A fatal logical flaw in creationism?

berberry,it's just not so easy to admit to a weakness sometimes.
Yes,I am sincere.I always was,but I did get afraid.I was learning things that I didn't know existed on such a grand scale.Well,I have a Library,and it's full of books.I bet all of you could basically guess what most of these book are about.Yes....,Bibles,many different kinds of Bibles,christian self help books,christian,christian,christian,cookbooks,psychology,nursing,gardening books,genealogy,womens books,christian,christian,and more christian books,Sam Houston by James Haley ( only because my Houston side is suppose to be related),and now I have new books that I bought last night at Hastings book store.I got a nice one on Geology that has color pictures in it.My Library is changing because of all of you.Hey,it's big stuff when my Library changes!
I liked the old me,but I think I'm beginning to like the new me better.berberry,thanks,o.k?

---

Desdamona

Yes, that book is available at most any bookstore. It's in paperback and very inexpensive. It's called Guide to Earth and Space and it's by Isaac Asimov.Just so you'll know, Asimov was an atheist. However, like most of us, he did not attempt to challenge anyone's faith. His book does not in any way try to convince anyone that God doesn't exist. He makes mention of God but only in the context of explaining what people have believed about God over time as those beliefs relate to whatever subject he's discussing.By the way, he also wrote a layman's Guide to The Bible that is highly regarded by most Christian scholars. He doesn't attempt to challenge what the bible says, he simply explains the historical context of the bible's stories and thus makes them easier to understand. That book is quite large and more expensive.

I feel humbled. You're most welcome!

I wrote down this information. It's great that he isn't trying to change anyone's faith. I hope you know that when I say I cannot change my opinion about God, that I'm not bragging. I have had experiences that I just cannot denie. That in no way gives me the right to impose on anyone else's beliefs at all, I just wanted you to know I wasn't bragging. Both books sound good, but I have alot of christian books. I'd love to get my hands on a Geneva Bible.They are two hundred dollars a book here,and It has to be ordered. I might get one eventually? My husband said I could get one if I really wanted it, but I'd rather wait and do more research on it first to decide if I really need it that much or not. To me,thats alot of money for a book,even though I have high regard for the Holy Bible. I'll try to find this book you mention by Isaac Asimov explaining science better though. Thank you.

---

Desdamona

I feel humbled too! You are truly very nice.

---

Desdamona

You must be speaking of Calvin's edition. I should think the earlier one would be a bit cheaper. In any case, either should be available for reading online or at your public library.

Hey,thanks! I didn't know if it would be or not.

---

Desdamona

Actually Rocket, I hate to burst your bubble but you are NOT the first atheist and/or evolutionist to get suspended here. We are an Equal Opportunity SuspenderBuddika has been gone for quite a while now, so has SLPx. DNAunion was suspended once, came back and has recently been suspended again. Darwin's Terrier was suspended for a short break and then the suspension was lifted.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Hey Des, just wanted to answer some of your questions about how evolution is studied. Hopefully you will start to understand how science is actually practiced.

quote:

---

Because Evolution is not proven to be an absolute fact by science,it must take some faith to believe it.

---

Not one theory, including evolution, is taken on faith nor accepted as being 100% proven. Some theories are trusted for their accurate track record, but if data ever came out that falsified the theory, then that theory would be thrown out. For instance, Newton's laws of motion are actually incorrect and have been thrown out as describing all of the data. The theory of relativity actually is a better model to fit all of the data. However, for slow velocities Newton's laws are still close enough and are still used in most circumstances.

quote:

---

Can you observe evolution taking place? Reproducing is not the same thing.

---

Yes we can. We have observed bacteria that adapt to new environments, such as the nylon bug, and we also see populations splitting into two new species. Evolution has been observed, and observed evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution extends what we have observed into the fossils we see in the geologic column. The theory is that natural mechanisms that guide the adaptation and speciation of organisms today were the same mechanisms that diversified life millions of years ago. The theory of evolution is an extension of observed facts we see today.

quote:

---

Can you test evolution? Can you test evolution and draw your conclusions from these tests that it's a known fact?

---

Like I said before, no theory is proven to be a fact. Only observations are facts, the model that tries to explain the facts are theories. And yes, evolution can be tested, or rather the model of evolution can be tested. Here is a sample of a few broad tests that evolution has passed:1. The genetic differences between two species is in direct relationship to the span of time since commmon ancestory. That is, the farther back in time that the two species shared a common ancestor, as seen in the fossil record, the greater the dissimilarity between their genetic sequences. Evolution passes this test.2. Phylogeny should be related to the age of fossils. That is, the evolutionary tree built from differences in body shape should be reflected in the ages of the fossils. The body shape tree is made independently of the age, but the two still match up. This test shows how the fossils are laid down according to evolutionary mechanisms, or the inheritance of morphology and adaptation of new morphology. Combine this with the genetic data above and you have three independent variables that all come to the same conclusion, evolution probably happened.3. ERVs. ERV is an acronym for endogenous retroviral insertions. Very rarely, a virus will not kill the cell that it infects. When this happens, the virus leaves an imprint in the host's genome. The chances of two organisms having the same exact insertion in the same exact spot in their genome is astronomical. However, we find that humans and chimps share ERVs that are too similar to have happened by chance. The only way to explain this is that humans and chimps branched from the same parent species. In this way, the insertion only had to happen once, instead of happening in the same exact way in two different species.These are just a few tests that evolution has been put under, and has passed. Maybe you could give us an example of how to test for a young earth and created species?

quote:

---

Can you verify evolution? Is it repeatable? Can you repeat evolution?

