-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?
- Thread starter Hobie
- Start date
Only evolutionists (including theistic evolutionists) think that popularity has any meaning regarding the history of life on earth.Creationism isn't only declining in America:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0083-9
So if I note that public acceptance of abortion is declining, your response would be "only Christians think that popularity has any meaning regarding the sanctity of life?"
Maybe so. But you'd be just as off-center on that as well. The fact that more and more people are rejecting creationism is merely a consequence of increasing evidence that it's a bad doctrine.
BTW, I'm still trying to find that museum that showed Pakicetus with a blow hole. Even the fragmentary skull first found clearly showed it had nostrils, not a blowhole. The only uncertainty was whether or not the nostrils were at the tip of the jaw, or very slightly back. Your guy inadvertently put this in his website:
My response would be that I would be glad it's acceptance is going down, but that it has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong (it's wrong, by the way, in case you didn't know, because it's a baby, and it's always wrong to kill a baby).
Was there a point you were trying to make?
:blabla:
The whole world could reject "six days" and "from the beginning of Creation," but that wouldn't make them right.
You've been shown that the evidence does NOT support an old earth, but an earth that is 7-10,000 years old, yet you continue to try to use the declining popularity of young earth creationism as evidence against it, which is an appeal to popularity.
Now you're getting it. :thumb;
It doesn't matter how many people say it's OK to murder babies because of a sick mother; it's always murder.
It doesn't matter how many people believe the lie of evolution; what matters in a science discussion is evidence.
When you fully understand this concept, perhaps you can be a useful participant in these discussions. :up:
You'd be just as off-center on that as well. The fact that more and more people are rejecting Darwinism is merely a consequence of increasing evidence that it's a bad doctrine.
That's because now you're (disingenuously) looking for a blowhole that a whale would have and not an invented opening near where the nostrils should have been placed on a model derived from an incomplete fossil. Darwinists called this invention an "early blowhole" to boost their confidence in their religion.
Nope.
The part where the nostrils are was missing, so they put them where they thought they could get away with calling them a blowhole.
Did you not watch the video you posted? :chuckle:
And they took this uncertainty and created a fictional creature to put in their nice cartoons that serve as the holy texts of Darwinism. Evidence be damned.
You inadvertently put this in your post:
Yes, my point was that the increasing amount of evidence regarding evolution is causing a decrease of acceptance of YE creationism. I never argued that meant creationism is wrong, although that would be an accurate inference, given the evidence. You merely assumed something I didn't say.
I know you believe that. But the evidence says otherwise. Even some creationists admit this fact.
Transcripts of the 1981 trial of Arkansas Act 590, the "Balanced Treatment Act", which required creation science to be taught in public schools along with evolution.
Harold Coffin, of Loma Linda University stated "No, creation science is not testable scientifically." (stated during a pre-trial deposition)
The following is part of Coffin's testimony...
Q: You have had only two articles in standard scientific journals since
getting your Ph.D. in 1955, haven't you?
A: That's correct.
Q: The Burgess shale (a geological formation in the Canadian Rockies
with exceptionally well preserved marine fossils) is said to be 500
million years old, but you think it is only 5,000 years old, don't
you?
A: Yes.
Q: You say that because of information from the scriptures, don't you?
A: Correct.
Q: If you didn't have the Bible, you could believe the age of the Earth
to be many millions of years, couldn't you?
A: Yes, without the Bible.
Transcript of Dr. Coffin's testimony, McLean vs. Arkansas
So there is that.
Then engage sensibly over the evidence. :up:
And straight back into it.
News flash: The popularity of an idea is no evidence for its veracity. Darwinists love a discussion where the focus is on who and how many believe what. They think it is evidence.
Right Divider
Body part
Like a broken record.... Like a broken record.... Like a broken record.... Like a broken record....
Hence, the "evolutionist" responsible for the OP; "Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?"
.
.
.
Oh, wait... :chuckle:
But the OP should have been "does anyone believe in creationism, anymore" seeing as it's a declining belief system.
Happy to have you onboard at last.
And straight back into it.
No matter how many times they are told, Darwinists are drawn to the flame of popularity like moths. They think it's evidence.
When you're ready to get over the crutch of logical fallacies, you might be able to join a rational discussion.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Natural selection works in both YEC and common descent. But the challenge is how natural selection can improve a message. Shannon says it can't. He said, "The fundamental problem of communications is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point."
I realize he uses the word "approximately" which is what is tripping you up. But this is only because noise is inevitable, and Shannon's theory helped us get the original message back despite the noise.
In the phrase "improving fitness". A message that was changed by noise is not the message that the sender sent. You may not say that a machine that sends a message does not desire a certain message, but a machine that sends a message cannot be described by humans studying said message without using anthropomorphic language. Go ahead and try it.
Because in the amazing designs we see in living things today, there are a lot of bridges to burn.
Because you can't get a drawbridge with 1-3 changes. And the Edge of Evolution shows this is also true in biology.
You can keep calling the nutrient part of the machine, but it isn't.
:darwinsm: Yeah, you understand that Behe meant 'writing' could be part of irreducible complexity in his mousetrap example. :darwinsm:
No, each mousetrap was redesigned with the same 5 parts all of them have.
The reason no one talks about it anymore is because common descentists have no answer. Ask Behe if he still supports the notion, and he says now more than ever - go to 2:38
No, it doesn't. Because YECs are continually befuddled, trying to figure out how it can increase fitness in a population, when they are convinced that the increase information from new alleles can't be true. Shannon, as you just learned, demonstrated that it does.
But the challenge is how natural selection can improve a message.
Shannon says that it's the increase information in a population that does this.
Let's take this into an actual situation. Suppose that in a population, there are two alleles for a given gene locus, each with a frequency of 0.5. Suppose a mutation causes a third allele, and over time, it increases in frequency so that each allele has a frequency of 0.333...(one-third).
Use Shannon's equation to show the information when there was just two alleles, and then when there were three.
Hint: H(x) is the information. The equation is:
Where N is the number of alleles, and p(i) is the frequency of the ith allele. Let's see what you get.
Barbarian asks:
Where in genetic transcription, translation, or protein synthesis, is there "intent?"
Show us where the phrase "improving fitness" occurs in genetic transcription, translation, or protein synthesis, and explain how molecules have intent.
For example, the mutation that gave some people in a clan in Italy resistance to hardening of the arteries was not the original allele. The increased information in the population resulted in increased fitness for the people with the new mutation.
Nor does DNA.
So then it should be easy for you to show how molecules have "intent." Go ahead and try it. But first show us the result you get from applying Shannon's equation to population genetics. If you don't know enough about Shannon's work to apply it, just tell us, and I'll show you.
Barbarian, earlier:
Sounds like a testable assumption. How does the HPAS allele in Tibetans "degrade" them? (it's the gene that allows them to live at very high altitudes without the drawbacks of increasing hematocrit levels). Tell us about that.
Suppose that instead of burning bridge, the defenders built a pulley system to swing it up so it coudn't be used until they lowered it again? Yes, burning the bridge was a feasible solution, (like a lizard sacrificing a tail to escape) but then they had to rebuild it. Building a bridge or regrowing a tail takes resources. The drawbridge was a mutation that improved the process of keeping the enemy on the other side of the river. Deceptive coloration would be an improvement for the lizard. That's how evolution works.
Because you can't get a drawbridge with 1-3 changes.
Put hinges on one side of the bridge.
Attach cables to the other side
Pull them to raise the bridge.
As you learned, it's directly observed.
Barbarian observes. When the regulator evolved, the system became irreducibly complex because it would work only of all three parts of the system were present. The nutrient, the enzyme, and the regulator.
As you where shown, the system has three parts, which I showed you. No point in denying the fact. You're just trying to redefine Behe's definition.
(Yorzhik asks if writing is part of the mousetrap)
(Barbarian says he never considered it to be so, but under some circumstances, it could be)
You suggested it; I didn't. So now you're admitting you were wrong?
As you now see, the link I gave you showed that a much simpler moustrap is possible, without all the parts you assumed to be required.
(Barbarian notes that more and more people are accepting evolution as the evidence accumulates)
Barbarian checks:
Behe argues strongly for common descent of all lifeforms on earth, including that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. He states that there is such overwhelming evidence for common ancestry that it should not only be obvious, but "trivial". Behe claims that the mutations required for bridging the higher levels of taxonomy are not possible without design, and that this is the "edge of evolution".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Edge_of_Evolution
Yes, he does, but you should understand that while he realizes common descent is a fact, and that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, he does not believe that God is capable of making it work, unless God steps in from time to time with a miracle.
1.I'll start with a piece of springy wire, bent so that it can be held open by carefully positioning one end of the wire against the other. If an unlucky mouse steps on the trap and dislodges the ends, the trap closes. Most mice knock the trap over rather than sticking their necks through it, and the spring is so weak that some mice wriggle out before they die, so it's not a very good trap. Still, it's better than having no trap at all.
2. Adding a coil to the previous trap makes the trap close with more force. Every coil that is added makes the trap close with greater force, increasing the proportion of mice that get killed.
3. Adding bait makes the trap more efficient by attracting more mice to it. Bait is an optional part of all of the traps shown here; all of these traps would catch mice that happened to stumble into them.
4.The previous traps need to be carefully propped against a wall or other object, which limits the places they can be used and lets mice knock the trap over. Attaching the spring to the floor with one or two staples increases the usefulness of the trap, because it can now be used anywhere the floor is wooden, and mice won't knock it over. The staples are optional at this point.
5. Attaching the spring to a piece of wood is even better, since it's easier to move around, doesn't leave holes in the floor, and can be used on concrete floors. The wooden platform and the staples are optional, though; the trap would still work with just the spring.
6. Making the swinging end of the wire (the "hammer") longer increases the chance that it will hit a mouse, so as it gradually goes from I-shaped to L-shaped to U-shaped, it gradually becomes more effective. The free end of a U-shaped hammer might flex enough that it wouldn't crush all mice; tucking it into the coils of the spring improves on this.
7. The previous trap had the hammer propped up on a vertical piece of wire. This must be done very precisely, so that a mouse brushing against the vertical piece of wire will dislodge the hammer. Adding another piece of wire as a hold-down bar makes it easier to set the trap and easier for a mouse to trip it. One end of the hold-down bar is jammed into the end of the wooden platform, while the other end is hooked under the corner of the hammer. When a mouse nudges the hold-down bar, dislodging it from the corner of the hammer, it releases the hammer. Because the hold-down bar is a lever, it holds the hammer down with much less force and therefore requires less force to dislodge.
(more steps at the site)
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html