GeoTheo

Hey whats wrong with being a creationist?
I'm a creationist. I am a creationist that accepts evolution. I am not a YEC though. That is what most people think of when they hear the term.
I don't see how a Christian cannot be a creationist.
I also would like to point out that Idid try to answer Scigirls challenge. I came up with a theory that man was created from apes. I think it matched the evidence quite well. The evidence also seems to point to the fact that man evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes and that is my present position.
As far as the common designer arguement goes: The designer would appear to be very limited in its knowledge and seems to design through trial and error, in light of all the extinctions. It also seems to really limit itself in its designs in that all designs seem to be a variation on a previous theme only and not very unique.
For some reason all vertabrets are limited to four limbs or less, composed of the same bones, two eyes or less, two nostrils etc. They also seemed to be constrained in their anatomy to fit a previously created blueprint. Flounders appear to have been designed from a regular fish that has had its eyes twisted to oneside where a designer could have just as easily created a more efficient design from the get-go.
Manatees have fingernails etc. Human embryos form a yolk sack etc. Does this seem odd?

Blinn

Nice post Oolon.

Vander, Oolon has spelled out this question for you using the scientific method, as follows:

1. Observe and describe a phenomenon or phenomena.
2. Formulate a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test the predictions with experiments and/or observations. Reject or modify the hypothesis in light of the results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepencies between the hypothesis and the experimental results or observations.

A group of supported hypotheses that explain and interpret facts are a theory.

I hope you'll make a serious attempt at addressing this question and not continue to sidestep it.

Cheers.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Zetek ]</p>

theyeti

What makes you think that these "scientists" haven't considered the possibility that differing chromosome numbers are indicative of different origins? In fact, is has been considered, and it has been rejected. The reason is that chromosome numbers often differ within species, and these different karyotypes can and will interbreed to form fertile hybrids. See my post on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001230" target="_blank">this thread</a>. Oh, and the mechanisms by which it occurs, in this case a Robersonian fusion, are well understood. As others have stated, though it was at one point in time "speculative" (as all scientific hypotheses are initially) it is now a well-established fact.

theyeti

Skeptical

At this point, I tend to concur with another poster, you appear to be a list troll. No one with enough intelligence to actually form sentences can be as obtuse as the posts you are making would indicate. The original quote, in context, basically states that _prior_ to observation of actual DNA, scientists speculated why humans have 23 chromosomes and the great apes have 24 and what we might find if their theories were correct. Then, lo and behold, they found what they had speculated. This is generally called "confirmation".

You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept of "time". You see, the "speculation" was _before_ the data was obtained. _After_ the data was obtained, the "speculation" was _confirmed_ to be true. See how that works? Just keep repeating "before=speculation....after= confirmation", "before=speculation.....after= confirmation" and perhaps you'll get it.

Riiight. You are obviously so well versed in biology, biochemistry, paleontology, geology and astronomy that you can make such statements. You have obviously done an exhaustive study on these topics as shown by your thorough grasp of DNA exhibited in this thread.

What part of "testing" and "empirical" don't you understand? IF the DNA G-bands had not matched, then the theory of why humans have 23 chromosomes and great apes 24 would not have been, here's that word again, _confirmed_. At such a point, alternative explanations would have to be considered. This did not happen. What was predicted was observed. Are you really this dense that you cannot understand this?

To answer your question, yes, fusing is a fact. You could read about it, but since your reading comprehension skills seem woefully poor I don't see the point. If you can't even tell the difference between a pre-experiment speculation and a post-experiment confirmation, the chances of you reading and comprehending DNA fusion approach zero.

I have but one simple answer: No. As stated plainly, the original theory was postited before scientists had the ability to investigate the data. When the technology was developed, the theory was confirmed. Look at the G-bands. They match. The pictures are not fabricated. What portion don't you understand?

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Several definitions have been provided. Perhaps you should try "hooked on phonics".

