to understand Darwin's theory and the fossil record as I do.

I refer you to post 89 of that thread.

I'll thank you not to ping me to this thread again.

Don't thank me yet.

[b_sharp]

"Dog breeds proliferated recently and so quickly it amazes people yet, they can't proliferate that quickly..

The variance in dog breeds is a result of selection through protection. Humans observed variances occurring in the dog population and made sure that those variations survived and were replicated. Variation that would normally result in replicative failure was selected for and supported by human intervention. This protection, something seldom found in nature, along with the unnaturally small population size, is what produced the speed of variation. In other words, dog breeds are the result of selection for difference not survivability. Interestingly enough this human selection also restricted the 'difference' to the humanly 'desirable'. Any variation deemed 'desirable' was reproduced with (relatively) remarkable speed, yet any variation that would lead to any 'undesirable' change was/is terminated. This is why we have a great variety of subspecies but no obvious speciation.

Note: The speed of variation within Canus familiarus has spanned a greater expanse of time than the 6000 years of the Bible yet shown much less variety than would be necesssary in the Noachian flood scenario.

[b_sharp]

The religious (not just Christians) started the sciences not because of their religion but because the vast majority of the population of the time was religious. This is still the case, most scientists are religious. Nothing but demographics.

Your attempt to equate religiosity with the ability to do science or to correlate scientific thought with religious thought is doomed to failure. Even the oft mentioned - at least by the anti-evolutionists - Newton was careful to divorce his religion and his successful science.

[whispering out loud]

"Godwin's Law. You lose." I think not, just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I generally don't conform to individual set rules. I don't have a problem with authority, just people who try to exercise authority they don't have. "If you actually have a coherent argument against evolutionary theory, please provide it or slither away." I've argued this exact topic with all of you several times. but just as I have already stated, you accept no one as a scientist, unless they support evo, and that is an absence of common sense, or common base. "Slither away"? Oh please, I know someone of your credentials with academia can come up with something better than that, use your "Superior intellect" wild sarc to at least muster up some reasonable ego blow, or don't even try. It's like debating pre schoolers.

[b_sharp]

"And what varying degrees are Evolution dependent upon?

"Time mostly. That's the thing that Evos hide behind because it makes the claim indemonstrable.[Emphasis mine]

The long periods of time were evident long before Darwin put together the ToE. Time is not used as something to obscure the reality of fossil evidence, the dates of the fossils are based on dates already established for the strata.

Age came first, then evolution - not the other way around.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I think not..."

Agreed.

"just in case you haven't figured it out yet, I generally don't conform to individual set rules."

You also obviously think that logical arguments are beneath you.

"I've argued this exact topic with all of you several times."

Than you'll easily be able to muster up some scientific arguments against evolution instead of resorting to nazi-name-calling.

"but just as I have already stated, you accept no one as a scientist, unless they support evo, and that is an absence of common sense, or common base."

No, we expect someone who has an argument against evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology, and all the other sciences that creationists are afraid of to actually PROVIDE said argument. Why is this too much to ask?

"It's like debating pre schoolers."

Yes it is, but I am a masochist and I do it any way. :)

[whispering out loud]

I appreciate your civility. I don't exactly know how all of these threads work, but I have in the past brought arguments with support using Science, IE charting backward population growth, and argued that man hasn't been around long enough to have evolved from even apes to man, through micro evo. These arguments were not in any way addressed, just discounted simply because they don't coincide with certain views. Once again I appreciate your candor, and civility toward me, and my problem is not with you. It is however with those who have discounted anything I have had to say simply on the basis that I don't support evolution.