This is the week of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, PA. A great deal of peer review papers will be presented (40+) dealing with the debunking of evolution. One in particular will be quite interesting called: Snake Hybridization: A Case for Intrabaraminic Diversity. "The occurrence of successful hybridization closely fits the creationist model, as opposed to the evolutionist model." An article that gives a sneak peek here and also a backup article that agrees.
Basically a line has been drawn in the sand. "It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos. These are, in simplest terms, evolution or creation. Either the origin of things can be understood in terms of continuing natural processes, or they cannot--one or the other. If they cannot, then we must resort to completed supernatural processes to explain the origin of at least the basic symptoms of the cosmos. Evolution and creation thus exhaust the possibilities, as far as origins are concerned.This necessarily means that if we can "falsify" (that is, demonstrate to be false) either model of origins, then the other must be true. There is no other option. By definition, evolution should still be occurring now, since it is to be explained by present processes." (ICR)
Some scientists claim we're living through the Holocene period, the sixth extinction our planet has faced since existence. Each of the previous extinction events wiped out the most dominant life forms and as much as 95 percent of all life.
Worldwide, in the IUCN's (International Union for Conservation of Nature) 2004 Red List of endangered, a total of 15,503 species were listed as threatened. Keep in mind just over 38,000 species were examined out of the 1.5 million species that the IUCN considers "described species." Thus, only 2.5% of all known species were evaluated by the IUCN.
Of the counted and according to various estimates by scientists, every day 35-150 species of life become extinct. These are observable and testable.
Now let's compare this figure to the number of observable species evolving. Let's be fair and gather all the data. According to ICR: "In all recorded history, extending back nearly five thousand years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind."
The article goes on to say: "Stars explode, comets and meteorites disintegrate, the biosphere deteriorates, and everything eventually dies, so far as all historical observations go, but nothing has ever evolved into higher complexity." Which was the point I was making before in the post Why Disease and Suffering? I said "As a result, we live in an imperfect world, with the effects of sin running through it. We see that the universe is running down." (emphasis added)
Good resources:
Genetics, Science Against Evolution
CreationWiki: Genetics
Genetics: no friend of evolution
GENETICS AND GENESIS
A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
If that's true, then how come I'm right? Debunked! Next!
ReplyDeleteO:-)
ICR wrote:
ReplyDelete"It is axiomatic that there are only two possible basic models of origins--that is, of the origin of the universe, of the earth, of life, of human life, and of all the basic systems of the cosmos."
TalkOrigins can refute this ancient relic far more eloquently than I ever could.
Dan wrote:
Some scientists claim we're living through the Holocene period, the sixth extinction our planet has faced since existence.
We are. The changes humanity has made to the environment are far to dramatic and fast for millions of species to adapt, and they are dying as a result.
I know where this is going...
Dan wrote:
Now let's compare this figure to the number of observable species evolving.
I knew it!
You are comparing the rate of evolution, which is slow even at the best of times, to the rate of extinction during a mass extinction.
That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"
Dan wrote:
Let's be fair and gather all the data. According to ICR:
I'm sorry Dan, but I think several of your logic cells just commited suicide.
A single article by the Institute of Creation Research is "being fair and gathering all the data"?
Really?
ICR wrote:
"In all recorded history, extending back nearly five thousand years, no one has ever recorded the natural evolution of any kind of creature (living or non-living) into a more complex kind."
Depends on your definition of kind. Speciation has been observed. Larger changes are surprisingly well documented in the fossil record, like the evolution from reptile to bird.
But, of course, "kind" can mean anything. It's a similar term to "information", which we've discussed elsewhere. If we show fruit flies speciating, "kind" can refer to all fruit flies. If we show wolves becoming poodles, suddenly "kind" encompasses all canines.
This sort of intellectual dishonesty and goalpost shifting has made me wary of anything the ICR (Now known as Answers in Genesis) come out with.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteYou are hilarious! The runner up quote:
"According to ICR:..
I'm sorry Dan, but I think several of your logic cells just committed suicide."
But the winner is: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"
You win I give. I still believe in the Creation Model but how can I compete with that wit. Nice job.
Keep in mind that won't help any of us you in the afterlife but it sure is funny in this one. It will be a waste of a good brain, like George Carlin. I wish God would show himself today so we can all go but that just isn't His will. It's what I continue to wish for though.
Keep in mind that won't help any of us you in the afterlife but it sure is funny in this one. It will be a waste of a good brain, like George Carlin. I wish God would show himself today so we can all go but that just isn't His will. It's what I continue to wish for though.
