The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Son Goku

J C wrote:

BTW, did you know that Evolutionists don't know the first thing about SEX???!!

......and unfortunately, 'Viagra' won't solve the 'intellectual impotence' of the Evolutionists about sex, either....
......only a good dose of Creation Science will do the trick!!!;)

……and so, if you want a ‘Sexpert’ – consult a Creation Scientist!!!!:D

There really is only one of you Sir, please never change.

With regard to the existence of DNA Schrodinger was able to use the theory of evolution and basic facts from QM to predict that a molecule like DNA had to exist. Creation Science did no such thing and hence did not predict DNA's existence.

J C

bonkey wrote:

So then your claim that the opposite of a falsification of Evolution would be a falsification of Creation Science is wrong.

So we're back to the fact that you've yet to provide a single way Creation Science can be falsified.

A prediction claimed by BOTH Evolution and Creation is a falsification of NEITHER!!!!:eek:

bonkey wrote:

As I've just shown, JC, your statements are far from true and are, in fact, demonstrably false.

You've contradicted your own claims regarding what would constitute a falsification of Creation Science.....but have repeated the claim that it is true in the same post.

……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement…..

……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!:D

J C

Son Goku wrote:

There really is only one of you Sir....

Yes, last time I checked there WAS only one of me!!!!:D

Son Goku wrote:

With regard to the existence of DNA Schrodinger was able to use the theory of evolution and basic facts from QM to predict that a molecule like DNA had to exist.

Schrodinger just got the 'Physics of his Biology' and the 'Biology of his Physics' all knotted up!!!!:D

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord:cool:

J C

Son Goku wrote:

There really is only one of you Sir, please never change.

I won't change ....but I might start to REPRODUCE - and then there could be MORE of me!!!!:D

Oops, I almost forgot....I HAVE already reproduced!!!!!:D

....so there IS 'more of me' already 'out there'!!!:D

bonkey

J C wrote:

A prediction claimed by BOTH Evolution and Creation is a falsification of NEITHER!!!!:eek:

For a self-proclaimed scientist, you sure display an incredible ignorance of the scientific method.

A prediction claimed by something acts as falsification if shown to be false. If two things are opposites, as you claim, it is impossible for them to make the same prediction, as the consequence would be that the prediction proving false would falsify both.

……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement…..

……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!:D

Apparently not, because I've just demonstrated one and you've argued that its not the case.

Demonstrate that DNA, nor any similar process, is responsible for genetic information transfer from generation to generation and you have falsified evolution.

The opposite statement is to demonstrate that DNA is responsible for genetic information transfer. You've accepted that this is the case, but argue that its not a falsification of Creation.

Apparently logic is as far beyond your grasp as the scientific method.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Schrodinger just got the 'Physics of his Biology' and the 'Biology of his Physics' all knotted up!!!!:D

Be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord:cool:

Out of pure curiousity can ask what you mean? I don't even understand the first sentence.

So Schrodinger used the theory of evolution and QM to show that DNA existed. How does the above refute that. Or at least explain what you're saying. Schrodinger's achievement is quite and impressive one, so you'll need to explain what is wrong with it. He can't be "wrong", since the molecule he predicted was later found, so what's your beef with his results?

J C

bonkey wrote:

Demonstrate that DNA, nor any similar process, is responsible for genetic information transfer from generation to generation and you have falsified evolution.

Ok DNA IS demonstrably responsible for genetic information transfer from generation to generation - and according to you I have now falsified Evolution!!!:eek:

I must, however, say that the demonstrable existence of enormous levels of Complex Specified Information in DNA is actually a much more reliable 'falsifier' of Spontaneous Evolution than your proposed test above!!!:D

bonkey

J C wrote:

Ok DNA IS demonstrably responsible for genetic information transfer from generation to generation - and according to you I have now falsified Evolution!!!:eek:

Well, no. The nor should indicate that there was a negative missing from the sentence.

I should have said "neither DNA nor any similar process".

Of course, given that you claimed in a previous post that both evolution and Creation Science predicted this, its clear that you knew you weren't falsifying evolution with your comment. Isn't that dangerously close to lying?

J C

Son Goku wrote:

So Schrodinger used the theory of evolution and QM to show that DNA existed.......

I don't remember Schrodinger getting a Nobel Prize for using Physics to show that DNA existed.......

.......or did he (secretly) share the prize with Crick and Watson who used Biochemistry to ACTUALLY show that DNA existed???

J C

bonkey wrote:

Well, no. The nor should indicate that there was a negative missing from the sentence.

I should have said "neither DNA nor any similar process".?

Either way, you're wrong!!!!

As I have already said, BOTH Creation and Evolution predict the presence of 'a medium of inheritance' AKA DNA - and so the discovery of DNA per se falsifies NEITHER hypotheses.

