Creation vs. Evolution

[TheDuke]

All this brouhaha about "genetic information" boils down to one single issue/question:

If we have two genomes, how do we tell which has more "genetic information"?

That's easy, since dogma dictates that no organism may gain any info, the answer to your question is always: goddidit

 

[TheDuke]

teacher A is teaching how to think. Teacher B is telling students what to think.

Student A scores higher in college entrance exams.

Since you had to mention it:

 

[TheDuke]

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 trying to convince the scientific community nor are they trying to convince academia...

.....so what are they doing?

Let me know if you gain any insights, cause I have no clue.

 

[TheDuke]

Whereas common ancestry beliefs have directly lead to millions of people being abused and slaughtered

Where do you suppose the idea of 'the law of natural selection' came from? It came from Darwinian beliefs about survival of the fittest.

The Nazi's just seemed to using Darwin's ideas...
Charles Darwin :"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

Mate, you gotta learn a thing called "consistency"!
Throughout all your posts it seems to be you're not exactly sure what your opinion is. But, alas, I'm not hopeful, since precision and accuracy aren't exactly the marks of creationists :wave2:


So let me try again with a couple of basic question you're just going to weasel your way out of answering directly anyway:

1) How is the veracity of science affected by the actions of politicians?

2) What aspects of biological evolution do you personally accept and what do you deny?

3) Are you aware that the nazis were predominantly christian?
In case you wish to spend the time here's an article on this topic



And now let's deal with your egregious misrepresentation of Darwin's thoughts.
Place yourself back a 150 years, in a period where European supremacy was considered a simple fact, where slavery was commonplace, where society was divided by class... And in this time, good ol' Darwin could rise above prejudice and recognise that slavery was wrong, that all people are more similar than they are different:
"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the 'Beagle', with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.
By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man."

As to be expected, you robbed the quote-mine of its entire context, so here it is:
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies, between the Tarsius and the other Lemurid, between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
In essence it's a projection / thought-experiment about your favourite complaint of "missing links". I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and not anticipate that you prove yourself utterly incapable of comprehending this passage.

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

You couldn't possibly be troubled for some specifics, eh?
So much rambling on about "Design" and here you are, all innocent again, aren't you?
FYI: ID, YEC, biblical literalists, it's all really quite the same, isn't it....

Sure..... there is very little to disagree with there. The Biblical creation model teaches much the same thing.

Does it????
Then certainly you can point me to the verses that discuss the concept of descent with modification, the geological column...
I'll give your book credit where it's due: there is actually one verse where humans are indirectly considered animals. What's your take on that?

And, if discussing common ancestry beliefs then students and teachers should also have the academic freedom to discuss evidence both for and against it.

So what's your evidence against it?
I'm sure we all here are so anxious and impatient to find out.... :devil:

 

[TheDuke]

Time for some more fun

Time for some more fun

 

[Jose Fly]

That's easy, since dogma dictates that no organism may gain any info, the answer to your question is always: goddidit

:chuckle:

I guarantee, not one creationist here will answer that question. For all their rhetoric about "genetic information", none of them can say how you tell which of two genomes has more "genetic information".

I've been posing that question to creationists for over a decade, and not one has ever answered. Not....one.

 

[DavisBJ]

Yorz on national TV

Yorz on national TV

Yorzhik,

I prefer to spend time on specifics, as opposed to responding to vague claims. Accordingly, since your last post was almost bereft of any specific evidence, I will let most of it pass. If you are convinced you are right in what you said, then I would recommend you contact the Dr. Phil show. Based on the depth and breadth of the claims you make would it probably warrant two full programs for Dr. Phil to diagnose what is amiss, and to decide what course of counseling might be effective in restoring you to a balanced view of reality. Plus, just think, a national audience before whom you could lay out your evidence for massive deceit and pervasive collusion within the world of science. Dr. Phil would be delighted to have a few of your home-schooled prodigies prove they can defeat the arguments from common descent professors. Dr. Phil is also a product of the public school system. I wonder if he concurs in your disdain for pubic education.