ReplyDeleteAren't you going against your god's will then?
Besides, the fact that he doesn't show himself is just one piece of evidence that your god doesn't exist; after all, he supposedly wants everyone to be saved, right? And his appearing to people in the bible stories never impinged on their free will (ie. adam and eve) so why not show himself or his angels now?
By the way, threats of an afterlife mean nothing to those who don't believe it. That's one of the weaknesses of Ray's approach too.
It seems, Dan, that you're not the only one interested in that conference. The writer of Evolution Blog is going to the creationist conference himself.
ReplyDeleteStay tuned to his blog; I'm sure he'll have some commentary on it later.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"I still believe in the Creation Model but how can I compete with that wit.
:D
Fair enough. I've not actually got anything against the creation model anyway: I realise that it is a concept based around the bible, not the natural world.
I'm more concerned with the attacks on the theory of evolution that come as a result of it, because the more I learn about the ToE, the more I am impressed with it's completeness and explanitory power.
I always love reading creationist literature. Dan writes this is "peer reviewed"...yeah, but the "journal" is a creation journal that only churches recognize. The "peer" was probably a snake handler!! Unfortunately, I am not a herpetologist, so I can't speak more intelligibly on the subject. However, when creationists get into microbes and molecular biology, an expert can quickly see where their thinking goes wrong. What I think is funny is that these people are trying to square everything with their holy book; and quasar gave an excellent link above, which is the point I was going to make...what good is this research when the authority of the holy book is questionable at best? "ICR" has already come to the conclusion, not based on the data, but on the "authority" of scriptures.
ReplyDeleteNow, if organisms cannot speciate, how does this explain the geological column? New organisms are constantly appearing in the fossil record. The Bible says they were all created simultaneously...so this raises a huge problem for the creationist. A flood doesn't solve it either; in fact it makes it worse. The whole creationist "theory" breaks down because the data is always distorted and other observations that don't fit are simply ignored. I have seen this time and again. they focus on one aspect and then conclude that this is consistent with creation; while neglecting the ten other observations that refute that claim (that already started out illogical).
It is impossible to reason with people like Dan because it is obvious when you talk to him that he doesn't have a grasp of the subject. He simply repeats all the common arguments that all the ministries repeat. For someone such as myself that actually does research and understands the topic, it is so easy to refute the creationist claims. I have tried repeatedly to explain much of this to Dan, but he is not interested in actually learning something; something that might threaten his deeply held beliefs. Dan, I can sympathize, I went through a crisis of faith myself. However, as I learned more and more biology, and then read creationist literature and started checking their sources and thinking about their reasoning, I recognized that it wasn't the evolutionary biologists who were lying, it was the creationists.
dan, all you have to do is look how the creationists are "testing" their "hypotheses". Usually, they are trying to falsify the "other" model. This is fine, but you have to have positive data, and alot of it, to verify your own. False dichotomies does not a theory make. In the snake study you posted, I am willing to bet that this 'hybridization' is common among organisms in nature; many hybrids are infertile and keep the species boundary intact. However, this is not always the case, and over many generations of hybrid breeding, new species can appear as a result of interspecies hybridization (within the same genus usually). This does not mean therefore that the creation model is a better explanation...how does this have anything to do with the divinity of Jesus or the Old Testament being correct? Many creation myths have been perpetuated. I'm betting that most talk about life being created as it is observed today-which is what the genesis writers did.
here is a wiki article on hydridization.
Reynolds,
ReplyDeleteso why not show himself or his angels now? I sure wish I could answer that one for you. He wants us to go to Him with trust and faith, He know better then us. I will trust Him to do the right thing.
I am glad that some atheists are going to Pittsburgh. I hope they are objective in their reports but hay we can only hope for such miracles now can we?
Quasar,
You upset me "I'm more concerned with the attacks on the theory of evolution that come as a result of it,"
I thought you were one of the rare ones to seek the truth? Are you one of the titanic engineers saying 'it wasn't our fault we built a great ship?'
I thought being challenged is a good thing in science hence the peer review. Are you one of those that want to rubber stamp anything to push a religion of evolution? I seek truth no matter what comes of it.
Someone asked me ""What will you do if a mission to Europa finds aquatic life beneath its surface of ice?"
I said I would eat my Bible. Then they went further and said "One can only imagine what the Christian community would do if SETI were to encounter a verifiable alien signal."