However, the discovery of the enormous levels of Complex Specified Information in DNA DOES falsify Spontaneous Evolution - and it supports Creation!!!:D

bonkey wrote:

Of course, given that you claimed in a previous post that both evolution and Creation Science predicted this, its clear that you knew you weren't falsifying evolution with your comment. Isn't that dangerously close to lying?

My statement was as follows:-
"Ok DNA IS demonstrably responsible for genetic information transfer from generation to generation - and according to you I have now falsified Evolution!!!"

I even emphasised that it was "according to you" - and NOT me - so I wasn't lying - or "dangerously close to lying" - whatever that may mean!!!:D

....and for the avoidance of doubt on my OWN position I made the following FURTHER statement :-
"I must, however, say that the demonstrable existence of enormous levels of Complex Specified Information in DNA is actually a much more reliable 'falsifier' of Spontaneous Evolution than your proposed test above!!!"

Son Goku

J C wrote:

I don't remember Schrodinger getting a Nobel Prize for using Physics to show that DNA existed.......

You're obsessed with Nobel Prizes even to the point were you have claimed that possession of a Nobel Prize is the highest honour for a scientist, higher than their actual discoveries.

Anyway Schrodinger used QM and evolution to predict the existence of a molecule with the gross features of DNA, he didn't win a Nobel Prize, but the importance of something is not related to how many gold circles you recieve from the King of Sweden.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Either way, you're wrong!!!!

As I have already said, BOTH Creation and Evolution predict the presence of 'a medium of inheritance' AKA DNA - and so the discovery of DNA per se falsifies NEITHER hypotheses.

Er, please show me a Creationist theory that predicted DNA before it was discovered JC, like evolutionary biologists did (in fact show me a Creationist theory that has predicted anything)

You can't predict something after the fact, you can't say "Oh well yes, of course DNA fits Creationist thinking" after it has been discovered.

Nonsense :rolleyes:

Godsword

Wicknight: Er, please show me a Creationist theory that predicted DNA before it was discovered JC, like evolutionary biologists did (in fact show me a Creationist theory that has predicted anything).

Isn't it the case that DNA was not "predicted" until it was almost discovered? I don't recall Darwin or anyone from his era predicting anything like DNA. I could be mistaken. If I am, please correct me and direct me to the evidence of my error. Oh, and wouldn't the Creationist "theory" that there was a global Flood, and that there would be layers and layers of fossils of increasing complexity (due to organisms of greater complexity generally having greater mobility) be a Creationist theory that has predicted something before it was observed? Or how about the Creationist theory that animals reproduce "after their kind"? That's all that has ever been observed, so on that count, doesn't this Creationist theory trump Evolutionary theory (since it has never been observed that any new information has been created by RM&NS, and every direct study or observation of populations shows that they always remain what they originally were, if with some superficial variations [i.e., finches with different beak sizes, flies with wings, whether two or four or eight])? How about the several Biblical references to God "stretching out" the heavens, which would appear to be a very concise but accurate description of what seems to be observed with space (that is, it seems to be expanding)?

Wicknight: You can't predict something after the fact, you can't say "Oh well yes, of course DNA fits Creationist thinking" after it has been discovered.

Actually, your general observation here ("predicting" something after the fact) more closely describes many if not most "scientific" predictions regarding evolution. Often, in evolutionary circles, something is observed, then evolutionists wrack their brains trying to come up with a "just-so" scenario which might possibly explain how evolution could have produced what was observed. They then write this idea up and publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal, and then evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory "predicted" what was observed. It's really very funny. Do you mean to tell me you've never noticed this before? It also happens all the time in cosmology and astronomy. The "Big Bang" is a good example (well, some of the observations which seem to point to the "Big Bang", technically). How about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"? Were they "predicted"? Or are they the after-effects of some observations combined with particular ideas about how the Universe works and was formed?

(Oh, dear Lord...I've just entangled myself in the Internet's longest thread ever. Curse you, insomnia!)

Zombrex

Godsword wrote:

Isn't it the case that DNA was not "predicted" until it was almost discovered? I don't recall Darwin or anyone from his era predicting anything like DNA.

Does that matter? Evolutionary biology didn't start and end with Charles Darwin. Quite the opposite in fact.

Godsword wrote:

Oh, and wouldn't the Creationist "theory" that there was a global Flood

The Creationists "theory" that there was a global Flood isn't a scientific theory. They just say "There was a global flood" They don't have a scientific model of what actually happened in that flood

Godsword wrote:

, and that there would be layers and layers of fossils of increasing complexity (due to organisms of greater complexity generally having greater mobility) be a Creationist theory that has predicted something before it was observed?

