Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

I suppose you might call it "organic matter." But there's a problem with that. Originally, it was thought that complex carbon compounds could only be made by living things. Not so. But as a result, all complex carbon compounds are called "organic matter."

It includes material that was never living, like chemically produced methane and so on.

 

[Jacob]

I suppose you might call it "organic matter." But there's a problem with that. Originally, it was thought that complex carbon compounds could only be made by living things. Not so. But as a result, all complex carbon compounds are called "organic matter."

It includes material that was never living, like chemically produced methane and so on.

Would "living organic matter" differentiate from "organic matter" of all kinds?

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope. Methane synthesized from scratch is chemically identical to methane from decaying tissue. And the vast quantities of methane on certain planets (which are not biologically derived) are also chemically identical. (we can investigate the structure by spectrophotometry)

Unless you were very careful to exclude C14, it would also have a similar isotopic composition. This is no small issue. The huge underground neutrino detectors need huge quantities of hydrocarbon that does not contain C14.

It's not easy to do.

So, the physicists want to find fossil fuels that have very little 14C. In the course of this work, they've discovered that fossil fuels vary widely in 14C content. Some have no detectable 14C; some have quite a lot of 14C. Apparently it correlates best with the content of the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly the neutron- and alpha-particle-emitting isotopes of the uranium-thorium series. Dr. Gove and his colleagues told me they think the evidence so far demonstrates that 14C in coal and other fossil fuels is derived entirely from new production of 14C by local radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium series. Many studies verify that coals vary widely in uranium-thorium content, and that this can result in inflated content of certain isotopes relevant to radiometric dating (see abstracts below). I now understand why fossil fuels are not routinely used in radiometric dating!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

 

[6days]

No, even a minor effort by you to look back and see what I actually said would have shown this:

Qoops...sorry BJ. I apologize. It isnt easy to flip back when using a cell phone...but I should have... sorry

 

[6days]

As said.... we look at the same evidence but have different beliefs about the past.

If we interpret data in the light of God’s Word we see that our universe is young and consistent with the Bible.

Years ago I had a similar conversation with another creationist who insisted that it was a matter of how one interprets the evidence. So I asked him to imagine a scenario in which he and I got together to agree on some ground rules. I proposed that we would jointly review and agree on the mathematics that would be necessary in the effort we would undertake. Then we would jointly agree on a methodology for analyzing the data we measured. (In that case, I was speaking of doing controlled studies of rates of erosion, with the goal of looking in nature and then seeing if we could do dating by the degree of erosion we actually found.) The creationist had no objections. But then I asked what he would do when, if using the agreed-to method of interpreting what we found, we encountered strata that was thusly found to be millions of years old. His response, from which he would not budge, was “That wouldn’t happen.” “Never happen.”, “Can’t happen.”

When Mary Schweitzer found soft dinosaur tissue she said "Can't be". She refused to accept the obvious interpretation...that this dinosaur cant be 65,000,000 years old. She still wont consider the obvious. She now is trying to make soft tissue last a long time in the lab, *because she cant abandon her belief system.

That is only one of many examples of evolutionists shoe horning their interpretation to fit their beliefs. *Atheist evolutionists are committed to interpreting evidence to their belief system.*


I'm sure you are aware of evolutionists who admit that even if the evidence supports a creation event, it must be rejected because atheists cant allow a divine foot in the door. They are forced by their belief system to accept material explanations only.*


Follow the evidence no matter where it leads..... I hope you are open to reconsidering the case for the Creator?

 

[The Barbarian]

When Mary Schweitzer found soft dinosaur tissue she said "Can't be". She refused to accept the obvious interpretation...that this dinosaur cant be 65,000,000 years old. She still wont consider the obvious.

She would have to throw out a mountain of evidence to do that. Either much of chemistry, physics, genetics, and geology is wrong, this stuff isn't really tissue, or tissue can last a lot longer than we thought. The least unlikely case is the second or third.

I'm sure you are aware of evolutionists who admit that even if the evidence supports a creation event, it must be rejected because atheists cant allow a divine foot in the door.

Nope, but I do know a lot of creationists who say that regardless of the evidence, they will stick to their beliefs.

Follow the evidence no matter where it leads..... I hope you are open to reconsidering the case for the Creator?

Would you be open to reconsidering the case for a Creator Who is consistent with the evidence?

 

[Stuu]

I haven't rejected science, that is what you are failing to realize.

How would you know? You consistently say you don't know. What kind of childish game is this?

Critical thinking is an ability, not a set of information that can be provided.

You have provided no evidence whatever of your ability at critical thinking. I think you are a fraud. I realise there are morons who get all the way through to degrees based in science while still hanging on to fantasy conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends poofing life into existence, but they know full well that they are denying the same scientific method that allows them to practice in their field.

But what is your excuse? Are you saying that there is no valid science behind biology? Is reality an illusion, and only people committed to Bronze Age mythology have the truth?

You appear to be a parasite on science. Science says put up or shut up (and learn).

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

Nope, but I do know a lot of creationists who say that regardless of the evidence, they will stick to their beliefs.

