Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After reading repeated responses from some creationists claiming that they are not anti science or anti intellectualists but just anti evolution, I finally had to wonder. Just how many branches of science must one deny to believe in creationism?
Rather than just give the answers myself, and possibly miss one or two I haven't thought of , not to mention spoiling others fun , I thought I would just put it out there for all to contribute to.
I'll give the obvious one
Evolutionary biology
But there are more than this , so let the counting begin. BTW, I have at least 6 without any subdivision of disciplines or too much thought or investigation.
Why don't you ask PhD scientists who, through better understanding of genetics and information have come to the conclusion that evolution is a load of crap?
You mean where is the evidence? Take your pick there is so much of it that it would take many many years to learn it. Google it...take your pick. Know yourself out. I suggest you look a evolutionary genetics...that's the highest standard of evidence we have. Fossils are the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Just like evolution, it's never been observed.
Interesting that no one ever observed your god creating man but yet you claim it happened. How bizarre that you make this inaccurate claim against Evolution but yet you believe in something that has never been observed. Do you see anything wrong with this?
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
a supernatural creator It's a fairy tale.
Yes the supernatural creator that you believe in is a fairy tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Why? You claim abiogenesis and evolution with less evidence.
Why what? Again abiogensis is still under investigation. The Theory of Evolution is well established with more evidence than you can possibly imagine. I suggest you go knock yourself out looking at that evidence that is available for anyone to look at.
No Scientific Theory has more evidence than Evolution. A person would have to be intellectually dishonest or just not smart enough to not know this.
First you clearly don't know your own bible do you? Yep that god of yours simply created man from rock dust or clay depending on which version of the many bibles you are reading.
The Hebrew uses the word for soil, not dust nor clay.
Why can't God form a man from the soil of the earth? He created the entire universe and all that is in it. Surely it would not be a hard thing for Him.
But you make fun of this while you swallow a camel! Tell me, you who are oh so wise, just where did the 1,000 pages of genetic information come from which was put into that first single cell of creation if that cell just somehow came about by some lucky random unintended process of a few chemicals, and water? The chemicals nor water would not know how to program a computer. Yet the single cell operates with its operating software just like a computer. Who or what put the code in that cell.
And please don't come back with your pitiful mantra that I am stupid or don't know anything about biology or science. Just answer the damn question for once!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Hebrew uses the word for soil, not dust nor clay.
Why can't God form a man from the soil of the earth? He created the entire universe and all that is in it. Surely it would not be a hard thing for Him.
But you make fun of this while you swallow a camel! Tell me, you who are oh so wise, just where did the 1,000 pages of genetic information come from which was put into that first single cell of creation if that cell just somehow came about by some lucky random unintended process of a few chemicals, and water? The chemicals nor water would not know how to program a computer. Yet the single cell operates with its operating software just like a computer. Who or what put the code in that cell.
And please don't come back with your pitiful mantra that I am stupid or don't know anything about biology or science. Just answer the damn question for once!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What question are you actually asking here?
1000 pages of genetic information come from? This is not how DNA is measured in world of science. We don't say "1,000 of pages of genetic information". You must work on your scientific literacy in order to ask a proper question.
You must also have a lot of Cell Biology and Genetic background to understand what I am about to post.
The first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.
Eucaryotes Have Hybrid Genomes
The genetic information of eucaryotic cells has a hybrid origin—from the ancestral anaerobic eucaryote, and from the bacteria that it adopted as symbionts. Most of this information is stored in the nucleus, but a small amount remains inside the mitochondria and, for plant and algal cells, in the chloroplasts. The mitochondrial DNA and the chloroplast DNA can be separated from the nuclear DNA and individually analyzed and sequenced. The mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes are found to be degenerate, cut-down versions of the corresponding bacterial genomes, lacking genes for many essential functions. In a human cell, for example, the mitochondrial genome consists of only 16,569 nucleotide pairs, and codes for only 13 proteins, two ribosomal RNA components, and 22 transfer RNAs.
The genes that are missing from the mitochondria and chloroplasts have not all been lost; instead, many of them have been somehow moved from the symbiont genome into the DNA of the host cell nucleus. The nuclear DNA of humans contains many genes coding for proteins that serve essential functions inside the mitochondria; in plants, the nuclear DNA also contains many genes specifying proteins required in chloroplasts.
There is a lot of knowledge involved in being able to put the vast amount of information together and actually understand it. In other words you have to have some level of scientific education and intelligence.
The Molecular Biology book titled: The Cell would also be a good place for you to start, but you will need to have an understanding of biochemistry, biology, chemistry and organic chemistry in order to understand the topics discussed in this book.
No sarcasm...truly amazing.
You mean where is the evidence? Take your pick there is so much of it that it would take many many years to learn it. Google it...take your pick. Know yourself out. I suggest you look a evolutionary genetics...that's the highest standard of evidence we have. Fossils are the least.
Interesting that no one ever observed your god creating man but yet you claim it happened. How bizarre that you make this inaccurate claim against Evolution but yet you believe in something that has never been observed. Do you see anything wrong with this?
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
Actually, that's not evolution as much as it is insects losing the ability to react to a pesticide. It's not like they're actually developing new information in their DNA.
Quote:
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What observations?
Quote:
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
Yet, the transitional fossils between those species do not exist.
Quote:
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
Yes the supernatural creator that you believe in is a fairy tale.
Why what? Again abiogensis is still under investigation. The Theory of Evolution is well established with more evidence than you can possibly imagine. I suggest you go knock yourself out looking at that evidence that is available for anyone to look at.
No Scientific Theory has more evidence than Evolution. A person would have to be intellectually dishonest or just not smart enough to not know this.
Or they would have common sense. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. There are gaping holes in the theory if you're willing to look.
Actually, that's not evolution as much as it is insects losing the ability to react to a pesticide. It's not like they're actually developing new information in their DNA.
What observations?
Yet, the transitional fossils between those species do not exist.
Or they would have common sense. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. There are gaping holes in the theory if you're willing to look.
That clanging sound you're hearing, ladies and gentlemen, is the sound of truth bouncing off a well-buffed FODI.
Actually, that's not evolution as much as it is insects losing the ability to react to a pesticide. It's not like they're actually developing new information in their DNA.
Well yes they actually are and it's called point mutations. It's clear that you don't even understand how resistance occurs. It occurs at the DNA level...like all evolutionary changes do.
Re-read it and then look the sources up yourself. This is not grade school
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet, the transitional fossils between those species do not exist.
What species are you referring to? Your question makes no sense as a response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Or they would have common sense. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. There are gaping holes in the theory if you're willing to look.
You can rely on what you call "common sense" but the evidnce is there and there is a lifetime of evidence to look at. However just a basic freshman college course is all you need to understand Evolution. To understand the deeper molecular aspects then you will need genetics and Molecular Biology classes as well.
There are no gaping holes in Evolution this is just another ignorant thing that creationists say..There are none remotely as big as the god of the gaps.
I don't care if you buy it or not. It's not for sale like your religion is.
Laughable? Why, because you cant explain your beliefs on evolution , so what you cant give an adequate answer to becomes laughable? Try spending some time thinking about the questions instead of laughing.
So lets try again. Do you accept the evolutionary theory that we are primates and that all life evolved from lower life forms all the way down to the original spark of life eons ago?
Last edited by wallflash; 03-02-2016 at 06:19 PM..
All good sciences. Again....we don't deny actual, real science. We just don't believe in the fairy tales that some people believe in.
You have that all wrong, but we get it preacher. The only science you reject is that which conflicts with the fairy tales you believe in.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
