What's the Matter With Creationism?

Akkarin wrote: I'm afraid, completely and utterly wrong in every respect

That's the sort of position which d'amours popular atheism to me. I'm not too keen to bring up absolutism but effectively the vocal atheist mentality including Dawkin's (who I think is as logically corrupt as the people he hates the most) has taken a noble cause and twisted it into a money making machine for lining their own purses. In my opinion the only useful capacity for atheism is as a counter to inappropriate application of religion... not as a tool against all religion or faith based belief. Once they shift sights onto all religion they then fall easily to the sort of mistake you appear to have shown, in asserting authority.

I get that some people choose to believe only that which can be repeated and independently verified, but by definition of science as a process of discovery it inherently acknowledges the existence of the unknown. Therefore its only really applicable to use absolutism in things like that logical fallacy of saying something is wrong in every respect because it doesn't adhere to the body of knowledge and belief associated with the scientific method.

To the topic of the US being based on Christianity, I think the preeminence of secular language in the Constitution is actually evidence of what I said, because it shows religion was already such a large part of the social fabric of the US, and AFAIK that religion was Christianity. From what I've read Christianity played a large part throughout US history, so I think my statement was not incorrect.

No-one can assert authoritative knowledge on something without having complete knowledge of it, and science is not there yet by an unknown amount. The problem which atheism probably emerged against, and which both sides should fight against is not what people chose to believe, its how they apply it and if they use it to judge others.

Since everything we perceive is a construction of our minds based on the very limited set of information available to us, its a pointless debate to go the length's of the absolute truth of the nature of... nature. Sure some of what our minds perceive can be predicted and reproduced but that only provides prove to their predictability and reproducibility.

There is no evidence anywhere of evolution. No creatures DNA structure has ever changed before. They have never and will never prove that.
There is metamorphosis; such as a tadpole to a frog, a caterpillar to a butterfly, etc. but the genetic makeup never changes.

Evolution, adaptation, and metamorphosis are not the same things.

i think a vast trove of ancient fossil evidence, as well as accelerated studies with visible changes in the lives of short-lived fruit flies and gnats over the course of generations, begs to differ.

I personally do not believe the OT creation story as a literal truth because it simply has no value to me in a literal form.

Desolous wrote: i think a vast trove of ancient fossil evidence, as well as accelerated studies with visible changes in the lives of short-lived fruit flies and gnats over the course of generations, begs to differ.

Their DNA structure has changed?
I want to be proven wrong if there's any proof. Seriously.
I'll look into that right now.

I can't find anything on my own, can someone link something?

Inheritance of physical characteristics is very common through the genetics of reproduction. I look a lot like a mix of my mum and dad for example. So I think many concepts of evolution would have some basis in reality - given a huge amount of time.

It's not something I have an interest in anymore but I might have a look as well if no-one else can post some more details, but I do not understand what your looking for Reliah, can you be more specific?

From what I can remember DNA can mutate for many reasons, even sunlight, and so all sorts of spontanious (relatively speaking) mutations could occur over time and beneficial ones might have been more successful leading to all sorts of changes and the resulting variations would logically seek environments where they were most able to survive. It would have to take a reaaaaly long time, but back in the early days of Earth there perhaps were more sources of mutation leading to a quicker rate of change, again relatively speaking.

What is the matter with creationism...hmmm, let me think :evil:

1. Proclaims something as truth which has no evidence to support it as truth
2. Slanders the only theory we have about our origins that does have evidence to support it (and a great deal of it, in fact)

I am the product of the American public school system, which can vastly vary in quality, but overall (imho) isn't very efficient at churning out graduates with a well rounded education. I NEVER was taught about evolution in school. And I went to 2 school districts during my high school years- one year I attended high school in a very well-funded suburban district near D.C, for three years I attended a poor rural school district close to the West Virginia border. Neither school I attended mentioned anything about evolution- I think because it's such a hot-button issue (parents would flip!). Until a year ago, all I knew about evolution was that it somehow changed animals into other animals. Which sounded like nonsense.

