Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

Post #1

Post by Neatras »

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #121

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 119 by EarthScienceguy]
In the 1980's a team of scientist believed they had found evidence of nuclear fusion occurring during the electrolysis of water. But because no other team of scientist could reproduce there experiment so the physics community discredited this team of scientist.


That experiment was debunked in about a week. So what's your point? You continuously cherry pick some old event where new science shows an original result was wrong, or needed refinement, and try to present that as if it were proof of some point you are trying to make. But you obviously don't know how science actually works. New experiments and new ideas (eg. general relativity) very often supersede older results which were based on knowledge at the time they were published. You seem to think that any prior result that is subsequently shown to be in error, or incomplete, is proof that the entire field should be discarded.

And there are many examples of beneficial mutations in humans and other animals. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine called Google ... correct? Search on "beneficial mutations" and you'll find plenty of articles that even a non-scientist like yourself can follow and understand. Can you tolerate lactose? Can you see three primary colors? Is your brain larger, more complex, and more capable than a chimpanzee?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #122

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 117 by EarthScienceguy]
Really, why is that.

The scientific method in any science book is as follows.
1. Observe an unexplained phenomenon.
2. Ask a testable question
3. Form a testable question
4. Form an experiment
5. Analyze results.
6. Form a conclusion
7. Communicate results
One last time, please explain why you link to creationist sites like creation.com, when they clearly do not follow the scientific method as you outline here, those sites that have statements of faith where they quite literally forbid any questioning or testing of certain dogmas, such as whether or not Noah's flood happened, where certain ancient books are declared superior to evidence gathered.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #123

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 120 by DrNoGods]
That experiment was debunked in about a week. So what's your point? You continuously cherry pick some old event where new science shows an original result was wrong, or needed refinement, and try to present that as if it were proof of some point you are trying to make. But you obviously don't know how science actually works. New experiments and new ideas (eg. general relativity) very often supersede older results which were based on knowledge at the time they were published. You seem to think that any prior result that is subsequently shown to be in error, or incomplete, is proof that the entire field should be discarded.
The point was how it was debunked. It was debunked because their experiment was falsified because it could not be replicated. The point was this is the way that normal science works. Results are published and then others see if they get the same results.



And there are many examples of beneficial mutations in humans and other animals. I'm sure you know how to use a search engine called Google ... correct? Search on "beneficial mutations" and you'll find plenty of articles that even a non-scientist like yourself can follow and understand.
Really, mutations that do not cause a deletion of information. Mutations do not build up in organisms causing extinction, like the H1N1 virus. How many generations can an organism survive before mutation build up kills it? The negative and neutral mutations far out way any beneficial mutation so there will always be a build up of negative mutations.

We can observe this build up in all organisms today.

Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation. All the other mutations that happen contribute to the build up that will eventually kill the organism. At least that what OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE points towards.
When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #124

Post by Neatras »

EarthScienceguy wrote:
We can observe this build up in all organisms today.
Your turn. Provide evidence. The H1N1 article you cited stated that RNA viruses are prone to degradation through mutations. Specifically RNA viruses. However you have bumped up your claim to "all organisms today." Provide evidence.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #125

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 122 by EarthScienceguy]
Really, mutations that do not cause a deletion of information. Mutations do not build up in organisms causing extinction, like the H1N1 virus. How many generations can an organism survive before mutation build up kills it? The negative and neutral mutations far out way any beneficial mutation so there will always be a build up of negative mutations.

We can observe this build up in all organisms today.


Then explain how horseshoe crabs have been around for 445 million years, or alligators, gharials and crocodiles for 85 million years, or sturgeons for 200 million years, etc. Why hasn't a buildup of "negative" mutations killed them off?
Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation.


What?
All the other mutations that happen contribute to the build up that will eventually kill the organism.


So are you claiming that all extinctions are the result of the buildup of "negative" mutations? Tell that to the dinosaurs. How did they diversify into an incredible number of species over some 180 million years, and still going strong 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub impact and the Deccan Traps conspired to wipe them out? What about the 4 other mass extinctions before that which had nothing to do with buildup of "negative" mutations? How many extinction events (mass or otherwise) can be attributed to buildup of negative mutations, vs. other, completely unrelated, causes?

OBSERVATIONAl SCIENCE does not point towards a scenario where most organisms are eventually killed by a buildup of deleterious mutations. It points towards continuous diversification in order to adapt to an ever changing environment, creating new species via mutations and natural selection. It works.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Post #126

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

This is a great rebuttal it really gets to the key differences.
Then explain how horseshoe crabs have been around for 445 million years, or alligators, gharials and crocodiles for 85 million years, or sturgeons for 200 million years, etc. Why hasn't a buildup of "negative" mutations killed them off?


They didn't. There is absolutely no discussion about how there are way more negative mutation that positive. We have ample observational evidence in support of that. There is ample observational evidence to support mutation build up in organism.

