The Ten Laws of Creationism and Intelligent Design

What does 'can be proven mathematically to be significant' mean? Are you stating that you have some mathematical proof of the flood? Because I would like to see it. Right. But leaving the world in the hands of two horny teenagers and talking snakes is perfectly plausible. Proof please? Except that there is copious evidence. Read about Professor Lenski's work. Then you know nothing about science since 'lucky chances' and randomness are commonplace. Read a little more about how evolution truly works and while you are at it, read about quantum mechanics. Once again, PROOF PLEASE? And what do you mean by 'laws'? Are we now getting into legal arguments? And for the last time, PLEASE PROVIDE A PROOF. If science backs creationism, show us the peer reviewed material and experiments that validate this claim.And on an aside, the 'miraculous miracles' are what exist in the realm of religion, not science. The bible is full of them. So if you take issue with miracles, you are going to have a tough time reconciling the bible with your views.

Interesting! Start a new thread over at 'Proposed New Topics' and present this statistical proof.HBD

From what I have read thus far, all you have is bluster. Your statement that evolution doesn't rely on mathematics pretty much says to me that you have no scientific training, otherwise you would realize how dependent evolutionary biology is on mathematical concepts.How about you take your arguments out of the 'free for all' forum and present them in one of the science forums so we can have a legitimate debate (full disclosure: I, personally, probably won't be able to participate all that much in the near future).Advice about starting a new topic: keep the topic focused on a particular issue. Do not try to address every issue you have with evolutionary theory in one thread. For example: "Mathematical proof of a world-wide flood." That should be interesting! The ball is in your court. You are the one who has the scientific training and expertise to disprove evolutionary theory. Put up your best argument in a science forum.HBD

Nonsense. My own archaeological research disproves the global flood ca. 4500 years ago. Research by my colleagues disproves it thousands of times over.In my research I have continuity of human cultures from before to after the date of the flood, and most importantly I have mitochondrial DNA of the same type extending from before to after that date. If there was such a flood, the earlier mtDNA haplotype would be eliminated, to be replaced by a type from the Middle East.A few other little details: there is no evidence of the erosional or depositional features that would necessarily associate with such a flood in the area I study.But if you truly want to see the features left by flood erosion, google "channeled scablands" and look at the images. Some notable examples are from central and eastern Washington: The nice thing about the flood evidence in Washington is that we can date the events and we know the cause! They occurred between 18,000 and 13,000 years ago, and resulted from formation and breakage of ice dams upstream.Oh, and this evidence is about three or four times older than the purported global flood. How is it that we see the evidence of those older floods but not evidence of a much larger and much more recent flood?(Answer: it didn't happen.)So, don't be claiming that the flood is TRVE history. It is a belief, not a fact.

No problem brethren because we are all brethren with the same basic DNA design...... brothers by design.Sure, just ask in proposed topics that you admit that evolution has no mathematical basis and you want to see creational mathematics proven.As for evolution's denial of the worldwide flood, Yes definiterly I can absolutely prove mathematically that it was perfectly timed, in world history, beyond a shadow of a doubt.History is by design, the future is by design its called prophecy. No problem. These things were not done in secret, all things are meant to be revealed, just do the math. Be scientific rather than mere theorists or religionists.Just go to Proposed Topics and by your demand or request I shall come and answer your questions, if allowed to do so.But do start off by admitting evolution again has no mathematical basis, statistical basis in its luck and chance, and then I can present my evidence with hyperlinks etc.... just request this information.Be an honest searcher, and search. Seek and ye shall find, says the Lord of Creation, we are told to use our God given brains, rather than them just filling up the vacuum above.Genesis as mentioned is very scientific, as a basis point... the details follow in other books, and in the created world of the microcosm and macrocosm, etc etc etc etc ...

Herebedragons.... not a problem, I realize this is an evolution discussion board, and seldom if ever do evolutionists feel compelled to come up with any answers, but sure NOW that I am cleared to post on the science boards, I can answer your queries and you can get answers if you are honest or if you are scientific. Science is about laws and design, not about conjecture. Just post on the Proposed TOPICS board what you are interested in finding out, and why you haven;t come to any conclusions via evolution as yet. And then I can try to answer your query.I do dislike one sided debates, when in the real world, debates are two sided, mutual questioning and answering. You know what I mean ?Do see see my signature for further detailsEdited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

I'm sorry but that is simply a really stupid assertion. Neither of the two mutually exclusive creation myths are scientific or accurate and both are fully refuted by actual evidence and the thing called reality. To claim Genesis is scientific or accurate is as absurd as claiming either of the two mutually exclusive Biblical flood myths actually happened.

