Jump to content

Have creation scientists ever come up with anything worthwhile?


Sisyphus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Their education is nonexistant, their methodology laughable, and all of their interpretations wildly distorted by predetermined conclusions. But they put so much effort in to it, and spend most of their time furiously trying to poke holes in established science. Are there any mainstream ideas you guys know about that originated from those people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no direct contribution.

 

BUT, some of them have PhDs and stuff, along with a vested interest in disproving evolution.

 

I think it's safe to say that the creationist PhDs have looked at evolution with a mind to finding it's flaws much more than you're average non-creationist PhD who works with evolution.

 

So they've kinda peer-reviewed the modern synthesys, and -- by their failure to refute it -- allowed us to be slightly more certain of the theory. which is kind of a contribution.

 

i betcha if there's ever a flaw introduced into the modern synthesys, theres a high chance that a creationist will help by pointing it out :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i betcha if there's ever a flaw introduced into the modern synthesys, theres a high chance that a creationist will help by pointing it out :D

 

But there's a horrendous signal-to-noise. They point out so many "flaws" already, it would be hard to tell a real one from all of the false positives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they've kinda peer-reviewed the modern synthesys, and -- by their failure to refute it -- allowed us to be slightly more certain of the theory. which is kind of a contribution.
Ever the optimist, Dak! ;) Unfortunately the sheer volume of misquotes, misunderstandings and misinformation that creation slanderists spread offsets any contribution we can imagine they might make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's ask a correlary: Does a PhD in a religious study have value, and if so, what might that value be?

 

If the answer to that question is "yes", does that present a contradiction of any kind?

 

What do you mean by religious study? You mean literally a study of religions? Theology? The first is an important part of anthropology, the latter an important part of philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The peanut butter disproving evolution thing was gold.

 

I'd pay to have a class in scientific creationism....I'd be first row center.

 

 

Me-"So sir In the case of the peanut butter....wouldn't it be safe to say that it's plauseable that God prevented jarred peanut butter from spawn life, and that evolution is correct?"

 

Teacher-"God wouldn't do that"

 

Me-"why not? Do you know him/her"

 

Teacher-"The bible doesn't say so"

 

Me-"I don't remember the verse expressing his/her taste or distasted for peanut butter biogenesis, or is that in the back?"

 

Teacher-"Get out of my class..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The peanut butter disproving evolution thing was gold.

 

I'd pay to have a class in scientific creationism....I'd be first row center.

 

 

Me-"So sir In the case of the peanut butter....wouldn't it be safe to say that it's plauseable that God prevented jarred peanut butter from spawn life, and that evolution is correct?"

 

Teacher-"God wouldn't do that"

 

Me-"why not? Do you know him/her"

 

Teacher-"The bible doesn't say so"

 

Me-"I don't remember the verse expressing his/her taste or distasted for peanut butter biogenesis, or is that in the back?"

 

Teacher-"Get out of my class..."

 

I know, how stupid can a person get really. Did you see the banana one, they use a banana in the same fashion, talking about how a banana was created perfectly to suit a human being, what’s funny is really looking at the evolution then of a population to its ecology from the point of the food source, such as hand to mouth feeders really, quite interesting if you ask me. Its sort of comical to watch if no really quite scary actually. I think a sealed jar of peanut butter is far less what some educated person could use as a real example of what they are trying to get at though, or the peanut butter hardly qualifies as a suitable medium to replace earth in general.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello. I am tobekilled. I am here as the only christian and disbeliever in macro evolution. And I have come to be the one you will ask questions to or simply insult, or SURPRISINGLY both. I know that I will be wonderfully exciting to pick on. And I thought, when I was reading pages and pages of evolutionists ideas on this site that you guys are running out of things to say. You are starting to repeat yourselves and your tactics are deathly predictable. I am the "zebra in the midst of lions". You all are starting to convince yourselves that you know what "all creationists" are thinking and doing. And I am not here to prove you are wrong. I AM proof that you are wrong.lol but since you all are trying so hard to paint pictures of everyone exactly as you wish them to be. I am here to be a spicific object of your ridicule (which seems to be all you've got).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello. I am tobekilled. I am here as the only christian and disbeliever in macro evolution. And I have come to be the one you will ask questions to or simply insult, or SURPRISINGLY both. I know that I will be wonderfully exciting to pick on. And I thought, when I was reading pages and pages of evolutionists ideas on this site that you guys are running out of things to say. You are starting to repeat yourselves and your tactics are deathly predictable. I am the "zebra in the midst of lions". You all are starting to convince yourselves that you know what "all creationists" are thinking and doing. And I am not here to prove you are wrong. I AM proof that you are wrong.lol but since you all are trying so hard to paint pictures of everyone exactly as you wish them to be. I am here to be a spicific object of your ridicule (which seems to be all you've got).

 

If you would like to disagree with the premise of this thread and provide concrete examples of contributions creationists have made to science for us to discuss, then please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would like to disagree with the premise of this thread and provide concrete examples of contributions creationists have made to science for us to discuss, then please do.

Bearing in mind that this is a science forum, and not a religion forum.

 

Tobekilled, please think carefully whether you have anything to add to this community, or whether you are just going to be wasting everybody's time. Without the theatrics, if at all possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its probably just a person trying to start a flame war, or one of those people who come by just to throw insults and then leaves.

 

The peanut butter disproving evolution thing was gold.

 

I'd pay to have a class in scientific creationism....I'd be first row center.