Relative to your assertion that:

Yes, it is generally true that homeschoolers do better than public schoolers.

Do homeschooled students generally prove to be more productive as scientists? Not necessarily in the disciplines we might have disputes over (age of the earth and common descent fields), but in mathematics, computers, engineering, chemistry, and so on? It doesn’t help much for a smart student to become a hum-drum worker bee. Do you have figures on how well home-schooled students do in the scientific workplace?

The one issue you broached that I think offers some meat for us to look at is irreducible complexity:

The best argument I've seen against IC is that anything claimed to be irreducibly complex can be reduced but with a different function. That's a weak response so you must have come up with a better counter?

What is weak about co-option?

But the number of evidences in favor of a young age of the solar system, and then of recent creation of life, are are many. I don't think any one of them is 100% proof, but I'm not sure which would be the strongest either. While the number of evidences for common descent are few, and rely on what we don't know.

I see you making the talk, now do the walk. Come back with specifics

The argument for long ages of the solar system are radiometric dating and starlight. But both of these rely on not knowing important things that could turn the argument either way.

Better, but I await you moving past vague allusion to undefined “important things”.

The strongest argument for life being old on the earth is homology, which is just looks, and we have no idea what really goes on in the cell that could decide if that were possible or not - and please note that there is strong evidence against homology even being a thing related to common descent because of genetics.

Biology is not my field. If gcthomas or Jose Fly or one of the others wants to address this, I invite them to.

 

[6days]

Where do you suppose the idea of 'the law of natural selection' came from? It came from Darwinian beliefs about survival of the fittest.

The Nazi's just seemed to using Darwin's ideas...
Charles Darwin :"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla"

Mate, you gotta learn a thing called "consistency"!
Throughout all your posts it seems to be you're not exactly sure what your opinion is. But, alas, I'm not hopeful, since precision and accuracy aren't exactly the marks of creationists*

Since your ad hominem comment has nothing to do with the connection between Darwin and the holocaust, I can assume you know evolutionism was largely to blame.*

1) How is the veracity of science affected by the actions of politicians?
2) What aspects of biological evolution do you personally accept and what do you deny?
3) Are you aware that the nazis were predominantly christian?

1. *Depends what you mean by words, but science itself has little if anything to do with politics.*
2. Read the thread on rapid adaptation how the creation model is the best fit to selection, mutation rates, genetic drift, etc.
3. Many were...sad that they compromised and accepted Darwinism.

And now let's deal with your egregious misrepresentation of Darwin's thoughts.
Place yourself back a 150 years, ...

Haha... here you go trying to defend racist attitudes. Darwin also thought a woman was better to have than a dog for a companion. Do you also wish to defend msyogyny? Christ's teachings 2000 years ago clearly show that women, the disabled, the poor etc were all part of humanity to be valued equally.

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

You couldn't possibly be troubled for some specifics, eh?
So much rambling on about "Design" and here you are, all innocent again, aren't you?

I would suggest you do just a wee bit of research... other than talking points from places like Talkorigins, before you misrepresent what others think..before you post a quote from someoneone I have never heard of and claim he is my hero. But.... you could be my hero and apologize.

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."

..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.

Does it????**(that the Biblical creation model teaches much the same thing.)Then certainly you can point me to the verses that discuss the concept of descent with modification, the geological column...

Would you agree that your strawman here is dishonest? It is.

And, if discussing common ancestry beliefs then students and teachers should also have the academic freedom to discuss evidence both for and against it.

So what's your evidence against it?

For example a teacher could show the rubbery and non falsifiable nature of evolutionism. It would make an interesting discussion showing how science keeps proving various beliefs wrong. Dawkins and many others used shoddy, and or non-functiinal design as an evidence for evolution. Science now is finding optimal design and functionality. So is both poor design and great design evidence of the same thing?*

Teach students to think.... don't tell them what to think.

 

[Jonahdog]

Teach students to think.... don't tell them what to think.