"""Jar...when you write..I'm sorry but that is simply a really stupid assertion. Neither of the two mutually exclusive creation myths are scientific or accurate and both are fully refuted by actual evidence and the thing called reality. To claim Genesis is scientific or accurate is as absurd as claiming either of the two mutually exclusive Biblical flood myths actually happened.""""I would suggest, you answering a matter before you hear it and search it out, is a rather stupid assertion. Now lets get back to this topic ...As design is not anywhere in evolutionary theory, its premise is that all things evolved in time (billions and trillions of years) and just happened by chance to fit together and work together in harmony by luck and chance. So rather than design being a myth, I would suggest to you that evolution is a total myth, with absolutely no evidence. I mean if there was evidence, why didn't they teach us any of it in university and why did they never allow anyone to question them.But if you like that as a TOPIC, please go to Proposed Topics and ask that we discuss this educational censorship and lobotomy of new minds.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

No sir. That's not how it works. First of all, I work with evolutionary biology regularly, so I am familiar with the maths involved, so why would I start a thread where I admit that evolutionary theory has no mathematical basis???You have the proof, you have the argument. I have no question about it at this point because I am sure it is just silly nonsense. If it is not silly nonsense, then you should be able to articulate your position well enough to draft an opening post stating your position and get the topic promoted. Admin does not discriminate against a member's position, he will promote any position as long as it is reasonably well written, relatively narrowly focused and not just a cut-and-paste.As far as me being an "honest" seeker... you know nothing about me or my background except for the tiny bit that I said here. I have arrived at my conclusions honestly.HBD

Again you simply post really stupid and false assertions, commonly called lies.It's easy to post lies which is about all that the Intelligent Design and Creationist cults have but here you are communicating with adults and simply posting lies and falsehoods will get you nowhere.There is a reason that at large family dinners there is a table set aside for the children.

Thank you for telling us up front that you don't know anything about evolution. And I am not referring to the missing apostrophe.Let me refer you to John Maynard Smith's book, Evolutionary Genetics. It is devoted to the mathematics of working with evolution and population genetics.We also have that infamous quotation from a Wistar Institute conference in the 1960's, to the effect that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology. I cannot place my hand on it right at this moment, but I'm sure that you're familiar with it since it's so popular among creationists. Sir Peter Edawar was involved, as I recall.I'm sure that you have read the creationist quote-mining of what he said, but have you gone to the original document and read what he actually said? It turns out that he was complaining about neo-Darwinism because it was almost purely mathematical! He was complaining that fitness was just a number, which told you nothing other than if something was more fit then it would survive, which he said was tantamount to a tautology. The part that creationist quote-miners leave out is that what he was really interested in was why and how an particular organism's particular traits made it more fit. His complaint was that the math of neo-Darwinism abstracted away all that really interesting information that he wanted to see. Which is very different from how the quote-mining creationists want you to interpret that.So then, "no mathematics to evolution"? Edawar complained that there was too much maths to evolution, that it was almost purely mathematics. So which is it?Frankly, I think that Sir Peter Edawar knew a helluva lot more than you do.And, OBTW, a tautology is always true. You have a helluva lot to learn about evolution!One thought: "creation science" lies about what evolution is. As a result, creationists do not understand what evolution actually is nor how it works, but rather they think it's some really weird lie that "creation science" had taught them, AKA "the evolution model". Interesting thing about the "evolution model" is that it consists primarily of the vast majority of creation models. That is because of their Two Model Approach which postulates a "creation model" and an "evolution model" which consists of everything that's not in their "creation model". Every definition they offer of the "creation model" is narrowly sectarian young-earth creationism, so all non-YEC creation accounts go straight to their "evolution model" along with every single long-discredited idea about evolution. BTW, this description of their "evolution model" was given to me personally by Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research, what wrote the book, saying that the "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern."So in all that creationist confusion, please explain to me exactly how you, a creationist, are supposed to know what evolution actually is. I honestly believe that you don't know. Are you talking about single-step selection? That somehow one single random event caused a modern protein to suddenly appear, or something like that? Absolute nonsense!Nearly three decades ago, I read Richard Dawkins' book, The Blind Watchmaker. In the first half of Chapter Three, "Accumulating Small Changes" (from memory), he describes a program he wrote in BASIC on his Mac (as I recall). It employed what he called "cumulative selection", which I will describe below. He wrote it to create through random changes and deterministic selections within a population a target string, a line from Shakespeare's Hamlet, "Methinks it is like a weasel." He started the program running just before they went out for lunch and it had produced that output string by the time they returned.Well! I didn't believe it! So I wrote my own version based entirely on his description (he never did post the actual BASIC code). Furthermore, I wrote it in Pascal, my working language at the time. Pascal is a compiled language whereas BASIC is an interpreted language, so Pascal would be expected to run faster than BASIC -- with Pascal, you parse and generate code in one single operation, so every time you run the program you don't have to do all that translation work, but with BASIC you may parse it once, but you have to generate code for every single line every single time you execute it, so BASIC runs much more slowly.My program ran successfully in less than a minute. Each and every time. Never failed. BTW, I named my program MONKEY for the obvious Eddington analogy of an infinite number of monkeys, etc, etc, etc. That's posted at MONKEY. You might like my quotes: "Everybody's got something to hide, except for me and my monkey!" (Lennon and McCartney). BTW, if you feel like claiming that I had cheated (as has been tried), I also provide the source code for my programs, in both Pascal and in C. If you truly believe that I had cheated, do please point out the exact lines of code where I am supposed to have done such a thing. It's all right there.I still could not believe the incredible success of my MONKEY, so I analyzed the probabilities. On CompuServe I provided that as an additional file in the PKARC archive file, but nowadays you can find it at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/mprobs.html (also linked to in the MONKEY page). Only then could I finally realize how and why MONKEY worked so well. To express it simply, eventual success turns out to be far more probably than continual failure. Feel free to grind through the numbers and you will arrive at the same conclusion.Basically, you have two possible probability models: single-step selection and cumulative-step selection (read Chapter Three of The Blind Watchmaker for a more complete explanation).In single-step selection, you try randomly to arrive at the final outcome. When that fails, you again try all over again completely from scratch. Please read my treatment of this method in MPROBS (the bare link given above). Basically, the probability of this method succeeding is far, far beyond abysmal -- using a supercomputer capable of one million tries per second (I estimate that most PCs can only manage a few thousand), it would take thousands of times longer than the estimated 13 billion year age of the universe to arrive at one chance in a million of success. But then that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution despite all the false creationist claims.Instead, evolution uses cumulative selection which succeeds both rapidly and inevitably. Instead of being all-or-nothing in a single attempt, it's a step-wise progression towards the target. And despite the low probability of each single step's success, with many organisms, a population, working in parallel the situation becomes one of it being far more improbable for all attempts to fail opposed to one or a few succeeding -- it only takes one successful attempt to generate the next population possessing that successful trait.You can examine the source code and the probability analysis for yourself.

