Creationism in Museums and Schools

[Navaros]

Wikipedia - ROFL. Probably the most uncredible 'source' in history.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

[Big_John]

As it stands today, evolution is little more advantageous than astrology to be taken granted. Still, I stand closer to the prior than the latter. While I -secretly- scorn who worship zodiac stuff, I don't explicitly deny the albeit minimal credibility to be found in it. Evolution, OTOH, as a process, I deem plausible, yet I flatly refuse to take it as a matter of faith, for or against.

I have to agree with Navaros in that it seems pretty unlikely for Evolution to be proven (or unproven) with the classical scientific methods. If it was ever proven (or unproven) I would only say to myself "hmm, interesting! " and be done with it.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

i know i shouldn't bother, but, what the hell.

"Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

[PBI]

Damn, I was going to have fun with this but Big John beat me too it.

So I will just add my two cents: Evolution does conform to the scientific method because it makes testable observations.

It predicts that in order to for life as we know it to have evolved on Earth, it would have to have been around for an incredibly long time, millions if not billions of years. This is testable and has proved to be correct.

It also predicts that if we have an organism with a very short lifespan, we should be able to observe it evolving in response to environmental factors in real time. This also has been proved correct, for instance antibiotic resistant bacteria.

[Adrian II]

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can.

You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

[Fragony]

I am fine with teaching creationism but not in biology class. Why not make both part of history classes because only there are they both relevant. It would be catering both. The big question through the ages, from the ancients till the renaissance.

[Kadagar_AV]

There are two lines of thought here....

1. "We can not explain everything, but day by day we add more pieces to the puzzle, and this is the best picture we have as of now based on what we ourselevs have seen of the world around us".

2. "We can explain everything, it's God's work. You can not understand his methods, no one can. Just have faith that it is so, no need to think about it. Accept his will, his will be done!"

Again, people are free to choose whatever path they like... But dont try to mix the paths:)

[Ronin]

For those asking for creationism to be mentioned in Science class......

When I went to school it was mentioned in Science class....I will try to quote my teacher verbatum:

"Back when people depended on belief on silly superstition they had this idea that this god fellow had created everything, now onto something with a bit more facts to back it up...the evolution theory"

I think it was given about 2 minutes...and that´s all it deserves on a science class....it´s quoted on a historical perspective and that´s all...if you want more send your kids to sunday school, or jesus camp or whatever.


Is evolution a fact?....no it´s a theory yes....but then again gravity is just a theory also...but let´s face it there´s a bunch of fact to back them both up.

on the other hand creationism has no facts to back it up......

[Kadagar_AV]

A question for creationists: Do you also think other religions creaton theorys should be brought up in science class?

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

Or the religion Scott Adams mentions, that the whole universe was made in a big sneeze, and we should all be afraid of the big white towel?

Just wondering...

[Rhyfelwyr]

When they have their own national church, they can if they like.

[Sigurd]

Like, the nordic religion, that this world is a part of a big tree.. With a squirrel running around...

BLASPHEMY!!!!

[Navaros]

You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

Fruit flies? Experiments on fruit flies actually help to disprove evolution because all the mutants die out since mutations are almost always bad, not good (which evolution would require). Yes there are a few freak exceptions to this, but it is not the general rule. It is also disproves evolution because they never transformed into anything else, like common ancestry requires.

The author Ian Taylor has an extremely poignant quote about fruit flies in his Darwinism-debunking book, "In the Minds of Men". This quote always crack me up when I see it. It is hilarious because it's so true.

Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.

Incidentally that book can be read for free online at this link: http://www.creationism.org, and it also debunks many of the other Darwinists claims made in this thread.

Chapter 6 of that book has some good scientific debunkings of Darwinists' species quagmire:

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...4WorseOrBetter

For the claims not debunked in that book, there are other sites that also debunk all the other Darwinist claims such as:

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.trueorigin.org/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm

In regards to Big John's big quote from talkorigins, there is zero evidence in there, or anywhere else in the world, of a lower form of life evolving into a completely different, more complex, higher form of life with new, additional genetic information. All there is in that quote is evidence for variation within a kind, which is something that no one disputes. Darwinists using semantic wordplay with the word 'species' does not prove that the sort of evolution described which is required for common ancestry has ever occurred, or is even possible.

[JR-]

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

[Navaros]

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

[Ronin]

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

Nav....I am just wondering...

have you considered taking up juggling?

something tells me you have the natural talent to pull it off...

[JR-]

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

thank you for clarifying that. *scared*

[Ignoramus]

Science has nothing to do with the popularity of evolution. People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible. Pure and simple. That's why you can argue all the scientific facts with an evolutionist and never make a dent.

Oh, and did anyone around here hear the term PC before?

[Adrian II]

Fruit flies? Experiments on fruit flies actually help to disprove evolution because all the mutants die out since mutations are almost always bad, not good (which evolution would require). Yes there are a few freak exceptions to this, but it is not the general rule.

All mutants die out? You haven't been looking into the matter again, only into your little websites.

The rule is that only a few survive, and a fraction of those result in speciation, i.e. the appearance of a new species that is unable to mate with its ancestors. Speciation is best observed in insects because of their high rates of reproduction. Novel genetic material is created by non-fatal mutations all the time.

As for mutants dying out, just ask bacteria. Mutation is their very strategy of of survival.

It is a pity that you stick to mythology. Many creationists at least accept the basics of evolution because their own world view and concept of science wouldn't make sense without it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is a pity that you stick to mythology. Many creationists at least accept the basics of evolution because their own world view and concept of science wouldn't make sense without it.

Can't speak for Navaros, but I suspect the devout creationist would pity your reliance on concrete minutae to attempt to explain the transcendent.

I keep telling you he doesn't accept your basic premise -- as you don't accept his. You couldargue until you burst a vein without swaying him because he KNOWS -- not merely knows -- that you are off base. The difference is, he's comfortable with his view and accepts that you'll probably remain unconvinced with relative equanimity.

[Big_John]

Can't speak for Navaros, but I suspect the devout creationist would pity your reliance on concrete minutae to attempt to explain the transcendent.

I keep telling you he doesn't accept your basic premise -- as you don't accept his. You couldargue until you burst a vein without swaying him because he KNOWS -- not merely knows -- that you are off base. The difference is, he's comfortable with his view and accepts that you'll probably remain unconvinced with relative equanimity.

much of the posts pointing out the nonsensical aspects of navaros' posts are for the benefit of other readers. like people who may not know enough about evolution to understand why it is a scientific fact. or people who would be swayed by the sexiness of one of the many flavors of creationism (personally, i prefer the Finnish 'comsic egg' story).

[Ice]

I actually pity people like Nav. It's a shame there isn't a way to say "I told you so".

Oh well, guess I need to start work on that time machine.

[m52nickerson]

Wikipedia - ROFL. Probably the most uncredible 'source' in history.

Evolution is not a scientific theory. Can't produce observable, testable, or repeatable results - like all legitimate scientific theories can. I know Darwinists like to counter this point with examples of variation within a kind, but that is not proving the outlandish claims of evolution like common descent of all forms of life from bacteria.

For evolution to be a scientific theory there would need to be observable, testable, and repeatable evidence of lower forms of life transforming into completely different higher forms of life with new, additional genetic information. But there is none. Therefore, evolution can only be accepted based on faith, not based on science.

Observable - fossil record

testable - miller experiment, DNA data, Mitochondrial RNA data

repeatable - see above

Evolution is a scientific theory, in fact it has more evidence supporting it then any other theory.

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

1. Ok, since your hypothesis relies on God, use the scientific methond to prove God exists.

2. No one knows, because their is no evidence, that their was a flood or that it changed anything as far as signs of age.

3. Fail - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

[KarlXII]

I think Wikipedia is alright, unless you're more in line with reading Conservapedia. Anyway, there definition of a "scientific theory":

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by rigorous observations in the natural world, or by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

And they're absolutely right. A scientific theory is a theory derived through observation and experimentation. As stated before, evolution is a scientific theory. It can be observed through fossils of past creatures, and experimented with things like DNA (I hate to be so crude, though I don't know the specifics of how evolution is thoroughly tested).

If you still do not think so, you're in zealous denial.

[Navaros]

Observable - fossil record

testable - miller experiment, DNA data, Mitochondrial RNA data

repeatable - see above

Evolution is a scientific theory, in fact it has more evidence supporting it then any other theory.



1. Ok, since your hypothesis relies on God, use the scientific methond to prove God exists.

2. No one knows, because their is no evidence, that their was a flood or that it changed anything as far as signs of age.

3. Fail - http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

The fossil record provides zero evidence for evolution. Darwinists like to allege it does, but that is only their opinion, not fact & not science.

It's summed up quite nicely on this site, click "Click here for the evidence of evolution in the fossil record!" to see:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com

Any claim made by a Darwinist about any specific fossil showing evolution, can be debunked by a Creationist looking at the very same fossil who has a different, scientific explanation for the same fossil.

Miller experiment...you mean the one where they tried to create life from non-life, and failed miserably at doing so? If anything that is further disproof of evolution.

DNA data - so what, as discussed in previous posts in this thread, is provides no evidence of anything other than that God used the same building blocks in different creations, when applicable to do so. That provides zero evidence for evolution. It provides evidence for God, the common designer.

There is plenty of Flood evidence, the Grand Canyon is probably the best example, although that's just one of countless examples.

God's methods of creation cannot be proven by the scientific method. The point is, neither can Darwinists' fabrications of what they think happened in their opinions. The problem lays wherein Darwinists try to elevate their opinions to 'fact' or 'science', zealously mispresent their opinions as such, and then try to suppress any contrary opinions which are every bit as valid, Ie: the Creationist point of view.

The link you provided saying that the dating methods are accurate is bollocks. Here are some good links that illustrate the problems with the dating methods; these facts are agreed upon by all scientists who do not have a pro-Darwinism bias which leads to them fudging the truth, like that article on the actionbioscience site does.

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...PrinRadiomMeas
http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...MMlT_C14Dating

[m52nickerson]

Any claim made by a Darwinist about any specific fossil showing evolution, can be debunked by a Creationist looking at the very same fossil who has a different, scientific explanation for the same fossil.

Miller experiment...you mean the one where they tried to create life from non-life, and failed miserably at doing so? If anything that is further disproof of evolution.

DNA data - so what, as discussed in previous posts in this thread, is provides no evidence of anything other than that God used the same building blocks in different creations, when applicable to do so. That provides zero evidence for evolution. It provides evidence for God, the common designer.

There is plenty of Flood evidence, the Grand Canyon is probably the best example, although that's just one of countless examples.

God's methods of creation cannot be proven by the scientific method. The point is, neither can Darwinists' fabrications of what they think happened in their opinions. The problem lays wherein Darwinists try to elevate their opinions to 'fact' or 'science', zealously mispresent their opinions as such, and then try to suppress any contrary opinions which are every bit as valid, Ie: the Creationist point of view.

The link you provided saying that the dating methods are accurate is bollocks. Here are some good links that illustrate the problems with the dating methods; these facts are agreed upon by all scientists who do not have a pro-Darwinism bias which leads to them fudging the truth, like that article on the actionbioscience site does.

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...PrinRadiomMeas
http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...MMlT_C14Dating

Just because someone comes up with a fairytale about fossil does not remove the fact that the fossil record as a whole supports evolution. Anyone who does not see this does not understand how science works.

The miller experiment was not to create life, but to see if under the condition that existed on this earth millions of years ago could produce the building blocks of life, which it did. For life to have developed it would have to have run for at least a could of millennium. Most of the theories that life started spontaneously are antiquated, most scientist believe life developed over time.

The Grand Canyon was carved by a river, not a flood. Pretty common knowledge for anyone except those despite enough to claim evidence of the bible.

Your hypothesis about God using the same block explaining DNA lacks one thing, you must prove God exists until you can do that it is nothing more then a fairytale.

God's methods can't be proven because science can't prove something that did not happen. Evolution is science, in fact it is the central theorem of Biology. If someone can't understand how evolution is science they don't understand what science is or how it works.

All in all creationist fail because they are trying to prove something, not looking for the truth. You think that science is just trying to prove evolution, its not, it is trying to find the truth. Right now the evidence point at evolution.

Even if next week evolution was total dis-proven it would not meant that creation would be correct.

It is their approach and lack of understanding is why creationist fail.

God did not create Man, Man created God to explain what we did not understand. As we advance God is becoming less necessary.