Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[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.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to liamconnor]

If you think that humans were created, either directly or via an influenced direction of evolution, then you are a creationist. The time frame matters not.

[Neatras]

Well, I have to say I'm very disappointed.

This is all creationists have to offer?

What can science gain from Creationism?

If you look at the last several hundred years, scientific progress has become a hallmark of human ingenuity, giving us every tool, every building, and every long-term idea for the betterment of humanity. It relies on our knowledge of physical forces, chemistry, biology, AND evolution.

But the moment Creationists get their way, everything is just supposed to grind to a halt?

So selfish, and so arrogant. The world will keep spinning whether or not Creationism is taught. So why not put it to good use and actually help science improve? Or would Creationists rather we just declare their flimsy ideas correct and leave it at that? Because leaving it at that seems to be the normal response to rational inquiry into matters concerning religion and the ideas they peddle. "Do not question God," even if it means humanity doesn't progress any further scientifically.

All I see in these debates are Creationists vying for attention, demanding their ideas be given credence and acceptance in modern society... and then act like that hollow victory accomplishes anything other than stroking their own ego. This is a scientific discussion, and what matters is advancing science, not ending an argument and spiting anyone who so much as challenges it in the future. That's not how progress happens.

Are Creationists scared that our continued inquiry into the nature of the world will give us answers they don't like? When we discover new facts, every single one of them will inevitably jeopardize someone's previously held beliefs. Is the idea that tomorrow, with evolutionary predictions backing an expedition, we'll find yet another fossil of a long-dead species that supports a conclusion the religious zealots can't dare to accept? Is discovery such a vice to people that they have to shut it all down?

[KenRU]

I've seen this subject come up a couple of times over the years, and have yet to see one progress more than a couple of pages. Invariably, they all start with bashing evolution, despite the fact that the post starts with the concession that evolution is wrong.

Given that I have yet to see a creationist rise to the challenge of this post, perhaps we have an answer?

-all the best

[Talishi]

On the other hand, there are six-day creationist, who pledge allegiance to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

All except for that solid dome (firmament) part. They never seem to affirm that.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Neatras]

This falls in line with exactly what I predicted would happen. Creationism is a hollow non-theory with no explanatory power. Its proponents only capable of attacking evolution and asserting victory.

A relatively new user recently restarted the creationist debate, and among other things, said, paraphrasing, that s/he links to/quotes from Aig, CSR, ICR.
Out of curiosity, I looked at the research staff for ICR.
http://www.icr.org/research/team

Look at the description they have for some of them.

Dr. Jerry Bergman
Research Associate
Genetic Entropy, Refuting Darwinism, Creation-Evolution Controversy

Dr. Leo (Jake) Hebert III
Research Associate
Physics, the Ice Age, Problems with the Big Bang

And for the piece de la resistance...

Brian Thomas
Science Writer
Dinosaurs, Problems with Evolution, Human Origins

ICR is one of, if not, THE Creationist think tanks there is, and some of their quote unquote research staff are literally described as having their field of expertise being attacking evolution and related fields.

Do we see that in the secular science community? Do we see a Lawrence Krauss or a Neil degrasse Tyson or even a Richard Dawkins being introduced in a description of their scientific work as being an opponent of creationism or any other model? Was Charles Darwin introduced as an opponent of Lamarckism? Do we say "I introduce to you Professor John Smith, among his scientific endeavors and fields of research are problems with Biblical creationism".
No, we introduce him as having studied and researched whatever it is he's done. But apparently Dr. Bergman's area of expertise, what he is introduced as working on, is refuting Darwinism.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

All fossils should be laid down in a water or liquid environment. Which is what we see.

Layers of rock should be separated according to particle size. And that is what we see.

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

Predictions and Expectations
(1) Despite massive degeneration since the Fall, creationists expect to find more examples of complex, interdependent functions between ERVs and the host genome, which challenges the conception that ERVs are add-ins to pre-existing genomes.

(2) Discoveries are expected concerning the details of the interaction between ERVs and host cell DNA repair and maintenance, which would not be anticipated if ERVs were originally “selfish� exogenous entities.

(3) We expect more examples of degenerate and impaired functions, which may be repaired or restored by relatively small modifications (as with HERV-KCON (Lee and Bieniasz 2007).