That is just saying that people can sound like they know what they are talking about with all the evidence they speak of, but it is false evidence if you know God is the Creator and Jesus Christ His Son died to save us (fallen mankind).

 

[Jacob]

How would you know? You consistently say you don't know. What kind of childish game is this?

What motivation would I have to say I know when I don't? When I say I know something or recall something I am immediately questioned, and as it should be... but then since this is not my area of intellectual expertise (I don't have one yet) it doesn't concern me in the same way it might others.

You have provided no evidence whatever of your ability at critical thinking. I think you are a fraud.

Stuart

You can think as you wish. Remember, that is critical thinking you are using. Not accepting everything you hear. But saying I am a fraud, without saying what I am a fraud in regard to doesn't help me very much to know what I could improve on in my conversation with you. A fraud in what sense? A fraud is something that is fake or false though it appears to be true.

 

[Stuu]

I'm sure you are aware of evolutionists who admit that even if the evidence supports a creation event, it must be rejected because atheists cant allow a divine foot in the door. They are forced by their belief system to accept material explanations only.

How do you think anyone would feel 'forced' to limit the range of explanations for the universe around us? Because they are persecuted for their beliefs? That's another conspiracy theory based in no evidence. What about all these supposed 'creation scientists'. Why do you think they have made zero impact on science, even amongst the most devout believers working in science?

An explanation is a proper analysis to the point where there are no questions still to be answered. Is there any god-based 'explanation' that also explains how the god did it, and where the god came from? If not, then it's not an explanation, and it really should be ridiculed if it was made as a serious claim. I ridicule creationism because it's advocates are deadly serious, but creationism has nothing serious to say about biology. Or anything, actually.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

What motivation would I have to say I know when I don't? When I say I know something or recall something I am immediately questioned, and as it should be... but then since this is not my area of intellectual expertise (I don't have one yet) it doesn't concern me in the same way it might others.

Maybe I could repeat a question you were asked earlier. Say you were asked as someone qualified in "science" what your local school should teach about the diversity of life, what would you tell them?

You can think as you wish. Remember, that is critical thinking you are using. Not accepting everything you hear. But saying I am a fraud, without saying what I am a fraud in regard to doesn't help me very much to know what I could improve on in my conversation with you. A fraud in what sense? A fraud is something that is fake or false though it appears to be true.

Ok, perhaps my mistake was to see in you the appearance of something true.

What would help is if you could actually learn something about that which you deny. Otherwise maybe you could have the integrity not to lie. You claim to have a critically thought-out position that concludes that evolution isn't reality. But you don't. So how about some honesty?

Stuart

 

[Jacob]

Maybe I could repeat a question you were asked earlier. Say you were asked as someone qualified in "science" what your local school should teach about the diversity of life, what would you tell them?

That's a different question than what advice to give to science teachers.

There is a lot of diversity in life. I think I don't understand your question.

Ok, perhaps my mistake was to see in you the appearance of something true.

You do know how to argue. But remember, I am pointing you to that which is true.

What would help is if you could actually learn something about that which you deny. Otherwise maybe you could have the integrity not to lie. You claim to have a critically thought-out position that concludes that evolution isn't reality. But you don't. So how about some honesty?

Stuart

I have explained my view, but if you like next week I will try to put it in writing... without going to anyone else for advice. I can only testify to that which I know (read my previous posts in this thread) about science and about God and creation. As for evolution, I accept micro evolution, but I don't know if you are upset that I don't accept macro evolution. I can think critically about that. Think critically about everything before accepting it. But you should know about God already. In Him we have the ability and the foundation for good and critical thinking in this fallen world in which we live.

Have a good weekend.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I really found it interesting, how Untellectual's Video, stated; "Mutation through Reproduction, does not Create New DNA Information with Structure, in fact, it only Destroys Existing DNA Information"; Which means, "The Theory of Evolution, and how it Proposes that Variation of Forms Occurred in Nature, Is Fully not Based in Reality".

=M=

So Stuu, You're Still wrong.

Barbie, you are Wrong Based on, but not Completely on, the Fact that you are A Catholic.
You are also of Course wrong about a Great number of Other things. Like the Wolf and Dog, being a Separate Species. Also, the Fact that you were so Certain that those Salamanders had Speciated, then you found out they could all still interbreed, and you were also Wrong.


Also, Plants Containing Medicine, is a Great Proof of a Caring Creator; So, all of you that Disagree, with that, Are wrong, Also.

And if you run away from me, Again, Like Five Evol little Girls; Once again, You are Wrong.

I'm gonna Get you, One of these Days Evols, When you are Least Expecting it; I will Be there, Waiting in Shadow.

Then I will Jump out and Say; "Give Me Your Personal Definition of the Word 'Nature', as it is used in this Sentence; 'Nature' is all Around us, and 'Nature' is what Creates Life out of Inorganic Materials".

==================================

Music!!!

The Balance - The Moody Blues

 

[The Barbarian]

I really found it interesting, how Untellectual's Video, stated; "Mutation through Reproduction, does not Create New DNA Information with Structure, in fact, it only Destroys Existing DNA Information";

Let's test your belief. Suppose there's two alleles for a given gene in a population, each 50% frequency. How much information is there for that gene? Now, imagine a mutation that happens, producing a new allele, (we have many, many observed cases of that happening) and eventually the frequency becomes 0.3333 for each allele. What's the information level now?

Let's see if you have any idea what you're talking about.

Barbie, you are Wrong Based on, but not Completely on, the Fact that you are A Catholic.

You don't know what you're talking about there, either. There are certainly creationist Catholics.

You are also of Course wrong about a Great number of Other things. Like the Wolf and Dog, being a Separate Species.

You forgot again? Remember, I showed you that they were subspecies?

Also, the Fact that you were so Certain that those Salamanders had Speciated, then you found out they could all still interbreed, and you were also Wrong.

As you learned, (but apparently forgot, again) it's possible to get them to crossbreed in a lab, but they don't leave fertile offspring, so it's like horses and donkeys. You get mules, but they can't reproduce.

That short-term memory loss is another drawback to the marijuana you think God made for you to huff.

I'm gonna Get you, One of these Days Evols, When you are Least Expecting it; I will Be there, Waiting in Shadow.

More likely in smoke.

 

[Stuu]

I really found it interesting, how Untellectual's Video, stated; "Mutation through Reproduction, does not Create New DNA Information with Structure, in fact, it only Destroys Existing DNA Information"; Which means, "The Theory of Evolution, and how it Proposes that Variation of Forms Occurred in Nature, Is Fully not Based in Reality".

So Stuu, You're Still wrong.

Please show me exactly the post where I claimed any of that, or if you can't then retract and apologise.

Thanks.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

That's a different question than what advice to give to science teachers.

There is a lot of diversity in life. I think I don't understand your question.

Well perhaps it is time for you to stop discussing biology. Think of all those reading here who are giving credibility to what you claim on the basis of your "science" background. And yet you make all sorts of claims about biology that are utterly wrong. Had you considered whether accuracy was at all important? Do you design wiring for electrical componentry? Is accuracy important in that? Do you expect the wiring in your house to have been done correctly? Why do you insist on not being accurate about natural history? Why do you go on about natural history when you don't even know what it is?

You do know how to argue. But remember, I am pointing you to that which is true.

Sorry? What have you pointed out to me?? That it is true that evolution isn't true? Based on no explanation or argument, and alongside the admission that you don't actually know what evolution is?? Sorry, but that's the work of a moron. Are you a moron?

I have explained my view

No you haven't. You have EXPLAINED nothing.

but if you like next week I will try to put it in writing...

So your explanation, the one you just claim, WASN'T IN WRITING? How was I supposed to know about that??

I can only testify to that which I know (read my previous posts in this thread) about science and about God and creation. As for evolution, I accept micro evolution, but I don't know if you are upset that I don't accept macro evolution. I can think critically about that. Think critically about everything before accepting it. But you should know about God already. In Him we have the ability and the foundation for good and critical thinking in this fallen world in which we live.

Moronic. A celebration of ignorance.

Stuart

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Please show me exactly the post where I claimed any of that, or if you can't then retract and apologise.

Thanks.

Stuart

Oh, Stuart;

I didn't say that is What you Believe; I'm just saying that is why you are Wrong in the First Place. Mutation Through Reproduction, and Survival of the Fittest, could never Lead to a New Form or Kind of Animal.

I'm sorry, if you took it the Wrong Way. After all, I should be Thanking you, you see, you helped me Find even More Order in the Universe, with Crystal Formation. That may help me Prove A Caring Creator God, to an Atheist, Someday, Thanks!!!!

=M=

 

[Stuu]

I didn't say that is What you Believe; I'm just saying that is why you are Wrong in the First Place. Mutation Through Reproduction, and Survival of the Fittest, could never Lead to a New Form or Kind of Animal.

Ok. Please show me where I posted anything that could be refuted by that.

Or withdraw and apologise.

Stuart

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Ok. Please show me where I posted anything that could be refuted by that.

Or withdraw and apologise.

Stuart

Oh, I was just Making a Statement.

I was just saying you were wrong, from the Other day, Remember; when you were saying I was "Just wrong" to Everything I said, without a Rebuttal.

If I were actually Quoting you, there would be a Girls name in the beginning of A Quote box; You would have Recognized your Words, by Seeing them, and realizing they were something you Had said, Yet, Strangely they would be attached to A Woman's Name.

I just can't think of a Woman's name, that Rhymes with Stuu.

Fuu Fuu?

=M=

 

[MichaelCadry]

Oh, I was just Making a Statement.

I was just saying you were wrong, from the Other day, Remember; when you were saying I was "Just wrong" to Everything I said, without a Rebuttal.

If I were actually Quoting you, there would be a Girls name in the beginning of A Quote box; You would have Recognized your Words, by Seeing them, and realizing they were something you Had said, Yet, Strangely they would be attached to A Woman's Name.

I just can't think of a Woman's name, that Rhymes with Stuu.

Fuu Fuu?

=M=

Mark,

How about Sue? My sister's name was Susan.

Michael