Creation vs. Evolution II

[6days]

The list goes on and on of the absurdities that are included in a claim that “Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology”. In fact no credible medical school in the world would stoop as low as 6days asks them to.

Since you mention Richard Dawkins in another post....He has written several faith based books such as 'The Greatest Show On Earth'. In chapter 1, Dawkins attempts to convince the reader of the importance of evolution. And, he seems to feel sorry for himself and fellow evolutionists that Creationists don't believe as he does. He writes "(teachers) attempt to expound the central and guiding principles of biology when they honestly place the living world and its historical context which means evolution... (but) they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened..."

Dawkins claim is echoed by many about the significance of evolutionary biology. For example the US National Academy of Science says evolutionary biology is the cornerstone of modern science linking it to computers, cell phones, cars, airplanes, medicine, food and even space travel.
(From their book, Science, Evolution and Creationism)

The funny thing about the claims is its totally bogus. Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines. In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists. (Belief about origins plays no role in real science)
Lets look at some of the categories mentioned as examples of how evolutionism is the cornerstone of science...
Computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

Cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.

Flight / airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds.

Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

 

[6days]

I will let your posts testify for themselves. But if you insist, I will gladly provide quotes from and links to multiple times you have focused on claims of racism, Nazis, etc in discussing the ToE.

Yes, its true...Darwinian beliefs has harmed science and hurt society.

 

[redfern]

Your argument is typical of poorly designed atheist arguments.
… there is evidence and thousands of scientists suggesting our universe is consistent with the Biblical creator.

Your argument is typical of poorly designed creationism arguments.

You carefully avoid saying that there are no major scientific institutions or universities who buy into your scientific silliness, and there are far more scientists who do not accept the Biblical creation story as a literal history, including over ten thousand Christian pastors who have openly agreed with evolution, and a multitude of scientific organizations who have specifically authored position papers decrying the perversion of real science that in implicit in creationism.

 

[redfern]

Yes, its true...Darwinian beliefs has harmed science and hurt society.

Do you then recommend that we falsify scientific history?

 

[6days]

Do you then recommend that we falsify scientific history?

What would you like to falsify? I had mentioned that Darwinian beliefs has harmed science and hurt society. You want to discuss that?

 

[6days]

and there are far more scientists who do not accept the Biblical creation story as a literal history, including over ten thousand Christian pastors who have openly agreed with evolution, .

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." (Wiki)

 

[redfern]

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." (Wiki)

Do you mean like when someone posts

… thousands of scientists suggesting our universe is consistent with the Biblical creator.

???
You phony Christian hypocrite.

 

[redfern]

Pre-existing genetic information and mechanisms such as natural selection is a valid explanation for the diversity of life we see. (Biblical model)

Good, natural selection does not seem to be in dispute as an operative part of the changes we see in populations.

Now on to genetic information. Pre-existing genetic information is a very viable (and in fact identified) candidate for some genetic changes. But that is the only mechanism I see you proposing. Are you prepared to say genetic changes cannot originate from any other natural mechanisms?

If you mean mutations, sickness, extinctions, disease and death then those are processes best explained within the Biblical model. Evolutionists are some what pseudo-scientific thinking those processes have creative powers.

I was only referring to the “red in tooth and claw” aspect of evolution. When two species are in life-or-death completion for the same niche, whichever one wins does it by virtue of the extermination (sometimes violent) of the competing species.

Not sure what you are referring to Redfern. Discussing how evolutionism has harmed scientific progress is not revisionist.

If you intend the discussion of “how evolutionism has harmed scientific progress” to show that the ToE is somehow falsified thereby, then it is revisionist. So to clarify, please directly answer – Do the (mistakes, evil actions, racism, etc) made by people familiar with the ToE discredit the correctness of the ToE as an explanation for the diversity of life?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Do you then recommend that we falsify scientific history?

Isnt that already in the works to protect his socialist 'image'?
What does evolution care about morals?

 

[redfern]

Isnt that already in the works to protect his socialist 'image'?

By falsifying scientific history, I am not referring to Darwin, I am referring to the Theory of Evolution.

What does evolution care about morals?

What does gravity care about morals, or what does nuclear physics care about morals? Let science do what science is designed to do – help us understand how the physical world functions.

 

[6days]

Good, natural selection does not seem to be in dispute as an operative part of the changes we see in populations.

It is in fact a process identified by a Christian scientist before Darwin.

Now on to genetic information. Pre-existing genetic information is a very viable (and in fact identified) candidate for some genetic changes. But that is the only mechanism I see you proposing. Are you prepared to say genetic changes cannot originate from any other natural mechanisms?

Genetic change can not happen without pre-existing genetic information. (Of course there are mechanisms that alter the genome or you would look like me... You wish!!)

I was only referring to the “red in tooth and claw” aspect of evolution. When two species are in life-or-death completion for the same niche, whichever one wins does it by virtue of the extermination (sometimes violent) of the competing species.

We seem to agree. Your comment was in response to "If you mean mutations, sickness, extinctions, disease and death then those are processes best explained within the Biblical model. Evolutionists are some what pseudo-scientific thinking those processes have creative powers".

Do the (mistakes, evil actions, racism, etc) made by people familiar with the ToE discredit the correctness of the ToE as an explanation for the diversity of life?

That would be ad hominem.*
You and Jose seem to keep making this same strawman argument.*
It's OK to discuss how Darwins ideas has hindered science and harmed society.**It's OK to discuss how the Nazi's used those ideas to gas millions of people.**It's OK to discuss to discuss shoddy conclusions and even frauds.*
As to what causes diversity of life ...those ideas stand or fall based on their own merit.* *

 

[patrick jane]

Darwin was a hardcore racist

 

[redfern]

… Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines.

Your statement assumes that evolutionary biology is something real. That is a step in the right direction.

But you are still pretending to a grandiose God-like ability to know what parts of everyone’s medical education were important in them gaining their understandings. Since obviously you are not God, your claim is nothing but disingenuous hyperbole.

What I suspect you want to see is some researcher say, “Evolution shows us this biological change is going to happen, so I will concoct a new medicine that will do such-and-such.” Sans that kind of definitive link from the theory to a new medicine, you are going to keep up the “Nyah Nyah Nyah” dialogue.

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, that does absolutely nothing towards showing that the Theory of Evolution is not the explanation of the diversity of life. Scream and bawl and kick and have all the tantrums you like, the correctness of the ToE is not dependent on any person’s personal proclivities, on any society’s views, or on the actions of any group to suppress or exterminate another group.

(Belief about origins plays no role in real science)

Sorry, but you are not the arbiter of what is and is not real science. You and your wacko creationist buddies may not like it, but research into origins (on several levels – the universe, the earth, life) is a fully recognized branch of science.

In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists.

Lets look at some of the categories mentioned as examples of how evolutionism is the cornerstone of science...
Computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

I appreciate your specifically identifying this person that pointedly disagrees with the creationist catastrophic viewpoint. You really so desperate you need to shanghai this guy and pretend he is one of yours?

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?

Cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.

Is this the Maxwell that showed that a beam of light could be viewed as an electric field wave and a magnetic field wave whose waves oscillated perpendicular to each other and were 90 degrees out of phase? You know, where the equations showed that dual pattern of waves would travel at the speed of light, yet that speed was not defined relative to any specific rest frame?

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?

Flight / airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds. some examples of the evolution of flight.

Fixed your mistake above about the Wright brothers. Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE they were conversant with enough to show it wrong?

Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world.

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

Just a note here. He didn’t head the moon landing program, he was primarily responsible for the Saturn 5 first stage rocket. You know, the one that (as I recall) produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust, burned 15,000 pounds of fuel per second for the 152 seconds before stage burnout – the one that I watched a test firing of from a special observation bunker at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, and that later I watched lift into the sky on the Florida coast with Lovell on board on the first manned trip to and around the moon …

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?

I don’t know if this was your A-team or not, but if it was, you really need to find a new game.

Would it help if I were to post a list of prominent scientists who have clearly expressed ideas incompatible with yours and that are within their fields of expertise?

 

[redfern]

… Genetic change can not happen without pre-existing genetic information.

Sorry, but I’m gonna need something more than just your word on this one. Till that is forthcoming …

It's OK to discuss how Darwins ideas has hindered science and harmed society.

But since you admit that would not affect the veracity of the ToE, I’m gonna let you spout all the anti-Darwin venom you want.

It's OK to discuss how the Nazi's used those ideas to gas millions of people.

But since you admit that would not affect the veracity of the ToE, I’m gonna let you spout all the anti-Darwin venom you want.

It's OK to discuss to discuss shoddy conclusions and even frauds.

But since you admit that would not affect the veracity of the ToE, I’m gonna let you spout all the anti-Darwin venom you want.

As to what causes diversity of life ...those ideas stand or fall based on their own merit.

Yup, and in spite of a century of attacks from religious radicals, the ToE is still one of the pillars of biological science.

 

[6days]

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, that does absolutely nothing towards showing that the Theory of Evolution is not the explanation of the diversity of life.

If you mean emperical science showing changes in* heritable characteristics...Then that fits the Biblical creation model explaining the diversity of life.
*

*

Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines. In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists. (Belief about origins plays no role in real science)

...research into origins ...is a fully recognized branch of science.

Yes... its like archaeology. Its a recognized branch of science but it does not contribute to new technologies or better medicines.
*

In fact many of the technologies mentioned have direct links to creationists.
Computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

I appreciate your specifically identifying this person that pointedly disagrees with the creationist catastrophic viewpoint. You really so desperate you need to shanghai this guy and pretend he is one of yours?

The point was evolutionists have claimed evolutionism results in things like computers, although a creationist invented computing machines.

