Help with Creationism Discussion
 

I am going to be making my first You Tube video soon.
It will be a discussion/invitation to answer questions about the Creationism Community.
I do not use the term Intelligent Design, most who use that term are full of it.
"Intelligent Design" belief is the belief in the mechanical universe with some guidance, not that the Earth is 6000 years old with no evolution. Most who use that term now are full of shit.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../EvolvedID.jpg
My wife, a reformed Free-Will Baptist and I spoke of how do they deal with things like new flower breeds, new AKC and Westminster breeds and GMOs in their lives on a weekly basis?
Then this thread came up @ FSM, ironically. It was too much, so I decided to make the video:
Poster 1:
I am going to use the article on Cod and Salmon farming, you may remember it. Point of No Return.
I would appreciate any help, material and feedback I can steal.
Plus, I think this will make a good discussion.

Who are you discussing this with in your film? :confused:

The selective breeding and cross breeding of livestock, food and non-food. They have changed the production of food, like meat, dairy and poultry by at least ten fold. That's all thoroughly documented by States, Feds and breed associations.
Non-food animals are bigger, faster, stronger and sometimes smarter. Talk to race horse breeders/trainers. Hell, talk to pig racers.

Talk to the AKC about how dogs have changed in just the last 100 years and how many AKC recognized breeds didn't even exist when they started.

We discussed in another thread how apples have been changed by selective cross breeding, usually by state universities. You can't find the type corn they grew when I was a kid any more.

There's plenty of documentation on how man has changed things which is proof it can be done. It's only logical if man can do it it can happen randomly at a slower pace.

Your magazine anecdote is odd--most creationists do believe in natural selection, but they do not believe in the kind of species-crossing evolution you need to go all the way from primordial soup to intelligent humans.

Cellar user OnyxCougar is a creationist of the above-described type, and has debated the topic at length in several threads. Do a search for her posts and you're bound to find them.

ugh. Why does this topic keep coming up in my life. I had a total meltdown on another board over this topic--a board in which I have many friends over many years, and on which I am the top poster.

To summarize, I stated (rather strongly) that, although I fully support every person's right to belief in whatever spiritual credo they want, creationism as science is a crackpot theory, and anyone espousing that it should be taught as science in schools is a whacko.

Many days of tears later, my new motto is:

religion+infelicitous expression=bad juju.

Don't hurt me!

I'm sure I'm being dense here, but I can't work out what argument you are presenting and would like questions/opinions about?

I get the impression that you believe in a form of "intelligent design", but not that as currently understood by the pro-evolution media (i.e. that intelligent design is a political spin designed to answer critics of creationism in the most "cost-effective" way), but I shy from making this assumption without clarification.

I believe in NO form of ID or creationism, god, spirit, etc.
What I cannot figure out is how they maintain their belief with the benefits of selective breeding and evolution in our daily lives, examples in OP.
If you have a pet dog or cat that is not a wolf or tiger, eat GMOs and buy hot-house-flowers, you have no business being a creationist.

OK, thanks, (sorry for the misunderstanding, I just prefer to be sure rather than hurt feelings when I don't mean to ;))

Bacteria/viruses evolving to deal with medications, should be part of the discussions, anyone have any articles or ideas on that one?... I have some but am open.

Here is a simple demonstration that shows how evolution works. I will describe a model that has physical objects, but running a computer simulation according to these rules may be more efficient.

You will need objects of two different contrasting colours, and a way to bind them together in pairs. Transparent plastic containers that hold kids' toys and red and yellow marbles would do the trick. You will need 80 containers and 160 marbles of each colour.

Experiment 1

Have 20 containers, 19 of them with two yellow marbles and one with one yellow and one red. Randomly pair these containers off into 10 pairs of two. For each pair of marbles, combine them like gametes in all four different ways. The red-yellow container should have two children that are also red-yellow.

Now we simulate predation. Place all the items into a bag and randomly pull them from the container. For each red marble a container has plus one, flip a coin. If the coin comes down heads, place the container back into the bag. Repeat the above until 40 containers remain in the bag.

We then simulate random chance. Pull 20 containers from the bag and set them aside without flipping coins. The 20 that remain form the breeders for the next generation.

If the above is repeated many times with the progeny of one generation forming the base for the next (this is why a computer simulation is good), the chances are good that the red "mutation" may become established, and eventually most of the containers will contain at least one red marble.

One may also find that the mutation does not become established. This demonstrates that beneficial mutations are no guarantee of fitness on their own becuase other factors in their environment also impose pressures for which the mutation offers no benefit.

Experiment 2 - control

Repeat experiment 1, but make the "red" mutation have no effect on survival. This time, one will find the results to be different. The mutation will tend to die out, and if it does become established it is unlikely to spread through the population.

Thanks.

rk I assume you have read Dawkins? He gives some great arguments in Climbing Mount Improbable.

One of the favorite themes espoused by Creationists is the "if you put the parts of a watch into a box and shake them, you'll never get a working watch". However, besides genetics and mutation, another thing Creationists don't understand is statistics.

Take an enormous number of watches, put them in an enormous number of boxes, and shake them for an enormous number of years. Statistically, at least *one* will end up as a working watch. As long as the probability of a given event is a finite probability, give it enough time and samples, and it will happen.

My suggestion is, don't bother.

Read this.

or watch this

Creationists use the terms Micro-evolution and macro-evolution to explain things like dog breeding. They agree that selective breeding can alter appearance, size, strength etc, but believe that in order to breed selectively you need to start with a pair of existing animals. In other words there is no evidence that all life has evolved from non-living chemicals available in the scientific community. You'll be fighting a losing battle I'm afraid.

Steve, thanks for the link to that book. Interesting that all the reviews that said it was a good, unbiased review were well written. All the ones that said it was biased against Christianity were, well . . . not.

Rkz, keep in mind what you'll be doing battle against:

"God said it, I believe it, that's the end of it".

You will note that nowhere does this statement contain anything regarding critical thinking, examination of existing evidence, nor allowing for free thinking where anything concerning God is concerned. I will assume that this includes Creation.

yuppers, good luck. personally I'm a firm believer in the church of f.o.w.i.d. and using logic against raw belief/faith is for the most part a losing battle.

Remember rk that Christians' theories on the origins of the universe, earth, humans, etc. are as wide and varied as fish in the dang sea. I just shake my head at some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths here at my Christian college.
One argument is not going to cover everything a creationist may throw at you. They're like the AIDs virus, it just keeps popping up in new forms and it is doubtful that you'll ever kill it off.

Here's a repository of creationist arguments. They even have a list of creationist arguments that are too stupid even for them to support, which can be helpful when you run into someone who thinks that if we really evolved, then apes would no longer exist.

And here's a good source for all sides of the debate.

You might also want to check on the evolution of religeon.

I remember when eating meat on a Friday was a sin.

Also, watch the film "Inherit The Wind". The courtroom scene
when Spencer Tracy is arguing about the length of time a day was when the world was supposed to have been created is great stuff.

having banged my head against this wall several times recently I agree. But I'd like to point out that belief isn't supposed to be rational. Worship, spirituality, and connection with mystery are all beneficial to mankind. I personally don't care what form people choose to participate in.

Just don't mix that stuff into biology class. Science IS supposed to be rational.

The mysteries of the Universe are profound and spiritual enough without making stuff up... :)

In support of ID although I don't necessarily believe in it as a fact, only a theory; if you have an ant farm, it isn't static. It will change over time. If you left it for long enough, there'd be evidence of evolution in some form or another (in my opinion because I do believe that evolution is a fact) which suggests to me that just because evolution is a fact, it doesn't discount ID theory.

Also, another thought. If God is the creator, maybe he is simply our Intelligent Designer. That is, he's the higher power because if he decides to flush us down the toilet because it's too much of a mess, then that's what he'll do.

Hmmm...sounds a bit like revelation. Maybe his dog's going to get off his chain and wreak havoc in 'God's' sandbox. ;)

The problem with ID isn't that it's impossible; it's that it's impossible to test. No matter what evidence comes up, you can always say "God did it that way. So there." But they try to pretend that they have scientific support, in order to shove their way into public schools and claim that they should get equal time to evolution in a science class.

Philosophically, you can always, for anything, no matter what, say "it's magic!" But that has no place in a science class.

I agree HM. I see the difficulty of this subject in the school system. I just think it's stupid to try and create a situation where it can't even be discussed for it's pros or it's cons as far as the theory goes.

It's not a scientific theory. And I don't think that each science class should end with "...but it could all be done by magic, and just seem to work like that."

Because that's what ID is. There's no reason that it would apply only to evolution. If you say that alternate magic explanations are OK for biology, why not everything else?

ID is poor theology because it reduces the deity to the role of a genetic engineer slightly more advanced than our current scientific level.