Would the fact that fossils of greater mobility don't match the layers at all not suggest that such a theory has been falsified? (by that logic a fossil of an light fast dinosaur should never be found below that of a 4 ton one)

Godsword wrote:

Or how about the Creationist theory that animals reproduce "after their kind"?
That's all that has ever been observed

Well putting aside the fact that no Creationists on this forum has yet been able to actually define what the hell they mean when they say "kind", its also a biological fact that often 2 animals that appear in physical appearance to be very closely related cannot mate due to there genetics.

So I'm not quite sure what point you think you are making by saying that animals produce "after their kind", but perhaps you can define "kind" in a meaningful scientific manner before we continue.

Godsword wrote:

since it has never been observed that any new information has been created by RM&NS

New genetic information has been observed to be created in an organisms chromosome due to mutation. A few times actually.

Creationists tend to get around this by saying that this new information was destined to be created by God. So I suppose its not scientifically possible to argue against the idea that mutations of this kind aren't actually random but controlled by the hand of God. But then that is around the point where evolutionary biologists roll their eyes and get on with being evolutionary biologists, because from there point of view it doesn't matter if the mutation creating this new genetic information is random or from God, the out come is still the same and evolution is still taking place.

Godsword wrote:

, and every direct study or observation of populations shows that they always remain what they originally were, if with some superficial variations [i.e., finches with different beak sizes, flies with wings, whether two or four or eight])?

Again not true.

Macro-evolutionary changes have been observed in various species. An example I gave JC (which he ignored) was a single celled pond life form which under mutation changed into a multi-celled life form and started constructing a outer wall around itself after only a few generations. I would say moving from a single cell organism to a multi-celled organism and constructing a wall around yourself due to random mutation is a pretty strong example about how mutation can fundamentally alter the nature of an life form. And this happened after a few days within a tiny population. Imagine billions of years with trillions of individual life forms.

Godsword wrote:

How about the several Biblical references to God "stretching out" the heavens, which would appear to be a very concise but accurate description of what seems to be observed with space (that is, it seems to be expanding)?

Not really. The Bible says that God stretched out the heavens "like a curtain" That clearly isn't how the universe is expanding, in fact quite the opposite in fact. It is nothing like a curtain. A more logical explanation is that the primitive people who wrote the Bible did not understand the 3D space found in the universe outside of Earth, and instead viewed the heavens as a curtain stretched around the Earth. This wasn't particularly uncommon at the time, other cultures viewed the heavens like this as well.

Godsword wrote:

They then write this idea up and publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal, and then evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory "predicted" what was observed.

If they do they are being a bit stupid, but then I actually doubt that many scientists would claim something was predicted by evolution, because unlike JC most scientists understand what prediction actually means.

They can certain discover something and go "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework". They either figure out a way to do so, and test this idea and say that they understand how evolution could produce this. Or they don't and it is filed under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date.

Godsword wrote:

It's really very funny.

Ha ha funny, or hee hee funny?

Godsword wrote:

The "Big Bang" is a good example (well, some of the observations which seem to point to the "Big Bang", technically). How about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"? Were they "predicted"? Or are they the after-effects of some observations combined with particular ideas about how the Universe works and was formed?

They were predicted. Sorry Godsword but do you actually understand what "predicted" means in a scientific manner.

Dark matter was predicted in some scientific theories as an explanation as to why galaxies appear to work the way they do. What that means is that within the scientific model dark matter is a hypothesis used to make the model work. If this dark matter is finally discovered it will demonstrate that the theory that predicted its appearance is most likely accurate. If its not then the theory is falsified and should be discarded.

That is pretty much how science evaluates a scientific theory, how closely it predicts the observed universe. Evolution very closely predicts what happens in biological organisms. Which is why it is still the main scientific theory when it comes to biology.

As far as I'm aware Creation "Science" has never predicted anything in any meaningful scientific manner (ie with mathematical models of phenomena). The Bible saying that God stretches out the universe is not a scientific prediction.

Memnoch

J C wrote:

I don't remember Schrodinger getting a Nobel Prize for using Physics to show that DNA existed.......

.......or did he (secretly) share the prize with Crick and Watson who used Biochemistry to ACTUALLY show that DNA existed???

Okay I don't get how you can miss the obvious logic here.

Shcrodinger didn't SHOW anything. He PREDICTED a molecule like DNA (obviously he wasn't going to call it DNA because it wasn't named till much later), using the theory of evolution and QM.

I'm going to simplify it even further so you can't argue semantics.

Shrodinger - Based on his knowledge of EVOLUTION and QM .. PREDICTED... DNA.

Later on DNA is ACTUALLY discovered. Therefore his PREDICTION turned out to be TRUE, which therefore SUPPORTS the theories upon which he BASED his predicition.