The universe is only around 13.8 billion years old, the Earth around 4.5 billion years old, while life is thought to have begun as much as 4 billion years ago. Science believes life has been evolving on Earth for about 4 billion years. There's no evidence for trillions of years. They do teach the evidence for evolution at university. The primary evidence is fossil evidence, which explains biological variation today and is consistent with the "replication with mutations" behavior of DNA. You could perhaps argue that the evidence has been misinterpreted, but it makes no sense to argue there is no evidence.--Percy

Coyote, Nice pic of the receeding flood and how it gouged out the landscape, Actually the Grand Canyon, is a better example of the receeding flood, or up HERE you can literally see the mountain, with a sand plane, below into the valleys. Very conclusive.Yes, the waters below, receeded downward and it took something like a year to receed....Thanks for the pictorial confirmation

Never seen any fossil evidence personally, I have seen a lot of artists depictions and imaginations, and frauds and counterfeits for the sake of further research funding.But no there still are no missing links, but Yes, the worldwide flood did cause a lot of fossils to be scattered around.Birds becoming mammals becoming fishes, with spouts on the tops of their heads, as with mamalian whales... Nah I'm not buying it.But you can buy it if you like, as that is your freedom of choice. Not a problem.Genesis is literal.... starting a new proposed thread on Creation Day 1, with the creation of Light and LIGHT SPEED, wait for it if acceptable.Evolutionists can post how light was created, or always was, and ETERNAL if they choose to do so. Or they can just say, they have no idea. Either way... choice is theirs and ours.

Again, please learn something about evolution so that you can avoid making such stupid statements.In experiments where evolutionary processes were used to design something, those designs all possessed the same interesting trait: they were all very complex. Some were even irreducibly complex. Such complexity is not a trait of things that are designed intelligently -- I should know because I myself am an intelligent designer, a software engineer. When IDists claim that intelligent designs should be highly complex, all they succeed in doing is demonstrating that they know nothing about designing anything. When we see something complex in nature, then that is evidence of evolution, not "intelligent design". They do. All the time. Why didn't you take any of the classes? You're acting like the idiot in the comedy sketch who's looking all around under a streetlight for something he lost. A passer-by tries to help by asking where he had it last. Half a block down the street. So why aren't you looking for it there? Because the light's better here.If you cannot be bothered to take the classes on a subject, then do not lie and say that those classes do not exist!Dr. Eugenie Scott told a story from when she taught anthropology. The biology department did not teach evolution, but she did. Every semester she would get biology majors, usually in their senior year, taking her class for an "easy A" to meet their graduation requirements. And for each and every one of them, she could see the moment when everything they had learned in biology finally started making sense now that they had learned evolution:

quote:

---

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole. . . . Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
(Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129)

---

Scientists welcome questions. They crave questions, because only through questions can we challenge what we think we know, test what we think we know, correct our mistakes, and learn something new. Two of the foremost debate opponents for creationists, William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey, described their motivation for 15 years of debating creationists:

quote:

---

Back in the early days, we thought there might be some small chance that a creationist would dig up a real biological paradox, one that would prove to be an interesting brain-teaser for the scientific community. We hoped that we could use the creationists to ferret out biological enigmas much as DEA agents use dogs to seek out contraband.

​

... While we had discovered that every creationist claim so far could easily be disproved, we still had hope that there was a genuine quandary in there somewhere. We just hadn't found it yet.
(William Thwaites and Frank Awbrey, "Our Last Debate: Our Very Last", Creation/Evolution Journal, Issue 33, Winter 1993, pp 1-4, https://ncse.com/files/pub/CEJ/pdfs/CEJ_33.pdf)

---

What did they discover in those 15 years? That the creationists had nothing whatsoever.Scientists want questions and crave questions. But they have no patience with bullshit lies, which is all that creationists have to offer.