Creationism Museum

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pookie wrote:
Actually, all scientific tests of prayer show no differences for “prayed for” groups vs. non-prayed for groups.
[/quote]

I’m not going to trade insults with you, and I don’t have to justify my knowledge or position to some internet flunky who is probably a ten year old boy with zits playing on the computer. You can pretend that you have some knowledge by putting the other person down, but that just shows the weakness of your position.

For everyone else, the problem here is that the same genetic code that is common to all primates is the same evidence for both schools of thought. Evolutionists see it as evidence of a common ancestry. Creationists see it as evidence of a consistent design. Both say this is proof and both theories cannot be tested in a controlled setting. Observing bacteria and virus change into different strains in the lab does not demonstrate macroevolution. But also observing the positive effects of a controlled double blind study regarding prayer does not demonstrate the existence of God. Both lead to conjecture, but that is not fact, now is it.

So my issue is that neither camps can really demonstrate proof that their theories are valid. And when I say proof, I mean evidence that you would stake your life/health on. I’m used to medical science, which does not allow for wild ass conjecture to base treatments upon. But if they did people would die. And the Fed Gov has protections in place to guard against that very thing.

So while you guys may have a lot of faith in the science of conjecture, which is fine because it doesn’t hurt anyone in terms of human origin, I’m not so flexible in what I call science. Your brand of science is more akin to religion than other scientific disciplines, but it sounds like your faith doesn’t allow you to see that fact.

Anyway, as the religious fervor about this issue is clearly irrational, it is probably better to stop the conversation. It is difficult to deal with zealots as they don’t have an open mind.

But as a last shot, pookie, as usual, is wrong about the prayer studies. As mentioned above, here is a double blind controlled study that investigated intercessory prayer for apes. Takes the placebo effect right out of the equation. I know you will only believe what your current belief system will allow, but the study is very interesting just the same:

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;12(6):42-8. PMID: 17131981

Here is the abstract:

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to examine the effects of intercessory prayer (IP) on wound healing and related physiological and behavioral factors in nonhuman primates. DESIGN: Twenty-two bush babies (Otolemur garnettii) with chronic self-injurious behavior (SIB) were stratified by wound severity and matched by total wound area. The animals were then randomized to IP and L-tryptophan or L-tryptophan only for treatment of SIB and related wounds. The IP intervention was conducted in a double-blind, randomized manner. Prayer was conducted daily for 4 weeks. Initiation of prayer was coincident with the first day of L-tryptophan administration. Physiological and behavioral variables were assessed at baseline and end of study. RESULTS: Following IP/L-tryptophan treatment, prayer-group animals had a reduction in wound size compared to non-prayer animals (P=.028). Prayer-group animals had a greater increase in red blood cells (P=.006), hemoglobin (P=.01), and hematocrit (P=.018); a greater reduction in both mean corpuscular hemoglobin (P=.023) and corpuscular volume (P=.008); and a reduction in wound grooming (P=.01) and total grooming behaviors (P=.04) than non-prayer-group animals. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are consistent with prior human trials of IP effectiveness, but suggest IP-induced health improvements may be independent of confounds associated with human participants. Findings may provide direction for study of the mechanisms of IP-induced health improvements in both human and animal models.

62

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
But as a last shot, pookie, as usual, is wrong about the prayer studies. As mentioned above, here is a double blind controlled study that investigated intercessory prayer for apes. Takes the placebo effect right out of the equation. I know you will only believe what your current belief system will allow, but the study is very interesting just the same:

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;12(6):42-8. PMID: 17131981

Here is the abstract:[/quote]

That’s the study conducted at Loma Linda University, right?

School of Behavioral Health | Loma Linda University (search down for Dr. Lesniak…)

A “Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science and Christian Faith” (probably not in that order, though…)

I was wondering why your “science” was always so off, compared to the one that’s accepted everywhere else. Now we know. Thanks.

Is that the institution of where you work in “scientific research?” Hahaha!

Here’s an actual scientific study of prayer: Faith in Prayer Kills Children | Live Science which shows prayer having no effect. In fact, the “prayed for” groups did a little worse, complication-wise.

It’s the largest study of it’s kind ever done. By institutions such as Harvard Medical School. You know, real universities.

Loma Linda U… Hahahaha!

63

Let’s review the bidding, shall we? Evolution is an observed fact, a process that we can watch happen in short-lived organisms. Evolution is the reason many antibiotics that once were effective now no longer work for certain diseases.

The Theory of Evolution states that all the different varietes of organisms that we see around us developed as a result of evolution. The Theory of Evolution appeals to an observable fact, evolution, in order to explain the variety of life that we see, and even our own origins.

Intelligent Design is not an observed fact. It is related in the Bible as having happened, but the Bible says it all happened before god created humans, so no human has ever seen it. It is not an observed fact.

The Theory of Intelligent Design says that the variety of organisms we see around us were the result of design by some greater intelligence.

You can say that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Intelligent Design are equivalent because they both are theories, but in fact there is still a difference between them.

One is a theory based on observed facts. The other is a theory based on something that nobody has ever observed.

Theories based on facts (“science”) can help students to understand the world and succeed in it. Teaching theories that are not based on facts helps somebody other than the student. For example, in this case clearly the teaching of Intelligent Design would help Lorisco to have a warm fuzzy feeling that his beliefs are accepted by his peers. Lorisco could also look forward to a future in which many more people might support his posts in these fora.

For the putative student, on the other hand, the theory has no utility in a world of facts. Indeed, the theory is toxic because it could cause the student to give up more promising, fact-based approaches when trying to solve critical real-life problems (problems having to do, e.g., with antibiotics.)

You can make up any theory you like, rather than basing it on fact. You can convince a lot of folks to agree with you. Neither thing means that the theory should be taught in our schools.

64

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
But as a last shot, pookie, as usual, is wrong about the prayer studies. As mentioned above, here is a double blind controlled study that investigated intercessory prayer for apes. Takes the placebo effect right out of the equation. I know you will only believe what your current belief system will allow, but the study is very interesting just the same:

The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates.
Altern Ther Health Med. 2006 Nov-Dec;12(6):42-8. PMID: 17131981

Here is the abstract:

That’s the study conducted at Loma Linda University, right?

http://www.llu.edu/llu/sst/newsstory.html?id=932 (search down for Dr. Lesniak…)

A “Seventh-day Adventist Institution Integrating Health, Science and Christian Faith” (probably not in that order, though…)

I was wondering why your “science” was always so off, compared to the one that’s accepted everywhere else. Now we know. Thanks.
[/quote]

I can’t believe anyone would take you seriously. Loma Linda is a respected University and has conducted many ground breaking research projects. You need to do more research before opening your mouth and demonstrating your ignorance. For example, LLU was the first to transplant a Baboon heart into a human. The donor heart was eventually rejected, but the research info gained from that was enormous.

Also, your attempts to imply bias because it is a Christian university is biased itself. Why is it that a non-Christian scientist cannot be biased towards proving their theory but Christian can? You are pathetic!

You don’t seem to have enough knowledge to know that getting worse (more complications) IS an effect. You say the study showed that the prayed for group developed more complications; well sport, that is an effect.

Sounds like it’s past your bedtime. Now go to bed or no X-Box for you!

Ps ? I don’t work at Loma Linda, but have interacted with some of their physicians. Most are top notch.

65

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Let’s review the bidding, shall we? Evolution is an observed fact, a process that we can watch happen in short-lived organisms. Evolution is the reason many antibiotics that once were effective now no longer work for certain diseases.
[/quote]

Good thing you are not in medicine or you would be killing a lot of people based on wild conjecture.

FACT: The mutation of bacteria as a result of inappropriate and excessive antibiotic use is not the same as one species into another. It is still bacteria. It just becomes resistant to the antibiotic.

No complex organisms have been OBSERVED to evolve into another species. NONE!

Tip: Observing, in the scientific sense, means to actually be able to measure it in a controlled environment controlling for as much of the variables as possible. Observation does not mean: “There are apes, which look like humans and have similar genetic markup, so therefore we have evolved from apes”. That sport, is conjecture.

Ok, show me evidence where change from one complex species to another has been observed in a controlled setting?

Otherwise, STFU!

The actually difference between Evolution and ID is that ID attempts to address the origins of life and evolution has no reasonable theoretical framework to explain where all matter originated. Yet, you believe like a good little Jedi, your master would be proud!

66

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
You don’t seem to have enough knowledge to know that getting worse (more complications) IS an effect. You say the study showed that the prayed for group developed more complications; well sport, that is an effect.[/quote]

First, it’s the wrong one; and second, if you actually took the time to read about the study, you’d see that the effect was not statistically significant. You can look up what that means between two floor moppings at LLUser school.

67

Lorisco, I said that both theories are indeed theories. I made a distinction between the theories in terms of what they are based on. Evolution the process is an observed fact in that we see the characteristics of species change over time. We even observe the underlying molecular basis of the mechanism. Say what you will about it, no form of intelligent design has ever been observed.

If you can support your favored theory at all, it should be possible to do that without reference to (much less attack on) any other competing theory.

