Presenting Proof of Creation is Possible

A non religious or Biblical presentation that gives proof Creation is both logical and reliable. This proof however is right before our eyes ever day.

I recently wrote an article commenting on a group of aggressive atheists who I feel were making much ado about nothing. Although many readers misunderstood the point I was making it inspired me to write this article based on the responses of that article.

Many of the comments to the aforementioned article turned into a Evolution vs Creation debate. Quite frankly I am quite tired of people making broad sweeping comments and standing behind words and accusations and not truly presenting any thought provoking line of reasoning. I am also very bored with professed evolutionists who boldly claim there is no proof of creation and go one step further by making proclamations that scientists don’t even make. “If you want to be stupid and believe in God” isn’t exactly an intelligent line of reasoning. I don’t think some one is stupid because I disagree with them.

So I am here to attempt to make a objective dialog of why I am convinced there is proof of Creation aside from the Biblical and religious beliefs shared by many but questioned by evolutionists and others. So for those who boldly claim there is no such proof then you may find this interesting.

First of all let us be clear that proof is evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. Obviously when it comes to the origin of the Earth and the living things on it we do not have a video history that shows exactly what happened.

Paramount in this discussion is a fundamental truth that no one can deny or argue. On a basic and rudimentary level regardless of what you accept as the origin of man you have a point in your conviction that you are accepting something that is unexplainable. Let us establish this point further.

There are 3 primary tenets to explain the origin of life on Earth. 1) Evolution. Life culminating or resulting from a chance convergence and then evolving through an irreversible natural selection. As time passes nature is to make things better, improve itself and more complicated life forms are to manifest themselves. 2) Superior life built a lower form of life on Earth. Not as wide spread of a belief. Nonetheless there are those who propose that a super intelligent “alien” life from our outer space made life here on Earth as their own “experiment” and are watching us. 3)Creation from a Creator. A being (God) of unequaled existence. One that has always existed, always will exist and is the source of all energy and intelligence. His design and power created all things. He made humans to have the ability to display the chief qualities that he personifies. Humans were given the capacity to understand or distinguish the difference between right and wrong.

18
Liked it
106 Responses to “Presenting Proof of Creation is Possible”
  1. JohnLocke Says...

    On March 5, 2008 at 12:38 am

    It’s quite funny you wrote all that stuff and have literally no understanding of the Scientific Method or the Theory of Evolution. Why proffess knowledge when you infact know nothing of the subject?

    1) Evolution isn’t the same as ‘chance’. You scrapyard analogy is false.

    2) Energy to Matter does not imply Life to Life.

    3) Survival of the fittest does not mean only the best will be around today. It means the best organism able to adapt to its environment survives.

    4) Even if all of the above points are valid (which they are not) you then have still proved nothing for creation as all it would be is a criticism of Evolution. To prove creation you have to make positive statements and describe positive experiments for creation.


  2. Liane Schmidt Says...

    On March 5, 2008 at 12:49 am

    I wonder if you are a teacher or if you have written many books already. You have a talent for delivering well articulated, meaningful articles. Nice work Andy-N!

    Best wishes.

    Sincerely,

    -Liane Schmidt.


  3. Anne Lyken-Garner Says...

    On March 5, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Andy, It is clear that you have put a lot of thought and research into this. I also have found it quite peculiar that many (not everyone) people who refute creation cite it as an opposition to the ‘good sense of science’, yet one of the fundamental theories of science is E=MC2.


  4. quiet voice Says...

    On April 29, 2008 at 9:52 pm

    …you go guy, I am no scientist nor
    am I able to argue for, or against
    evolution, but one thing I do
    believe, if something evolves
    from something else, as in your
    ape example, why would the apes
    still be here? Doesn’t that in
    itself leave a hole in the theory?
    Amazing conceptual writing, but
    remember, if an individual chooses
    not to believe something, you will
    not be successful in getting them
    to change their mind. More than
    likely, they dig in their heels,
    pardon me, their bare feet. :o )


  5. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 24, 2008 at 11:11 am

    Your assertion that evolution intends to explain the presence of life on this planet is incorrect. Evolution explains the speciation, diversity, and adaptation of life on our planet. You are speaking about abiogenesis, which is another matter entirely.

    Your assertion that Einstein’s energy equation implies anything about evolution whatsoever is incorrect. This is known as “false analogy”.

    Your assertion that evolution implies improvement is incorrect. Evolution implies adaptation.

    Your understanding of science is fundamentally flawed. You have shown nothing about creationism whatsoever. Arguing (poorly) again evolution does not imply that creationism is accurate.

    Read, think, and *then* write next time.


  6. Jeremy Says...

    On July 24, 2008 at 11:26 am

    you should change the name of your site to junkscienceray.com. that would be more apt.


  7. Anonymous Says...

    On July 24, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Someone tell me how science can explain our universe evolving out of NOTHING? You people are completely blinded by science. “If science can’t explain it, it must not exist.”


  8. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 24, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    The last post AGAIN misunderstands the premise of the article. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life, just the origin of species.

    Sad.


  9. Andy-N Says...

    On July 26, 2008 at 9:54 am

    For those of you who insist that you are scientists you know nothing of me or my background. And you can spin your words anyway you want and type it in an intellectual way but that doesn’t it make it right.

    For example Wrong Again, using the word adaptation to say that evolution does not mean improvement is semantics. Adapting is indeed for the purpose of improving or changing for the better! What else is the reason something adapts?

    And your Einstien theory is a false analogy is very presumptuous. For one the only people who say that are people who endorse evolution. Why Albert was not directly talking about the origin of life his theory of relativity is a universally excepted. It is a known fact that it proves that matter cannot result from nothing, it results from energy. How does this not relate to life and it’s origin?

    And who makes a ridiculous spin on what evolution is talking about? Why are we here and how did we get here is the fundamental reason Darwin started this theory. How does it not address life’s origin?

    And the point of the article is the proof of creation is seen by our actions. The fact we are talking about it proofs we were created. Through your attack of the article you still didn’t answer the questions it is asking. If we evolved why would we question the past? Why we be concerned about tomorrow? Even by your words, we and our surroundings are adapting so how we would have any control over that?

    Stop insulting people’s education when you don’t even know the years I have studied and the degrees I have. Whether you agree or not is your choice but that doesn’t make reality any different.


  10. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 26, 2008 at 10:28 pm

    Human interest in past, present, and future events would likely be more correctly studied in a theology or psychology context. To say that a psychological trait of our species implies the existence of your benevolent invisible friend is known as a “non-sequitur.”

    Equating adaptation with subjective concepts like “improvement” is fallacious. Science is a game of precision and semantics are fairly important when discussing complex topics such as these.

    As it does not relate in *any* way to the theory of evolution, I am hesitant to address your bastardization of special relativity. I will only say that your argument falls victim to a common fallacy known as “false premise” in that you assume that the universe, as we observe it, has a finite beginning. This premise, having not been established in any concrete fashion, holds no weight in this discussion. You are free to debate this in physics discussions, however, where such a hypothesis would be more apropos.

    Again, Charles Darwin was *not* attempting to explain the genesis of life, just the diversity and speciation of life.

    I have not insulted your education. I insulted your abilities. I know several highly educated idiots and several uneducated geniuses. People take from education what they can, not what they should. Your logic is flawed and your understanding of the scientific method is tragic.

    Oh and, by the way, either there is no god or god cares nothing for you and I. This, of course, is my opinion. However, it is an opinion borne out of repeated experiment and analysis of empirical evidence.


  11. Andy- N Says...

    On July 28, 2008 at 8:07 am

    Well once again all you have done is pontificate your personal beliefs and try to make it sound like it is based on science.

    Why you will deny that, who cares. I’m only interested in people who have a desire to examine all of reality not a contrived world of twisted and selected pieces of your distorted view of science and reality.

    Your ignoring our behavior or deciding it isn’t relevant is of your own choosing. The fact is our actions and desires contradict evolution plain and simple. There are many scientists who agree with that and endorse it.

    It is also why evolution is still and always will be called just a theory.

    I suppose you also dispute the reports that Darwin himself recanted his original thoughts?

    Another fallicy I’m sure in your eyes.

    Well believe what you wish cromagnon man.

    Meanwhile back in reality we will examine what is actually happening.


  12. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 28, 2008 at 10:15 am

    To better understand the myth of Darwin’s recantation, please read http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html. In fact, this entire site may be of benefit to you.

    Name one scientist who asserts that human psychology contradicts the theory of evolution. You cannot.

    Your use of the work “theory” further demonstrates that you do not understand what the term means in the context of scientific discourse.

    Whether or not one chooses to believe in god is irrelevant to the scientific exploration of evolution. The downfall of your lot will be the unwavering faith that makes you think the two ideas are mutually exclusive. They are not.


  13. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 28, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    I must apologize at this juncture. Based on the name and premise of this website I assumed that this would be a discussion of science as opposed to faith. I was mistaken. It is unfair of me to introduce experiment and study into what is obviously a matter of great faith to you. You are seeking to bolster your faith with a discipline of intellectual merit, for which you obviously have great respect (or you would simply be content in your faith alone). For your intent I must grant you some accommodation. It is noble in intent, but fatally flawed on arrival, unfortunately. Faith and science have a complex relationship. Science has the fortunate position of being able to make certain (limited, in some cases) statements about faith, but the reverse situation is not true.

    In the spirit of this website, though, I will leave you this nugget on which to ruminate: Human interest and actions in the past, present, and future actually speak in favor of the theory of evolution rather than against it. For instance, when a child learns that touching a hot object causes pain and the child subsequently decides to avoid this behavior in the future, that child has increased his likelihood of survival and corresponding likelihood of passing on his genetic material. Also, when a person plans to find food the next day (future planning) in order to continue to survive, the same likelihood increases.

    As I have illustrated, human examination of the past and planning for the future are directly correlated to the probability that that individuals’ genes will be successfully passed to the next generation. This is known as “natural selection” and is directly related to the larger theory of evolution.

    Again, I apologize for any perceived slight, but I am personally and professionally insulted when I see bad science, or subjective opinion masquerading as science, put forth in order to achieve a predetermined result.

    If ,after reading this thread and your posting again, you still feel that your ideas are sound and hold to scientific principles, perhaps you should submit your theory to scientific journals for peer review and comment. Science is largely based on the work and evaluation of other scientists and this is the best, time-tested method of vetting good ideas versus those that are, say, less than good.


  14. Andy-N Says...

    On July 30, 2008 at 3:38 am

    The overall point of the article is regardless of what you profess to believe at some point you have to except an unexplainable fact.

    Not all science is in a lab or a text book. Sometimes we need to examine what is actually happening in life. You didn’t define science.

    You sound like a classical pianist saying he is insulted by Rock music because that isn’t music. You in my opinion are limiting science to your opinion of what it should be. Who are you? I guess Newton and the apple isn’t good enough for you?

    There were people long before you who have tried to make equations and conclusions based on your selective reasoning. But that doesn’t change the way we act or think. I chose to take an observation and make a point. I wasn’t targeting anybody. You don’t agree, you don’t agree.

    The fact is if you believe in evolution you to have to except many things based on your feeling and reasoning and not based on any tangible fact. So don’t try and pretend otherwise.


  15. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 30, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Well, it sounds as if you are still convinced that your hypothesis holds some scientific merit. You should submit your ideas and “research” (hahaha) to biology/psychology journals for peer review to see if the scientific community shares your unique views on the nature of science.

    Good luck with that.

    Keep fighting the good fight. Don’t let the likelihood that the scientific community, as a whole, sees you as an incoherent, babbling idiot deter you from your struggle.


  16. MyOverflow Says...

    On August 1, 2008 at 4:57 am

    How long ago do you believe the universe was created? If it’s less than (approx.) 15 billion years ago, watch this:
    Why Young Earth Creationist Must Deny Gravity:
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5975FF2FEECF90D3


  17. MyOverflow Says...

    On August 1, 2008 at 5:03 am

    Also, visit the following sites:
    http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t
    http://www.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Kabane52
    http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodo
    http://www.youtube.com/user/Desertphile
    http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa
    http://www.youtube.com/user/CapnOrdinary
    http://www.youtube.com/user/23andMe
    http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54
    http://www.youtube.com/user/ProfMTH
    http://www.youtube.com/user/BonoboBill
    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

    Actually LEARN rather than assume you know what you’re talking about. Plus, the bottom link shows an entire site filled with refuted claims, like yours, against evolution.

    One more thing, you’re setting up a false dichotomy. You fail to realize that, even if evolution were proven wrong, that wouldn’t prove creationism. That’s like saying, between two options: 2+2=5 or 2+2=17, if 2+2=5 is wrong, 2+2=17 is right. WRONG!

    I love how you use a lot of Kent Hovind’s stuff, all of which are REFUTED AND SHOWN TO BE WRONG.


  18. Andy-N Says...

    On August 4, 2008 at 5:29 am

    Again you are missing my point.

    And I never assume anything. Just because I choose to believe different research than those of you here who put faith in doesn’t mean I am just throwing stuff out there.

    And I never said that the fallicy of evolution was proof of creation. I am saying that our natural actions, our behavior and our questions of life support creation and not evolution.

    How is that wrong? Stop telling me it is refuted and tell me how and why?

    Obviously the universe is billions of years old. Even people like myself who believe the Genesis account understand that it is only speaking about the events of putting organized life on an already existing planet. Also the “days” of Genesis are not 24 hour days. In the beginning is not refering to the universe or even the Earth itself. So you are the one assuming.

    You and the others think I’m just another religious fanatic and are make arguments against that. Neither of you have addressed the two main points of the article.


  19. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 4, 2008 at 6:25 am

    1.) There is ZERO peer-reviewed research that supports any of your conclusions. You are fabricating any notion of supporting experiment.
    2.) There is nothing to refute. As you have not made any falsifiable claims about “natural actions” and our “behavior”, the notion of refuting such is absurd. Simply stating that “human behavior supports creation” does not make it so. You cannot invoke (your obviously flawed notion of) “common sense” or “popular belief” to support your claims. You must state a hypotheses, design an experiment, observe the results, and *then* draw your conclusions. You started with a conclusion. That is incorrect and certainly not science.

    I really want to help you understand. It is unkind to allow people to live in ignorance. Perhaps an analogy will help you:

    Please refute my claim that all humanity was created by a giant clump of flying spaghetti (with meatballs). It is common sense that spaghetti is our creator given our human interest in pasta and other carbohydrate-based foodstuffs. Man would not eat pasta today if we had not been created by such a creature, so what I am saying MUST be true.

    Please refute my assertion.

    I hope you better understand that you *cannot* refute such an assertion, as it is both absurd and stated in a non-falsifiable fashion. I have stated no facts in my assertion and there is no way to test any of my conclusions.

