Should 'Cosmos' give more airtime to creationists?

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

When did atheism claim ownership of science?

 

 

It never had to.  When the scientific method began to prevail (as opposed to philosophical science), there was a realization that we could observe nature without invoking the supernatural, and progress much more quickly in our understanding of the natural world.

 

 

========================================================================

 

You've misquoted this is Tristen's, I didn't make this statement.

[jerryR34]

 

 

Evolution has never been intuitively observed or empircally proven.  It has never been tested in any way shape or form.  You are simply gullible.

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution.

 

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution.

 

I think I've already told you this a number of times.....

 

Viruses aren't even classified as life, they need host DNA.  And you don't "Combat" Viruses with Antibiotics    Antibiotics only work on BACTERIA.

 

Replace virus wtih bacteria and player's quote is valid.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

When did atheism claim ownership of science?

 

 

It never had to.  When the scientific method began to prevail (as opposed to philosophical science), there was a realization that we could observe nature without invoking the supernatural, and progress much more quickly in our understanding of the natural world.

 

 

========================================================================

 

You've misquoted this is Tristen's, I didn't make this statement.

 

thanks Enoch. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

Evolution has never been intuitively observed or empircally proven.  It has never been tested in any way shape or form.  You are simply gullible.

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution.

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution.

 

I think I've already told you this a number of times.....

 

Viruses aren't even classified as life, they need host DNA.  And you don't "Combat" Viruses with Antibiotics    Antibiotics only work on BACTERIA.

Whoops. Really can't believe that I just forgot that. Sometimes I just say before I speak, and it really makes me a fool like it did here. Though there is a debate going on if viruses are classified as a life form. Me? I'm somewhere in the middle of that debate.

 

 

 

========================================================================

 

Whoops.

 

No Problem

 

 

Though there is a debate going on if viruses are classified as a life form.

 

There is no debate, without Life First..........No Viruses, End of Story

[Enoch2021]

Replace virus wtih bacteria and player's quote is valid.

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

You're on a Dead End Street with Bacteria also...

 

Pierre Grasse  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations. … For millions or even billions of years, bacteria have not transgressed the structural frame within which they have always fluctuated and still do. It is a fact that microbiologists can see in their cultures species of bacteria oscillating around an intermediate form, but this does not mean that two phenomena, which are quite distinct, should be confused; the variation of the genetic code because of a DNA copy error, and evolution. To vary and to evolve are two different things; this can never be sufficiently emphasized ... Bacteria, which are both the first and the most simple living beings to have appeared, are excellent subject material for genetic and biochemical study, but they are of little evolutionary value."

Pierre Grasse PhD, Evolution of Living Organisms, p.4

 

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences)

Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

 

 

 

"On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."

Dr. Lee Spetner; Not by Chance, 31 December 1997

 

‘most cases’ antibiotic resistance results from selection of an existing genetic trait, especially those traits that are highly variable, such as the natural defences that all organisms possess.

Palumbi, S.R., Evolution—humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force, Science 293:1786–1790, 2001; p. 1787.

Bacteria can become resistant as a result of mutations, but all of those studied so far are loss mutations. Probably the classic example is streptomycin and other mycin drugs that have been rendered ineffective by ribosome point mutations.

Davies, L, Brzezinska, M. and Benveniste, R., R factors: biochemical mechanisms of resistance to amino glycoside antibiotics, Annals of the New York Academy of Science 182:226–233, 1971.

Davies, J. and Nomura, M., The genetics of bacterial ribosomes, Annual Review of Genetics 6:203–234, 1972.

[jerryR34]

Pierre Grasse...expert in termites.  The work you posted was from the early 70's? 

 

Skell's quote basically says that the reasearchers did not have evolution at the forefront of their research, but that evolution put it into perspective (I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.)

 

 

I will read Paumbi's quotes in context, but it would be nice to see you get his blessing to use his quote in the context you are using it.

 

Your other quotes are again from the early 70's?

 

 

[Enoch2021]

Pierre Grasse...expert in termites.  The work you posted was from the early 70's? 

 

Skell's quote basically says that the reasearchers did not have evolution at the forefront of their research, but that evolution put it into perspective (I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.)

 

 

I will read Paumbi's quotes in context, but it would be nice to see you get his blessing to use his quote in the context you are using it.

 

Your other quotes are again from the early 70's?

 

 

============================================================================

 

Pierre Grasse...expert in termites.

 

"Theodosius Dobzhansky" (Geneticist and The Father of 20th Century Evolution Theory)....Now, one can disagree with Grasse but not ignore him, he is the most distinguished of French zoologists, the editor of the 28 volumes of `Traite de Zoologie', author of numerous original investigations and ex-president of the Academie des Sciences. His knowledge of the living world is encyclopedic ...." (Dobzhansky T.G., "Darwinian or `Oriented' Evolution?" Review of Grasse P.-P., "L'Evolution du Vivant," Editions Albin Michel: Paris, 1973, in "Evolution," Vol. 29, June 1975, pp.376-378, p.376).