Unless of course you are a Bible fundamentalist, in which case one need not think, just learn how to read. Then the only question is which translation has the most god in it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Biology is not my field. If gcthomas or Jose Fly or one of the others wants to address this, I invite them to.

If Yorzhik ever posts anything of substance, I'll give it a look. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Jose Fly]

Many were...sad that they compromised and accepted Darwinism.

So the Nazis accepted Darwinism....by banning the works of Darwin. Is that the sort of logic that only creationists can understand?

 

[alwight]

The argument for long ages of the solar system are radiometric dating and starlight.

Unfortunately for Yorzhik YECs now have to deny gravitational waves, as a new addition the global scientific conspiracy perhaps?

 

[6days]

Unlesss of course you are a Bible fundamentalist, in which case one need not think, just learn how to read. Then the only question is which translation has the most god in it.

*Haaa. So few evolutionists can argue without creating a strawman.

Actually Jonah, fundementalist parents no matter if atheist, vegetarian or Christian should teach their kids various points of view and explain why they believe as they do. If you try force a belief onto a kid, it likely is going to backfire.*

 

[6days]

So*the Nazis accepted Darwinism....by banning the works of Darwin. Is that the sort of logic that only creationists can understand?*

Your understanding of history is no better than your understanding of science. Yes Hitler banned Darwin but he, and the nazi's loved Darwinism.

You can easily google and find people who promoted the belief system in Germany like disgraced biologist Ernst Haeckel. Wiki says this of him "He believed the social sciences to be instances of "applied biology", and that phrase was picked up and used for Nazi propaganda"*

Watch the nazi video. They say*.."We have transgressed*the law of natural selection*in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior life forms.....thousands of drooling imbeciles must be fed and cared for, individuals lower than any beast"*

So yes.... the Nazi's accepted Darwinism and it resulted in genocide.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes Hitler banned Darwin but he, and the nazi's loved Darwinism.

Again, that special brand of logic that only creationists understand.

You can easily google and find people who promoted the belief system in Germany like disgraced biologist Ernst Haeckel. Wiki says this of him "He believed the social sciences to be instances of "applied biology", and that phrase was picked up and used for Nazi propaganda"*

Watch the nazi video. They say*.."We have transgressed*the law of natural selection*in the last decades. Not only have we supported inferior life forms.....thousands of drooling imbeciles must be fed and cared for, individuals lower than any beast"*

So yes.... the Nazi's accepted Darwinism and it resulted in genocide.*

I've asked you these two questions many, many times and you never answer, so let's try again....

1) Let's grant for the sake of argument that Nazism was inspired by Darwinian evolution. Therefore.........?

2) Are you saying we should evaluate the accuracy and validity of an idea based on the worst things that have been done in its name, e.g., should we evaluate Christianity based on.......oh, let's say what Martin Luther had to say about Jews?

 

[6days]

I've asked you these two questions many, many times and you never answer, so let's try again....

No....that line is simply one of your talking points that you add to some of your posts.*

1) Let's grant for the sake of argument that Nazism was inspired by Darwinian evolution. Therefore.........?

Lets start by asking why you find it difficult to admit that the holocaust was inspired by Darwinian evolution?

"Therefore?"...??. Therefore I answered the question / challenge that was issued.

2) Are you saying we should evaluate the accuracy and validity of an idea based on the worst things that have been done in its name?

*Nope...Im saying its wrong to try and whitewash and rewrite history as you and others do. Evolutionism has lead to sufferring and death of untold millions, increased racism, eugenics and more. (Eugenics strongly promoted by Darwins son before WW1)

Christians also should examine and reject statements and actions of those who depart from scripture. *Its funny how evolutionists try to downplay the role of Darwinism in the holocaust by bringing up the name of Luther. Martin Luther was a bit on the crude side and had nasty words for any group who rejected the Gospel. His biggest attack was against Catholics. But, did he endorse mass murder of Catholiics, Jews and , Gypsies.... and the disabled? No, of course not. (In fact in Luthers writings... although he dislikes Jews, he still wants them to turn to Christ). What inspired the holocaust was Darwinism. They admit they are going to help evolution / natural selection by eliminating those the Nazi's deemed unfit.*

 

[Tyrathca]

*Nope...Im saying its wrong to try and whitewash and rewrite history as you and others do. Evolutionism has lead to sufferring and death of untold millions, increased racism, eugenics and more. (Eugenics strongly promoted by Darwins son before WW1)

So?

The theory of relativity has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands at least and the threat of human extinction constantly over our head. It could cause a literal man made apocalypse. So what?

Christians also should examine and reject statements and actions of those who depart from scripture.

And scientists also should examine and reject statements and actions of those who depart from science. Like those who used evolution to support racism.

* They admit they are going to help evolution / natural selection by eliminating those the Nazi's deemed unfit.*

Except there was no scientific or evolutionary basis to call them unfit. It's the equivalent of a person trying to argue that science shows a kilogram of feathers is lighter than a kilogram of steel. And they must have known that given they banned Darwin's actual ideas and publications (they couldn't let people know what the science ACTUALLY said)

 

[Jose Fly]

No....that line is simply one of your talking points that you add to some of your posts.

Um, questions aren't talking points.

Lets start by asking why you find it difficult to admit that the holocaust was inspired by Darwinian evolution?

Um....because the works of Darwin were banned in Nazi Germany?

"Therefore?"...??. Therefore I answered the question / challenge that was issued.

So as before, I'm going to take your repeated dodging of this question as you admitting you have no point.

Nope...Im saying its wrong to try and whitewash and rewrite history as you and others do. Evolutionism has lead to sufferring and death of untold millions, increased racism, eugenics and more. (Eugenics strongly promoted by Darwins son before WW1)

And how many atrocities were inspired by belief in gods? Shoot, how many going on at this very moment are a direct result of belief in gods?

It seems your logic is something like "Belief in evolution has led to suffering and death of millions, therefore.....something"

But by the same "logic" you must also grant that "Belief in gods has led to suffering and death of millions, therefore......something".

Christians also should examine and reject statements and actions of those who depart from scripture.

Do you deny that German Christianity's history of antisemitism played a significant role in the holocaust?

Its funny how evolutionists try to downplay the role of Darwinism in the holocaust by bringing up the name of Luther. Martin Luther was a bit on the crude side and had nasty words for any group who rejected the Gospel. His biggest attack was against Catholics. But, did he endorse mass murder of Catholiics, Jews and , Gypsies.... and the disabled? No, of course not. (In fact in Luthers writings... although he dislikes Jews, he still wants them to turn to Christ).

Oh brother....again you seem to be completely oblivious to your own hypocrisy. You accuse others of "whitewashing history", and then immediately do it yourself!

Luther did indeed want the Jews to convert to Christianity, but once it became apparent that they wouldn't, he turned on them and wrote things like...

"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews":

• "First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians …"
• "Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed."
• "Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them."
• "Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"
• "Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside …"
• "Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them …"
• "Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow … But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., … then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., … then eject them forever from the country …"

And 400 years later during the rise of the Nazi regime, his writings were distributed to Nazi leaders and displayed during Nazi rallies.

What inspired the holocaust was Darwinism. They admit they are going to help evolution / natural selection by eliminating those the Nazi's deemed unfit.*

Do you believe Jews are unfit?

 

[TheDuke]

Why am I neither surprised nor disappointed that you abused the trust I had placed in your mental capacity yet again.


Sifting trough the inanities and red herrings, I've discovered this:

science itself has little if anything to do with politics.

In the name of everything that is holy, why the heck then did you (re-)open the topic to begin with ??????

 

[6days]

Why am I neither surprised nor disappointed that you abused the trust I had placed in your mental capacity yet again.
Sifting trough the inanities and red herrings, I've discovered this:
In the name of everything that is holy, why the heck then did you (re-)open the topic to begin with ??????

You obviously must not know what science is Duke??
Here is one definition... "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation"