Creationist threatens academic science standards group with words of Jesus

by Gopher 129 Replies latest social current

• 

  rem

  Hooberus,

  It sounds like we both agree that creation is not falsifiable. Unfortunately you have yet to demonstrate that evolution is not falsifiable (except in your own mind). The very fact that evolution and its higher level theories have made accurate predictions proves that it is falsifiable. Creation has never done this. The difference between the two is huge.

  Creation theorists can not come up with a list of facts that would falsify their theory, but Evolution has many:

  • a static fossil record;
  • true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
  • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
  • observations of organisms being created.

  You have to prove that creation is science before it can be introduced into the science classroom. To try to claim that Evolution is not science and try to put it on the same level as creation is, frankly, preposterous.

  rem
• 

  hooberus

  • a static fossil record;

  A static fossil record would not falsify evolution. earlier I said: "If the fossil record was in the future found to consisted of virtually no fossils followed by invertebrate fossils, followed by fish fossils, followed by amphibian fossils, etc. with no apparent transitional fossils in between these major groups the general theory of evolution would still survive. Appeals could be made to incompete fossil record, inability to fossilize, rapid evolution, large amounts of dormant pre-existing genes being switched on at once, etc.
  

  If Evolution could survive even if there were no record of change between the major groups, a lack of change within these groups (such as no change between the early fish and the later fish) would by comparsion be a relatively minor problem. I know that evolutionists believe that there is fossil evidence for changes between these major groups as well as within them, however if these fossils were shown for some reason not to be transitional, evolution would still survive. For exmple if all the proposed candidates for transitonal forms between fish and amphibians were shown somehow not to be transitional, most evolutionists would still believe that amphibians evolved from fish.

  So if no change were found in the fossil record (both between major groups and within major groups)evolution would still survive."

  Even among lower classification groups If animals appeared suddenly and persisted with no change at all, evolution could still survive. Punctualists claim that a major feature of the fossil record is "sudden appearance and stasis" and offer this as proof of rapid evolution in small populations. So a static fossil record would not falsify evolution.

  • true chimaeras; i.e. organisms which combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);

  An evolutionary theory could still be held if creatures such as these were found. It could be said that mermaids and centars both sharred a common ancestor which had a human torso, and that the mermaids tail, and the centars body were derived characteristics. Convergence could also be invoked to expalin the similarites between mermaids tails and fish etc..
  

  • a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

  (I am still thinking on this one) However, if such a mechanism were found it would not falsify evolution. since "evolution is a fact; the mechanisms that drive evolution are theory." Thus such a mechanism would not falsify evolution, since according to evolutionists, evolution is not falsifiable by mechanism (though individual meachanisms may be).

  • observations of organisms being created.

  This is a draconian test, and would be the equivalent of a creationist saying that observation of macro-evolution would falsify creation. Even if one did observe the creation of new organisms, an evolutionary origin of existing organisms could still be held to, just as if one saw macro-evolution of new organisms, one could still hold that existing organisms were created.
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  
  Your scenarios are incorrect. Allow me to demonstrate:
  
  
  Regarding the Static Fossil Record: Your argument is a strawman. A static fossil record is exactly that - static. It doesn't mean a lack of transitionals. It means life never changed from begining to end - no change ever. Obviously if things are the way the were originally created, then there could be no evolution, and no common decent.
  
  
  Regarding True Chimeras: Your argument does not take into account DNA evidence. Convergence does not copy DNA - only superficial physical characteristics. If the DNA sequences of the borrowed parts from organisms were nearly identical for that particular function, then the nested heirarchy would be compromised (horizontal DNA transfer). This would falsify Commmon Decent.
  
  
  Of course if a true Intelligent Designer created life, this is exactly what we would expect to see, since this is the way the only example of intelligence we have evidence for behaves (human beings). This is not what we see in nature.
  
  
  Regarding Accumulation: If there were a phenomenon found which could cap evolutionary change, this would indeed falsify Common Decent. Obviously if such a cap were found, nothing could evolve beyond its boundary and "macro-evolution", as you call it, would be impossible. Species (or whatever arbitrary level the cap was set at) would be immutable.
  
  
  Regarding Creation Observation: I agree that this one doesn't necessarily falsify evolution. It would just make it unnecessary.
  
  
  There is another falsification of Evolution: Young Earth. If the Earth could be proven to be young then there would not be enough time for Common Decent. This would falsify evolution.
  
  
  rem
• 

  hooberus

  Regarding the Static Fossil Record: Your argument is a strawman. A static fossil record is exactly that - static. It doesn't mean a lack of transitionals. It means life never changed from begining to end - no change ever. Obviously if things are the way the were originally created, then there could be no evolution, and no common decent.

  
  Can you please provide a simple example of a static fossil record (containing more than one type of creature) that you feel would falsify evolution? Such as basic types of animals and their lack of change. Or would a static fossil record have to be only one type of creature (such as a single type of fish, that never changes)?
• 

  rem

  Hooberus,
  
  A static fossil record would look like this (imagine the strata looked like this):
  
  trees, bacteria, horses, humans (present)
  -------------------------------------------
  trees, bacteria, horses, humans (1 million years ago)
  -------------------------------------------
  trees, bacteria, horses, humans (1 billion years ago)
  
  In the above example the modern forms would look exactly like the oldest forms. This model is completely compatible with Creation, but is not compatible with evolution.
  
