Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[tas8831]

Your post does not respond to what you are quoting from. All I have read from the posts in this thread so far are people making claims to seek to justify the concepts of evolution that do not actually prove evolution.

So... you are not even aware of the actual topic of this thread?

The topic of this thread is the falsely claimed knowledge of many anti-evolution zealots.

People who, likely due to their religious brainwashing, think so highly of themselves that they believe reading creationist propaganda for 40 years makes them an expert on ALL things evolution-related.

Yet, these same 'super smart' creationists still write things like this:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

PROVING that they are, in actual fact, spectacularly ignorant.

If you cannot grasp that THAT is the topic of this thread, then go away.

 

[tas8831]

Our current scientific understanding of genetics alone does not disprove creation and our understanding of genetics without the context of all living and physical sciences collectively as an integrated whole (the big picture as a whole) needs to be understood and weaved into this whole discussion.

Cool unsupported assertion, but lets get back to the thread topic.

What do you think of these genetics related assertions:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."​

to me, they sound like the rantings of a pretender. I base that on having earned a graduate degree in cell biology and having taught genetics and evolution for 20 years or so.
How about you?

 

[tas8831]

If we were to ever come to an understanding through science of the origin of life we will be able to demonstrate and replicate life. At the moment it is all unproven theory as no one has been able to create life in science.

This is pretty naive.

One of the first creationism books I ever read was veterinarian Randy Wysong's 'The Creation Controversy.'
In it, he made a similar claim, but he actually thought life HAD been created in a lab. However, then wrote, what I suspect all creationists would do, that this didn't actually matter because it was the result of 'designed' experiments and was thus actually evidence for creation.

But regarding origins claims - do you expect the same from creationism, or does your religion's foundation get a pass?

 

[tas8831]

I believe if you read his post, you will find the words life-like and getting closer, not life and know the answer.

You mean a creationist complaining about someone not reading something didn't read the post?

 

[tas8831]

Good than we agree science does not know the origin of life. If science does not know or can clearly define what the origin of life is what hope is there for evolution of which the origin of life is the foundation? Evolution builds off an unknown variable (origin of life).

So precious how religionists, unable to come up with valid evidence for their claims, rest all their hopes on rhetoric and phony indignation to prop up their failing middle eastern myths... Even if it means misrepresenting what they have been brainwashed reject or are too ignorant to understand...Bless 'em..

 

[tas8831]

If you cannot get your foundations right how can you build your house?

So what is the creationists' excuse again?

 

[tas8831]

Scientists test hypotheses that are either rejected or accept and not proven.

I think it is a little early for you to start claiming an understanding of the scientific method. I believe your level of understanding of science and the scientific method is already established and it is not as high as you had hoped.

She came to the defense of the guy that wrote:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

so I am not expecting much.

 

[Audie]

There are a lot of ways to express this aspect
of human behaviour, such as "you only make
one first imression" or "the easiest person to
fool is yourself", but they are about two related
things.

Unwillingness / inability to let facts alter beliefs,
and confirmation bias.

This is universal, so it takes awareness and discipline
to overcome it.

Juries are warned against it; scientists learn that
objectvity has to be a highest ideal.

Confirnation bias leads to certain disaster in
science, for experiments and for careers.

In this thread and others we can see our earnest
creationists' immunity to fact. Tell 'em a theory can
never be proved, explain why, provde links.

They just come back with such as "your (sic) confused".

I wonder why this is so universally true of creationists.

Not even the tiniest error can be admitted, even if
it in no way weakens their stand or is even relevant.

"Prove theory" for example. It doesn't matter to
whether creationism or ToE is true. It really only
matters here coz of how it betrays the scientific
illiteracy of the creo, and his inability to handle
facts at odds with belief.

One reason for this huge contrast beteeen the
creo and evo is that science is a culture of
doubt, religion a culture of faith.

For a Christian, "hold fast the faith" is a highest
virtue.

Hard to get more opposite than that!

I expect any creo who reads this will just
snort and say it takes more faith to be a evo
than a creo.

