My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

Hey ohruhen,1. Don't repeat a post. I realize you didn't respond to anyone the first time, but don't repeat a post. You've done this twice now.2. Make sure what you're responding to is still addressing the topic, which is presented in Message 1. Your post is off topic.3. Make sure the person you're responding to hasn't been suspended indefinitely. Mazzy has.Please read the Forum Guidelines and understand the rules of this debate board. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

06-14-2011 3:46 AM Reply to: Message 106 by Mazzy
06-13-2011 11:54 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Re: Evolved Warts
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I realize that as a believer in Darwinism logic may not be your strong point, but you seem to have misunderstood his question and [maybe] reinforced his point. He is pointing out that science teachers, in following the Eugenie Scott line of thinking, ARE lying to children. And it is being done to further YOUR whackadoodle religio (yes, Darwinism is a religion)-political agenda.

Wow 3 post in at EvC and you are already insulting people...That might be a record. It is hard to do this and most of us fall short of this goal, but it does help to try and be civil.I could as easily say that I question your logic because of your belief in god, but it gets us no where does it? Just because you say "Darwimism" is a religion doesn't make it so. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

I am a Christian and the product of a Christian education. I understand that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the variety of life we see.Christianity is my religion.What you claim is simply false and repeating such nonsense just makes you look silly.

I've taught logic at university, how about you? To lie is to say what one believes to be untrue. For a competent science teacher to recite creationist dogma would be lying, because they know it to be untrue. For them to teach science would not be lying even if it was (which it is not) erroneous, because they believe it to be true. What interests me most about this sort of blatant falsehood is the way that the more religious people are, the more apt they are to use "religion" as an insult. Apparently the nastiest thing you can think of to say about Darwinism is that it falls into the same category as Christianity.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, there is one creation.So there is The One Creator.Evolution is not one and religions are not one, Only The One is The One."Is there doubt about The God The Creator of the heavens and the earth"

You mentioned post 106 by Mazzy and he/she never answered my question. Since you seem to be of the same ideology, then maybe you can answer it. Edited by bluescat48, : typ

Let's talk about logic, shall we?What specifically do you believe is 'unproven' in regards to evolution?I'll give you a list. You tell me.1) Genes code for features.
2) Genes are passed from parent to child.
3) Mutations can occur in genes introducing changes which were not seen in the parent but are present in the child.
4) A mutation can have either good, bad or neutral results.
5) Mutations which benefit the individual increase their chances of survival. Mutations which harm the individual decrease their chances of survival.
6) Only organisms with similar DNA can successfully reproduce with one another. If they are too different, they either fail or produce sterile offspring.Six simple statements. Can you disprove any of them?You wanted to talk logic, let's talk logic.

quote:

---

Let's talk about logic, shall we?

​

What specifically do you believe is 'unproven' in regards to evolution?

​

I'll give you a list. You tell me.

​

1) Genes code for features.
2) Genes are passed from parent to child.
3) Mutations can occur in genes introducing changes which were not seen in the parent but are present in the child.
4) A mutation can have either good, bad or neutral results.
5) Mutations which benefit the individual increase their chances of survival. Mutations which harm the individual decrease their chances of survival.
6) Only organisms with similar DNA can successfully reproduce with one another. If they are too different, they either fail or produce sterile offspring.

​

Six simple statements. Can you disprove any of them?

​

You wanted to talk logic, let's talk logic.

---

That depends on what conclusion you are trying to draw from those points.Can you refute 1+1=2. No. But it is a false if you try to conclude that because 1+1=2 such that ToE must be a truth.Another example, if you claim that all water is with a bad smell, you can't limit that others must use the water in the drain under your kitchen to do the observation. That's not science anyway. If you claim that all water (or water in general) is with a bad smile, you should allow others to use any water in any place to try to falsify your claim.Similarly, if the conclusion you are trying to draw is that evolution exists to all species, you should allow others to use any species to follow your theory to try to falsify what you claim.Now I would like to use human as species to try to falsify your claim. Can you provide a way for me to use human as a testing example to test your claim. Can you use your own theory developed to demonstrate how a human with his organs are developed in a natural environment. If you can't, then your theory can hardly be scientific due to the lack of falsifyability and predictability.Now replace 'human' in the above with any living organism you know, you'll notice that ToE can hardly scientifically apply to 99.99% species on earth. You claim all species shall follow ToE to evolve, however you can't setup a model workable to all species for others to test or attempt to falsify, that's not science no matter how evident think it might be.In this case, your theory may be right and may be not. It's just not a science!Edited by Hawkins, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Hi All!