*

Cell phones...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend

.
Is this the Maxwell that showed that a beam of light could be viewed as an electric field wave and a magnetic field wave whose waves oscillated perpendicular to each other and were 90 degrees out of phase? You know, where the equations showed that dual pattern of waves would travel at the speed of light, yet that speed was not defined relative to any specific rest frame?

So, we agree that evolutionism has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation theory? It was developed by a Bible believing creationist.*

*

Flight / airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds.

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid,...

Nothing to do* if the 'theory' is valid..... But obviously the claim evolutionism is the cornerstone of the science of flight is false. The wright Brothers were creationists.

*

Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world.

Now as it relates to the ToE being valid, can you itemize for us just a bit more clearly what part of the ToE he was conversant with enough to show it wrong?

Yes... I could show you how he is conversant enough in evolutionism. But, that wasn't the point. Evolutionism is not needed in food science.
*

*

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

Just a note here. He didn’t head the moon landing program...

Ok.... Wiki says "he developed the rockets that launched the United States' first space satellite Explorer 1, and the Apollo program manned lunar landings." In any case the claim that evolutionism is crucial in things like space travel is false.

New technologies and advances in medicine are made by scientists apart from beliefs about our origins. If anything, evolutionary beliefs have at times hindered scientific progress.

 

[6days]

Yup, and in spite of a century of attacks from religious radicals, the ToE is still one of the pillars of biological science.

Evolutionism is not falsifiable. It is a belief system...its like a fog that covers any landscape. For example... "junk DNA is evidence of common ancestry...and so is highly sophisticated functional DNA". (In other words..... evidence does not matter, its all about the spin - Same with fossils, 'vestigial' organs' vertebrate eye design ETC)

Also..... The attacks on faulty beliefs / evolutionism have come from scientists on both sides of the aisle.

 

[redfern]

If you mean emperical science showing changes in heritable characteristics...Then that fits the Biblical creation model explaining the diversity of life.

I haven’t wavered at all in what I mean by the ToE. You say that fits the Biblical creation model. Then you think the ToE includes a man’s rib becoming an adult woman. I have never seen any silliness even close to that in the ToE. Sticks turning into snakes – sorry, but you are hallucinating if you think that is a facet of the ToE. I assume that you think the human-voice vocal apparatus in snakes and donkeys is also in evolution. You are a real load of laughs today.

... its like archaeology. Its a recognized branch of science but it does not contribute to new technologies or better medicines.

You just can’t resist pretending you have a God-like omniscience as regards the influences of evolutionary studies on what medical innovators do.

The point was evolutionists have claimed evolutionism results in things like computers, although a creationist invented computing machines.

So, we agree that evolutionism has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation theory? It was developed by a Bible believing creationist.

.... But obviously the claim evolutionism is the cornerstone of the science of flight is false. The wright Brothers were creationists.

Thank you, you aren’t even attempting anymore to discredit the validity of evolution, and that is a step in honesty. You apparently have collected some unwise claims from some evolutionists (evolutionists in the generic sense of agreeing with the ToE). If that is what you are reduced to, then it is clear you have no substantive arguments against the validity of the ToE.

Ok.... Wiki says "he developed the rockets that launched the United States' first space satellite Explorer 1, and the Apollo program manned lunar landings."

Better. Your credibility would be a bit higher if you would do some fact-checking before making inflated claims like you did about von Braun.

In any case the claim that evolutionism is crucial in things like space travel is false.

Your mouth just refuses to stay within the boundaries of what your brain knows to be true. “Space travel” can (and hopefully will) include things like long-duration missions in which a firm understanding of biology is paramount.

New technologies and advances in medicine are made by scientists apart from beliefs about our origins.

Your addiction to your "like God you know everyone’s thoughts" complex is getting out of control again.

 

[Rosenritter]

What I don't understand is why you don't actually read replies to you, such as this one:

1. If you would use the brains that God gave you, you would understand that my questioning if you had an "evolved brain" was not a school-yard insult. I guess that went over your head.


2. If you read what you were replying to, you would realize that I've never claimed that "lower organisms" was a direct quote. Nor did I introduce that. It does seem rather dumb that you would defend Darwin who called non-whites "lower" and say that he wasn't considering them "lower organisms."

 

[Rosenritter]

Sorry, but I’m gonna need something more than just your word on this one. Till that is forthcoming …

The part you are objecting to is "… Genetic change can not happen without pre-existing genetic information."

It is a mathematical given that you cannot change something without first having that something to change. Apparently evolution theory doesn't just harm society and science as a whole, it also addles brains in the logic department something fierce.

 

[Rosenritter]

I haven’t wavered at all in what I mean by the ToE. You say that fits the Biblical creation model. Then you think the ToE includes a man’s rib becoming an adult woman. I have never seen any silliness even close to that in the ToE.

Apparently, you think that a rock (or a singularity) can become an adult woman. That's far sillier. The man's rib has all the relevant DNA for a human woman at least, which is light years (figuratively) or trillions of years (evolutionary) steps ahead.