Barbarian observes:
Evolution is directly observed.....
Evolution means "change." Which could be a lot of things. Hence, Darwin's preference for "descent with modification." Today, biological evolution is "change in allele frequency over time in populations."
You are making the fallacy of equivocation. *Change in allele frequency is observable science. Belief in a common ancestor is not observable science.
You equivocate on the word evolution.
Perhaps you don't know what "equivocation" means. It doesn't mean "precise definition" (see above) it means something like "the use of ambiguous langage to hide something." For example, trying to equate biological evolution to things like changes in music would be an example of equivocation.
If you mean change in allele frequency, then say what you mean.
That's what evolution is. I thought you knew; you talked as though you were familiar with the theory.
Evolutionism is a belief in a common ancestor which is not directly observed, and can't be falsified.
Barbarian observes:
That could be easily falsified. For example, if flies and dogs were genetically more alike than dogs and horses, it would falsify the notion of a common ancestor.
Using your logic... creationism is also falsifiable.
Could be, if they made testable predictions before the fact was known. I don't know of any examples right off, but maybe some exist. Tell us about them.
Your example would falsify the notion of common design.
Nope. For example, the advocates of "common design" claim that platypuses are like ducks because they have a superficially similarly-shape set of mouthparts. They seem completely unconcerned that the platypus is genetically much more closely related to other mammals than to any bird.
Moreover, when a bit of heme (fraction of a hemoglobin molecule) was found in dinosaur bone (some organic molecules can survive for millions of years in anoxic conditions) the heme was most like that of a bird, and unlike that of modern reptiles.
Which makes no sense at all to creationism, but was a prediction of science.
Barbarian observes:
One of the great problems in biology was how Linnaeus was able to make a tree of living things on Earth, as though they all descended from a common ancestor. Darwin explained how it happened, and of course, Mendel explained the way it was passed on.
I think it is a bit dishonest how you phrased that.
Nope. In fact, Mendel cleared up a serious problem for Darwin's theory. You see, Darwin was unable to explain how, if heredity was like mixing paint, how a new change could spread in a population. It would be like mixing a drop of red paint in a barrel of white. But Mendel showed that heredity was like sorting beads, and it became immediately clear how Darwin's theory was correct.
Linnaeus the father of modern taxonomy devised a classification system based on his belief that God created in an orderly fashion.
What he couldn't explain, as he admitted, was why his tree system worked for living things but nothing else. He tried the same thing with minerals and it didn't work. (Linnaeus thought minerals grew from mating of rocks, so it's clear why he thought a family tree might work) Darwin explained why it didn't work. A nested hierarchy like taxonomic trees, can only appear by common descent.
While Linnaeus used observable science, Darwin...not knowing genetics, extrapolated that maybe one kind can evolve into another kind.
And a great number of predictions, based on that theory, such as fish with functional legs, whales with functional legs, transitionals between humans and apes, feathered dinosaurs, and so on, have been confirmed to be true. This is why scientists overwhelmingly accept it.
It was a belief then..it remains a belief now
In the sense that scientist believe atoms are made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
Creationism is a belief in the sense that people believe in leprechauns.
even though science continues showing Darwinian beliefs are incorrect.
I'm guessing you didn't include any support for that belief, because you can't think of one right now.
And yes Mendel explained gentics. The more we understand genetics, the more reason we have to praise our Creator. (Science is worship, or should be to believers).
I was just out in a marsh a few weeks ago, and it happened to me, as it does so often, when I'm alone in His creation. On the shore, under a tree, a heron had just speared a small fish. As I went by, he froze under a willow, in some reeds, and for a moment, the invisible things, clearly seen were open to me. It is a moment of profound worship, and it is only heightened by knowing some of the details of creation.
It's why I spend time there, alone. Creation is more wonderful, as you learn more and more about it.
And, the more we understand genetics, the better we realize how impossible evolutionism is.
Mendel disagreed with you. So do almost all biologists. For the reasons I mentioned above.
What can be directly observes is processes such as adaptation, natural selection, genetic drift etc...all processes which fit Biblical creation model.
Barbarian observes:
No. None of those are Biblical, and creationists never mentioned them until science revealed them.