ID is not a theory because it has no predictive power and cannot be falsified.

ID argues through poor analogies. Placing the parts of a watch into a box and shaking the box is not the way watches are made. If you place the parts of an animal into a box and shake the box, you won't get a working animal.

The dogma of "Irreducible Complexity" is flawed. Eyes are commonly cited as an example of a body part that cannot have evolved. Yet nature is full of examples of creatures that have simple eyes. The eye of a sea urchin is nothing more than a pit of light-sensitive cells. The eye of a nautilus is nothing more than a pinhole camera. Yet ID proponents often ignore these and other examples because they weaken their arguments.

Most important of all, ID proponents cannot argue rationally. I once saw an ID troll asking for evidence of evolution on a forum, but then making a rule that said antibiotic resistance in bacteria was not evidence. Well, it IS evidence. To paraphrase Galileo: And yet they change.

It's not even worth debating these crackpots on theological grounds because they cannot understand that a religious holy text can have errors and omissions in it.

• The Bible has been translated from one language into another several times, and to some extent the original meaning is lost. "Fiat lux" does not mean "Let there be light", but "Let light be made".
• Leviathan and behemoth are not generic terms for big animals, but had very specific meanings like "elephant" or "hippopotamus". Yet the meaning has been lost over time.
• 1 Kings 7:23 incorrectly gives the value of pi as being equal to 3.

And what of creation myths? Should creation myths other than Genesis be taught in Sunday school? If not, then one would do well to read up on what Jesus had to say about hypocrisy.

Finally, if you meet an ID proponent who states that God created life on earth, you can have a bit of fun with them. Insist that Satan created life on earth. If they ask why you say this, just point to the evidence of suffering in nature. Parasites. Predation. Nature red in tooth and claw. These are not the hallmarks of a benevolent deity but a malevolent one. So, logically, Satan must have created life on earth and God had nothing to do with it.

Mostly everyone here has mentioned everything I know on the subject, pretty big compliment since I am a big fan of evolution, so I will just give you these sites and hopefully it will interest and help you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/f...ationists.html

Micro-evolution?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../bombs/OMG.jpg
Honestly, I don't think of debate and the free-exchange of ideas (this is about ideas & available data... has nothing to do with belief) as "battle" or arguing.
In other sites, some have gotten upset when I have presented my views on this, very confusing. If you don't want to be presented with opposing views backed with data to support them, why would you get into a discussion about something?
I learned a great deal about the Civil War that I was very wrong about... one example... I was nothing but grateful.
Same has been true about the way I have read Buddhist texts in the past, very personal for me. Would one not want to know that they are basing their opinions on false data? I am not infallible, no one is, we must base our actions with that in mind at all times, no?
There is always a chance that I am wrong, it is simple.
At the same time, data is data, and when I have data from a source, or sources I trust (that is an objective source) it is not personal in any way, it just is... no argument, just a point made.
Blasphemer!!!! AIDS evolving!? How dare you?!:eek:

Though it is a bit of a thread-jack:
First, ID has been hijacked by creationists. It is not creationism. As I stated in the OP, IDs believe that things were set in motion and designed to work as they do by "some intelligence", they believe in evolution, selective mutation and all other forms of Darwinian/evolution science.
I don't care what people believe, as long as they don't attempt to force it on others and they keep their religion separate from all state functions in all ways.
There is no place in schools for any religious discussion outside of a theology/religion class that teaches the beliefs/dogma alone, no benefit/fault discussion in any way.
Creationism/ID is not science and, therefore, should not be taught as such.
Cannot be tested scientifically, not science, and violates separation of church and state... take your pick... it just has no place in schools.
If you want your kid to be taught metaphysics in place of real science, send them to a private school or home school, it is your right.

Great conversation, will help.

Also, there is an island off the coast of South America, there are some ducks that were blown there that, very quickly, stopped being able to fly because they no longer needed to.
Anyone know the name of the island and/or the ducks?
There are a special, very rare, type of penguin there also that are some of the hottest climate penguins, just a hint.

Thanks, those are hilarious! :D

Unlessss you were pullin' a' lil bait an switch on me?

The falklands have Humboldt penguins and Steamer ducks but it's a ways from South America. :confused:

That is the one... told you I was not sure.

http://www.flashasylum.com/db/files/...ent-beings.png
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net


http://www.flashasylum.com/db/files/...r-mistakes.png
Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net