In recent threads I have heard several skeptics and evolutionists make comments about Creationists that I don't appreciate. One person claimed we were slippery and always tried to weasel our way out of arguments, etc. Others claim that we don't have the ability to offer one shred of scientific evidence in favor of Creationism. I could go on and on. I find this strange because most of you know I've been on this board engaged in debates for about two months now. I've decided that the best way to clear this up is to just come out and offer my perspectives and what scientific evidence I can provide. My arguments in favor of Creationism will take the form of the following...

1. The Creation Itself
2. The Holy Bible
3. Problems with Abiogenesis
4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record
6. Problems with Radiometeric Dating Methods
7. Unexplained Phenomenon
8. Personal Testimony
9. Miracles and Healings
10. Prophecies and Other Proofs

As you know Creationism is really a religious belief and like any other belief; it requires faith. Still, if there is anything to it, we should be able to provide reasonable arguments and evidence supporting it. That's what I hope to do here. It's going to take some time and so I'll have to approach each category as a separate post. I would also like to say that I am offering my own opinions. I'm not affiliated with any creation research organization whatsoever. My opinions do not necessarily represent the "Creationist Community" at large. I don't really know what all they believe. These are my own personal opinions. I will now begin working on my first post - the creation itself. Regards.

Which is equally explainable through Evolution.
OBVIOUSLY- You may not believe it to have come through Evolution, but the World's top Biologists, who know quite a bit more about life then you do, do.
Evolution is considered the basis of modern biology, along with Cell Theory.


I believe in Zeus because of the Illiad.
I mean, look they even found Troy! The Illiad is completely true guys!


THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
DO NOT SAY 'lol problems with abiogenesis!!!'. SAY WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.
Until you do so, you are just making a useless, arrogant, anti-scientific baseless claim.


Again. See above. This is the 2nd baseless claim.


Again. See Above. This is the 3rd baseless claim
You realize that Radiometric dating is EXTREMELY ACCURATE, and several DIFFERENT TYPES OF radiometric datings of the same item give the exact same result, right?
Not to mention that by saying 'LOL RADIOMETRIC DATING IS WRONG!!!' you are upheaving the basics of Chemistry, Nuclear Physics, and Physics?
So? Honestly, Radiometric dating is just one of hundreds of dating methods.
See:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_agai...recent_creation
RadioMetric Dating:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Age of the Universe 1:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
Age of the Universe based on WMAP:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html


Please provide examples.
If you don't understand something, why make a complete guess in the dark, and assume it to be 100% true?


So, if I could get 10,000 people to tell you the Flying Spaghetti Monster is REAL and they have been to his heaven, would you convert?


Please provide examples. Perferrably MODERN day examples. I can point you to studies where prayer is shown to not work, and cases when people HAVE DIED because their parents were too idiotic to do anything but pray.

And God doesn't answer every prayer.


I've lost track of the baseless claims about now. PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES.


A. Evolutionists don't exist. Call Atheists atheists, Scientists Scientists, Agnostics Agnostics, and normal people normal people. Those groups tend to be categorized into 'Evolutionists'.

In case you don't get it, YOU JUST PROVED EXACTLY WHY we make these comments!

In 1 thread you:
A. Didn't cite 1 source.
B. Made a bunch of baseless claims like 'LOL PROBLEMS WITH EVOLUITONS!!' Without explaining WHAT these problems are.
C. You categorized everyone who isn't a Fundamentalist Christian, or another type of Religious conspiracy theorist into 'Evolutionist'.


Cheers,
SQLServer

I bolded everything which automatically disproves your arguments as factual.

Before you start, why do you discard all the scientific evidence for evolution which contradicts creationism? Aren't you trying to make your case look scientific?

Oops Yeti! You forgot to answer my questions, or perhaps you missed them. I'll repost.


1. Not really applicable to this thread.

2. Please offer ANY scientific EVIDENCE(Not Proof) for Creationism. ANY.

3. Please explain what problems you have with the provided diagram and links on the Evolution of the Eye.

4. Please explain any 'problems' with Evolution.


5. There were billions of years for Abiogenesis to occur. And billions of planets. Therefore, there is almost a 100% chance abiogenesis would occur somewhere.(In our case, Earth). PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY you claim abiogenesis is near impossible mathematically.

6. Do you want more evidence for Evolution? I'll be happy to give you a nice long post.

Cheers,
SQLserver

PS- I don't understand why it is so hard to answer a few questions.

Whoa. Attack mode: OFF.
I think eh was saying that he would address each of the items in his list in separate posts...or did I misunderstand that?

The Creation

The heavens declare your glory; the sun, the moon and the stars that you have ordainged they give you praise. This is the fundamental belief of Creationists. We believe that God's glory is reflected in his creation. We believe that the things that are made show his handiwork. Like it says in Psalms 19; The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language Where their voice is not heard.

