Creation vs. Evolution

[sheck33]

You obviously didn't read my post which doesn't surprise me. If God created the world as you see it about 10,000 years ago you would see some evidence of a young earth and some evidence of an ancient one. But its more convenient for science today to only take into account the evidence that supports their theory, and discard that which doesn't.

There is NO evidence supporting creation or a young earth theory. The fact that petrification can happen quickly and we find young petrified wood is not evidence of a young earth. It could possibly be interpreted that way ONLY if you DISCARD everything else, which of course is ridiculous, hence, it is NOT evidence of a young earth.

Analogy: finding a 1000 year old geological layer on top of a 300 year old geological layer is NOT evidence that the top layer was deposited last. To conclude that you have to ignore a large amount of other data and known geological mechanisms.

Then again, ignoring inconvenient data is a creationist's trademark afterall.

Someone that supports this young earth balony is too ignorant to be teaching other people science.

 

[Warthaug]

The one I quoted from Soggy's post about how he answered his own question

"The only way to be sure what happened is to look at numerous species which we assume are all descended from a recent common ancestor, and then assume that the most common chromosome number was the same in the ancestral species, from which all the others are descended."

Re: How can genetic mutations change the n chromosome number of a species?

That's not well stated, and I suspect probably an out-of-date statement anyhow. There is no need to assume that; as mentioned previously, chromosomal translocations leave characteristic fingerprints in the DNA which identify the sites where that occured. Had you read some of those citations I provided you would have noted that the ancestral chromasomal arrangement has been worked out, based on the location and sequence of those "fingerprints".

No assumptions necessary, it can all be figured out based on what we know about how translocations occur. This technology/knowledge has only been around since 2004-ish, so if your source dates before that...

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

You obviously didn't read my post which doesn't surprise me. If God created the world as you see it about 10,000 years ago you would see some evidence of a young earth and some evidence of an ancient one.

No, we would see evidence of a new one only, unless god went out of his/her/its way to make it appear otherwise.

But its more convenient for science today to only take into account the evidence that supports their theory, and discard that which doesn't.

And which evidence has been ignored? That fossil trees extend through multiple strata hasn't been ignored, if that's where you're going. Some's addressed that already (link, anyone).

Speaking of ignoring things, have you checked any of the 30-ish citations I provided, or looked up Gould specific claims in any of his books or essays yet?

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Fine then. If you believe the Universe is self-replicating and perpetual. That flies in the face of measurable science.

No, it doesn't. There is no scientific evidence that we do not live in a cyclical universe, and until we know the mass of the universe that'll remain an open question. And I'd remind you that lack of evidence is not proof the idea is wrong - that's a bandwagon you creationists jump onto all the time.

Same with perpetual; if the mass of the uni is too low to be cyclical, then by definition its perpetual. Once again, no conclusion can be made either way until the facts are in...

Bryan

 

[coachpill]

I read the origonal paper, and that claim was not made anywhere within. Maybe Carol made that statement to a reporter, or was mis-reported as saying that, but its not a part of the scientific record...

It was in a New Scientist article online(???). I can try to find it again for you if you like.

Only one of the statements you quoted from the thread were actually mine.

And, yes, it was wrong to say that most mutations were lethal. Call it backtracking if you like, or assume you taught me something...either way is fine with me. My last "position," as you call it, is probably what I think. But just to verify...it seems that most mutations are neutral, however, of those that have a significant effect, most are harmful (as quoted by the talk.origins article). Yes, I read the rest of it by the way. And, yes, of course it agrees with the mainstream thoughts on the topic. The point was that you called me a liar specifically for stating that talk.origins said what I quoted. In that, I was not a liar. If you want to assume anything more than that, you can if you like.

And I ask again - given how Campbell outlines the miller experiment, what is wrong? Should we not teach how we come to knowlege? Should we not show the manner in which science progresses? Maybe we should erase the parts on the "cookie" model of the atom, forget about Newtons laws and jump straight to GR, not mention spontanious generation, or homonuclei.

Again, someone asked what texts were teaching the Miller experiment. I simply gave a list without editorializing. And yet again you assume something...I still don't know exactly what you are assuming about me with your statements about Miller being in texts. But again, assume away if you like.

If anyone's use campbell for college, we have more problems than miller. And I ask again - even at the college level, what's wrong with teaching about how our modern knowledge is developed?

And again, I don't think I've editorialized about whether or not we should teach how science has developed.

