Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?
Hilarious!
Complex humans crawling out of some kind of mud puddle and cross morphing into many other complex creatures so to speak is more on the line of insanity and
seriously rediculous.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?
Hilarious!
Complex humans crawling out of some kind of mud puddle and cross morphing into many other complex creatures so to speak is more on the line of insanity and
seriously rediculous.

Only if you put it like that...which is a absurdly incorrect understanding of evolution.

but hey...I guess an invisible wizard magicking everything makes more sense to you, right?

alot of the so called facts have already been dismissed in the 60's / 70's

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
alot of the so called facts have already been dismissed in the 60's / 70's

edit on 12/13/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

What a completely random and context free statement.

and yes, science is known for updating their model with the latest evidence...thats sort of the point.

reply to post by AmericanDaughter

Should "Creationism" be considered a sign of insanity?
Hilarious!
Complex humans crawling out of some kind of mud puddle and cross morphing into many other complex creatures so to speak is more on the line of insanity and
seriously rediculous

While I do typically come to ATS because the things that people say make me chuckle, you are now my special friend. I laughed so hard that if I had been drinking tea at the time my keyboard would be soaked and no longer able of producing anything other than the odd sparkle.

First of all, Rediculous isn't a word.

Second of all... humans crawling out of mud-puddles is what happens at Spas, not in evolution...

Evolution is not actually about humans becoming any other sort of creature, or for that matter... actually, because a) I can't be bothered to write it out AGAIN and b) I am resentful that a thread I put a whole half hour of my life into seems to be kicking the bucket, if you want to know what I think about evolution follow the link at the bottom of my sig.

Suffice it to say that it's not what you described. So far as I'm aware, there's no cross-morphing involved.

But thank you for making me laugh.

And also for the nod to the irreducible complexity argument, there was a definite sense of nostalgia and a smell of peaches, I think.

reply to post by SaturnFX


it makes more sence that the mud puddle Theory
here's a good film:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed(2008) PG
Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime.

oh and btw I made no remark on my religious beliefs

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
alot of the so called facts have already been dismissed in the 60's / 70's

edit on 12/13/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

What a completely random and context free statement.

and yes, science is known for updating their model with the latest evidence...thats sort of the point.

sorry I choose a wrong video that went into the Arab world and sought what they thought about evolution...

reply to post by TheWill


glad I made you laugh
leughter is good
and glad ats has a spelling natzi - i suppose neway

reply to post by SaturnFX


come to think about it, how far along was the genome project in 1854 ? science disproves science all the time.

reply to post by AmericanDaughter


They're chastised and denied tenure because they aren't scientists. They're allowing preconceived notions dictate their research as opposed to following the research. No research points to Creationism while all of the research points to Evolution. Hiring a scientist who believes in Creationism over Evolution would be like hiring a doctor who believes in the ancient theory that illness is caused by an imbalance in humours over Germ Theory. Finally, there are plenty of religious scientists that are able to accept modern research while still having faith. It is only those who ignore modern research because of their faith that are derided and denied promotion. This is because what they are doing is not science, the job they were hired to do. So, why should they be promoted and praised if they're not doing their job?

EDIT: Also, connecting Evolution to the Nazis would be like me saying Creationism is wrong because of the persecution of Jews in Spain during the Middle Ages. Just because someone perverts the message to do evil does not mean the initial message was wrong.

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

it makes more sence that the mud puddle Theory
here's a good film:

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed(2008) PG
Hosted by Ben Stein, this controversial documentary examines how pro-intelligent design scholars and scientists are often chastised, fired or denied tenured positions by those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Nathan Frankowski's film explores how scientists who believe in God are oppressed and how the acceptance of Darwinism might have played a role in the formation of the Nazi regime.

oh and btw I made no remark on my religious beliefs

Stein is a quack first off...he champions random pro neocon agendas for unknown reasons.

He champions Behe's work, which has been dismissed as tripe.
I seen the documentry your speaking of. Yes...it was an elegant walk into nonsense thinking and unscientific principles.
Yes...science does push out people whom come to the table with the mission of proving magic. science is in the business to remove superstition and magic and understand what is actually occuring. If a person puts on a labcoat and waves his hands saying God did it...he is shown the door so real scientists can do work without the distraction of the occasional crazy.

