Science for a pre-sin world

[Greg Jennings]

Of course it does. Descent with modification is perfectly well compatible with Creation. Only difference is that you believe that matter came alive on its own.

Do you believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis?

The two are unrelated by the way, as I mentioned

 

[Greg Jennings]

Ken Ham has a Bachelors in Applied Science, used to teach and fronts an organization that produces laymen's material.

And from AIG:

Bodie [Hodge] attended Southern Illinois University at Carbondale and received a BS and MS in mechanical engineering. His specialty was a subset of mechanical engineering based in advanced materials processing, particularly starting powders. He conducted research for his master’s degree through a grant from Lockheed Martin and developed a New Method of Production of Submicron Titanium Diboride. The new process was able to make titanium diboride cheaper, faster, and with higher quality. This technology is essential for some nanotechnologies. Bodie published two peer-reviewed articles (with his advisor) on the subjects: R. Koc, C. Meng, and D. B. Hodge,“New Method for Synthesis of Metal Carbides, Nitrides, and Carbonitrides,” Annual Progress Report Advanced Industrial Materials Program, 1998. R. Koc and D. B. Hodge, “Production of TiB2 from a Precursor Containing Carbon Coated TiO2 and B4C,” Journal of Materials Science Letters, 1999. During his years at SIUC, Bodie continued his personal study of biblical apologetics and began teaching this topic to a junior high Sunday school class. While at SIUC, he was the president of one of the few Christian student organizations, Christians Unlimited, and was also an officer in the student chapter of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

You're not very good at "off the top off your head." :chuckle:

Fair enough, Ken Ham has a degree. Just not a doctorate. You'll notice he's Mr. Ken Ham, not Dr. Ken Ham.

Bodie I'm dead wrong on. His doctorate is in a field unrelated to biology but is a doctorate nonetheless. I stand corrected there

 

[Jose Fly]

I'd like to believe that the creationists here see the flaws and are so close to seeing the light and accepting evolution.

I'd like to believe that too, but reality won't cooperate. :chuckle:

But the fundamentalist mindset is a stubborn beast. I hold out little hope that they see what we do: that creationism is a belief lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and that evolutionary theory is a belief substantiated by so much evidence that it's become a scientific theory

This isn't about science, data, or analyses for them. It's about their religious beliefs and the psychology of fundamentalism. As you've seen with Right Divider's response to your post, showing creationists data is like showing pork rib recipes to Muslims.....in both cases they aren't the slightest bit interested and will reject it out of hand.

About the only thing these threads are good for is entertainment. Creationists are pretty much a laughingstock across the internet, and this place has quite a few who are extremely entertaining.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So your tactic is to ask a question, demand evidence and then run away when presented with it? :AMR:

I want what I asked for in the op.

 

[GuySmiley]

:rotfl:

:mock: Evolutionists.

Those links are worth reading though. You'll get insight into how a finch can turn into a finch, and bacteria evolved into bacteria.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Those are full of errors so mindboggling that they aren't even funny. So you've got nothing?

This is why presenting evidence to creationists, in my experiences, proves fruitless. They don't even read them, and even if they did they would disregard them because they come from real scientists. We all know that scientists are evil and their only goal is to spread atheism around the world

 

[Yorzhik]

Why don't you tell me where my logic went off the rails? I'm not aware that it did

Here's an analogy: If you can't come up with evidence for the missing ancestral fossils in the Cambrian, there is no evidence for common descent.

 

[Jose Fly]

This is why presenting evidence to creationists, in my experiences, proves fruitless. They don't even read them, and even if they did they would disregard them because they come from real scientists. We all know that scientists are evil and their only goal is to spread atheism around the world

Creationism, in addition to being a belief (and not science), is basically reflexive denialism. Their only response to actual science is merely to deny it, without looking at it or even thinking about it. "It's supportive of evolution? Then it's wrong. QED."

Creationism requires so much denial of reality, it is impossible to advocate honestly.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Those links are worth reading though. You'll get insight into how a finch can turn into a finch, and bacteria evolved into bacteria.