I see you're still refusing to read up on the citations provided which show you wrong. I'm at work right now, but when I get home I'll give you chapter and verse; wherein Gould clearly states exactly what I've been claiming all along (and what you've been ignoring all along).

I have no doubts that what you say about Gould's beliefs that abiogenesis and evolution are separate entities. Where you were wrong was in claiming that someone else's post quoting Gould was taken out of context...you then provided the entire interview. And in the context of the interview Gould linked them together "necessarily." Oops, I suppose. But again, I have no doubts that Gould believes they are completely separate things.

 

[Thalassamania]

I think I was clear about that.

Nonsense. It proves that I refuse to let you frame the discussion and choose my position in that discussion for me.

It also may prove that you question was ignored by every one but you because you are the only one who sees relevance in it. Which...goes along with the other point I made. that being that relative to any position I've taken in the discussion, your question is irrelevant and nonsensical.
...

I'm not asking to frame the discussion, just that someone from the creationist side come up with a single example from the last two thousand years where science and religion came into conflict over a fact and it turned out the church was right. There are any number of such examples where science turned out to be right, all I'm asking for is one, single, solitary example of where it turned out the religionists were right. This goes to their history of creditability and clear thinking, both of which I maintain have been in short supply (nonexistent in fact) for two thousand years. Please, use the show me where I'm wrong, but don't duck the question with hand waving about who gets to "frame the conversation" or the has someone else answered or not answered your question(s). Those are red herrings, poorly disguised obfuscations, whose only purpose is to hide the fact that you (and more so ce4jesus to whom the challenge was actually issued) can't come up with a single such example.

 

[coachpill]

That's not well stated, and I suspect probably an out-of-date statement anyhow. There is no need to assume that; as mentioned previously, chromosomal translocations leave characteristic fingerprints in the DNA which identify the sites where that occured. Had you read some of those citations I provided you would have noted that the ancestral chromasomal arrangement has been worked out, based on the location and sequence of those "fingerprints".

No assumptions necessary, it can all be figured out based on what we know about how translocations occur. This technology/knowledge has only been around since 2004-ish, so if your source dates before that...

Bryan

The link does look like its from 2001. Thanks.

 

[Soggy]

Steady state in the oceans isn't due to its ability to get rid of the salts.

Of course not. Steady state is just a description of the equilibrium displayed in the ocean. It's not caused by any one thing. The salt content is one of the things that has reached equilibrium.

The bottom line is the dead sea obviously didn't follow this line of reasoning.

Um, ok? Point? The dead sea is "dead" because it is 1400 ft below sea level in a salt plain and has been losing water for years, thus its salinity continually increases. It isn't in steady state. All of that has absolutely ZERO to do with the ocean. You really need to spend some time to think, read, and learn before you start babbling.

The oceans are very dynamic and I'll be the first to say you can't put them into a static model but its quite obvious that some bodies of water have reached a level as to be considered "dead".

Yes, the oceans are very dynamic. Yes some bodies of water have increased salinity. The two have nothing to do with each other. You need read up on basic logic and reasoning. You're just grasping at straws. Just admit when you are wrong and move on to something else. It's sad.

 

[Thalassamania]

One has to wonder if your rejection as a teacher wasn't more to do with your crass nature. I posed several questions you've failed to answer adequately...oh that's right you linked your answer to atheistic websites because you couldn't answer the questions without the help of your puppet master.

What direct questions of your have I failed to answer? Is is it just that any answer except the one you want is "inadequate?" What direct questions have I pawned off on an "atheistic website?" And haven't you enough maturity and skill with language to go beyond the juvenile construct of "and so are you!"? Come one, be a man, one example of where religion was right and science was wrong ... just one.

 

[Thalassamania]

Steady state in the oceans isn't due to its ability to get rid of the salts. Moreover, it has more to do with the tides, currents, winds, and pure vastness of the bodies of water. As one of your website stated, it takes up to 200million years for it to "get rid" of some of the dissolved substances. The bottom line is the dead sea obviously didn't follow this line of reasoning. The oceans are very dynamic and I'll be the first to say you can't put them into a static model but its quite obvious that some bodies of water have reached a level as to be considered "dead".

Wow ... now you've gone and shown us just how little you understand about oceanography. Just how deep a hole do you plan on digging yourself into? Stick to things you can at least pretend that you know something about.

Hint1: The Dead Sea has nothing whatever to do with global circulation and cycles, it is a body of water that is cut off from those processes.

Hint2: Ocean circulation is driven by differences in density between water masses.