But that’s not what’s happening here, is it? Instead, you find yourself forced back again and again to attack the Theory of Evolution: there’s nothing substantive on your side of the ledger.

And since that’s not enough, you must, of course, attack … me. Your nasty behavior discloses the vacuity of your position, for all to see.

68

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The actually difference between Evolution and ID is that ID attempts to address the origins of life.
[/quote]

Too bad ID is unable to come up with a more satisfying and useful explanation than “Somebody used magic powers.”

69

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco, I said that both theories are indeed theories. I made a distinction between the theories in terms of what they are based on.
[/quote]

Sorry, I missed that. It has been my point all along; that macroevolution is not a fact but a theory. So I thank you for admitting that.

If you are referring to micro evolution or adaptation, I would agree with you. But if you are talking about macroevolution, that has not been scientifically observed. There is conjecture based on common genetic makeup, but that is not “observed”. And, ID uses these same genetic traits to support a theory of consistent design.

That has occurred because many have a blind faith in science, while not knowing what they actually believe in. They state it is fact, when in fact it is theory. It is this kind of faith-based “science” that irritates me as this is no different than religion.

But I do apologize if I took my irritation out on you. Pookie and his stupid comments set me off and I assumed you would do the same.

Unlike him, you seem very rational and willing to look at it honestly. I appreciate that.

As far as the issue, I do believe there is room for both schools of thought. I believe that basing a system off of an unknown foundation is as irrational as basing it from words written in a book a thousand years ago (meaning, evolution is based off of a foundation of not having any clue where all matter originated). So in reality this is just as good as saying it was magic (as you say).

So in my opinion, both systems rest on very shaky ground.

70

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

So in my opinion, both systems rest on very shaky ground.
[/quote]
We differ there. I find there is tremendously more detail and evidence underlying the Theory of Evolution. I see zero evidence for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Moreover, the Theory of Evolution has explanatory and predictive powers that Intelligent Design lacks. Evolution, for example, has a story to explain why whales have vestigial legs.

This is why it is fitting to teach the Theory of Evolution in our schools. The theory is a useful tool for understanding biology, helpful to the student in understanding, e.g. the fossil record, or why antibiotics become useless. No such arguments can be made for teaching Intelligent Design.

It is scientifically tenable to have a theory based on a conjecture, as Intelligent Design is, when it is temporarily impossible to make observations. String theory is a current example. Testing the theory will have to wait til the next larger collider gets built, or the one after that. In the meantime, it is still a theory worth talking about - some say.

But when a theory based on conjecture disagrees with a competing theory that is based on substantial evidence, the theory based on conjecture is to be discarded as the less useful of the two.

So essentially we disagree on whether “there is room for” both theories. I don’t think there is room for both, because they are contradictory, and one is based on facts and is useful, while the other is based on conjecture and is not. If you want to teach useless stuff, you can do it without using my tax dollars, thanks. The schools have enough trouble as it is these days, just to turn out people who can read and write.

A final couple of notes:

  1. Controlled conditions are not a necessary prerequisite for science. If they were, astronomy, geology and a bunch of other fields of inquiry would be impossible. Controlled conditions are a tool for doing science, which can sometimes be used and sometimes not.

  2. ID doesn’t actually say anything about the origin of the universe, or of life. You’ve got it confused with Creationism. ID carefully avoids saying so much, and is careful never to mention god. ID says only that some intelligence somehow created the species we see. That is less than “all life everywhere” and much less than the universe itself.

71

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Humans are apes? Boy, you have a lot of faith.
[/quote]

According to recent taxonomy, humans are part of the hominidae (great ape) family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

All time frames listed are in single digit millions, not billions. And yes, science does have accurate means to measure those time frames.

It seems as though you have an axe to grind with modern science.

72

[quote]unearth wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Humans are apes? Boy, you have a lot of faith.

According to recent taxonomy, humans are part of the hominidae (great ape) family, which includes chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

In any case, it is extremely telling that you say these intermediary species lived 2 billion years ago, etc, and yet science doesn’t currently have an accurate measure for that amount of time.

All time frames listed are in single digit millions, not billions. And yes, science does have accurate means to measure those time frames.

It seems as though you have an axe to grind with modern science.[/quote]

No, it’s that he doesn’t quite understand what the word “science” means.

73

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

So in my opinion, both systems rest on very shaky ground.

We differ there. I find there is tremendously more detail and evidence underlying the Theory of Evolution. I see zero evidence for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Moreover, the Theory of Evolution has explanatory and predictive powers that Intelligent Design lacks. Evolution, for example, has a story to explain why whales have vestigial legs.