To which I replied I would eat eat their Bible
I understand not wanting to be wrong but I want to be wrong don't you? Don't you want one solution over the other, no matter what the results? If I am wrong no one goes to hell Yippee!! If it's proven that the Creation Model is correct then atheists have some humbling to do before it's too late. I want to get this over with. I want the tides to wash that line in the sand away. I will love to know truth.
Clos,
ReplyDelete"This does not mean therefore that the creation model is a better explanation...how does this have anything to do with the divinity of Jesus or the Old Testament being correct? Many creation myths have been perpetuated. I'm betting that most talk about life being created as it is observed today-which is what the genesis writers did."
You make a great point and I touched on it my last comment. Let's say that without any question in anyone's mind that the Creation Model is truth. Would you bow to Christ? Would that counter your disbelief? Would you then pose the question which god is the correct God? I guess what I am asking is, would you continue to question the validity of Christ?
so why not show himself or his angels now?
ReplyDeleteI sure wish I could answer that one for you.
I can answer it; he doesn't exist.
He wants us to go to Him with trust and faith, He know better then us. I will trust Him to do the right thing.
He's shown himself many times before, at least in the OT, why not now?
Blind trust in someone who can't be seen or heard and can only be inferrered from a book that people wrote?
I am glad that some atheists are going to Pittsburgh. I hope they are objective in their reports but hay we can only hope for such miracles now can we?
Kind of like we can only hope for "objectivity" from creationist groups when they take an oath where they promise to never change their minds about what they believe before they are allowed to join up and even start their research?
It's been mentioned both by me (check out Glen Morton's site and the book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers) and by other people on that post that the original people who came up with the old earth and who refuted flood geology used to be YECs until they got into the field and started looking at nature.
They changed their minds based on what they saw. How is that not objective in your view yet you've not said anything about the oaths the YECs have to take?
I understand not wanting to be wrong but I want to be wrong don't you? Don't you want one solution over the other, no matter what the results? If I am wrong no one goes to hell Yippee!! If it's proven that the Creation Model is correct then atheists have some humbling to do before it's too late. I want to get this over with. I want the tides to wash that line in the sand away. I will love to know truth.
What if creation is true, but it's not your god who did the creating? It's not enough that creation must be true, you have to make sure that you're worshipping the right creator.
How like the evangelical; just automatically assume that the so-called "two model" approach is either atheistic evolution or their god "creating" everything.
You once mentioned to someone:
If you are a Christian that accepts evolution what other compromises have you made about the Bible? Do you believe it to be the inspired, Inerrant, Infallible word of God? Or do you pick and choose what you feel is correct?
You realize that that's a question that geocentrists could justly ask you? The bible teaches a geocentric earth. There is no hint in the bible of the way the system really is. People took it for literal until science showed them to be wrong. Then it became metaphor.
Why not the same thing with Genesis?
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"You make a great point and I touched on it my last comment. Let's say that without any question in anyone's mind that the Creation Model is truth. Would you bow to Christ? Would that counter your disbelief? Would you then pose the question which god is the correct God? I guess what I am asking is, would you continue to question the validity of Christ?"
As reynold said, even if we determine that life is best explained by creationism; however we might determine this....how does this lead to identification of Jesus as the creator?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"They changed their minds based on what they saw."
You mean they believe mankind over God (Proverbs 3:5-6)
"Why not the same thing with Genesis?" Words have meanings in context. If Genesis says the earth was created in 6 days then I believe God. Furthermore, it's backed up in the Ten Commandments, Remember the 4th commandment? Keep the 7th day Holy because God created the. If it was a period of billions of years why keep the 7th day of the week Holy? You are spinning your own understanding into the Majesty of the Lord. I don't understand how everything was done but I sure do "trust" Him when He tells me something.
Exodus 20:11 "for six days hath Jehovah made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and resteth in the seventh day; therefore hath Jehovah blessed the Sabbath-day, and doth sanctify it."
Words and meanings in context. The universe was made in 6 days, literally.
Clos,
"how does this lead to identification of Jesus as the creator?"
That will just be another one of your hurdles that you will have to endure. I ran straight through without a problem, remember if one of your beliefs were wrong then so can the other, and that goes for me also. That line has been drawn in that sand. We need to work day and night non stop until one side proves themselves so we can save more or lose more. Either way something has to give, it will be a winner take all. God is the winner and He always will be I put my faith in Him.
Dan wrote:
ReplyDelete"You upset me "I'm more concerned with the attacks on the theory of evolution that come as a result of it,"
I thought you were one of the rare ones to seek the truth? Are you one of the titanic engineers saying 'it wasn't our fault we built a great ship?'"
