Creationists

GuanYin

Theres a piece in the newscientist feedback page regarding creation science (people who believe in creationism and argue its case scientifically)

Its the brainchild of the infamous Dr. Richard Paley, Teacher ot Divinity and Theo-Biology at "Fellowship University".

He's attracted attention from a few news and web sources, most notably "the register" due to the fact noone seems to have ever heard of Fellowship University or can locate where it is.

In any case, the creationist science fair yielded the following prizewinners:

Elementary School Level
Cassidy Turnbull and her uncle, Steve, who is not a monkey according to Cassidy's research. 1st Place: "My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.

Middle School Level
Patricia Lewis displays her jar of non-living material, still non-living after three weeks. 1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"
Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.

High School Level
1st Place: "Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"
Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan (grades 10 & 11) did a project showing how the power of prayer can unlock the latent genes in bacteria, allowing them to microevolve antibiotic resistance. Escherichia coli bacteria cultured in agar filled petri dishes were subjected to the antibiotics tetracycline and chlorotetracycline. The bacteria cultures were divided into two groups, one group (A) received prayer while the other (B) didn't. The prayer was as follows: "Dear Lord, please allow the bacteria in Group A to unlock the antibiotic-resistant genes that You saw fit to give them at the time of Creation. Amen." The process was repeated for five generations, with the prayer being given at the start of each generation. In the end, Group A was significantly more resistant than Group B to both antibiotics


The full article is
here

In any case, they say a good scientist tries to disprove his own theory before he accepts it. So can anyone think of some good arguments against evolution?

Sarky

"My Uncle Is A Man Named Steve (Not A Monkey)"
Cassidy Turnbull (grade 5) presented her uncle, Steve. She also showed photographs of monkeys and invited fairgoers to note the differences between her uncle and the monkeys. She tried to feed her uncle bananas, but he declined to eat them. Cassidy has conclusively shown that her uncle is no monkey.

I know that this is elementary school and all, but Nobody says we're monkeys. That could be more conclusively proved by attempting to mate this uncle with an actual monkey. But the point is that we evolved from APES, isn't it?

"Using Prayer To Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance In Bacteria"

That literally had me on the floor in stitches. Fantastic!


Now I haven't managed to keep up with most science these days, so feel free to correct me on this, but the only half decent anti-evolution arguement I know about is about time. Apparently we seem to have evolved rather more rapidly than current evolutionary theory suggests, especially from the Cambrian era onwards. Maybe someone has explained that by now, but it's a wee bit interesting.

GuanYin

Originally posted by Sarky
But the point is that we evolved from APES, isn't it?

Ahh come on, she's only like 7 years old!!
Well we eveolved from the same ancestral species as other primates (and earlier on diverged from other apes) but strictly speaking we didn't evolve from[/] the apes of today. They are, in evolutionary terms, as evolved as we are.

Originally posted by Sarky
That literally had me on the floor in stitches. Fantastic!

Did you check out the site?

how about
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

and my personal fave : "Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)

Originally posted by Sarky
Now I haven't managed to keep up with most science these days, so feel free to correct me on this, but the only half decent anti-evolution arguement I know about is about time. Apparently we seem to have evolved rather more rapidly than current evolutionary theory suggests, especially from the Cambrian era onwards. Maybe someone has explained that by now, but it's a wee bit interesting.

Its ongoing, but the main issue is noone can really agree on what species arrived when and where exactly. Add to this the fact that carbon dating isn't as reliable as people thing due to contaminants and that we now know that environmental pressure can speed up/slow down the evolutionary process and evolutionary theorys weeakness is in its inability to provide all the fine details. I still think you would need to uncover a few angel corpses or perhaps have God pay a visit to debunk it mind you.

Sarky

I know this isn't exactly contributing anything, but I just had to post this one up.

"Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?" - Anna Reed (grade 6)

I hypothesize that God created creationists for the amusement value. There's plenty of evidence on that site to back me up.

Capt'n Midnight

There is a theory that the world was created 5 minutes ago complete with fake fossiles and people with false memories.

BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BChttp://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
(Archbishop of Armagh)

Dr. John Lightfoot, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, was responsible for the notion that it happened at 9am (not clear if GMT or Garden of Eden local time though.. - but we can be sure they wern't using daylight saving...)

================================
http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1995Jul/msg00335.html
I had fun reading the "Biblically Correct" history of Earth posted
here recently. Perhaps I'm irreverent, but I can't help adding a
few important details near the beginning that they left out:

October 26, 4004 B.C., 9:00 A.M. (Eastern Standard Time): God
says, "Let there be light", and there was the Big Bang. God's
initial response is "Not THAT much light!!!" Nevertheless, He
proceeds to create the fundamental particles and to separate
Gravity from the other three forces, ending the Quantum-Gravity
Epoch. He separates the light from the dark; He calls the light
"Cosmic Background Radiation", and the dark he calls "Dark
Matter". And the eve and the morning of the first 10^-43 second.