​

The theory of evolution is based entirely on empirical observation. In this way, evolution, is an objective explanation of why life is the way that it is.

​

There are, however, many different theories of creation. The Christian religion has their belief which is different from the Muslim belief which is different from the North American First Nation's beliefs and so on and so on.

​

If creation is to be taught in the education system, whose version of creation should be taught? You certainly cannot teach ALL the thousands of different versions as truth. The very nature of teaching creation implies that there is only one version of creation.

​

If you teach one version of creation over a different version of creation, is this not racist? Who decides whose culture is valid and whose is invalid?

​

kind regards,

​

Acalepha

---

Your question here is rather confusing.Creation is a religion. So your question is how religions should taught in school?If by chance what you mean is that how ID should be taught. ID just doesn't assume that "God doesn't exist". It assumes that a deity may or may not exist, what should be done is to study the design itself instead of who should be the true God. "Who should be the true God" belongs to how religions should be handled.

A minor correction:ID was "created" after creationism, then creation "science", were disallowed by the courts.Here is part of the evidence for that: Missing link: cdesign proponentsistsIn fact, creation "science" and ID are the exact opposites of real science. Real science follows the evidence where it leads, while religion has to follow belief and dogma in spite of the evidence.And religious apologetics is used to try to mask over the differences.Sorry, you can't fool us that easily.

No. I asked you if you could disprove any of the points.I have not yet drawn any conclusions at all.I assume from your statement that "1+1=2" that you accept the points I gave as being valid.Is that correct?If not, can you point to a specific point that I made that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with it? Certainly.A group of humans lives in the Congo.
Some of those humans have genes that offer no immunity to malaria.
Some of those humans have genes which offer immunity to malaria.
The entire group is exposed to malaria regularly.
Children without immunity frequently die of the disease.
Children with immunity frequently survive the disease.If the group starts off with 50% with immunity and 50% without, in very short order the group without immunity will shrink. Eventually they will disappear completely.That's because dead children do not reach puberty and reproduce. Of course it can. However, it's ridiculous to replace only "human". You would also need to replace "Congo" and "Malaria".For example:
A group of _fish_ lives in _the ocean_.
Some of the fish have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.
Some of the fish do not have genes which camouflage them from _predators_.Or:
A group of _turtles_ lives in _the swamp_.
Some of the turtles have genes which help with mating.
Some of the turtles do not have genes which help with matingThe variations are ENDLESS. I just did.Here's the model:(SUBJECT GROUP) possess (VARIATION) and is exposed to (HARMFUL EXTERNAL FORCE) or (POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL RESOURCE) over time.Humans possess genes protecting against malaria and are exposed to malaria over time.
Fish possess genes helpful in camoflage and are exposed to predators over time.
Turtles possess genes helpful in mating and are exposed to potential mates over time.Exact same model. In what way is it not science.I can set up a scenario which will produce data. I can predict the outcome of the data. I can run the test and see what my outcome would be.I can further demonstrate falsifiability.If humans with malaria immunity are LESS likely to survive to reproduce than humans without malaria immunity, then my experiment is falsified.The _BEST_ you can offer is that some experiments are unethical or too time consuming (redwoods take centuries to grow) to be practical to run.That's not a valid criticism of science.

Dembski, one of the fathers of ID, has gone on record to say that the designer is "The Christian God".The fact that ID is VERBATIM Creationism with the word "creationist" replaced by "design proponents" (see Coyote's link above) is more than enough evidence to prove that any claims that ID is neutral in regard to "God" are dishonest at best.

I too see ID as a shy attempt of acknowledging Creationism - for which there are no scientific alternatives. At least they figured that out. There is only ONE kind of Creationism:That which states the creation is finite, lists actual historical names and items which could only exist or not exist in its described time and state and be able to withstand scientific knowledge with no contradictions 1000's of years later. That is why forum headings are seen as CREATION VS EVOLUTION 1000's of years later - like today.Pls call me when someone comes up with an alternative to Creationism based on an absolutely finite universe. I will hand you my nobel prize.

Repeating points that have been disproven doesn't suddenly make you right. It just makes you dishonest.As I pointed out before, you can't prove that the Universe is finite. That's an unsupported claim.Second, MANY MANY MANY people on the thread have already pointed out a number of errors in Creationism, not the least of which is the fact that there are multiple versions of Creationism with timelines that vary so absolutely radically as to completely negate one another.And, ALL of these timelines are based on the same single source of evidence which itself has been demonstrated to contain errors.So, you've got nothing piled on nothing which is contradicted by others using the same nothing.Hardly a position to hold.