The universe, the sun, the moon, the stars, and even man himself shows evidence of God's creative capability (man = mankind, people; men and women). We believe we were created in his image and therefore share many of his attributes. Why are we the most intelligent creature on the planet? Why do we alone have to ability to perceive the future, understand the concepts of eternity, etc? Why do we have the capacity for rational thought? Is it because our brains are bigger? No, whales have bigger brains than we do! Elephants and dolphins have large brains as well. We have the capacity for rational thought because we were designed that way.

We believe that we humans are the scientific evidence of God's creation. Consider the many systems of the body and how they work together. From the autonomic to the reproductive, to repiratory and digestive, our sense organs, just to name a few. These are highly advanced systems all by themselves, and yet they work together in us in perfect harmony. This is the complex systems idea I have mentioned before. Others call it irreducable complexity. The first I heard of irreducible complexity was on a thread yesterday but it is similar to my opinion so I will borrow it. The idea is that we are way too complicated to arise by random chance or small changes over long periods of time. Our systems are complex enough to imply the work of a designer. Here is an overview of irreducible complexity by Michael Behe.

The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.
Intelligent Design position statement
By Michael J. Behe

Black box: a system whose inner workings are unknown.Scientists use the term “black box” for a system whose inner workings are unknown. To Charles Darwin and his contemporaries, the living cell was a black box because its fundamental mechanisms were completely obscure. We now know that, far from being formed from a kind of simple, uniform protoplasm (as many nineteenth-century scientists believed), every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines.

Does natural selection account for complexity that exits at the molecular level?How can we decide whether Darwinian natural selection can account for the amazing complexity that exists at the molecular level? Darwin himself set the standard when he acknowledged, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Irreducibly complex systems: systems that seem very difficult to form by successive modifications.Some systems seem very difficult to form by such successive modifications—I call them irreducibly complex. An everyday example of an irreducibly complex system is the humble mousetrap. It consists of (1) a flat wooden platform or base; (2) a metal hammer, which crushes the mouse; (3) a spring with extended ends to power the hammer; (4) a catch that releases the spring; and (5) a metal bar that connects to the catch and holds the hammer back. You can’t catch a mouse with just a platform, then add a spring and catch a few more mice, then add a holding bar and catch a few more. All the pieces have to be in place before you catch any mice.

Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working so irreducibly complex biological systems pose a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory.Irreducibly complex systems appear very unlikely to be produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications of prior systems, because any precursor that was missing a crucial part could not function. Natural selection can only choose among systems that are already working, so the existence in nature of irreducibly complex biological systems poses a powerful challenge to Darwinian theory. We frequently observe such systems in cell organelles, in which the removal of one element would cause the whole system to cease functioning. The flagella of bacteria are a good example. They are outboard motors that bacterial cells can use for self-propulsion. They have a long, whiplike propeller that is rotated by a molecular motor. The propeller is attached to the motor by a universal joint. The motor is held in place by proteins that act as a stator. Other proteins act as bushing material to allow the driveshaft to penetrate the bacterial membrane. Dozens of different kinds of proteins are necessary for a working flagellum. In the absence of almost any of them, the flagellum does not work or cannot even be built by the cell.

Constant, regulated traffic flow in cells is an example of a complex, irreducible system.Another example of irreducible complexity is the system that allows proteins to reach the appropriate subcellular compartments. In the eukaryotic cell there are a number of places where specialized tasks, such as digestion of nutrients and excretion of wastes, take place. Proteins are synthesized outside these compartments and can reach their proper destinations only with the help of “signal” chemicals that turn other reactions on and off at the appropriate times. This constant, regulated traffic flow in the cell comprises another remarkably complex, irreducible system. All parts must function in synchrony or the system breaks down. Still another example is the exquisitely coordinated mechanism that causes blood to clot.

Molecular machines are designed.Biochemistry textbooks and journal articles describe the workings of some of the many living molecular machines within our cells, but they offer very little information about how these systems supposedly evolved by natural selection. Many scientists frankly admit their bewilderment about how they may have originated, but refuse to entertain the obvious hypothesis: that perhaps molecular machines appear to look designed because they really are designed.

Advances in science provide new reasons for recognizing design.I am hopeful that the scientific community will eventually admit the possibility of intelligent design, even if that acceptance is discreet and muted. My reason for optimism is the advance of science itself, which almost every day uncovers new intricacies in nature, fresh reasons for recognizing the design inherent in life and the universe.**

Also, consider the sun. It gives life to everything on this planet. We owe our existence on this planet to this wonder of God's creation. It's amazing how we were placed exactly as far away from the sun that we needed to be in order to live on this planet. With just a few degrees of internal termperature variance, we die. Here's a link to some scientific information about the sun.

http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html

We know that the sun is reducing itself every year as it gives off heat thus expelling life giving energy but at the same time killing itself (entropy). I think it is important to remember that the sun would have been import in allowing evolution to occur billions of years ago. This is not the evolution part, but I'm inserting something interesting about the sun.

http://www.icr.org/article/165/

This is obviously just a small portion of the discussion and evidence. But for time's sake I'll move on to the bible in my next post.

