Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
I am not aware the ToE has been the impetus for open attacks on people

Scientific racism as described by Wiki "Scientific racism is the use of scientific and pseudo-scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority" (Based on Darwinian teaching that some races are not as highly evolved as whites skin people)

"Scientific racism was common during the New Imperialism period (c. 1880s – 1914) where it was used in justifying White European imperialism, and it culminated in the period from 1920 to the end of World War II."


This might help...Its a Nazi video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I don't believe in your God so posting this is pointless. And no, I won't be taking your word for it, so please refrain from preaching at me, thanks.


Dear Hedshaker,

I hit a nerve, eh? Okay, I will quit 'preaching' at you except in certain cases.

Best Wishes For The Day And The Weekend!!

Michael

:shut: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :guitar: :singer:
 

Hedshaker

New member
Dear Hedshaker,

I hit a nerve, eh? Okay, I will quit 'preaching' at you except in certain cases.

No Michael, how about no cases at all. Preaching at none believer is not only offensive but also stupid and mindless.

If you have sound testable evidence then fine, but mindless preaching is a waste of my time and yours.

Cheers.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Mistreatment of indigenous people was caused by believers and unbelievers...It had nothing to do with a belief in the Creator. Some may have tried to justify their actions through various means including religion, or through Darwinian beliefs in "savages" who weren't as highly evolved as white people. But Christians who tried to justify their actions actually rejected what the Bible teaches. We are all one blood and descendants of Adam and Eve.

Nice try. I will not that the destruction of the native Americans at the hands of Europeans was a bit before Darwin. Another historical timeline you confuse. Since you also confuse the real time line of the universe with the mythical Biblical timeline--ah what else do I expect?
 

TheDuke

New member
It's interesting to watch creationists like Yorzhik paint a picture where the main reason YEC's can't make any headway into the sciences is because of a vast conspiracy among the scientific community to lock them out.
...
And if YEC is correct, shouldn't it be trivially easy for YEC's to demonstrate it to these industries? They don't care about ideologies, conspiracies, or dogma. Show them your framework can make them more money and they'll jump on board. Yet YEC's have never done anything like this at all.
Hey, imagine you had to spend all your time and energy on frantically searching for new quote-mines, promoting your faith and indoctrinating children. All of this requires so much effort. How can you possibly ask for more output, that's so insensitive !!!!
 

TheDuke

New member
Mistreatment of indigenous people was caused by believers and unbelievers...It had nothing to do with a belief in the Creator. Some may have tried to justify their actions through various means including religion, or through Darwinian beliefs in "savages" who weren't as highly evolved as white people. But Christians who tried to justify their actions actually rejected what the Bible teaches. We are all one blood and descendants of Adam and Eve.
Haven't we had this one already? I'm not even going to start about all the abuse and slaughter going on in the christian world before Darwin came along. Let's look at the time around the turn of the century.
Just take a look at what you're doing here:
- Western nations were going about mistreating indigenous people all over the map - fact
- quite a few of them were doing so because they felt they were entitled to it by their faith, but these ones, of course, just misinterpreted their faith (read in heavy Scottish accent)
- some began to adapt pseudo-scientific methods for their propaganda efforts, referencing crude notions of evolutionary theory, so the science itself must be wicked and thus no better than religion.

Tell us please, what exactly does the behaviour of politicians change about natural facts?


And now, for your entertainment, some quotes (since you seem to like them) from one of your heroes: Phillip E. Johnson:

"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."

"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science, it's about religion and philosophy."

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable."



And finally, here is a bit of perspective from one of your own

Cheers!
 

DavisBJ

New member
Scientific racism as described by Wiki "Scientific racism is the use of scientific and pseudo-scientific techniques and hypotheses to support or justify the belief in racism, racial inferiority" (Based on Darwinian teaching that some races are not as highly evolved as whites skin people)

"Scientific racism was common during the New Imperialism period (c. 1880s – 1914) where it was used in justifying White European imperialism, and it culminated in the period from 1920 to the end of World War II."


This might help...Its a Nazi video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdH0c2FS-Wg
When addressing the ToE, the central theme of most of your posts seems to be that the ToE has resulted in harm (ideas about the appendix, junk DNA, etc). Do you therefore recommend that the ToE no longer be taught?
 

6days

New member
TheDuke said:
I'm not even going to start about all the abuse and slaughter going on in the christian world before Darwin came along.

