Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Maybe this will help?

I Corinthians 15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

We are not in the beast fish bird categories.


everready

Dear everready,

I hope you won't mind since this is directed to Jonahdog, but I completely agree with you and I think your post is magnificent!! I have to realize that you are short and to the point in your posts.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :rapture: :guitar: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Actually...we agreed on things almost completely if you want to check that thread.

Dear 6days,

Hey Buddy!! How's it going? I thought I'd butt in here, even though I believe this is for The Barbarian. I do believe God does the necessary adaptation Himself by creating and changing the DNA, gene, electrons, etc. He is at work as necessary. They can't adapt instantly. But with God's Hand in it, they can change instantly. Adapt means to change slowly or quickly, doesn't it? With God, it is immediate. Well, sure glad to hear from you for a change. God's in charge. Not adaptation, or evolution, or nature, or mother nature, or human nature, etc. By creating and changing. Look at God's Hand in action with a caterpillar changing into a butterfly. Now that is quite a feat, right? He makes them transform!! You can bet that God's Hand is in it. Little can be so amazing as such an awesome feat!! Well, I will go. Remember it is God, not nature. And 6days, thanks for being so critically needed here on this thread and on this website. There are few like you!! Very adept!! Cool!!

God Bless Your Kind And Loving Heart!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

(creationist equivocation attempt)

Barbarian heads it off:
Darwin used "descent with modification."



Or as was proposed by Darwinians. You guys just copied a little of it, made a few changes, and called it the creationist model.



Directly observed. It's mutation and natural selection.

And your fellow YE creationists didn't get the memo. They still push the original "creationist model" with none of of your new changes.

Dear The Barbarian,

I know it's not simple and hard to differentiate, but God has His Hand in the changing of all 'adaptations' but He does it because He is the Master Biologist and Master Chemist. He can make a man out of rocks. So He can make a cocoon and praying mantises. Quite awesome, eh? He does the same with caterpillars to butterflies. His imagination also defies limits!! It is magnificent!! How can you think it's Mother Nature?? There is no Mother Nature. It is GOD doing it all!! God speaks His Word and it does not come back to Him unaccomplished. So all is done With Him! If He causes an adaptation, then so be it!! He is also in charge of the tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, rain, hail, etc. It is NOT Mother Nature. You all just don't understand.

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

:cloud9: :singer: :guitar: :angel: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Not me, although after sober second thought I doubted it, and then I knew when I read your next post. Leopards don't change their spots sadly.

Dear StanJ,

See what I have to go through? I can hardly trust Jose now. I will be very careful about what he says from now on. So how you been doing, eh? Good to see you here. Sure wish you and 6days would pop in more often.

May God Always Bless You With Joy For The Coming Of Christ!!

Michael

:rapture::rapture::angel::angel::angel::cloud9:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

Because of your words, I will believe it was satire, but it sure seemed like an honest post. Is this supposed to be Edgar Allen Poe's law? OK, he's not lying and I forgive him. I mean Jose. But I will be very wary of his posts from now on. I'm used to people being honest with me, not playing with my head. God doesn't play with my head and neither does Jesus or the angels. Nor also ALL of my friends. It's just truth and love from all of them. So you can see why I believed him, can't you, alwight??

God Be With You, And Cheerio, Al,

Michael

:singer: :guitar: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9:

Michael, you can make it hard going sometimes, it was nothing to do with Edgar Allen Poe, if you'd followed my link you would have realised that, here is an extract.: :idunno:

"Poe's Law" was originally written by Nathan Poe in 2005, in a post on christianforums.com, an internet forum about Christianity. The post was written in the context of a debate about creationism, where a previous poster had remarked "Good thing you included the winky. Otherwise people might think you are serious". Poe then replied, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly [sic] impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.".[1] The original statement of Poe's Law referred specifically to creationism, but it has since been generalized to apply to any kind of fundamentalism or extremism.[3]

​

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

People will often use sarcasm and parody Michael, I know I do it, just don't jump to quick conclusions before they've had a chance to clear things up if you ask them to, or by reading later posts you might realise that you've been played with.
It's sometimes called "taking the Micky", Michael.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear seehigh,

Nice pic! All of the "scientists" believed it one way, and the Christians another way. And you then ended it with the way "scientists" believe. You have 4 different types of scientists. How fair is that?? Don't even think for a minute that your picture is true.

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear seehigh,

Nice pic! All of the "scientists" believed it one way, and the Christians another way. And you then ended it with the way "scientists" believe. How fair is that?? Don't even think for a minute that your picture is true.

Michael

Doesn't the name "seehigh" not ring bells Michael? :sherlock:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Nope... before Darwin's time.



Yes... that is directly observed. Rapid adaptation is observed. Sexual selection is observed. Functionality and purpose of organs and DNA is observed. Genetic burden is observed along with extinctions.*

What we observe is consistent with God's Word.... For in six days, God created.....

