Creationists vs. Big Bang Theory at NASA

[npc]

Maybe next someone will advocate that our government should stop researching flu vaccines. After all, it's just a theory that viruses can evolve new information.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/02/04/outrage-at-attacks-on-nasa-science/

You may have read the New York Times article on January 29 about a NASA scientist who was gagged by the government about his reports on global warming. Dr. Jim Hansen, a top NASA scientist, had interview requests about his work with global warming denied by a NASA public affairs officer by the name of George Deutsch. While Deutsch works for NASA, he is actually a presidential appointee who worked for President Bush and Vice President Cheney during the 2004 elections...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times...

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[BobRyan]

Evolutionists are constantly confused betwheen "fact" and 'speculation' and bounce back and forth between the two until the line blurs and they don't know which is which any more.

This thread has shown that fact over and over.

 

[El_Guero]

Amen!

 

[npc]

Update: Mr Deutsch resigned yesterday. It came to light that he lied on his resume about having a BA in journalism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Petrel]

I saw that. Shameful!

 

[Petrel]

Funny how all of the wandering YE-ers vanished on us. . .

 

[BobRyan]

Lied about a BA in Journalism??!!! Well then He MUST be a Bible believing Christian!! Surely only THEY would lie!

(Just trying to fit in with the group here).

 

[Petrel]

Umm. . . You know, I don't think you'll ever fit in with the group because you apparently have zero understanding of how we think. Unsurprisingly.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Funny how all of the wandering YE-ers vanished on us. . .

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/125/4.html#000045

Enjoy!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Petrel:
Umm.. . You know, I don't think you'll ever fit in with the group because you apparently have zero understanding of how we think.

Well you got the first part right.

As for the second part - you need to do a bit more reading. Start with the "Atheist Wannabe" thread for believers in Darwinian Evolutionism.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Evolutionists are constantly confused betwheen "fact" and 'speculation' and bounce back and forth between the two until the line blurs and they don't know which is which any more.

This thread has shown that fact over and over.

Is informed speculation wrong?

Is it wrong to annunce that the planet Pluto has an orbit about 150 years in length when no man has ever seen it complete an orbit? Of course not.

Neither is it wrong to conclude that horses evolved their single hoof from three toed ancestors, based on their observed vestigal toes (their shin splints) and the fossil record.

Calling it "mere speculation" is simply denying the evidence.

Speculation, however, is indulged in frequently by creationists. One of their favorite speculations is that the genome in the time of Eden was more complicated and has since become simpler as information was lost from the genes due to mutations that degraded the information.
They speculate this allowed for some minor speciation from the original kinds.

And they do this with no evidence to back up that strange speculation.

I speculate that the biblical literalists are gradually coming around to accept the science. Earlier generations allowed no evolution at all in their theology. Current creationists allow a little after all. In fact, they cram more evolution into a mere 6000 years than it is scientifically possible to support.

It won't be many more generations and they'll be accepting the whole thing.

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
As for the second part - you need to do a bit more reading. Start with the "Atheist Wannabe" thread for believers in Darwinian Evolutionism.

I've read it.

I don't generally respond to your posts in this forum because they are bombastic, ignorant, and annoying (not in part due to the random capitalization and quotation marks). Chances of enlightening you at all: 0. Why waste my time?

I found it amusing that you and your fellow YE-ers who keep barging in here with arguments not at all related to science suddenly vanished when someone you were hailing for upholding truth ended up being a liar. . . So when you try to turn it around and say my not responding to your threads is because I can't respond--well, no, it's just because I'm ignoring you!

 

[Debby in Philly]

Serious questions:

After all of the genetic experiments on fruit flies, who live for only a short time, and all of their generations, what are they still fruit flies? Why aren't they birds by now, or tiny little dogs and cats, or something else?

Why haven't humans lost their little toes? We don't use them for climbing and gripping anymore.

 

[Petrel]

Because being fruit flies works for them.