Good... because it has nothing if anything to do with creation vs evolution. Whereas common ancestry beliefs have directly lead to millions of people being abused and slaughtered..... a belief in Biblical creation was foundational to modern science....improvements in medicine and education, as well as great hospitals, universities, art, and music.*

TheDuke said:
And now, for your entertainment, some quotes (since you seem to like them) from one of your heroes: Phillip E. Johnson

Who?*

My hero?

I don't recall ever hearing his name.

Intelligent Design you say?.... i disagree with them on much.


But if we are randomely tossing out quotes from 'heros'..... i have some from Darwin that you might kike to brush off.*
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
When addressing the ToE, the central theme of most of your posts seems to be that the ToE has resulted in harm (ideas about the appendix, junk DNA, etc). Do you therefore recommend that the ToE no longer be taught?
Hmmmm...... Good question. I suppose it depends what you mean. So, I googled this definition from 'Livescience'...

"The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.
Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."

Sure..... there is very little to disagree with there. The Biblical creation model teaches much the same thing. But if we are at the same time discussing Darwin and his writings, then lets also discuss things he was wrong about. Lets discuss how extrapolating the evidence into common ancestry beliefs has sometimes harmed science. And, if discussing common ancestry beliefs then students and teachers should also have the academic freedom to discuss evidence both for and against it.*
 

Jose Fly

New member
your talking points are false

No they're not, as evidenced by your inability to refute them.

your questions were answered...

Then your final answer is that you cannot point to a single contribution from the last 100 years that creationism has made to science.

Unlike evolutionism, a belief in the Creator has not harmed science (and millions of people) as has common ancestry beliefs.

Are you kidding me? Belief in gods has not led to harm? Are you paying attention to what's going on in the world right now? How many people are currently being slaughtered, every single day, as a direct result of someone's belief in one god or another?

I mean....I never knew your delusion ran this deep. :shocked:

There has never been one new technology...never one advancement in medicime that resulted from a belief in billions of years.

I suppose it's nice to see that you've adjusted this talking point to where it's now "belief in billions of years" that's your focus.

But apparently you've forgotten your own citation (Pink et al. 2010) that described how geneticists' understanding of mutation rates and primate evolution (humans included) over 40 million years played a key role in helping them identify which sequences to compare and what to look for when they compared them.
Pseudogenes gradually accumulate mutations, and the number of mutations can give us an estimate of their age. Fascinatingly, the appearance of Alu elements in Old World primates coincided with the peak of processed pseudogene generation and subsequent radiation of primates ∼40 million years ago (Ohshima et al. 2003; Zhang et al. 2003). Conservation of pseudogenes across different species has also been observed. Analysis of the rhesus macaque major histocompatibility complex (MHC) extended class II region revealed two pseudogenes that were found to be homologous to the human HIV TAT-specific factor-1-like and zinc finger-like pseudogenes, which was suggestive of evolutionary conservation (Sudbrak et al. 2003).
Time to modify that talking point yet again. :chuckle:
 

Jose Fly

New member
Hey, imagine you had to spend all your time and energy on frantically searching for new quote-mines, promoting your faith and indoctrinating children. All of this requires so much effort. How can you possibly ask for more output, that's so insensitive !!!!

Too true. And that raises an interesting question for creationists here....what are your objectives in this? They say they're not trying to get creationism taught in schools, we know they're not trying to convince the scientific community nor are they trying to convince academia...

.....so what are they doing? :confused:
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I suspect most of the “miracles” you allude to are not thought to be miracles at all by many scientists. You are welcome to believe they are miracles, but then we come full circle back to the fact that your beliefs are as meaningless to reality as are mine.
Of course. Like you, they won't admit to supernatural requirements for their claims. That's because denying those requirements comes with little cost, while admitting to the reality of a supernatural requirement includes a high price. If I were you I wouldn't be so keen about the support consensus gives you since science (if we define it as the pursuit of truth) will win in the end.

As an example, I don't know if you are reading the conversation with gcthomas and tyrathca I'm having about Shannon information. But somehow they think information comes from noise - it's a miracle!

Yorzhik said:
The formation of the solar system does too.
The magnetic field of the earth as an example. According to materialists there's a dynamo that science says isn't there. Your appeal to miracle is noted even if you don't like to admit it.
 

Jose Fly

New member

It's short enough to paste here....
The truth about evolution

I hope this doesn't turn into a rant, but it might. You have been warned.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.

I think that's all I want to say today. Rant over.​
 

gcthomas

New member
As an example, I don't know if you are reading the conversation with gcthomas and tyrathca I'm having about Shannon information. But somehow they think information comes from noise - it's a miracle!
You are confused because you are mixing up the concepts of semantic information and Shannon information, which are entirely different things - it is a common YEC tactic to avoid being pinned down on definitions.

