Re: new creationist museum in dallas

[TheJackel]

I don't even need to use evolution to disprove Creationism Ned.. We can use more basic logic and reasoning to show why Creationism is a Sham. If you can tell me how one can design and create the entire list below into existence without self-contradiction, and with explanation of each of this listed examples below.., I will concede to creationism

Order
Existence
Intelligence
Information
Knowledge
Energy
Spatial Dimension
Self-awareness
Self-identity
Consciousness
A place for one's self to exist
Color: Black and White, or RGB
Infinity
Wisdom
Time
Sight
Hearing
Smell
Choices
Decisions
Mind Containment
Observation
Calculation
Manipulation
Thought
Perception
Reality
Will
Entity
Individualism
Feelings
Emotions
Experience
Experiences
Complexity
Cause and effect
Any Pattern or Patterns
Morality
Cognitive behavior
Inertia
Progress / progression
Mental Processing
Memory
Osculation
Intent
Ability
Positive and Negative
Imagination
Design
Creation
Point of View
Behavior
Life
Senses
Mobility
Power
Divinity
Math
Action
Reaction
Response
Communication
Big and small (size)
Speed
Choice
Decision
Strength
Material Physicality
Movement

Or, I can personally debunk that super Famous Creationist Scientists Sarfati
Genesis VS Science Part 2: Early Earth's Atmosphere

[Tank]

I did follow the links to the fossil record, and found them to be little more than tedious word-sludge.

Which simply indicates your inability to read and understand intelligent research carefully presented. Again, when offered high quality information you do nothing but turn your nose up to it. Trying to educate some fundamental theists is like trying to teach a pig to sing. Ultimately futile and it annoys the pig. If you don't want to learn and remain wilfully ignorant that's your choice but it means your credibility as an interlocutor is 0/10.

Frankly I've met 14/15 years old's that have an almost infinitely better understanding of evolution than you do. Why are you posting here if you don't want to learn? Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

[Ned]

Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

Hahahah, "NO U" as a cogent argument.

Seriously, I see that someone hasn't been reading their talkorigins.org.

Ned, the saddest thing about you is that you've obviously not realized that certitude is the surest barrier to learning.

eta:  also, Ned, if you're not going to follow up on the provided resources, don'tcha think it's rude to request them?

[Tank]

Do you like to show off your lack of understanding of things scientific or what?

Why, do you?

Ned, if that's the best you got, you got nothin'!

[Squid]

Since you have an aversion to Wikipedia, I won't use any links to it in my (very) short rebuttal as I am a bit short on time, preparing to move and all.

Well, here are  a few problems with evolutionary theory;
No explanation as to how the universe originated
How could living creatures come from non-life?

By definition evolutionary theory makes no claims into the origin of life or the universe.  It helps to understand what you're attacking before you lay arguments against it. Much of this I covered not too long ago in a post, here.  Please do read over it when you have the time.

No solid fossil evidence for the theory of evolution position exists

This is incorrect.  Let me provide some examples for you.  Such arguments against the fossil record usually go hand in hand with the accusation of "no transitional fossils" even though the concept of what is transitional is often incorrect and people want some type of bird-duck-creature - an argument you'd see made by the likes of Ray Comfort and his ridiculous rhetoric.

Evolution is best thought of as a continuum rather than a jump from key fossil to key fossil. In essence, every fossil that is found represents a “transition” organisms are not static, the populations are always changing over time. Now, with regards to the fossil record we can say that we find transitional fossils between two specimens we already have discovered and would expect to find. One excellent example of this was the find of the specimen Tiktaalik roseae.



It is an example of a transition in one of the finest senses, not only between two already discovered fossils but one which supports an inferred evolutionary lineage between tetrapods and fish â€" an evolution which took some 20 million years or so to take place.

Also, the idea many creationists put forth like “not fully developed” is incorrect. Every organism that reaches developmental maturity is “fully developed”. Using this phrase in talking about evolutionary lineages is just wrong. It views evolution as being progressive toward some predestined goal, it’s not. Those that use such arguments attack evolution and they don’t even understand it.

Fossilization is also a process which seems to hinder people’s understanding as well. So I’ll go a bit into fossilization itself.

Fossilization is not a guaranteed process. Just because and organism dies does not mean its remains will become fossilized. Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) define fossils as, "the remains or traces of prehistoric life" (pp. 182). Fossilization isn’t a snap process that occurs easily. Fossilization starts with burial and then goes through mineralization where the organism's remains are replaced by minerals. (Abedon, 2005). Because of what is involved in the formation of fossils, it is actually, truly amazing the detail of the fossil record and shows the dedication and hardwork of many scientists and their colleauges of the span of many years.

