Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

[Papewaio]

You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).

[Byzantine Prince]

NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You cannot prove everything in maths (axioms and such).

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

[Papewaio]

NOOOO! PAPE why did you change your ultra-cool avatar!?!?

Because after getting to 6k posts I felt like a change and the Geisha while colourful was already taken...

[Papewaio]

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

Are maths axioms universal?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Are maths axioms universal?

I dont know but as axioms they are not part of what Im speaking about. Im talking basic math.

[Papewaio]

Maths is only exact within boundary conditions.

Example one.
1010 in Base Ten is one thousand and ten.

1010 in Base Two is ten. The boundary conditions have changed so a different result is found.

Example two.
A triangle has a total internal angle of 180 degrees. This is true only on a flat surface.

If you drew the triangle on a sphere the total internal angle would change.

Maths is only right within a very tight set of rules. This is the same for most sciences, the larger the scope of the boundary conditions the less it is likely to get an 'exact' (high probablity) model.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes I agree with all that. Whats your point?

[Papewaio]

IMDHO

Science is not absolute as people assume.

Some areas are more precise then others. But there is a tendancy for the broader the boundary conditions (the more the particular theory/model covers) the less exact it is.

The Theory of Everything is still just a goal. While the tighter boundary conditions on the four basic forces means that we have a more precise model of them.

[bmolsson]

I think that the idea of humans coming from apes is a conspiracy by the evil Gilette corporation. They want us to be afraid of being hairy.
*Takes another banana and waits for the next episode of the jungle book to start.*

[Adrian II]

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Lol! This is surely the funniest. Show me one evolutionist who states that matter resulted from nothing. On the other hand, creationists do believe that matter resulted from nothing. Boy, are these guys confused.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from? and do you dispute the other two points?

[Adrian II]

OK wise guy where do scientists say matter came from?

You know very well that any basic science book will tell you about some of their hypotheses; no need for me to unpack that here. They certainly do not state that God somehow pulled the world out of his butt.

(..) and do you dispute the other two points?

Certainly not. Why would I?

EDIT
Elementary wise guy link

[Papewaio]

Where matter came from is in the realm of Astrophysics and Quantum physics. Those theories do not rely on evolution nor vice a versa.

It not a good form to bundle a theory with other ones.

Evolution is one thing.

'Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use. Scientists refer to things like the Big Bang, Star Sequence, Star (Solar) System formation, Planetary formation. Which for some reason creationists try and bundle altogether with evolution.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Macro' Evolution is a Creationist term that scientists do not use.

Is that so?

MACROEVOLUTION


Were Darwin's extrapolations justified? Judging from the conclusions of many of the scientists attending one of the most important conferences in evolutionary biology in the past forty years, the answer is probably not.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

... Evolution, according to the Modern Synthesis, moves at a stately pace, with small changes accumulating over periods of many millions of years yielding a long heritage of steadily advancing lineages as revealed in the fossil record. However, the problem is that according to most paleontologists the principle feature of individual species within the fossil record is stasis, not change...

In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis in the United States, said "We would not have predicted stasis from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate."

* Lewin, R. (1980)
"Evolutionary Theory Under Fire"
Science, vol. 210, 21 November, p. 883

"Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

* Feduccia, Alan (1985)
"On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers"
The Beginning of Birds
Eichstatt, West Germany: Jura Museum, p. 76

"The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved."

* Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996)
"Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,"
Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0032, 1996, p. 361

This theme is developed at much greater length, and with considerable insight, in Rudy Raff's new book, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, 1996 (520 pages, $29.95 in paperback).

"The facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution."

* Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940)
The Material Basis of Evolution
New Haven Connecticut: Yale University Press, p. 8

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: 'The emperor has not clothes.'"

* K. Hsu (1986)
"Darwin's Three Mistakes"
Geology, vol. 14, p. 534
(K. Hsu is a geologist at the Geological Institute at Zurich.)

"Micro-evolution involves mainly changes within potentially continuous populations, and there is little doubt that its materials are those revealed by genetic experimentation. Macro-evolution involves the rise and divergence of discontinuous groups, and it is still debatable whether it differs in kind or only in degree from microevolution. If the two proved to be basically different, the innumerable studies of micro-evolution would become relatively unimportant and would have minor value in the study of evolution as a whole."

* Simpson G.G. (1949)
Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p97

"[T]he origin of no innovation of large evolutionary significance is known."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45


"[L]arge evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed, and we have no idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any."

* R. Wesson (1991)
Beyond Natural Selection
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 206

Its a commonly used term and was not made up by creationist but by the . I suppose these guys are creationists

Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution above the species level, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process. With its unique time perspective, paleontology has a central role to play in this area: the fossil record provides a direct, empirical window onto large-scale evolutionary patterns, and thus is invaluable both as a document of macroevolutionary phenomena, and as a natural laboratory for the framing and testing of macroevolutionary hypotheses. This is a vibrant field (if underpopulated relative to the wealth of material and questions within its domain), with a steady stream of papers, books and symposia and an increasing interaction with a broad range of disciplines from astrophysics to developmental biology. The result has been a number of insights into the processes that have shaped the major evolutionary patterns of present-day and ancient organisms.

LINK

Maybe you meant scientists have a differnt definition of Macro evolution. In that case I agree. Evolution cannot account for the creation of man nevermind the universe. You mention the big bang theory. Where di the matter come from and how did it get condensed and the explode in the first place? This is where it gets heavy. Does everything have a beggining and an end? Or is it a never ending circle ?

[Papewaio]

The formation of matter is not a theory involving evolution unless you are one of these creationists with their version of macro-evolution.

I've seen posted a few times Macro-evolution in the creationist sense including the big bang, planetary formtation and a host of other things.

Where matter comes from does not change how evolution occurs.

[Adrian II]

Please, let's stop the nonsense that 'no transitional forms have been found'. Here's something about whales for y'all. Fill in the rest for yourself if you want, but don't repeat cr@p from creationist websites without doing a little checking.

Link

[Papewaio]

The Big Bang was the beginning it was the start of space, time, energy and matter. What happened beforehand is taken as unknowable. It may have spawned off another universe. The thing about the Big Bang is it isn't just the matter and energy that was created it was also the laws of physics.

Evolution quite easily explains how humans came into being. It is rather a simple process to create a human from a single cell. It is actually proportionally more complex to create the single cell from the basic building blocks.

[Ja'chyra]

At least science offers supporting evidence which you can decide to trust, or not, what does creationism offer? Faith and an ancient comic book? No thanks.

[KafirChobee]

Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.


Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.

First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.

Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.

First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.

Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.

[KafirChobee]

Ignorance, breeds ignorance. Not sure who said it, but they were right.

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact.


Trying to sell a biblical concept, is like accepting mythology. The perceptions of men do not out weigh the scientific advances of same. To argue that man has not progressed beyond the groveling to wish that the GOD of harvest bring them rains, or GOD of war bring them victory, or the GOD of ... what ever do what ever? Well. maybe. For some. For those that accept that they truely do not grasp the concept of a supremebeing or imagine his (her) abilities.

First off, God's name is Sally. I know this because he told me so. He doesn't mind if you call him Sal, unless he is in drag of course.

Now. A few other things I must mention - please, understand it ain't me - it's God .... er, Sally ... laying this down.

First off, Sally, admits we came from apes - it was just easier that way.

Go read, "Letters from EARTH", by Mark Twain - and grow the hell up.

[Lazul]

yey! I just found proof that evolution exist in a way that animals adapt to its enviroment.

Swedish; "illustrated science" talks about a lizzard that has hornes and it is usually hunted by a certain bird. The intresting thing is that the bird usually attacks the lizzards with shorter hornes and as a result of that the lizzards in generall are now growing larger hornes. 10 procent in 20-35 years.

There you have it, evolution exist.

[SwordsMaster]

1. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

What are transitional links? See, the average rate for a mutation to occur is about 1 every 1million copies of that gene. i.e, every time a cell copies itself the genetic content can change. So you think that you could see a difference in 1 accumulated genetic change from one generation to another? No chance. You probably wouldnt see them even every 10 generations.

Besides, most of the fossiles encountered are bones. And the possibility of 1 out of a million mutations affecting a bone is even smaller. Thats why there are not so many recognizable "transitory" species. Although such thing as transitory species doesnt exist. Because technically all species are transitory.

2. Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

There is no such thing as higher order in nature. Some of the most complex organisms are Bacteria and other microscopic systems. And they have much better chance of survival as a race than humans have. So which is higher order?

3. Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Well, as someone said before, placing a few suitable elements in a very rich environment and then electrocuting it with a decent enough voltage did produce simple "life".

And humans did not result from animals, we ARE animals.

4. The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of 'finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Well, there are some that are quite well studied and most scientists agree on their significance, one of them could be Lucy (the skeleton of a female hominid found in Africa) and there are others. Obviously as those bones are usually thousands of years old, they are never complete or perfectly conserved. But with that argument you could also say that the romans went to battle with rusty swords with no edge and dressed in rags. Yeah, we never discovered a shiny roman toga, did we?

5. Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all.

And what about the other 4? The fact that there are 9 that are closer to the apes than to humans doesnt mean they didnt evolve, but confirms the theory. They had accumulated a number of mutations that separated them from the rest of the apes' species (thats the concept of species) but were not successful in reproducing (as they are extinct) thus they were extinguished and their habitats taken by more able individuals.



Boy, thats a long post...

[SwordsMaster]

Of course you cant thats why theres postulates and therums. Its also why I said some math.

Thats why when mathematicians say "clearly" and "obviously" means that they cant prove it but they hope it is like they say.

[hrvojej]

I dissagree.As I said there are exact sciences like some math. I dont insist on a dogmatic perspective. I just think that both are correct. I think god created everything and that evolution is one of his means of doing so. I believe many people share this view if not most.

