Thread: A question of Origins

Check this video out!
http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/a_q...f_origins.html

what you guys think of it?

I have not sat through the entire hour. I probably shall not, but here are some provisional observations, based upon reading the advertising copy for the video and viewing the first seven minutes:

1.This appears to be a typical creationist tract in that it employs a mixture of statements that are either
a. Inaccurate.
b. Out of date.
c. Misleading.
d. Incomplete.
e. Out of context.
f. Irrelevant.
g. Mistaken.
h. Lies.
i. Some combination of the above.

2.The opening sequence (approximately four minutes) gives a competent layman’s overview of Big Bang theory, the history of the solar system, the origin of life, and the path of evolution leading from simple organisms to man. I fully expect the presenter to attack this simplified description at a later point. This is intellectually dishonest. The simplified description is not what science says, it is child’s version.

3.The presenter, Oakland ,sounds very reasonable, but within the first minute of his opening remarks he has committed his first act of intellectual dishonesty, linking the theory of evolution with the origin of the Universe. Cosmology has nothing to do with evolution. Whatever we eventually decide determined the origin and character of the Universe does not determine how living things evolve. Whatever led to the origin of life is separate from the theory of evolution. Creationists commonly employ this ‘trick’ of linking wholly separate concepts – origin of the Universe, origin of life, evolution of life – into a single one and calling it evolution. It is not. The theory of evolution deals with how existing organisms evolved from a common ancestor. Full stop. Period. Nada mas.

4.A guest ‘creationist’ geneticist makes the following contradictory, nonsensical statements:
a.Mutations certainly do occur.
b.Mutations do not generate anything new.

5.He further states ‘all the mutations we know about are only changes in genes that already exist.’ This is either a remarkable level of ignorance for a geneticist, or it is a barefaced lie.

6.The next guest speaker introduces another cornerstone of creationist theory: adaptation happens, change happens, but evolution does not happen:
a.Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency in a population over time. Therefore, if change is happening, evolution is happening. The creationists get around this by distinguishing – artificially – between micro-evolution and macro evolution.
b.Creationists talk about no evidence for new ‘types’ emerging. They are always very careful not to define ‘type’ with any clarity.

It is well produced. It is interesting, but the first ten minutes tells me it the usual obfuscation and rhetoric. Hardly surprising. Regrettably it will impress the gullible. I hope you are not one of them Cheakrisna.

Thank you for your response. Actually, I never doubted this matter before. I was taught human, money and ape shared the common ancestor...so I believe in evolution theory. Just recently, I've been wondering and getting some sort of argument from some creationist about our origin. Also, it is a basic of the debate (evolution vs creation) regarding creationism proposal to be taught in public school as well.

So, to your the meat of your response:

1. Could you point out in particular examples of their statements?

2. Isn't it what we believe in evolution theory that life come from simple organism (probably a single-celled organisms or bateria found in deeply buried rocks)? if it is possible, would you quote me what science says that is more than that simplified description?

3. Are these 3 concepts: (origin of the Universe, origin of life, evolution of life) separate? you are right that Cosmology has nothing to do with evolution. Therefore, one can't link the theory of evolution with the origin of the Universe. However, the last two concept seem to be tied up together, that makes unclear at this point. How could the two are not related? If they are not related, what do evolutionists explain about the origin of life? Where did life come from? non-life (bateria)? life (creator)?

4. I think that guest ‘creationist’ geneticist is trying to explain is that mutation does occur, thus information can be lossed but it can't be added any new to the gene pool. people genes will always be people genes. Frog genes will always be frog genes...at most it creates the diversification of frogs, which are still frog, not a prince.

5. In 4. above..Plus, how did you disprove his statement?

6.
a. yes, creationists always stress that microevolution exists but macroevolution doesn't. One kind of tilapia can be changed to adapt to the environment to be another kind of tilapia, not a human.

b. Could you give me some evidence for new types emerging?

Yeah, it's well-produced enough to make science petty person like me get stuck. So, please enlighten me. I appreciate it!

Cheakrisna, you appear to have disappeared from these forums. I did not respond to your last post on this thread because it had become apparent from other threads that your alleged openmindedness was a front.
However, in order to provide answers to those less familiar with the topic of evolution I shall now respond to your queries.

Originally Posted by Cheakrisna

1. Could you point out in particular examples of their statements?

I gave examples in points 2 through 6.

Originally Posted by Cheakrisna

2.Isn't it what we believe in evolution theory that life come from simple organism ....if it is possible, would you quote me what science says that is more than that simplified description?

This would take volumes, but science is addressing the details of several inter-related areas.
1. The natural generation of pre-biotic material - amino acids, polypetides, etc
2. The spontaneous formation of lipid membranes.
3. Self catalytic protein formation and replication.
4. RNA biochemistry.
5. Organisation of organic structures from inorganic templates.
6. etc, etc, etc
.

Originally Posted by Cheakrisna

3.However, the last two concept (origin of life and evolution) seem to be tied up together, that makes unclear at this point. How could the two are not related? If they are not related, what do evolutionists explain about the origin of life? Where did life come from??