Monroe and Wincander (2001) comment on the formation of fossils stating, "Dissolved minerals can be precipitated in the pores of bones, teeth, and shells or can fill the spaces within cells of wood. Wood may be preserved by silica replacing the woody tissues; it then is referred to as petrified, a term that means "to become stone". Silicon dioxice (SiO2) or iron sulfide (FeS2) can completely replace the calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Insects and the leaves, stems, and roots of plants are commonly preserved as thin carbon films that show the details of the original organism." (pp. 178-179).

Tarbuck and Lutgens (2002) note the chances of an organism becoming fossilized are not in the middle of the curve â€" "only a tiny fraction of organisms that lived during the geologic past have been preserved as fossils. Normally, the remains of an animal or plant are totally destroyed." (183). This is one large hindrance to having a fossil record full of "transitions" or some ideal, smooth linear progression.

Among fossils we have two major groups, body and trace fossils. Bunch and Tesar (2003) comment on these two groups stating, "Body fossils are either actual remains of organisms in which the original chemicals have been replaced by other chemicals, thus retaining the original shape but not the organic chemistry. Bones, teeth, and shells are the most common animal body fossils. Petrified wood is a common plant body fossil. Softer tissues, such as those that compose worms and leaves are less apt to be preserved; they are more likely to have been eaten or broken down by decomposers (bacteria, etc.).

Trace fossils include imprints, tracks, burrows, feces, and chemical traces. They can be very informative about the habits and habitats of their creators. They also may tell us something about the organisms’ anatomy. For example, footprint size and the distance between prints in a track provide clues to the size and weight of the animal that made the track." (pp. 211).

Geological events such as erosion also play a large role in the finding of complete fossil "chains" as well as being able to find perfectly stratified sediment as well. Many variables work against piecing together a complete fossil record. The work that has been completely thus far is fairly amazing in what scientists have put together over the years and continue to do so.

But I digress from that, here's some more.  A new specimen of lizard (Adriosaurus microbrachis) which is about 95 million years old. This specimen shows, “complete loss of the manus and zeugopodium in association with elongation of the axial skeleton” (Palci and Caldwell, 2007). The significance of this find would be that it would fit the laymanistic concept of a “transitional” specimen from “lizard” to “snake”.

A similar find was reported in April of 2006 of an Upper Cretaceous serpent with functional hindlimbs as well as a sacrum supporting its pelvic girdle whereas these have been lacking in other specimens which more closely resemble modern snakes (Apesteguia and Zaher, 2006).

No one was around to see the evolution of organisms. No one was around to see God create the earth and humankind.

Besides this being a faulty comparison, we see evolution all the time.  The rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria is a perfect example.  However, I'm sure you're talking about macroevolution which is simply evolution above the species level.  This takes place on a much longer time frame, however most people don't understand what constitutes macroevolutionary change.  Many people get this idea of marked change in morphology and outward appearance which isn't necessarily so.  The defining event for macroevolutionary change is what is known as the speciation event but isn't something that just happens but takes place over extended periods of time.

When speciation is talked about most people also don't realize that evolutionary lineages are not only linear and we are not only dealing with anagenesis which is when an entire population becomes so different from an ancestral population to warrant a new species designation.  Along with that we also have cladogenesis which is the creation of a new "branch on the tree" so to speak.  Such produces the visual representation that many know as analogous to a "tree" or "bush of life".

This graphic representation shows both anagenesis and cladogenesis:



Speciation is not just inferred from fossil evidence but has been amply supported through genetic and other biochemical research - such as the cyt c which I talk about in the thread I linked to earlier.  The bottomline in this area is that we have much evidence for the evolutionary explanation and none for the special creation explanation.

Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Umm, no. Are you getting these straight from the Creationist Debating Handbook?  Without getting into a long philosophy of science discussion, just have a look at a biological research paper, in this example one about Darwin's Finches by Peter and Rosemary Grant from last year:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/11/12/0911761106.full.pdf

A "just so" story is one which cannot be verified or falsified - therefore it is unscientific.

Remember also that the Theory of Relativity, which was also once considered correct, has now been discredited because it is based around the idea that the sun is a solid mass (which we now know to be untrue).

What?  Dude, seriously, where did you get this heaping pile of junk from?  Also, this is a fallacious statement in that the validity of a completely separate theory has no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.  I would encourage you to really sit down and read the thread I linked to as well as the paper I linked to by the Grants.  It seems as though you have a distorted idea of what evolution is, what it explains as well as some apparent misinformation you have run across.


References:

Abedon, S. (2005). Fossilization. Retrieved June 2, 2010 from http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1520.htm#fossilization

Apesteguia, S. and Zaher, H. (2006). A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature, 440, 1037-1040.

