How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Rían]

You asked for one post not mentioning god or evolution that supported creationism. Post 447 is that post. Post 447 presented a scientific model, without mentioning evolution or god, and presented data that supported it. It is a stand-alone post. You asked for one post not mentioning god or evolution that supported creationism, and you got it

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You asked for one post not mentioning god or evolution that supported creationism. Post 447 is that post. Post 447 presented a scientific model, without mentioning evolution or god, and presented data that supported it. It is a stand-alone post. You asked for one post not mentioning god or evolution that supported creationism, and you got it

Actually - no it doesn't. YOu just worded it so it didn't mention god or evolution. However, you don't present evidence FOR creationism. You mentioned the things that you feel don't support evolution. "We should see...." were your headlines. IN some instances that is NOT what we see - such as static creatures. The fossil record does not show that unless you are looking at a single period of time.

Good try though, I must give you that much. Can we please now have the evidence for creationism?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What we observe today is that there seem to be LIMITS to the change, and new species come about from EXISTING genetic info and end up with LESS genetic info.

This seems to be the crux of your argument and the glue that keeps it all together. Youve given into the concept of evolution on some levels now. But you still refuse to acknowledge that evolution can work over a continuum. And that it instead arbitrarily stops working somehow. Perhaps you can focus on why you believe this is the case on a genetic and biologic level so we can see what the heart of your scientific beliefs really are.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

No I wasn't talking about the wrong post. Post 447 was basically a continuation of what you were talking about in 446. You posted two posts back to back.

Edit - to put it bluntly - what you did was attacked evolution in post 446 and then tried to present your "scientific" evidence in post 447. Which basically was a post explaining WHY the evidence for evolution suppsoedly doesn't work without mentioning evolution by name.

I think that RÃ*an's post may be applied not only against evolutionism but also against the intelligent designer theory, so (if that evidence prooved true) that would left only one possible scenario: the Creationism theory.

But I believe that I'm the only one in this thread that thinks that evidence against evolution (not evolutionism, mind you) may be considered as evidence for creationism since for me creationism (from a scientific pov) it's only a negation theory: there's no evolution or only minor changes that shouldn't be considered evolution.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I think that RÃ*an's post may be applied not only against evolutionism but also against the intelligent designer theory, so (if that evidence prooved true) that would left only one possible scenario: the Creationism theory.

But I believe that I'm the only one in this thread that thinks that evidence against evolution (not evolutionism, mind you) may be considered as evidence for creationism since for me creationism (from a scientific pov) it's only a negation theory: there's no evolution or only minor changes that shouldn't be considered evolution.

You can't base a scientific theory by trying to negate another theory. Either a theory has to stand on it's own two feet - or it's not a theory. Evidence against evolution would only SUGGEST that evolution is wrong - not conversely that creationism is correct. Fro instance - we can not say well evolution is correct, by attacking creationism. We have to come up with the fossil record and many other sciences that back up evolution. Creationists just fall back to the old - "let's just try to come up with ways of why evolution doesn't work and claim that it's science supporting creationism".

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

You can't base a scientific theory by trying to negate another theory. Either a theory has to stand on it's own two feet - or it's not a theory. Evidence against evolution would only SUGGEST that evolution is wrong - not conversely that creationism is correct. Fro instance - we can not say well evolution is correct, by attacking creationism. We have to come up with the fossil record and many other sciences that back up evolution. Creationists just fall back to the old - "let's just try to come up with ways of why evolution doesn't work and claim that it's science supporting creationism".

Yes and no. Popper's episthemology (in the tradition of Khun, Lakatos and others) is based in the concept of falsability: science advances from a paradigm (a group of theories and hypothesis) to another by the refutation (finding evidence against) of the former one.

If we consider Creationism as a paradigm based on the hypothesis of that all the Universe is mainly stable and unchanged (without any mention to God as its source) but not eternal, a refutation of the evidence for evolution would result in evidence for that paradigm. Its two main hypothesis would be scientifically valid.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by rian

What I said was "lack of expected evidence for intermediate forms".

lack of evidence? what about the fossilized remains??

dinosaur-bird: archaeopteryx, hesperornis, avimimus, syntarsis, procompsognathus
primate-man: australopithecus, gigantopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus
amphibian-reptile: eryops

i could find more from my multitude of scientifically researcheed books, but frankly, i am getting tired with having to do this

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Yes and no. Popper's episthemology (in the tradition of Khun, Lakatos and others) is based in the concept of falsability: science advances from a paradigm (a group of theories and hypothesis) to another by the refutation (finding evidence against) of the former one.

The problem is that creationism does not come from the theory of evolution as you described here. If you coudl just ignore much of the evidence that is shown for a particular theory and just concentrate on trying to negating a competing theory - without having to supply any that supports the other - then science would really come to a stand still. I could just say - I want to ignore all this information we have about atoms - because I have another theory. And as long as I ignore all that stuff, my theory works. It would be great - no one could be wrong then.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

If you coudl just ignore much of the evidence that is shown for a particular theory and just concentrate on trying to negating a competing theory - without having to supply any that supports the other - then science would really come to a stand still. I could just say - I want to ignore all this information we have about atoms - because I have another theory. And as long as I ignore all that stuff, my theory works. It would be great - no one could be wrong then.