 

 

Skell's quote basically says that the reasearchers did not have evolution at the forefront of their research, but that evolution put it into perspective (I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.)

 

lol, ahh No.  What he's basically saying is that evolution and it's tenets had no bearing whatsoever on anything medical.....but was "ad hoc-ingly" (after the fact) brought in for Psuedo-Credit....you know, the same old Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy Story.

 

 

Your other quotes are again from the early 70's?

 

Well the majority of the work on bacteria took place in the 70's and once they realized what a joke it was regarding evolution...they moved on.  Once you figure out how to make a sandwich you go for perfecting Peking Duck.

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was codified in the 1800's.....should we discard it as old news?

[jerryR34]

 

Well the majority of the work on bacteria took place in the 70's and once they realized what a joke it was regarding evolution...they moved on.  Once you figure out how to make a sandwich you go for perfecting Peking Duck.

What is the "Peking Duck" in your analogy?

 

 

 

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was codified in the 1800's.....should we discard it as old news?

 

Are you equating Davies work to the Second Law?

[Tristen]

 

 

 

When did atheism claim ownership of science?

 

 

It never had to.  When the scientific method began to prevail (as opposed to philosophical science), there was a realization that we could observe nature without invoking the supernatural, and progress much more quickly in our understanding of the natural world.

 

 

 

It was my statement. And it was made in the context of an argument which you appear to have ignored – then simply restated your position.

 

Apart from atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic theories themselves, nothing has been added to our knowledge of the “natural world” that could not have been attained under the Biblical-theistic paradigm. You haven’t provided a rational argument establishing any causal relationship between the widespread adoption of the naturalistic paradigm, and the rate of scientific advancement. Apart from some temporal correlation (which itself is highly questionable), you haven’t logically justified the link you are claiming. A far more plausible explanation for the rate of scientific advancement is the provision of better equipment as a result of the industrial revolution (as argued in my previous post).

 

My previous post also mentioned your failure to logically justify your claimed distinction between the scientific method and what you call “philosophical science”. The method is no different. We are either interpreting the facts to support naturalistic models of reality, or interpreting the facts to support the Biblical model of reality (i.e. interpreting the evidence within the confines of our preferred faith paradigm).

 

Our capacity to “observe nature” has not been altered whatsoever. The only thing that has shifted is the preference of starting faith premise; i.e the contextual paradigm within which the facts are interpreted. The current default faith premise of the scientific community is that of a purely naturalistic reality. Naturalism, the concept that no truth exists beyond the bounds of the natural universe, is a faith premise because it is unverifiable. Apart from appeals to consensus and innuendo (both logical fallacies), there is no logical justification for preferential validation of the naturalistic faith premise over any other faith premise (including Biblical-theism). That is, if the available facts can be interpreted to be consistent with the Biblical model of reality, then preference for the naturalistic models and rejection of Bible-based models is based in faith bias – not objective science.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Tristen

[Tristen]

Evolution has been known to take place in viruses. This is how they can combat our antibiotics. And yes, adaptation is apart of evolution.

 

 

 

One of the problems with the debate is the ambiguous definition of the term “evolution”. As a Biblical creationist, I have no issue whatsoever with Natural Selection, speciation, genetic mutations, changes in allele frequencies of populations, or “adaptation”. I only disagree with "evolution" when it is defined as Common Ancestry (the proposal that all life on earth is related through a series of common ancestors - along with it's associated implications). So providing examples of “evolution” which are really examples of Natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations, changes in allele frequencies of populations, or "adaptation" – don’t actually contribute to the discussion. There is nothing in these concepts (apart from Common Ancestry) that contradict creationist models.

 

The logical fallacy called equivocation becomes a common issue in the debate when, for example, observations of Natural Selection are presented as evidence of “evolution” – falsely implying observations of Common Ancestry - which is subsequently misused to imply the falsity of creationism.

 

So what do you mean when you say “Evolution has been known to take place in viruses [or bacteria]”? Enoch is correct to point out that viruses are not classified as life – but because they are obligate parasites (- not because they lack their own genetic material, but because they cannot replicate independently of host cell machinery).

 

Since creationism only has an issue with the Common Ancestry aspect of evolution, the pertinent question in the context of this debate becomes; Does the genetic change observed in viruses and/or bacteria support the Common Ancestry model of life? The answer is no on both accounts. Observed genetic changes in these forms occurs either randomly (through relatively rare mutations), or more commonly through horizontal gene transfer – as is the case for antimicrobial resistence - (i.e. NOT through inheritance). Since Common Ancestry is a fundamentally inheritance-based model, observed genetic changes in bacterial population, which do not occur through inheritance, cannot provide legitimate support for the Common Ancestry model.