If you chose to purposeful obfuscate such simple and obvious logic then obviously you have no interest in debating only parroting repeatedly what you believe regardless of the facts shown to you.

robindch

JC wrote:

……just name ONE way of falsifying Evolution and then construct an opposite statement….. ……… and VOILA, you have a way of falsifying Creation!!!!!

Well, one way of demonstrating evolution is false is by finding rabbits in Cambrian-age rock. The opposite of that is not finding rabbits in the Cambrian. So, by your "logic", we can demonstrate that creationism is wrong by not finding rabbits in the Cambrian.

Happily, rabbits have never been found in Cambrian rock, therefore creationism has been proved wrong.

Nice one, JC.

Son Goku

Godsword wrote:

Isn't it the case that DNA was not "predicted" until it was almost discovered? I don't recall Darwin or anyone from his era predicting anything like DNA. I could be mistaken. If I am, please correct me and direct me to the evidence of my error.

Schrödinger lived a half century after Darwin and used QM and evolution to predict DNA. It does not have to all come from Darwin and his contemporaries.

Oh, and wouldn't the Creationist "theory" that there was a global Flood, and that there would be layers and layers of fossils of increasing complexity (due to organisms of greater complexity generally having greater mobility) be a Creationist theory that has predicted something before it was observed?

How are you measuring complexity, by phenotype or genotype?

How about the several Biblical references to God "stretching out" the heavens, which would appear to be a very concise but accurate description of what seems to be observed with space (that is, it seems to be expanding)?

Isn't that in the Quran?

They then write this idea up and publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal, and then evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory "predicted" what was observed. It's really very funny.

Here you are making a very classical creationist mistake. This does not relate to evolution's veracity. People try to think what evolutionary pathway lead to a specific animal because evolution has already been demonstrated to be correct.

It also happens all the time in cosmology and astronomy. The "Big Bang" is a good example (well, some of the observations which seem to point to the "Big Bang", technically).

When does it happen? Name an instance and point out how General Relativity hadn't already predicted it.

How about "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy"? Were they "predicted"?

Yes. Dark Energy was predicted in 1916 and only observed recently. Dark Matter was also directly observed this year.

J C

Son Goku
You're obsessed with Nobel Prizes even to the point were you have claimed that possession of a Nobel Prize is the highest honour for a scientist, higher than their actual discoveries.

The Nobel Prize is certainly one of the highest honours that a scientist can achieve - and it was (deservedly) awarded to Crick and Watson for their monumental scientific achievement in actually discovering DNA.:D

…..and I don't remember Schrodinger getting a Nobel Prize for using Physics to show that DNA existed.......
…….which WOULD be a scientific achievement on a par with Crick and Watson’s use of Biochemistry to ACTUALLY show that DNA existed - and therefore also deserving of a Nobel Prize.


Son Goku
Anyway Schrodinger used QM and evolution to predict the existence of a molecule with the gross features of DNA, he didn't win a Nobel Prize, but the importance of something is not related to how many gold circles you recieve from the King of Sweden.

……I could equally use common sense and Information Theory as well as the observation that enormous amounts of CSI are transmitted during each cell division, “to predict the existence of a molecule with the gross features of DNA”. :eek:


Wicknight
I actually doubt that many scientists would claim something was predicted by evolution, because unlike JC most scientists understand what prediction actually means………

Son Goku claims that DNA was predicted by QM and evolution !!!!:D

Son Goku isn't 'many scientists' - so I guess that must explain it!!!!:D


Wicknight
…….They (Evolution Scientists) can certainly discover something and go "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework". They either figure out a way to do so, and test this idea and say that they understand how evolution could produce this. Or they don't and it is filed under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date.

……and you claim that Creationists are the ones ‘making it up as they go along’!!!!:eek:

You also have claimed that Evolutionist scientists are so ‘detached’ and ‘objective’ that they would abandon Evolution forthwith, were it found to be scientifically invalid........

…….so I really like your honest admission that Evolutionary Scientists would react to precisely such AN OBSERVED INVALIDITY by saying "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework?"