    PLEASE tell me you understand.


  20. Andy-N Says...

    On August 5, 2008 at 3:48 am

    I am the ignorant one? You’re analogy is born out of frustration and desperation.

    You can’t refute it because it is reality not common sense. It is or is it not true that humans desire to know there past and there future? What experiment do you need to prove that?

    And you couldn’t be more wrong with your insistance of how science must work. There is numerous science reseach that takes an established fact and works backword to explain how it comes to be fact.

    And your pasta illustration is abismal. It has no relevence whatsoever. Although that theory is just as likely as life forming out of organic soup.

    Again get off your cave man soap box and explain then why humans want the knowledge of something that is etched in stone?

    And by the way your juvenile analogy actual supports the point I was making. Not only did man desire food of the nature but he learned and reasoned how to make it reality.

    The weak animal kingdom adaptation garbage is not even close to that. Animals do not adapt because of reason and intelligence.

    Also consider this. Humans have cell regeneration. Every 7 years your cells replace themselves. But this process unexpicably stops thus we grow old and die. If we are adapting or genetically improving how does this happen?

    Oh that’s right this is known fact so you don’t have to refute it.


  21. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 5, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    I do not assert that humans are uninterested in the past and future. YOU claim that this fact disproves evolutionary theory. Please explain how you take this fact and derive this conclusion.

    Evolutionary theory says nothing about “organic soup”. Please read something, for pete’s sake.

    The spaghetti-monster analogy is, in fact, much weaker than evolutionary theory in that there are *reams* of research data that support evolution. Islam, the spaghetti monster, and christianity are all playing in the same realm of verifiability. It is called faith for a reason.

    What does stone, and the etchings thereon, have to do with anything we are discussing?

    Animals do not adapt due to reason and intelligence? Are you freaking serious? Why did mankind invent air conditioning? Cars? Agriculture? Space travel? What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

    Are you asserting that evolution should create beings that live forever? Cell meiosis does not stop as age progresses, but the copies (or child cells) retain facets of the age of the parents. The copies get worse and worse. If cell division/replication stopped as age progressed then old people would have no bloody skin, you idiot. Your “fact” is complete crap.

    You confuse “observation” with “fact”. Observing gravity in action and then setting out to show how gravity works is science. Looking at modern man and then setting out to prove the creation myth is not.

    You are making a very bad showing for your creationist friends. I am guessing that you model yourself after “Doctor” Kent Hovind, rapist of the scientific method.

    I feel dumber for having even engaged in this conversation with you. PLEASE submit your writings to scientific journals for review and analysis. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.


  22. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 5, 2008 at 4:17 pm

    In the above I should have used the term “mitosis” rather than “meiosis”. My mistake.

    However, as you have NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL EITHER OF THEM MEAN, my error is mostly irrelevant.


  23. Andy-N Says...

    On August 6, 2008 at 4:18 am

    I never heard of Hovind nor do I care. I have no reason nor a desire to model myself after someone who puts their shoes on just like I do.

    I have an circle of friends who are medical doctors, a marine biologist and a physicist. I work with one of them in fact and play in a band with another. All of which agree that the point is valid. They also know many colleagues who do not endorse evolution. And they also have friends as do I who believe in evolution.

    Some people believe that a Creator started evolution. Others reject evolution but do not believe in God. But none of them live in a pompous bubble like you do and think they have digested everything on the subject. Nor do they except everything that is said in the name of science.

    My point, that you continue to miss, is that human behavior supports the idea of creation. Be it by God or another intelligent designer superior to life on Earth.

    You obviously have a anti religious agenda up your butt and keep talking in circles.

    You also do not know the definition of the word faith. Faith is not a wish it is the assured expectation of things hoped for.

    You also glossed right over the point on mitosis. Why is it that many scientists and doctors believe that this process should continue and there is no scientific reason that it stops as we age? So yes many in the field do believe that humans should have the capacity to live forever.

    Looking at another aspect of that. Why would a tree that is inferior to humans live a thousand years compared to a humans 80 years? Not exactly adaptation at its best is it?

    And genius observation of a fact makes your observation a fact. Maybe my conlusion from the facts are not accurate but that is entirely different point.

    So make fun of me all you want. It is meaningless and pointless. No one is impressed with your “I’m smarter than you” argument.

    If you are so confident of evolution and its science why don’t aren’t writing for a science publication? I’m sure the sector of scientists who except evolution could use your expertise. I mean afterall sounds like you have the proof to share.


  24. Wrong Again - and for the last time Says...

    On August 6, 2008 at 7:01 am

    Hi!

    If possible, I would like to know the names of your medical doctor friends who agree with your debunking of evolution. I would *never* want to be subject to these persons’ care. Ignoring the last century of scientific advancement is not the hallmark of a competent doctor.

    I do not need to publish as I rely on much more skilled individuals than myself to apply methods I know and trust to the problem and draw conclusions. All accepted published scientific literature is in harmony with my worldview. You are a maverick, however. I would estimate that a (severe) minority, if any at all, biologists would agree with your ridiculous assertions.

    The ideas I am expressing are already published in peer-reviewed, respected scientific and medical journals. They have, largely, emerged from the vetting process of open publication victorious.

    Can you get your “hypothesis” published? Is there any parallel research going on in the same vein as your fantastic notions?

    If the large majority of the scientific community disagrees with your conclusions, why would you assume that your were correct and everyone else’s was not?

    “The only common factor in all your dissatisfying relationships is YOU.” – Unknown


  25. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 6, 2008 at 8:45 am

    I may have discovered a major root of your problem. You presume to be “superior” somehow to things like trees, when trees have obvious adaptive advantages in many respects. Plant life certainly predates humans, and mammals for that matter, by a great deal of time. Why do you presume to call plants “inferior?” Wouldn’t the fact that some plants can live for thousands of years make them environmentally superior to us?

    Why does any one living being need to be either superior or inferior in relation to another? Such an assumption severely cripples your worldview. Cacti are much more adapted to life in the desert than housecats are, but would you call them “superior?”

    This was mentioned earlier in this conversation but you blew it off as “semantics.” You really should try to stop applying arbitrary labels to objects absent some objective evaluation.

    Objectivity is central to good science. Your lack thereof is a major source of your misunderstandings.


  26. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 7, 2008 at 4:18 am

    You’re kidding right? I am not sure what your definition of superior and inferior are but it isn’t an insult to plant life to consider them inferior when compared to human beings. And by the what came first is meaningless. There were dinosaurs before also so what. If you were going to pick a life form to lead life on this planet into the future are you going to pick a sequioa tree then because it is as intelligent us you?

    That is like saying since a $5 bill and $100 are both paper and both currency that is makes them of equal value. Now granted they only have an assigned value meaning the actual paper isn’t worth much of anything, however it is a comparitive value nonetheless. And who cares how cats and cacti compare? Neither of them have the intellect of man end of story.

    So considering human beings can think, reason, discern between right and wrong, communicate on the highest level, and so on what is your point?

    And by the way my bioligist friend is an atheist however he considers this subject a valid point.

    Also “The ideas I am expressing are already published in peer-reviewed, respected scientific and medical journals. They have, largely, emerged from the vetting process of open publication victorious.”

    You haven’t expressed anything. You have referenced a few standard and general evolutionary montra’s none of which explains why humans continue to search their identity and their past. And also are concerned with a future that based on natural selection we should be well adapted to by then and shouldn’t worry.

    And again you keep trying to raise your argument by belittling me. You know nothing about me. You don’t know what I do or who respects what I do. You don’t know what education I have or what my background is. You arrogantly assume because I don’t concede to you than I must be dumb.

    You also grossly exaggerate the percentage of science related people who believe evolution in the context that you do. And no I am not suggeting that it is overwhelmingly slanted the other way. In fact a large percentage of people are neutral on the matter.

    Again my opinion is based facts and yes my conclusion of what those facts mean may be wrong. But in my opinion human activity and behavior is not consistent with natural selection.

    And the second point that NO ONE can refute is regardless of what your opinion or belief is you must except facts that are impossible to prove or explain.

    Why you have a problem understanding those 2 points just seems like you have another agenda other than honest discussions.

    You have convinced yourself that you are objective when the whole time you assume that I am a defender of religion and a basher of evolution. Well you objectivity is a joke.

    I am not under the misunderstanding of anything about the subject. Again you assume because I don’t agree with your dogma that I don’t read and understand the tons of published information. The fact is it is only after years of study that this makes more sense to me. And that doesn’t mean that I have stopped working and studying either.


  27. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 7, 2008 at 7:03 am

    Epic Intellectual Fail


  28. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 7, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll. However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory. This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

    Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm


  29. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Claim CA612:
    Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 4.
    Response:

    1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

    2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

    A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay. Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples’ set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., ICR 2000). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.


  30. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 8, 2008 at 4:14 am

    Okay again you dance around the point.

    1) you keep talking about creationists as the only people who do not believe in evolution. Thanks because that is what you want to believe. A 2000 gallop poll found 53% of people have no specific belief on the matter. They are unsure or not convince of anything. Also not all people who believe evolution believe it in the same way you do.

    2) As I stated before you don’t know what faith means based on your comments on it.

    3)”Because evolution has never been observed, the theory of evolution requires as much faith as creationism does”

    This is not what I said. I have never denied that there are proven observations seen in nature that some may conclude supports evolution. Those things are fact. What I said is also a fact. There are things that you must except that the evidence does not support or prove in anyway.

    4)And frankly anyone who compares excepting a Creator with Elvis sightings or Bigfoot is a pompous ass. And by definition there are UFO’s you moron. People’s explaination of them may be a little bizarre but that’s another story.

    5) And as I have stated before but you have selective memory of is many people who reject evolution do not believe in God either you arrogant baffoon. But no one can argue that there is evidence of intelligent design. The origin of which is entirely different point. Which leads to #6

    6) People like you don’t look at “the” evidence you select what evidence you want to except. Yes there is compelling evidence that like I said before could reasonably be explained by evolution. But only a crackhead would ignore the serious questions and scientific quandaries that are also numerous. Now I’m not saying that you cannot express your belief that the evidence out ways the questions but don’t sell me your fantasy world that there is no point of excepting the unexplainable and the unproven.

    Again after all things considered up to this point in my life I believe that our life and the absolute detailed complexity of life on this planet and the order of the universe supports to a creator. Which “for me” also explains the source of energy that could result in matter.

    But I am openly telling you that I cannot prove to you how a God could exist and always have existed. But that is my concern not yours. But my personal belief and faith have nothing to do with the point I was making in the first place.

    Also you have a lot of audacity to think you know anything about my faith. I find 99.9% of religions and religious people to be frauds and do not represent the Bible even a little bit. So the chances are that what you think you know about the Bible and it’s account of creation is based on what you have heard from ignorant fools who don’t Genesis from there underwear. But again that is a totally seperate issue than this article.

    You continue to try and make it evolution verses God but that is not what I was talking about.

    I have enjoyed our dialog but what is the point if you keep arguing against things I am not saying? Stop comparing me to the repulsive Bible thumpers and self righteous freaks. And remove yourself from trusting solely in the “I’m smarter than you” community.


  31. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 8, 2008 at 7:27 am

    I do not care what the unwashed masses believe about science. You weasels believed that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth not too long ago, too. You even persecuted and killed those that disagreed. The popularity of an idea does not speak to the merits of that idea.

    I know what faith means. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith Simple enough, eh?

    I believe (broadly) in the theory of evolution and have not had to accept anything outside the realm of experiment, empirical evidence, and observation. Again you are confusing science and religion.

    Comparing god to Elvis is unfair. We *know* that Elvis once existed.

    If there is evidence for intelligent design, why can you not provide anything beyond arguments from incredulity and appeals to “common sense” rather than actual experiment? Why is there zero published, accepted scientific literature on the subject?

    We are nearly in agreement in one regard. I find 100% of religious people and religions to be fraudulent or stupid. It’s a good thing you are so authoritative on the Genesis myth. That’ll really help you in scientific discussions such as this.

    And I *am* smarter than you. Your grammar and diction is laughable. Your critical thinking is rubbish. Your science is, well, anything but science. You are one of the ignorant, plebeians begging for the rod of a true meritocracy. You are a walking, talking advertisement for birth control and against home-schooling. You are one of the primary reasons why humanity may not survive in this complex universe. You bring us ALL down.


  32. Andy-N Says...

    On August 8, 2008 at 7:30 pm

    You people? Again you pull points out of you butt. The flat Earth? That was the so called self made brainiacs of those days. Pompous, arrogant butt munchers like you. They were your people. They were people who also ignored that the Bible plainly stated the Earth is round.

    Another thing I would stack my SAT scores, my IQ, my degrees next to yours any day you fraud.

    I tyoe these things at work at my lunch and don’t edit them so who cares if my typing is abismal and I don’t edot my grammar? Only a bottom dwelling momma’s boy like you would care about that.

    And for the last time you keep talking about religion. Also like I have pointed out at nauseum this article is just about the 2 things I have stated. JUst for you I will gladly post another article that provides excpeted facts that many scientist believe is evidence of intelligent design. Not about God but about design. Of course you won’t get the point.

    And who said I claimed to be an authority on Genesis? No that is another tactic used by jack – offs like you who can’t admit they have no clue what the Genesis account is about. And who also are oblivious of the fact that the accurate understanding of Genesis is in harmony with known science.

    That is the difference between you and me. I have studied all sides of arguement and continue to do so. You take anything serious that doesn’t support your preconceived conclusion.

    You’re an insecure tool who needs to quote rhetoric to pump your worthless ego.

    Funny thing is I have gotten about a 75 emails from people reading our discussion and they think your a joke. And 17 of them are people who believe in evolution. And those people while they did not agree they said they understood the point.

    And finally have you noticed the state of mankind? At its present course it is impossible to survive. It doesn’t need my help to bring it down to your level.


  33. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    You have proven nothing. You only stated what you believe. Science is not about what you, or 75 (yeah right) of your friends believe. Science is about questioning, testing, observing, and questioning again.

    There is ZERO scientific evidence supporting the creation myth or “intelligent design.” ZERO. None. Nada.

    I also like how you got my last posting removed. Gonna do that again? Silencing opposition in an attempt to backdoor your faith into science books is not an unusual tactic for zealots.

    You are wrong. Every reputable scientific publication out there supports the theory of evolution. Numerous other sciences rest on the back of evolution. You are just wrong.


  34. Andy-N Says...

    On August 11, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    I did not see your “last” post but I’m sure it was riveting.

    My reference to the emails I got are irrelevent anyway I don’t even know why I brought that up.

    Hey I just got some horrible news about my father’s health so I am totally in another frame of mind.

    Thanks for the dialog but I will be off here for a few days or so.

    I got your overall message even if I don’t agree.