November 1, 4004 B.C.: God tells his state-of-the-art invention,
Man, to "have dominion over every living thing", never suspecting
to what disastrous extent Man would later take His words to
heart.

November 2, 4004 B.C.: A Younginaformes Eosuchian is punished by
God for persuading Adam and Eve to eat the Forbidden Primeval
Angiosperm by being evolved into the first belly-crawling snake.

November 3, 4004 B.C.: God continues his vengeance by denying
women the vote and vowing never to explain to Man how he managed
to create Day and Night two days before the sun. Eden is
officially closed for business.

November 4, 4004 B.C.: God, now on a roll vengeance-wise, further
punishes man by inventing extinction. He then takes out his rage
on Opabinia and Hallucigenia by making them the first to die out.
He also decides to torment the world with bloodthirsty predators
and so for the occasion invents T. rex, Velociraptor, Dimetrodon,
Anteosaurus, Dinichthys, Kronosaurus, Smilodon, and the domestic
dog.
=================================

PS. 2348 BC Big Flood (caused by meteroite ?) wipes out lots of life http

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/14flod02.htm

How could Noah’s Flood cover mountains like Everest?
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/floodmount.html
Brilliant ...

Capt'n Midnight

Here is a very brief overview of what conditions were like before, during, and after the Flood:

Before the Flood. The climate was warm everywhere. There were broad rivers and small seas, and no high mountains. Dinosaurs were alive, but most of them were vegetarians. The carnivore dinosaurs may have preyed only upon the vegetarian ones.

During the Flood. It began suddenly, as rain fell in torrents and underground reservoirs burst forth. Emptied underground water cavities collapsed. The first cracks opened, and water poured down into hot magma (molten rock) below.

Slight lowering of certain basins and rising of other areas began. Some volcanic action was occurring.

Terrific storms occurred and water level continued to rise. Marine creatures were buried. As the waters rose, more creatures were buried. Gigantic mats of vegetation were washed into place.

Increasing violence of storms caused animal life to be thrown together in pockets and buried. Eventually, the last of the dinosaurs were buried.

Through it all, the birds, apes, and humans were able to fight their way to the highest points, and few were buried by washed-in sediments.

As the lowest basins filled, the weight of water pushed them down farther. Corresponding rising occurred in other areas, which became continental masses. More cracks developed, and still more volcanoes erupted.

Soon there was a worldwide sea, and immense storms and worldwide tidal action produced immense waves and lateral movement.

As the Flood receded, geostasy (the balancing of the continents and the oceans) intensified. Once or twice there was a pause in the rising waters, which resulted in our continental shelves.

Massive vertical and lateral pressures caused twisted strata. Folded mountains were twisted into place. Volcanoes were increasing in number and volcanic ranges arose.

After the Flood. Glacial sheets advanced outward from the poles. For centuries, few civilizations would exist in the latitudes nearer the pole (upper Europe, Asia, North America, South Africa, and southern South America).

Abundant rainfall, warm climate, and ideal agricultural conditions existed throughout North Africa, the Near East, and India.

In later centuries, the regions closer to the poles warmed up, and the tropics became excessively hot and dry

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/14flod03.htm

Capt'n Midnight

Radioactive Isotopes are generally denser than non-radioactive ones. This physical difference is used to produce heavy water by boiling water, and to concentrate uranium using the difference in rates of diffusion in uranium hexafluoride (is this the densiest gass at STP ?)

During the great flood the same thing happened - resulting in rocks that seem to be older than they really are - it's just the heavier isotopes have moved downwards..

Syth

hahaha that article is hilarious. Is it actually true? Did that Creation 'Science' Fair take place? I thought someone had written that article for the laugh, but if they actually thought that load of sudoscience qualifies as actual scientific reasearch, then it's even funnier. I so want to meet one of those people. It'd be hilarious. That 'science' fair should get more publicity, so everyone can see what these people believe in. They are so funny...

Syth

On that article's page there is a link to some creatist 'science' fair ideas. And it's just scary. It's not science at all under any stretch of the imagination.

Eg: "We need to train our students and ourselves to ask the right questions ... true science is a way to learn more about God"

It's not science. They're just using the word science to give some sort of legitimacy to what they are doing. This is what happens when religion and faith invades science. Say what you will about the (appaling) level of forced religion in Irish schools, but at least religion only took control of morality and not science.

