Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Reply to topic
Neatras
First Post
PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:24 pm  Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!! Reply with quote

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.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 121: Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:52 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 117 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 122: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:10 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 120 by DrNoGods]
Quote:
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.




Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 123: Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:14 pm
Reply

Like this post
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 124: Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:16 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 122 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
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?

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


What?

Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 125: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:28 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

This is a great rebuttal it really gets to the key differences.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 126: Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:51 am
Reply

Like this post
[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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 127: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:
Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 128: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:26 pm
Reply

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:
Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 129: Wed Dec 12, 2018 8:20 pm
Reply

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:
Quote:
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.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 130: Thu Dec 13, 2018 2:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Donray]

Your article that is suppose to prove evolution "scientifically".

Quote:
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.


Everything on this planet has to exist on what is on this planet. So this has to be the case in order for anything to survive on this planet. This is no proof but simply an observation of what has to be.

Besides this is a creation argument called common because of a common designer.



Quote:
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.

Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.


Have you never heard of punctuated equilibrium? Punctuated equilibrium had to be developed because smooth, gradual transitions were not what was found in the fossil record.

Quote:
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.


Man's Y chromosome is only 70% like a Chimpanzees.



Quote:
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.


"Oh, about two months," she answers, to which the counselor replies: "You remember what you learned in your 10th grade biology class—how that the developing embryo goes through various stages during its growth? It goes through a fish stage, where it has 'gill slits' just like a fish. At other times it has a yolk sac like a bird, and a tail like a monkey. At two months it is probably going through its fish stage; it is not fully human yet. Don't think of it as a baby, but as a fish." On display are drawings pointing out the various stages of development of human, fish, monkey, etc., embryos with the similarities pointed out, and, sure enough, they do look remarkably the same convinced by this evidence, our young friend decides to go ahead and have the abortion. After all, it's okay to kill a fish.

It might interest you to know that the above story is true. Not only is it true, it's probably commonplace. This line of reasoning called the biogenetic law, and known by the catch phrase "ontogeny recipitulates phylogeny," is many times given as the supposed scientific justification for abortion. It was originated in 1866 by Hitler's mentor, Ernest Haeckel, who produced the series of comparative drawings used in both biology textbooks and abortion clinics.

It might also interest you to know that the whole concept has been discredited for decades. As the evolutionist Dr. Blechschmidt has said in his book, The Beginnings of Life, "the so-called law of biogenetics is wrong. No buts or ifs can mitigate this fact. It is not even a tiny bit correct or correct in a different form. It is totally wrong" (1977, p. 32). As a matter of fact, German embryologist Wilhelm His published, in 1874, a catalog of willful distortions of the data by Haeckel in order to win adherents. Haeckel was subsequently tried and convicted in a scholarly inquest and barred from many scientific circles.

I am not sure Richard reads much. This has been debunked decades ago.


Quote:
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial inoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.


H1N1 is extinct. It became extinct because of a build up of mutations.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version