The magnetic field of the earth as an example. According to materialists there's a dynamo that science says isn't there. Your appeal to miracle is noted even if you don't like to admit it.
Science says, does it? Funny, since Ive seen perfectly good physics models of the dynamo. Not fully understood, but not forbidden by the principles of Physics, despite your wish for your claims to be true.

Unless you have a citation for your assertion?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you assume that the information you originally sent is the only information you want then yes by definition any change from what you started with is a loss.
That is the only way Shannon is applied.

But if you don't care what the original message was as long as what you received works then Shannon kind of falls apart. Doesn't it?
Quite so. But messages in the cell follow Shannon, so they don't work or work as well the more noise that is added to the message.

If you disagree with that, not only do you have to show where added noise works better, but you'll have to show where adding noise to messages in the cell works better most of the time.

Anyway if we are going to be a stickler about encoding and decoding then when CAN we measure the information content of DNA?
When we have a section of DNA that corresponds with a protein.

When is this encoding and decoding happening
In the first example, the DNA is the coded message. We don't need to know how it was encoded to measure Shannon information. The message is decoded when the protein is put to work. When the protein works we will find that the protein does not have any more information than the DNA had. And if the protein doesn't work, then it was lacking information.

I predict more hot air stating your conclusions as fact again and never actually trying to show what an actual application of shannon information would look like. The phrase "Put up or shut up" comes to mind
Since you've already showed how Shannon applied, you're a bit late.

Your task, now that we've gotten to this part of the conversation, is to show what you claimed above.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hmm, let's see...
I said: "... although this picture does not apply to DNA. There is no reason, beyond a religious one, to claim that DNA started perfect, so treating mutations as noise is arbitrary and incorrect."

And you said: "So unless a radio signal is "perfect" you don't bother about noise? That's what you are saying here."

Do you see? I made a statement about DNA mutations and you said I was talking about radio noise. That you doubled down on your deceit doesn't say much about your ethics.
Huh? Your reading comprehension skills are so lacking here that there isn't really a way to answer. A grade-schooler could understand what I said with no difficulty with only an overview of Shannon.

But let's try anyway. Somehow, according to you, "There is no reason, beyond a religious one, to claim that DNA started perfect" Which is just bazaar. Of course the DNA is perfect. Every message sent is defined as perfect according to Shannon. So if DNA is a message, then it starts out perfect. Thus, in response to your bazaar claim, I tried to bring you back to reality by showing you what your statement said in terms I would have hoped you could understand.

Are you really trying this hard to misunderstand?

Next [I said]: "You've set up an Aunt Sally, here.
Again, you missed answering the question. So you think that DNA was perfect originally and that mutations cannot be beneficial?"

[Yorzhik answered]"This is why laymen don't trust the experts. Even laymen know according to Shannon the message is defined as perfect before it is transmitted.

I answered it. Directly and completely. Go back and re-read my answer and try again."

Do you see? I wrote about DNA specifically, and you answered about Shannon communications instead, again. Not clear at all.
It was only not clear if you are determined to misunderstand.

So you are convinced that DNA started as perfect and therefore mutations can only harm the message. Correct?
As defined by Shannon, that is correct. Your job, now that you've made the claim, is to show how noise works better in cell messaging than the messages themselves.

But the scientific description starts with DNA encoding little information, but increasing over time due to mutations in the population being selected in to or out of the gene pool.

No wonder you are getting confused, when you are assuming your conclusions before you start, using your preconceptions to argue against the science instead of using science.
No. The scientific description starts with a defined message and its result. Start with a simple example and go from there. The number of messages within your example are far too vague to measure at all. Start with this example and we can find other messages in inheritance after you understand this one: DNA->transfer->protein
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have shown yourself to be well worthy of glazing anyone's eyes over Yorzhick. :rolleyes:
Clearly trying to claim that Shannon's methods of restricting information to what it originally was somehow nevertheless applies to a world of occasional un-corrected chance random mutations, natural selection, gene duplication and genetic drift is for a YEC agenda either a deliberate obfuscation and misdirection or at best a misunderstanding and misapplication of science.
So here you are claiming that Shannon doesn't apply to messages in the cell. But it obviously applies to DNA->Protein. So now you are left with claiming that Shannon doesn't work when it comes to inheritance because of natural selection. Can you show us any specific messages where adding noise makes things work better? And don't give us some vague black box where a myriad of messages take place because there could be other systems that mitigate the problem of messages being ruined by noise. Show us the message where more information was added via noise that made it work better.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Hiding in the snow