 

[tas8831]

Let's think about the sheer desperate stupidity of this claim:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."

Not ignorance, for ignorance is just not knowing, and the person that wrote that declares 4 decades of study on the matter...

Does he REALLY think that a 'graphic' is conjecture? That we think that a 'graphic' IS evidence?

It is possible to depict phylogenetic trees without graphics, but they are hard to grasp:

(B,(A,C,E),D)

Trees with dozens or hundreds of OTUs become impossible to parse in that format, however. But golly, at least they would be 'graphic'!

 

[exchemist]

Good than we agree science does not know the origin of life. If science does not know or can clearly define what the origin of life is what hope is there for evolution of which the origin of life is the foundation? Evolution builds off an unknown variable (origin of life).

Evolution is the theory that, if you have a replicating organism that passes on its traits to its descendants, then long-term changes to those organisms can be expected, due to the effects of the environment.

The origin of life covers many things including the process by which the first replicating biochemical system arose. We have no theory for this at present.

So they are different things. The theory of evolution is quite capable of accounting for and predicting observations about the origins of successive species from earlier ones, even if the origin of the first is not known to us. Just as Mendele'ev did not need to understand quantum theory in order to construct the Periodic Table of the Elements, even though quantum theory is what explains why the Periodic Table is the way it is.

Science is like that, you see. We have theories for parts of nature but they always eventually come up against limits or loose ends. Whereas you seem to be adopting the position that until everything is known, nothing is known. That would mean we reject the whole of science........ and we go back to the Stone Age. Brilliant!

 

[tas8831]

For example, if I were to explain to you how a computer works, this discussion would not include where the electricity comes from to power the computer or its source of origin. And that is because it doesn't matter. It needs power to run, but solar, coal, wind, nuclear, geothermal, it makes absolutely no difference because the computer will function in the same way regardless.

Nice analogy!

 

[tas8831]

Rubbish. To accept or reject a hypothisis it is done through experiementation.

Done a lot of scientific research have you?
In your mind, does experimentation include observation?

You do not know much about scientific method do you.

Done a lot of scientific research have you?

Do you think a person claiming a graph is presented as evidence knows much about science?

 

[tas8831]

Isn't it funny how no matter how much a person stays on point, creationists always take the argument to the mud and start slinging it.

It is almost like it is a rule that they are compelled to follow when all other tactics have been exhausted.

And they tend to run to that one pretty quickly. Even as they project it onto others. It is a very Conservative thing. Saw something on social media about how Trump was badmouthing people for suggesting a boycott of Home Depot, complaining that they don;t know how much it hurts people blah blah. Then someone posted like 20 tweets of his calling for boycotts of businesses.

 

[tas8831]

Just minor parts, such as the natural formation of cell walls from existing lipids: Nothing that would come close to (to misuse a term) "prove" abiogenesis. An interesting site is that of Nobel Prize winning biologist Jack Szostak:

Szostak Lab: Home

If you explore it you can find what has been done and also links to at least the papers he has been involved with. The science has a way to go, but since we are still learning some of the finer points of how modern cells work it is no wonder that we are still learning how life may have formed.

Bob Hazen has done a lot of related work as well, not sure how active he still is:

Astrobiology and Origins of Life | ROBERT M. HAZEN


Odd that try as one might, it is impossible to find ANY creation scientist looking at hypotheses of creation...It is almost as if these amazing scientists are afraid of what they might find.

 

[wellwisher]

So precious how religionists, unable to come up with valid evidence for their claims, rest all their hopes of rhetoric and indignation to prop up their failing middle eastern myths... Even if it means misrepresenting what they have been brainwashed reject or are too ignorant to understand...Bless 'em..

Conceptually, Creationism uses a schema that is based on a logical plan; divine plan. It assumes a logical sequence of events, based on something that was planned in advance. Science and evolution conceptually assumes there is no plan. With Creationism, life and man was a goal, but with evolution, life and man is a coincidence that could have just as easily turned out differently. Which conceptual framework is correct?

I am not concerned, just yet, about the details, since if the foundation is flawed, it is only a matter of time before the building is condemned.