    I’ll put up another article in the near future with the scientists who endorse intelligent design. Then we can start on a new angle.

    Until then good luck.


  35. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 12, 2008 at 12:48 am

    Don’t need luck, got *science*.

    Not surprised to see your hasty departure, though. Rough waters in these parts.


  36. Andy-N Says...

    On August 18, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Rough waters?

    You haven’t said anything but quote the standard montra.

    You say my point is stupid, not science, or whatever negative you can think of but you haven’t shown through your vast knowledge of science why humans have reasoning and questions about their past and future. No matter how many times you say it is stupid doesn’t prove how that occurs through natural selection.

    Oh that is pretty sad that you would stoop to the level of implying I was making up an illness about my father. I mean come on. Insult me all you want but don’t be that callous.


  37. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 18, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Homo Sapien developed reason and self-examination from natural selection. Those that exhibited these traits fared better in our environment than those who did not. Over time, the statistical allotment of these traits increased among the population as a whole (some more than others, it seems).

    Do you understand evolutionary theory at all?

    I provided the example of people learning from painful mistakes and people planning food gathering in advance to demonstrate this point.

    What is “montra?”


  38. Andy-N Says...

    On August 19, 2008 at 12:15 am

    Mantra. Sorry I didn’t realize I mispelled it.

    Yes I understand the evolutionary theory. That is why I am asking you to explain your point. Again you are just making a statement that this intuitive intellect came from natural selection. I am asking you to explain scientifically how this occured since according to you it is so plain and simple.

    Saying these traits developed over time doesn’t explain anything. Also how do you prove that man didn’t always have that ability? You say it developed. That implies that man did not previously have that kind of intellect. Prove it. Don’t just say it prove it.

    You see this is my point that you keep dancing around. People like you who insist that science is the only road that leads to answer expect everyone else to “prove” their view but you don’t have the same standard for yourself.

    So put your ridicule and condescending bull crap aside and prove that thousands of years ago humans did not have the same capacity they do now. You stated that Homo Sapiens “developed” reason and self-examination. That sounds like you have proof that Homo Sapiens didn’t have those traits from their start. Prove it. And if you prove that then scientifically prove that man aquired these traits and abilities through natural selection.

    Your example isn’tproof of anything. For it to be relevant you first have to prove that man didn’t already possess the understanding that they needed food in the first place. What painful mistakes were humans making over food gathering? It is easy to type those words but provide one shred of tangible evidence that people didn’t always gather food in the manner in which they gather it today? And doing it faster by machines doesn’t change the fact that the farming principle as remained unchanged.

    And what humans didn’t fare better? Prove that those people have ever existed. They’ve been searching for the missing link for years and have found and proved nothing. So do you have this proof in your closet or something?

    I do appreciate you checking back though.


  39. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 19, 2008 at 10:48 am

    The existence of more rudimentary forms of what you call “intellect” speak to the gradual development of our current psychology. Tigers are known to bury food in the ground in preparation for times of scarcity and nearly all mammals have the capability to learn from past mistakes and take corrective action in the future.

    As demonstrated by anthropology, the progression of man’s learning and manipulation of our environment speaks as evidence in support of an evolution in our intellectual capabilities. The advent of agrarian societies, for instance.

    You may be mistaken in believing that there is going to be a silver bullet that proves or disproves a given scientific theory. Science is based on the accumulation of evidence and study, not on solitary experiements. The vast accumulation of evidence testifies to the accuracy of the theory of evolution. There will undoubtedly be refinements in the theory and aspects which are later found to to be less compelling, requiring revision of specifics, but the overall theory has held firm under all scrutiny. Science is not about proving anything. Science takes observations and subjects them to tests in order to evaluate specific components of a larger answer. Nothing is ever “proven” in science, but vast accumulation of evidence tend to make decisions about the proper direction, at least, much simpler. The theory of evolution serves as the basis for numerous proven sciences and methods like pharmacology, cloning, gene therapy and others. These things could not exist were it not for certain fundamantal truths contained in evolutionary theory. The evidence in support of the theory continue to mount while there is not one shred of evidence in support of a sudden, cataclysmic creation.

    I suppose you *could* argue that all evidence in support of evolution is circumstantial, and this might be accurate to say. But when confronted with hundreds of thousands of pieces of circumstantial evidence in support of an idea and zero evidence, circumstantial or not, against that idea, it is only logical, in the scientific paradigm, to decide in favor.

    When I present evidence and study, you have a tendency to write them off as “mantra” (or “montra” in come cases). I have no choice but to inform you of your ignorance regarding creationists’ “missing link” argument.

    ########## SNIP from talkorigins

    1. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.

    Intermediate fossils include

    * Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee’s, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
    * Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
    * Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
    * Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
    * A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was “morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans” (White et al. 2003, 742).
    * A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

    And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).

    2. Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).

    3. There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
    * Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
    * The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
    * A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
    * Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003).

    ########## END SNIP from talkorigins

    Mankind did not develop our current intellectual capacity “thousands” of years ago. Your mental concept of the timelines involved is incredibly erroneous and underestimated. This probably contributes to your failure to grasp the concept as a whole.

    A question from you:

    “It is easy to type those words but provide one shred of tangible evidence that people didn’t always gather food in the manner in which they gather it today?”

    Okay. Five thousand years ago, men did not go to grocery stores to collect food. This aspect of our environment has changed signifigantly. Men with money fare much better than men with no money today. This change in environmental advantages has created numerous changes in human psysiology and psychology. Obseity, heart disease, and cancer are more prevalent than ever before in recorded history, possibly attibuted to the increasingly synthetic nature of our nourishment. Women do not necessarily search for mates with more physical prowess anymore, as this is not a good indicator of that mate’s capability to provide anymore. A good job, nice car, and good home would be more likely to draw a mate in today’s world that an ability to run very fast.

    Look, I know you do not believe in evolution. Your faith prevents you from doing so and that is fine, but please do not mask your faith and spirituality as science. Religion has no place in the hallowed halls of science, and vice-versa.


  40. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 19, 2008 at 11:33 pm

    Let me say that not disrespecting your comments up to now this post is your best work. Seriously. Your point is what I have been trying to say. We are not dealing with absolutes here. And up until now you have been speaking standard speak like in a mantra fashion.

    Now this may surprise you, well actually you will probably say I am full of it but I have long considered all that you have mentioned and I also have spent my lifetime in study of these things.

    My reply to you would be that one these “reasonable” fact finding endeavors do no consider all the variables involved.

    For example just because they did not have grocery stores thousans of years ago doesn’t automatically mean they were crude and less intelligent. Or any different then you and I. Technological advancement is not a measure of the make-up of human capacity. Again your points imply that because man did not have the currency and factories that they did not go about taking care of themselves in the same intelligent fashion they do today.

    And please stop linking me with creationist. I do not believe the Earth and life on it was created in 6 24 hr days.

    My point about the missing link though is that the findings of which you mentioned and others you did not, do not show anything new. They do not provide evidence that people were any different than they have ever been. Now some have concluded that it “may” prove that. And if you are one of those people I respect that but as I stated from the start regardless of what you presently except there are uncertainties and conclusions that we cannot explain at present.

    And your 5,000 years ago there were no grocery stores can also imply other things. The problem is your fixation on pseudo christianity and it’s inaccurate rendering of creation has influenced you to not even consider other explanations of why there were no grocery stores then.

    Not to mention we don’t have a clue of all the details of what happened 5,000 years ago concerning day to day life. I mean think about it if you were walking along in a forest and you found an abandoned cabin and in that cabin you found 4 Frank Sinatra albums and empty cans of tuna fish how much can you really learn from that? Does it mean the occupants liked Sinatra? Maybe. Or maybe someone else who visited them brought the albums and forgot them when they left. And maybe they hate tuna but it was all they could afford. I mean obviously this is a light example but I think you get the point.

    If you are putting a 10,000 piece puzzle together with 500 pieces you have an awful lot of possibilities of what the puzzle can be and it is very pompous to insist there is only 2 ways to figure that out.

    And yes I do believe there is a creator but religion has nothing to do with anything I have stated other than the fact that I have been man enough to clearly state I cannot prove how a unique powerful being can exist and always have existed. Nonetheless I am not talking about religion.

    And your insistance on defining what is and what isn’t science is a tired point.

    As you mentioned in an earlier post many people scoff at the of spaceships and little green men. (which I don’t personally believe either) However there are thousands of people with science degrees and high IQ’s who claim to have scientific evidence of such things. They claim to have pictures too. So merely hiding behind the “I’m a scientist doesn’t mean anything more than someone saying I’m a spiritual person”. Who cares?

    We’re supposed to be talking about information not labels.


  41. Andy-N Says...

    On August 19, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    I forgot to make another point in response to your 5,000 years ago comment.

    Did you ever consider that perhaps man was more in his earlier years of existence than you want to believe? And that “learning” his way to make things easier was a sign of lack of experience and not a lack of intelligence? Why is that not worth investigating?

    Also health and money actually contradict the “adaptation” argument. Why are we confronted with more disease Mr Science? Why have we not adapted to the “changes” and become stronger in fighting disease? And money? Is that really an advancement? An arbitrary contrived system of currency? Money only has value because we give it value. The fact that we opress some and reward others also doesn’t seem to support progress does it?

    By the way I am asking you to explain, I am not trying to be a wise guy. If I am as stupid as you suggest than enlighten me. Seriously I am not so stubborn and arrogant that I can’t be taught.


  42. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 20, 2008 at 8:03 am

    As to your first question regarding experience versus intelligence: I fail to understand the pertinence of the question in this venue.

    Again you apply subjective terms like “advancement” in a forum where “adaptation” would be more precise. You are assuming that human evolution takes place in a vacuum, which it does not. Our environment is constantly in a state of flux, as well. This changing environment *drives* the requirement for our adaptation. Your question has been explored already in the study of bacteria and antibiotics. If antibiotics are effective you might wonder why all harmful bacteria have not been eradicated, but we have several cases of bacteria adapting to antibiotic exposure, developing tolerance/immunity, and then passing that trait throughout subsequent surviving generations via natural selection.

    The concept of money was just an illustration of the changing nature of our environment and the survival requirements thereof. No value judgment there, just painting a picture. I am not labeling money as more “advanced” than hunting/gathering, just very *different* and requiring adaptation.

    And, yes, the information I provided about your “missing link” does show a great deal about the physiology/psychology of our ancestors. Paleontology and anthropology also reach similar conclusions. This is what I am trying to relate to you: When several disparate disciplines, using the same method (science), reach similar conclusions, then it can be reasonably concluded that there are correlative truths therein. THIS IS SCIENCE.

    Science can be tested. Creationism cannot be tested and is thus not science. I do not like people sullying my profession with nonsense that does not belong.


  43. Andy-N Says...

    On August 21, 2008 at 12:00 am

    Intelligence verses experience does apply. The point is that just because you get better at something doesn’t mean you adapted. Learning is not evolution. So your picture of how change occurred with environment doesn’t mean that people were any different before the “changes”. In a somewhat similiar way are you any different in make up as a human at 5 years old than you are at 35? You certainly have changed and adapted to the changes of your life though.

    You totally missed my point about the money.

    And I am quite familiar about the studies concerning disease and bacteria etc. I understand that medicine has to continued to be updated and the other aspects. The question though is why isn’t the human body staying ahead of the bacteria?

    And the information on the missing link is well and good assuming that you believe the “conclusion” that they found what they say they found. There are plenty of non creatinist scientists who debate those findings are what they say.

    Again with the creationism bull. The Biblical account of creation is not the same as the garbage the creationists put otu there. But that is another lenghty discussion.

    And yes science in it’s purest form can be tested. My point was that just because you insist something is scientific it doesn’t make it science. And there are valid studies that cannot be tested to the point of clarity. For example there are legitimate scientists who are certain the Sun is going to blow up. Has that been proven? Can that be tested? There are scientists who insist we are not experiencing global warming also. Any one clearly proving what we are experiencing beyond a doubt?

    So if you are one that thinks the Sun is not going to blow up then are the scientists who do sullying your profession?

    For a person who appears to be intelligent why is it so hard to comprehend that the same incomplete evidence needs to be examined from more than one direction.

    Something I presume based on our discussion is you only know the creation version of creationists. I am not suggesting you are obligated to study anything more than what you want, but I can guarantee you that what I believe at this point, is more in harmony with science than you would care to concede.

    But to me this isn’t about you and me. My point that you will probably never see or agree with is that there are many more questions than answers.

    And frankly I know more about evolution and other things than you would believe. I’m sorry I’m just not a good writer. I’m a song writer not a journalist. But I do love to write and discuss a variety of subjects.

    The bottom line is I am aware of all the present conjecture and accumulated evidence. But I am also aware that those facts and theories are not beyond sifting just because it was done in the name of science. Just the same as the evidence and conjecture of creation should not be labeled realiable in the name of religion or spirituality.

    In this regard I have a simple question. If your Doctor, a person you trust and who’s profession you trust tells you need your arm amputated are you seeking other opinions?

    Like I stated many posts ago there are way more respected scientists who have questions than you care to admit. And again I am not suggesting they believe in God either.


  44. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 21, 2008 at 8:48 am

    Evolution is not implied by the learning, but by the increased *capacity* to learn.

    Please list the scientists who believe that our sun is on the verge of an explosion. That is hilarious.

    Humans are not “ahead” of the bacteria because the bacteria are evolving and adapting, as well. Pretty simple syllogism, really. Your usage of the word “ahead” implies subjective valuation. Adaptation carries no such baggage.

    I have a better understanding of your approach now that I know your profession. Success in your profession is not based on research and empirical data and this fact appears to cripple you in conversations such as this. Most, if not all, of the questions you find to be pivotal in this debate have already been asked, explored, and answered. I cannot be here to teach you about precedent research when there are several resources available which are much better equipped than I to do so. As a starting point I recommend http://www.talkorigins.org

    Please digest this information and search this site for the scientific answers to the questions you have. Aside from your theological hangups, this site will be fairly comprehensive. The gaps in evolutionary theory (and there are some) may not be adequately addressed there, but that should not be a problem as you would need to understand the fundamentals prior to delving into deeper minutiae. The theory of evolution is scientifically strong even though there may be lack of insight into particular mechanisms that abet the process. These “insight gaps” do nothing to discredit the theory as a whole, however. They just show that more scientific research is required to get an understanding of the “fine grains”.

    By the way, it is this “growth” that uniquely identifies science from faith. Science is subject to change based on observed evidence whereas faith is unwavering belief in spite of available evidence.

    In summary I would say the following: The title of your article here is “Presenting Proof of Creation is Possible.” As I have stated before, this is false. “Creation” is not provable or falsifiable in any way. There is no way to test the concept and thus there is no point to bringing such an idea into scientific discourse. If there were ANY evidence for or against the concept of creation, that would be a different matter entirely. Unfortunately, there is *none*.