This is why it is fitting to teach the Theory of Evolution in our schools. The theory is a useful tool for understanding biology, helpful to the student in understanding, e.g. the fossil record, or why antibiotics become useless. No such arguments can be made for teaching Intelligent Design.
[/quote]

In my own educational history I have never heard the teacher introduce Evolution as a “theory”. If they did actually teach it as a theory, I would be in full agreement with that. It’s when they present it as fact that I have an issue.

Actually, it is not currently possible to observe evolution to the degree that would change it to observable science like other scientific disciplines (i.e. medicine). Mutation and adaptation fall within the confines of ID as well. So until one species is observed to develop into another different species, the two will remain scientifically unobservable.

I totally agree. Controlled conditions are preferred to increase the probability of the outcome, but not required for the scientific process. As such, I personally believe that empirical data is very valid and can lead to strong hypotheses.

[quote]
2) ID doesn’t actually say anything about the origin of the universe, or of life. You’ve got it confused with Creationism. ID carefully avoids saying so much, and is careful never to mention god. ID says only that some intelligence somehow created the species we see. That is less than “all life everywhere” and much less than the universe itself.[/quote]

Ok, you caught me. I’m not actually an ID groupie. I’m sort of just being the devil’s advocate here and pointing out the holes that everyone who worships science seems to be ignoring.

My problem with evolution, and apparently ID, is that they don’t account for the system they function in. It is very weak to say that man evolved in the absence of a clear understanding of the system that allowed that evolution. In medicine, this would be like saying medication X works better than the placebo, when we don’t have a clear understanding of how the placebo effect works. And I know that is exactly how pharmaceutical drugs are investigated these days, but I still don’t like it.

So this is exactly where both systems (Evolution and Creationism) intersect; the origin of matter and the system being put in place that allows life. I know this premise is contrary to both systems, but it is also something that neither of these schools of thought have come close to explaining. So an open mind at this point would be very reasonable.

74

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Evolutionary theory holds that one species evolves into another species via intermediary specifies. For this to hold true there would need to be thousands of these intermediary species say between an ape and man. Yet, to date no such species have actually been discovered and verified. While lack of evidence may not be proven false, it sure doesn’t support it as anything more than theory. [/quote]

this is not what evolutionary theory postulates. please, stop making shit up. evolutionary theory simply states that if a random mutation occurs that happens to be a survival advantage <in the context of survival of the fittest/natural selection/comeptition for the scarce resources necessary for survival>, then the mutated member of the species will procreate and spread the adaptive mutation through the species, eventually overcoming the ‘prior’ less-adapted members of the species.

when member 1 of species A has an evolutionary adaptive mutation, and spreads its mutation through procreation, we will now have species A.1… and you will be asking for specied A.05.

do you get the point now?

[quote]
This statement indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. The one drawback of this kind of science is that it cannot be verified in the laboratory because it cannot be duplicated. For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab. But that really doesn’t discount evolution, it just means that it needs to be tested using empirical evidence (meaning observed in a uncontrolled environment). Many scientific ideas are tested this way that are very valid. [/quote]

evolution isn’t an experiment that can be duplicated. evolution is a theory based on observations that CAN be duplicated… through further observation. we can’t ‘create’ evolution in a lab since it isn’t an experiment.

that’s not to say experiments haven’t been conducted under laboratory settings that contributed evidence to reinforce the principle of natural selection.

you don’t test evolution as a whole since it is too complex and a gradual process. you test aspects of it in isolation.

science deals with the physical world. only. supernatural forces and the metaphysical are out of the realm of science. period.

prayer studies do not prove or disprove the existence of god. again, that is beyond the realm of science. you are not a scientist. stop pretending like you are familiar with scientific philosophy.

you couldn’t pass an exam on sceintific philosophy. i’m an internet know-it-all and i’m telling you you’re dead wrong and making an ass of yourself.

you clearly have not read this thread. i’ve already addressed this bullshit anti-evolution ‘argument’. if you accept microevolution, which you appear to, then you accept macroevolution, which is exactly the same thing simply over a long period of time.

if you accept that random mutations lead to microevolution, then you accept that more changes over time lead to macroevolution. it’s all about taxonomy which, although not completely arbitrary, is still somewhat subjective. it’s about perspective.

but regardless, you’re still wrong. the mechanisms of microevolution are exactly the same as macroevolution.

god cannot be falsified. ID isn’t science.

75

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
this is a lie. where has evolution failed conventional scientific inquiry?

There has been no verified missing link full fossil discovered between man and ape! Hello!

[/quote]

that’s not a failure of scientific inquiry.

STOP PRETENDING TO UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.

sorry, someone had to shout it at you.