 

 

Me-"So sir In the case of the peanut butter....wouldn't it be safe to say that it's plauseable that God prevented jarred peanut butter from spawn life, and that evolution is correct?"

 

Teacher-"God wouldn't do that"

 

Me-"why not? Do you know him/her"

 

Teacher-"The bible doesn't say so"

 

Me-"I don't remember the verse expressing his/her taste or distasted for peanut butter biogenesis, or is that in the back?"

 

Teacher-"Get out of my class..."

 

It kinda reminds me of the "who created God" or "where did God come from" questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their education is nonexistant, their methodology laughable, and all of their interpretations wildly distorted by predetermined conclusions. But they put so much effort in to it, and spend most of their time furiously trying to poke holes in established science. Are there any mainstream ideas you guys know about that originated from those people?

 

Actually a fellow who helped come up with the MRI was a Creationist, Raymond Vaughan Damadian. Behe's made some legitimate contributions to biochemistry too. So even modern Creationists can make contributions to science even if Creationism itself isn't much of one (obviously there were many important Creationist scientists in the past).

 

Hello. I am tobekilled. I am here as the only christian and disbeliever in macro evolution. And I have come to be the one you will ask questions to or simply insult, or SURPRISINGLY both. I know that I will be wonderfully exciting to pick on. And I thought, when I was reading pages and pages of evolutionists ideas on this site that you guys are running out of things to say. You are starting to repeat yourselves and your tactics are deathly predictable. I am the "zebra in the midst of lions". You all are starting to convince yourselves that you know what "all creationists" are thinking and doing. And I am not here to prove you are wrong. I AM proof that you are wrong.lol but since you all are trying so hard to paint pictures of everyone exactly as you wish them to be. I am here to be a spicific object of your ridicule (which seems to be all you've got).

 

Actually people will probably just ignore you if you don't actually make points. I can tell you right now that you're not the only Christian on the board, or even in this discussion. I can also tell you that I 'proved them wrong' better in this post than you did in yours, by citing specific facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, how stupid can a person get really. Did you see the banana one, they use a banana in the same fashion, talking about how a banana was created perfectly to suit a human being, what’s funny is really looking at the evolution then of a population to its ecology from the point of the food source, such as hand to mouth feeders really, quite interesting if you ask me. Its sort of comical to watch if no really quite scary actually. I think a sealed jar of peanut butter is far less what some educated person could use as a real example of what they are trying to get at though, or the peanut butter hardly qualifies as a suitable medium to replace earth in general.

 

 

The irony is that the banana you buy at your local grocery store has evolved through artificial selection for it's taste, size, and the number of banana's that are produced in a single bunch. It's also why "farmed" banana's don't have seeds in them anymore.

 

[i']Summary: Creationists are right, you are ignorant, god wins, Yay![/i]

Hmm... someone should do a statistical study on the correlation between belief in religion, and partially sensical posts on SFN... I predict r^2>.80 :)

And next time you post, please include an actual point, rather then trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think "tobekilled" will be coming back. After all, if he does come back, he will probably "be killed".

 

 

Anyways, there are some creationalists that are very well educated in science, I know because one of my science teachers was one. Didn't know much about biology, but she had a degree in physics and economics. I think the stereotypical creationalists that we are used to are those crazy uneducated religious fanatics that just come around and bash anybody who seems to show any form of independent thought. These guys are the ones who are the loudest and voice their beliefs the most without even attempting to show any proofs *cough*-tobekilled-*cough*.

 

Also, about artificial selection, its not only the fruit and vegetables that are evolved only for human use, it is also livestock and pets. One example is the mule, though they didn't evolve in any sense they are completely sterile, so you have to keep cross breeding horses and donkeys. Many livestock animals such as cows are also artifically evolved for their meat, and recently we are injected various hormones and genetically altering them so that they can grow really really fat very quickly. Kinda scary when you think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think gigantic fruits would be of much help spreading seeds. Bite sized or "easy to grab and run off with" would give the parent plant the best chance of having the most offspring. Therefore they would be, from an evolutionary standpoint, the most likely sizes of fruit to have.

 

The easier a (seed bearing) banana fit the hand, the better it's chances of survival.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easier a (seed bearing) banana fit the hand, the better it's chances of survival.

This relies on the assumption that the seeds are co-adapted with the shape of the banana, in such a fashion that they can survive the digestive tract of the animals that feed on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many fruits have seeds capable of such survival. Even if this was not the case, the animal may be a messy eater and just drop some seeds or may be greedy and grab more than it can handle dropping a few fruits along the way. While it's easy to hold 1 banana, it's difficult to hold three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is all true, it's no good the edible banana only meeting part of the requirements for an adaptive trait, if we are using that trait to support arguments about the selective advantages.

 

Bananas with seeds (i.e., those we have not meddled with) are all manner of strange shapes and sizes. The banana varieties that are suited to being carried are seedless, so by definition they cannot have seeds which would survive passage through a gut.

 

Why are we talking about bananas? I forgot.

 

Agree with you on the giant fruits thing by the way. I imagine this is why we simply don't see enormous fruits; it's basically an inefficient use of material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The banana discussion arose to discount the ridiculous creationist argument that bananas were so perfectly designed for human consumption that they must have been "created" rather than evolving.

 

As you pointed out, bananas that were not selectively bred by people are all different shapes. Just what the two of us have said in a few posts has completely destroyed the position that a supernatural being designed the banana.

 

It was a pretty easy position to destroy, after all we were just going up against creationists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.