About a year ago I read the book by biology professor Jerry Coyne entitled "Why Evolution is True." I picked it up because I had no clue what evolution was about, and was curious why there was such brouhaha surrounding it. Coyne is a biology professor, so I thought he was a reputable source to learn from. OMG, in retrospect I feel such anger at my education system- evolution is undeniably the only logical explanation for how life became what it is today, it is such an important part of who we are (and how we are), how could they shortchange me so? To simply maintain the status quo? (see what I did there? )

Evolution explains many bizarre things in nature. If you don't believe in evolution, how do you explain the following:

1. Vestigial Organs(organs/parts of the body that have no use to the body, or can even be harmful to it.) Examples include: human appendix, hind leg inside whales, human male nipples.

2. Observable evolution of viruses and bacteria. That is why vaccines/antibiotics become obsolete when viruses evolve to resist the vaccine, and why you need to take ALL your antibiotics when you are sick- if you don't, you still may have the virus/bacteria, and it can evolve to become immune to the antibiotic. Which means the antibiotic will no longer be able to treat your condition. My mom learned the hard way when she contracted MRSA, and only took the antibiotics until the symptoms disappeared. A few weeks later, it popped up again, and she's currently having problems getting it treated.

3. How scientists can accurately predict where we can find certain types of fossils, both geographically and in what layer of rock. As one biologist said, if you want to seriously hurt our present theory of evolution, find rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian rock (which, btw, I didn't know was before learning about evolution either! The pre-cambrian era was from around 4.5 billion years ago to 500 million years ago.)

4. Atavisms- basically throwbacks to our previous evolutionary states. A notable example: all human embryos have a stage where they have a tail and have a covering of fur which they shed in the womb (lanugo.) Also humans being born with tails (check it, it is an extremely rare occurance, but it happens!) Evolution explains this- old features from our ancestors are preserved in our DNA, and so some features can be "unlocked"

All this sounds crazy if you weren't raised learning about evolution (it sounded loco to me!) But the evidence is there, so I had to ask myself: if I think evolution isn't true, how do I explain how animals (and life in general) became the way they are today? And more importantly, why? What evidence will I use to support what I believe?

And that is how I came to understand and "believe in" evolution. :laugh:

I'm looking for proof of evolution of a species - of DNA changes that are not mutations and last a significant amount of time with significant changes.
If we're talking evolution, there should be large physical changes in creatures that are very obvious and, again, are not mutations. Mutations aren't evolution as they're mistakes, normally harmful in some way, and affect too few in too random of situations.
I mean, if we evolved from fish or monkeys, surely there would be something of significance we have proof of?
Last I knew evolution was a theory.. And are theories not unanswered questions?
There is no proof, otherwise there would be no "theory" about it.
Am I mistaken?

Here, I'll try to break evolution down for you with what I know, I think it may clear up some of your questions (though they may spark more questions, as evolution can be a complicated subject, but I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you may have in the future):

1. Evolution is the changes that occur to a population as a whole over time.
2. These changes occur due to mutations, and that mutation being passed down, or genes being recombined during reproduction (for example, if an Asian person and Caucasian person had babies, their babies would have a mixture of genes from both populations, which could be either advantageous, disadvantageous, or neutral.)
3. If the mutation/change gives the creature/plant (we'll go with creature as an example from here on out) an advantage over the creatures surrounding it, it is more likely to survive and produce more offspring. The creatures in the species without the mutation eventually die off because they can't compete with the "mutants."
4. Evolution is small changes that become big over time.

Idk why you don't think mutations aren't part of evolution, they're a big part of it. Every living thing of earth is a result of mutations. We're all mutants (thereby fulfilling my childhood dream of being an X-Man! Well, maybe not :lol:.) And yes, mutations happen vary rarely, which is why large scale mutations, such as humans from apes, occur over hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. But they do happen, and when that mutation gives the holder a clear advantage over it's peers, that's when evolution can come into play.

Evidence we had fishlike ancestors: like before, as embryos grow in the womb there is a stage where they have gills and a tail. Also fishy faces, apparently: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255

Evidence we had ape ancestors/are related to apes (though technically, we are apes): opposable thumbs, a chain of human/apelike creatures leading up to humans (Good interactive timeline from the Smithsonian: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive )

Yes, you are mistaken about evolution being a theory. At least the type of theory you are thinking of (but it's a really common mistake.) Evolution is a scientific theory. Theory in science lingo isn't the same as theory in layman's terms. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that explains why things are the way they are. It has nothing to do with proof. The theory of Gravity and Germ theory are two other theories, but we know gravity and germs exist, right?

I know it's hard to wrap your head around, but the more you know... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3rhQc666Sg :cheer: