Institution for Creation Research

Tired of wandering the lawless wilds of the AC&A forum? Have a friendly chat in our cozy, velvet-covered civility lounge. Alcohol not permitted, only the Kenny G button works on the jukebox. All undesirable types will be quietly escorted out the back door.

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby spongebob » Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:25 am

Jesus Raves wrote:This podcast has been recommended elsewhere on the forum. I've listened to it, and as a complete novice, I think the podcaster, a molecular biologist, manages to explain the basics of evolution in simple language comprehensible to anyone willing to learn. Start from episode 1, by the way.


That is a good resource for basic evolution. Dr. Moore deserves accolades for producing it.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:45 am

2 questions:
1. So you have seen the videos then to be able to comment and say they are garbage and that the information is all crap?

2. Did you wake up one day knowing all you know about evolution? Probably not, which means you had to start somewhere. This is my somewhere and what better place? I am sure you have asked some 'horrifically phrased questions' at one point in your life, eh?

I see your point about variances in evolution such as 'higher' and 'more advanced'.
Thank you for the information.

spongebob wrote:This definitely does NOT belong in the science section if the perspective you are coming from is creation "science". My first suggestion is to stop watching films produced by creationists because they are garbage and do not represent science. Just the fact that you are asking the question "why don't other animals evolve" demonstrates this. Evolution is not a predetermined path where all creatures have a goal of obtaining the ability to learn calculus. There is no such thing as "higher" evolution or "more advanced" evolution. Those are essentially meaningless words. There are things such as more or less complex organisms but that does not necessarily speak to it's evolutionary success. Many viruses are very simple in terms of its genome (compared to humans) but could be considered to be highly evolved in the sense that they dominate their niche of the environment and their strategy for survival is very robust.

The answer to your horrifically phrased question is that all organisms have experienced evolution. What you see today is the result of countless generations of organisms surviving, reproducing and dying under different environmental stresses that have shaped their forms and behaviors. There is no single recipe for survival; there are millions and all are equally legitimate. And if you think that mankind is the ultimate in evolutionary accomplishment then think again. Mankind has barely been on the earth long enough to make a dent while many other species have existed for millions of years before us. And if you believe that volume or numbers are what matters, think again, mankind isn't even close to the most populous or most voluminous creature on the planet. Mankind's only real claim to fame is that we've created pretty toys to play with. And by the way, all of our knowledge of evolution and species is limited to what we have found on earth, which may be nothing more than a fleck of dandruff compared to life throughout the universe.

And you need to understand that evolutionary theory is no assumption. It is a scientific theory that took over 150 years to develop into a robust explanation of the biological diversity that we see today. The fact that it was even mentioned in the same "film" with myths like the tower of Babel is just sad and disrespectful.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:50 am

Sayak- I think I get the general idea of what you have posted here. I am not going to lie- a lot of your posts are over my head. I can see they are well thought out and I definitely appreciate your input. But if I don't respond to something, it isn't because I don't appreciate it but more likely that I am trying to read through and understand bits and pieces. :D
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby spongebob » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:43 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:2 questions:
1. So you have seen the videos then to be able to comment and say they are garbage and that the information is all crap?


No, I haven't seen the videos you are talking about but I've seen and read a whole lot of material produced by creationists and it's all basically garbage. In fact, most of it is the same garbage repeated over and over again even after its been exposed as garbage and the producers even admit it's garbage.

2. Did you wake up one day knowing all you know about evolution? Probably not, which means you had to start somewhere. This is my somewhere and what better place? I am sure you have asked some 'horrifically phrased questions' at one point in your life, eh?


No, of course I didn't; I had to learn it. I think you are in the right place to ask questions, but I am advising you to disregard anything a creationist says about evolution because it's biased and full of nonsense. You won't get an intellectually honest answer from one. If you want to learn about evolution, you should look for work by scientists or science educators. You'll at least get the true facts about evolution. If you still don't accept it then you are at least rejecting the real thing and not some distorted strawman concocted by someone with an ax to grind. And it's not really your fault for posing a question so badly, so I'm not criticizing you so much as the source of your information. The "terrible question" just clues me into what you've been taught and its bad; really bad.

Now here's the kicker, I am NOT advising you to disregard what all Christians say about evolution. Some of them really know what they are talking about because they are educated on the subject and some of them are scientists themselves. So the point is to seek information about science from scientists, regardless of their religious affiliation. Don't let a theology major teach you science and don't let a scientist teach you religion.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:45 pm

I see. Thank you.
The videos are by scientists, not laypeople.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby sayak » Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:40 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:Sayak- I think I get the general idea of what you have posted here. I am not going to lie- a lot of your posts are over my head. I can see they are well thought out and I definitely appreciate your input. But if I don't respond to something, it isn't because I don't appreciate it but more likely that I am trying to read through and understand bits and pieces. :D


That's fine. If you need any clarifications, let me know and I will try to see if I can make somethings clearer. Best.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:22 pm

spongebob wrote:Don't let a theology major teach you science and don't let a scientist teach you religion.

Come on, Sponge. You gotta know that many of these Creationists portray themselves as scientists. Intelligent design advocates (AKA Creationists)--such as Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer--masquerade as real scientists so that they appear knowledgeable and trustworthy to unsuspecting Christians. As I'm sure you know, even the term "intelligent design" is just a Trojan horse with the apparent purpose of convincing ignorant laypeople that Creationist nonsense has scientific merit.

Conservative Christians aren't--generally--idiots; they're just brainwashed, gullible, and ignorant, particularly when it comes to evolution.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby spongebob » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:03 am

Jesus Raves wrote:Come on, Sponge. You gotta know that many of these Creationists portray themselves as scientists. Intelligent design advocates (AKA Creationists)--such as Michael Behe and Stephen C. Meyer--masquerade as real scientists so that they appear knowledgeable and trustworthy to unsuspecting Christians. As I'm sure you know, even the term "intelligent design" is just a Trojan horse with the apparent purpose of convincing ignorant laypeople that Creationist nonsense has scientific merit.


That's the point; they masquerade as real scientists. Just because you go to college and pass organic chemistry doesn't make you a chemist. I did that myself, but I'm no chemist. I'm an engineer, but if I paraded around disputing most of the basic knowledge of engineering, that would make me a quack. There are lots of quacks out there with a shingle. Liberty University hands them out like candy.

Conservative Christians aren't--generally--idiots; they're just brainwashed, gullible, and ignorant, particularly when it comes to evolution.


Generally speaking, no they aren't all idiots, but some of them are, but I didn't condemn "conservative christians", I condemned creationists, which is a particular subset of conservative christians and actually includes people who aren't christian at all but other religions and philosophical bents.

Stacey Cook wrote:The videos are by scientists, not laypeople.


Actual scientists don't promote creationism and certainly don't promote ideas like the Tower of Babel, so these people are pseudo-scientists.

I just went and watched some of the video you are talking about and within the first 25 seconds the validity of these are blown away completely. The guy starts the entire conversation sounding exactly like Rian, all of this evolution talk is speculation and none of it has been recapitulated in a lab. That is first of all complete nonsense and secondly, totally irrelevant. This is what I'm talking about. This guy is not approaching science from a scientific perspective. He's approaching it from a defensive position of religion, trying to prove his religious position is correct. That is not science. Regardless of any scientific training he has, his intent is not scientific and that makes him a quack. You cannot do real science if your intent is to prove a religious position. This has been discussed on this forum over probably thousands of posts with Rian as the main defender of this position and now I'm beginning to understand where she's been getting most of her information. I think it's sad when someone listens to material like this and believes it is unbiased and intellectually honest because it clearly isn't. And the saddest thing is that real scientists who are Christians condemn this nonsense as much as I do.

I have to point out that the very producer of this video, the ICR, is a creationist organization that has been working for decades to undermine scientific education in this country and they state that outright on their website; no pretending at all. They've become more sophisticated in their approach over the years but they are doing nothing different now than they were decades ago and using most of the same arguments, btw. They are a pseudo-scientific organization that's hell bent on disproving evolutionary theory and have not been able to even dent it since they started this in the 1970's.

