Korean Job Discussion Forums

tomato · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:15 am Post subject:

I always thought the reason we didn't grow fur was because the hominids in Europe and Asia learned to make winter clothes before Evolution had time to select the furriest members.

tomato · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:23 am Post subject:

Mission Weasel, I finally got around to reading the article you posted.

I don't understand the logic, though.
If you can find enough genetic experiments which did not result in beneficial mutations, does that prove that beneficial mutations cannot exist?

My high school history textbook said that the Civil War proved that the United States could not be divided.
I couldn't understand that, either.
All it proved to me was that one attempt to divide the United States was unsuccessful.

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Evidently, evolution theory proponents on this thread are big on superficiality and small on God consciousness.

"Mindmetoo" seemingly rejected arguments supporting the "we use less than 10% of our brain" aphorism based largely on the less than state-of-the-art appearance of the linked-to webpage (and the fact that it didn't stick verbatum to the talking points parroted in numerous places.)

The peer-reviewed evidence indicating that every part of the brain correlates with some bodily function may disprove some old misconceptions about the brain associated with the saying, but that doesn't negate its essential truthfulness with respect to the optimization of brain pontential.

"Ed209" made reference to the $700 billion dollar sum that science is spending for the hydron collider, suggesting that it is a much more reliable way to discover the truth of origins than depending on any creator God for knowledge.

I personally doubt that it's just a coincidence that the financial bailout to save the crumbling American - and world - economy will cost about the same amount ($700 billion)

Before the Titanic set sail it was largely considered "unsinkable", and some challengingly declared that "even God couldn't sink the Titanic".

God accepted the challenge.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=119

some waygug-in · Joined: 25 Jan 2003

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

tomato · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:30 pm Post subject:

tomato · Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject:

I just noticed a pattern with Creationists, and I feel a little foolish for not noticing it sooner:
They try to find conclusive evidence in inductive reasoning.
In other words, they hope that if they collect enough particulars (or pick enough cherries, to borrow Mindmetoo's metaphor), they can make a generalization.

That seems to be Mission Weasel's reason for quoting the article on mutations.
If you find enough instances in which a beneficial mutation does not take place, and if you make enough noise about those instances, that will prove that a beneficial mutation cannot take place.

I never could understand what the Creationists' point is about the Cambrian explosion, but I think I understand it now.
If you collect enough Cambrian fossils with no discernible precursors, and if you look hard enough and long enough at those fossils, you will eventually find Cambrian mammals and dinosaurs.
Then all you have to do is announce that the radiometric date is wrong and Bishop Ussher's date is right and viola!

I just finished reading Chapter 47 of Science and Earth History by Arthur N. Strahler.
In this chapter, the author tells us of cases in which mainstream scientists declared a species extinct, only to see a living member of that species surface later.
Strahler is too cautious to guess what the Creationists' point is, but it seems to be that God's Kingdom is exactly as it was in the days of Adam and Eve.

In 1985, someone in the Congo said that he thought he saw what might have looked like a dinosaur.
This sent a team of happy and eager Creationists packing up for a Godzilla hunt.

Underwaterbob · Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Location: In Cognito

Problem is there is zero evidence for creationism that isn't completely conjectural. ID has failed miserably as science and YE creationists are easily proven out to lunch, whether they'll admit it or not.

The only way creationists can "defend" themselves against evolution is to try and disprove it. They can only point to the gaps and say, "Look, look! You must be wrong!"

The day some form of creation science makes a successful prediction or clearly explains some of the evidence in its own terms is the day I'll take it seriously.