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Dear 6days,

Really nice post here. I think it meshes mostly with what I believe, but just in different words. You call it adaptation and I call it God working on it's insides to make it able to do something necessary or convenient. Right now, I am thinking about bugs and creeping things. But it crosses over fish, birds, creatures/animals, and mankind. God makes the change, just as He did when He created Eve and made a body out of a rib bone and the ground. He also changes a caterpillar into a butterfly by His Hands. There is nothing that is, that God didn't create. So God created caterpillars and butterflies. Of course, God is everywhere in Spirit, in women and men, All living things, and cocoons. As God's Spirit is everywhere, with the help of angels and servants, God works through them to keep them healthy and metamorphic. He is a loving God and with so many servants and angels, He can definitely change a caterpillar's DNA, genes, genomes, RNA, and nuclei, including neutrons, etc. And don't forget about STP. Just joking!! Well, I'd best close for now!!

Praise You, Jesus!!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Friends,

I thought you might be interested in this but it takes a couple minutes to read. Have Fun!

Some physicists believe we're living in a giant hologram — and it's not that far-fetched
Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 29, 2015, 9:00 a.m. ET @josephstromberg joseph@vox.com

(TU Wien)
Some physicists actually believe that the universe we live in might be a hologram.

The idea isn't that the universe is some sort of fake simulation out of The Matrix, but rather that even though we appear to live in a three-dimensional universe, it might only have two dimensions. It's called the holographic principle.

Related The Large Hadron Collider is starting back up. Here's what scientists hope to find.
The thinking goes like this: Some distant two-dimensional surface contains all the data needed to fully describe our world — and much like in a hologram, this data is projected to appear in three dimensions. Like the characters on a TV screen, we live on a flat surface that happens to look like it has depth.

The laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three. It might sound absurd. But if when physicists assume it's true in their calculations, all sorts of big physics problems — such as the nature of black holes and the reconciling of gravity and quantum mechanics — become much simpler to solve. In short, the laws of physics seem to make more sense when written in two dimensions than in three.

"It's not considered some wild speculation among most theoretical physicists," says Leonard Susskind, the Stanford physicist who first formally defined the idea decades ago. "It's become a working, everyday tool to solve problems in physics."

But there's an important distinction to be made here. There's no direct evidence that our universe actually is a two-dimensional hologram. These calculations aren't the same as a mathematical proof. Rather, they're intriguing suggestions that our universe could be a hologram. And as of yet, not all physicists believe we have a good way of testing the idea experimentally.

Where did the idea that the universe might be a hologram come from? The idea originally came out of a pair of paradoxes concerning black holes.

1) The black hole information loss problem
In 1974, Stephen Hawking famously discovered that black holes, contrary to what had long been thought, actually emit slight amounts of radiation over time. Eventually, as this energy bleeds away from the event horizon — the black hole's outer edge — the black hole should completely disappear.

However, this idea prompted what's known as the black hole information loss problem. It's long been thought that physical information can't be destroyed: All particles either retain their original form or, if they change, that change impacts other particles, so the first set of particles' original state could be inferred at the end.

As an analogy, think of a stack of documents that are fed through a shredder. Even though they're cut into tiny pieces, the information present on the pieces of paper still exists. It's been cut into tiny pieces, but it hasn't disappeared, and given enough time, the documents could be reassembled so that you'd know what was written on them originally. In essence, the same thing was thought to be true with particles.

But there was a problem: If a black hole disappears, then the information present in any object that may have been sucked into it seemingly disappears, too.

Related Stephen Hawking's research is more accessible than you think. Here's a guide:
One solution, proposed by Susskind and Dutch physicist Gerard 't Hooft in the mid-'90s, was that when an object gets pulled into a black hole, it leaves behind some sort of 2D imprint encoded on the event horizon. Later, when radiation leaves the black hole, it picks up the imprint of this data. In this way, the information isn't really destroyed.

Additionally, their calculations showed that on just the 2D surface of a black hole, you could store enough information to completely describe any seemingly 3D objects inside it.
"The analogy that both of us independently were thinking about was that of a hologram — a two-dimensional piece of film which can encode all the information in a three-dimensional region of space," Susskind says.

The entropy problem: There was also the related problem of calculating the amount of entropy in a black hole — that is, the amount of disorder and randomness among its particles. In the '70s, Jacob Bekenstein had calculated that their entropy is capped, and that the cap is proportional to the 2D area of a black hole's event horizon.

"For ordinary matter systems, the entropy is proportional to the volume, not the area," says Juan Maldacena, an Argentinian physicist involved in studying the holographic principle. Eventually, he and others saw that this, too, pointed to the idea that what looked like a 3D object — a black hole — might be best understood using only two dimensions.

How did this idea go from black holes to the entire universe?

None of this was proof that black holes were holograms. But early on, Susskind says, physicists recognized that looking at the entire universe as a two-dimensional object that only looks three-dimensional might help solve some deeper problems in theoretical physics. And the math works just as well whether you're talking about a black hole, a planet, or an entire universe.

Don't try to read it in one day!! Eeeek!!