If you are truly interested in the real facts about evolutionary theory, then you should at least listen to real scientists regarding evolution and you should listen to what they have to say about the ICR. But if you aren't and your real intent is just convincing yourself that creationism is fact then you aren't serious about learning the truth and nothing anyone else says will make any difference.

Here are some criticisms from real scientists:

From the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute ... n_Research

In a 1995 review of work published by ICR researchers, Douglas J. Futuyma writes, "Neither in the creationist literature nor in the scientific literature have I found any reference to professional research by these individuals in genetics, paleontology, taxonomy, anatomy, or any of the other fields most relevant to the study of evolution." He found their work most often published instead by an overtly religious publishing house, Creation-Life Publishers.[22] The institute also publishes a monthly magazine Acts and Facts devoted to articles "dealing with creation, evolution, and related topics".[23] The work of the ICR is primarily distributed through religious settings as well as before public audiences in live debates with scientists and other supporters of biological evolution.

Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists,[52][53] with more than 45 science organizations having criticized creationism as not science.[54] Professor Massimo Pigliucci, a professor of ecology and evolution at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, has criticized ICR for professing to present the same science as that taught in secular universities while at the same time requiring students and faculty to sign a statement of faith to ICR's fundamentalist religious mission, most notably in affirming conformity in all its work to Biblical doctrine. Pigliucci notes that any research conducted within the ICR's policy framework is prescribed at the outset by Biblical literalism, and thus antithetical to the methods and framework used by scientists.[55] As examples, Pigliucci cites ICR scientist Harold Slusher resorting to non-Euclidean and non-Einsteinian explanations of light travel to reconcile the vast distances light travels in space with the brief timescale given in young earth creationism, and the association adopted by the ICR between the second principle of thermodynamics and the Bible's account of the fall of Adam. Pigliucci further claimed that "some of the historical claims found in the ICR museum are also stunning and show how easily ideology gets the better of accuracy."[55]
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:59 am

I certainly don't doubt your knowledge.

I do take a view of creationism. Before recently, I have no real knowledge of evolution and the specifics. I would consider myself an agnostic for many years before I became a Christian. (For me) I chose to seek God, which in turn made me want to read the bible to know more about God and Jesus, which in turn led me to hold the bible as infallible, which means I hold a view of creationsim because I read it in the bible. So, as I said, I have not pursued evolution and the specifics until recently. I would say that in watching the videos I have seen so far, evolution is only mentioned in so far as the 'scientists' explain how evolutionists come about certain views on particular subjects (population, carbon dating, etc). I would not consider these videos expert on evolution if you are wondering that. To really understand evolution, yes, I would seek information specific to evolution. I don't doubt the bias these videos hold.
I have heard before though that even scientists that do not hold views of the bible/God/creation still are able to say that science does prove accounts of Genesis. How do we reconcile that?

I don't doubt there are scientists that perverse science to prove creationism.
I don't doubt that there are scientists that perverse science to prove evolution.
I don't doubt that perhaps both sides can be proven....
For example: I don't have a lot of science background (or at least I don't recall most of what I learned in college), so forgive me if I don't explan this very well...
Let's look at Carbon dating- It is used to show the age of things or how long ago something was alive.
Evolution would use carbon dating in a certain manner to say that the earth is about a certain number of years.
Creationism would say that the system used for carbon dating is flawed in some areas and does not provide an accurate account of how old the earth is. They would use carbon dating a bit differently to determine a conclusion.
Both sides could be right depending on the system used for calculating the age of the earth, which begs the question-
How are we able to discern? Read and learn for ourselves, but some of that stuff goes way beyond my level of understanding, which means I need to be able to rely on an objective outsider(s) to review all information and come to a conclusion.
Some scientists prove evolution. Some scientists prove creationism.
We need an objective outside view void of bias, which is hard to come by....


I appreciate the information you have provided and will think about it more... Thank you.
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Simplyme » Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:17 am

I have heard before though that even scientists that do not hold views of the bible/God/creation still are able to say that science does prove accounts of Genesis. How do we reconcile that?