I'm not speaking of ignoring data but of finding data that contradicts the theory.

That's how science evolve: one single contradictory data (if it's empirically proved) forces to discard a whole theory and to find a new hypothesis that includes that data.

So the way to back Creationism with evidence would be to show that there is some evidence that the forces of evolution are not as general as the evolutionism or guiding intelligence theories suppose.

BTW, I want to clarify that I'm just giving my opinion on what would be scientifical and what not, but I'm not taking part for Creationism nor Evolutionism since I'm not learned in natural sciences data.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

Yes and no. Popper's episthemology (in the tradition of Khun, Lakatos and others) is based in the concept of falsability: science advances from a paradigm (a group of theories and hypothesis) to another by the refutation (finding evidence against) of the former one.

If we consider Creationism as a paradigm based on the hypothesis of that all the Universe is mainly stable and unchanged (without any mention to God as its source) but not eternal, a refutation of the evidence for evolution would result in evidence for that paradigm. Its two main hypothesis would be scientifically valid.

I agree. IMO, creationism and evolution are definitely related as a type of opposite. For example (a very simplistic one), if someone says that they added water to some chemicals and a reaction occurs, but they couldn't remember if the water was hot or cold, and if we added hot water and find the reaction does NOT occur, then it would make sense to next check to see if the reaction occurs in the opposite condition - adding cold water.

The GTE (general theory of evolution) basically states that we've gone from molecules to man by naturalistic processes that we can still observe today, such as beneficial mutations and natural selection. YEC (young earth creationism) basically states that God, in a single, one-time period, created life basically as we see it today, with life reproducing after its kind. If we can't find enough satisfactory evidence to support the mechanisms and predictions that the GTE proposes, then it makes sense to consider the mechanisms and predictions of the opposite theory, which would be any of the creation by intelligent design models, such as YEC.

And in post 447, I've given a simple, stand-alone, one-post summary of observable scientific evidence that supports creationism, without any reference to evolution or god in any way, shape or form.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree. IMO, creationism and evolution are definitely related as a type of opposite. For example (a very simplistic one), if someone says that they added water to some chemicals and a reaction occurs, but they couldn't remember if the water was hot or cold, and if we added hot water and find the reaction does NOT occur, then it would make sense to next check to see if the reaction occurs in the opposite condition - adding cold water.

You still can't support a theory by merely opposing another. Just because you think evolution is wrong - doesn't make creationism right.

The GTE (general theory of evolution) basically states that we've gone from molecules to man by naturalistic processes that we can still observe today, such as beneficial mutations and natural selection.

Sorry - this is where the problem is - SCIENCE ONLY deals with nature. Everything else is belief. If you can not not have a SCIENTIFIC teory of creationism if it is not supported through natural processes.

YEC (young earth creationism) basically states that God, in a single, one-time period, created life basically as we see it today, with life reproducing after its kind. If we can't find enough satisfactory evidence to support the mechanisms and predictions that the GTE proposes, then it makes sense to consider the mechanisms and predictions of the opposite theory, which would be any of the creation by intelligent design models, such as YEC.

Basically under both premises - sicne you brought god into them - are no longer scientific. They fall under belief. You can not support a scientific theory by god.

And in post 447, I've given a simple, stand-alone, one-post summary of observable scientific evidence that supports creationism, without any reference to evolution or god in any way, shape or form.

In your opinion I would add. You didn't do anything to state the scientific evidence for creationism. You left out many of the things we observe through the fossil record. So yeah - if you throw out half the evidence that doesn't fit in with what you had stated - then I suppose you did back it up. But in your mind only.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I'm not speaking of ignoring data but of finding data that contradicts the theory. [/SIZE]

My problem with Rian's 447 post is that she IGNORED data which does not support her claim. Yeah - you don't see animals turning into another if you just take a small part of the fossil record.

But here is something that I said yesterday to someone on why Rian's hypothesis is incorrect.

She says - looking at such and such a layer you see all these magnificent unique animals and they don't show any of them turning into another - which supports creationism. (I'm paraphrasing here)

But wait - we open the lens a little wider and we - low and behold - what's this? We see an older layer and a newer layer. The older layer contains more primitive animals than the layer we just initially looked at - but they are similar and have many of the features that these animals have. And then - we look at the 3rd layer, the younger layer. They have more complex animals than the initial layer, but they also have similar features.

Evolution versus creationism is basically on what kind of lens you are looking through. A wide angle (evolution) or a pin hole (creationism).

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

lack of evidence? what about the fossilized remains??

dinosaur-bird: archaeopteryx, hesperornis, avimimus, syntarsis, procompsognathus
primate-man: australopithecus, gigantopithecus, homo habilis, homo erectus
amphibian-reptile: eryops

i could find more from my multitude of scientifically researcheed books, but frankly, i am getting tired with having to do this

Mixed bones...(See! I can mess you up too!!!)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by me9996

Mixed bones...(See! I can mess you up too!!!)

i'm not quite sure i follow you ...

