• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

The Creation Museum

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Brewtus said:
I came across this article on a recent DNA study regarding the evolutionary history of primates (including humans):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110317172047.htm

Earlier in this thread I had posted fossil evidence supporting the theory that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor. The study above further supports evolution and the relatedness of species, but by using an entirely different form of evidence. However, not only does this study further support evolution it also showcases that the Theory of Evolution is useful - that it can be used in a predictive manner and to better understand disease and cancers:

Until Creationism can explain the existing evidence better than evolution and provide a useful theory, it will never and should never be taken seriously.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wonder if I understand evolution better than you understand what a creationist like me believes.

The article doesn't say what about evolution is necessary to understand how "Advances in human biomedicine, including those focused on changes in genes triggered or disrupted in development, resistance/susceptibility to infectious disease, cancers, and mechanisms of recombination and genome plasticity, can not be adequately interpreted in the absence of a precise evolutionary context or hierarchy. "

It just says they do. Which is nice I guess. I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the whole theory. But we've discussed it before.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1895925; said:
Sometimes I wonder if I understand evolution better than you understand what a creationist like me believes.

The article doesn't say what about evolution is necessary to understand how "Advances in human biomedicine, including those focused on changes in genes triggered or disrupted in development, resistance/susceptibility to infectious disease, cancers, and mechanisms of recombination and genome plasticity, can not be adequately interpreted in the absence of a precise evolutionary context or hierarchy. "

It just says they do. Which is nice I guess. I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the whole theory. But we've discussed it before.
Click to expand...
I only linked a summary article so it didn't get too technical, but here's the whole study along with the abstract if you're interested:

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001342
ABSTRACT: Comparative genomic analyses of primates offer considerable potential to define and understand the processes that mold, shape, and transform the human genome. However, primate taxonomy is both complex and controversial, with marginal unifying consensus of the evolutionary hierarchy of extant primate species. Here we provide new genomic sequence (~8 Mb) from 186 primates representing 61 (~90%) of the described genera, and we include outgroup species from Dermoptera, Scandentia, and Lagomorpha. The resultant phylogeny is exceptionally robust and illuminates events in primate evolution from ancient to recent, clarifying numerous taxonomic controversies and providing new data on human evolution. Ongoing speciation, reticulate evolution, ancient relic lineages, unequal rates of evolution, and disparate distributions of insertions/deletions among the reconstructed primate lineages are uncovered. Our resolution of the primate phylogeny provides an essential evolutionary framework with far-reaching applications including: human selection and adaptation, global emergence of zoonotic diseases, mammalian comparative genomics, primate taxonomy, and conservation of endangered species.
Click to expand...
I'll be the first to admit that the analytics of the report are beyond my background and level of understanding which is why I rely on the abstract and other articles that summarize the study. But my point in presenting articles like this and posting photos of fossil skulls is to show that scientists continue to find new evidence and conduct studies to further support and refine the Theory of Evolution, whereas Creationists can only resort to building "museums" based on little to no science and political lobbying to push their agenda.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1895925; said:
The article doesn't say what about evolution is necessary to understand ... (stuff) Actually it does, but it does so by inference. A careful reading will illustrate the points.

... I'm not a scientist so I can't explain the whole theory.
Click to expand...
Nor would we expect any Creationist to do, since Creationism has nothing to do with science.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1895962; said:
So elitist. I hope you would be willing to tell all these guys that they are not scientists. Calling them not scientists does no help in furthering your cause.
Click to expand...

A couple of physicists topped with "Kepler believed in the bible so creationism is real science"!! Seriously?

And would you lookie there David Menton is mentioned as well...*sigh*
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1896067; said:
I don't know, there are some molecular geneticists, biologists, biological chemists, and all realms. Seems you've short changed the list.
Click to expand...

So of the hundreds of millions of doctors and scientists in the world, a few dozen believe in creationism? How utterly convincing.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1896067; said:
I don't know, there are some molecular geneticists, biologists, biological chemists, and all realms. Seems you've short changed the list.
Click to expand...
The validity of evolution rests on the evidence, not on the personal opinions of scientists. If any of these individuals have published studies or papers supporting Creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals, please provide references as I would be interested in reading them.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1896106; said:
Not the point. The only point was to say there are scientists. I am aware of the disparity. But you tell these guys who have doctorates in their fields they aren't scientists. Which was the point I was making.
Click to expand...
No one said they weren't, and it doesn't really matter. Their reasons for being creationists have nothing to do with science.
 
Upvote 0
I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the people on TScott's list, but the question I am left with is what brand of "Creation" do these people believe in?

It's one thing to believe that the universe has a creator who set in motion the big bang, for example (ie "Let there be light") and quite another to believe the Earth is a few thousand years old or that Adam was essentially an animated clay pot.
 
Upvote 0
1997Buckeye;1887104; said:
That was a funny movie. Great clip to pick.

This is a very difficult subject to discuss since so many people, even christians, have accepted evolution as "fact". It is a theory. Just like a biblical earth is a theory. Evolution and christianity are both religions. Todays scientists are the priests of tommorow.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the main movers of the young earth theories are groups like AiG.

You can't be an AIG member and be considered a serious scientific voice. You spoke of the bias that the non-creationist scientists have. Well, AiG requires all members to pledge support for biblical inerrancy. They start the effort by swearing (or affirming) that the Bible answer it right - and then go out to prove that true. That whole idea is so far removed from anything remotely resembling the scientific method that is it almost pointless to discuss their "findings".

If you start out with the view that the Noah Flood created the Grand Canyon, and that sedimentary rocks cannot be laid down over time, then you are not "investigating" geology, but simply justifying what you hold to be true. And not just "true", like when scientists argue over who is right, but "The Word of God on High Backs My Opinion" versus - what? - traditional scientists are tools of the devil who renounce God with every class that says that sandstone or shale were made by the deposit of sediment over time? The religious issue renders the matter one of faith as opposed to science. Science cannot say "I believe in the inerrant Bible, therefore I think X". A true scientist should not consider anything but the evidence.
 
Upvote 0
Brewtus;1896098; said:
The validity of evolution rests on the evidence, not on the personal opinions of scientists. If any of these individuals have published studies or papers supporting Creationism in peer-reviewed scientific journals, please provide references as I would be interested in reading them.
Click to expand...


We've already had this discussion. Secular scientific journals won't publish scientists who are known creationists even if their findings have nothing to do with evolution. These guys basically have to peer review each other.

Edit: I personally know a professor with a doctorate in chemistry at a major state university that won't publicly talk about his beliefs until he gets tenure. I believe the AiG list would be bigger if it weren't for similar situations.

But you already knew this since we've talked about it before.

The only thing those skulls you posted earlier prove is that there are a few extinct primates. None of which a creationist would argue. What your skulls don't prove is that one came from another, let alone the mechanism by which it happens. But you already knew that too. Since we've already talked about it.

The mechanism is the disagreement we always come down too.

We agree that new species requires new genetic information. Information that is not presently there.

We end up talking about one of the very few examples of such in bacteria where gaining information. I say it's hardly proof because the findings are disputed. Even in that case even the very few that we argue about being examples aren't enough to prove the theory to me.

But forget it. Creationists aren't scientists and aren't smart enough to understand evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the people on TScott's list, but the question I am left with is what brand of "Creation" do these people believe in?

It's one thing to believe that the universe has a creator who set in motion the big bang, for example (ie "Let there be light") and quite another to believe the Earth is a few thousand years old or that Adam was essentially an animated clay pot.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure they are all young earth creationists or why be on AiG?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top