Oh my! I don't know what to say? READ THE POST! I said I'd break each one down - one at a time.

As we are talking about 'Evidence' for Creationism, I'll suppose I'll post a lot against it.
Age of the Earth and Universe:
The following is a collection of Evidence that indicates an Old Earth and Universe.

Helioseismology
The composition of the sun changes as it ages. The differing composition changes the way sound waves behave inside the sun. Using helioseismic methods (models of preasure waves in the sun) the age of the sun can be inferred. With this method, an Italian team came up with an age of 4.57 +/- 0.11 billion years.
Approximate Age of the Sun: 4.57 Billion Years
Source:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=arti......390.1115BPDF

Space Weathering:
Space weathering is an effect that is observed on most asteroids. Extraterrestrial objects tend to develop a red tint as they age due to the effects of cosmic radiation and micrometer impacts on their surfaces. Because this process proceeds at a constant rate, observing the color of an object can provide basis for a generally reliable estimate. The ages provided by this dating technique exceed millions of years.
Minimum Age of Universe: 500,000,000 years
Source:
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~davidn/papers/sloan1.pdf

Naica Crystals:
The Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico is home of some of the largest gypsum crystals on earth. Specimens in the area have been found to exceeded 11 meters in length and 1 meter in width. Based on classical crystal growth theory these crystals are older than one million years.
Mininum Age of the Earth: 1 million years
Source:
http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/library/...iaruiznaica.pdf

Ice Layering:
Ice layering is a phenomenon that is almost universally observed in ice sheets and glaciers where the average temperature does not rise above freezing.

As the ice is being laid down, annual differences in temperature and irradiance cause the ice to form differently, and this generates alternating layers of light and dark ice. This method is considered a relatively accurate way to measure the age of an ice sheet, as only one layer will form per year. While there have been a few cases where several layers have formed per year, these incidents do not challenge the ability of ice layering to provide a minimum age, as these false layers can be discerned from the real thing after close inspection.

Currently the greatest number of layers found in a single ice sheet is over 700,000, which clearly contradicts the idea of an earth less than 10,000 years old. Even if one were to assume an error rate of over 1000%, the age demonstrated by this method would still be far greater than that suggested by young earth creationists.[11]

the minimum age of the earth identified by these means is 160,000 years. (+/- 15,000 years.)
Source:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

WMAP Technology provides accurate reading of the Age of the Universe to be 13.7 billion years old
Source:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/03...lion-years-old/


More at:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_agai...recent_creation
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Cheers,
SQLserver

While I was typing my first post in favor of the OP. Seven responses came in. From what you said I can't tell if you didn't read the OP, didn't undertand it, or are incapable of rational thought. Only one person seemed to get it. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm willing to spend that much of my time after all. Maybe it's not worth it, if you're not going to read it, or be able to understand my communication - which I thought was pretty clear.

OK. Head starts don't hurt, though.

I READ THE OP. I was simply replying to the answers I expected, just to make sure redundant arguments wouldn't get reposted, and to make sure you used something called a source once or twice.


We all do.


I read it; I was simply getting a head start to get the obvious out of the way and clarify what counts as 'Evidence' and such.

-SQLserver

As eggy said, yeti is going to elaborate on all of these, give him a chance to do so. This is what we always ask for.

With that said, Yeti, finding problems with dating methods or fossil records, if there are any, doesn't support creationism. You need to show how dating methods and fossils records support creationism, not how they supposedly contradict evolution.

i do not see how evolution is not proof of creationism.

and if you want proof of evolution look inside the womb.

random chance ha!
look evolution isnt by random chance it is the action of going everywhere at once. species that die off hit the deadends. it is trial and error. if you use every possible combo on a lock chances are 100% you'll open it.

everything else mentioned is kinda redundant to evolution.

So far no evidence has been produced to suggest that creationism is true. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

I am now willing to offer a simple gesture that expresses my feelings for your - whatever you call it. It involves a digit of the hand.

Good bye!

Simply being here is not proof of any God. That same logic(Though backwards) can also apply to any other belief in creation, and even evolution.


The only thing about the bible that has been verified is the obvious; it's an old book with stories in it. Are these stories true? No evidence would suggest it.



Even if the above were true, it would not lend any support to a specific creation belief. It would just mean that evolution is no longer a solid theory.



So if it's unexplained, how can you use God as the explaination? Unexplained Phenomena could potentially be explained by a billion different possible things.



I thought you said scientific?



Miracles and healings? If you want to use that as scientific proof, wouldn't it be wise to have scientific proof of miracles and healings first?



No prophecy to date, in my opinion, has stood up in the eyes of scrutiny.

If the universe wasn't created billions of years ago, then we wouldn't be able to see most distant stars we do.
Source:
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Evidence_agai...stant_starlight

you said:
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
Only because you WANT to believe it to be so. The human mind believes what it wants to believe.

you said:
The universe, the sun, the moon, the stars, and evWen man himself shows evidence of God's creative capability (man = mankind, people; men and women).
See above. It doesn't. Just because you say it does, does not make it so.

you said:
We believe we were created in his image and therefore share many of his attributes.
But God is invisible according to the bible. How could we be created in the image of something invisible?

you said:
Why are we the most intelligent creature on the planet?
Because we have evolved to be so.