Bunch, B. and Tesar, J. (2003). Discover Science Almanac. New York: Hyperion.

Daeschler, E., Shubin, N., and Jenkins, F. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440, 757-763.

Monroe, J. & Wicander, R. (2001). Physical geology: Exploring the earth. (4th ed.).Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Palci, A. and Caldwell, M. (2007). Vestigial forelimbs and axial elongation in a 95 million-year-old non-snake squamate. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 27(1), 1-7.

Tarbuck, E. and Lutgens, F. (2002). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

[pinkocommie]

I don't understand how someone can be so seemingly afraid of information.  If the information is wrong, why not simply call it out?  Showing a fundamental lack of understanding for a concept you reject doesn't make any sense to me.  Why reject something you have no real knowledge about?  How can you argue that something isn't true when you don't even generally understand what that 'something' is?

[Squid]

I don't understand how someone can be so seemingly afraid of information.  If the information is wrong, why not simply call it out?  Showing a fundamental lack of understanding for a concept you reject doesn't make any sense to me.  Why reject something you have no real knowledge about?  How can you argue that something isn't true when you don't even generally understand what that 'something' is?

I think for some it is ideology based in that their concept such as special creation is the only truth and therefore anything else is wrong.  They come to a discussion about evolution with an a priori determination of its validity without even really understanding the theory.  At least, in my experience this seems to be a large portion of the cases which is also solidified by the presentation of distorted and inaccurate information about the theory on creationist/anti-evolution sites and in their literature.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position

Umm, no. Are you getting these straight from the Creationist Debating Handbook?

Actually, a quick indicates he's fetching his talking points from Conservapedia -- not far off the mark in your guess:

Individuals who are against the evolutionary position assert that evolutionary scientists employ extremely implausible "just so stories" to support their position and have done this since at least the time of Charles Darwin.

[Emphasis added]

The odds of that exact concatenation of words occurring independently must be pretty long.  Note also that he didn't cite his source, leading me to think that he might be aware of its true [lack of] utility in a forum devoted to reason.

[TheJackel]

Ned,

Now I can understand the conflicts in difference of ideological standing here, however we don't expend our time to share information with you out of just spite or to prove you wrong here.. We are actually giving you information and sources here to help you understand the subjects and topics to which you are attempting argue against, this is pretty much like getting a free education. Now I know some of us are a bit more blunt, and emotions start to run high (I get this way myself in certain political debates), But I strongly suggest you take some time and effort to read some of the information provided here. You don't even need to fully grasp everything to get a basic understanding of evolution, bio-genesis  , or various other scientific topics.. My Science VS Genesis Thread took a lot of time and effort to compile all the resources and information into an easy to understand scientific article for example, and that can be said for other peoples efforts here who take the time to post educational material for your benefit. So I didn't write that thread to only specifically prove said creationist scientists wrong, but to actually provide educational material, and to prevent the spreading of false information by those who are destroying the education system of this country.. So all I ask of you, is for you to reflect on that

Cheers!

[Ned]

Ned,

Now I can understand the conflicts in difference of ideological standing here, however we don't expend our time to share information with you out of just spite or to prove you wrong here.. We are actually giving you information and sources here to help you understand the subjects and topics to which you are attempting argue against, this is pretty much like getting a free education. Now I know some of us are a bit more blunt, and emotions start to run high (I get this way myself in certain political debates), But I strongly suggest you take some time and effort to read some of the information provided here. You don't even need to fully grasp everything to get a basic understanding of evolution, bio-genesis  , or various other scientific topics.. My Science VS Genesis Thread took a lot of time and effort to compile all the resources and information into an easy to understand scientific article for example, and that can be said for other peoples efforts here who take the time to post educational material for your benefit. So I didn't write that thread to only specifically prove said creationist scientists wrong, but to actually provide educational material, and to prevent the spreading of false information by those who are destroying the education system of this country.. So all I ask of you, is for you to reflect on that

Cheers!

Thanks for that. Some extremely interesting stuff there. (Thanks as well to Tank and anyone else who posted similar material.)

[Ned]

By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

[McQ]

By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Why totally unconvinced? What exactly have you read, and what counterpoints do you have for those specific items?

[Tank]

By the way, I have read over the material kindly provided by members of this forum, and have to say I am still totally unconvinced by the arguments in favour of evolution.

Please provide one carefully argued retort then rather a blanket dismissal of one of (if not the most) fully supported scientific theories there has ever been. Do that and show us you have understood anything at all. Go on, write something worth reading.

[Ned]

Go on, write something worth reading.

something worth reading