Sarky

In the interests of frank and unbiased discussion, here's what Something Awful think of Creationism:

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1621

sceptre

Originally posted by Syth posting from The Truth™
We need to train our students and ourselves to ask the right questions

Absolutely. People shouldn't ask questions about things that they don't understand. If we were meant to understand all this sciency stuff there would have been an appendix in the Bible explaining it all. The fact that there is not such an item is conclusive proof that all scientists are going to deep hell.

It's this kind of information that confirms to us all that evolution is just bogus. The Internet is packed with information just like this, all written by experts.

Sarky

From Sceptre's link:

Evolutionists believe that mutations (genetic mistakes) have contributed to the development of creatures into what they are today. But as in TNR's case, almost every mutation known has caused either harm or no improvement. Mutations cause a loss of information, not evolutionary improvement. Take it from TNR!

Balls.

Mutations cause a change in genetic information. Most of the time these changes are detrimental or fatal, and the mutant removes itself from the genepool over time. The few that are beneficial allow a mutant to survive better, marginally increasing its staying power in the world.

That's just more distorted information.

I'm beginning to dislike creationists.

Syth

People shouldn't ask questions about things that they don't understand

But then you would learn nothing new, ever! And how are you supposed to know that you don't understand something unless you ask about it?!

This kind of non-questioning attitude is increadably dangerous. It's the kind os passive acceptance that allowed many evil people commit henious acts, such as Hitler's genocide. You can believe god created us all, or in evolution, or we are a figment of our own imagination, but you really should question things. "Someone who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes, someone who doen't ask is a fool forever" (old Chinese saying)

As far as this 'proof' you linked to, it basically said that no known mutation is benefical. All known mutations are harmfull. Well maybe we haven't come across all mutations. Also it depends on the context of the mutation, if we bring chickens to the heat of Venus, maybe they mite be more comfortable with no feathers! It's all the environment that the mutation occurs in.

Sarky

But then you would learn nothing new, ever! And how are you supposed to know that you don't understand something unless you ask about it?!

I think that's exactly what they're trying to do. The bible apparently contains all the science you need to know, and anything else we're not meant to know and will go to hell for.

Incidentally, a friend brought up this passage from said book:

1 Kings 7:23

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.


So we're surely going to hell if we think Pi is 3 and a bit, as the bible clearly states that Pi is 3.

ecksor

Originally posted by Syth
But then you would learn nothing new, ever! And how are you supposed to know that you don't understand something unless you ask about it?!

That can't be what he meant? I assumed he was either being sarcastic or trying to say "you shouldn't assert that something is a load of rubbish until you understand it", which makes more sense.

ecksor

Ok, I just read the link. I don't know what to make of his post now.

Syth

bible clearly states that Pi is 3.

That did that in some american state bout 100 years ago, they made it law thaat pi was exactly 3. Caused all kinds of problems . Nothing worked!

That can't be what he meant?

I was just taking it to it's logical extreme.

He actaully said "People shouldn't ask questions...". Tis scary. And I do have a reasonable good knowledge of Creationism and Evolution so I said it's rubbish science. By looking at that website they clearly know very very little about evolution, yet they rubbish it.

'The Blind Watch Maker' by Richad Dawkins is a good book on the subject. Wonder how he feels about creationism? :rolleyes:

sceptre

Originally posted by Syth
That did that in some american state bout 100 years ago, they made it law thaat pi was exactly 3. Caused all kinds of problems . Nothing worked!

No they didn't.

The rumour went around in 1998 that the Alabama State legislature had passed such a law (it was posted to talk.origins on April 1st:D). Like so many of these jokes it took on a life of its own (it was printed in the April issue of NMSR Reports and went on from there as fact)

It almost actually happened in Indiana - in 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill redefining pi (house bill no 246/1897). It died in the Senate due to it making no sense and was never passed into law.

He actaully said "People shouldn't ask questions...". Tis scary.

He (er, I) did (not that people shouldn't make assertions...(which is a rather good point from ecksor) but that they shouldn't question). It is rather scary.

And yes, sarcastic mode was on. Hence the inclusion of:

The Internet is packed with information just like this, all written by experts.

(aw, come on - people thought I was being serious?Shame on you)

'The Blind Watch Maker' by Richad Dawkins is a good book on the subject. Wonder how he feels about creationism? :rolleyes:

I love Dawkins' stuff. His regular exchanges with Gould in most of Britain's newspapers were always worth reading. Gould was just a little more:D religious than Dawkins of course.

GuanYin

I think ecksor meant he assumed sceptre was being sarcastic.... I did anyway, but having read back over it all, I'm really not too sure. I'd actually like to know.

I really do wonder about people. The stormfronters are the same, they take science and the warp it and twist it to whatever manner suits their own petty arguments. The media do the same thing, they angle science for the story. Did anyone read the crap last month about women ovulating twice or three times a month? Talk about twisting the science to make a story.

"Science Journalism is too important to be left to Journalists" - --Richard Dawkins 2003

For the record mutations are neither bad nor good (except of course from the organisms point of view), they just are.

[edit] Saw sceptres post, he was messing... *phew* he almost lost alot of credability in my eyes.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.skeptictank.org/mantrack.htm

sceptre

Originally posted by sykeirl
For the record mutations are neither bad nor good (except of course from the organisms point of view), they just are.

Correct of course (just to get that out of the way). The odd thing is that many people don't understand that about mutations (or species evolution) and seem to think that organisms have an built-in sense of genetic self-improvement, leading to nutty statements like "dinosaurs died out because they couldn't evolve fast enough".

Syth

No they didn't.

Oh ok then. I heard it from someone and didn't really check up on it, but just goes to show that the state congress passed it! Nuts!

(aw, come on - people thought I was being serious?Shame on you)

After seeing all the crazy people on the internet, I thought you were a creationist. I'm sorry for insulting your intelligence.

The problem is that there are people out there in the internet that believe these kinds of things, and are trying very hard to convince guillible people to believe idioticy.

As for the science journalism, it's not just restricted to science, nearly all journalism is biased, as are many scientists. It's important to look into things for yourself. Like I said question everything.

BTW Capt'n Midnight, that thing is hilarious.

GuanYin

You have no idea how many exam papers I corrected this year with phrases like:

...the gene for alzheimers...

or

"a random mutation is is a mutation that occurs randomly"


Grrrr..... we try and teach them the correct terminology but they've been brainwashed long before we get them.

There is really a basic lack of understanding of evolution, genetics and natural selection etc among the general public. Again I blame LC curriculum and poor journalsim.

Syth

There is really a basic lack of understanding of evolution, genetics and natural selection

I agree, andit's a shame, because evolution is truely beautiful. It's absolutly amazing. I never did biology for LC being more mathsy. All I know of evolution is via books like Dawkins. Evolution when you really know about it, is a real example of a beautiful and elgant scientific theory.

Sarky

I very much doubt doing leaving cert biology would give you a better understanding of evolution. The curriculum(unless it changed a LOT in the last 4 years) barely mentions evolution or natural selection, except in cryptic misunderstandable ways. Shame, it's a very interesting area.

limpdd

From scepte's link:

Chicken drowns six people
A chicken caused six people to drown when it fell down a 20-meter (60-foot) well in the Egyptian village of Nazlat Imara. Police said farmer Allam Sabet al-Sayyed climbed down the well to rescue the chicken. His sister Zeinab, brothers Sayyed and Ahmad, and two other farmers who came to help, followed him. They all drowned, apparently victims of a strong undercurrent in the water. The chicken survived.

If your that stupid you deserve to die!!!!!!!!!!

GuanYin

Originally posted by Sarky
I very much doubt doing leaving cert biology would give you a better understanding of evolution. The curriculum(unless it changed a LOT in the last 4 years) barely mentions evolution or natural selection, except in cryptic misunderstandable ways. Shame, it's a very interesting area.

The LC's coverage of evolution is scant and poor.

There is a new course now and it seems to have progressed slightly, but is far more hands on. If you want to learn about evolution try Dawkins (the blind watchmaker is excellent, although the theory that genes map to characters is flawed.) or Gould (I particularly like an urchin in the storm and wonderful life (which ironically Dawkins thought misrepresented the cambrian explosian somewhat)).

I was reminded of this thread coz a student asked me a question in class last week that I could only really explain with evolutionary theory.

Cats, have strange platlets in their blood. They are sort of spiky and large. They aren't as numerous in a cat as human blood platlets would be in a human. So she asked why.

I had no idea what the answer might be (and I can still only guess), but I guessed that it would be an evolutionary matter and that as cats are generally the dominant land predators, and they are solitary hunters they may tend to get wounded more than other animals and that spikey large platlets might be stickier and allow blood to coagulate quicker and heal. It turns out that cat blood does coagulate quicker (the shape and low number of the platelets also make cats suceptible to some interesting viruses which no doubt co-evolved to take advantage) but I couldn't find out why. I guess my theory is as good as any.

It just dawned on me that evolutionary selection pressure can explain most things in biology, if you can find the right context.

Capt'n Midnight

Platlets - maybe it's a scicle cell anemia type thing - cat's (evolved / were designed) to live in north africia where mosquitos are not unknow.