    If you want to practice science you can either take time to educate yourself on the subject or you can stop writing songs and seek a career in the field. If neither of these appeals to you, then you would do everyone a favor by staying out of the debate.

    Consider this: If 99% of consulted physicians recommended amputation, I would likely take their advice. This analogy is more apropos to the evolution debate. An overwhelmingly large percentage of scientists, in pertinent fields, accept the fundamental premise of evolutionary theory. THAT is why it is accepted as a sound theory today.

    In short, faith has no place in science and vice-versa. While I find religious faith reprehensible and intellectually vapid, I completely understand the psychological/intellectual weaknesses that lead most people to the practice. Do not be ashamed of your faith, Andy. A vast majority of people have imaginary friends, too. Their imaginary friends wrote different books than yours did, probably, but you all agree on the same basic premise. Do not run from your faith or try to cloak it in intellectual disciplines. Embrace it and pray that it brings you a better quality of life. If you spend all your time trying to justify your faith with science then you cannot fully enjoy the bounty that your invisible, benevolent, omnipotent friend has laid before you.

    Fin.


  45. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 21, 2008 at 11:08 pm

    I failed to mention much earlier that you absolutely correct, I should have not used the word proof in my title. Even aside from your reasons it implies a different poin then what my article is about.

    The main point I have been failing to make is your conviction that the evolutinary theory has moved beyond the degree of question is where I part ways with you. For example your response the Doctor scenario of if 99% of Doctors agreed. First off you agree that you would seek other opinions even though you trusted your Doctor. You throw the 99% as if that many scientists are totally on board with evolution. That is just not true and we will obviously not agree on that. Because there are conflicting surveys out the wazoo over that. For every 75% of scientist say this there surveys that 75% believe that.

    However you casually cast what you call faith as purely emotional. That is why I have doubted before we have the same definition of faith. Like I said I respect the fact that you think it impossible for an omnipotent being to exist. However if you think I believe one does is a simple practice of dreams and wishes than you’re a fool.

    But the original question is how is believing a God any more of “stretch” or “quantam leap” than believing that the Universe just always existed? Or whatever version of the theory you except?

    Thank you for the talkorigin reference though. I will check that out this weekend. I do not recall of hand if I have read that before or not.

    I will post some of the “doom of the Sun” people. Which I do not agree with. My point was they say these things in the name of research and science so therefore the masses are supposed to believe it.

    Anyhow I have enjoyed the discussion.

    And one thing I promise you I have no reason whatsoever to be ashamed of anything I believe.


  46. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 22, 2008 at 4:42 am

    Again let me emphasize these are not my views and I do not know great details about these people who claim to be scientists and astronomers. But here is a couple of examples I had noted a few years ago.

    I will find some more in my notes when I have more time. Again not to convinvce you of course of this view of the Sun. But to show that just because something is claimed to be researched in the name of infallable science doesn’t mean it is reliable.

    Summary from Juliana Sackmann of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena
    Astronomers have known the essentials of this evolutionary journey for midsize stars, like the sun, since the 1960s. But until now, no one had ever laid out all the details of the sun’s later years, including their impact on Earth, in one comprehensive report. Already about 4.5 billion years old, the sun is more than one-third of the way through its expected life span.
    At about 12.3 billion years of age, the sun has become a star with two burning shells. Its nuclear fuel depleted, the sun’s core contracts, drawing in the two gas shells around it. This causes the helium shell to undergo a series of explosions, triggering the final phase of expansion and brightening, which will last about 20 million years.

    Shedding an additional quarter of its original mass, the expanding sun will extend as far as Earth’s present orbit. But by then the planet will have fled, moving out to a path 1.7 times as distant, according to the study If the sun sheds its mass over a 30 percent longer period of time — a scenario deemed unlikely by the researchers – it might swallow Earth.

    After a few million years more, the sun will finally sing its swan song. Ejecting its puffy outer layers, the elderly star will lay bare its smoldering, collapsed core, thus becoming a relic known as a white dwarf (SN: 1/16/93, p.40). Barring a fatal collision with another body in the solar system, Earth will probably remain intact to the bitter end, Sackmann’s team speculates.

    A thought from the book ” The Elegant Universe”

    Now, if the Sun (which is more or less spherically symmetrical) were to suddenly explode like a supernova, it is at least plausible that it would expand more or less equally in all directions, maintaining it’s spherical symmetry (roughly) about its center of mass, which of course would remain fixed due to conservation of momentum. Therefore, according to Newton’s theory of instantaneous force, there would be no change at all in the gravity exerted on the Earth – at least not until the first wave of mass-energy from the explosion had expanded past the Earth’s orbit.


  47. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 22, 2008 at 4:43 am

    Just the same as my point that just because someone says their belief is based on the Bible or faith doesn’t mean it is.


  48. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 22, 2008 at 8:05 am

    Once again:

    Belief in God is not a testable hypothesis and, thus, warrants no place in scientific discussions. That is the end result of all the utter nonsense you have thrown about in this forum. We can scientifically investigate and test biological evolution, cosmological evolution, gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, et al. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT TEST THE EXISTENCE OF ANY GOD OR THE SPONTANEOUS CREATION OF LIFE AS IT EXISTS TODAY. These are matters of faith. End of story.


  49. Andy-N Says...

    On August 23, 2008 at 10:15 am

    No actually Mr. Nonsense that would be the beginning of the story. Faith isn’t a wish or an emotional illusion. Faith is an assurance of things.

    When you receive your check for work you do not have to wonder if you are going to receive that amount in your bank account. That is is what actual faith is. You have faith that your check is going to become money in your account. You are not wishing it will or hoping it will you know it will.

    Who said creation was spontaneous?

    Also you have your inflated view of your intellect so far up your butt that you haven’t even noticed that you agree with the actual main point I made form the begining. I already said I cannot give you tangible proof of how a being always was in existence.

    And I have always shouted from the roof tops that there plenty of aspects of reliable science. I enjoy learning and reading of proven results. But just because something has been tested doesn’t mean the results are complete or reliable. For one thing in the case of a lab it is a controlled study. So that is not always an accurate way of duplicating a scenario.

    And again you keep making this just about sprituality. First of all I doubt you have a clue of what the Bible actually says in the first place. Which why you call “faith” an emotional weakness you ignore the arrogance and ignorance of people disregarding things they have no knowledge about.

    Why I don’t agree with some of the conclusions that many scientists have come to I do not pretend to not believe in science. I just because you try and downplay my knowledge of science doesn’t change the fact that I am very up to date with the science on the matter.

    And for a man who claims to be dedicated to science you are a fraud then. Because there aren’t any variables or subjects that do not apply to science you jackass.

    So why your excuse for not exploring all information is that it is a sign of weakness or inferior intelligence the reality is you cling to your version of science on to elevate the low self -esteem yoou obviously possess. Your constant attack of everything you don’t believe as being stupid, is a blatant cry of “look at me I’m so smart.”

    I have no problem with actual science and I have stated this a million times. But there is more to life than just what happens in biology and genetics.

    So stop trying to be the mediator of your self proclaimed definer of science. There is nothing that cannot be discussed as to its relation to the study of science.

    And as for the Bible. If it is such a joke why are there Historians and Archeologists who have and still do use it to document timelines and places of discovery? These are people just as passionate as you claim to be to testable reality!

    So why do you pretend that only “religious” people take the Bible seriously or at least consider what it actually says.

    Just because you are dumb enough to take the ranting of pseudo “believers” word for what the Bible says is your problem. Just shows how lazy you are in addition to your arrogance.

    And if I am full of such nonsense why do you bother talking to such a “blithering idiot” like myself? What is your point?

    Like I said aside from the playful name calling I have meditated on what you have said even when it was clear you missed or glossed over what I am actually saying. I’ve been reading through some of the talkorigin articles you recommended. I am not a close minded person just because I have strong conviction.

    So if you really think I am that clueless and stupid just tell me the discussion is over. I don’t care what you think about me personally.

    Like I said I have a circle of friends in various fields of science that we discuss this stuff all the time. We research together. I have friends obviously who dig my music and others who share my sports interest. I was a professional baseball player 25 years ago. I am not ashamed or embarrassed about anything. And I am not afraid to say when I am wrong.

    So you don’t end anything. It isn’t your story to end. Those kinds of statements are an embarrassment to science and all that it stands for.


  50. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 23, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Incorrect all over.

    Science is about experiment and observation. One cannot test, or observe, creation theory. Thus, creation theory has no place in scientific discussion. The supreme court has said as much. 99.15% of scientists in related fields have said as much. Nothing more need be said on the subject.

    I originally spoke up in this thread because the title offended me and the supporting text offended me even more. I often take it upon myself to protect what I consider to be a relatively sacred discipline from obfuscation and annexation by those with ulterior motives. You have yet to make one single scientifically reasonable statement in support of your hypothesis that “Presenting Proof of Creation is Possible.” Ostensibly, this website is dedicated to scientific writings, you know.

    You have demonstrated no knowledge of the scientific method whatsoever. You have shown no respect for the institutions or disciplines of science whatsoever. Despite all attempts to assist, you have shown no capacity whatsoever to correct these shortcomings.

    Furthermore, as you appear to be too stupid to look the bloody word up in the dictionary, I have done so for you:

    1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
    Pronunciation:
    ˈfāth
    Function:
    noun
    Inflected Form(s):
    plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz
    Etymology:
    Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
    Date:
    13th century

    1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

    As you can see, faith has nothing to do with “assurance” or “truth”. Faith is BLIND and often in direct opposition to presented evidence. That is what you demonstrate with regards to your creation myth: faith.

    “Do not offer sympathy to the mentally ill. Tell them firmly: I AM NOT BEING PAID TO LISTEN TO THIS DRIVEL. YOU ARE A TERMINAL FOOL!” – William Burroughs


  51. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 23, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    What bag of wind you are. First of all, you still don’t comprehend the two main points of the article. Second of all this article was listed by me under the category thoughts. Triond move it over here so take your lame argumant to them about what is science. And thirdly you continue to pretend you even know anything about creation. As you state you cannot perform a test to consider the existence of a God but there are things to observe. Just because a concrete blockhead like you has an agenda selectively ignores that is your problem. Also Creation is in harmony with much of the tested aspects of science. Like the age of the universe and the Earth. Creation supports the fossil record of dinosuars. The list goes on.

    The Supreme Court agrees that creation is not a school subject. So do I. But what does that have to do with anything? Not to mention the Evolutionist community has the money for political garbage.

    And like I said you don’t know what faith is. And you still don’t. The definition is found at Hebrew chapter 11 verse 1. Long before that one dictionary you selected existed. Also the Bible definition is corraborated by many historians of the first century who knew Greek and the Greek word translated as faith.

    So being faithful to your spouse isn’t an assurance of your vows? Faith in your employer isn’t assurance that his check will cash? Faith in science isn’t assurance that you rely on honest efforts of those involved? This is blind? Show me one person that doesn’t grasp the total use of the word faith. Like you never have used that word to describe the assurance you have for something or someone?

    And again you dance around the point and continue pretend that everything you believe and spill out of your mouth has been proved beyond any doubt. You have the test results and observation of what existed 4 Billion years ago? Come on you disingenuous poser no one believes that evidence exists. If it did scienctists wouldn’t be wasting time to continue to look for that evidence.

    And it’s a good thing that the world has people like you who think they need to explain what is obvious to read. Not to mention you don’t even understand the article. You are hung up on the title because of how you perceive I intended the word proof. Overlooking the word “possible”. And forgetting that I admitted I wish I had used a different title. I see now how it takes away from the actual point.

    But the reality is people don’t need you to protect anything. The fact is you disrespect science by putting boundaries that you insist exist.

    And who the heck is William Burroughs? Ask Willie if he knows how many highly regarded minds were people with mental disorders. It has only been well documented. Who is the fool?

    Funny how you don’t take his advice because you keep returning and listening to this “terminal fool” for free. And I am Bi-Polar at that.

    And we havn’t gotten much into science because I have to respond to the hard on you have over religion and your incompetent understanding of what the creation “myth”, as you call it, really is. What happened did you get molested by a priest or something?

    Your just a obstinate insecure fool that’s all. You are the weak and feeble one. You reject the fact that all concerns of life have a connection to science. You are the one that needs something to cling to feel important. Science n 1- the study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomana 2 – a systematic activity requiring study and method 3- Knowledge esp, that aquired through experience (Websters II)

    Ironically I don’t see the limitations you state in the meaning of science.

    nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl) adj.
    1. Present in or produced by nature
    2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature

    phenomenon Noun pl -ena or -enons
    1. anything that can be perceived as an occurrence or fact
    2. any remarkable occurrence or person [Greek phainomenon, from phainesthai to appear]
    phenomena Noun a plural of phenomenon

    So according to you anything related to creation has no relation to things concerning nature nor is it a perceived occurence or fact. Thus it cannot be mentioned on the same breath as your version of science and not actual science.

    Put the crack pipe down man!Do all the hard working scientists a favor and stop pretending you are their spokesman.


  52. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    And yet you still cannot make any case for the examination of the creation myth or the existence of god in the venue of science. Science and faith are not compatible. Science requires observation/questioning of phenomena, hypothesis regarding the causation of the phenomena, testing of that hypothesis, and then analyzing the results of the test. The process then circles back upon itself to explain the failed hypothesis, recreate the successful results, or move to another aspect of the larger theory.

    Devise a test for creationism. Please. Tell me how you would propose to TEST the concept of ID or biblical creation using the scientific method.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Let me know how you do with that. You know jack about science. Your article is bunk and completely unrelated to science.

    Also, quoting bible verse to define verbiage in scientific discussions is a poor choice. I only tell you this in case you one day wish to be taken seriously.


  53. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 25, 2008 at 4:15 am

    First of all just because you are clueless to the credence educated people give to the Bible and the languages it was written in is a lame argument.

    And second you still don’t get the point of my article. Which is funny because you have made statements that support my point and you didn’t even know it.

    You know instead of you talking about what you think creation is let’s take this to something you claim is documented science. Your examples that adaptation or mutation is evidence of evolution.

    And since I don’t know jack about science and well you obviously do then you can explain this.

    Carl Sagan commenting on adaptations and mutations is quoted as saying “Most of them are harmful or lethal”.

    Also commenting on that subject was Peo Koller who states “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene, It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful”.

    Explaining this the Encyclopedia Britannica points out ‘this is to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization’.

    This is also why many feel that hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined occur as a result.

    The Encylcopedia Americanna acknowledges the following. “The fact that most mutations are damaging to to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be destructive rather than a constructive process”.

    In fact in experiments of mixing mutated insects and “normal” insects G. Ledyard Stebbins observed “after a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated”.

    Another aspect overlooked by your adaptation argument is what is actually occurring in the examples you have given? For example in the World Book Encyclopedia it gives an example of a plant in a dry area that might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. Thus the argument is that example is that this plant improved it’s survival thus proving evolution. But what has really occurred? This beneficial adaptation has only helped this plant. The same plant, not a new plant. Also this adaptation as no bearing on the future plants of the same kind. It is not evolving into something else or a new breed of plants.

    So I guess all these sources don’t know anything either?

    You see you elitist dork I have spent many years researching and studying the facts. Including the ones you spout off. But unlike you I amnot afraid to continue and to consider all the facts not just the ones I like or the ones that support my preconceived notions.

    And please keep your reply on subject. Notice there was no mention of the ‘dreaded’ scary creation myth.


  54. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 25, 2008 at 7:39 am

    This question has already been explored. From TalkOrigins:

    Claim CB101:
    Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
    Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life–How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
    Response:

    1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

    The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

    2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
    * Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
    * Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
    * Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
    * A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
    * Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
    * In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

    3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

    4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

    5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

    Links:
    Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
    Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
    References:

    1. Boyden, Ann M., Junhao Mao, Joseph Belsky, Lyle Mitzner, Anita Farhi, Mary A. Mitnick, Dianqing Wu, Karl Insogna, and Richard P. Lifton. 2002. High bone density due to a mutation in LDL-receptor-related protein 5. New England Journal of Medicine 346: 1513-1521, May 16, 2002. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1513
    2. Dean, M. et al. 1996. Genetic restriction of HIV-1 infection and progression to AIDS by a deletion allele of the CKR5 structural gene. Science 273: 1856-1862.
    3. Elena, S. F., V. S. Cooper and R. E. Lenski. 1996. Punctuated evolution caused by selection of rare beneficial mutations. Science 272: 1802-1804.
    4. FAO/IAEA. 1977. Manual on Mutation Breeding, 2nd ed. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.
    5. Long, Patricia. 1994. A town with a golden gene. Health 8(1) (Jan/Feb.): 60-66.
    6. Moffat, Anne S. 2000. Transposons help sculpt a dynamic genome. Science 289: 1455-1457.
    7. Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
    8. Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
    9. Newcomb, R. D. et al. 1997. A single amino acid substitution converts a carboxylesterase to an organophosporus hydrolase and confers insecticide resistance on a blowfly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7464-7468.
    10. Oliver, Antonio et al. 2000. High frequency of hypermutable Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis lung infection. Science 288: 1251-1253. See also: Rainey, P. B. and R. Moxon, 2000. When being hyper keeps you fit. Science 288: 1186-1187. See also: LeClerc, J. E. and T. A. Cebula, 2000. Pseudomonas survival strategies in cystic fibrosis (letter), 2000. Science 289: 391-392.
    11. Perfeito, Lilia, Lisete Fernandes, Catarina Mota and Isabel Gordo. 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
    12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
    13. Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
    14. Weisgraber K. H., S. C. Rall Jr., T. P. Bersot, R. W. Mahley, G. Franceschini, and C. R. Sirtori. 1983. Apolipoprotein A-I Milano. Detection of normal A-I in affected subjects and evidence for a cysteine for arginine substitution in the variant A-I. Journal of Biological Chemistry 258: 2508-2513.
    15. Wichman, H. A. et al. 1999. Different trajectories of parallel evolution during viral adaptation. Science 285: 422-424.
    16. Wright, M. C. and G. F. Joyce. 1997. Continuous in vitro evolution of catalytic function. Science 276: 614-617. See also: Ellington, A. D., M. P. Robertson and J. Bull, 1997. Ribozymes in wonderland. Science 276: 546-547.

    Further Reading:
    Harter, Richard. 1999. Are mutations harmful? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

    Peck, J. R. and A. Eyre-Walker. 1997. The muddle about mutations. Nature 387: 135-136.


  55. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 25, 2008 at 7:40 am

    I suppose that you are not going to present an experiment or test for your creation theory?


  56. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 26, 2008 at 12:39 am

    YES we will get the creation. I have to get the time to break it down to a short enough format.

    For a guy who thinks creation is a myth you sure do obsess on it. If you have been paying attention I have never said that evolution is false because of creation. I have been clear that I personally believe the real creation account. You are the one that insists on saying I am defending it. I have been trying to discuss the initial points you raised first.

    Nice reply by the way. I am familiar with 70% of it but there are a couple of those I would like to see.

    And I know what a neutral mutation. But that is not what many those in the field were concerned about.

    Richard Goldschmidt was a respected geneticist who depserately wanted to prove the substance of what you are referancing. The fact is in the end the species studied whether experiencing beneficial mutations or not, the “norm” prevailed after countless attempts to prove other wise. So for a someone who vehemently claims to accept test results you ignore the ones that do not give you the answer you want.

    So let’s just say that all mutation are beneficial. There is not one shred or hint that these genetic anamolies carry on far into the offspring of anything. Not to mention that as Scientific American reported that repair enzymes exist to reverse any DNA molecule response to mutate.

    And in any of these cases where is the new species. Afterall isn’t that the bottom line? The living organisms that do mutate still remain the same species they have always been. And they always restore the overall identity they have always had. In fact I had or may still have a book written some time ago called Molecules to Cells or something like that that emphasizes that point. The repective tissue is retained after endless cycles of observed reproduction.

    So why the information you cite is very compelling and the references you point that I am familiar with I have enjoyed studying, it is not the end of the story.

    There was a scientists who I cannot remember his name or can I find it at the moment but he illustrated the folly of the ‘mutation proves evolution theory’. I hope I remembering it correctly. But it was to the effect that if you took a well written paragraph and changed it one letter at a time, but still keeping the message in tact, that you could end up with a Shakespeare sonnet.

    So again even if you want to say all mutation is good you still haven’t made a point. Not to mention there are plenty of geneticists and the like who do not agree with that even a little bit.

    Still you haven’t explained where the natural selection has occured. Unless you have your own version of what natural selection is.

    (Harter, Richard. 1999. Are mutations harmful? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html)
    Just read that last weekend. That is what reminded me to address that subject. Nice article but far from complete on the matter.


  57. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 26, 2008 at 8:18 am

    Ah, the venerable argument from incredulity, coupled with the “nuh-uh” defense. At least you did not call reams of research data supporting the conclusion “mantra” this time.

    Most mutations are not beneficial. It has been shown that most mutations are neutral, problematic mutations often result in the death of the organism, and beneficial mutations survive and are passed to subsequent generations. This is the very essence of natural selection. When a surviving mutation grants an organism an advantage in a particular environment, the likelihood of procreation and genetic inheritance increases.

    Goldschmidt’s work, while interesting at the time, has since been “sifted” in order to eliminate the more absurd notions and inaccuracies, leaving the more valuable components intact. Unfortunately, to this day, even the valuable components have been relabeled and his work is something of an inside joke amongst evolutionary biologists. He reached too far.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopeful_Monster

    And your arguments against macro evolution are tired and discredited. Numerous examples of plant and animal speciation have been observed. The best part is that evolution can even be observed in the life around today.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

    Science is a game of numbers. You can certainly find a person or persons to advocate nearly any position you *choose*, but science MUST rely on the weight of evidence. Why do you think 99.85% (0.15% disbelievers) of America’s scientists working in the field support evolution? Do you think they are all incorrect or misreading the data? Are you more qualified than they to evaluate such things? I know I am not qualified enough to even critique or peer-review an article on genetics, but I know the method (very well, I might add) that is used to evaluate such things and I find the outcome fairly compelling.

    This section is probably the one that would benefit you the most, as your primary gripe with the theory appears to be philosophical: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

    None of this information represents the “end of the story”. This is science, and science is constantly being reexamined, retested, and rewritten. However, you cannot intelligently argue that new learning in scientific fields invalidates all prior research. There is an examination ongoing to investigate abnormalities in gravitational theory as it applies over very large distances, but this new research does not imply that you cannot still fall down the stairs. You see, even given the unknowns regarding the specific mechanisms, the theory of gravity is still strong and stands as close to “fact” as science can allow.

    This is the case with evolution. We are still learning (and undoubtedly will continue to learn for some time) but we have a large enough *volume* of data supporting the concept that the theory of evolution stands equal to gravitational theory, the germ theory of disease, and cell theory.

    I am really eager to hear about your creation experiment, by the way.


  58. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 26, 2008 at 11:53 pm

    Please give me one example of where a new species “evolved”?

    Honestly all kidding aside you assume I disregard the data. No it is the conclusion that I find suspicious. And your 99.85% is so absurd. If the data was that clear I would believe it you lunkhead.

    A neutral mutation has no phenotypic effect or adaptive significance. So what is your point?

    You explain your views very well and you claim to except test results. But you search the world over for the results you want and claim that the whole science world agrees with it.

    So other than answering your question of testing creation why are we going in circles? You disregard science that refutes your opinion or that of other evolutionary zealots. Your kind is not into science your into evolution.

    As for Goldschmidt. I wasn’t saying he was the end all to be all. But at the time he bent over backwards to get the results you say occur. And it didn’t happen. What is there too sift? The man was a “believer”. Just because his pursuit of evidence made him question his intitial theory doesn’t make the man a joke.

    And your gravity example is exactly what I am saying. You just made my point. Nuances found in science doesn’t override the basic facts. Adaptation or mutation is an amazing occurrence but it doesn’t and hasn’t carried over into any identity changes or an entirely different species.

    One thing we do agree on is there is still much to learn. Which is one point I was making in the article that offended you. No matter what we presently feel the evidence points to, there are still many unanswered questions.

    And who calls gravity a theory? Or any of the other examples you give?

    And why do you pretend that I am saying that I am reading the data? Just because in your dream scenario no scientists rejects evolution is your mistake. The fact is the data has proven the opposite of what you want it to be. Volume is one thing but when tests prove that the “volume” is wrong what is your point?

    There were many people convinced computers were going to crash on JAN 1, 2000. They had volumes of data to support it. What happened?

    As for incredulity and nu-uh that is exactly what your argument has been from the beginning.

    I have never said the data you reference doesn’t exist. I have only said what is reality. Scientists have tested those theories and have found them flawed and in error. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Whereas your argument has been that theory is fact and the tests that prove otherwise don’t count. OR incredulous is what you are saying.

    Look I am not emotionally attached to the subject. I am just interested in the bottom line. The truth. You want me to be some wacky creationist who believes things were whipped up in a week. That’s not me.


  59. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 27, 2008 at 8:49 am

    Claim CB910:
    No new species have been observed.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M., 1986. The vanishing case for evolution. Impact 156 (Jun.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=260
    Response:

    1. New species have arisen in historical times. For example:

    * A new species of mosquito, isolated in London’s Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998).

    * Helacyton gartleri is the HeLa cell culture, which evolved from a human cervical carcinoma in 1951. The culture grows indefinitely and has become widespread (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991).

    A similar event appears to have happened with dogs relatively recently. Sticker’s sarcoma, or canine transmissible venereal tumor, is caused by an organism genetically independent from its hosts but derived from a wolf or dog tumor (Zimmer 2006; Murgia et al. 2006).

    * Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929).

    2. Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:

    * Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000).
    * The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa (Fanello et al. 2003; Lehmann et al. 2003).
    * Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations (Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001).

    3. Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are

    * the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California’s central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
    * greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
    * the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
    * many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
    * the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
    * the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).

    4. Evidence of speciation occurs in the form of organisms that exist only in environments that did not exist a few hundreds or thousands of years ago. For example:
    * In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151).
    * Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species. Parts of Lake Malawi which originated in the nineteenth century have species indigenous to those parts (Schilthuizen 2001, 166-176).
    * A Mimulus species adapted for soils high in copper exists only on the tailings of a copper mine that did not exist before 1859 (Macnair 1989).

    There is further evidence that speciation can be caused by infection with a symbiont. A Wolbachia bacterium infects and causes postmating reproductive isolation between the wasps Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti (Bordenstein and Werren 1997).

    5. Some young-earth creationists claim that speciation is essential to explain Noah’s ark. The ark was not roomy enough to carry and care for all species, so speciation is invoked to explain how the much fewer “kinds” aboard the ark became the diversity we see today. Also, some species have special needs that could not have been met during the flood (e.g., fish requiring fresh water). Creationists assume that they evolved from other, more tolerant organisms since the Flood. (Woodmorappe 1996)

    Links:
    Kimball, John W., 2003. Speciation. http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html

    Stassen, C. et al., 1997. Some more observed speciation events. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
    References:

    1. Beheregaray, L. B. and P. Sunnucks, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure, estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.
    2. Bordenstein, Seth R. and John H. Werren. 1997. Effection of An and B Wolbachia and host genotype on interspecies cytoplasmic incompatibility in Nasonia. Genetics 148: 1833-1844.
    3. Brown, Charles W., n.d. Ensatina eschscholtzi Speciation in progress: A classic example of Darwinian evolution. http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm
    4. Byrne, K. and R. A. Nichols, 1999. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity 82: 7-15.
    5. de Wet, J. M. J., 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon 20: 29-35.
    6. Fanello, C. et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Molecular Biology 12(3): 241-245.
    7. Filchak, Kenneth E., Joseph B. Roethele and Jeffrey L. Feder, 2000. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature 407: 739-742.
    8. Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch and Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in a ring. Nature 409: 333-337.
    9. Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch, Jessica H. Irwin and Trevor D. Price. 2005. Speciation by distance in a ring species. Science 307: 414-416.
    10. Lehmann, T., M. Licht, N. Elissa, et al., 2003. Population structure of Anopheles gambiae in Africa. Journal of Heredity 94(2): 133-147.
    11. Macnair, M. R., 1989. A new species of Mimulus endemic to copper mines in California. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 100: 1-14.
    12. Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
    13. Mayr, E., 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
    14. Murgia, Claudio et al. 2006. Clonal origin and evolution of a transmissible cancer. Cell 126: 477-487.
    15. Nevo, Eviatar, 1999. Mosaic Evolution of Subterranean Mammals: Regression, Progression and Global Convergence. Oxford University Press.
    16. Newton, W. C. F. and Caroline Pellew, 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. Journal of Genetics 20(3): 405-467.
    17. Nuttall, Nick, 1998. Stand clear of the Tube’s 100-year-old super-bug. Times (London), 26 Aug. 1998, 1. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
    18. Schilthuizen, M., 2001. (see below)
    19. Van Valen, Leigh M. and Virginia C. Maiorana, 1991. HeLa, a new microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
    20. Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94: 7761-7767.
    21. Whitehouse, David, 2001. Songbird shows how evolution works. BBC News Online, 18 Jan. 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1123973.stm
    22. Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah’s Ark: A Feasability Study, El Cajon, CA: ICR.
    23. Zimmer, Carl. 2006. A dead dog lives on (inside new dogs). http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/08/09/an_old_dog_lives_on_inside_new.php

    Further Reading:
    Callaghan, Catherine A., 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher 49: 34-36.

    Schilthuizen, Menno., 2001. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: the Making of Species, Oxford Univ. Press, esp. chap. 1.

    #############################

    Please let me know when you get tired of refuting all this prior research and are ready to propose an experiment to test your asinine claims.

    -Fin


  60. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 27, 2008 at 10:47 am

    Here is the source of the 99.85% figure:
    ############################################

    Claim CA111:
    Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163
    Response:

    1. Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in “creation-science” or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

    Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

    2. One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.

    3. Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.

    Links:
    NAS. 1999. Science and creationism. http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/

    NCSE. 2003. Project Steve, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

    Schafersman, Steven. 2003. Texas Citizens for Science responds to latest Discovery Institute challenge. http://www.texscience.org/files/discovery-signers.htm
    References:

    1. Edwards v. Aguillard. 1986. U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates (and others). (Case 482 U.S. 578, 1987) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/amicus1.html
    2. NAS. 1999. (see above)
    3. NCSE. n.d., Voices for evolution. http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=2
    4. Robinson, B. A. 1995. Public beliefs about evolution and creation. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
    5. Witham, Larry. 1997. Many scientists see God’s hand in evolution. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(6): 33. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol17/5319_many_scientists_see_god39s__12_30_1899.asp


  61. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 27, 2008 at 10:50 am

    “Hesitation to make declarative statements often saves one from looking foolish in retrospect” -Me

    Here is a page on gravitational theory. Read, then speak, next time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory


  62. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 27, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    So gravity has not been proven? That is essentially my question. Someone has dropped soemthing and it went up? I am aware they we are learning more on the matter but not one human questions gravity.

    Again I never said that the scientists who do not support evolution except creation. You keep addressing that. What I have maintained and there are numerous surveys to support it is there are many scientists that consider the matter unresolved.

    Oh I don’t feel foolish about stating facts. Just because you disagree doesn’t make me feel any regret whatsoever.

    But polls and survey are inconsistant anyhow. I just read the other day in one survey that 40% of scientists believe in God and those 40% believe evolution. And no I am not saying that is true.

    My point with the surveys is I believe in a collective average of all the polls put together. And there are plenty of scientists who do not except evolution. That is not to say they except creation either. DID YOU READ THAT?

    Give me a couple days to review some of the material you have referenced on new species, it does sound interesting. Again I only spend a 10-15 minutes each day regarding our discussion. I do have a million music projects going on.

    Maybe it would be easier if I tell you I will check back on here Saturday. I have to finish a score for a film project.


  63. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 28, 2008 at 7:35 am

    I have taken care to include footnotes and references for my data whereas your data is fabricated, it seems. You cannot provide any verification. In the face of evidence and research, you tell me that you do not believe, despite having been provided the information required to verify the research provided. You do not WANT to believe.

    You are an anti-intellectual liar with an agenda. You are either incapable or unwilling to examine the scientific evidence before you and draw scientific conclusions.

    I do not care if you choose to be a creationist, but you are stupid if you believe that creationism has anything whatsoever to do with science. I have repeatedly demonstrated this to you. My only possible conclusion at this juncture is to believe that you are incapable (intellectually or psychologically) of following the scientific method accurately.

    You did make one good point, however: Why am I trying to give technical instruction to an artist? It’s really unfair to you. You possess few of the tools required for the discipline of science, just as I am unfit to compose music.

    I suppose the difference is that I do not claim to be a composer whereas you do see yourself as some variety of scientist. Hmmm.


  64. Andy-N Says...

    On August 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Okay the difference is anyone actually researching everything would find the same information you claim I am fabricating. Which if I am why do you even care?

    I am familiar with most of the reference material you have provided because I am not a uptight blowhard who thinks he knows everything about science.

    I wouldn’t talk about fabrication either. You provide research data and editorials presenting your view yes. But you completely ignore the plethera of other science models and views on the matter.

    The fact is if the subject was so clear there would not be so much debate. I am not anit-intellectual. But I am against the notion that hand picking what is science and what isn’t is your job.

    Like I said before you hide behind your rhetoric to appear to be something your not.

    And when I am here in the studio taking a break to distract myself from real work, I don’t bring the library with me. What I do is very demanding so excuse me if I am not committed to our little discussion like you want me to be.

    I have found some interesting things in a couple of the articles you mentioned that I actually had not seen before. Good stuff.

    The one article about the salamander was great. I am familiar with the ring species but I had not heard of that particular example.

    Although like many I don’t share the same definition of species as those who study the ring species it is worth learning about.

    If you know or know where to find out I was curious about this more.

    If this is “new” species then when did it come into existence? Was it actually observed? The implication is that it evolved from other salamanders. So when was the before and after? The people who studied this animal know for certain it was not in existence before? And why are they called salamanders? That is confusing to the layman who sees a species as a family. Afterall us dumb folk need to be aware of the evidence do we not?

    I tried look some stuff up on it but all the articles really did go into the observation aspect. Of course like I said I didn’t exact;y have the time to comb the entire web. So if you know of such information I would like to read it.

    I still haven’t had time to get my other stuff together so think what you want I don’t even care. Frankly like you have made clear anything you do not deem as science is worthless. Besides I have to work on my “trivial” soundtrack that keeps changing. I will have to tell you what film it is as soon as I am aloud so you can see what “stupid” people do for a living.

    It’s funny I was a professional athlete and now I am a professional musician but appearently I have no discipline.

    Oh for the record I don’t WANT to believe in anything. I am interested in the cumalitive effect of the facts. When you have a controversary usually there is truth in both arguments.

    So no I am not an evolutionist but I am not a creationist. Simply put at this point I find the bulk of the evidence supports a source of energy that was needed to make the matter and detailed orginization that obviously exists all around us.

    But since energy, matter and nature are not science in your world my belief is stupid.

    ??????????????????????? I see why you are the brain between us.

    I’ll catch you later man. Listen to some music it’s good for you.


  65. ANDY-N Says...

    On August 30, 2008 at 4:01 pm

    OH MY GOD I actually read a couple lines form above before I moved on. I am the worst typer on Earth. I spelled aloud instead of allowed!

    You are a patient dude. Hey I will start proof reading out of courtesy.


  66. Wrong Again Says...

    On August 31, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    There is no *actual* controversy regarding the veracity of the basic theory of evolution among scientists working in the field of biology. Is is regarded to be as close to an established fact as one can perceive in the practice of science.

    People who attempt to fabricate controversy where none really exists are creating a hostile environment for people doing real work.

    By the way, you do not get the luxury of creating your own definition for the term “species”. This is a well-defined concept that is used universally to mean the same thing to all biologists. You may disagree with the definition, but that would just make you wrong again.


  67. Andy-N Says...

    On September 2, 2008 at 4:16 am

    UH? Even among the articles YOU referenced you dolt, the point was made that among bioligists there is debate as to what definition of species they apply. Among which mentioned were the Folk Concept, the Biological Species concept, Phenetic (or Morphological) Species Concept. None of which I can claim as “my” definition you desperate fool.

    Also: There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC. (Cracraft 1989, Donoghue 1985, Levin 1979, Mishler and Donoghue 1985, Sokal and Crovello 1970).

    The application of the BSC to a number of groups, including land plants, is problematical because of interspecific hybridization between clearly delimited species (McCourt and Hoshaw 1990, Mishler 1985).

    This is just a few of the zillion people who want to consider more about how to view the BSC definition and other definitions of species. People who believe in evolution, you raving lunatic!

    If there is no “controversary” than why are you “defending” the so called well established fact?

    Just like your example of gravity. Yes there are many introducing or examining advanced views of gravity but not one person on this entire planet questions the LAW OF GRAVITY. That is how an established fact is excepted.

    Thanks for answering my questions about the more information on the salamander. If it is indeed part of a ring species than there should be data as to when this “new” species evolved. Also there would be proof of a time it did not exist. Other wise why would you use this as an example of observed science? Anything else would be called estimated science. You would be guessing not observing. (and yes I know that to be observed doesn’t always mean someone literally saw it)

    You know what, you make these broad sweeping statements about your so called beliefs and your trust in science. However you only spend your time worrying about what dumb people like me say. Of course anyone who disagrees with you is considered stupid.

    Oh and you are an embarrassment to people doing real work. People who just want to get to the facts and not only discuss information that protects there preconceived ideas are people who do real work.

    If what you call fabrication is so clearly without foundation than no one would take it seriously. Especially with brilliant minds like you to shout the truth from the top of mountains. Without you looking up FAQ information on the internet no one would know anything.

    There is nothing actually to discuss with you since you haven’t uttered an original thought in your life. So go hide behind behind your pent up anger against your worthless church that you secretly covet. Take your “I choose what scientists know things and what ones don’t” and go save the world from the evil creationists.

    Oh but wait evolution has been documented and observed. No more research needs to be done. So the party is over for you. Looks like you will have to take up another cause. Maybe you can join the people who claim that not much ice has melted from the polar regions. They need a want to be intellectual to represent them. You would be perfect!


  68. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 2, 2008 at 9:48 am

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

    Wow, big guy. You are *aggressively* ignorant.


  69. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 2, 2008 at 10:08 am


  70. Wronger AGain Says...

    On September 3, 2008 at 1:07 am


  71. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 3, 2008 at 2:00 am

    I resemble that remark!

    I’ll read these. Thanks!

    I know you probably have figured out by now my insults are just for effect. I mean I do not agree with your stance but I respect your right to an opinion.

    Later got to record some stuff.


  72. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 4, 2008 at 12:08 am

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4280765.html

    Nice reading.

    The sad part is this is why we have just gone in circles. I am not anything like the people he has a problem with. This is not a religious matter to me.

    Also like you he just makes authoritative statements without proof. Which that doesn’t make him wrong or right but it is a waste of time.

    You suggested some cool articles and again as compelling as it is the end result is the same as what the Savages of the world accuse creationists of. His example of having facts of Los Angeles correct doesn’t support the Terminator. YEAH NO DUH! So who excepts things on those merits? Yeah people who say they believe in the Bible and yet have no clue what it actually says. And fraud science lovers who have the same agenda as those pseudo Christians.

    Like for example the salamander. I understand the facts of this species. But where is the rest of the information? Without the rest of the story you are making the same leap of faith that you ridicule religious zealots of making.

    The Evolutionists like you and the creationists are the same. Hypocrites. Savage states “Pointing to parts of evolution and shaking your head while saying “Nuh-uh!” is not an argument for something, it is only a poorly constructed argument against something.” That is exactly what he and you are doing. You attack creation to support your belief. And I agree creationists are hypocrites for doing what he is saying they do.

    But I never took that approach and never will. I simple pointed out the need for more answers regardless of what you believe. And I simply stated that in my opinion human behavior supports there being a intelligent maker. Which by the way notice I was supporting my belief no attacking another.

    You came in guns a blazing grouping me in with people I have no respect for. And all because I have more questions concerning the so called proven science than I do creation. Which by the way Savage claims to understand my point when he says “Science very rightly defines Evolution as a ‘theory’. It is relegated to such ‘lowly status’ because science accepts that there are unexplained or incomplete facts related to the Theory.” (my point from the beginning)

    So you are no help to me or anyone like me who is interested in the whole story. Savage also added “And until we can get our head out of the sand and realize that science isn’t about truth—it’s why this debate about the “theory of evolution” bugs the hell out of me.”

    Again that was my point. I want to move past “the debate”. Be as semantical as you want there is a debate out there. Whether there should be or not. So was taking the approach of discussing different angles of the matter. Instead of debating or attacking just discussing actual realities we see and experience. I want to talk about the truth.

    My mistakes were using the word proof, because it is taken out of context and talking about the facts we know from my perspective.

    But the reality is you didn’t get it because you are just like your friends the creationists. You are not interested in science or facts you are proving someone else wrong. Thus your chosen user name Wrong Again is very telling of your character.


  73. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 4, 2008 at 6:58 am

    Please re-read the title of your crap article and then reevaluate all the drivel you just typed.

    Hilarious.


  74. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 8, 2008 at 4:02 am

    WE ARE BACK TO THAT?

    Look up the words proof and possible and tell me what part is so hard to follow.

    What is hilarious is you.


  75. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 8, 2008 at 7:15 am

    You are hilarious because it is NOT possible, in any way, to prove your creation myth. Creationism is a matter of faith, not science. Hence, it is not provable.

    Please reference the definition of “faith” provided in earlier posts for clarification.


  76. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 9, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    I am posting my summation of how you can test creation over the next couple days.

    Creationism is a matter of faith because Creationists don’t know what they are talking about. They like you have not the slightest clue as to exactly what creation states.

    And you my friend live by the definition of faith you supplied. You claim to believe in scientific data and nothing more. However you take factual data and then add levels of assumption and conjecture and call that science.

    If you insist that faith is hope or imagination than I do not have faith. Because I only deal with facts and reasonably established conclusions.

    No reasonable person questions the proven facts. But only desperate morons manufacture evidence. And you put faith in that kind of thinking.

    Again we have amazing discoveries in species and instead of stating only what is known your gods manipulate reality and state conclusions that pure wishful thinking.

    You have mutations that do not carry over into generations and yet you skip that part or ignore it. You have species like the salamander that has marked changes to that of others however no one has any idea of where and when this species arrived. But it is stated to have evolved from others.

    And as usual you have a total disrespect for actual science. Science n 1- the study and theoretical explanation of natural phenomana 2 – a systematic activity requiring study and method 3- Knowledge esp, that aquired through experience (Websters II)

    Actually you’re right I am hilarious but you are pathetic. It’s one thing to aquire a belief but it’s another to assign yourself the task of deciding what is science and what isn’t. And yet somehow you have assumed that role.

    Once the method of examining creation is posted I will put the site here. So you can have something else to ignore and pass off without actually considering the facts.


  77. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 10, 2008 at 9:10 am

    It is not I who decides what is and what is not science. The Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is not science. A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court. This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science. I will certainly take the word of this volume of prestigious scientists and constitutional scholars over that of a songwriter.

    Also, for the edification of your sanctimony: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA012.html

    These are the facts. Creationism is not science.


  78. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 11, 2008 at 1:18 am

    Do you have amnesia?

    I don’t give a crap about your version of creationism. And the Supreme Court ruled that it should not be taught in school. SO WHAT IT SHOULDN’T AND I AM GLAD IT ISN’T!

    And no you are not the one who decides what science is but you try to, you fraud.

    And again you and the elitist panel confuse religion with creation. As usual you have the usual politician like response and just make the same old tired statements that do not add up to the sum you insist they do. You take facts and manipulate them to a conclusion that doesn’t exist or hasn’t existed or can’t be proven. Which is typical for someone who is too lazy to actually research and study all the variables.

    Once again you prove to be like the run of the mill creationist who is just a sheep of society. Too arrogant and lazy to look beyond the standard mumbo jumbo and dig into the substance of the matter. Like them you believe there is only one side to a story.

    What’s up with your obsession with talkorigins? You have stock of their’s or what? Do you ever go to the library?

    And I never asked you or anyone to take my word about any subject.

    You’re calling me sanctimonious? Now that is funny. I have said loud and clear all along that science should be regarded with great respect and the facts need to considered as they manifest themselves. The two negatives I have stated regarding science is directed at those who take facts and state their conclusions as fact and/or infallible. No reputable scientist does that. And by the way most of the reference material you supplied has the scientists saying just that. For the most part dedicated people of science happily admit there are many unanswered questions. They embrace th future developments. The second objection I have is the percentage of scientists who are clueless about the creation account and yet disregard it without even putting it to an honest test or at least an examination. And I mean the actual creation account not the butchered creationist version.

    Like you and your wet dream mentality, they don’t apply empirical methods to all things. Only to the select information of their liking. Which by the way those same people don’t have a problem with embellishing what has been “observed” in a biological realm. Like you, studies from evolutionist scientists that question conclusions of mutations and species they reject. Also they claim they have observed evolution by seeing adaptations in nature. But they do not supply the data that the “species” they find is actually new. No one has documented a timeline of when a new species has occurred. They only say they are confident it had to have evolved from species “a” or “b”. Although the genetic changes are clearly empirical, the evolution was not. It is an assumption based on a pre-conceived belief. Which I totally don’t have a problem with if it is presented in that matter. But don’t claim that because peanut butter was found on bread that therefore that means jelly was also there.

    Look it’s obvious that your insecure existence is reliant on feeling superior and intellectual. So you have found a way to manufacture both.

    What is your problem with me anyhow? So you don’t like my conclusions which I present as just that, conclusions. I am not only interested in creation, I just include creation as part of my research. And thus far in my OPINION the evidence supports creation. And I have been clear that is my OPINION and never insuated it should be yours or anyone else’s.

    And your ridiculous insults about “invincible” friends is retarded. Who uses that anymore? There are plenty of things we can’t see that we know exists you nose picker. I suppose since we don’t and can’t see wind it doesn’t exist? And if you say you see wind I am going to hunt you down and slap you silly.

    Take it easy oh brilliant one.


  79. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 11, 2008 at 9:26 am

    And we have come full circle.

    Please provide a scientific “honest test or at least an examination” that can be used to test your creation hypothesis.

    If you cannot (as I know you cannot) then you are completely wrong on this matter. You cannot conduct “research” on creation. IT IS A FAITH.

    Provide a scientific test for creationism and get back to me. I am on the edge of my seat.


  80. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 11, 2008 at 11:06 pm

    Good Timing.

    Below I have supplied the outline one could follow to put creation under the microscope. If you take a few minutes to meditate on what I have outlined you will see that some of the method you need to follow runs parallel with that of the method that you claim to follow. However I am sadly confident you would never even consider doing it but it’s there nonetheless.

    You know in all seriousness I want to stress, why I find your smug arrogance very abrasive, I respect your right to have an opinion. I would enjoy our dialog to continue if we are going to discuss actual information. I don’t attack evolution, I just don’t agree with it as it is defined. And I don’t argue over the amazing genetic anomalies and discoveries. In fact I am in awe of them. I think you hit a point earlier when you said you see my concerns as philosophical. In some ways that is probably the root of the problem. I am not one who likes to take things I know and project what that means 5 steps ahead and declare I have the answer. I do project, but I don’t claim my projections are irrefutable. You do however. Competent scientists don’t. They may state their confidence that they are convinced that the projection is correct but like 2 of my closest friends, one a marine bioligist the other a pharmacist(both believe in evolution), they do not have the audacity to say that the matter is closed. In fact they like discussing it with me. They also have taken time over the last couple years to learn exactly what creation is. As a result they are more enthusiastic to continue reviewing all of the data. But then again they are not pompous or lazy. In fact the marine biologist readily excepts the fact that there is clearly design in nature. He personally believes the design is still tied to the evolutionary map but he sees first hand the complexity and intricacy of nature.

    The shocking thing is that you vehemently insist you are an examiner, a knowledge seeker, which is the essence of science, and yet you are very selective as to what you research. (Evidently you spend most of your time on talkorigins.com) That is clearly hypocritical. That is like I have said a million times now, exactly what you accuse the wack job creationist of doing.

    http://www.scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/Testing-Creation.249575.


  81. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 12, 2008 at 7:08 am

    1.) Creationism is not science, as it is not testable. Hence, it has no place in scientific discussion.
    2.) Evolution has the most supporting empirical data at this point in time. For all intents, it is the most accurate model we can scientifically obtain at this time, and it seems to do very well in the supporting disciplines. Evolution is responsible for most, if not all, of the work being done in gene therapy, modern farming technology, pharmacology, and so on.

    Nothing about evolution is irrefutable. Evolution is subject to experiment every day and the possibility exists, because of the method being used to test, that evolution may fall victim to scientific disdain one day. Today is not that day.

    Creation is entirely irrefutable. I read your “test” for creationism. You have not designed an experiment at all. All you have done is instruct the reader to believe in a work of historical fiction and then *really* think about things. Idiotic.

    Design a TEST for creationism. This means that the outcome of the EXPERIMENT could either support or refute a hypothesis you have stated about the origin of life and/or species. DESIGN A TEST.


  82. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 12, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    You are a complete jackass. And here is why.

    1- All the reference material YOU supplied doesn’t even go to the extent you do so you are misrepresenting it.

    2 – You take the liberty of using scientific evidence and method to disprove or assault creation but you claim the same evidence cannot be used to support it. That is the most obnoxious and hypocritical display of intelligence or lack there of you could possibly express.

    3- My test is very direct, empirical and uses the same scientific data you use to argue against it. However it includes an entire scope of what is part of the real world and nature. History, Archeology, Language, Sociology, and Psychology. Obviously part of my test includes educating yourself on what exactly creation is because it is simply a waste of time to test things that have no basis or connection to the creation account if you are testing creation.

    4 – It doesn’t matter how science is applied in life you have no desire to research anything other than talkorigins and reading evolution for dummies.

    5 – And how you can read the article I just wrote and come out with “All you have done is instruct the reader to believe in a work of historical fiction and then *really* think about things. Idiotic”
    That is shameless and couldn’t be more inaccurate. That is just an anti religious comment. Which I am not talking about religion. Are you on drugs? The test I provided includes the same study and research of genetics, biology, and the experiments that you claim to except as science, you blithering fool. And on top of that it includes the other things I mentioned above.

    6 – And it’s not like you have done any experiment in your basement personally. You are simply relying on experiments that are being done by real scientists. And that is actually what I am suggesting people do. So how is that not an outcome of experiment?

    7 – My friend is a staff scientist at Wyeth Laborities and he would love you to explain scientifically how evolution is used in pharmacology. The man has worked there and developed medicines for over 30 years I think he would know how they go about there business.
    And quite frankly you can make the same argument that creation’s design is copied in science based on the exact same data you claim is evolution.

    8 – And no matter what the word science means you claim to have this magical power to apply it in ways that only you and Bible haters seem to be able to decide.

    9 – Who makes comments and/or conclusions on subjects they know nothing about? I have and continue to study science period, as it relates to evolution or creation. I know and continue to learn and consider all the data. You call things fiction and have absolutley no clue of what it actually says.

    10 – Nothing about evolution is irrefutable you say? That is all I have been saying. And as far as where we stand today, no one is arguing with the facts and outcome of the experiments done up to this point. Calling it evolution is where the problem lies. Again science has proven some mutations and genetic changes but no one has provided a specific example of a species they can say wasn’t here at this time and then appeared at this time. Because no one has ever seen that. The Bible on the other hand provides a timeline of human existence that can be traced back by our understanding of measured time. So why the genetic information is accurate and amazing the presumption that the only explanation is it had to come from this “other” species is absurd. You may personally except that as a possible explanation but you can’t even begin to say it has been shown in an experiment. Oh and by the way any serious researcher knows of the countless of times they have tried to “re-create” what many assume is happening in a lab and it has never, ever taken place.

    So if you aren’t going to include all the facts in our discussions then climb under your rock and bask in your manufactured importance.


  83. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 12, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    The application of genome sequencing in our evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees and other apes, has yielded incredible amounts of test data in the advancement of drug research.

    http://www.fiercebioresearcher.com/story/new-genetic-map-used-advance-drug-research/2008-09-09

    And for the second time, in answer to your ignorance regarding speciation research:

    Claim CB901:
    No case of macroevolution has ever been documented.
    Source:
    Morris, Henry M., 2000 (Jan.). Strong Delusion. Back to Genesis 133: a.
    Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 6.
    Response:

    1. We would not expect to observe large changes directly. Evolution consists mainly of the accumulation of small changes over large periods of time. If we saw something like a fish turning into a frog in just a couple generations, we would have good evidence against evolution.

    2. The evidence for evolution does not depend, even a little, on observing macroevolution directly. There is a very great deal of other evidence (Theobald 2004; see also evolution proof).

    3. As biologists use the term, macroevolution means evolution at or above the species level. Speciation has been observed and documented.

    4. Microevolution has been observed and is taken for granted even by creationists. And because there is no known barrier to large change and because we can expect small changes to accumulate into large changes, microevolution implies macroevolution. Small changes to developmental genes or their regulation can cause relatively large changes in the adult organism (Shapiro et al. 2004).

    5. There are many transitional forms that show that macroevolution has occurred.

    References:

    1. Shapiro M. D., M. E. Marks, C. L. Peichel, B. K. Blackman, K. S. Nereng, B. Jónsson, D. Schluter and D. M. Kingsley, 2004. Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks. Nature 428: 717-723. See also: Shubin, N. H. and R. D. Dahn, 2004. Evolutionary biology: Lost and found. Nature 428: 703.
    2. Theobald, Douglas, 2004. 29+ Evidences for macroevolution: The scientific case for common descent. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    Nearly all science relies on previous research.

    Please clarify what observations you would expect to make in your “experiment.” What is your hypothesis? What empirical scale is used to quantify the results?

    I really thought people like you were caricatures in entertainment programs. I am floored to see that you guys are still hanging on like this.


  84. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 12, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    By the way, science would never disprove creation theory, as such a theory is completely untestable. Honest scientists working in the field are not even discussing creation theory. It would make as much sense as asking an auto mechanic for a couple of hours of psychotherapy.

    Science does not occupy itself with untestable, unobservable, and unknowable speculation.


  85. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

    This is getting no where.

    I mean on one hand I have no nor have I had any desire to change your mind. You seem more bent on elevating your contrived superior intelligence but I do appreciate the reference material. You have found some good stuff.

    However again for the millionth time you call me ignorant because I absorb the research and take just as it is presented. I don’t embellish facts to conmform them to my preconceived wishes. You simply look for supportive evidence or data you can manipulate.

    Again no one is disputing the genetic changes observed over time. But to call it transitional is another subject. Linking related species is not empirical. That is a supposition. No one has charted a timeline of when one species has led to another. No body said that had to happen in a short time frame. And if it is going to prove itself then so be it. Why speak as if it has happened?

    The examples you have provided, those I have and those I got from you all say the same point I have been saying. Obviously you aren’t reading the actual words in the studies. All that is definitive is that some plants and some animals have a genetic capacity for making changes.

    Science does not occupy itself with untestable, unobservable, and unknowable speculation ? Who said otherwise? From a scientific aspect. The test of creation includes the same data and the same tests that are being done to corraborate or falsify the theory of evolution.

    The test I am suggesting thus starts with a different hypothesis. It is this. What if there was a source of energy, a being of the highest intelligence. A mastermind who developed and created life and an environment for life. What if this creator programed living things made of the elements of it’s surrounding to thrive in it? What if like a man can create a program to have flexibility and the ability to change with changes in the environment, that living things could have in their DNA the ability to change to their surroundings? And what if this being provided a rough outline of how he organized life on specifically the planet we live on?

    Then brainiac, you take this hypothesis and you apply the same scientifif findings and see if this is a better explanation, or not an explanation etc.

    You are such tool that you can’t understand the obvious. Evolution was laughed at but that didn’t stop scientists to research it. So a true scientist or a lover of science may find the notion of a creator laughable also but it shouldn’t stop him from saying “okay let me go from this angle and use the SAME EXPERIMENTS AND SCIENCE to see if it supports that angle”.

    So what is to hold onto you jackass. The point you continue to overlook is I study with both hypothesis in mind.

    And how does taking creation serious make a scientist dishonest? It is more like the Emporers New Clothes syndrome. Insecure frauds like you don’t have the balls to say “hey I clearly am convinced that evolution is a proven fact, but maybe there are things I don’t know about the creation account that I am overlooking. Maybe there are points of interest I never knew.”

    So you’re saying that scientists are not honest if they try a different hypothesis?

    So if you are so occupied and busy with evolution why do you waste your time with idiots like me? I dare to include other information about life so why bother with me?

    Oh and your statement ” The application of genome sequencing in our evolutionary cousins, chimpanzees and other apes, has yielded incredible amounts of test data in the advancement of drug research” again what does that even mean?

    There is genome sequencing in living things whether they evolved or not. My friend who works at Wyeth Laboritories didn’t say that there is not animal research. He said that despite his belief in evolution it has nothing to do with developing medicine. They use data from living things and avoid projections. Plus sadly but vital when it comes to the use of meds it is better to have an animal die in development than a human. They don’t talk about evolution when they’re formulating combinations of chemicals etc.. His question to you is not what they learn from microscopic life, from animals and plants but what evolution to medicine? And don’t repeat yourself with your politition like babble. He knows what they do and learn from living things and how life seems to operate but how or why those things started have absolutely nothing to do with their work.

    Comparing the field of science to an auto mechanic? The scope of what an auto mechanic is concerned with isn’t close to the scope of what science includes. Again regardless of what science means you insist it only applies to what lab experiments.


  86. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 16, 2008 at 9:38 am

    The common ancestry of modern apes (homo sapiens, chimpanzees, orangutans, et al) allows drug research to craft logically sound tests on experimental pharmaceuticals. The results will correlate more closely due to our close genetic relationship.

    So, you have a hypothesis that there is a “mastermind” who programmed all life to develop and adapt. Cool. Now, how would you TEST your hypothesis? Please provide a TEST for your hypothesis.