---

Any of the 3 tests above can be repeated with any fossil, any living species, or any phylogenetic tree. The DNA sequences and fossil shape are repeatable observations that anyone has access to. However, we can't go back in time and observe it first hand. In this way, evolutionary investigation is much like an episode of CSI, looking for evidence that should be there if the crime were committed. Forensic science within criminology shares quite a few parallels with evolutionary science.

quote:

---

All of us observe life each day.Where is the life that is evolving?

---

Every time an organism reproduces. Each new organism (with perhaps the exception of clonal species) holds a unique DNA sequence that has never been seen before. Even you have DNA mutations that neither your father or mother had. Each new generation is a new step in an evolutionary walk. However, it takes quite a few steps/generations before we can decipher where that walk is leading. It is kind of like looking at your TV screen up close to where you are know longer able to see the big picture. It is only after multiple generations and lots of measurements that we begin to see the larger picture.I hope all of this helps, as it seems you are becoming intrigued by our little corner of the internet. As I and many others have said before, you can be a evolutionary scientist and a christian. I grew up in a church and was influenced by creationist teachings. However, the evidence for evolution was so overwhelmingly huge that I could no longer deny it. Through all of this, I never questioned the existence of God because of my scientific understanding of nature, nor did nature seize to be a wonderment that fascinates me till this day. All I can say is good luck, and keep your ears/eyes/mind open and take the attitude that admitting you may be wrong is a step towards increasing your knowledge.

A very nice post, Loudmouth, but you've used rather a lot of big words. I do not mean this as a slight to Des. At an introductory level you need to make it simpler and clearer.E.g., "Phylogeny"
Though you indirectly explain this term subsequently it's very presence is possibly, a show stopper for someone new to all of this and without much to build on. Let me try:If todays living things got here by evolutionary steps then we should see that extinct fossilzed animals that are nearer in time should be more like those living today. We should also see that as we go further back in time they should be less and less like those today.

​

Now that we know about DNA and the genetics of living things we should also expect that those which the fossil record show separated more recently should have more similar genetics.

​

The fossil record, it's dating, the relationships of the bodies of living and extinct things AND the genetics of living things ALL are matched up exactly has evolution would predict. They are independently measured but all work out correctly.That's my attempt. I'm not sure if it's simpler or not. That is in the eye of the beholder.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-23-2004]

I'll try to explain phylogeny in even simpler terms.It is a branch of science that studies evolution of life and relationships between individual species. We can look at fossils and examine the similarities of features. We can compare "DNA" of currently existing species to see how closely related they are. Through such studies, we can draw out a "tree" that shows where and when a species branched out and became its own species.Here is a sample of what a phylogeny tree for primates.

{Right click on graphic, to see full scale version - AM}
{Rescaled graphic, to restore page width to normal - AM}Notice how over time different species branched out of certain individual species.[This message has been edited by Lam, 04-23-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-23-2004]

---

The Laminator

​

Hahahahahaha. You finally fixed the italic code.

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

A very nice post, Loudmouth, but you've used rather a lot of big words. I do not mean this as a slight to Des. At an introductory level you need to make it simpler and clearer.

---

Thanks for the help Ned, and Lam too. I've been writing scientific papers too long so it's nice to have laymen looking over my shoulder. Everyday words for me are quite different than everyday words for the non-scientist, it's a hard habit to break. You've both done a great job of demystifying the scientific jargon into easily understood arguments. Thanks.

That remains to be seen. The fossil record, genetics, phologony match has been posted a number of times here. There has been no hint that the literalists understand it at all. I think it needs to be made much, much simpler yet.There has never been any answer put forward at all or a link to a site which hints at an answer. This should be a hint for those who are still thinking that there is no evidence for evolution. There a several issues raised (this one and the dating methods correlation for examples) that has NEVER received even a hint of an answer that addresses the issue. You might get suspicious that the creation "scientists" of ICR and the like don't actually have an answer, that, in fact there isn't one. The young earth and instantantaneous creation ideas are, from the evidence, wrong.

quote:

---

That remains to be seen. The fossil record, genetics, phologony match has been posted a number of times here. There has been no hint that the literalists understand it at all. I think it needs to be made much, much simpler yet.

---

Which gets to the root of the problem. You have people arguing against a theory who can't understand the evidence that supports it. Kind of like a blind person claiming the sky isn't blue because someone told them that the color blue was evil. It would seem that the average evolutionist knows more about science and biology in general than the average creationist. When I offer theological perspectives on the Bible, I am ready to retract any statement if someone shows me to be in error. I am not a theologian and am not as experienced in that realm. However, it seems that scientists aren't given the same respect. Instead, they are told that everything that scientists have discovered over the last 150 years is wrong. They are wrong not because of scientific reasons, but because people don't like the conclusions. This is my main source of frustration, showing evidence that is not in question to support a theory whose conclusion is disliked. I guess it would be easier to take the creationist route, start with a likeable conclusion.I guess the moral for creationists is this. If you think evolution is wrong, then study biology and figure out where it is wrong. Studying the Bible for answers in science won't get you very far.