Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Why Is Pushing Creationism So Damn Important to Wingnuts?

Posted by   + Show Post

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?

by on Jan. 19, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Replies (471-480):
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM
Quoting cammibear:

Your independent measurements support your hypothesis because of the millions of years assumptions. Oh look...a million year old fossil. How do you know? It's in a million year old layer? How do you know? Because it has a million year old fossil. Those assumptions are placed on your independent measurements. 

Firstly, the evidence in favour of universal common descent in no way relies upon fossils.   They're merely the icing on the cake.

Secondly, while the fossils in a rock layers are SOMETIMES used as a method of dating a rock layer, that's by no means the only method, and all the other methods give the same conclusions.


Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 1:01 PM
1 mom liked this
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:

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.

Creationists have their own scientific journals because evolutionists have taken over secular journals, and nothing that supports anything other than evolution assumptions is considered credible.

If you have RELIABLE evidence then I don't care whether it has been publised on a blog or in a creationists organisation's journal.   What matters is the reliability, and how we may assess that reliability.

Could you give me an example of a claim made by a creationist in a creationist journal that has been later refuted by a different creationist publishing in that same journal an article citing the first one?

Can you give me an example of a paper that agreed with creationists conclusions that was, none the less, rejected for publication by such a journal, because it failed peer review?

AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Reality is that without a Creator God, you have no basis of knowing anything. Accepting evolution assumptions will always end in the same wrong foolish conclusions. ;)

Yeah, that bit. I don't get that. How was that conclusion reached? Did someone say "Well this is all so awesome and I have self awareness. That alone means a God exists to give me self awareness and the ability to appreciate how awesome everything is."

All kinds of ideas could be justified with they kind of reasoning but I don't think it would make them any more valid


Quoting cammibear:

Your the desperate ones. It's why you have bullied anybody that doesn't accept your assumptions out of academia. Creationists have their own scientific journals because evolutionists have taken over secular journals, and nothing that supports anything other than evolution assumptions is considered credible. That's what I consider to be desperate. It's desperate, it's arbitrary, and it's a double standard.



Your independent measurements support your hypothesis because of the millions of years assumptions. Oh look...a million year old fossil. How do you know? It's in a million year old layer? How do you know? Because it has a million year old fossil. Those assumptions are placed on your independent measurements.



Reality is that without a Creator God, you have no basis of knowing anything. Accepting evolution assumptions will always end in the same wrong foolish conclusions. ;)








Quoting Clairwil:



Quoting cammibear:


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:


Quoting Clairwil:
Quoting 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.

Only if you assume millions of years


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 cannot test millions of years. Reality (or the same exact evidence)

also backs up creation. The difference lies in the assumptions.




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.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting Clairwil:

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.

Reality is that without a Creator God, you have no basis of knowing anything.

Accepting evolution assumptions will always end in the same wrong foolish conclusions. ;)

"a Creator God" is a conclusion, not an observation.    When I talk above about "denying reality" I'm referring to ignoring the vast weight of observational evidence on things like whether fossils were laid down gradually over a billion years, or during a single 40 day period.

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 1:09 PM
Quoting cammibear:
Quoting tscritch:

 What SCIENTIFIC studies/tests have been done with creationism to qualify it to be taught in a science class?

Uniformity in nature, irreducible complexity, age Indicators.

Same evidence, different conclusions.

Talk to me about uniformity in nature.

Convergent Evolution


Have a look at the following animals:


Let's consider just four of them:

Wolf:


Tasmanian Wolf:


This was the last one, alas.  They're extinct now.  Human hunters killed them off.

Mole:


This one is hunting in Europe.

Marsupial Mole:


Here's a picture of one hunting at night, in Alice Springs.


The wolf and the tasmanian wolf had the same size, the same diet, almost the same silhouette.

Whereas the mole shares its size, diet and living environment not with the wolf, but with the marsupial mole.

So which pairs do you think are more closely related?

*   Wolf ---- Tasmanian Wolf            AND           Mole ---- Marsupial Mole

or

*   Wolf ---- Mole                               AND           Tasmanian Wolf ---- Marsupial Mole


Well, obviously it is a trick question or I wouldn't be asking it.

