Talk:Creationism/Ranting

Truthteller's critique
I hate to tell you this but you obviously have your facts wrong. This is so biased that it quite obviously tells me that you either HATE Christians, or Jesus Christ, Himself, or that you have NEVER taken ANY time to check out the facts for yourself. See my detailed response below for why I say this --Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And Then God said I think Man Should have a Chevy (BADDA BING BADDA BOOM!!!!!!) Don't go over 90 mph.

This is in response to the Author of the &#8220;Criticism of Creationism&#8221; portion of this page. This portion is so FULL of POV and inaccuracies that I (almost) can&#8217;t believe is tolerated on Wikipedia. As such it should either be deleted or totally re-written &#8211; as its presence here gives Wikipedia a BAD name, and makes their &#8220;profession&#8221; of being &#8220;strongly against POV&#8221; (Personal Opinion View) a Joke. For example, the writer of this portion states that:

&#8220;It is important to understand from the outset that Creationism is not based upon scientific findings or upon a scientific approach to uncovering the origins of life. Indeed, many of the more modern forms of (particularly fundamentalist Christian) creationism were born directly out of the conflict that occurred when Evolution became scientific orthodoxy, as a means of defending the literal truth of the Biblical account of creation in genesis. Many modern creationists are widely regarded as 'anti evolutionists' rather than as people putting forward an honest alternative to explain the origins of life.&#8221;

To the contrary, Creationism has exposed the (quite literal) IMPOSSIBILITY of natural processes (i.e. evolution) playing anything but a very minor role in the Creation of Life on Earth, or on its (purportedly slow) &#8220;development&#8221; thereafter. For example, it is the &#8220;scientific approach&#8221; that has already demonstrated that Life (as we know it) could never have started itself. This is because it is far too complicated and ordered. For example, if we look at how living organisms maintain themselves by replacing their aging (and constantly dying) protein molecules, it becomes evident that such a process could never have evolved by chance: -- and yet the means by which a cell divides is even more complicated. It should also be stated here that homochiralic proteins (the type that all living organisms are made of) DO NOT form naturally. In other words, not even the most basic homochiralic protein molecule, that consists of only 8 amino acids has ever been observed to form by accident (i.e apart from being made by an already &#8211; pre-existing -- living organism).


 * Prions. You lose. Watch out next time you try to cross a zebra crossing. Project2501a 00:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

So how then are proteins made?

I am glad you asked.

Proteins are made by first sending an enzyme (which is itself a protein molecule, that does not form naturally) to the DNA to tell it to unwind so that its information can be read. Then the RNA molecule comes up to it and (literally) &#8220;Mates&#8221; with it and copies the necessary information (i.e the information necessary to make a protein). Then the RNA molecule leaves the DNA (nucleus) and travels to a different part of the cell (i.e. to the Ribosome) where that information is re-read and used to align 21 different amino acids in the exactly correct order so as to make whatever proteins are needed by the cell. In other words the DNA is like a Memory Chip (with LOTS of MEMORY), the RNA like a portable copy machine, and the ribosome, like a card-reader/amino acid aligment (i.e. protein) factory.

Miller&#8217;s 1953 experiment only created 13 of the 21 amino acids &#8211; and nobody has done any better since. In other words, to this very day our scientists cannot even make the 21 amino acids in a lab. Miller&#8217;s experiment also produced equal portions of L-type and D-type (Left and Right-handed) amino acids; however living organisms only use the L-type. But even if our scientists ever do succeed in making all 21 amino acids (of the Left, or Right-handed types) they would still be unable to order themselves into proteins, just as random letters don&#8217;t produce long words -- much less paragraphs, pages, or books. The most basic bacterim that has ever been discovered is a parasitic bacterium called Mycoplasma. It has 40,000 proteins, of 600 different types. It also possesses its own DNA, RNA, and ribosomes. It is also a parasite &#8211; meaning that it cannot survive apart from a more complex host organism. In other words, there is NO WAY that even a &#8220;simple&#8221; Mycoplasma could ever make itself by time and chance &#8211; much less a more complex organism. And even if we granted that an incredibly lucky mass of chemicals randomly (or any other way &#8211; other than via an outside intelligent source acting upon it) produced a half-way formed &#8220;mycoplasma-type&#8221; organism, nature would soon break it back down into its basic constituents &#8211; meaning that it would NOT wait around for the other half to be formed. This all means that a Creator / Intelligent Being must have been involved with the Creation of Life on Plantet Earth, as it is the ONLY plausible explanation.