Actually, it's how one species of finch evolved into about a dozen different species of finch, each with its own beak structure and size modifications that allow each species to feed on different food types.

Actually, it's how bacteria with previously no ability to resist drugs have rapidly developed an ability to resist nearly all antibiotics in existence, which is obviously a huge genetic change.

Given we haven't had anything close to enough time to observe (as an example) an amphibian evolve into a reptile, what we have observed is the strongest evidence that we could possibly expect to find in such a short span of time.

Maybe artificial selection is more your speed. Want to go into that and find out how an elephant sized bull was changed into every cow species and breed alive today?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Here's an analogy: If you can't come up with evidence for the missing ancestral fossils in the Cambrian, there is no evidence for common descent.

What exactly is missing?

There was an extinction event, and most species around today came from the survivors. There are ancestral fossils. And there are also fossils of animals that were wiped out then. What else do you want?

 

[Stripe]

I want what I asked for in the op.

And you got it. Your response was to run for the hills.

 

[Greg Jennings]

And you got it. Your response was to run for the hills.

Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely

 

[Jose Fly]

Me and the whole scientific community I guess. Sounds likely

I told you. This is standard creationist practice here at ToL. Dodge questions until the thread gets about 6+ pages long, then claim they answered the questions, making sure to never actually show where (e.g., via post # or link).

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[Yorzhik]

What exactly is missing?

There was an extinction event, and most species around today came from the survivors. There are ancestral fossils. And there are also fossils of animals that were wiped out then. What else do you want?

Quite right. I wasn't clear. It would have been more clear to say "of the Cambrian Radiation", not "in the Cambrian."

Does that clear it up for you?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Quite right. I wasn't clear. It would have been more clear to say "of the Cambrian Radiation", not "in the Cambrian."

Does that clear it up for you?

Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years

 

[Jose Fly]

Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years

See? Again a thread asking creationists for evidence turns into a debate about evolution.

Same script, different cast.

 

[Yorzhik]

Sort of. But I addressed this as well. We have ancestral fossils dating from this period, and we can look at later specimens to see gradual change in the survivors of the Cambrian extinction into different forms.

Any and every ecological niche opened by the extinction was gradually filled by the descendants of survivors over the next few million years

"Sort of"

I guess that is the best we can hope for.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you believe in evolution, just not abiogenesis?

In the plant and animal worlds, things change within the limits of their genetic variability. They do not just continuously change without limit. That is an observable and repeatable phenomenon.

The two are unrelated by the way, as I mentioned

Actually, they are intimately related. You just want to distract from the real issue.

 

[Right Divider]

Actually, it's how one species of finch evolved into about a dozen different species of finch, each with its own beak structure and size modifications that allow each species to feed on different food types.

Variation, yes. New creature... no.

Actually, it's how bacteria with previously no ability to resist drugs have rapidly developed an ability to resist nearly all antibiotics in existence, which is obviously a huge genetic change.

How huge? And to you this is "proof" that all life on earth evolved from a single creature that itself came to life by itself.

Given we haven't had anything close to enough time to observe (as an example) an amphibian evolve into a reptile, what we have observed is the strongest evidence that we could possibly expect to find in such a short span of time.

Ah yes, the old "time" problem. So instead of accepting that there are signification limitations on what we can observe, you still want to extrapolate these small observable changes into any goes change without limits. That's not science.

Maybe artificial selection is more your speed. Want to go into that and find out how an elephant sized bull was changed into every cow species and breed alive today?

Sure... go ahead.

 

[6days]

Fair enough, Ken Ham has a degree. Just not a doctorate. You'll notice he's Mr. Ken Ham, not Dr. Ken Ham.

Bodie I'm dead wrong on. His doctorate is in a field unrelated to biology but is a doctorate nonetheless. I stand corrected there

Are people such as Richard Dawkins unqualified to speak on topics that they don't have a doctorate in? Or, are you only opposed to those who disagree with your belief system?