  87. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 16, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    Now *this* is funny:

    http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804713.htm

    Vatican evolution congress to exclude creationism, intelligent design
    Catholic News Service ^ | Sep-16-2008 | Carol Glatz

    VATICAN CITY (CNS) — Speakers invited to attend a Vatican-sponsored congress on the evolution debate will not include proponents of creationism and intelligent design, organizers said.

    He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

    (Excerpt) Read more at catholicnews.com …


  88. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 17, 2008 at 1:08 am

    I do find it amusing but not surprising in the least. The Catholic church supported Hitler for crying out loud so why would this be a shock? They aided and abetted child molestors so this is news?

    The Catholic Church is a psuedo Christianity and has no interest in the Bible so what what would they know about the creation account?

    There agenda is about money. I wouldn’t want them speaking about Creation. They claim to use the Bible and yet they do not teach anything from it. In fact they attribute flat out lies to the Bible. So it is obvious they aren’t concerned with what is actually in the Bible.

    What is real funny is there was an article I will refer you to that had a group of Evolutionists angry because they want Evolution to include the concept of intelligent design. Of course they were clear to state that they want it known that this design is a result of Evolution.

    Thanks for the reading though.


  89. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 21, 2008 at 12:20 pm

    So I am guessing that you have abandoned your effort to devise a scientific experiment for your creation theory?


  90. ANDY-N Says...

    On September 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    No one has to devise anything. It is there for honest hearted people who have the desire and willingness to learn and examine everything at their disposal.

    I don’t have any reason to abandon anything either. I have every reason to hold my head high and be proud of the fact that I am not another puppet for the posers of society.

    I will continue to learn and examine reality with other sincere human beings why you live in your fantasy world of arrogance.


  91. Wrong Again Says...

    On September 22, 2008 at 11:45 pm

    Ah-ha. You don’t HAVE to devise a scientific experiment because the only people who would believe such dung will do so on BLIND FAITH alone. Genius!

    Can you make a comprehensive list of the societal “poseurs” to whom you refer? Einstein? Darwin? Hawking? Newton? Galileo? Are all scientists “poseurs” in your opinion? Do you hate their profession or do you hate them personally?

    Examine away, moron. Just stay away from science with your absurd wagon of lies and misdirection. You do not seem to want to play by the rules of scientific research and should rightly not be permitted within those hallowed halls.


  92. Steven Hays Says...

    On March 13, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    Good work Andy. This article is well written, and very clear. Also, you show that, through your writing, you have researched this topic and it is not based on some ‘whim’ to make a statement.

    I have noticed how you’ve managed to present your data without ‘flinging mud’ so to speek. However, as I have noticed, many of the people arguing against your case DO use random (albeit empty) insults and generalizations, which, as a reader, and from an undecided standpoint, would suggest uneducation in this particular area, inability to seperate emotions from reason, pure lack of knowledge with any other weapon of argument besides that which would involve flinging insults (i.e. moron, etc).

    Anyway, I would like to suggest ‘Wrong Again’ whoever you are, writes your own article. If you’re so opinionated that you must continually attempt to debunk Andy’s article, then I’d like to see what you come up with.

    Either way, nothing will get settled over this system…

    Andy, if it would help you any, I have written a paper challenging Evolution, and would be more than happy to share. I will also post it later.


  93. Steven Hays Says...

    On March 13, 2009 at 4:46 pm

    I just read ‘wrong again’s last post… woah buddy! Dramatic much? Funny how you speek of science as if its… a… religion? I smell hypocracy.


  94. Wrong Again Says...

    On March 16, 2009 at 10:16 am

    Religion implies faith. Science requires no faith as it is based on empirical evidence, observation, and repeatable experiment. Science is the crown jewel of the “age of reason” and stands as an important pillar of humanity’s evolution away from the superstitious nonsense that has plagued mankind throughout history. We are now, with the faculties of science, able to make universally meaningful and beneficial statements about the world around us that do not exclude or divide mankind in the way that religions always have and always will. Science is truly “equal opportunity” if one is prepared to follow the scientific method.

    My statements about religion above are my personal opinion and should have no bearing on the following, irrefutable syllogism:

    1.) Science is a discipline that relies on repeatable experiment, observation, peer-review, and refinement.
    2.) Intelligent design (aka creationism or creation science) contains no repeatable experiment, observation, peer-review, or refinement capabilities. Not only is ID completely irrefutable (ie there is no way for a detractor to compose a scientific experiment to affirm/support ID or refute/negate ID) but ID is hostile to scientific examination altogether (ie It was magic! or It was aliens! or It was God!).
    3.) ID/Creationism/Creationism is *not* science and cannot live within the tenets of scientific discourse.

    This is called a logical syllogism. The first two points in the syllogism combine to form the conclusion. If you can refute either point #1 or point #2, then the syllogism breaks down. I have encouraged Andy to create an experiment for ID in order to refute point #2 but he has failed to do so. In his defense, nobody to date has been able to do so either so expecting a lay-person to “crack the nut” is unfair.

    I do not like religion. That should be obvious. However, my personal feelings about that are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Creationism is not science and should not be discussed in scientific context. I will aggressively defend science from attempted pollution of this nature. Science makes no statements about God. I only ask that God return the favor.


  95. Andy-N Says...

    On April 8, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    Sorry but the last few months have been music overload.

    I see you haven’t given up,which is good.

    All fake bravado aside and being serious and not trying to get you going I would simply add this.

    I truly am tired of your insistance that most people who are religious or except the Bible’s account and the science that supports it believe in your selected version of what you say or think creation is.

    Now that may not prove anything per say but really you don’t know as much as you think you do about creation. After all in an earlier “argument” you referenced the catholic church. Please, they burned people for reading the Bible. (okay so that was a long time ago) But honestly if you compared the catholic explanation to the actually events described in the Bible you would understand my point.

    And I get it. You, because of personal reasons would not even consider all of the variables and areas of study required to evaluate the creative process. That to me comes across hypocritical. You may not intend it to be but think about it.

    While we both agree that science has an emprical value it is also a field of open eyes and open to possibility. A scientist who insists that only science can explain something is a fraud. But a scientist who excepts that science is helpful in resolving or answering questions is legit.

    God has never denied true science. In fact the Bible has facts related to science printed long before those facts became scientific. Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:7, Psalm 139:16, Ecclesiastes 1:1-7 to name a few.

    This is not say that the Bible was written to explain science nor is the sole purpose of science to explain the Bible. But the harmony is there if one wants to see it.

    You despise the Bible, religion(which most religions I do also), Creation, the thought or mention of a creator/God and so on.

    Your prejudice should make you “recuse” yourself from any honest dialog.

    In fact through all of our “bashing”, you refuse to admit that I have a healthy repsect for science. I have never been anti science. But that doesn’t mean that everything ever pronounced by the science community is accurate or in some cases above suspicion. And that is certainly not a view started by me. Most scientists I know feel that way about their profession.

    I was a chemist and I have seen false data and mistaken data. It happens all the time.


  96. Oh so Wrong Again Says...

    On April 26, 2009 at 10:04 am

    The topic of creationism (of all varieties) has no place in the realm of science. Creationism cannot be tested, observed, validated, or invalidated, and hence has no place in scientific discourse.

    Please refer to the National Academy of Science’s stance on the issue:

    ########## QUOTE ##################
    Evolution and Creationism in Schools

    The pressure to downplay evolution or emphasize nonscientific alternatives in public schools compromises science education.

    Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future.

    Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in today’s scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of today’s fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge.

    Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.
    ######### END QUOTE ##########

    Refer: http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/InSchools.html

    You are in no position to redefine science as your see fit in order to try to make it conform to your religious views. The nature and scope of science is dictated by the scientific community at large and by a rigid and well-defined set of rules and objective measurements.

    My prejudice is in support of proper science. This in no way prevents me from defending science from attempted obfuscation and pollution by zealots and vandals.

    If you indeed have a healthy respect for science, please stop trying to backdoor theology into science.


  97. ANDY-N Says...

    On April 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    I have never ever suggested creation to be a part of school, in fact I am against it. And yet this is the 5th time you have moronically brought it up.

    I am redefining science? No I am talking about reality. You are the one who is hung up on religion. False religion at that. Your idea of defending science is to attack your idea of religion and faith. What is that all about?

    Other than cut and paste random articles, that often have nothing to do with what I have said, you have offered nothing to a discussion.

    Just admit it. Your in the wrong place. You belong with the other clueless agenda seekers who simply want to make a statement about what they don’t agree with. The worst part is most of what you claim to be linked to the Bible is totally inaccurate!

    Hey it doesn’t matter how many insults you throw out there, it doesn’t chaneg reality.


  98. Wrong Again Says...

    On May 4, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Creationism, of all varieties and ilks, is *not* science. This is a scientific reality supported by the National Academy of Science, the US Supreme Court, and even the Vatican.

    Your discussions of “reality” would be more apropos in a philosophical venue rather that in a forum dedicated to scientific discourse. The very title of this article is complete nonsense that you have failed to support in any way.


  99. Andy-N Says...

    On May 6, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    I have failed? Says you.

    You have no plans or desire to follow through on the entire process, thus you sir will never know.

    Oh and for the millionth time, I did not post this in science, Triond did.

    Get some balls and do all the research and not just hide in your test tubes


  100. Wrong Again Says...

    On May 7, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    I am referencing precedent research. You have created a completely new and unprecedented hypothesis. The onus is upon *you* to create an experiment for your hypothesis.

    I do not work in the field of evolutionary biology. There are experts in that field who have untold numbers of publications supporting the conclusions I reference. You do not just disagree with me, jackass. You are disagreeing with the biology community as a whole here.


  101. ANDY N Says...

    On June 28, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    Again I have a degree in science you fool. As I told you before I got this gig in a studio I made medicine at Wyeth Lab. I worked with scientists, I have been to seminars with scienists.

    I was taught by scientists, I went to school with scientists. The numbers are not what you make it out to be. And the people don’t lie.

    The majority of people I have worked with and learned with are very opend minded and realistic. They don’t have a test tube shoved up there butt like you do. They do not think they are smarter because they majored in science.

    You are a fraud and a want to be. Pull your pants back up and stop playing with yourself and talk to people who just want to be a drone and not consider all of the facts.

    You have proven you do not know the difference between a lab test and other viable means of discovery that relate to science.


  102. Wrong Again Says...

    On June 29, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    And yet you have still not presented “Proof of Creation” as your title promises.

    Perhaps you should have taken your mere attendance at scientific seminars a step further and listened.


  103. ANDY N Says...

    On July 6, 2009 at 10:01 am

    3 obvious things here.
    1) the title does not denote that I am providing a test or a emperical process. I am clearly suggesting that their is evidence. Many things have been proven outside of a lab. And any scientist or reasonably intelligent person knows and excepts that.
    2) I did provide you and anyone who wanted the direction to carry a heartfelt and responsible study of all the facts and relevant points that relate the matter and you are too lazy and arrogant to recognize the common sense behind it
    3) The seminars I attended did not have any connection or link to this subject, however they did cover material that you would probably ignore just like you ignore whatever it is you deem unscientific. My studies were in the area of chemistry and pharmaceutical research.

    Again I have spent extensive hours and even years with scientists and most of us do not have the blowhard views that you try and impute on us. No question many of us believe in evolution but many believe in a God also. Many more than polls suggest. I go by real life and what I have actually seen. And the vast majority agree there is so much more we will learn on the matter of life and its origin.

    Only fools like you think the book is finished.

    Oh and another thing. What test proves that life came as a result of evolution? Even supporters take an accumulation of various studies, not from “a” test. So your entire premise is absurd and proof of what your real agenda is. Your just anti religious, which really has no bearing on what the article is about.


  104. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 8, 2009 at 9:21 am

    The veracity of evolutionary biology is completely unrelated to the discussion regarding belief in “god”. It could be easily argued that evolution is a tool used by your “god” in his “divine plan.” I could not argue with such a proposition, either. This approach is known as “the god in the gaps” and is not uncommon amongst your ilk. Whenever a scientific theory becomes untenable to refute (as is the case with evolution) the supernatural cause can be easily molded to conform to this new requirement.

    Please understand, Andy, that science says nothing about the existence of god. Science is not equipped to answer questions like that. Science deals with the natural world and “god” is supernatural by definition. Belief in god requires faith, not proof. Science is only consumed with observation and proof. Not faith.

    For lab tests supporting evolutionary biology, please refer to the human genome project. Gene mapping has provided a VERY clear picture of our genetic heritage. It has further bolstered prior experiment demonstrating that humans share common ancestors with a number of higher primates. This is just one of THOUSANDS of tested observations that support the theory of evolution.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#DNA_redundancy

    Please provide ONE SUCH TEST that demonstrates creation theory.

    Again, I am eagerly anticipating your reply.


  105. ANDY N Says...

    On July 8, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    Are you trying to be belligerent, still?

    I have made it abundantly clear that the stereotypical creationist does not represent the Bible or me.

    “This is just one of THOUSANDS of tested observations that support the theory of evolution.”

    The above quote from you proves the point I have made a million times on this thread of comments.

    I tried keeping my personal experience out this early on but again I have experience as a chemist and I have multiple science degrees. I don’t need you to tell me what science is or what it comments on.

    I have never been clear of whether you are sincere person or not but once again you make it obvious that your agenda is anti religious.

    And for the millionth time, I still keep in close contact with my lab friends and we often discuss articles and points the likes of those you reference. But none of us pretend to see the conclusiveness that you profess.

    “untenable to refute” I have hardcore evolutionist scientist friends who don’t even believe that.

    But that is your perogative to feel that way. Good luck with that.

    Also just because you do not except the Biblical definition of faith doesn’t make it inaccurate. In fact only a fool believes something without evidence.

    “Gene mapping has provided a VERY clear picture of our genetic heritage” Not according to my biologist friends. Oh they believe much has been learned but to call it clear is a diservice to those who work hard to be accurate.

    For the last time, your rejection and lazy disregard for the research required to review the evidence/proof of creation is your problem not mine.

    People smarter than both of us combined have done so and concede their is a Creator. And others have done so and do not see it the same way. But at least they took the time to consider all of the facts and data.


  106. Wrong Again Says...

    On July 9, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Your lack of a scientific response speaks volumes.

    My *only* point throughout this entire discussion has been that creationism of all ilks does not, and cannot be, examined via science or the scientific method. You *must* accept this as true in order to adhere to the tenets of science. Claiming to be a scientist who rejects the scientific method is fallacious and hypocritical in the very worst way.

    I advocate evolution as I do because it is the most stable and supported *scientific* theory available today. Science cannot prove or disprove creation theory at all. That is why it simply is not science. We cannot test or observe creationism. Not even believers like you could do so.

    You are trying to redefine science to bolster your faith. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, that is “a hopeful sign, at least.”


Post Comment
comments powered by Disqus