…..sounds very ‘objective and detached’ allright!!!!:D

I think that the following quote from Godsword, is a fair summary of the ‘current state of play’ with Evolution:-

Godsword
("predicting" something after the fact) more closely describes many if not most "scientific" predictions regarding evolution. Often, in evolutionary circles, something is observed, then evolutionists wrack their brains trying to come up with a "just-so" scenario which might possibly explain how evolution could have produced what was observed. They then write this idea up and publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal, and then evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory "predicted" what was observed

I couldn’t say it better myself – and Wicknight has just confirmed that Evolutionists DO indeed "wrack their brains trying to come up with a "just-so" scenario which might possibly explain how evolution could have produced what was observed." (to quote Godsword)!!.:D

Wicknight has put it rather colurfully as "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework?"!!:D

......and rather than declaring Evolution to be scientifically invalid, the Evolutionists, according to Wicknight, file such invalidities of Evolution under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date!!!!:D


Wicknight
Macro-evolutionary changes have been observed in various species. An example I gave JC (which he ignored) was a single celled pond life form which under mutation changed into a multi-celled life form and started constructing a outer wall around itself after only a few generations. I would say moving from a single cell organism to a multi-celled organism and constructing a wall around yourself due to random mutation is a pretty strong example about how mutation can fundamentally alter the nature of an life form. And this happened after a few days within a tiny population. Imagine billions of years with trillions of individual life forms.

All higher life forms go through a ‘single cell phase’ during their lifecycles – and could I remind you that WE ALL started our lives as a single cell at the moment of fertilisation.
……and we developed into ‘multi-celled life forms with outer walls surrounding ourselves’ via the appliance of the PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Information in our DNA:D

…..ditto for the Algal example of 'pond life' that you are referring to above!!!!:D


Robin
one way of demonstrating evolution is false is by finding rabbits in Cambrian-age rock. The opposite of that is not finding rabbits in the Cambrian. So, by your "logic", we can demonstrate that creationism is wrong by not finding rabbits in the Cambrian.

There are many phenomena, which BOTH Evolution and Creation DON’T predict.

Rabbits aren’t expected by EITHER Evolution or Creation to be present in Cambrian rocks.

You see, ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.

Evolution is a “unique and very strange beast” indeed. On one level it is held as an Article of Faith by many people and is thus a form of “Religious World View” for these people. On another level it is awarded the (undeserved) status of a Scientific Theory.
The people who hold it as a “World View” are entitled to do so if they so wish – I don’t believe in it – but I also don’t believe in several other faiths/philosophies either!!

All proper Scientific Theories are tentative – a single repeatable observation or experiment may invalidate them at any time – and that is how it should be.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY therefore:-

1. Must be PRECISELY DEFINED – so that everyone knows what they are testing / talking about. Evolution is very loosely defined with almost as many definitions as there are evolutionists!!!
2. Must lend itself to repeated testing by observation and/or experimentation. The essence of Evolution refers to events in the distant past, which do not lend themselves to observation and/or experimentation. A Scientific Theory cannot be validated in the first place without being repeatedly tested – and because core aspects of Evolution cannot be tested by observation or experimentation, it has therefore never been a valid Scientific Theory.
3. Must IMMEDIATELY be declared invalid or amended if ANY repeatable observation and/or experimentation detects any phenomenon, which is not in accord with the theory. A new hypothesis may then be proposed – but if no adequate hypothesis is available to “fill the gap” the theory must fall anyway. This is actually implemented with every other Scientific Theory – and should also apply to Evolution as well.

The evidence against Evolution is overwhelming – but there is no precisely defined scientific theory to disprove – and so it remains unassailable in it’s very own scientific “Twilight Zone” !!.

I read somewhere that Natural Selection may explain the SURVIVAL of the fittest – but it doesn’t explain the ARRIVAL of the fittest.
Evolution “from GOO to YOU via the ZOO” requires a massive INCREASE in genetic information – and Information Theory shows that new information INVARIABLY originates with an intelligent source – and NOT through random natural processes.

The critical scientific problem ISN’T explaining the shuffling of existing genes through sexual reproduction, their degeneration by mutation or their isolation/recombination through natural selection/speciation. The real challenge is answering the question of HOW and WHEN all of this purposeful genetic information arose in the first place.

Evolution is AT BEST a working scientific hypothesis, or more accurately a collection of many different (often contradictory) working hypotheses. It has never merited the appellation of the word theory in it’s proper scientific meaning – i.e. a precise description and explanation of observed phenomena that is accessible to testing by repeatable observation or experimentation.

Evolution doesn’t pass muster on any count
1. It has never been precisely defined, it is highly speculative and it is subject to continuous (often contradictory) revision as new phenomena are encountered which are not in accordance with the current most acceptable “theory”.
2. It is impossible to observe hypothetical events that may / may not have occurred supposedly over millions of years – and it is equally impossible to frame experiments to do so either. Core aspects of Evolution are therefore incapable of being tested by repeatable observation or experimentation – and so they can only be believed in through FAITH.
3. Evolution fails even more miserably on the scientific validity test – repeatedly, phenomena are observed that are not in accordance with or predicted by the current most acceptable “theory” – thereby necessitating the constant revisionism outlined at point 1 above. For example, Darwin’s “Gradual Evolution” predicted that as fossils were discovered in larger numbers the missing links between different species would be filled in by intermediate types. This didn’t happen and “Punctuated Equilibrium” was proposed – without even an acknowledgement that Gradual Evolution had become an invalid hypothesis. Equally, there is no objective evidence for scientific validity of “Punctuated Equilibrium” itself either – and indeed many leading Evolutionists also now reject this concept as well.:D

Zombrex

J C wrote:

…….so I really like your honest admission that Evolutionary Scientists would react to precisely such AN OBSERVED INVALIDITY by saying "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework?"

…..sounds very ‘objective and detached’ allright!!!!

Well that is because you are an idiot and don't know how science works

Scientists will attempt to match an observed phenomona to the currently accepted model. If the model can explain it all well and good. If the model cannot then the model need to be changed or worst case abandoned.

I imagine you won't accept this because I seriously doubt you understand what I mean by a scientific model but I assure you that you cannot just make a model up as you go along, it has to be demonstrated that it still works. Which BTW is why Creationists hate models so much.

J C wrote:

......and rather than declaring Evolution to be scientifically invalid, the Evolutionists, according to Wicknight, file such invalidities of Evolution under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date!!!!:D

Of course they do!!?!

"We don't know" does not invalidate a scientific model. What planet are you on? A falsified observation invalidates a scientific model.

What scientific degree do you have again JC??? .... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

J C wrote:

…and we developed into ‘multi-celled life forms with outer walls surrounding ourselves’ via the appliance of the PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Information in our DNA:D

God, are we back to your ridiculous "Growth is a form of mutation" argument again JC

Whats that JC? Children mutate as they grow? Really? You sure about that?

J C

Wicknight
Scientists will attempt to match an observed phenomena to the currently accepted model.

The primary responsibility of a Scientist ISN’T to ‘shore up’ defunct theories like Evolution.

The role of a Research scientist is to TEST Scientific Models – and when the evidence invalidates the Model (as it has done in numerous ways with Evolution) – it is the duty of the Scientist to report such conclusions.:D


Wicknight
If the model can explain it all well and good.
Fair enough


Wicknight
If the model cannot then the model need to be changed or worst case abandoned.
So, abandon Evolution, and be done with it then!!!:eek:


Wicknight
I assure you that you cannot just make a model up as you go along, it has to be demonstrated that it still works.

I agree that you cannot make up a Scientifically valid Model ‘as you go along’ ……..

…but then Evolution isn’t a Scientifically valid Model……..

……and so, Evolutionists DO ‘make it up as they go along’…….

…and the following quote from yourself proves that they do so:

Wicknight
They (Evolutionist Scientists) can certainly discover something and go "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework". They either figure out a way to do so, and test this idea and say that they understand how evolution could produce this. Or they don't and it is filed under "we don't know" to come back to at a later date.

…….as I have already said, I really do like your honest admission that Evolutionary Scientists would react to AN OBSERVED INVALIDITY of Evolution by exclaiming "How the hell do we explain this within an evolutionary framework?"

I think that the following quote from Godsword, fairly sums up the ‘current state of play’ with Evolution:-

Godsword
("predicting" something after the fact) more closely describes many if not most "scientific" predictions regarding evolution. Often, in evolutionary circles, something is observed, then evolutionists wrack their brains trying to come up with a "just-so" scenario which might possibly explain how evolution could have produced what was observed. They then write this idea up and publish it in a peer-reviewed science journal, and then evolutionists claim that evolutionary theory "predicted" what was observed

......... and Wicknight has just confirmed that Evolutionists DO indeed “wrack their brains trying to come up with a "just-so" scenario to explain how evolution could have produced what was observed”!!!

….and when they fail to do so, they just shrug their shoulders and carry on believing that they are distant cousins of ancient Muck, ANYWAY!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
…and we developed into ‘multi-celled life forms with outer walls surrounding ourselves’ via the appliance of the PRE-EXISTING Complex Specified Information in our DNA

Wicknight
God, are we back to your ridiculous "Growth is a form of mutation" argument again JC

No, you are the guy claiming that Filamentous Algae is a MUTANT GROWTH of single-celled Algae!!!

I am merely pointing out that such single cell / multi-cell transitions are a NORMAL part of mitotic cellular division using the PRE-EXISTING Genetic CSI present in the DNA of EVERY multi-cellular creature!!!!!:D


Wicknight
Whats that JC? Children mutate as they grow? Really? You sure about that?
Creationism claims that (healthy) children DON’T mutate as they grow – it is the Evolutionists who make the ridiculous claim that Children are THEMSELVES the product of BILLIONS of accumulated mutations over billions of years!!!!!!:)

Evolutionists (and their unfounded belief in the power of mutations) would have us believe that the cure for a sore thumb is to repeatedly whack your hand with a sledge-hammer in order to ‘improve it’!!!!:D

Of course the PROOF that Evolutionists DON’T actually believe in the ‘miraculous power’ of mutations to improve their physiognomy ‘from muck to man’…..
….is their (wise) aversion to exposing THEMSELVES to mutagenesis !!!!:eek:

fly_agaric

Just found this thread.
Makes me curious and I wonder if you'll let me go off topic (oh no...) for a short time so I can put this question.