It really doesn't matter though...does it...not really.
You want to believe in magic, and no evidence on earth will dismiss it for you. this is not a curiousity and desire for truth...you are seeking an emotional crutch overall and so will go with whomever claims harry potter is real and ignore anyone whom says otherwise.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


If we knew everything already science wouldn't be necessary, so of course science must change as new information becomes available. *Gasp* Science evolves.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

come to think about it, how far along was the genome project in 1854 ? science disproves science all the time.

Science does not "disprove science". it does falsify previous understandings based on new findings.

science is not religion...there is no magical book with all the answers right from the get-go that is infallable. it is a process of understanding, researching, observing, measuring, refining and changing the understanding based on new results, etc...


Religion...biblical religion anyhow, says the earth was created in 6 days. 24 hour days. it is specific, unchangable, and if you use simple math, you will find absolutely that the world according to the bible is right around 7k years old...the whole universe at that.

in biblical religion, you cannot have different opinions...you cannot suggest maybe god took 230 days to make the earth...nope, it is right there hard coded in the big answer book as to how many days it took, what a day is, what the order was on what was created, etc.

I am saying biblical religion because...curiously enough...you tend to get most "creationists" are also biblically religious people whom believe personally in the story of genesis.

anyhow...you clearly do not know what science is...so why are you then dismissing it. I spent time learning both the story of genesis, and the more broad term, intelligent design.
Why do you not return the same respect before discussing how its incorrect?

is respect against your religion?

Logically speaking, the only creationism a "sane" person could accept as feasible is some form of the Ancient Alien Theory....However creationism as we know it now goes hand in hand with Christians, Muslims, and Evangelists who won't open their eyes or minds

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

If we knew everything already science wouldn't be necessary, so of course science must change as new information becomes available. *Gasp* Science evolves.

yes they are catching on, glad we have something to call it... I give it to them

www.goodreads.com...

Originally posted by BKD2674
Logically speaking, the only creationism a "sane" person could accept as feasible is some form of the Ancient Alien Theory....However creationism as we know it now goes hand in hand with Christians, Muslims, and Evangelists who won't open their eyes or minds

actually new science is over writing evolution in alot of ways, try to keep up...

Behe begins by reminding the general reader of paradigm shifts in the history of science, in which the foundations and assumptions of theories are examined, sometimes resulting in the rejection of an entire theory. Behe suggests that such a paradigm shift in biology (and particularly in evolution) is imminent due to recent discoveries (circa 1996) in biochemistry. Behe acknowledges acceptance of the Theory of Evolution by "the great majority" of scientists, and states that "most (though not all) do so based on authority."

en.wikipedia.org...

and this taken from the number 1 answer on ask yahoo haha...

In order of strength:

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

4. Fossil Record

5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

These are just some that come to mind right off the bat.

I particularly like #3 and #7
answers.yahoo.com...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Even I say that we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from some sort of earlier primate, but it wouldn't be classified as a monkey.

I really hate to say this, but apes diverged from old world (cercopithecene) monkeys after cercopithecene monkeys diverged from new word (ceboid) monkeys... which, with the precedent of "reptile" as a biological description including birds, our common ancestor with modern monkeys (and thus, as much as Terry Pratchett's Pongoid librarian might protest, the four genera of great apes) was a monkey.

(Steiper & Young, 2006, did a molecular analysis in Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, but I don't think that the concept was new at the time).

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

Wonder how many times this will come up before your side actually hits the play button and learn something.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

I just spent the last little bit reading up on this, the claim, and of course the science that explains it..was going to put down a blurb about it, but I think this is more productive:
What does Polonium-218 mean to you? What is it in your opinion, what does it prove, how was it tested, what are the contention points?

3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

nonsense

4. Fossil Record

which actually favors evolution dramatically

5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

Complex systems are simple systems on a grand scale..requiring no author. full strand DNA did not just suddenly pop out of the mud fully in tact and replicating. watch the video above for further understanding

6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

yep..1 in a million mutations is actually beneficial.