I don't know about 'rare', but yes, truth is one of my most important values.
There is a difference between a challenge and an attack, though.
A challenge is backed with thoroughly documented and original evidence, published in a peer reviewed journal and the scientific method will give the challenge due consideration, modifying the theory being challenged accordingly.
An attack is generally backed with fanciful interpretations of old evidence, and in many cases misrepresents the theory to mislead the public. It is published in a different format, like a website or book, and generally dies quickly when subjected to the scientific method. This death isn't recognised widely however, because it was published in a public forum, and it will continue to be repeated by misinformed people long after the event.
Many of the articles coming from creationist organisations like the ICR, AiG and the DI consist of attacks, and these are the pick of them: the best of the best. Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameran, Jack Chick and many others produce material of far lower quality.
The few legitimate challenges to evolutionary theory that I've seen always seem to have a painful logic flaw.
As I said before: "the more I learn about the ToE, the more I am impressed with it's completeness and explanitory power." It is an incredibly interesting field, but Creationism deprives many people from seeing this.
As an example most of these are 'attacks', many of them are ancient, and all of them are still being repeated today, long after the scientific community gave them the attention they deserved.
Quasar,
ReplyDeletechallenge vs attack is a valid point. I understand more now. Whew :)
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"They changed their minds based on what they saw."
You mean they believe mankind over God (Proverbs 3:5-6)
No dan, that's not what I mean at all. Try reading the sources I gave.
You can't even stop yourself from twisting my own words; it's no wonder that you people are always getting caught misquoting third person sources. You'll twist the words of people whom you're talking to!
It's when they got out into the field and saw that NATURE itself contradicted what people(YECists) taught them, that made them change their mind.
So much for "keeping you honest". It sure doesn't look like it's working....
Dan, along with all the other stuff he said in his reply to me:
ReplyDeleteWords and meanings in context. The universe was made in 6 days, literally.
Same thing with geocentrism. The context of the bible teaches that.
Science showed it to be wrong. Just like the six day myth.
"Clos,
ReplyDelete"how does this lead to identification of Jesus as the creator?"
That will just be another one of your hurdles that you will have to endure. I ran straight through without a problem, remember if one of your beliefs were wrong then so can the other, and that goes for me also. That line has been drawn in that sand. We need to work day and night non stop until one side proves themselves so we can save more or lose more. Either way something has to give, it will be a winner take all. God is the winner and He always will be I put my faith in Him."
Which God? Aman Ra? Thor? Apollo? FSM? Baal? What if you chose the wrong god? Also, you act as though both sides are working to produce evidence for their claims. However, it is only the science side that actually tests their claims. The theist side uses nothing but half-baked pseudoscience, speculation and dogma. You can't provide evidence, because anything and everything could be evidence for your claims. Your god, by definition, could do anything he wants...he is not bound by your book. Therefore, you must provide a way to falsify "creation", otherwise the concept is meaningless. Also, how do you provide positive evidence for creation, when again, anything and everything could be potential evidence...i.e. this being could use any method to arrive at his ends he wanted. The concept is effectively meaningless.
Clos,
ReplyDeleteGenetics is an area where my knowledge is severely lacking. Can you recommend any good books that are for laymen but not too simplistic (a la Your Inner Fish)? Whether it specifically addresses creationist claims or just genetics in general, it doesn't matter. I just want to know.
"Therefore, you must provide a way to falsify 'creation', otherwise the concept is meaningless."
ReplyDeleteAmazing. I agree with the individual statement, of course. But this is coming from the guy who said that I was too hung up on falsification. It seems it's the standard he wants to use for ideas with which he doesn't agree.
Here is are couple of things to help you out Jason
ReplyDeleteGenetics: no friend of evolution
GENETICS AND GENESIS
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI am finding some good things, thanks for sparking my curiosity Jason.
ReplyDeleteGenetics, Science Against Evolution
CreationWiki: Genetics
pvblivs said,
ReplyDelete"Amazing. I agree with the individual statement, of course. But this is coming from the guy who said that I was too hung up on falsification. It seems it's the standard he wants to use for ideas with which he doesn't agree."