I seriously doubt any human can comprehend eternity.
Squirrels can predict the future. They see winter coming every year, and get ready for it. We are no different.



A. Wow. Do you have any idea how Brains work? Intelligence as we understand it has only somewhat to do with brain size.
http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-en...arter/300006091
We EVOLVED THAT WAY. We evolved as some kind of ape/hominid, which are very able at working with tools and building/growing. This, with an additional large brain, allowed our early ancestors to survive more, and become more populous.
Whales on the other hand, are not well equiped like us. They cannot expand their knowledge much in the water, or build, pass down large amounts of knowledge, or develop written language, although they do communicate.


Our systems slowly developed over hundreds of millions of years. You say a guy snapped his fingers. Which seems more likely to produce something complex?


Which works perfectly and provides even more support for evolution. Darwin knew little of the DNA evidence for Evolution, or the evidence hidden within our bodies.
I'd say he's pretty good, aye?(A Christian would claim 'lol PROPHETY!!!')
For DNA and molecular evidence of Evolution inside us, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_c...nd_biochemistry
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-...h.html#magnolia
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage13.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html


What nonsense is this? Slow mutations can easily create another system.(Such as the Eye, or the Brain.)


You have no idea how organs Evolve, do you? Organs slowly evolve. AT FIRST THEY ARE NOT ESSENTIAL. They grow to be essential over the years.


Wow. The Evolution of Flagellum is easily explained.
Many of the proteins in the bacterial flagellum or eukaryotic cilium are similar to each other or to proteins for other functions. Their origins can easily be explained by a series of gene duplication events followed by modification and/or co-option, proceeding gradually through intermediate systems different from and simpler than the final flagellum.

One plausible path for the evolution of flagella goes through the following basic stages (keep in mind that this is a summary, and that each major co-option event would be followed by long periods of gradual optimization of function):
Step 1:
A passive, nonspecific pore evolves into a more specific passive pore by addition of gating protein(s). Passive transport converts to active transport by addition of an ATPase that couples ATP hydrolysis to improved export capability. This complex forms a primitive type-III export system.
Step 2:
The type-III export system is converted to a type-III secretion system (T3SS) by addition of outer membrane pore proteins (secretin and secretin chaperone) from the type-II secretion system. These eventually form the P- and L-rings, respectively, of modern flagella. The modern type-III secretory system forms a structure strikingly similar to the rod and ring structure of the flagellum (Hueck 1998; Blocker et al. 2003).
Step 3:
The T3SS secretes several proteins, one of which is an adhesin (a protein that sticks the cell to other cells or to a substrate). Polymerization of this adhesin forms a primitive pilus, an extension that gives the cell improved adhesive capability. After the evolution of the T3SS pilus, the pilus diversifies for various more specialized tasks by duplication and subfunctionalization of the pilus proteins (pilins).
Step 4:
An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive protoflagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins MotA and MotB are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independent of the flagellum.
Step 5:
The binding of a signal transduction protein to the base of the secretion system regulates the speed of rotation depending on the metabolic health of the cell. This imposes a drift toward favorable regions and away from nutrient-poor regions, such as those found in overcrowded habitats. This is the beginning of chemotactic motility.
Step 6:
Numerous improvements follow the origin of the crudely functioning flagellum. Notably, many of the different axial proteins (rod, hook, linkers, filament, caps) originate by duplication and subfunctionalization of pilins or the primitive flagellar axial structure. These proteins end up forming the axial protein family.

The eukaryotic cilium (also called the eukaryotic flagellum or undulipodium) is fundamentally different from the bacterial flagellum. It probably originated as an outgrowth of the mitotic spindle in a primitive eukaryote (both structures make use of sliding microtubules and dyneins). Cavalier-Smith (1987; 2002) has discussed the origin of these systems on several occasions.

2. The bacterial flagellum is not even irreducible. Some bacterial flagella function without the L- and P-rings. In experiments with various bacteria, some components (e.g. FliH, FliD (cap), and the muramidase domain of FlgJ) have been found helpful but not absolutely essential (Matzke 2003). One third of the 497 amino acids of flagellin have been cut out without harming its function (Kuwajima 1988). Furthermore, many bacteria have additional proteins that are required for their own flagella but that are not required in the "standard" well-studied flagellum found in E. coli. Different bacteria have different numbers of flagellar proteins (in Helicobacter pylori, for example, only thirty-three proteins are necessary to produce a working flagellum), so Behe's favorite example of irreducibility seems actually to exhibit quite a bit of variability in terms of numbers of required parts (Ussery 1999).

