BF2S Forums Creationism, bollox or bollox?

Last edited by Xietsu (2006-06-06 15:43:00)

topal63 wrote:

JaMDuDe wrote:

I didnt say i was giving you scientific evidence, i said there was some to back it up. I did read it. I know, if you dont believe in evolution your a bad scientist and nothing you say can be right. He doesnt start off by saying they dont have a testable process, he says that they dont use one enough. Your right, darwinian theory cannot and doesnt predict scientific discoveries. God cannot be tested, but everything else in the physical world can. And it points to a creator. If you want scientific evidence for creatoin you should study these events that they predicted should be there and were.

a.) transcendent creation event
b.) cosmic fine-tuning  - fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
c.) rapidity of life's origin - extreme biomolecular complexity
d.) lack of inorganic kerogen
e.) Cambrian explosion - missing horizontal branches in the fossil record - placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
f.) fossil record reversal
g.) frequency and extent of mass extinctions - recovery from mass extinctions - duration of time windows for different species - frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis - frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism - speciation and extinction rates
h.) recent origin of humanity
i.) huge biodeposits
j.) Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
k.) molecular clock rates

Why do you cut and paste CRAP! You don’t even understand? Not a single line item is understood by yourself; and it hardly represents a reason as to why you believe anything. “Huge bio deposits” & “molecular clocks”, etc are not even offered up with reason or “believer” interpretation as to why they might even been assumed inferences of “intelligent-design”

g.) through k.) are beyond silly. The attempt to infer the supernatural or the unknown intelligent agent never ends. Genesis describes nothing about biology or the natural laws found in science.

Genesis is the translation/mutation of 2 other creation myths (Sumerian & Egyptian, plus a minor amount of Greek influence/ revision: the dome of the sky). It represents cultural transmission & diffusion. The story is allegorical not literal. It represents the act of self initiation into life. Adam & Eve are not living until symbolically wisdom & knowledge is acquired. Paradise is a not. It is not living as nothing is at stake & nothing is known or can be known. The serpent is a common symbolic mythical image that represents wisdom (in the Sumerian tradition and is why it is the guardian of the tree of knowledge). God has told Adam & Eve that “ye shall surely die” if thou eatest from that tree. And the wisdom of the serpent urges them on; but not Adam, it is Eve that is urged on. Woman is the initiator of life. There is no life to be had for humanity period until life is initiated through a woman. There is no history to be had until Eden (& all other worldly nonsense) is rejected. There is no free-will unless we are initiators of our own lives. Death marks the end of life but accepting “ye shall surely die” marks the beginning of a real one.

a.) Transcendent creation event = Not necessary. Not explanatory. Not even a first cause - the causal events could be infinite prior to this supposed (assumed, fictitious belief) prime movement event. Big Bang does not suggest creation. It suggests horizon-event. It is a singularity - nothing more. A singularity represents an event that science merely is having trouble with based upon current theory, formula and understanding. All current theory breaks down, yields undefined infinite results, and nothing is known beyond the event-horizon (it is equal to a boundary-of-knowing; or current know-ability). Transcendent creation event is a meaningless belief statement. It is not based upon anything, not the evidence, not the actual definition of the boundary-event, not derivative-theory (another actual empirically tested theory) and not logic. There is not a single reason (other than manufactured belief, mere conjecture based upon a worldview taught to you) to think that this singularity-event is the only event that ever happened, nor that it was the first natural occurring event.

b.) Cosmic fine tuning: Do you even know how this non-sense has been derived at; or what from? This is the (a) zealot (or evangelical zealots) manufacturing sophistry to support a belief-system. It is a misrepresentation of two concepts: the anthropic principle and the values of the physical constants. The anthropic principle is rather mundane it offers no magic hocus pocus definition. It does not imply an “intelligent designer” nor a super-natural affecting force. It simply can be reduced to this simple conception: the universe exists in state that is compatible for life to exist, as you would expect it, since we do exist.

The physical constants are known to exist numerically in a narrow range. Alteration of their values by small amounts would make star formation, life, etc. impossible. This does not imply “tuning of the values” to make life possible. The concept of “tuning” is an assumption and a misrepresentation of this fact: the physical constants exist as numerical values to make calculations possible. BUT that means this instead: they exist in numerical form (as constant expressions) because there is no scientific theory (formula) to explain their existence. They have even been referred to as “fudge factors” even. They exist because the numerical values had to be inserted (introduced and tweaked) to make the calculations work. They are arbitrary in a sense - not explanatory.

c.) Rapidity of life’s origin: this is a super duper unbelievably meaningless thing to suggest (a stupor duper even!). Of course you’re not suggesting it - but merely parroting it in your usual cut & paste manner without the slightest thought given as to what it might mean. The genesis (origin) of life is but a part of evolutionary theory; not a whole; it is a small part. And there are multiple scenarios. Abiogenesis and panspermia are the main two. The first being that life originates on this planet the other being that necessary components make there way here by comet, asteroid or meteor collisions with the earth. The proto-forms evolved someplace else (panspermia) and some crude spore-type form of life made its way here - the most basic form of life did not evolve here but rather someplace else. Also rapidity is not suggested by evolution, nor is random behavior or mere accident.