How do you separate the two, Bible/God/creation from Genesis? How can you say that science proves the account in Genesis without including Bible/god/creation? I do not even know how you can tell the story of Genesis without bible/god/creation. Is the story in Genesis found in any writings other then the bible?
I find it rather amusing, when thought of as ignorant or stupid(though I can be on many subjects). Especially by those who believe in a deity up in heaven watching our every move, and rewarding or punishing us after we have expired.
Simplyme
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5958
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:11 am

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby sayak » Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:32 am

Stacie Cook wrote:I certainly don't doubt your knowledge.

I do take a view of creationism. Before recently, I have no real knowledge of evolution and the specifics. I would consider myself an agnostic for many years before I became a Christian. (For me) I chose to seek God, which in turn made me want to read the bible to know more about God and Jesus, which in turn led me to hold the bible as infallible, which means I hold a view of creationsim because I read it in the bible. So, as I said, I have not pursued evolution and the specifics until recently. I would say that in watching the videos I have seen so far, evolution is only mentioned in so far as the 'scientists' explain how evolutionists come about certain views on particular subjects (population, carbon dating, etc). I would not consider these videos expert on evolution if you are wondering that. To really understand evolution, yes, I would seek information specific to evolution. I don't doubt the bias these videos hold.
I have heard before though that even scientists that do not hold views of the bible/God/creation still are able to say that science does prove accounts of Genesis. How do we reconcile that?

I don't doubt there are scientists that perverse science to prove creationism.
I don't doubt that there are scientists that perverse science to prove evolution.
I don't doubt that perhaps both sides can be proven....
For example: I don't have a lot of science background (or at least I don't recall most of what I learned in college), so forgive me if I don't explan this very well...
Let's look at Carbon dating- It is used to show the age of things or how long ago something was alive.
Evolution would use carbon dating in a certain manner to say that the earth is about a certain number of years.
Creationism would say that the system used for carbon dating is flawed in some areas and does not provide an accurate account of how old the earth is. They would use carbon dating a bit differently to determine a conclusion.
Both sides could be right depending on the system used for calculating the age of the earth, which begs the question-
How are we able to discern? Read and learn for ourselves, but some of that stuff goes way beyond my level of understanding, which means I need to be able to rely on an objective outsider(s) to review all information and come to a conclusion.
Some scientists prove evolution. Some scientists prove creationism.
We need an objective outside view void of bias, which is hard to come by....


I appreciate the information you have provided and will think about it more... Thank you.


There currently exists no scientific organization or any research group in the entire world that holds to creationism. Creationism, like astrology, alchemy, palmistry are pseudoscience. Not a single scientific paper in any scientific journal has a paper published that supports creationism. Creationism and Intelligent Design exist ONLY as a special interest religious lobby designed to confuse the people by pretending to be scientists. Its a con-game. Not a single university teaches it, not a single biology research lab does research on it. Evolutionary principles and knowhow are used everywhere from petroleum industry (to identify possible oil bearing and mineral bearing rocks by accurate dating and formation information), genetic technology, tracking viral evolution and vaccine development, even in computer aided design algorithms..while creationism is used nowhere. Is it possible that a hypothesis regarding intelligent design can be tested regarding ancient life? Certainly. Are the current ID people doing anything to ground their hypothesis in science? No. Its just politico-religious propaganda and nothing else. it is very unfortunate that these organizations are preying on the faith of believers to spread their influence and fund themselves and blocking scientific literacy.

Side note. Carbon dating is used to date historical artifacts (>10000 years) and have proved invaluable in dating historical events, archaeology and in antiquities. Geological dating uses other techniques like Potassium-Argon dating etc. and are highly reliable. In this case as well, a creationist book is transparently seen to be full of half-truths, sophistry and propaganda rather than any actual scientific critique. There exists no science research project that pursues any theory pertaining to young earth position because the those assumptions are demonstrably false. Everything from earthquakes, research on volcanoes, sea floor spreading, land usage and erosion prevention, discovering and managing underground water aquifers, finding rock layers for oil and gas exploration etc. require expertise based on scientific geological theories that take the ancient age of the earth into consideration. The situation is as hilarious as saying electrons don't exist while using electricity for doing one's everyday work.
sayak
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Affiliation: Humanist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Jesus Raves » Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:05 am

spongebob wrote:That's the point; they masquerade as real scientists. Just because you go to college and pass organic chemistry doesn't make you a chemist. I did that myself, but I'm no chemist. I'm an engineer, but if I paraded around disputing most of the basic knowledge of engineering, that would make me a quack. There are lots of quacks out there with a shingle. Liberty University hands them out like candy.