76

[quote]pookie wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Evolutionary theory holds that one species evolves into another species via intermediary specifies. For this to hold true there would need to be thousands of these intermediary species say between an ape and man. Yet, to date no such species have actually been discovered and verified. While lack of evidence may not be proven false, it sure doesn’t support it as anything more than theory.

There are many fossils that show the intermediary steps between, say, australopithecus and modern man.

Creationists always ask for another intermediary specie. Give them Man and Man-1, and they ask where’s Man-0.5? Give them that, and they want another intermediary. Unless you somehow manage to produce the entire lineage between Eve (the African hominid, not the Biblical one) and her modern descendant, they claim any missing intermediary as a failure of the theory.

Intermediary fossils also exists in abundance for elephants, horses, birds, etc.

For evolution to be proven in the lab would require an evolutionary change to actually occur in the controlled laboratory setting. Since this is not possible, it can’t be tested in the lab.

Speciation has been observed in lab settings. Most experiments involve life forms which have short life spans (such as bacteria or earth worms) so as to be able to observe tens or hundreds of generations in a matter of months.

Put “speciation” in google and read.

There are ways to empirically observe the evidence of God. There have been many substantiated studies conducted with ill patients and the effects of prayer that provide evidence of the existence of some power at work that cannot be currently measured.

Actually, all scientific tests of prayer show no differences for “prayed for” groups vs. non-prayed for groups.

That is funny! An internet know it all telling me I don’t understand research.

Could we know for what company or school you actually do research?

Well, not going to get into this further, let’s just say that I’m actually involved in medical research for a living. So you might want to rethink that statement.

You keep repeating that, yet you show little to zero understanding of just about every scientific subject you comment on. Do you mop the floors at that lab?

Since you don’t appear to know, what you are referring to is called microevolution, or what is commonly called adaptation within species. But, this is not what we are talking about. We are talking about macroevolution, or one species changing into another species.

Which is just a long series of microevolutions repeated over millions or billions of years.

Each microevolution that survives takes the individual a little bit apart from it’s parents. If the specie covers a large area, they’ll be exposed to various environments and some mutations will be advantageous in one area an not as much in another one. As various mutations prove advantageous to various groups, you’ll eventually see those groups “drift apart” until you’ve got two completely different species who can’t interbreed anymore.

Creationists think that macro-evolution requires a monkey to give birth to a human; and claim that since they’ve never seen that, it’s false. That’s not what the theory says at all.
[/quote]

well said. smart man.

77

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Humans are apes? Boy, you have a lot of faith.

I’m sure you know that everything you just wrote is theory and has not been proven? But like any theory, until it can be proven wrong it will continue. That is the trouble with ideas that are difficult to test in a controlled environment.

In any case, it is extremely telling that you say these intermediary species lived 2 billion years ago, etc, and yet science doesn’t currently have an accurate measure for that amount of time. So again, sounds like you are believing what you want in the absence of evidence.

Gee, what other school of thought uses a similar approach? RELIGION!

[/quote]

this bullshit anti-evolution has already been addressed earlier in this thread.

the whole ‘it’s just a theory’ and ‘it hasn’t been proven yet’ are both misleading and a lie, respectively.

there is a ridiculous amount of evidence for evolution. but theories don’t graduate to become facts. the evidence of evolution, however, is FULL of facts.

even your ‘evolution is like religion’ bullshit argument has also been addressed by me earlier in the thread. you’re not the only idiot who can regurgitate these stupid arguments. you’re not the first and you won’t be the last. and you’re also clearly not here to have an intelligent debate, hence your lying.

78

79

[quote]hueyOT wrote:
this is not what evolutionary theory postulates. please, stop making shit up. evolutionary theory simply states that if a random mutation occurs that happens to be a survival advantage <in the context of survival of the fittest/natural selection/comeptition for the scarce resources necessary for survival>, then the mutated member of the species will procreate and spread the adaptive mutation through the species, eventually overcoming the ‘prior’ less-adapted members of the species.

when member 1 of species A has an evolutionary adaptive mutation, and spreads its mutation through procreation, we will now have species A.1… and you will be asking for specied A.05.

do you get the point now?

[/quote]

Then why are there still species A around at the same time as species “A.1000” (Man)? Or more clear so you can understand it; if we evolve from apes, your theory holds that the less adaptive species would die out in the presence of a more adaptive species. So if we came from Apes there should no longer be any apes using this model. Oops! Try again sport!

I’m not every going to respond to the rest of your ridiculous post. I’m just going to say that actual science, not pop science, is much different than you have been told in high school (which apparently you are still attending).

80

[quote]Kainjer wrote:
(What this thread needs is more Steveo image)[/quote]

That’s hilarious!