(4) In line with their original design, creationists anticipate more examples of functional gene transfer by retroviruses between cells of the same host, between members of the same species, and possibly even between different species.

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

We can control the decay rate of radioactive elements.

At very high temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to 176Hf bypasses the conventional slow route, and goes into an isomeric state which has a half-life of only 3.68 hours.10 In other words, part of the 176Lu decay experiences an alternative decay mode to 176Hf which represents, in effect, a shortcut that is 14 orders of magnitude faster than the conventional 176Lu decay (t½ = 41 Ga).




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?

I hate to think of the number of doctoral students who have laboured away for three or four years scratching around in the dust fruitlessly looking for transitional forms. And then there were the fallacious notions of vestigial organs and ‘junk DNA’, both hindering the search for the functions of these—but there is much more.

There is also a sorry history of scientific fraud arising from evolutionism. Most have heard of Piltdown man and Haeckel’s embryo diagrams and perhaps his imaginary Monera. However, there are many others, including the Midwife Toad, Archaeoraptor, and hundreds of papers on behavioural ecology by Anders Møller, just to mention a few.


Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater—pioneer in anesthetics. Amongst many other achievements, he pioneered assisted breathing for premature babies with prolonged intubation and developed an improved catheter for epidural anesthesia, both adopted around the world.10

Prof. Stuart Burgess—a world expert in biomimetics (imitating design in nature). He is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at the university. Dr Burgess is the author of over 40 papers published in science journals, and another 50 conference proceedings. He has also registered 7 patents and has received various awards, the Wessex Institute Scientific Medal being the most recent.11

Professor Dr Ben Carson—pioneer paediatric neurosurgeon. He was long-term director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head and also pioneered surgery to cure epilepsy in young children, and much else. He has been awarded 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia universities in recognition of his outstanding achievements. He is a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, and sits on numerous business and education boards. In 2001, CNN and Time magazine named Ben Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In that same year, the Library of Congress selected him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’. In February 2008, President Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theater Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USA’s highest civilian honours.

Dr Raymond Damadian—largely responsible for developing medical imaging using magnetic resonance (MRI). He has been honoured with the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. In 2001 the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as “the man who invented the MRI scanner�. It is commonly recognized that he was discriminated against in not at least sharing a Nobel Prize for his work (two others shared the award), although Damadian was the discoverer that diseased tissue would have a different signal from healthy.12

Dr John Hartnett—developed the world’s most precise atomic clocks, which are used in research and industry around the globe. He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, where he is an Associate Professor. In his relatively short career, he has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings.13

Dr Raymond Jones—solved the major problem of the indigestibility of Leucaena (a tropical legume) for grazing cattle in Australia, among other achievements. This research has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian beef industry. He was honoured with the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award.14

Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu—many pioneering contributions, especially in sickle cell disease management. He is Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, University of Cape Coast, Ghana, and Consultant Physician Genetic Counsellor in Sickle Cell and Other Haemoglobinopathies, Phoenix Hospital Group, London, UK. Ironically, sickle cell disease is often incorrectly held up as a ‘proof of evolution’ in science textbooks.
Dr Konotey-Ahulu has received many awards in recognition of his work.15

Dr John Sanford—has been granted over 30 patents arising from his research in plant breeding and genetics. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (‘gene gun’) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of both numbers and area planted) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Dr Sanford was honoured with the Distinguished Inventor Award by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995.16

Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow—groundbreaking research in ‘molar pregnancy’, a poverty-related disease. He was invited to lecture in some fourteen top Obstetrics-Gynaecology departments in America in 1962–3, including leading universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, New York, UCLA, Cornell, and Stanford. He was awarded the William Blair Bell Lectureship by the RCOG in recognition of the importance of this work. He served as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore.17

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

I am not sure what this has to do with creationism, because cells can repair DNA.






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?


In similar vein, the anti-creationist Larry Witham wrote:

“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution�, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’, the editor wrote. ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’�


“Darwinian evolution—whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.� Skell, Phillip Chair of Chemistry at Penn State University



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.



I did

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

All fossils should be laid down in a water or liquid environment. Which is what we see.

I'll need a source for this one.

Layers of rock should be separated according to particle size. And that is what we see.

I'll need a source for this one.

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

Predictions and Expectations
(1) Despite massive degeneration since the Fall, creationists expect to find more examples of complex, interdependent functions between ERVs and the host genome, which challenges the conception that ERVs are add-ins to pre-existing genomes.

Counter: We observe the mechanisms by which retroviral RNA is injected into host organisms, transcribed into DNA, and added to the cell's genome. We know methods of inheriting novel structures in DNA via reproduction, and we've observed how individual organisms who share a common ancestor tend to have similar rates of divergence from that structure, with original structures inherited equally.

Do you know what we haven't observed? This massive degeneration. Not in any of the lab settings where we desperately try to find examples of this "genetic entropy" I'm sure you'll bring up at the drop of a hat. None of the "baranomes" have been discovered. Your actual attempt to make baraminology a topic of discussion should show a distinct lack of legitimacy in your arguments.

What's more, this isn't a prediction. "Despite massive degeneration, we predict interconnected functions between ERVs and the host genome." You're literally saying "While things are broken, not everything is broken." Well golly gee, that's a shocker. It's almost as if when something breaks, we expect it to break in discrete locations and not have literally every subcomponent equally damaged.

You know what you haven't done? Provided any sources or given any mathematical models portraying the rate of "degeneration." Because creationists can't propose an original genome because it would be shredded by peer review in seconds. Your camp is too scared to make a move that moves them into the territory of falsifiable claims, so you resort to making ad hoc justifications that attempt to hint at your myth book being a legitimate source of knowledge for how ERVs came about.

Try harder.

(2) Discoveries are expected concerning the details of the interaction between ERVs and host cell DNA repair and maintenance, which would not be anticipated if ERVs were originally “selfish� exogenous entities.

False. ERVs that become native to the genome are now constrained by the survival of the host. When a retrovirus infects a cell (which you should grant as possible), and it becomes transcribed as DNA and connected to the genome (which you should grant as possible), and is inherited from the host organism to the descendant (which you should grant as possible), it is now restricted to the reproductive success of the host. It is subject to the same selective pressures acting on any other gene. I know for the sake of argument, evolution has been debunked, but it's not as if this observed fact is suddenly not real in a creationist utopia. You have to account for these facts for your model to be worth a cent.

As expected, you're one of those creationists who have so much presuppositional bias that you're actually restricted from accepting that novel structures or synergistic components can emerge in a system. You are required to believe that all biological systems can only deteriorate. Well no, because later you make the claim that cells can repair DNA. As if that was actually relevant to the question I asked at the time, but whatever. You're making yet another ad hoc claim: That whatever the DNA became, when it was in the new state that was functionally improved, that's automatically the "repaired" state, meaning that new state is the progenitor's original state. Something you can't actually back up because you don't have a genome you're working toward, you have excuses you're scrambling to put together.

Endosymbiosis is a proposed process by which a structure that becomes endogenous to another structure can begin affecting the functions of the host. We've observed cases in the lab where organisms can absorb another organism and start using that smaller organism as a means to survive, sort of as a precursor state for the modern structure of the mitochondria. For sake of argument, this is impossible, despite lab events showing it is. Account for that too, while you're at it.

(3) We expect more examples of degenerate and impaired functions, which may be repaired or restored by relatively small modifications (as with HERV-KCON (Lee and Bieniasz 2007).

So how do you separate these "degenerate" functions from actual retroviral gene implants from exogenous sources? You don't? Pity.

(4) In line with their original design, creationists anticipate more examples of functional gene transfer by retroviruses between cells of the same host, between members of the same species, and possibly even between different species.

More ad hoc handwaving. "If it works, it's by initial design." It's too bad that life is much more fluid and unconstrained than creationists allow.

But you know what you haven't done? Demonstrated how ERVs remain consistent between different species. Sure, you tacked on a pitiful sentence at the end, but the problem is retroviral insertion sites are random, not directed in the target host's genome. There is no source on this planet that will show a retrovirus will target the same site in the genome of two different organisms, and especially not of two different species.

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

We can control the decay rate of radioactive elements.

And? This is creationist logic how? I wanted an application of creationist philosophy that demonstrates a created world, not secularism done by creationists to accomplish real science (though hilariously, in fields that are, at best, tangentially related to creation).

