Creation vs. Evolution

6days · Jan 26, 2016

JoseFly said:
6days said:

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past... not science. While neither belief syatem may have contributed to the advancement of science, evolutionism has actually hindered scientific progress.

Click to expand...

Except for all those examples of evolution directly contributing to science that*both of us*have posted.*What's that? You don't remember the time you posted a paper describing how geneticists figured out that a handful of pseudogenes have evolved new functions?

*

Evolutionism is a belief about the past that has hindered the progress of science. There has never been a single thing that common ancestry beliefs have contributed to science.

Both Biblical creationists and evolutionists expect genes to change / evolve, and even degenerate. That expectation is based on emperical observable science. However, it can be shown that evolutionist beliefs about psuedogenes in the past has hindered scientific progress.*

JoseFly said:
Or do you remember the time you posted the Science Daily article about the human appendix, and how its status was updated only after scientists conducted comparative analyses across taxa....IOW, through the lens of evolutionary relatedness?

Do you remember how evolutionists were surprised that our appendix is not useless?

Do you recall evolutionists were surprised that the appendix serves different functions in different creatures. They were surprised that creatures they thought had evolutionary relatedness had such different 'appendix'. Their somewhat amusing conclusion was that the appendix had evolved indepently at least 32 times.*

6days · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
6days said:

... hypocrite Richard Dawkins. He advizes people not to debate theists and creationist scientists ... yet the funny thing is he does it himself when he has a soft target. Dawkins has been ridiculed by media and other atheists for being cowardly.

Click to expand...

Do I detect an undercurrent of envy in how you portray Dawkins?

Uh....no, but I think i detect an element of worship and praise of Dawkins?

DavisBJ said:
Dawkins, who has numerous publications both in his academic field of expertise, and in best-selling books presenting Darwinism to the public?

No doubt about it but Dawkins is a great author. But...he writes on many topics outside of his field of expertise also. He often uses fallacious arguments and we can discuss examples if you wish.*

But my claim was that he has been ridiculed for being a coward, often picking easy targets to debate.*

Example of a fellow atheist calling Dawkins out....

"Dr Daniel Came, a philosophy lecturer and fellow atheist, from Worcester College, Oxford, wrote to him urging him to reconsider his refusal to debate the existence of God with Prof Craig.

In a letter to Prof Dawkins, Dr Came said: “The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.

“I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard of the National Association of Evangelicals and Pastor Keenan Roberts" (Who?? Keenan Roberts?

)
*http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html

*

Jose Fly · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
Evolutionism is a belief about the past that has hindered the progress of science. There has never been a single thing that common ancestry beliefs have contributed to science.

So this is what you've become....mindlessly repeating the same assertions over and over and over. OK then.

Both Biblical creationists and evolutionists expect genes to change / evolve, and even degenerate. That expectation is based on emperical observable science. However, it can be shown that evolutionist beliefs about psuedogenes in the past has hindered scientific progress.

It's amazing how you don't even recognize the contradictions in your memorized talking points. On one hand you claim that common ancestry hasn't contributed anything to science, but then you turn right around and cite the discovery that some pseudogenes have functions....a discovery that was made only via the understanding of common ancestry!! (again, recall the term "highly conserved sequences")

This is amazing to watch.

Do you remember how evolutionists were surprised that our appendix is not useless?

Do you recall evolutionists were surprised that the appendix serves different functions in different creatures. They were surprised that creatures they thought had evolutionary relatedness had such different 'appendix'. Their somewhat amusing conclusion was that the appendix had evolved indepently at least 32 times.*

I don't quite remember all that. Why don't you post that Science Daily article again, and we'll see if 1) the discoveries were made under the framework of common ancestry, and 2) how that relates to your claim that common ancestry has never contributed to science?

This should be interesting.

opcorn:

Jose Fly · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
No doubt about it but Dawkins is a great author. But...he writes on many topics outside of his field of expertise also.

So you object to people who write articles, books, and other things on subjects that are outside their field of expertise?

Just want to be clear on this.

DavisBJ · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
I think i detect an element of worship and praise of Dawkins?

I don't worship anyone, but I appreciate and value people. like Dawkins, who have an impressive track record in science. Do you appreciate highly productive scientists?

6days said:
But my claim was that he has been ridiculed for being a coward, often picking easy targets to debate.

Maybe you haven’t figured it out yet, but debate is a lousy way to determine scientific truth. Case in point – recently Duane Gish’s enviable record of debate successes has been mentioned. But look at the impact that Gish left on the world of science, and compare that to Dawkins influence on science. Since you are intent on using a person's debate record as some kind of criteria to gain your respect, then would you be so kind as document for us the recognized scientific legacy that Gish left? This should be a pristine opportunity for you to show just how crucial debating skill is to scientific productivity.

DavisBJ · Jan 26, 2016

Jose Fly said:
So you object to people who write articles, books, and other things on subjects that are outside their field of expertise?

Just want to be clear on this.

But … but … doesn’t 6days openly admit he does not follow the scientific method, and yet… … uh… uh … many of his posts are about science? Kinda like a poster child for hypocrisy – writing about things that are outside his area of expertise?

Jose Fly · Jan 26, 2016

I guess that's the way it is when all you have left is a series of talking points that you post in an ad hoc manner.

6days · Jan 26, 2016

JoseFly said:
*On one hand you claim that common ancestry hasn't contributed anything to science, but then you turn right around and cite the discovery that some pseudogenes have functions....a discovery that was made only via the understanding of common ancestry!!*(again, recall the term "highly conserved sequences")

False. You are preaching religion - not science.

Science over the past number of years has been showing that the word 'psuedogenes' is often a misnomer. And,*"hIghly conserved sequences" are expected in the Biblical creation model as a design element.*

JoseFly said:
6days said:

Do you remember how evolutionists were surprised that our appendix is not useless?

Do you recall evolutionists were surprised that the appendix serves different functions in different creatures. They were surprised that creatures they thought had evolutionary relatedness had such different 'appendix'. Their somewhat amusing conclusion was that the appendix had evolved indepently at least 32 times.

Click to expand...

I don't quite remember all that.

OK... lets review but there are many articles and you can easily google to find information such as...."The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought.
http://m.livescience.com/10571-appendix-fact-promising.html *

And also from livescience....."The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing."

Evolutionists thought the appendix was useless...yet they now have to believe it is so important that it evolved indepently 32 times. 38? 50?

JoseFly said:
Why don't you post that Science Daily article again, and we'll see if 1) the discoveries were made under the framework of common ancestry,

Hmmmm.... Well under the assumptions of common ancestry, evolutionists called the appendix a "useless body part"
http://m.livescience.com/21513-vestigial-organs.html

Good thing we have science to show the evolutionary assumptions were false. Evolutionism has never contributed to a single new technology nor medical advancement. In fact evolutionary beliefs have hindered science.

JoseFly said:
and 2) how that relates to your claim that common ancestry has never contributed to science?

It's another example of evolutionism hindering science by starting with a false belief system then trying to make the data fit.*

DavisBJ · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
..."The body's appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.”

Assume you had been a biologist with an interest in details of the human body. You clearly knew that many people had suffered appendicitis, sometimes causing death. Tens of thousands of people had their appendixes removed, and were apparently living with no adverse effects. Your studies had not identified any positive function for the appendix in the human body. Briefly, in your report for the medical journals, what would you have said about what the appendix does for the human body?

6days · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
Assume you had been a biologist with an interest in details of the human body. You clearly knew that many people had suffered appendicitis, sometimes causing death. Tens of thousands of people had their appendixes removed, and were apparently living with no adverse effects. Your studies had not identified any positive function for the appendix in the human body. Briefly, in your report for the medical journals, what would you have said about what the appendix does for the human body?

Evolutionists seemed so blinded by evolutionary assumptions that they ignored the possibility they lacked knowledge. (Same story with junk DNA, psuedogenes, etc) It was always possible that there was design, purpose, and function not yet discovered. Another possibility was that the appendix had lost function from its original design.

patrick jane · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
Assume you had been a biologist with an interest in details of the human body. You clearly knew that many people had suffered appendicitis, sometimes causing death. Tens of thousands of people had their appendixes removed, and were apparently living with no adverse effects. Your studies had not identified any positive function for the appendix in the human body. Briefly, in your report for the medical journals, what would you have said about what the appendix does for the human body?

The appendix is the soul ! :devil: or was it the spleen ?

The spleen is the soul !

DavisBJ · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
Evolutionists seemed so blinded by evolutionary assumptions that they ignored the possibility they lacked knowledge. (Same story with junk DNA, psuedogenes, etc) It was always possible that there was design, purpose, and function not yet discovered. Another possibility was that the appendix had lost function from its original design.

Answer the question I asked: In your report for the medical journals, what would you have said about what the appendix does for the human body?

If, in your report as a qualified biologist, you would have rambled on about junk DNA, pseudogenes, the eternal possibility that you might yet find a function for the appendix, etc, etc. then just say so.

6days · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
Answer the question I asked: In your report for the medical journals, what would you have said about what the appendix does for the human body?

Fortunately..... for both me and you...I don't write articles for medical journals.

However I think you would agree that evolutionary assumptions about the appendix hindered science. When you are taught that something is a "worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing", it didn't inspire most researchers to invest time and money looking for purpose. Evolutionism is a belief system that hurts people and hinders science.

DavisBJ · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
Fortunately..... for both me and you...I don't write articles for medical journals.

My question was presented in common English without needing to invoke obscure scientific terminology. I could easily compose an equally understandable reply (whether I was an evolutionist or a creationist), had the question been presented to me. Your unwillingness to respond is understandable, since – to borrow the term you think fits Dawkins – you are a coward, and you know that you would look foolish. If you think I am wrong in that assessment, then simply tell us (in common English) what you would say in your article for publication to the medical community.

6days said:
However I think you would agree that evolutionary assumptions about the appendix hindered science. When you are taught that something is a "worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing", it didn't inspire most researchers to invest time and money looking for purpose. Evolutionism is a belief system that hurts people and hinders science.

Since you assert that point again and again and again to us, why would you not do likewise in your medical journal article? Wouldn’t you have been doing the medical world a favor, since your efforts had not found a function for the appendix, then there is always the possibility a function might yet be found? Wouldn’t you want to tell the biologists that since evolutionism is a false belief, that it is likely folly to think any human organ is useless?

6days · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
Dawkins, who has numerous publications both in his academic field of expertise, and in best-selling books presenting Darwinism to the public?

I wrote and posted this before...Richard Dawkins has a history of promoting evolution, but using ideas that have conclusively proven incorrect (Such as his 'backward wired eye' argument). Another example... He was asked "Out of all the evidence used to support the theory of evolution, what would you say is the strongest, most irrefutable single piece of evidence in support of the theory?"
Watch Dawkins answer... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlqNoCAIgA

The problem with the answer is that either Dawkins is outright fibbing...or he is years behind on genetic research. He claims that we never see contradictions in genetic data of the family trees he describes. The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time. For example, here is research showing some genes that show human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

There are many other articles in peer reviewed journals showing that Dawkins strongest argument in favour of evolution is false...Other articles:
1. Gene tree discordance, phylogenetic inference and the multispecies coalescent
http://hymenoptera.tamu.edu/courses/ento606/Suggested Readings/Degnan_Rosenberg_2009.pdf
"... conflicting genealogical histories often exist in different genes throughout the genome."
2. Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/19/5/868.abstract
"Ancestral successive hybridization events and/or incomplete lineage sorting associated with short speciation intervals are viable explanations for the mosaic retroposon insertion patterns of recent placental mammals and for the futile search for a clear root dichotomy."
3. Large-Scale Taxonomic Profiling of Eukaryotic Model Organisms: A Comparison of Orthologous Proteins Encoded by the Human, Fly, Nematode, and Yeast Genomes
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/8/6/590.short

Tyrathca · Jan 26, 2016

6days said:
Fortunately..... for both me and you...I don't write articles for medical journals.
However I think you would agree that evolutionary assumptions about the appendix hindered science.

False, the opinion about the appendix being useless was one from doctors and had nothing to do with evolution. You could have had a creationist doctor or an evolutionist doctor and they would have (and did) come to the same conclusion.

Evolution however posed the awkward question, if it has no use and has definite harm why haven't we evolved it away completely by now? There were lots of hypothesises (some which still had it as useless /vestigial and some where it had a use) and attempts to answer that have given out current understanding.

When you are taught that something is a "worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing", it didn't inspire most researchers to invest time and money looking for purpose.

And yet they did invest in research. Which tells me you aren't very good at guessing how scientists think.

Nothing from evolution says the appendix must be useless, it was only called such because no one had (yet) been able to find a use for it.

Evolutionism is a belief system that hurts people and hinders science.

You keep saying that but you also keep showing you haven't the faintest idea how scientists approach questions or prior knowledge.

6days · Jan 26, 2016

DavisBJ said:
Wouldn’t you want to tell the biologists that since evolutionism is a false belief, that it is likely folly to think any human organ is useless?

Nope..... But it is folly to think it is useless because of common ancestry beliefs, and to use that as evidence of that belief system. In many popular biology textbooks, evolutionists point to vestigial organs and other biological structures that have supposedly lost function or no longer function as they once did—as proof of evolution. The concept of vestigial organs is based on evolutionary storytelling. At one time biology text books listed up to 180 parts as evolutionary leftovers. Virtually all of those 'biological remnants' are now known to have a function. Things such as 'junk DNA', the appendix and our tailbones all serve very important functions!
Humans did not evolve. We were created in the image of the Creator God (Genesis 1:27). Our sin brought death to this world, and the creation groans under the effects of sin to this day (Romans 8:20–22). But there is a remedy...our Creator, Jesus Christ

6days · Jan 26, 2016

Tyrathca said:
False, the opinion about the appendix being useless was one from doctors and had nothing to do with evolution.

It was called a useless evolutionary artifact.... a biological remnant.....vestigial...etc. It was the belief system that hindered scientific progress. It was used as a proof of common ancestry.

Instead, science discovered it did have purpose...design... function... And, in fact evolutionists think it is so important now that they claim it evolved independently 32+ times. It just goes to show the rubbery nature of evolutionism. The useless appendix was used as evidence of their beliefs... Now the useful appendix is used as evidence. IOW.....the actual data does not matter, but what matters is having a flexible story to fit all situations. (Non falsifiable)

Tyrathca · Jan 27, 2016

6days said:
It was called a useless evolutionary artifact.... a biological remnant.....vestigial...etc. It was the belief system that hindered scientific progress. It was used as a proof of common ancestry.

It was called such because no one could find a use for it. If you can't find a use for something despite looking isn't it fair to start saying is useless until shown otherwise?

It wasn't a belief system, it was just an observation from doctors who kept taking out appendixes without any obvious I'll affects.

Instead, science discovered it did have purpose

How did science do this if (according to you) no one was investing in research into it and they were constantly hindered by their "belief system"? It wasn't creationist research that found this it was those brainwashed evil evolutionists who found it.

It just goes to show the rubbery nature of evolutionism.

Do you even understand what science is? Serious question because despite all your posturing about science this statement makes me wonder whether you understand the basic philosophy of science at all.

IOW.....the actual data does not matter, but what matters is having a flexible story to fit all situations. (Non falsifiable)

Keep dreaming that evolution ever relied on the appendix being useless.

You don't seem to understand the idea that science never claims to know everything and to always be right. It is instead always changing and improving. If scientists actually thought they knew everything (such as the nature of the appendix) they would stop and not research further. Clearly scientist weren't as fanatical about the uselessness of the appendix as you claim otherwise no one would have researched it.

gcthomas · Jan 27, 2016

6days said:
The truth is that genes contradict each other all the time. For example, here is research showing some genes that show human and armadillo most closely related.. other genes contradict that saying human and elephant are most closely related. And then a third set of genes said that armadillo and elepheant were the closest.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/figure/F2/

I only clicked on one of your links and it turns out you lied about it. The article you cite here isn't even about genes.

If you don't know what a gene is, then where are you cribbing your pseudo-arguments from? You are obviously not working them out yourself.

Creation vs. Evolution

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

BANNED

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member