All you defenders of evolution - what do you actually get out of wrangling over this issue (nearly 300 pages now!) with the likes of J C (our saviour??) above or someone with the handle "Godsword" [nice doublemeaning nick...:rolleyes: ]?

What's the point of it?
It all seems fairly fruitless to me.

These God Botherers and Bible (T)humpers are not coming to Ireland (or Europe) to damage biology education here and if they succeed in wrecking same in the US, while it is quite sad for those who fall under their evil influence at a young age, maybe that will mean the rest of the world can steal a march on the US in the biological sciences!:p

If you would prefer, ignore this and I'll open a new thread to ask this question of ye.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The role of a Research scientist is to TEST Scientific Models – and when the evidence invalidates the Model (as it has done in numerous ways with Evolution) – it is the duty of the Scientist to report such conclusions.:D

What evidence falsifies evolution?

J C wrote:

So, abandon Evolution, and be done with it then!!!:eek:

We will as soon as the evolution model fails. So far so good

Why have you not abandoned the creationism model, since that has failed pretty much every test thrown at it. In fact the only way to get it to pass is to assume that the laws of physics worked completely different a few thousand years ago (decay anyone?).

With no evidence that is true, or no reason to believe it is true beyond religious superstition, one would think that the model would have be abandoned years ago by these "scientists"

Yet you still cling to it JC ... strange for a scientists, no?

J C wrote:

…but then Evolution isn’t a Scientifically valid Model……..

Since you do not understand Evolution you are not really in a position to tell if it is a valid model or not. Just take it that scientists (proper ones with proper qualifications) a lot smarter than you have looked at the model and determined that it is quite valid.

J C wrote:

No, you are the guy claiming that Filamentous Algae is a MUTANT GROWTH of single-celled Algae!!!

What is a "mutant growth" JC?

The new life form is a mutated version of the original. It is a different life form, not a growth of the original life form.

Its like comparing you aged 5 and you aged 25 and comparing you with your great grandfather.

One is you growing during your normal life span. The other is generational. You are not mutating as you grow, but the generational line of genetic material has mutated since your great grandfather.

Seriously JC, what science degree do you have that you do not understand the difference between a single life form's growth over a natural life span, and the change due to mutation of genetic material over generations.

The algae is not growing. One algae dies and its children survive it. This is a generational cycle. Due to mutation the offspring begin to form into multicelluar structures, something the parents did not do during their entire life span.

J C wrote:

I am merely pointing out that such single cell / multi-cell transitions are a NORMAL part of mitotic cellular division using the PRE-EXISTING Genetic CSI present in the DNA of EVERY multi-cellular creature!!!!!:D

They are not normally part of anything. The algae do not do this unless they mutate. The original DNA builds one type of algae, the mutated version builds a very different type with multiple cells and a cell wall.

Face it, that is macro-evolution

J C wrote:

Creationism claims that (healthy) children DON’T mutate as they grow – it is the Evolutionists who make the ridiculous claim

You are such an idiot

Humans do not mutated as they grow!!!!

That is not what mutation is. Go look it up because at the moment this is like discussing quantum physics with a 5 year old, you don't even understand that mutation is.

J C

fly agaric
All you defenders of evolution - what do you actually get out of wrangling over this issue (nearly 300 pages now!) with the likes of J C

This thread has followed the typical pattern that occurs wherever and whenever Evolution is debated.

The Evolutionists start out with great bluster, in the belief that Evolution is invincible and “it will be all over by Christmas”!!!!!:D

As the debate gets underway and the evidence for Creation starts piling in and the evidence against Evolution starts to mount, the Evolutionists go into spasms of denial and they start making Ad Hominem personal remarks against their Creationist opponents in the belief that such remarks will somehow make up for their lack of evidence for Evolution.
As a second line of defence, the Evolutionists start behaving like ‘Chicken Licken’ and they begin squawking that “the sky will fall in” if Evolution is abandoned!!!:D

The Evolutionists then move into ‘Tortoise Mode’ and they start to ‘hide in their shell’ and stop producing ANY evidence for Evolution – usually, because they have found that all of the evidence that they have already provided has been ‘torn to shreds’ by the appliance of scientific logic by their Creationist opponents.:)

The penultimate stage is where we are now on this thread – and it is a tactical retreat!!!
The Evolutionists are just responding to the points being made as a ‘damage limitation exercise’ for the Evolutionist cause………..