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i'm not quite sure i follow you ...

Dino bones and fethers got mixed up and you evalutionists said it was a dino bird.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

or complete petrified remains of feathers found attached to said skeletal remains, and verified with years of analysis

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by me9996

Dino bones and fethers got mixed up and you evalutionists said it was a dino bird.

A Chinese guy put together some bones and feathers because he knew he'd be paid well by paleontologists for his "fossil". It was a fraud and no evolutionist actually believes this guy's "dino bird" have really existed.

This is an interesting analogy
The bible is just a mix of different books. Take the new testament for instance. Initially there were many texts about Jesus's life. A group of Christians later decided which texts were to be included in the bible and which were to be thrown out. What if some of these texts were "dino bones" and some were "feathers"? . Just something to tickle your mind

[Rían]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

My problem with Rian's 447 post is that she IGNORED data which does not support her claim.

I need to register a complaint here so we can get back in touch with the reality of the background behind that post

That post was made in response to a specific request for a ONE-POST SUMMARY of scientific evidence that SUPPORTS creationism. I think it's pretty unfair to request a ONE-POST SUMMARY of scientific evidence that SUPPORTS creationism and then turn around and complain that I ignore data that doesn't support creationism!

I DON'T ignore data that doesn't support my claim. Whoever has read my detailed posts can see that I address all sorts of data, even the data that supports evolution more than creationism, and I call it like I see it. It's pretty unfair to ask for a ONE-post SUMMARY on data that SUPPORTS creationism, and then say I ignore data that doesn't support creationism!! Let's be reasonable here!

I think some data supports evolution, and some data supports creationism - and I think MORE data supports creationism than evolution - actual data, that is, not conjectural or extrapolated data.

Yeah - you don't see animals turning into another if you just take a small part of the fossil record.

But here is something that I said yesterday to someone on why Rian's hypothesis is incorrect.

She says - looking at such and such a layer you see all these magnificent unique animals and they don't show any of them turning into another - which supports creationism. (I'm paraphrasing here)

But wait - we open the lens a little wider and we - low and behold - what's this? We see an older layer and a newer layer. The older layer contains more primitive animals than the layer we just initially looked at - but they are similar and have many of the features that these animals have. And then - we look at the 3rd layer, the younger layer. They have more complex animals than the initial layer, but they also have similar features.

I wasn't just talking about "such and such" a layer; I was specifically talking about the EARLIEST layer with a fair amount of fossils - and in THAT layer, you see incredibly complex creatures, as well as simple ones. I picked the earliest layer to talk about ON PURPOSE - it was not just a random layer.

I guess you could just say, "well, IF we could see earlier layers than this one, we would see only simple organisms", but that's just conjecture, as opposed to actual observation. I like to go on actual observation as opposed to conjecture. And in the EARLIEST layer with a good amount of fossils, you see just what I said in that post - and IMO, that data supports creationism, because you see complexity in the EARLIEST abundant layer.

Evolution versus creationism is basically on what kind of lens you are looking through. A wide angle (evolution) or a pin hole (creationism).

I disagree Looking at ALL available data (both directly observeable and indirectly observeable, as opposed to extrapolated and/or conjectural) and seeing how it matches up with BOTH models, I think evolution vs. creationism is generally like this:

Evolution is supported by lots of good, observable, valid data that demonstrates micro-evolution, but is mostly, if not wholly, "supported" by merely extrapolated and conjectural data when it comes to macro-evolution. And macro-evolution is the heart of the theory of evolution, IMO. Without macro-evolution, you have, basically, creationism! (but with a different starting point)

Creationism is supported by lots of good, observable, valid data in its most important tenets.

And NEITHER model can be proven, unfortunately. Or perhaps fortunately...

[Rían]

Two quick notes, because I'm short on time - hope to fill in more later -

I think it was IRex who said something like it seems like the genetic issues are the strongest support of creationism IMO, and I would generally agree, and he asked what support I had. Basically, I'd say every observed birth of every animal that has taken place supports this, as well as virtually all the stuff we know about genetics. Mutations are mostly neutral, or if not neutral, the vast majority are harmful. The amazing way genetics works supports creationism, IMO, because of how a mutation on one side can be totally cancelled out by the healthy gene on the other side. It's absolutely amazing the percentage of births that yield healthy young, and how the reproductive system is designed to promote this.

I think it was JD who said something like (roughly) can an Asian baby pop out of Adam and Eve, when I pointed out that out of two medium-brown-skinned people can come every skin color. Asian characteristics were not the point; skin color was, and how out of the genetic diversity in the original pair of Adam and Eve can come every type of characteristic. Really, this should be no issue for those who believe in evolution - it's the same mechanism, but with a more realistic starting point (i.e., a human couple, compared to a one-celled thingy).

[Rían]

(hmm, didn't update for some reason...)