Why Is Pushing Creationism So Damn Important to Wingnuts?
This is a title from an article which you can read if you click on the link:
Why Is Pushing Creationism So Damn Important to Wingnuts?
However I wanted to discuss the actual question. Why is it so important for some to push Creationism and to deny Evolution?
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.
If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
Quoting cammibear:
Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.
If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Only if you assume millions of yearsQuoting cammibear:
You assume evolution, and then use those assumptions to prove evolution. That's circular reasoning.
No.
Biologists started off by hypothesising evolution, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality. It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions by passing the tests that is the evidence.
No.
Geologists started off by hypothesising an age of the Earth that is in the billions of years, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality. It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions
by passing the tests that is the evidence.
You don't 'get' how science works, do you?
Impossible in that it is so improbable that only someone with a great amount of faith would accept it.
Quoting Piskie:
Impossible how mathematically?
Quoting cammibear:
Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.
If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
Quoting cammibear:
Google it. I'm sure there is plenty of information out there.
Impossible in that it is so improbable that only someone with a great amount of faith would accept it.
Quoting Piskie:
Impossible how mathematically?
Quoting cammibear:
Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.
Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting cammibear:
You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.
If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:you cannot test millions of years. Reality (or the same exact evidence) also backs up creation. The difference lies in the assumptions.
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Only if you assume millions of yearsQuoting cammibear:
You assume evolution, and then use those assumptions to prove evolution. That's circular reasoning.No.
Biologists started off by hypothesising evolution, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality. It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions by passing the tests that is the evidence.
No.
Geologists started off by hypothesising an age of the Earth that is in the billions of years, then they made predictions based upon that, then they tested those predictions against reality. It is the fact that reality successfully backed up those predictions
by passing the tests that is the evidence.
You are not testing "millions of years". You are testing predictions based upon a hypothesis.
The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the null hypothesis that species don't share a common ancestry.
The objective evidence from repeatable independent measurements does not equally back up the hypothesis that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
You are taking it as an article of faith that the consensus of scientists is wrong but, when challenged, you have not produced the evidence to back up your statements. The scientists have. The academic journals are full of it.
You can deny reality, but your denial doesn't change what is. Nor will it persuade anyone, except children and those who already believe as you do.
This is why you are desperate to teach it while the people being taught are still children.
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred. There's that blind faith I'm talking about.
Quoting cammibear:
You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.Of course we know how the information content of a species' gene pool can increase over time.
If you'll pick a single numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool, and then stick with it, I'll be happy to explain it to you.
WARNING WARNING WARNING
Did everyone notice what cammibear did there?
STEP 1 - cammibear made a claim ("You will never be able to explain where the information in DNA comes from.")
STEP 2 - someone offers to explain, refuting the claim
STEP 3 - rather than carrying on the discussion of her claim, cammibear makes a COMPLETELY UNRELATED CLAIM (and one that's so wild and improbable that people can't help but react to it), in an attempt to distract people away from noticing that her original claim has just been sunk.
Quoting cammibear:
Maybe you should drop science for awhile, and revisit mathematics. It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred.
Speaking as a qualified teacher of mathematics, I can assure you that you are wrong.
But go ahead, make your argument...
Quoting Piskie:
Quoting cammibear:Improbable things happen every day.
Quoting Piskie:Impossible in that it is so improbable
Quoting cammibear:Impossible how mathematically?
It is mathematically impossible for Darwinian evolution to have occurred.
The argument you most frequently hear is that creating a modern single celled organism directly from inorganic chemicals would be equivalent to a tornado picking up a disassembled Boeing 747 and, by random chance, reassembling it perfectly.
This is, of course, to do with abiogenesis rather than evolution. And is, in any case, a flawed argument because it assumes a giant leap is required, rather than gradual stages, and bases its estimate of probability upon that assumption.
and what "generation" are you?
Would you go topless if you could?
- futureshock
on Jan. 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM