Creation vs. Evolution II

[Jose Fly]

Now that you've tacitly admitted your failing

What in the world are you talking about? :idunno:

how about you withdraw the assertion that only evolution can explain genetic features. :up:

Only if you show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

But we all know you won't. I guarantee it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just because some in the scientific community think that evolution is true doesn't make them right. You are just following the popular, not the true.

How do you suggest we determine what scientific claims are true?

When God said 7,000 or so years, that's what He meant. Not billions, just because it sounds better to you. God could have been adding to the Universe for the past 7,000 years, and that is plenty of time for Him to create very much indeed. Billions of years are not necessary, though it sounds nice to talk about something you can't prove regardless of theories or incompetent methods of dating whatever you wish to date, using so-called 'fail-proof' methods.

Why do you think a non-Christian should adopt and advocate a religious belief that's held almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christians?

Isn't that about the same as a Mormon expecting you to adopt and advocate their beliefs about history?

Billions of years is just a guess, a hyperbole, an estimate, a joke, a misnomer.

In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I said so!!

 

[Stripe]

Only if you show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function.

I've already explained this to you. Try to keep up. :up:

 

[Jose Fly]

I've already explained this to you. Try to keep up. :up:

Told ya. You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't.

I guarantee it.

 

[6days]

You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't.

Discerning genetic function is performed using the scientific method by atheists, Muslims, Biblical creationists and Catholics. Their beliefs about the past are different, but their science is the same

 

[Jose Fly]

Discerning genetic function is performed using the scientific method by atheists, Muslims, Biblical creationists and Catholics. Their beliefs about the past are different, but their science is the same

That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.

And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

 

[6days]

That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.
And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

Another money back guarantee?

How about you start by quoting what Stripe said... This way we know you aren't creating another strawman.

 

[6days]

Specific types of similarities(are evidence of common ancestry).
It (differences) would be evidence that the taxa are more distantly related.

In other words, the evidence doesn't really matter...its all evolution no matter what? Evolutionism is not science. Its simply a method of explaining evidence within a belief system.

 

[MichaelCadry]

How do you suggest we determine what scientific claims are true?







Why do you think a non-Christian should adopt and advocate a religious belief that's held almost exclusively by fundamentalist Christians?

Isn't that about the same as a Mormon expecting you to adopt and advocate their beliefs about history?



In other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I said so!!

Dear Jose,

Now you want me to figure out ways to date everything? Aren't you kind? And of course, I don't think the moon is made of cheese. Only you would be among those who said such odd things. Your post is a total waste as far as essence or worthiness, and time.

Michael

 

[Stripe]

Told ya. You won't show where creationists have utilized their model to discern genetic function....because you can't.....because they haven't.

I guarantee it.

That's not what I asked. Stripe claimed that creationists have used their model to discern genetic function. I'm merely asking for someone to show where that has happened.

And I'm guaranteeing no one will.

Darwinists hate reading.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Just Had To Include This For All Of You. I Have Express Permission From The Author:


Faith

The spark of life: Science and the Bible meet again

By Michael Guillen Ph.D.
Published May 01, 2016
FoxNews.com

[http://foxnews.com/&h=iaqh_0jioaqg...vluovrrwzt9uaecozton6k-7wmorxbsoxq&s=1_green]

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

For me, images released recently by Northwestern University scientists of tiny light flashes signaling the moment of human conception are evocative of a larger, cosmic-sized truth espoused by both science and the Bible. Namely, the creation of the universe itself – the mother of all moments of conception.

According to their article in Scientific Reports, the Northwestern researchers collected immature human eggs from willing female patients at the Fertility Center of Illinois – eggs that would have been discarded in the normal course of the patients’ fertility treatments. The researchers used special chemicals to mimic the moments of conception – the law forbidding them to use actual sperm. In each case, they discovered, the decisive moment was accompanied by a small burst of zinc atoms. The eruptions appeared as flashes of light because of fluorescing agents used by the scientists.

According to science – at precisely a moment of conception known as recombination & decoupling – an incomprehensible outburst of light accompanied the creation of hydrogen and helium, the first atoms of the embryonic cosmos. To this day, the dim afterglow of that seminal light – the so-called cosmic microwave background – is visible to certain kinds of powerful telescopes.

According to inflation and big bang theories, it didn’t end there. Hydrogen atoms eventually began to fuse, the way they do in a hydrogen bomb, and – voila! – once again, in a flash of light, the first stars came into being. They, in turn – like colossal stoves – cooked up the heavier elements known to us today. Including the zinc atoms that explode, like fireworks, every time a human being is conceived.

I find it notable that the Bible agrees with science that the universe was conceived in a paroxysm of illumination – I imagine, unlike anything we’ve ever seen. According to Genesis 1:3KJV, that event happened at exactly the moment God uttered the immortal words, “Let there be light.”

The Bible’s explanation of things goes even further, by actually assigning a sacred status to light. In 1 John 1:5KJV, light is identified with the Creator himself: “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”

Scientists don’t use that sort of language, of course, but amazingly, they do agree that light very definitely has a transcendent status. It wasn’t always the case, though: scientists made that discovery only relatively recently.

The momentous change of heart began in 1905, when an unknown outsider named Albert Einstein published his heretical theory of special relativity. According to Einstein, contrary to what scientists had always believed, light experiences a reality wholly unlike the one you and I do – inhabits an otherworldly realm where, among other things, the commonplace laws of space and time are not obeyed. Like God, if you will, light transcends the restrictions of the ordinary, physical world.