They are related in the sense that for evolution to occur there must be life for the mechanisms of evolution to act upon, but the two processes are separate. Consider an analogy. The act of driving from Paris to Rome is quite different from the manufacture of the motor car you use for the trip.
.

Originally Posted by Cheakrisna

4. I think that guest ‘creationist’ geneticist is trying to explain is that mutation does occur, thus information can be lossed but it can't be added any new to the gene pool. people genes will always be people genes. Frog genes will always be frog genes...at most it creates the diversification of frogs, which are still frog, not a prince.

That what he is saying, yes, but it is untrue. A mutation is a change, the resultant organism, if it is viable is slightly different from its parent. Acculmulate those changes over many generations and you have a major new organism. That is exactly how evolution works.

"The universe and all life were created by a Supernatural Being, and that the God of the Bible is that Creator."

I have a question for creationist. If this supernatural being (god) exist, and god created the universe and everything in it, why is there no evidence for that? Come on creationist, where is your evidence, show me the evidence. According to the bible, we just poofed out of no where. I will say that there is not a whole lot of proof behind the "Big Bang," then again I study zoology, so what do I know. I do know this, the "Big Bang" is a better explanation then just poofing out of no where. What the creation/evolution debate boils down to is evidence, and evolution has plenty of it. 8)

While being as far removed from a Creationist as the Pope is from Hugh Hefner, I've always rather thought of the Big Bang as being exactly the Universe popping out of nothing.

Very true, but like I said I don't know very much about cosmology or astronomy etc. Is there any evidence behind the Big Bang? Or is that something that scientist are still studying. Or is there some things that we will never learn about our universe, and that we can only make educated assumptions on what we do know. My basic point was that science and evolution give us more answers about everything around us, than creation does, I'm sure you know that though. 8)

I'm the wrong person to ask about the Big Bang. I am very suspicious of its reality. Nearly all cosmologists have been fully convinced it is fact since the sixties. The basic theory has been amended a number of times to make it fit observation. There is nothing wrong with that: that is how science works.
My personal view is that it has been twisted and turned too far. I see an increasing number of doubters amongst the genuine researchers. [I don't mean 1/4 informed outsiders like myself.] I hope to see it fall within the next decade. Don't ask me to justify this belief scientically, for that is all it is, a belief. I have arrived at this conclusion through faith and generic observation: I believe things never quite turn out the way you expect them to.
The evidence points to the reality of the Big Bang, but not all the evidence.

I object to the use of the word, "creationist" which carries a connotation of being honoriphic and credible.

People who believe in creationism or ID'ism should be called creationites not creationists.

I would not honor the supporters of the pseduo-science of "creationism" with the "-ism" suffix. One of the problems we have in this society is that we allow those with agendas to frame the discussion by carefully choosing word labels with connotations that add credibility when none is deserved.

The connotation of the "-ist" suffix is that of credibility, an expert or professional, e.g. scientist, chemist, pianist, endocronologist.

The connotation of the "-ite" suffix is that of a delettante or amateur. It is especially used for a person who supports particular beliefs, actions or ideas: e.g. luddite, reaganite, socialite, Hoaglandite, trotskyite

So, whereas I perceive a schism between the way a supporter of ID or Creation sees things, and the way a scientist would see things, you perceive a lot of shite? 8)

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

So, whereas I perceive a schism between the way a supporter of ID or Creation sees things, and the way a scientist would see things, you perceive a lot of shite? 8)

If you insist, but please don't incite !

I object to the use of the word, "creationist" which carries a connotation of being honoriphic and credible.

People who believe in creationism or ID'ism should be called creationites not creationists.

I would not honor the supporters of the pseduo-science of "creationism" with the "-ism" suffix. One of the problems we have in this society is that we allow those with agendas to frame the discussion by carefully choosing word labels with connotations that add credibility when none is deserved.

The connotation of the "-ist" suffix is that of credibility, an expert or professional, e.g. scientist, chemist, pianist, endocronologist.

The connotation of the "-ite" suffix is that of a delettante or amateur. It is especially used for a person who supports particular beliefs, actions or ideas: e.g. luddite, reaganite, socialite, Hoaglandite, trotskyite

I agree completely!

The theory of creation is religious in nature. This is the reason it should not be taught in public schools as science.

Ever heard of the flying spaghetti monster?

One thing most discussed about the theory is whether or not there are other universes. Strong arguements suggest universes are a dime a dozen in the big picture.

People intelligently always ask where that "primevil atom" which sparked this universe came from. Certainly not void, that doesn't make sense to us. Beyond this firecracker, there's got to be more by scientific law.

I don't expect it will have pearly gates or be intelligent but it seems to many there is a greater state which we are a very small part of. So far our best minds suggest our universe is finite so there is either just THIS, which popped out of void for no reason, or this is merely a result of a greater system where universes are made.

How and why does that greater system exist? What fuels that system? It's impossible to ascertain.