Eukaryotic cilia are made by more than 200 distinct proteins, but even here irreducibility is illusive. Behe (1996) implied and Denton (1986, 108) claimed explicitly that the common 9+2 tubulin structure of cilia could not be substantially simplified. Yet functional 3+0 cilia, lacking many microtubules as well as some of the dynein linkers, are known to exist (Miller 2003, 2004).


Links
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flag.pdf
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum_background.html
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/flagback.cfm

Dunkelberg, Pete. 2003. Irreducible complexity demystified http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

Musgrave, Ian. 2000. Evolution of the bacterial flagella. http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Mu...ys/flagella.htm

Sources:
--Matzke, N. J. 2003. Evolution in (brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
---Blocker, Ariel, Kaoru Komoriya, and Shin-Ichi Aizawa. 2003. Type III secretion systems and bacterial flagella: Insights into their function from structural similarities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 100(6): 3027-3030. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/6/3027
--Cavalier-Smith, T. 1987. The origin of eukaryote and archaebacterial cells. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 503: 17-54.
--Cavalier-Smith, T. 2002. The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 52: 297-354.
--Denton, M. 1986. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
--Hueck, C. J. 1998. Type III protein secretion systems in bacterial pathogens of animals and plants. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62: 379-433.
--Kuwajima, G. 1988. Construction of a minimum-size functional flagellin of Escherichia coli. Journal of Bacteriology 170: 3305-3309.
--Matzke, N. J. 2003. (see above)
--Miller, K. 2003. Answering the biochemical argument from design. in: Manson, N. (Ed.), God and design: the teleological argument and modern science, Routledge, London, pp. 292-307. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
--Miller, K. 2004. The flagellum unspun. In Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, 81-97, eds. Dembski, W., and M. Ruse, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
--Ussery, D. 1999. (see below)


from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

OK. In case you didn't get it, the evolution of flagellum is well backed up by genetic evidence, observation, and reasoning.


Explained above.


# Despite the complexity of the system that Behe describes, protein transport need not be that complex. Some proteins direct their own secretion so that no transport mechanism is necessary (see references in Ussery 1999). Certainly, other simple systems that could serve as precursors to vesicular transport should be possible.

# Many of the proteins involved in transport in eukaryote cells have molecular "ancestors" in bacteria. These molecules, the ABC transporters, serve in a much simpler system. If Behe is interested in the simplest system that accomplishes a function, why does he not even mention them?
Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html


Sigh. Wrong again.
# The blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. There are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. There is also evidence that the genes for blood clotting (indeed, the whole genome) duplicated twice in the course of its evolution (Davidson et al. 2003). The duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions gets around the "challenge" of irreducible complexity evolving gradually.

# Blood clotting is not irreducibly complex. Some animals -- dolphins, for example -- get along fine without the Hagemann factor (Robinson et al. 1969), a component of the human blood clotting system which Behe includes in its "irreducible" complexity (Behe 1996, 84). Doolittle and Feng (1987) predicted that "lower" vertebrates would lack the "contact pathway" of blood clotting. Work on the genomes of the puffer fish and zebrafish have confirmed this (Yong and Doolittle 2003).
Links:
Acton, George, 1997. Behe and the blood clotting cascade. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html
Behe, M. and K. Miller. 2002. Transcript: American Museum of Natural History April 23, 2002 (Part 7). http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/..._10_31_2002.asp
Dunkelberg, Pete, 2003. Irreducible complexity demystified. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html
EvoWiki, 2004. Blood clotting. http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting
Musgrave, Ian, 2005. Clotted rot for rotten clots. http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000884.html

from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_2.html


'If one does not want to find the answer, he will surely not'.

Here's a nice rebuttal to Behe's Work:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html



So? Some kind of life(perhaps not as we know it) could begin at a variety of temperatures. In fact, this is just as much evidence for God as for Naturalism.
We evolved to live at the distance from the sun we are at simply because that is the only way life could have arisen; all other life wouldn't have made it.
IE- THIS ISN'T EVIDENCE FOR GOD.
Our planet is suitable for life. Hundreds, possibly billions others are. Are we to assume this is a sign of God? Life happened to arise here to live in our temperature range simply because it HAD TO.



'The sun would have been import'?
What does that mean?

Well. that's it.
Also important is that 'irreducable complexity', which you refer to several times, does not hinder Evolution/Abiogenesis, EVEN IF IT DOES EXIST:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html

OK. Lets sum up the Creation thing, shall we?

A. You start with a lot of baseless claims about how humans are too complex, blah, blah blah.
B. THEN you get into science with Behe's essay.
C. I explain that it is quite simple for organs to evolve.(I'll get into this in my next post)
D. I show you how all of Behe's 'complexity' arguments are not in fact examples of compexity, and could easily have arisen Evolutionarily based on MicroBiological and Genetic evidence.
E. I show you a link which explains why Irreducible complexity isn't a hindrance to Evolution even if it does exist.

Doesn't look like you really got anywhere here. It seems like you tried to give examples that would prove too complex to have evolved, but I showed you they could quite easily.

I'm working on an Evidence of Evolution and Evolution of Organs post
Cheers,
SQLserver

A digit on the hand... hmmm... 666?