Of course, the difference is that I showed that evolution can be falsified, both in the micro sense and macro. What I maintain is that falsification is not what makes a scientific theory useful or widely held, it is POSITIVE data confirming the various hypotheses within. Amazing that you came away from our long discussion missing my central argument, pvblivs. The problem with creation that I was pointing out is that it is such a nebulous concept that it doesn't make any specific claims that would point to creation and therefore be falsifiable. Reproducing within a "kind" can be interpreted in so many different ways that it is useless. Organisms can reproduce after their "kind" whether they were created or evolved. The concept of irreducible complexity works whether an organism was created or evolved, thus even if we falsify IC, the organism could still have been created. The question "what should we expect to find if creation is true" can be absolutely ANYTHING because it depends on the fiat of the creator. To determine if there is a creation, you must verify a creator exists...and a book ain't gonna work.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I haven't been on for a few days. I would recommend the books "Coming to Life" by the Nobel laureate Christiane Nusslein-Volhard, and Sean B Carroll's "The Making of the Fittest" and "Endless forms most beautiful". Great books. Dan's books, not so great.
No, Clostridiophile, you didn't. You only decide that things would "falsify evolution" after you are sure (without relying on evolution) that they won't happen. Dan may as well be claiming that 7 days of perma-night would disprove god. And if he gave what he regarded as "positive data" for his position, you would reject it. The idea of evolution has always been kept "safe." No outcome will be considered a potential falsifier if it is thought that the outcome might happen in the event that evolution is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Clos!
ReplyDeletepvblivs said,
ReplyDelete"No, Clostridiophile, you didn't. You only decide that things would "falsify evolution" after you are sure (without relying on evolution) that they won't happen. Dan may as well be claiming that 7 days of perma-night would disprove god. And if he gave what he regarded as "positive data" for his position, you would reject it. The idea of evolution has always been kept "safe." No outcome will be considered a potential falsifier if it is thought that the outcome might happen in the event that evolution is wrong."
So if a human is found in the precambrian along with dinosaurs and sheep, this will not falsify evolution? I mean, the theory requires a good deal of time. I am not rehashing all this stuff out, you didn't respond to tests of natural selection that I presented either. Show that environments remain static, that variation is not heritable, provide evidence for a spontaneously created organism, pvblivs. We falsify individual claims when we produce testable hypotheses. See the Grant's studies over at my blog, they falsified a number of competing hypotheses by providing the positive data for beak size and thickness in relation to changing environment. You seem to misunderstand science, particularly historical sciences, pvblivs.
There can be no "positive data" for god because the concept of "god" is contrived...there are thousands of potential gods that have been concocted. Also, what if there is a real god, that no one has successfully identified-one that has not revealed itself? Again, if this being is not restricted (an assumption many religions have made) then absolutely any outcome would be consistent.
This is not the case with modern evolutionary theory. If we observed Lamarckian inheritance this would falsify the theory. You may grumble that we know this now after-the-fact, but this was not clear in Darwin's time. Also, who cares what we know now, if the evidence is completely pointing to a given explanation, how does this weaken the theory? Again, this is different from creation because it is not falsifiable....how would you falsify creation???? You can falsify evolution, and I am sorry if you don't accept the criterion that the scientific community offers for this in regard to evolution; take this up with a science journal. Publish your thoughts, pvblivs.
"Dan may as well be claiming that 7 days of perma-night would disprove god."
ReplyDeleteNo, but he and other YEC's do claim that the world was created in 7 literal days in a particular order. While we cannot falsify or test (at present) whether a god created our universe, we can falsify the notion that the universe and life was generated in a few days. Now, we still have the problem that creation is not falsifiable because this god, which can do anything, could simply have lied in "the book" and still created everything in 7 literal days with the appearance of billions of years down to the last detail. That is why we don't allow gods, ghosts, goblins or anything non-natural into the discussion. His individual claims have been falsified through the many efforts of scientists in multiple fields, but this falsification entailed POSITIVE DATA that taken together makes his interpretation so ridiculous as to be essentially ruled out. This is another way to look at evolution and falsification. There is so much data from all fields of biology, and observations in physics and geology, that confirm that Darwinian thinking is correct, this essentially falsifies alternative interpretations because of the strength of the data.
You like to talk about preconceptions, Dan. Note that each link you posted at the end there is evangelical christian. Whereas the talk origins site has christians, atheists, and non-denominationals, etc. working there.
ReplyDeleteWhich side do you think is more likely to be pushing an ideology?
In the meantime, some more about genetics:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/07/the_evolution_medicine_review.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#genetics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html
http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2006/02/evolution_wiki_1.php
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB (skim to CB100: Genetics)
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol21/1610_defining_evolution_12_30_1899.asp
(Look after Evolution after the discover of the gene)at that last link.
Ah, one more link I wanted to put in:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/6249_pr89_10182001__di_fails_aga_10_18_2001.asp