The next logical step would be to conclude that this build up of negative mutations would cause organism to become extinct. At the present time there is no mechanism that turns back the negative build up of mutations. I understand that H1N1 is a virus so it is not as complicated as a bacteria. It still undergoes mutations and can show the end result of mutation build-up.

Quote:
Beside it is not just any mutations which drives evolution but only one type of mutation which drives mutation.

Wow did not come out well. "dirvies mutation." sorry.
So are you claiming that all extinctions are the result of the buildup of "negative" mutations? Tell that to the dinosaurs. How did they diversify into an incredible number of species over some 180 million years, and still going strong 66 million years ago when the Chicxulub impact and the Deccan Traps conspired to wipe them out? What about the 4 other mass extinctions before that which had nothing to do with buildup of "negative" mutations? How many extinction events (mass or otherwise) can be attributed to buildup of negative mutations, vs. other, completely unrelated, causes?


Nope, not claiming that at all. Build up of mutations would not predict mass extinctions all at the same time. I am saying that all of the "different" extinctions that we observe in the rock record are a result of one catastrophe not many catastrophes.
OBSERVATIONAl SCIENCE does not point towards a scenario where most organisms are eventually killed by a buildup of deleterious mutations. It points towards continuous diversification in order to adapt to an ever changing environment, creating new species via mutations and natural selection. It works.
Current theory says that most organisms that have become extinct in the past has been caused by catastrophes, like the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I am not saying that genetic build up caused animals to die. I am simply saying that it is becoming hard to believe that any organism can exist millions of years of genetic build up.
When atheists are clearly answered and they run away because they have lost, then they claim they were never answered, are they liars?
by AquinasForGod

ATN
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:26 pm

Post #127

Post by ATN »

[Replying to post 125 by EarthScienceguy]

The individual negative mutations in a populations go extinct. Population success is measured in offspring, detrimental mutations would therefore have a lower chance to reproduce. So the individuals who have negative mutations would have fewer offspring than those who don't. And the mutation would go extinct from that population whiteout killing off the whole population. This is what we mean when we say that natural selection is a filter. Because individuals with benefits have more offspring than those without it and the inherited mutations grows in the population, while individuals with detrimental mutations gets fewer offspring then those without it and the inherited mutations go extinct.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #128

Post by Donray »

EarthScienceguy wrote:
The scientific method in any science book is as follows.
1. Observe an unexplained phenomenon.
2. Ask a testable question
3. Form a testable question
4. Form an experiment
5. Analyze results.
6. Form a conclusion
7. Communicate results
You do know that evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Evolution predicted all the evolution we see it the fossils. Look at all the fossils that we have that show the evolution of whales. So, evolution has been proved the testable question is can we find the fossils to prove evolution and in 100s of example we have demonstrated evolution.

Now, how about you proving that your god exists, that Jesus was real, and Bible is a lot myths such as the existence of Moses and the slave story. Do you have a proof your gods exists? Or do you just belive with no proof?

If I am wrong, why don’t you apply the scientific method to proving your god is real? You are basing your whole creation myth on a god you cannot prove exists. Since there provable god then your creation by god is invalid and the Darwin evolution must explin life and mankind.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #129

Post by Donray »

EarthScienceguy wrote:
The scientific method in any science book is as follows.
1. Observe an unexplained phenomenon.
2. Ask a testable question
3. Form a testable question
4. Form an experiment
5. Analyze results.
6. Form a conclusion
7. Communicate results
You do know that evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Evolution predicted all the evolution we see it the fossils. Look at all the fossils that we have that show the evolution of whales. So, evolution has been proved the testable question is can we find the fossils to prove evolution and in 100s of example we have demonstrated evolution.

Now, how about you proving that your god exists, that Jesus was real, and Bible is a lot myths such as the existence of Moses and the slave story. Do you have a proof your gods exists? Or do you just belive with no proof?

If I am wrong, why don’t you apply the scientific method to proving your god is real? You are basing your whole creation myth on a god you cannot prove exists. Since there provable god then your creation by god is invalid and the Darwin evolution must explin life and mankind.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #130

Post by Donray »

EarthScienceguy wrote:
The scientific method in any science book is as follows.
1. Observe an unexplained phenomenon.
2. Ask a testable question
3. Form a testable question
4. Form an experiment
5. Analyze results.
6. Form a conclusion
7. Communicate results
You do know that evolution has been proven using the scientific method?
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/five-proofs-evolution

Evolution predicted all the evolution we see it the fossils. Look at all the fossils that we have that show the evolution of whales. So, evolution has been proved the testable question is can we find the fossils to prove evolution and in 100s of example we have demonstrated evolution.

Now, how about you proving that your god exists, that Jesus was real, and Bible is a lot myths such as the existence of Moses and the slave story. Do you have a proof your gods exists? Or do you just belive with no proof?

If I am wrong, why don’t you apply the scientific method to proving your god is real? You are basing your whole creation myth on a god you cannot prove exists. Since there provable god then your creation by god is invalid and the Darwin evolution must explin life and mankind.

Post Reply