Hiding in the snow

Of course. Like you, they won't admit to supernatural requirements for their claims. That's because denying those requirements comes with little cost, while admitting to the reality of a supernatural requirement includes a high price.
Again you take liberties, this time of pretending you know why I don’t include the supernatural as an explanatory mechanism. So again I will recommend that you try to understand and deal with what my real motivations are, rather than relying on tactics like insinuating that I am unwilling to pay the “high price” of Christian belief. In fact I was deep into Christianity, and my parting from it exacted a very high price – in the severing of the vast majority of my friendships, social network, even much of my family distancing themselves from me.

I shouldn’t need to say this to you, who has a long history of arguing matters in science, but science is predicated on seeing what we can learn about the natural world. To have any hope of consistency in that, we limit ourselves to trying to find natural laws and principles. That does not mean the supernatural does not exist, but the supernatural is, by definition, not a natural law or principle. Simple example, when friends come over for salmon and salad, I know pretty well how much food to buy ahead of time. But if I were to invite them over for what may turn out to be a “miracle of the fish and loaves” meal, then perhaps I should bring in a few dozen 50 gallon drums to hold the leftovers, even though I only bring an initial slice of bread and a single anchovy to the party. Plus, with hundreds of religions, most of which likewise lay claim to supernatural intervention, should science open its doors to the claims from the whole bevy of them?
If I were you I wouldn't be so keen about the support consensus gives you since science (if we define it as the pursuit of truth) will win in the end.
That is fine with me. I am not even going to claim that relying on consensus (as I have defined it – the collective belief of a large group of experts who have extensively researched an idea and reached a common understanding) may not sometimes lead me astray. As was recently mentioned, just over a century ago, the consensus was that Newton’s Laws were essentially unquestioned as being correct. Einstein’s gift of deep analytical thought showed the consensus had been wrong.

But the point remains, in scientific fields where I necessarily have to rely on others, what is the best course of action? Do I side with some malcontent outside of the consensus group, or should I perhaps give preference to claims from minority religious groups (like yours) that make no bones about wanting science to validate their unique tribal creation tale?
As an example, I don't know if you are reading the conversation with gcthomas and tyrathca I'm having about Shannon information. But somehow they think information comes from noise - it's a miracle!
My immediate reaction is again to go with consensus. I am confident there are a lot of very competent scientists who are intimately familiar with message transmission as it applies in biology, yet fully support common descent. After more than a decade of debating Shannon here, it seems these debates in a Christian debate forum are the epitome of your success in getting your Shannon arguments accepted in the science community. Why am I not very excited?

Let me, purely as an amateur in the peanut gallery, ask a question. A DNA mistake in replication (would that be counted as “noise”?) turns what normally would be a brown baby rabbit into one with white fur. Grows up to have lots of white-furred kids, who can live in the snow where brown rabbits could not hide before. I wouldn’t call that a miracle, but would that constitute “new information” in the rabbit genome?
The magnetic field of the earth as an example. According to materialists there's a dynamo that science says isn't there. Your appeal to miracle is noted even if you don't like to admit it.
Reference to where science says the dynamo isn’t there?
 

alwight

New member
So here you are claiming that Shannon doesn't apply to messages in the cell. But it obviously applies to DNA->Protein. So now you are left with claiming that Shannon doesn't work when it comes to inheritance because of natural selection. Can you show us any specific messages where adding noise makes things work better? And don't give us some vague black box where a myriad of messages take place because there could be other systems that mitigate the problem of messages being ruined by noise. Show us the message where more information was added via noise that made it work better.
I'm only claiming that Shannon pioneered digital transmission techniques which aimed to maintain fidelity and increase efficiency within a digital transmission system. However I will await enthusiastically for you to explain just how this applies to the natural process of genetic transcription that unlike telecom systems didn't actually require Shannon to opine anything.
You are clearly presenting nothing here but bovine scatterings Yorzhik and you know it. :plain:
 

DavisBJ

New member
... And, if discussing common ancestry beliefs then students and teachers should also have the academic freedom to discuss evidence both for and against it.
Student A has a teacher that sincerely believes Darwinian evolution is a false concept, and the teacher has collected an apparently impressive set of arguments to show why. Student B has a teacher that is the polar opposite, and that teacher has collected an impressive set of arguments to show why Darwinian evolution is correct. The students come out with wildly divergent views on the subject of Darwinian evolution. Is this a good educational approach?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top