……..and final stage is a refusal to debate the issue any further ……….

………which, fly agaric, has just suggested!!!!!

Defending Evolution becomes a ‘hopeless cause’.
However, Evolutionists have a desperate need to promote Evolution, in order to provide some semblance of justification for their Materialistic Worldview - and so they just close their ears and cry “NO, NO, NO!!!!!….”
……as well as worrying out loud about “what will happen to Children / Science / Education and just about everything else, in a “Post-Evolutionist World”!!!!:D

fly agaric
These God Botherers and Bible (T)humpers are not coming to Ireland (or Europe) to damage biology education here and if they succeed in wrecking same in the US, while it is quite sad for those who fall under their evil influence at a young age, maybe that will mean the rest of the world can steal a march on the US in the biological sciences!

……Oh, and I suppose the sky will also fall in!!!!:D


Wicknight
With no evidence that is true, or no reason to believe it is true beyond religious superstition, one would think that the model would have be abandoned years ago by these "scientists"

Indeed the Evolution Model should have been abandoned years ago!!:D

I am 'totally at a loss' as to why Evolutionists have so doggedly defied all logic and evidence to claim that they evolved through the spontaneous mutation of muck!!!!

……claiming that gold can be spun from straw would be actually more believable!!!:D


Wicknight
Just take it that scientists (proper ones with proper qualifications) a lot smarter than you have looked at the model and determined that it is quite valid.

A dogmatic ‘religious statement’ if ever I saw one!!!!

……and with a degree of patronising condescension that I haven't seen for some time!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
this is like discussing quantum physics with a 5 year old

.....even a 5 year old, wouldn’t fall for the idea that people are spontaneously mutated muck!!!!!:eek:

Son Goku

fly_agaric wrote:

What's the point of it?
It all seems fairly fruitless to me.

It's informative and amusing. Imagine somebody telling you with a straight face that 1648 didn't exist and it's only a conspiracy by modern academics.

robindch

JC wrote:

Rabbits aren’t expected by EITHER Evolution or Creation to be present in Cambrian rocks.

You must have missed JBS Haldane's famous comment that evolution could be falsified by a rabbit appearing in Cambrian rocks. Unfortunately, in creationism, since your deity did all the creating during the first week or so, then left species to degrade under the baleful influence of Shaitan, that means that rabbits must have been created during the first week. That means that if creationism is true, therefore there must be rabbits in the Cambrian rocks, but we can see that they aren't. Nothing like them in fact.

Therefore, by your own conditions, creationism has been completely falsified.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

……and with a degree of patronising condescension that I haven't seen for some time!!!!:eek:

Quite on purpose I assure you, since I do not believe for one second that you actually have scientific training or understand the first thing about evolutionary biology.

The whole "Growth is a form of mutation" kinda tipped me off :rolleyes:

Conor108

J C wrote:

fly agaric
.....even a 5 year old, wouldn’t fall for the idea that people are spontaneously mutated muck!!!!!:eek:

Spontaneously? It happened over millions of years. And theres a lot more evidence for evolution than creationism. If you can even count a 2000 year old book AS evidence. And hey, maybe a 5 year old would fall for the idea that god just snapped his fingers and created EVERYTHING. It's a simple concept to grasp right? It would only be better if there were some factual evidence even loosely tied to it;)

Acid_Violet

fly_agaric wrote:

What's the point of it?
It all seems fairly fruitless to me.

To laugh at hopelessly witless people?

Wicknight; don't bother, it's not worth getting riled up. You'd have more success teaching men to breastfeed.

Acid_Violet

J C wrote:

Robin
one way of demonstrating evolution is false is by finding rabbits in Cambrian-age rock. The opposite of that is not finding rabbits in the Cambrian. So, by your "logic", we can demonstrate that creationism is wrong by not finding rabbits in the Cambrian.

There are many phenomena, which BOTH Evolution and Creation DON’T predict.

Rabbits aren’t expected by EITHER Evolution or Creation to be present in Cambrian rocks.

*point zooms passed*

You see, ALL scientific theories must be subject to continuous testing and validation – otherwise science would rapidly degenerate into a collection of tentative “old wives tales” that are never tested.

Like the one about all the animals and humans in the world coming from two parents?:p

bonkey

J C wrote:

Rabbits aren’t expected by EITHER Evolution or Creation to be present in Cambrian rocks.

So once again, you show to be false your argument that falsification of one would be the opposite of falsification of the other.

At this point, JC, you're demonstrating that you don't have a grasp of basic logic,let alone science.

There are other explanations for your duplicity, but given that they'd all involve dishonesty on your part, and I'm loate to ascribe such actions to a self-professed Christian, I have chosen to assume to not be the case.