The god of the atheists and therefore of science; foundation assumptions for evolution, is a god of random events. This particular god is an idiot savant, who can do anything, such as create man. However he had no plan to do this. He more of less stumbles and bumbles leading to significant changes, all without a plan or a goal in mind. This is the theology of evolution. It has a different divine mystery.

Evolution has no goal since their god does not have a plan. He is fickle and flies by the seat of his pants. The God of Creationism, is less of an air head. He plans things out in advance; brooks over the deep. The die is cast before things appear.

This is the real conceptual foundation debate. Are we here based on a logical design, that follows from previous events, or are we here because of an idiot savant god and a series of random events? Einstein did not believe that God chose to play dice with the universe. He was against an idiot savant god approach.

The god of random approach appears to say to so much, without having to say anything tangible. It is like lawyer double talk ,that can say things, but can't be pinned down, so your feet cannot be held to the fire. A logical approach has to be more definitive, and therefore more vulnerable to lawyer talk.

 

[tas8831]

I do so more for my own education at times. Arguing a topic can force one to learn more about it..

As much as I hate to admit it, I do find that these 'debates' on occasion force me to brush up on some things and learn new stuff. But not that often, sadly, as creationists nearly always rely on the same old hackneyed tropes and PRATTs....

 

[tas8831]

That is a good point. It does learning and helps focus and refine arguments. It also gives insight into the objections, though I am finding more and more that they are largely the same debunked objections repeated over again for decades.

This is the main reason I google 'new' creationists' claims, or google 'old' creationist claims when they look a little too polished. Like the subject of this thread - found he had started an identical thread (same name, even) a year ago on another forum. Quickly became a namecalling-martyrdom fest there, too.
This is also how I have caught several creationists plagiarizing. Let's face it - most of them are just not that relevantly educated or informed to show up on a forum with a 3-page OP on 5 different technical issues...

 

[tas8831]

You seemed to have forgotten the rest of what you said ~ why so?

You mean like how you ignored the OP and ranted? Why so?

 

[tas8831]

Looking for more applause, pats on the back from the choir?

Yes, that must be it.

What do you make of a person that claims decades of study and to 'know the material' but writes:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
And this gem:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

Here is a hint - all of those statements are amazingly wrong and/or hypocritical..

 

[Uncommon Sense]

Yes, that must be it.

What do you make of a persont hat claims decades of study and to 'know the material' but writes:

"Analysis of DNA" shows very little similarity, in the actual genes


"But if there is no genetic proof of descendancy, it is mere speculation to suggest it happened. How? What mechanism overcame the high genetic walls? It cannot happen, it did not happen, & it will not happen, with what we know of genetic science. Unless a force or mechanism can be defined & demonstrated, the leaps between genome pairs & genetic parameters is impossible. It is a myth based on children's drawings trying to indoctrinate naturalistic origins."

"The haplogroup is all the haplotypes together."

"Also, to clarify terms, 'haplotype' is the specific clade or branch in this tree, like dogs, coyotes, etc."
And this gem:

"Because you can put together a graphical 'tree', showing plausibility of descent, does not provide evidence for descent. The conjectured graphic does not prove itself."​

Here is a hint - all of those statements are amazingly wrong and/or hypocritical..

I think it is absurd to write a bunch of stuff and claim some mysterious other person said them. Asking people to believe you on blind faith, on top being able to control whatever narrative you decide to create in your own head.

There are “evolutionists” who don’t understand their own sciences as well. So if someone else started a thread and said some mysterious evolutionist said ______ (can make up whatever they want in the blank line regarding this alleged mysterious person) ~ and then state the wrongness and hypocrisy and throw a few demeaning stabs at this mysterious person, their statements, and “evolutionists.”

This to me ~ is just your way of making stuff up in order to make yourself try to look good, and to be demeaning towards what you call “creationists.” To give the impression that all “creationists” are wrong and hypocritical.

There is no evidence that this mysterious person exists, that those are the exact statements made by this mysterious person ~ so you can make an imaginary person and imaginary statements make look however you please.

That is all.