Do I sense you are anxious to find fault with Gods Word?
Creationists are not God, although some of them often presume to correct Him.
God created our universe in an orderly fashion that makes science possible. Many...likely the majority of scientists who are considered fathers of modern science believed that the Bible was literally true.
Not Eratosthenes, nor Democritus, nor Newton, nor Kepler, nor Einstein. When he wrote
The Origin of Species Darwin did of course, but he later became an agnostic.
That belief lead scientists to formulate ideas such as natural selection
Nope. Neither Wallace nor Darwin did so. And although some scientists earlier had speculated that environment might change species, they had no evidence nor a comprehensive theory explaining how.
that earth revolves around the sun etc etc.
Luther and Calvin correctly asserted that interpreting the Bible in a strictly literal sense would rule out the Earth moving at all.
Adaptation, genetic drift, sexual selection, change in allele frequency are observable science which correspond with the Biblical account of the creation and fall.
Nope. None of that is in the Bible. There are many things that are true, that are not in the Bible.
For example in genetics the same prediction can often be made based on common designer or common ancestor.
Barbarian observes:
No. For example, the problem of broken genes in closely related organisms is an insoluble puzzle for creationism, but makes perfect sense in light of evolution.
As a Christian, why not accept that God's Word is truth...
It is. It's just not compatible with Creationism. For example, Genesis rules out the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.
And that "broken genes" are evidence of the Biblical account.
No. The Bible says nothing about that.
( Also genetic reaearch is now finding many of these "broken genes" are not broken at all but serve important purposes. )
Show me what the vitamin C gene in primates is for.
We know from God's Word that evolutionism is not true..
In fact, nothing God has told us contradicts evolution
No, equivocating would be things like trying to connect changes in music with biological evolution.
Evolutionism does contradict God's Word.
Nope. It contradicts creationism, but as I said, many forms of creationism are not consistent with God's word.
For example it puts death before sin.
Now, that's an equivocation. The "death" God told Adam about in the Garden was not a physical death, but a spiritual one that did not appear before sin. We know this, because God told Adam he would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years after.
Never the less.... "rabbits in the Cambrian" are often found but dismissed by evolutionists with a wave of their magical evolutionary wand. For example complex sophisticated vision/eyes exists in some of the creature evolutionists think represent the earliest creatures.
Barbarian observes:
You've been misled about that. The earliest trilobite-like organisms were eyeless. Later on, primitive eyes appear in trilobites. And then more complicated ones. Would you like to learn about it?
You are hardly in a position to teach evolutionary beliefs when you dont understand it yourself.
I've spent a lifetime studying biology. So I know a bit about it, perhaps more than you suspect.
Dr John Paterson on shrimp eyes says “ … there was no evidence for eyes in organisms that lived before the Cambrian Explosion—a rapid increase in the diversity of life that began about 540 million years ago.
Actually, there were eyeless arthropods or pre-arthropods in the Precambrian. A number of different species of the Ediacaran fauna were like that. Eyes appeared later. As your source admits, they evolved rapidly, but still over millions of years. Over the 300 million years of their existence on Earth, they evolved three major types of eyes, with many, many variations. That's a long time.
The latest find showed sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye.”.
No more than 10 million years. But there are other, also extremely useful mutations that have appears that rapidly.
There you have it... no evidence.
Did you read the article?
He discusses the evidence for evolution.
You can arrange your charts showing eye evolution from a "simple" light sensitive cell, but your chart is fantasy.
Nope. Start a new thread on "evidence for evolution of eyes" and we'll talk about it. The evidence is voluminous and from many different lines of evidence. Too big for a bunny trail here, but I'd really like to talk about it.
Complex sohisticated vision is a rabbit in the cambrian...its evidence against Darwinism...
Even the guy you cited, thinks it's evidence for evolution.
You mean as I believe in God?
Or I believe someone is a good person?
Or "I believe I'll have another Guinness?"
Or "based on the evidence, scientists believe that an atom is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons."
Put me down for that last one, in this case.
Gods Word and the Creation account are harmonious with science, but not with evolutionism.
I understand you want to believe this. But it comes down to evidence. As you see, nothing in the Bible contradicts evolution, but it does contradict YE creationism.