What is suggested is the obvious (in abiogenesis): the earth formed as gravity toke over and locally formed the earth (in our solar system) from the gas cloud/dust clouds of former star deaths. The dead earth had no atmosphere as the gravitational forces took time to move from a cloud-mass with mutual attraction to a more solid-like mass. Then the earth was pummeled for a significant amount of geologic time by massive numbers of comets, meteors and asteroids. Its molten surface and poisonous atmosphere was utterly incapable of supporting life as we know it. The origins of life formed in a completely different environment than the one we exist in. The abiogenesis model (which is currently being tested by massive experiments, has predicated that in about 10 years, it will be demonstrated that chemical-life can arise from non-living chemicals); it suggests the following basic model: a transition from RNA to DNA. The basic chemical building blocks form naturally (the earth is not a closed system) then those by exposure to a source (the outside source being the sun, or an internal heat source being volcanic-vent type structures) cause further change to form complex polymers that are capable of chemical replication, that over time becomes RNA and is retained as an internal copying mechanism but DNA by mutation (and its inherent greater stability) replaces RNA as the main codifier of life. The formation of individual proto-cell structures work in relation to each other for mutual benefit but are not cell-formations these in time form the Prokaryotic type cell (bacteria & archaea). More time and evolution produces another type symbiotic relationship of (bacteria-cell to internal bacteria-type cell) the result is the Eukaryotic-type cell (with the internal mitochondria having its own unique & separate DNA representing the symbiosis event). From this Eukaryotic-type cell; with other evolved differences; leading to all the complex forms of life you know: fungi, plants and animals. The geologic time frame evidenced or suggested was not a rapid event. The combination of massive microbial activity and comet collision is the reason we have the oxygen water rich environment we have today.

d.) Lack of inorganic kerogen: What a bunch of crap. . . this is the weakest piece on non-science and non-scientific reasoning I’ve come across in a long time. Do you know what this is? Me thinks not!

The supposition is that organic formed kerogen which leads to petroleum and if microbial activity is present  breaks down (or continues to break down) petroleum into methane (natural gas).

This is a brief description of how petroleum is formed: http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb/3/transformation.html

This breakdown is a supposed unwanted event. Man’s emergence onto the natural scene must have been timed by the “designer” so that he could use petrol-gas. Else the microbes would have broke it down; in time; and therefore no petroleum based products for man. Which has been deemed a necessity (by fanatical assumptive reasoning) for mans social dominance over the natural world. We enjoy petrol-gas (plastics, etc) because of the intelligent timing of our arrival onto the earth scene. If the timing was not perfect; there would have to be inorganic forms of kerogen available to be converted into petroleum and that is not the case. It is obvious you haven’t clue what you’re posting. Other forms of fuel are available for humans to use if petroleum was not available and was broken-down. Ethanol will work fine. It would be merely a hiccup in the social economic technological development of the human race - if petrol was not available in the quantities that it is. Perfect timing or design is not implied in any form by this ridiculous “inorganic kerogen deficiency” assumption.

e.) Cambrian explosion: this has been covered numerous times before. But what is ID-type theory suggesting? That life got tweaked by the “god of the gaps” again. Wherever there might be a possible gap - is a place we can squeeze an assumption of god-type intelligent designer influence. It is nothing more than suggestion without EVIDENCE. And of course the un-testable “supernatural” affecting force - which is not ever in equality with a scientific theory.

I don’t have the time or inclination to type my response to this non-sense,
so here you go - don’t read it: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

And please don’t read this or the conclusions therein,
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://www.palaeos.com/Ecology/Radiatio … osion.html

“     The abrupt entry of a diverse and highly derived fauna into the fossil record, during the brief Tommotian and Atdabanian ages of the Early Cambrian, has long been recognized and is now widely known to paleontologists and laymen alike, as the ‘Cambrian Explosion.’ However, despite the rapid proliferation of evolutionary novelties which undoubtedly occurred at this time, at least some of the phenomenon is attributable to the acquisition of preservational characteristics – ‘hard parts’ – and multiple lines of evidence reveal that life was already highly diversified prior to the Tommotian. ”

And certainly this is also non-readable as well,
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm
“     Secondly, I will show that it is absolutely false that the majority of animal phyla appeared in the Cambrian.  While this is widely stated by apologists and paleontologists, it is actually an assumption not borne out by the data.  “

Transitional forms for you to ignore:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF3-01Morton.html

And since you’ve ignored this before, ignore it again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
http://www.dslextreme.com/users/vuletic … fec/5.html
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm

The no-transitional forms argument has already been demonstrated to be a FALSE claim. But finding every form (as fossil) is not even necessary. The consistency of every other discovered natural law should be obvious. If some transitional forms are found (and many have been) then natural law being utterly consistent over time (as physics and chemistry are not changing in fundamental elemental properties) then it can be logically associated from one form to the next, that evolution is consistent as a natural law (as it is based upon the chemical properties inherent within physics and quantum mechanics).

The scientific viewpoint: a gap equals no evidence found yet.
The non-scientific viewpoint: a gap means science is wrong and god can be inferred. 

There is fossilized evidence of evolution and transitional forms (though not every one). BUT there is not a single piece of fossilized “god-evidence” found here in this so-called intelligent-designer “god of the gaps” intervention in the creation event (in the Cambrian era; or any other era). As if supernatural evidence is anything more than assumed (desired to be inferred) - and for no apparent reason even (other than a presupposition of a conclusion). It defies all reason. It defies all known evidence.

Last edited by Spark (2006-06-07 00:43:34)