As Creationists don't like to follow links, I've put the argument from:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
below.

Claim CB200:
Some biochemical systems are irreducibly complex, meaning that the removal of any one part of the system destroys the system's function. Irreducible complexity rules out the possibility of a system having evolved, so it must be designed.

Response:
1. Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:

* deletion of parts
* addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
* change of function
* addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
* gradual modification of parts

All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common (Dujon et al. 2004; Hooper and Berg 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000), and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. In fact, it was predicted by Nobel-prize-winning geneticist Hermann Muller almost a century ago (Muller 1918, 463-464). Muller referred to it as interlocking complexity (Muller 1939).

Evolutionary origins of some irreducibly complex systems have been described in some detail. For example, the evolution of the Krebs citric acid cycle has been well studied (Meléndez-Hevia et al. 1996), and the evolution of an "irreducible" system of a hormone-receptor system has been elucidated (Bridgham et al. 2006). Irreducibility is no obstacle to their formation.

2. Even if irreducible complexity did prohibit Darwinian evolution, the conclusion of design does not follow. Other processes might have produced it. Irreducible complexity is an example of a failed argument from incredulity.

3. Irreducible complexity is poorly defined. It is defined in terms of parts, but it is far from obvious what a "part" is. Logically, the parts should be individual atoms, because they are the level of organization that does not get subdivided further in biochemistry, and they are the smallest level that biochemists consider in their analysis. Behe, however, considered sets of molecules to be individual parts, and he gave no indication of how he made his determinations.

4. Systems that have been considered irreducibly complex might not be. For example:
* The mousetrap that Behe used as an example of irreducible complexity can be simplified by bending the holding arm slightly and removing the latch.
* The bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex because it can lose many parts and still function, either as a simpler flagellum or a secretion system. Many proteins of the eukaryotic flagellum (also called a cilium or undulipodium) are known to be dispensable, because functional swimming flagella that lack these proteins are known to exist.
* In spite of the complexity of Behe's protein transport example, there are other proteins for which no transport is necessary (see Ussery 1999 for references).
* The immune system example that Behe includes is not irreducibly complex because the antibodies that mark invading cells for destruction might themselves hinder the function of those cells, allowing the system to function (albeit not as well) without the destroyer molecules of the complement system.

Links:
TalkOrigins Archive. n.d. Irreducible complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

References:
1. Aharoni, A., L. Gaidukov, O. Khersonsky, S. McQ. Gould, C. Roodveldt and D. S. Tawfik. 2004. The 'evolvability' of promiscuous protein functions. Nature Genetics [Epub Nov. 28 ahead of print]
2. Bridgham, Jamie T., Sean M. Carroll and Joseph W. Thornton. 2006. Evolution of hormone-receptor complexity by molecular exploitation. Science 312: 97-101. See also Adami, Christopher. 2006. Reducible complexity. Science 312: 61-63.
3. Dujon, B. et al. 2004. Genome evolution in yeasts. Nature 430: 35-44.
4. Hooper, S. D. and O. G. Berg. 2003. On the nature of gene innovation: Duplication patterns in microbial genomes. Molecular Biololgy and Evolution 20(6): 945-954.
5. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery. 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
6. Meléndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante. 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.
7. Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml
8. Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280.
9. Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2001. Genome duplications: The stuff of evolution? Science 294: 2458-2460.
10. Ussery, David. 1999. A biochemist's response to "The biochemical challenge to evolution". Bios 70: 40-45. http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html

Further Reading:
Gray, Terry M.. 1999. Complexity--yes! Irreducible--maybe! Unexplainable--no! A creationist criticism of irreducible complexity. http://tallship.chm.colostate.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html

Lindsay, Don. 1996. Review: "Darwin's black box, the biochemical challenge to evolution" by Michael Behe. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/behe.html

Miller, K. 1999. Finding Darwin's God. Harper-Collins, chap. 5.

Shanks, N. and K. H. Joplin. 1999. Redundant complexity: A analysis of intelligent design in biochemistry. Philosophy of Science 66: 268-298. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics...enksJoplin.html

Ussery, David. 1999. (see above)




Didn't your mother ever tell you pointing isn't polite?

Cheers,
SQLserver

Yeti! you can't be scared off your own thread within a page!

Your list, at least, does not include a heading of "Scientific Evidence in Favor of Creationism." If all you offer is the same old "Evolution is false because I don't believe it" argument, then you will contribute nothing. I keep hearing that there is scientific support for creationism, but nobody ever seems to know what it is or where to find it. So tell me where this information has been published; I have access to 28,000 different scientific journals. If it's out there, I'll either find it or references to it in other articles.
Doug

You're insane. And my momentary lapse of self control was not a point with the index finger. In any event, I leave you to your darkness. There is no such thing as a reasonable discussion with you. You didn't even allow me to make my points.

Evolution of Human Organs

The Brain
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
http://www.primatesociety.com/Into/surviva...e/textEvol.html
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB303.html

The Heart
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1047/1/13
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...ournalCode=nyas

The Eye
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html <--RECOMMENDED!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The Ear
Not much complexity is needed for a functional ear. All that is necessary is a nerve connected to something that can vibrate. Insects have evolved "ears" on at least eleven different parts of their bodies, from antennae to legs (Hoy and Robert 1996). Even humans detect very low frequencies via tactile sensation, not through their ears.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fossil...ion&ref=rss
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB302.html
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2006/jan/news_7484.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6011802159.html


You see, each and every organism has evidence of evolution with Vestigial Organs, Fossil Evidence, DNA evidence, and extremely viable theories.
Got any problems?

Cheers,
SQLserver

Al Contrario, you MADE YOUR POINTS ON CREATION. You said you finished with Creation. So, I replied.

Cheers,
SQLserver

I say let Yeti follow his list and make his points.

He got bombarded before he could even begin, thats a bit unfair.

Interesting... wheres the heading "Evidence of creationism"? Showing problems with evolution and other theories does not constitute evidence of something else such as creationism.

Guys! Kindly SHUT UP and let him make his posts! THEN you can pick him apart.
Doug

All's fair in love and evolution/creation debates.

But I agree, he didn't even get to post anything before being attacked...

A little sorry... But mainly I was posting on his Creation stuff. He said he had already finished that. That made it seem to me as though it was up for grabs.
-SQLserver

No offense, but this is exactly what I'd expect from an Obama supporter. Only one of you guys would say, kindly shut up... such silliness. My friend, let me show you how to do things the conservative way.

Guys... SHUT UP... or else I'll make a preemptive strike.

Yeti, Please continue... I for one would like to read your post!

Excuse me... but who made you the forum police? Complain all you want, people can post whenever the hell they want.

Nah, they do have some point. They aren't making you, they are justing suggesting we should be polite.

Cause otherwise there will be no creationists to fight discuss things with

:sigh: No they can't. They can post within the rules. With that said, following your logic, I can post whatever the hell I want, and what I want to post, is to tell you guys to give him a chance. So you've presented a self-defeating argument.

And there will be no one to bash inform.

* Blinks *

Okay. We appear to have a bit of a train-wreck thread.

It would seem to me that this would probably work better as a series of blog entries, Yeti.

However - a year or so ago, the UM boards used to host debate tournaments. As an alternative - if Saru's receptive to the idea, maybe we could hold a series of formal debates on the big, re-occurring issues that seem to come up, time and again, on the S vs S board. That way, both sides of the debate could be heard without one side being drowned out by the other.

Anyone interested?

I'd be more than happy to.
But Yeti, people may have jumped the gun a little but if you have real scientific evidence for creation you should be able to counter it.
I'm sorry to tell you though trying to provide (incorrect) evidence against evolution does not equate to providing evidence for creationism.

You can't see the wind. You can see the effects of the wind. You believe it's there. So it is with God but many of you can't see it. *edits remainder of this post*

There's no point because.....I'm at a loss. I give. I've tried - more than most. It's easy to see why no Creationists stay around to talk to you people. You lack the basic common decency to participate in discussion or debate. I actually had the idea of a debate before I decided to attempt this thread. There's no way I would do it now, after seeing what's going down and I don't know anyone else around here who'd be fool enough to try. The thought of standing around, in the center of a circle of cackling hyenas like we have here is just way too unappealing. Just don't talk trash about Creationists anymore because you had the chance to actually hear from one this time and you showed your true colors. I guess the whole part of human decency hasn't really "evolved" for some yet. Uuug! Bang some bones together caveman!!!

C'mon Yeti, there is no need for that. I would be interested in talking to you about it and discussing it.

Yeti, you actually don't have to respond to every post.

Just take your time and post/respond to what you want to. Lots of us are actually interested in what you base your beliefs on.

I'd be interested.
It's a shame that the yeti-man got trounced so fast. It really was a misunderstanding.

I'd suggest to yeti, that he create a new thread for each point. Maybe even write it up in MS word, cite sources, a nice big one-subject post. Then let the flames commence!

NO YOU DIDN'T!!!!!! The truth of the matter is that you didn't even have a clue. You didn't even bother to fully read the OP. You saw what YOU THOUGHT was an opening, began to salivate and then jumped in with one of your ginormous (probably pre-fabbed) posts. You don't even express an original thought of your own. At least I make my points with MY OWN MIND! You just copy and paste all the crap that you've already used on these boards probably a dozen times or more. So whatever.

There are several points I would like to make here....
A. On what I've posted and how horrifically awful it is.
B. On why Copy and Paste arguments are 100% fine, and even better then original ones.

A. Lets look at each of my posts.
1st post- Perhaps this one was a little harsh. I hadn't realized you had more info. to come.
However, whether you had more info to come or not, most of that post was still relevant.

B. I reposted my questions for you even though you read them, you never replied to them.

C. I post some evidence for the age of the Earth. THIS IS RELEVANT to your 'radiometric dating' thread. It is obvious you were going to attack radiometric dating in an attempt to redefine the scientific age of the Earth. If anything, I made your life easier here. I explained it would be a waste of time.