Best Regards, In Christ,

Michael

 

[seehigh]

Dear seehigh,

Nice pic! All of the "scientists" believed it one way, and the Christians another way. And you then ended it with the way "scientists" believe. How fair is that?? Don't even think for a minute that your picture is true.

Michael

Science starts with a premise (hypothesis), tests it, has independent scientists retest it, and then comes up with a conclusion. If the original conclusion was wrong, it's back to square one. Science welcomes new and better, testable, information.

Religion?

It starts with the conclusion, and desperately tries to find anything that may point to that conclusion. It dismissed any new evidence that counters it's conclusion.

The picture is a significant and much closer representation of the truth than any faith based process could produce. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and most religious claims have no proof.

As a priest once told me, one only needs faith

 

[The Barbarian]

Ironically, every one of those illustrations is wrong as literal depictions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I know it's not simple and hard to differentiate, but God has His Hand in the changing of all 'adaptations' but He does it because He is the Master Biologist and Master Chemist.

I think that's close to the truth, but God is omnipotent, and therefore not a biologist or chemist. As scientists, we try to find out things as best we can. He already knows everything.

But it's quite true that there isn't a particle in this world that doesn't act in accord with His intent. The laws of nature are what they are, only because He acts consistently to give us a world in which we can live.

He can make a man out of rocks. So He can make a cocoon and praying mantises. Quite awesome, eh? He does the same with caterpillars to butterflies. His imagination also defies limits!!

How he does these things is even more interesting and magnificent.

How can you think it's Mother Nature??

Anyone who thinks nature is the final cause of it all, has confused the hammer with the Carpenter. Forget "mother nature." It's God. But it's a lot more interesting than many people suspect.

 

[6days]

It starts with the conclusion, and desperately tries to find anything that may point to that conclusion. It dismissed any new evidence that counters it's conclusion.

You are describing evolutionism.

Evolutionism starts with the conclusion then interprets evidence to fit.
Example: (There are MANY similar examples)
* Evolutionists (Past) insisted that our "useless" appendix was evidence of common ancestry
* Evolutionists (Current) insist that our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry

Evolutionism is not science... it is a non falsifiable belief system.

 

[seehigh]

You are describing evolutionism.

Evolutionism starts with the conclusion then interprets evidence to fit.
Example: (There are MANY similar examples)
* Evolutionists (Past) insisted that our "useless" appendix was evidence of common ancestry
* Evolutionists (Current) insist that our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry

Evolutionism is not science... it is a non falsifiable belief system.

How do you think the science behind the computer you use was developed? By the same scientific method as biology uses, as geology uses, as archaeology uses, as paleontology uses, if chemistry uses, and as physics use.

All the sciences I just listed are used to develop and confirm the evolution theory. And please don't tell me it's just a theory, because if you do that, you have no idea about science..

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolutionism starts with the conclusion then interprets evidence to fit.
Example: (There are MANY similar examples)

* Evolutionists (Past) insisted that our "useless" appendix was evidence of common ancestry

Not "useless." Vestigial. As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs often acquire a different function, as the appendix did. It is evidence of common ancestry, because it is a rudiment of an organ used in other mammals to digest plant material.

Evolutionists (Current) insist that our functional appendix is evidence of common ancestry

Turns out that whether it's useful or not, it is still a vestigial organ, reduced from a larger organ that was for digesting plant material.

Now, it produces a little lymphoid tissue, and provides a refuge for useful bacteria.

And, (being recently evolved) still causes some fatal infections.

 

[seehigh]

Evolutionism starts with the conclusion then interprets evidence to fit.
Example: (There are MANY similar examples)


Not "useless." Vestigial. As Darwin pointed out, vestigial organs often acquire a different function, as the appendix did. It is evidence of common ancestry, because it is a rudiment of an organ used in other mammals to digest plant material.



Turns out that whether it's useful or not, it is still a vestigial organ, reduced from a larger organ that was for digesting plant material.

Now, it produces a little lymphoid tissue, and provides a refuge for useful bacteria.

And, (being recently evolved) still causes some fatal infections.

You're hung up on Darwin. The theory has been confirmed and advanced many times since then. DNA proves it conclusively.

Which is science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Actually...we agreed on things almost completely if you want to check that thread.

I did. You just ignored it all.

You posted examples of populations evolving and speciating. Stripe and other creationists say neither of those things ever happen. So which is the "Biblical model of creation", evolving and speciating populations, or not?

 

[Jose Fly]

Not me, although after sober second thought I doubted it, and then I knew when I read your next post. Leopards don't change their spots sadly.

Why doesn't that surprise me? :chuckle:

Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Dear Jose,

I have lightened up a bit now. Initially, I thought you were quite sincere about what you were trying to say. We'll give you an Oscar for that performance! How's that sound? You do know now that I have to think long and hard about what you write to me. It is too bad, but what can I do? How do I know if you're not going to try it again??

Much Love Coming At You, You Booper!!

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :nono: :nono: :angel: :angel:

:thumb:

 

[StanJ]

Why doesn't that surprise me?
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.

Ripping off Urban Dictionary now?