  A non-static fossil record looks like what we have today:
  
  trees, bacteria, horses, humans (present)
  -------------------------------------------
  primitive/extinct trees, bacteria, horses, and humans (1 million years ago)
  -------------------------------------------
  primitive/extinct bacteria (1 billion years ago)
  
  rem
• 

  larc

  Rem, as I think you know, I am in full agreement with your point of view. I admire your intellect and your knowledge of the subject at hand. Keep up the good work.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus:

  Sorry, are you saying there are non-religious creationists?

  .... I mean, yes, sure, there are... just like some people without any relgious beliefs believe that abortion is wrong. But are they representative?

  You're a nice person and may well feel genuinely you're just in favour of "creationism in general" being taught.

  I can accept that - even if you have consistantly argued for creationism using the Bible. Which is a pity, as you still haven't got round to explaining how bristlecone pines do not falsify the Creation account and the Flood account in Genesis...

  However, given the tendancy of the religious right to use fallacious reasoning when it suits them (abortion=murder, gay marriage=incestuous marriage), and given the willingness of the same people to adopt long-term strategies to achieve their aims (start with partial birth abortions and work your way back to conception) I can't accept that most people advocating creation in the classroom have such pure motives, or would be happy with non-Christian creationism being taught.

  And also you're missing the point;

  You assume that if there is a possibility that something might be true it should be taught.

  This is not how an educational curriculum is drawn up! One should certainly raise awareness of other beliefs - like in Physics, it would be interesting to highlight the fact that some accepted facts are not accepted by everyone - constant value of c and cold fusion being good examples (or were until the latest set of research about cold fusion showed it to be bad science).

  Likewise one could highlight that some people believe that the Universe was created by an entity of some description... but what experiment could we do hooberus, if pupils asked how we knew there was such an entity? What could you provide as proof of Creation when even the most simplified form of Creationism (Intelligent Design) contradicts it's own basic premise? ID teaches something came from nothing when ID states that something can't come from nothing!!!!!!!

  You can mention such beliefs , but if there's no proof, you can't TEACH them, as there is nothing to TEACH.

  The way it works is that people are taught what there is evidence for. This might change over times as new evidence is found and techniques and theories advance.

  When I mention that your logic would allow every revisonistic history or area of knowledge to be taught you said;

  The discussion here is that of origins, to which there are only three basic types of options. No one observed man being created, just as no one observed man decending from an ancient population of fish. Thus biological origins were not directly observed by any human scientist, and must be infered from evidence. This is far different from other types of history which has been observed. For example the Titanic was observed by 750 people as sinking, hense there would be no need to present every form of theory as to what happened to the Titanic (such as abducted by aliens etc).

  Hooberus, there is more than eye witness testimony of the actual sinking of the Titanic; there is physical evidence. Thus I say again; using your theory would allow for every form of revisionistic history to be taught, no matter how illogical or unsuported it might be.

  Mr. Kim:

  Wow, you extend your dellusional drivel to PM's to me. I feel priveleged... or would do if you'd said anything comprehensible...

  Kaethra:

  8-)

  rem:

  A lovely series of posts!
• 

  gumby

  If I didn't have a steel plate in my head......I'd show these guys a thing or two!

  Gumby
• 

  hooberus

  rem, would you consider this a static fossil record?
  

  trees, bacteria, many horses, many humans (present)
  -------------------------------------------
  trees, bacteria, more horses, more humans (1 million years ago)
  -------------------------------------------
  trees, bacteria, few horses, few humans (1 billion years ago)

  A mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating would not falsify evolution, but only evolutionary mechanisms that require the accumulation of mutations above a certain amount. "Evolution is a fact the mechanisms that drive evolution are theory." Evolution does not need a known mechanism to survive. Even if all known proposed mechanisms for evolution were shown to be unable to work evolution would still survive. Here is an example: It is a fact that the earth is round even if all proposed mechanisms for the formation of a round earth are shown not be true the fact of the round earth would still be true. The problem would not be with the round earth, but with our ability to conceive a mechanism. Evolution can survive even with no known mechanism.

  Even if all naturalistic means of evolutionary change were able to be proven unable to work evolution would still survive.

  Fact of evolution (biology, paleontology, homolgy, DNA, etc.) + no natural meachanism possible = proof of extra natural ( not necessarily supernatural) mechanism.

  A known young earth would not falsify evolution, it would be proof that evolution happened rapidy.

  Fact of evolution (biology, paleontology, homolgy, DNA, etc.) + young earth = proof that evolution happened rapidly in the past (not at the same pace as now). this scenario would probably be proof that evolution occurred by an extra natural mechanism.

  The finding of a true chimera that evolutionists would believe was created would not falsify the evolution of all the other known animals, it would be proof of their likely evolution. If the only proven product of creation (the Chimera) is the only being that cannot be fit into a nested hierarchy, then the other animals (which are in the hierarchy) are likely the products of evolution.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus: way to go addressing the issues...

  But anyway, we've had this discussion LOTS.

  I am curious though; are you now moving towards a less literal interpretation of the Biblical Creation account?

  You being willing for any form of Creationism to be allowed into the classroom as a subject would seem to indicate you have finally accepted to force a fit between the chronology implied by Genesis and that attested to by the evidence is impossible.