Right, but the point I was attempting to make is that the people who fall for this pseudoscience don't know any better; they believe the quacks when they claim to be real scientists, so when you tell them to listen to scientists instead of religious zealots, you're doing nothing for them, since they believe they're already listening to scientists.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2620
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Anti-Labelist

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:31 am

Whether the creation scientists are actually scientists in the same definition used to define evolution scientists, I don't know. I can't say for sure, so as you all are saying, perhaps they are quacks.


Even among scientists that discuss evolution, surely there are some that are quacks in some fashion (not necessarily in the realm of evolution). How do you discern quacks among the rest? Every group of people everywhere whether scientists, lawyers, teachers, doctors,etc has an array of people ranging from insane to sane. How do you discern which scientists to believe? Not all of them can be sane, objective people. I hope this is not coming across as accusatory. It is a genuine question....
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby Stacie Cook » Tue Oct 20, 2015 11:49 am

Here is an article written by someone I know nothing about, other than his stated title and schooling mentioned at the bottom of the article. How am I to know if he is a quack or not? University of Toronto- is that a reputable school? I don't know...

Is the ICR research lab not considered a place of research?

http://www.icr.org/article/myths-regard ... on-dating/
A quote from the article:
"Creationists are not so much interested in debunking radiocarbon as we are in developing a proper understanding of it to answer many of our own questions regarding the past. "

I see how this could be interpreted as 'we are developing things to fit our mold'.

Are there no evolutionists that do the same?



* At time of publications, Dr. Aardsma was Chairman of the Astro/Geophysics Department in the ICR Graduate School. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto doing research in accelerator mass spectrometry, a technique now widely used in radiocarbon dating.




On another note- I listened to a couple podcasts that JR recommended. Learning several things so far about the actual meaning of the term 'evolution'. As I have mentioned before I don't feel like I have any pre-conceived ideas about evolution as I am just recently learning about it....
I also like that the topics of #126 and 133 are mingled in between more serious topics. Lol
If you want to meet God... then the cross is the place to which you go. - Alistair Begg
User avatar
Stacie Cook
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1251
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 7:14 am
Location: House of Cook, IN
Affiliation: Hypocritical Christian

Re: Institution for Creation Research

Postby spongebob » Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:29 pm

Stacie Cook wrote:Even among scientists that discuss evolution, surely there are some that are quacks in some fashion (not necessarily in the realm of evolution). How do you discern quacks among the rest? Every group of people everywhere whether scientists, lawyers, teachers, doctors,etc has an array of people ranging from insane to sane. How do you discern which scientists to believe? Not all of them can be sane, objective people. I hope this is not coming across as accusatory. It is a genuine question....


That's a valid question and there's no real simple answer because no scientific field is completely known and explained. An example would be in the realm of physics you have scientists who adhere to string theory and others who embrace loop quantum gravity. There is no consensus on which of these, if either, is correct and there is almost no observational data to support one over the other. So basically, both of these ideas are possible and it's valid to support either or neither. However, there are still those who dispute the observed data that supports big bang theory despite the fact that the theory is well supported by evidence, so if someone wants to promote a competing theory, they have to provide some evidence that justifies this position, otherwise you're just a quack. People who continue to support and promote ideas that contradict observed evidence are practicing pseudoscience and fit the definition of a quack. Does that help explain this?

And btw, this doesn't mean one is insane. Perfectly sane people can become deluded by ideas they just can't let go of for whatever reasons.
Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.
~Bertrand Russell

:spongeb:
User avatar
spongebob
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 5783
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:59 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Affiliation: Humanist - Bright

PreviousNext

Return to The Civility Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest