Creation vs. Evolution

[TheDuke]

I've been doing this in one form or another for about 15 years, and I can say with a high degree of confidence that you will be forever waiting for creationists to change their tactics.

Specific to 6days' recent copy-paste-run approach, I used to refer to it as the "conveyor belt approach", where the creationist sends one copy-n-paste after another down the line, without any regard to their accuracy or validity, and if someone at the end of the line happens to pick one up, look at it, and refute it, the creationist shrugs, ignores the response, and just sends more copy-n-pastes down the line.

It's a pretty desperate, sad tactic that is indicative of the state of creationism.

Oh bummer!
Well at least it's good to know that even after 15 years, one can still preserve one's mental sanity.

Do you reckon, this tactic is a variation of the infamous "Gish gallop"?



PS: If I'm not mistaken the "high rate of beneficial mutations" in Kimura's paper has to do with the particular mathematical model he's using, and that's exactly why he himself limits the model to only the deleterious mutations, since it fails for the good ones

 

[DavisBJ]

Evolutionists should be called illusionists for all the lack of evidence

Do you think radiological dating is incorrect?

 

[iouae]

WHY I BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM

I am sure there is no new argument in this field.
But imagine you have an old Timex, windup watch.
Let's say it has 50 bits and all those bits have to be in the right positions for the watch to work.

I say to myself...
1. What are the chances of all 50 necessary pieces existing at all (meaning, there has to be a factory somewhere making each part)?
2. Next I ask, what are the chances of all the parts coming together in one place?
3. Next I ask, suppose I had them all together in a box, and I just randomly shook the box, what is the chance of the bits coming together in their correct positions?
4. Suppose some bits came together in their correct positions relative to each other, if I shook the box further, to get the other bits into position, my original pieces will be shaken out of place.
5. Lets suppose I shook the box and bits sorted into position randomly, and millions of years of shaking so happened to get all pieces in exactly the correct position relative to each other, the problem is that shaking alone will not assemble the watch. Screws have to be screwed in. So we need multiple processes to assemble a watch.
6. Even if one had a shaking and random screwing mechanism, there is an order in which the watch has to be assembled. This has to be the correct order.
7. Suppose we had a shaking and screwing process, when all is assembled, we have to have the outer plate pushed together with the glass cover.
8. Suppose we had a shaking, screwing and pushing process, next we have to have an input of energy or winding process applied at exactly the right place, viz. the winding mechanism. This process has to be last.
9. Suppose we had a winding process, this has to know when to stop or it could overwind the watch and break the spring. Likewise, all the processes have to be gentle enough not to break anything.
10. Next, I think that this watch has to exist with a whole lot of things equally complex around it which create the parts in the first place, then shake, screw, push together and wind it - all gently enough.
11. Then I think how this watch is INFINITELY less complex than the simplest life form.
12. Then I ask myself, is this watch likely to exist by random chance, or purposeful design?

Yet evolutionists every day believe that a Breitling watch could pop into existence by dumb luck, given enough time and the right circumstances.

The fact that evolutionists, like Calvin's father (Calvin and Hobbes) spin these tall stories, which they themselves believe, is further confirmation of my belief in God.

God made people to be believers. People are trusting and believe anything. Look at all the conspiracy theories, and religions, and superstitions around the world. Look at all the people getting married ignoring the odds of their marriages working. Look at all the people buying lottery tickets. Look at all the people getting onto flying metal objects, never having met the pilot, never knowing how suicidal he might be that day.

God first made Neanderthals, but they lacked this imagination, this trusting gullibility, this optimism that all things are possible, when they are not. Then God made man to be the gullible, trusting, optimists that we are.

 

[noguru]

On the contrary, it would seem that all things are possible through evolution according to evolutionists/unbelievers. They have a magical answer for all of creation. Billions of magical answers with no proof.

No, you got that wrong. In fact if you had educated yourself on the matter you might learn there are certainly levels of possibility. A hierarchy if you will, going from the least stringent to the most stringent; logical, physical, biological, historical. Something can be logically possible but not physically possible. Something can be physically possible but not biologically possible. And finally something can be biologically possible but not historically possible. That is how it works with the philosophy of science. But when you plug your idea of a "magic God" in, then no one has to even worry about logical possibility do they?

 

[patrick jane]

No, you got that wrong. In fact if you had educated yourself on the matter you might learn there are certainly levels of possibility. A hierarchy if you will, going from the least stringent to the most stringent; logical, physical, biological, historical. Something can be logically possible but not physically possible. Something can be physically possible but not biologically possible. And finally something can be biologically possible but not historically possible. That is how it works with the philosophy of science. But when you plug your idea of a "magic God" in, then no one has to even worry about logical possibility do they?

Anyone with a brain can look around and observe that God created us and everything else. I rather enjoy trusting and believing in God, the creator of mathematics and sciences.

 

[noguru]

Anyone with a brain can look around and observe that God created us and everything else. I rather enjoy trusting and believing in God, the creator of mathematics and sciences.

:think:



OK, that's terrific. Thanks for your opinion.

Nothing I have posted negates the metaphysical idea that God is the author of the natural world.

But you are still inaccurate with this previous response.

On the contrary, it would seem that all things are possible through evolution according to evolutionists/unbelievers. They have a magical answer for all of creation. Billions of magical answers with no proof.

 

[6days]

nothing but repeating the same mantra over and over, denying evident scientific facts

Duke..... how can you talk about facts when you don't seem to understand the difference between 'fact', 'evidence' and 'conclusions'.*

and ignoring all the relevant points in my post.

Hmmmmm
Lets review.....here it is.... (i think you refer to post 16162?)

Cool, finally we are actually getting somewhere. There is hope for you yet 6d, but do yourself a favour and dump AiG as a source of knowledge. They are so dishonest and misleading and openly anti-science.

And, I told you this was ad hominem. I was asked to cite a source. If you disagree with the technical answer.....if you understand it, then debate that. To dismiss the source rather thantry refute their argument suggests you didn't understand it.

No, "junk-DNA" isn't garbage, it's extremely valuable for understanding the evolutionary process.

I replied "Thats what evolutionists used to call it..."junk"..."flotsam". Fortunately science is dispelling that belief.*

If you wish we can expand on that idea showing how evolutionary beliefs about 'junk DNA' hindered research.

It's just not contributing to an organisms biochemistry, that's why it has been successfully removed in mice and the modified individuals have yet to show any signs of sickness or anomalies.

Yes... I ignored this silly and non factual statement. It seems like you are preaching from the evolutionary playbook of about 15 years ago. Non coding DNA *does contribute to an organisms biochemistry. Research is only beginning to discover some of the purpose, design and function of non coding DNA such as*gene regulation, chromosome formation / structure and protein production.

Your statement should say something like.....researchers have removed a small portion of non coding DNA in mice. The mice seem to have no adverse effects after a couple generations in labratory conditions. The researchers admit there could be adverse effects not yet noticed. More recent research has shown that some non coding DNA is vital for life and plays a part in brain development.
"Multiple knockout mouse models reveal lincRNAs are required for life and brain development" eLife. 2:e01749...Sauvageau

Also
"Genome regulation by long noncoding RNAs" Annual Review of Biochemistry. 81: 145-66...Rinn, and Chang.

Or...
The dark matter rises: the expanding world of regulatory RNAs. Essays in Biochemistry. 54: 1-16.Clark

Another reason why mutations are often neutral, is because both the protein coding is redundant and very often structural changes far from the active core of an enzyme have little or no effect on its reactivity.

Most mutations are silent... it does not mean they are totally neutral. Selection is unable to detect these mutations, which cause problems to future generations. This problem has been described as the population bomb, with a long fuse.*

As far as I'm aware, Kimura explicitly didn't look into beneficial mutations but focused solely on neutral nes.

As you notice he doesn't say there is such a thing as a totally neutral mutation. As to "beneficial mutations"..... He realizes they are so rare, that they provide no answer to the problem of genetic burden. He believes there must be an answer (he is evolutionist) but admits " in the evolutionary history of mammals,nucleotide substitution has been so fast that on average one nucleotides pair has been substituted in the population roughly every two years. This figure is in sharp contrast to Haldanes well-known estimate... a new allele may be substituted in a population every 300 generations...
... at the rate of one substitution every two years the substitutional load become so large that no mammalian species could tolerate it...
This brings us to the rather surprising conclusion... the mutation rate per generation for neutral mutation amount to roughly...four per zygote."

So Kimura acknowlegea the problem is real then tries to shoehorn the evidence into his belief system. What is interesting is that back in 1968, he had no idea of the functions involved in non coding DNA. The problem is likely about 50 times worse than Kimura could have imagined.*

 

[6days]

God first made Neanderthals, but they lacked this imagination, this trusting gullibility, this optimism that all things are possible, when they are not. Then God made man to be the gullible, trusting, optimists that we are.

Both God's Word, and genetics prove your beliefs are false.*

Genetics shows that we are descendants of Neanderthals.*

Scripture teaches that things reproduce after their kind. Therefore Neandertals would have to be descendants of Adam and Eve. Jesus says*"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female" ( Adam and Eve... not Neanderadams)

 

[6days]

Do you think radiological dating is incorrect?

The assumptoons are incorrect.

 

[Jonahdog]

Yet evolutionists every day believe that a Breitling watch could pop into existence by dumb luck, given enough time and the right circumstances.

.

Timex maybe, but not a fancy Breitling.

Although, it is interesting how creationists are about the only people who use this silly analogy.

And where, iouae, did you copy and paste that from?

 

[6days]

*

It was ad hominem in this case. Rather than attack the argument with reason and logic, he attacked the person / source.

So in another thread, you said that science is about knowledge and "following the evidence wherever it leads".

Correct.

Yet in this thread you cite AnswersinGenesis

Correct.

I was asked to provide a citation.*

AIG...an organization that declares up front that they absolutely will not follow the evidence wherever it leads, and any and all evidence that contradicts their religious beliefs is automatically rejected.

Yes....sort of.*

Biblical creation and evolutionism are beliefs about the past. Both sides examine the same evidence but have different conclusions because of their biased start points. ( Nobody is a blank slate)

 

[DavisBJ]

The assumptoons are incorrect.

And those assumptions are?

 

[iouae]

Timex maybe, but not a fancy Breitling.

Although, it is interesting how creationists are about the only people who use this silly analogy.

And where, iouae, did you copy and paste that from?

I have heard of this analogy before, but I wrote it as I see it myself.
And I think its a valid analogy.

You only call it silly because it really is valid and you have no argument against it.

There are just too many things which have to come together simultaneously. "I love it when a plan comes together" - as they say in the A Team. This cannot happen for terribly complicated plans, by accident.

 

[iouae]

Both God's Word, and genetics prove your beliefs are false.*

Genetics shows that we are descendants of Neanderthals.*

Scripture teaches that things reproduce after their kind. Therefore Neandertals would have to be descendants of Adam and Eve. Jesus says*"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female" ( Adam and Eve... not Neanderadams)

And have you not figured out that the Bible neither describes the past nor the future, but a brief few thousand years of earth's history.

If you could read rocks, you would know that Neanderthals pre-dated Homo sapiens. They died out 40 000 years ago, overlapping H sapiens by 5000 years supposedly. Then God wiped all hominids out in a mass extinction called the Younger Dryas, and 6000 years ago, started again with A&E.

But till you become rock literate, this will all be lost on you.

 

[6days]

And have you not figured out that the Bible neither describes the past nor the future, but a brief few thousand years of earth's history.

Gen.1:1 In the beginning, God created.....

Revelation 21:4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

 

[Jose Fly]

Correct.

I was asked to provide a citation.

You made an unsupported, science-oriented claim (beneficial mutations "often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness"). I asked for a citation, and you posted a link to "Answers in Genesis", an organization that, by your own criterion, is overtly anti-science.

IOW, to back up your claim about science, you cited an anti-science source.

Did you not think that through? :chuckle:

 

[6days]

And those assumptions are?

Radiometric dating accurately measures the rate of decay from parent to daughter element. When you extrapolate time to arrive at a date you are assuming
1. no elements have leached in or out.
2. How much daughter element was in the initial amount at creation.
3. That nothing in the past ever caused accelerated rate of decay.

 

[6days]

You made an unsupported, science-oriented claim (beneficial mutations "often, and perhaps always are a result of a loss of fitness").

True.... And that doesn't agree with your belief system.

However...John Sanford, internationally known geneticist and author of 80+peer reviewed articles says " It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information (apart from fine tuning) , the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information but rather have destroyed it."

 

[Jose Fly]

Radiometric dating accurately measures the rate of decay from parent to daughter element. When you extrapolate time to arrive at a date you are assuming
1. no elements have leached in or out.
2. How much daughter element was in the initial amount at creation.
3. That nothing in the past ever caused accelerated rate of decay.

We've been over this, and if you remember what you should have learned from previous discussions, isochron dating does not assume 1 and 2 (in fact, the results actually test for those things).

As far as #3, if you have a mechanism by which radioactive decay can be accelerated enough to make rocks that are only 6,000 years old appear to be billions of years old, you should let everyone know. You know why? Because you would solve mankind's energy problems forever. We'd be able to generate all the nuclear power we wanted, and use your mechanism to dispose of the leftover material. Right now we're stuck with the leftovers, and since nothing anyone has ever tried has caused decay rates to accelerate, all we can do is bury it, wait, and hope.

Also, I believe we previously covered the fact that different isotopes decay via different mechanisms. For example, K⁴⁰ decays to Ar⁴⁰ via electron capture, whereas Rb⁸⁷ decays to Sr⁸⁷ via beta decay....two entirely different processes.

So what mechanism do you propose that would affect different isotopes that decay via completely different mechanisms, in exactly the same way (such that they would give the apparent age of millions/billions of years, when they are both really only ~6,000 years old)?

 

[Jose Fly]

True.... And that doesn't agree with your belief system.

However...John Sanford, internationally known geneticist and author of 80+peer reviewed articles says " It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information creating mutations, and most geneticists are diligently keeping their eyes open for them all the time. This has been true for about 100 years. The sensitivity of this observational network is such that even if only one mutation out of a million unambiguously creates new information (apart from fine tuning) , the literature would be overflowing with reports of this happening. Yet I am still not convinced there is a single crystal clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information but rather have destroyed it."

How does John Sanford define "genetic information", and how does he measure it?

Your last copy and paste from creation.com equated specificity with "genetic information", but when I tried to see if you agreed, you bailed.