The answer is that the wolf is more closely related to the mole, than it is to the tasmanian wolf.


But here's a harder question:

Which is the wolf closer to:  the tasmanian wolf or the marsupial mole?


You'd think, if there were an intelligent designer out there, somewhere, who was making these species from scratch (or by re-using bits of blueprint), rather than via evolution, that the tasmanian wolf, who shares so many characteristics with the wolf must be closer to it than the marsupial mole; must have more DNA in common with it.


So wolves and moles have a similar genotype.  They're homologous.

Wolves and tasmanian wolves have a similar phenotype.  They're analogous.


But how do we know this, and why is this evidence of evolution rather than intelligent design?

Well, we can use Quantitative PCR to see how many genes two strands of DNA have in common.  And when we use this to compare wolves to tasmanian wolves, and to compare wolves to marsupial moles, we find that they are precisely equally realated.  The wolf is no closer to the tasmanian wolf than it is to the marsupial mole.

Which is not what we'd expect if the analogous creatures were signs of a creator re-using previous solutions.

But it is precisely what we'd predict if there were a single ancestral species from which marsupial mammals and non-marsupial mammals diverged from, back at the time Gondwanaland split Australia off from the mainland; and these two forked species then diverged further, under evolutionary pressure splitting into different species to fill different ecological niches, coming up with similar phenotype solutions (fast runner to fill pack hunter niche, good digger to fill insect hunter niche) by morphing different bauplans in convergent evolution.

cammibear
by Gold Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 2:32 PM
And we are back to...
What you consider "reliable" is arbitrary.

What you assess as reliable or unreliable is based on your presuppositions. Why do you deny that?

And no I cannot give you examples from work on my phone.


Quoting Clairwil:


Quoting cammibear:

Quoting Clairwil:

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.

Creationists have their own scientific journals because evolutionists
have taken over secular journals, and nothing that supports anything
other than evolution assumptions is considered credible.

If you have RELIABLE evidence then I don't care whether it has been publised on a blog or in a creationists organisation's journal.   What matters is the reliability, and how we may assess that reliability.

Could you give me an example of a claim made by a creationist in a creationist journal that has been later refuted by a different creationist publishing in that same journal an article citing the first one?

Can you give me an example of a paper that agreed with creationists conclusions that was, none the less, rejected for publication by such a journal, because it failed peer review?



Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
GoddessNDaRuff
by Silver Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 2:37 PM


Quoting littlesippycup:

Why can't we just teach it all? It could be a semester class that briefly covers everything in a factual manner.

Why in the world would I want my child to waste time in a class on creationism when they could take an elective that could benefit them or a class that they actually need? What in the world is the point of learning creationsim other than to appease religious bible thumping types?

cammibear
by Gold Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 4:58 PM
:)
Answer this. Have mutations ever been observed to add brand-new information?

And I'm not talking of duplicated information. That is NOT an increase in information, so not relevant.

My original claim has not "been sunk" at all. I'm just not interested in the same ole boring arguments.



Quoting Clairwil:

Quoting cammibear:

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.


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.


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.


Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 7:12 PM
Quoting cammibear:
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.

Answer this. Have mutations ever been observed to add brand-new information?

And I'm not talking of duplicated information. That is NOT an increase in information, so not relevant.

Tell me precisely which numeric calculable definition of the amount of information contained in a gene pool you want me to use, and I'll tell you whether mutations have ever been observed to increase it.

Clairwil
by Ruby Member on Jan. 24, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Quoting cammibear:


What you assess as reliable or unreliable is based on your presuppositions. Why do you deny that?

The reliability of a process is objective not subjective.   You can stick a number on it, and different people can agree on the number.

Suppose you want to compare two methods of predicting which side will win a battle.

Method One - count the number of soldiers on each side, and predict the side with more soldiers will win

Method Two - look at the shape of the clouds, and search for cloud formation that look like symbols of victory near formations that look similar to the national symbols of one of the two sides in the battle

Take 10 groups, train them identically in how to use both methods, then set each group to predict the outcome of 10 different battles by each method (giving you 100 predictions in total, for each method).

After the battles are all over, count up how many predictions were correct, for each method.    There should be a fair degree of agreement, between all 10 of your trained groups, on how reliable each of the two methods is.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)