Scientists were slow in coming around to believe Einstein’s heterodoxy. But today, it is a key component of the modern scientific catechism.

Like the Bible, therefore, science now agrees that whenever we interact with light, we interact with something that is at once in this world, but not of this world. Chief among these divine-like encounters are those instances when light makes abrupt, attention-getting appearances. Like a moment of creation when something truly special suddenly comes into existence that wasn’t there before – be it a human embryo, a star, or an entire universe.

Michael Guillen’s newest book "Amazing Truths: How Science and the Bible Agree" (HarperCollins) will be released on February 9, 2016. Born in East Los Angeles, he earned his BS from UCLA and his MS and PhD from Cornell University in physics, mathematics and astronomy. For 8 years he was an award-winning physics instructor at Harvard University. For 14 years he was the Emmy-award-winning science correspondent for ABC News, appearing regularly on "Good Morning America," "20/20," "Nightline," and "World News Tonight." Dr. Guillen is the host of the History Channel series, "Where Did It Come From?" and producer of the award-winning family movie "LITTLE RED WAGON." For more information, go to
www.michaelguillen.com
[http://www.michaelguillen.com/&h=a...a3xn-hq1wgr8glggy0ygvvarmutz8j9m0y&s=1_white]
michaelguillen.com

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days, Lon & Stripe,

Regarding the article I posted above, it would seem to me that even the light that flashed when Jesus' Spirit returned back into His body was from the Holy Ghost and God, and caused the image on the Shroud of Turin. That's why there are no words to explain yet what happened to the cloth and how the image got there, without paint, ink, etc. I know what I'm talking about, but it's hard to explain it well enough to you. It's Jesus' shroud surely, and the image made was of a fluorescent light of hydrogen and helium coming together and the sparking of zinc particles. Can you understand what I'm saying here?? It's not a light like the Sun, but instead a glowing light that is very bright. Well, I hope I didn't butt in here too much. I thought this article was important and pertinent. It is not so long as it seems. Easy reading.

Thanks Tons All,

Michael

 

[Cross Reference]

http://www.reasons.org/about/photo-gallery
A must watch!!

 

[Jose Fly]

Another money back guarantee?

Yep.

How about you start by quoting what Stripe said.

Sure thing.

In post #191, I pointed out to Lon that evolutionary theory is the entire basis for the field of comparative genomics, which is how we discern genetic function.

In post #222, Stripe said I was "ignoring the possibility of a competing idea".

Then in post #227, Stripe claimed "they could have discovered the exact same results approaching the problem with another theory."

In post #229, I responded by asking "Then why aren't creationists doing exactly that?"

In post #231, Stripe said "They are."

So now I'm waiting for Stripe to post where creationists have used their model to discern genetic functions, and I'm guaranteeing he won't.

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words, the evidence doesn't really matter...its all evolution no matter what?

As we've been over before, all we ever see is evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. Every single time one of those things is generated, it's via evolution. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the same processes generated traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species in the past as well.

Then when we test this against the data, we find that applying this understanding of how things work gives us extremely accurate and useful results, as shown by the comparative genomics information I posted previously.

Now, if you're going to insist that everything was completely different in the past and traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species came about via some completely different mechanism, then it falls on you to 1) identify this mechanism, 2) show how you know it occurs/occured, and 3) use it to generate superior results to the current evolutionary framework.

Anything short of that and you're just spitting in the wind.

 

[6days]

...A must watch!!

I didnt get to watch all slides yet, but have a question about slide 1. It mentions ancient cities found and.....
"Gulf Oasis is the only location on the planet where the four rivers of Eden could come together."

But how could these cities.....or these rivers be connected with Eden? Scripture tells us that the world which existed then was destroyed by water; and our preseny world will be destroyed by fire. Your web site seems to think God didn't really destroy earth?

 

[6days]

In other words, the evidence doesn't really matter...its all evolution no matter what?

As we've been over before, all we ever see is evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

Your reply is a non reply.

But, yes...we have discussed how rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creation / flood model. The evidence is inconsistent with the common ancestry belief system. As mentioned above...evidencr does not seem to matter to evolutionists. Evolutionism is not science. Its simply a method (often counter intuitive) of explaining evidence within a false belief system.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your reply is a non reply.

Thanks for your time.

Now, where are those examples of creationists using their model to discern genetic function?

 

[Cross Reference]

I didnt get to watch all slides yet, but have a question about slide 1. It mentions ancient cities found and.....
"Gulf Oasis is the only location on the planet where the four rivers of Eden could come together."

But how could these cities.....or these rivers be connected with Eden? Scripture tells us that the world which existed then was destroyed by water; and our preseny world will be destroyed by fire. Your web site seems to think God didn't really destroy earth?

He didn't. Noah's flood merely destroyed those living on it except maybe for the fish. Have yu read the account? The earth will never be destroyed though the age we presently are a part of will be.

Hope you get a chance to view the rest of the slides. There aren't that many and speak much of creation as being the only way possible it all to have come together..

 

[6days]

Your web site seems to think God didn't really destroy earth?

He didn't.... Have yu read the account?

"never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." Gen. 9:11

" the world of that time was deluged and destroyed." 2 Peter 3:16