Also you'd have to check back in a million years or so to see if they've evolved into a new species. If you're expecting them to become something besides flies, check back in a hundred million years.

Additionally, pelting something with enough mutagens to severely damage its DNA and kill most subjects is not likely to produce anything useful at all, and is a completely inaccurate representation of evolution in the natural world. Evolution requires a low enough rate of mutation for good ones to propagate and for bad ones to be weeded out.

We still use our toes for walking on, it would take quite a while to lose the toes due to the mere absence of a selection factor for the presence of toes, and there is no selection factor favoring the absence of toes (unless you count those silly pointed dress shoes women wear. . .)

 

[Debby in Philly]

Has anything "evolved" while we've been watching (recorded history)?

 

[Petrel]

Oh yeah, there's a significant population of people descended from ancestors in the Scandinavian area that carry a mutation in the CCR5 gene. This mutation was selected for by the presence of endemic smallpox in the region--people with the mutation were resistant to smallpox. Now the mutation is significant because people with the mutation are also resistant to HIV infection. I understand an inversion of a portion of a chromosome was also found and it is gradually spreading, although it's unclear what the results of this inversion are that allow it to be positively selected for.

If you mean has a new species emerged in recent history, there's evidence of an ongoing species split in a type of fruit fly. There is also evidence of a super-fast recent species split in a type of frog.

I suppose you're looking for a species to evolve from species A to species B on a timescale that we can document and test thoroughly (that is, having an eyewitness to confirm an unbroken breeding line and preferably genetically testing the ancestors as well). Since speciation is a process that generally takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years that is an unreasonable demand. Basically since young earth creationists believe the earth is only 6000 years old to begin with it's pointless to debate it. First we would need to discuss the actual age of the earth based upon physical evidence.

Although it's an interesting point that some YE-ers that claim that all species evolved after the Flood from a minimal population of ancestor kinds apparently believe evolution can occur at a much faster rate than any evolutionist would accept--while simultaneously challenging evolutionists to produce an example of speciation, with the qualification that it must be essentially instant. . .

 

[Debby in Philly]

The fruit flies are still fruit flies, and the frogs are still frogs. Just different breeds.

"I suppose you're looking for a species to evolve from species A to species B on a timescale that we can document and test thoroughly (that is, having an eyewitness to confirm an unbroken breeding line and preferably genetically testing the ancestors as well). Since speciation is a process that generally takes tens to hundreds of thousands of years that is an unreasonable demand."

Then that's why evolution is called a theory.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Well, if one allows the fossil record to bear witness, then speciation is observed in the strictest macro sense. Vestiges confirm the speciation has occurred, as does the presence of genetic flaws that probagated in common among related descendants . . . such as the vitamin c deficiency we share with other primates.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Has anything "evolved" while we've been watching (recorded history)?

Where have you been? Haven't you read about microbes evolving resistance to antibiotics? Viruses evolving into newly pathogenic strains?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
The fruit flies are still fruit flies, and the frogs are still frogs. Just different breeds.

That's not exactly correct. A breed is a variation within a species. There have been new species (not breeds) of flies, plants, frogs, etc, that have been witnessed to evolve from other species. In the past, YEC's staunchly said that speciation was impossible. Since then, YEC's have raised the bar of expectation. Prior to that, YEC's said that natural selection was false. Since then, natural selection has been documented, and YEC's raied the bar. Prior to that, YEC's said that genetics was false. Again, they had to raise the bar.

I'm not going to pretend that evolutionist don't take pot shots at YEC's. They do, and it's a shame that it happens. But it is likewise a fact that YEC's take pot shots at evolutionists, and it's likewise a shame that they do. The fact is that YEC's have had to continually raise the bar of expetation for them to accept evolution as valid theory. I suspect that, every time new facts come to light, YEC's will continue to raise the bar even higher. This tends to display a lack of objectivity on that of YEC's.