If that weren&#8217;t enough we also run into a Brick wall when we try to contemplate how evolution (by itself) could ever have produced a Butterfly &#8211; much less 1000&#8217;s of different species of them. This is because TIME And CHANCE are simply not enough. For example, let's say that the most basic self-replicating bacterium is of the order of complexity as a 1000 piece puzzle (even though the bacterium is vastly MORE complex than that). Let's further assume that you have ALL the pieces together in the same box (which neither Miller nor any of his colleagues have so far been able to do). Let's further assume that all the powers of Nature are at your disposal (i.e. wind, rain, cold, heat, fire, and the ability to shake up the box). Let's further assume that you have 100,000 Billion Years with which to put the puzzle together (using only the powers of Nature) -- meaning that you can shake up the box, heat it up, freeze it, blow on it, or even pour its contents out on the ground and pray over it. Any yet, even a third grader can tell you that TIME + NATURE Acting ALONE will NEVER put that puzzle together. This is not simply a matter of speculation, but rather of fact: a fact that NO AMOUNT of Wishfull thinking, or Doctoral Degrees, and assertions of Faith in the "power of evolution" will ever be able to change. Therefore your problem is not with me, or what I have written, but rather with the facts of science. I also don't have a problem with your editing the tone of what I have said, but rather get the strong impression that you only want ONE SIDE of the story to be heard -- the side that can never solve the problem.

Similar DNA is also NOT "compelling" evidence that evolution has (in ANY way) occurred, any more than it is compelling evidence of a Creator -- who chose to Use his own Blueprint / programming Language over and over again (with modifications to each different life-form that He Programmed from the Beginning (to function the way they do). For example, consider the "mystery" of what has been (appropriately) termed "Complete Metamorphosis". This is where (MANY 1000's) of Different Types of Butterflies and Moths and Flies and Flying Beetles, each enter into a cocoon stage, whereby their internal organs (literally) dissolve into a liquid, and then (somehow) --- within a matter of days -- "morph" (i.e. change very rapidly / transform) into something of a totally different appearance. In other words, this is very clear evidence of a MASSIVE amount of programming that went on within the DNA of each of these (probably 100's of 1000's) of Creatures -- all without the aid of "evolution" which can only propose very minor changes at one time (via proposed beneficial mistakes). Such assertions, however, completely Break Down with regard to each of these Creatures -- whose internal organs dissolve (into a liquid) before morphing into something else (with different DNA) (that is fully formed and "ready to fly" -- and complete with fully formed (male or female) reproductive organs, wings with wing veins (with mechanical pumps that pump fluid into them so that they open up), jointed legs that all work, compound eyes that work, antenae, mouth, and a retractable tongue with which to feed themselves. Some even have navigational systems whereby they fly thousands of miles to their breeding ground (located at the same geographic places year after year).

Below are a few Links that support what I just stated, and that provide many more details and documentation. See also:
 * Butterflies vs. Macroevolution by Frank Sherwin.
 * Butterflies -The Miracle Of Metamorphosis


 * The Life Cycle of a Butterfly


 * Metamorphosis misnomer


 * DESIGN FEATURES OF THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY LIFE CYCLE


 * BEES AND ANTS: THE SOCIAL INSECTS
 * Evidence of Creation or Extremely Rapid Change

With regard to Proteins and the impossibility of abiogenesis see:
 * The Facts of Life


 * How Simple Can Life Be?


 * Amazing Bacterial Engines


 * How Life Began

--Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible


 * Have you ever considered that maybe you and AIG have your facts very wrong? If you want to be taken seriously on Wikipedia you have to take note of the fact that it's full of biologists who can see through the unscientific rhetoric of AIG.  Pasting in long-debunked AIG nonsense tells us who hasn't checked the facts (we have, of course, seen it all before and checked it out the firt time it was pasted here).  As for your insane claim about evolution being anti-Jesus, that's far more damaging to Christianity than science:
 * "But, for me, personally, this debate has another dimension. I spent all of my teenage years, as mentioned in the introduction, in Orlando, Florida. As many people know, the southern African American community is one with a deep tradition of religious faith. The bulk of my religious training occurred in the confines of the African American Methodist Episcopal Church. There, we were taught that faith is to be anchored on the inhuman perfection of religion. If intelligent design is accepted as science, then like all scientific theories, it is in principle possible to disprove it by the actions of human observation and thought. Thus, those who would join the inhuman perfection of religion to the human imperfection of science put both at grave peril for anyone who deeply contemplates them. Many in the AME church tradition, like me, must reject this idea that by thoughts and actions of man our faith can be called into question. This is the very greatest danger, in my opinion, of the notion of intelligent design." -- S. James Gates Jr, "Einstein's Lesson for the Third Millennium"
 * Joe D (t) 16:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

To the Contrary, the information above is all easily verifyable, and it is a fact that there is NO WAY that evolution could POSSIBLY be true. Nature can't even make a SINGLE protein molecule that is similar to any that are made by living organsisms, and yet the MOST BASIC parasitic bacterium has 40,000 of them. This is basic Biology 101 and any biologist worth his salt knows that I am telling the truth. --Truthteller 16:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

My faith is anchored on the authority of God's word, and on God Himself, whom I have come to know via my own Personal relationship with Him. I also anchor it on logic and reason and facts of science. --Truthteller 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again Randy, please don't delete other people's comments from the talk page. Having seen your approach to this topic several times before, I won't bother reminding you of the failings of your arguments.  Joe D (t) 16:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall deleting anyone's comments except for a few (rude and crude remarks) by someone whom I will not name. However, after he admonished me (and agreed with my reasoning for doing so) I told him that I would not do so again. But do feel free to point out any "failings" of anything I have said -- if you can that is, as if I have stated anything that is untrue, then I want to know about it. --Truthteller 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I hate to tell you this, but what you wrote was incredibly biased, and simply wrong.
 * Creationism has exposed the (quite literal) IMPOSSIBILITY of natural processes (i.e. evolution) playing anything but a very minor role in the Creation of Life on Earth. Not true. creationists have repeatedly claimed to have proof, but have never been able to show that evidence. If creationists truly had proof of the existence of GOD, they would have come forward with it already. They have not. All creationists ever do is repeat eachother and claim that they have heard from 'a reliable source' that such evidence exists, and is being ignored.
 * to this very day our scientists cannot even make the 21 amino acids in a lab. While I'm not at all convinced you would be able to cite a source for that little tidbit, it should hardly be surprising that nature is capable of things humans are not. For example, people make ammonia under extremely high pressure and high temperature. Nature does the same in bacteria that live in the roots of peas. The point being of course not that nature must then be devine, but that at the molecular level, processes take place that no-one understands.
 * You go on and on about the impossibility of thousands or millions of molecules that align by chance. As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days. The point being of course that the formation of life through natural means is not simply a matter of pure chance.
 * --Ec5618 18:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nature can make amino-acids etc in two ways: it has an unimaginably long period of time to do it, or it has enzymes, of which the biochemical pathways are generally well understood nowadays. Industrial processes for ammonia don't use enzymes, but computer simulations are getting us to the point where we can design efficient enzymes for use as catalysts etc for various uses.  Joe D (t) 23:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Truthteller appears to have grown bored with Wikipedia, and since this is somewhat off topic and full of nonsense/cutnpaste, does anybody object to me archiving it early? Joe D (t) 17:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Please do. Perhaps we should archive it separately (/Pointless ranting), so we can just refer similar POV-pushers (and their rants) to it. -- Ec5618 18:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)