D. 4-5 -- not much was said here, just replied to your outburst.

E. The Big Post. YOU said you were done with Creation. Generally, THAT means that your points are open for debate.

F. Simply posted an extremely relevant article to your Creation post. THAT was OK, was you were already done it.

G. Simply gave everyone some very useful links on the Evolution of Organs. It pertained to your Creation Post.

The other posts were just a bunch of non-argumentive 'oks' and 'sorrys' and 'I agrees'.


So. It seems to me the fault lies completely and utterly with you. If you wanted people to wait until you were done, you should have SAID SO.

Normally, when somebody finishes posting something it is up for debate. It is quite clear that you weren't clear at all about this.


Now for point B. IF you ask me, this point is rather more important then your lack of communication.

B.
You have accused me of 'copy and pasting'. OH NOES! The ironic part of this is your entire argument was a single copy and paste from Behe's essay.
I've been accused of this oh-so-evil crime a ridiculous number of times.
This is what it boils down to:
1. An argument is an argument. My given argument happened to tear yours apart. It doesn't matter who wrote it.
2. I'm not in this to prove I'm a better debater, or better at theology or Evolution or ANYTHING. I'm in this to explain that ALL of the evidence points towards an Old Earth, an Old Universe, and Evolution, and the rest of Science. I'm here to speculate over the Psychology driving Religion and fear. OK? So I'm not 'cheating' or anything when I copy and paste. I'm showing you how you are wrong.
3. You realize copy and paste is essentially how science works, right? Scientists are NOTHING by themselves; It is the vast accumulation of all of the observation, evidence, and experiments that creates Science. If scientists never copied from each other, then we'd all have to start from scratch.
I AM NOT A EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGIST. If an EXPERT(Believe it or not, they still exist, and they are smarter then you in their field!) has written and researched a beautiful essay, I'm not going to write 1 for you.
4. You realize the same arguments work over and over is because that CREATIONISTS HAVE NO ANSWERS, right? I mean, there are thousands of arguments and questions Creationists have no answers to, but there are a few REALLY good ones.

I hope those 4 points conclude that:
A. Copy and Paste is completely fine.
B. Borrowing material is how science works.
C. There is nothing wrong with using the same arguments over.


I've already explained:
I DON'T CARE.
I'm NOT HERE to prove I'm smarter then you, a better writer then you, a better philosopher then you, or a better debater then you.
STAY in your arrogant 'LOL I'm better lolz' position. I DON'T CARE. I already knew you were fairly arrogant(or prone to arrogance), or you wouldn't be a Fundamentalist Christian.


I hope that settles that. Either you can continue with your original plan, try and defend BEHE'S essay, or stop participating in your own thread.
Your pick.
-SQLserver

Yetiman has more patience than me when it comes to ID and creationism that is for sure. The way others simply cannot even listen to another person's ideas about them and simply say NO YOU ARE WRONG ID IS THIS LALALALA totally puts me off from entering these threads. This does not include everyone though for a few have attempted to actually understand others and how they feel about ID. Some people though are just totally indoctrinated and are unable to entertain a thought. Pondering and getting into the mind of others to see things they way they do is what a few of us like to do though.

Aristotle said it best: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

I don't believe anyone is saying that. I think we are all agreeing that:
1. ID is NOT SCIENCE, as there is no evidence for it.
2. ID is most often used by Creationists to wedge their religion into schools.

I cannot believe anyone here believes that Creationism and ID are technically the same thing. They aren't. Just look at a definition of each.
ID is a more reasonable religious view then Creationism.
Still doesn't make it Science, truth, or supported. It is all complete guess work.

Cheers,
SQLserver

The only thing I have to say is that those who actually read my post and understood my intentions brought up a good point. I should have included a section specifically for scientific evidence for creationism - that point I would conceed. But anyway, now that I've cooled down I still think it's a waste of my time here. That's fine it doesn't really matter because all of the thought that I have put into these issues in the past couple of months has helped me to better organize my thoughts and I've learned alot. One thing though - I really don't see any other creationist here, and never have, seen anyone step up and be willing to discuss/debate as much as I have. I would have hoped to at least get some props or back up from my own side. I know they're out there but they dont say anything and I think that sucks. All the skeptics and whatever labels you want to put on yourselves sure do stick together. If I had it to do again and I wasn't the front-runner, at least I would prop up my bros. - so I hope someone out there hears that part. Regards to all.

Oh No!!!! Not the podiums!!!!

hee hee lol

I am more inclined to agree with your first point but throughly reject your second point. I can care less about Discover Institute's political agenda to get ID into class. Wasted effort. My interest and hope is that just a few brilliant minds investigate the question of ID similarly as they do quantum physics. And yes some people do believe ID and creationism are the same exact thing. Never considered you one of them though. But for those who say ID can never break out off the religious mold I can only say anything is possible in the future.