Don Corleone said it all

I see nothing in it that precludes some divine force acting behind it, yet nothing that requires it either.

While I personally don't believe in it and you do, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - plausibility of evolutionary thought. Divine origin of this or that is not a part of evolution or science in general, it's a matter of philosophy and religion, and the distinction should be made clear. Science cannot provide evidence about the existence (or non-existence) of God, and it shouldn't deal with those questions either as they are not the part of it in the first place. But in the same vein, one should not try to use religion and creed to pass judgements on scientific things and issues. In short, science and religion do not necessarily conflict each other, but rather they deal with different questions and using different approaches.

If it would make it more approachable to you, you can think of evolution as studying the methodology of how it all came to pass, while retaining your beliefs about how it all begun. But that doesn't mean that the answer to everything that doesn't seem logical in science comes down to a singular answer of divine intervention.

[hrvojej]

hrvojej your first post in this thread was very hepful to me, thank you.

I was wondering if you could expand more on the proposed mechanism by which evolution occurs. I am familiar with the example of the proto-chicken and the egg. Is this pretty much all there is to it?

Erm, I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what you mean by "protochicken and the egg" example, but I'll try to briefly summarize on the proposed mechanisms of evolution.

Natural selection is in fact differential reproduction. Mutations provide the basis for the selection to occur, since mutations mean that not all organisms in a given population will be genetically identical, and hence not equal in their potential when it comes to interaction with the environment. Gene frequencies in the subsequent generations will be different from the paternal generation due to many factors.

Some of these factors are brand new mutations, which happen for a number of reasons, and can be immediately beneficial, immediately detrimental, and neutral (no net costs or benefits right now, but that doesn't mean this couldn't change in future). Other factors are due to the differential ability of parents to produce offspring which will survive to reproduce - and this is the natural selection in a narrow sense of the term. This is usually considered as the most important evolutionary force, but by no means the only one.

Yet other forces inculde migration between populations, which changes the gene frequencies in future generations irrespective of the mating sucess of the focal parent population. Then there is genetic drift, where some gene variants can be simply taken out of the population through chance events. For example, let's say that a youngster is born who is incredibly smart, and that this smartness is heritable. If this youngster is then killed in a volcanic eruption before it had a chance to reproduce, its genes which coded for smartness will be lost. This will change the relative gene frequencies of subsequent genrations, and its (potentially benefical in this case) genes will be lost to the population. Then there is also nonrandom mating, i.e. sexual selection. Mating success doesn't always depend on the ability to survive, it also depends on the ability to attract partners/reproduce. This is where inbreeding etc. also comes to play, and a similar aspect would be kin selection. Finally, there are other genetic mechanisms which influence gene frequencies, such as which chromosomes get to form the gametes that will later form the zygote(s), the 'crossing over' events where genetic material between complimentary chromosomes is exchanged, the associated issues with the distance between certain genes (the closer they are the more likely they will be to get inherited together as a cluster), and a few other mechanisms in the same vein.

While this post turned out to be longer than I expected despite my attempts to do the opposite, I nevertheless hope this answers your question in a satisfactory manner.

Cheers,

[Productivity]

Actually, they have made 'life' from 'non-life'. I think somebody's actually made nucleotide chains by electrocuting seawater with massive amounts of static electrical charge (like repeated lightning strikes).

Abiogenesis isn't it?

I think actually it wasn't just seawater, it was what the earth was thought to contain at the time life first emerged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteinoid

[Gawain of Orkeny]

While I personally don't believe in it and you do, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand - plausibility of evolutionary thought.

Look I find evolutin not only plausible but likely. I just feel theres more to it than we will ever know. I doubt the true cause of the the world and universe we life in will ever be known. Science is great but it can only go so far. Religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable. Science does basicly the same thing. We think weve explained somethings but were not sure. I my book science is nothing more than another religion. This does not make it bad or evil but like all religions a seeker of the ultimate truth.

[English assassin]

Religion has always been used to explain the unexplainable. Science does basicly the same thing. We think weve explained somethings but were not sure. I my book science is nothing more than another religion. This does not make it bad or evil but like all religions a seeker of the ultimate truth.

That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.

A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all. Certainly his ideas can never be disproved (if they could by golly we'd have done it by now).

Both may "seek truth" but to say they are alike is like saying a cow is like a fish because both taste good with chips

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That is profoundly not true. The scientific method could not be more different from religion. A scientist makes a guess (a theory) about how the world works consistent with data he himself has observed (or others he trusts has observed). He then tests his theory by seeking data that would disprove it.

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.

A religious thinker formulates his ideas based largely on "revealed" "truth" (eg a holy book) and then seeks to avoid having them tested at all.

I think you couldnt be more wrong. These holy books were written after thousands of years of observing human behavior and most of what they say still rings true today. If your talking about creation then you have a point . But again science can do no better job on the subject. Im still waiting to hear how scientists explain where matter came from.