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

how is that relevant to anything?

These are just some that come to mind right off the bat.

think longer

reply to post by SaturnFX


actually that is the wrong way round... it is the evolutionist way of looking at creationism, and they are not really even a branch of the philosophy tree yet but more like a new growth twig.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

1. Irreducible Complexity in microbiological processes.

If you're talking about the flagellum, that's just a very basic proton-pump fused to a crystalline protein made of a single repeated unit... the proton pump having a pre-existing function (working in the reverse direction) to phosporylate ADP to ATP, the "energy currency of the cell", any high-schooler can tell you. Irreducible complexity is an old argument, they just keep trying to apply it to newly examined structures in the time between identifying the structure and identifying its evolutionary roots.

2. Polonium-218 Halos in primordial granite

And? Half lives only indicate that, based on random probabilities, half of the radioactive element should have decayed by then. I'm struggling to see what this has to do with anything.

3. Astronomical probabilities calculated as necessary for the simplest proteins to form (not enough time).

firstly, for life, proteins would have started out pretty irrelevent - the missing link between "life" and "non-life" being RNA viruses, RNA seems more important. And those RNAs that weren't good at self replicating wouldn't have reached high enough concentrations to be detectable now, so only the ones that did self-replicate would. Because of the self-binding properties of some of the sequences, ribosomes and tRNAs would happen somewhere if you just had enough of the stuff drifting about. Saying "there wasn't enough time" is a little bit like saying "there hasn't been enough time in history for man to build the pyramids". There isn't enough time if only one man does it, but if billions of them were involved it would take a billionth of the time. If we had a highly organic atmosphere to begin with, we'd be talking of more than billions of ribo-nucleotides and, for that matter, amino acids, drifting around.

4. Fossil Record

What about it? That it's incomplete?

1) soft bodied organisms tend to rot away before they get the chance.
2) even for a hard bodied organisms, you've only got a half decent chance of fossilising if you're aquatic and have a calcium-rich shell. It's very difficult for terrestrial organisms to get fossilised. Try it sometime.

5. Existence of information more complicated than a computer language encoded in DNA requires an author.

Did you know that liquid water is held in its liquid state by hydrogen bonds? Can you imagine the odds, in a single pond, that any specific water molecule is bonded to another specific one? But each water molecule is bonded to another.

Looking at something after the fact and saying "this is so unlikely" is ridiculous. Something had to happen - we just happen to be what did happen. That doesn't mean that we were likely to.

6. Genetics, i.e. losses always involved in mutations, fatality rate when mutations occur.

Are you aware of sickle cell anaemia?

It's a mutation to a gene encoding haemoglobin. The haemoglobin crystalises all wrong and instead of getting your nice, doughnut shaped red blood cells, you end up with funky sickle-shaped ones with a sub-optimal surface area and so not very good for transporting oxygen.

In the homozygote, it's fatal.

In the heterozygote, it's not.

Are you aware of malaria (]Plasmodium spp?

In people who don't carry the allele for sickle cell anaemia, it's one of the number one (if not THE number one) killers in history.

In the heterozygote for sickle cell anaemia, the malaria parasite can't survive long. The density of healthy blood cells is enough to sustain the human, but not enough for the parasite.

7. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Equilibrium is a wonderful thing.

However, it is generally useful to remember that equilibria is rarely static. Most (chemical) equilibria simply involve an equal number of chemical reactions in opposite directions.

If you sample a large enough area, you will find that certain fragments of said area are at completely different states in equibrium to others.

Equilibrium is important in life. Pretty much all our cellular processes involve pushing chemicals out of their low-energy equilibria into an unstable, higher-energy local equilibria. This is troublesome for life, because eventually we are incapable, and then we die. This is good for natural selection, because those that are better at moving the equilbrium live longer and have more babies before they die.

I don't see how it necessitates a creator, though.


EDIT: I really should just leave this to Saturn and the Hypnotoad, shouldn't I?