At very high temperatures, part of the 176Lu decay to 176Hf bypasses the conventional slow route, and goes into an isomeric state which has a half-life of only 3.68 hours.10 In other words, part of the 176Lu decay experiences an alternative decay mode to 176Hf which represents, in effect, a shortcut that is 14 orders of magnitude faster than the conventional 176Lu decay (t½ = 41 Ga).

I'd really love to see how this relates to creationism. If you're a hydroplate proponent, we'll have plenty of fun examining the math on just how hot things can get.

But until then, you've used actual science, not creationist science. No predictions or functional uses provided. That's okay, I'll let it slide for now.

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?

I hate to think of the number of doctoral students who have laboured away for three or four years scratching around in the dust fruitlessly looking for transitional forms. And then there were the fallacious notions of vestigial organs and ‘junk DNA’, both hindering the search for the functions of these—but there is much more.

I'll giggle and come back to this at a later date. "Fallacious notions of vestigial organs."

Until then, your homework: What is the definition of vestigiality?

There is also a sorry history of scientific fraud arising from evolutionism. Most have heard of Piltdown man and Haeckel’s embryo diagrams and perhaps his imaginary Monera. However, there are many others, including the Midwife Toad, Archaeoraptor, and hundreds of papers on behavioural ecology by Anders Møller, just to mention a few.

And all of this is, you guessed it, debunked by actual scientists. Creationists are a dead end in the sciences.

Since evolutionary theory isn't allowed, we need creationists to take up the mantle regarding biology and how we observe life changes over time. Bragging that a creationist can fix a car engine isn't really favorable to your position.

Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater—pioneer in anesthetics. Amongst many other achievements, he pioneered assisted breathing for premature babies with prolonged intubation and developed an improved catheter for epidural anesthesia, both adopted around the world.10

Prof. Stuart Burgess—a world expert in biomimetics (imitating design in nature). He is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at the university. Dr Burgess is the author of over 40 papers published in science journals, and another 50 conference proceedings. He has also registered 7 patents and has received various awards, the Wessex Institute Scientific Medal being the most recent.11

Professor Dr Ben Carson—pioneer paediatric neurosurgeon. He was long-term director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head and also pioneered surgery to cure epilepsy in young children, and much else. He has been awarded 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia universities in recognition of his outstanding achievements. He is a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, and sits on numerous business and education boards. In 2001, CNN and Time magazine named Ben Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In that same year, the Library of Congress selected him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’. In February 2008, President Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theater Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USA’s highest civilian honours.

Dr Raymond Damadian—largely responsible for developing medical imaging using magnetic resonance (MRI). He has been honoured with the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. In 2001 the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as “the man who invented the MRI scanner�. It is commonly recognized that he was discriminated against in not at least sharing a Nobel Prize for his work (two others shared the award), although Damadian was the discoverer that diseased tissue would have a different signal from healthy.12

Dr John Hartnett—developed the world’s most precise atomic clocks, which are used in research and industry around the globe. He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, where he is an Associate Professor. In his relatively short career, he has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings.13

Dr Raymond Jones—solved the major problem of the indigestibility of Leucaena (a tropical legume) for grazing cattle in Australia, among other achievements. This research has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian beef industry. He was honoured with the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award.14

Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu—many pioneering contributions, especially in sickle cell disease management. He is Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, University of Cape Coast, Ghana, and Consultant Physician Genetic Counsellor in Sickle Cell and Other Haemoglobinopathies, Phoenix Hospital Group, London, UK. Ironically, sickle cell disease is often incorrectly held up as a ‘proof of evolution’ in science textbooks.
Dr Konotey-Ahulu has received many awards in recognition of his work.15

Cute, scientists doing work that winds up being entirely secular. Perhaps my questions weren't clear. I wanted creationism, as a philosophy, to inform the actions and discoveries of science in a way that explained what we observed in reality.

Dr John Sanford—has been granted over 30 patents arising from his research in plant breeding and genetics. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (‘gene gun’) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of both numbers and area planted) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Dr Sanford was honoured with the Distinguished Inventor Award by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995.16

There he is! I knew I'd run into his name again. John Sanford himself, the man who proposes genetic entropy. He's the one you creationists always bring out.

We'll get to him later.

Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow—groundbreaking research in ‘molar pregnancy’, a poverty-related disease. He was invited to lecture in some fourteen top Obstetrics-Gynaecology departments in America in 1962–3, including leading universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, New York, UCLA, Cornell, and Stanford. He was awarded the William Blair Bell Lectureship by the RCOG in recognition of the importance of this work. He served as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore.17

Well that was a good waste of time.

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

I am not sure what this has to do with creationism, because cells can repair DNA.

Let's break down my question:
This means, by applying the creationist claim that the universe was created, all "kinds" of life are separated into monobaramins (haha), and letting the stopwatch go, how does creationism account for new structures emerging. Such as two genes changing in their functionality to produce a new interdependent structure. "Cells can repair DNA" is just you applying your assumption that the genomes are only "degenerated" and can only minutely fix the problem. I'm asking for an explanation of how a new structure forms. But then again, you played your hand earlier in your reply. If it's functional now and it wasn't before, it's "fixed," by your claims.

So how can we use that assumption in the field of biology? Is every single functional gene we observe to be labeled "fixed" or are we in a strange position where creationism is absolutely useless?

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?

In similar vein, the anti-creationist Larry Witham wrote:

“Surprisingly, however, the most notable aspect of natural scientists in assembly is how little they focus on evolution. Its day-to-day irrelevance is a great ‘paradox’ in biology, according to a BioEssays special issue on evolution in 2000. ‘While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution�, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas’, the editor wrote. ‘Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.’�

Who?

“Darwinian evolution—whatever its other virtues—does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.� Skell, Phillip Chair of Chemistry at Penn State University

A chemist on the list of Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. That list functionally does not exist for being a source of fraud. Your earlier whining about evolutionary fraud seems mighty hypocritical now.

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.

I did

You tried.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Neatras]

You said predictions I gave you predictions you do not have to agree with them. But we will see.

You asked about radioactivity and simply heating up a radioactive element causes the rate decay rate to increase. MMMM.


Vestal organ one word (appendix)

And all of this is, you guessed it, debunked by actual scientists. Creationists are a dead end in the sciences.

Since evolutionary theory isn't allowed, we need creationists to take up the mantle regarding biology and how we observe life changes over time. Bragging that a creationist can fix a car engine isn't really favorable to your position.

I answered human evolution in the string "Evolution 2.0".

There he is! I knew I'd run into his name again. John Sanford himself, the man who proposes genetic entropy. He's the one you creationists always bring out.

We'll get to him later.

Great can't wait.

Let's break down my question:
This means, by applying the creationist claim that the universe was created, all "kinds" of life are separated into monobaramins (haha), and letting the stopwatch go, how does creationism account for new structures emerging. Such as two genes changing in their functionality to produce a new interdependent structure. "Cells can repair DNA" is just you applying your assumption that the genomes are only "degenerated" and can only minutely fix the problem. I'm asking for an explanation of how a new structure forms. But then again, you played your hand earlier in your reply. If it's functional now and it wasn't before, it's "fixed," by your claims.

So how can we use that assumption in the field of biology? Is every single functional gene we observe to be labeled "fixed" or are we in a strange position where creationism is absolutely useless?

Oh Goodness.

You do not have any observations of successive positive mutations. Let alone 100's of successive mutation which is what you need.

So when you have some observational evidence leading to some new structure that the organism let me know.

Who?

I don't know.

You tried.

No I did.

You do seem to know the issues more than anyone else so far. We will see though. I look forward to having conversations with you.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]

You asked about radioactivity and simply heating up a radioactive element causes the rate decay rate to increase. MMMM.

No, it doesn't. All experiments that have suggested small changes with temperature have been shown to be in error, for example:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4160 ... mperature/

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/839

Again, you are grabbing nonsense articles that are only "published" on creationist websites and trying to pass then off as legitimate science. This is the case for virtually everything you have posted on this forum so far.

I answered human evolution in the string "Evolution 2.0".

... with more of the same. Cut and paste stuff from creationist websites and claim it is science, then fail to support it. The debunking of creationist claims that contradict accepted science is so thorough now that I wonder why people still continue to push this stuff as if it had any relevance. Great way to waste time I suppose, and certainly effective at doing that.

[rikuoamero]

I'm no longer entertaining discussion with Guy, at least not until he answers my question regarding scientists for ICR and other groups not following the scientific method. Until he does, I will out of hand regard any articles he claims to be scientific, to be very suspect (if they come from a creationist site with a statement of faith)