Here's what I hear: blah, blah, blah, I refuse to believe it, blah, blah, I wish to remain ignorant, blah, blah....

You haven't even addressed the question posed, much less shown it to be false. Are your hands tired yet from all that waving? Does your head hurt from repeated contact with the sand?

This is the only thing you've said so far with an ounce of truth. There may indeed be things which science cannot discover. For example, we probably will never be able to determine what happened immediately prior to the big bang. (if it occured)

The only "realization" is in the minds of fundies. Provide a specific example of IC requiring "design". All of the "designs" we see are of a Rube Goldberg nature, hardly the product one would expect from an "intelligent designer".

What, precisely, are you blathering about? Be specific for a change.

Again, be specific. What exactly about the MIND is it that you think isn't explained? How it originates? It's properties? How it works? Something else?

Strictly speaking, that is not a scientific question, it is a philosophical question. It also assumes that the answer "there is no reason why there is something" is not sufficient. In fact, it is sufficient. Assuming there _must_ be a reason is just that, an a priori assumption.

Finally! I have asked you again and again to describe a non-MN based toolset for discovering facts about the universe. You posit "perception" and "intuition". Please describe how these tools are to be used and how the person using them knows the results are accurate. Details please, not hand waving.

You really are confused aren't you. Are you from the sixties? Everytime you say "darwinist" I get this image of Austin Powers saying "groovy baby". I'm not sure why you keep using a term about someone who has been dead for over a hundred years when there are much more current scientists you could use, perhaps "dawkinsians"?

As usual for fundies, you seem completely hung up on arguments from authority. Try to remember that is a problem for fundies, not a problem for science. In science there are no "authorities", only experts who must present actual evidence, not hand waving and "just so" stories.

In any case, since you posit yet another toolset, "authoratative knowledge", please describe in detail how this toolset is used and how the person using it knows it accurately reflects reality.

Yes. Of course. Please explain how these toolsets work and how we are to determine that they produce reliable results. Go on, do tell, or are you just going to keep skirting.

Danger Will Robinson, Danger! Imminent dodge approaching, imminent dodge! Prepare to watch evasive manuevers in progress!

Riiiight. Yet, it has spoken "authoritatively" on every other subject? Allow me to paraphrase you: "I cannot answer your question, therfore I dodge and dance away, tralalalala...." So all the specific predictions of biologists using MN that have been confirmed over and over again are what, just lucky guesses?

Please list the _specific_ ways that creationism is:

1) Testable
2) Falsifiable

Go ahead, I dare you. I double dog dare you.


I don't think we have enough time from your brain to evolve to the point to examine the evidence objectively. People with pronounced Cognitive Dissonance such as yourself are difficult, if impossible, to convince of anything that conflicts with your a priori worldview. You suffer from exactly the problem that you wish to ascribe to science and MN. Hmmmm, I believe you mentioned "projection" earlier. Pot. Kettle. Black.

What would be the point, you haven't even come close to answering the first question. All you've shown so far is a pronounced ability to avoid questions and proferred an amazing talent for skirting issues. I haven't seen tap dancing this good since Gregory Hines in White Knights.

Try again. Give a detailed explanation as to why the _confirmation_ of the theory regarding DNA fusion is not evidence for common descent. Try doing it without quote mining this time and actually addressing the question. That is if you can stop waving your hands in the air long enough to actually address the question posed.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

DMB

Thanks for that link, yeti. Not being a biologist, I had long wondered if the fusion of chromosomes didn't produce an automatic breeding barrier and if so, how any new lineage would get established.

KnightWhoSaysNi

I'm completely puzzled why you say macroevolution has "very little supporting evidence" and is mere "conjecture" when we just gave you a good example of specific confirmed predictions and evidence that does indeed present a powerful case for macroevolution.

Fusion of chromosomes is in fact very plausible and not mere speculation. See theyeti's comments.

Your answer was merely to critique methodological naturalism and imply a "goddidit" explanation. Okay, let's examine how someone with your views on science would react to a forensic pathology case:

Forensic investigators enter the house and find a body, reported by his neighbour's 911 call. They discover neck wounds that appear to come from a knife slashing. On the floor, leading away from the victim to a window sill, there are bloody footprints from running shoes. On the window sill, there are bloody fingerprints and a piece of torn denim on a nail.

The investigators do some research and find from interviewing the neighbours that the victim had an affair with his neighbour's wife. The investigators speculate that the neighbour was the culprit and they make predictions on what they would find.

They look into the neighbour's garbage and find an old pair of running shoes. Though there is no blood, the shoe marks match those of bloody footprints. Going through his closet, they find a pair of jeans with a chunk missing from a pant-leg, and through analysis they determine that the ripped piece of denim matches the missing section. They look in the kitchen and perform tests on a steak knife and find microscopic traces of DNA from the victim. They find that the neighbour's fingerprints match those on the window sill. The investigators think they have enough evidence for a conviction and the case goes to trial.

To the horror of the investigators, they find that the judge rejects methodological naturalism. The judge scorns them, "You make nothing but grosse conjecture and provide little supporting evidence! Science has its limitations. To offer an "alternative idea" as you suggest implies a naturalistic assumption. The house was built over an old pagan ritual site and you neglect to consider evil spirits. The verdict is not guilty, case dismissed!"

In comparison with the judge, we've provided you some clear specific confirmed predictions and evidence in the case of the chimp/human chromosome, but you still dismiss it as "conjecture" and "very little supporting evidence."

You claim that you have a "reasonable, testable, falsifiable, interesting theistic story" that explains the data better than evolution. Now let's see if you can put this "reasonable, testable, falsifiable" model of yours to the test and explain the chimp/human chromosome problem and make better specific predictions than the evolutionary model. Let's hear it.

[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]</p>

bluefugue

The term "Darwinist" isn't that obsolete, is it? I should think Dawkins, for one, would proudly refer to himself as a Darwinist. (Though he would probably consider the prefix "Neo-" to be implied.)

Lizard

The term "Darwinist" has been appropriated by the YEC and ID communities. Whereas people familiar with science don't use it much anymore (every reputable life scientist is a Darwinist, so why bother?), YECs and ID promoters use it to mean "atheistic," "stubbornly committed to naturalism," "elite scientific priesthood" and other nasty things.

Rather than assume creationists mean the same thing by "Darwinist" that most people do, next time you hear it, question them.

Lizard

Richyaado wrote:
It's entirely possible. Just prove it isn't true!

But all kidding aside, I wish to reassert my claim that Invisible Pink Pixies are responsible for the obvious trickery. Also, as I mentioned before, Invisible Pink Pixies are the real cause of the leaves turning colors in the fall. The naturalistic scientific cohorts refuse to entertain this idea because they are dedicated firmly to the idea of what they call "science." And *their* worldview does not admit the existence of Invisible Pink Pixies.

So what if they've never been seen? Well, duh. They're *invisible!!!* How do I know they're pink? Because certain wise ones centuries ago wrote about them in The Pixie Scrolls, revered as the sacred text of the Pixians, and called these holy beings pink in color.

No one yet has disputed the accuracy of these descriptions or shown that it is impossible for Invisible Pink Pixies to do what is attributed to them. Therefore, I say, the Theory of Invisible Pink Pixies is just as viable as other "naturalistic" theories. Probably even more so, since it can be shown that *naturalistic* theories are based on atheistic dogma, not facts.

Let's see your *scientists* deal with THAT!

Humph.

Lizard

Oh, yes --

For something completely different, here's something I just happened across. This, too, seems entirely possible to me. See what you think. It seems a major call for scientific open-mindedness, which couldn't be a bad thing. Could it?

Is that a saucer I see out the window???