Creation vs. Evolution

[JosephR]

Isn't the Discovery Institute a creationist site?

From their site:

Ok, I see your point ,well then my next source,Chuck Missler is he considered biased as well? He belives in god too.But has an extensive technical background and has lead some of the most successful technology/science based company's, ie Western Digiyal ,most commonly know for making hard drives for computers.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

You're right. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but neither are you to say the least. At least I have and believe in a God Who loves me and Whom I can rely on to get me through the tough times. I would not trade you lives in a billion years.

Much Love Alwight!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

Thank you for your post. I do know that Alwight rebutted the thread and that FraterJoe regretted posting it. Also, I know now what you mean by strawman. Just because I don't know your lingo means I have not had to know about atheists and evolutionists for most of my life, because I am Christian and I hang around with them, not with agnostics. Please excuse me for getting your Theory of Evolution wrong, but I still believe that God created and formed man and woman, not evolution from apes or chimps. Do YOU finally get it? Seems like you can't get it right either. I've told you this over and over again. You say science proves science sooner or LATER. Well, I tell you that religion will prove religion in it's own time, sooner or LATER. Both take a while to prove themselves. Just give it a couple more years or less.

God Save Your Soul. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be trying to talk some sense into your head.

MichaelC

 

[alwight]

Dear Alwight,

You're right. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but neither are you to say the least.

Yes I can agree with that.

At least I have and believe in a God Who loves me and Whom I can rely on to get me through the tough times. I would not trade you lives in a billion years.

Much Love Alwight!

Michael

If your God cares and makes you happy Michael then I am truly delighted for you. Why he isn't quite so generous and forthcoming to some others I know personally must sadly remain a mystery perhaps.lain:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear FraterJoe,

Was the woman's bones found named Lucy?? Also, I know for a fact that God created the first DNA and cell, and that's why it's so intricate. I'm not saying religion, I'm speaking of a Higher Power. There is a Mastermind to all of this. You won't talk me out of it, for that is what I heard. The Bible does obscure Creation a bit and I've explained all of that on Page 1, Post 1 of this thread. There was one Creation of Man, and other re-forming of man by the Lord God. This is written as a record for us and has been kept hidden until now because our brains weren't ready for it previously. The time is now for us to learn of it all, because our minds are ready. No problem.

God Grant You Wisdom, Joe,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

Thank you for the kind words and thoughts. I hate to see you atheists not make it to heaven. It does make me want to cry. It is just a matter of poor upbringing and proper schooling in a Sunday School at a good church. I'm so sorry for all of you that you did not evidently have that.

Much Love Coming Your Way,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

Did I respond to your Strawman character well enough this time? I believe in Science too. I used to get A's all of the time. But I have to say, every little thing created was done by God. Even a caterpillar becoming a moth or butterfly. It starts out without wings, and God gives it wings. Now you can know how God creates wings and where they came from. God decided to give the caterpillar wings. That's why it happened. Just like a mosquito larvae getting wings also. You all got it??

All Of Us Our Brethren, In Christ Jesus,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear hedshaker,

I mentioned this on Knight's post, but I don't think I mentioned it on this thread. You see that God gives the caterpillar wings, to become a moth or butterfly. He gives wings to mosquito and housefly larvae, etc. He even gave wings to flying rodents/bats and birds also. So don't wonder why some creatures have wings or not. God determines who gets wings. It isn't some evolution story all of the time. God Bless You!!

MichaelC

 

[Hedshaker]

Ok, I see your point ,well then my next source,Chuck Missler is he considered biased as well? He belives in god too.But has an extensive technical background and has lead some of the most successful technology/science based company's, ie Western Digiyal ,most commonly know for making hard drives for computers.

Hello FraterJoseph.

It comes down to whether or not they have an agenda. the Discovery Institute is pro Intelligent Design, which no matter how you cut it, is Creationism by another name.

Creationism or Intelligent Design is not science, it is religion. Any notion put forward that cannot be falsified or investigated through rational methods of discovery is not science. If they have an undertone of theistic apologetics they are treated with suspicion by the science community, and rightly so.

If you want to see genuine a case of a Christian scientist who does real science then look to the Biologist Kenneth R. Miller. And Ken Miller is not alone, far from it.

I'm a none believer and I think Ken Miller is a star and he was instrumental at the Dover Trial in assuring that Intelligent Design is not taught in schools as science.. Please watch the video to see how a real Christian scientist should conduct the serious business of science. Enjoy :up:

Ken Miller on Intelligent Design And The Kitzmiller-Dover Trial

You seem an open minded sort FraterJoseph. I hope this post helps you put Intelligent Design in the dustbin where it belongs.

Cheers

 

[6days]

Creationism or Intelligent Design is not science, it is religion. Any notion put forward that cannot be falsified or investigated through rational methods of discovery is not science. If they have an undertone of theistic apologetics they are treated with suspicion by the science community, and rightly so.

Creationism is a belief exactly the same as evolutionism. Both sides uses the same evidence to support their beliefs. (Fossils, geological layers, DNA etc)

If you want to see genuine a case of a Christian scientist who does real science then look to the Biologist ... Ken Miller

Or, scientists such as geneticist Dr John Sanford, who says the evidence points to a recent creation.

 

[Hedshaker]

Creationism is a belief exactly the same as evolutionism. Both sides uses the same evidence to support their beliefs. (Fossils, geological layers, DNA etc)

So then, how does creationism support Endogenous retrovirus'

Or, scientists such as geneticist Dr John Sanford, who says the evidence points to a recent creation.

Yeah, just looked him up. No apologetics agenda there then :nono:

Can you point us to anything peer reviewed by the science community by this fellow?

Welcome to TOL, mind the hounds!

 

[alwight]

Creationism is a belief exactly the same as evolutionism. Both sides uses the same evidence to support their beliefs. (Fossils, geological layers, DNA etc)

Evidence is evidence that anyone can use, but it's how it is used is the point. AiG (YECs) in their Statement of Faith say:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith

So for perhaps most Young Earth Creationists at least it really doesn't matter whatever science may seem to show, even if apparently conclusively, if Genesis says something else then science is always deemed to be wrong.
YECs consider scripture to be evidence and an accurate and factual account. Mainstream science however does not consider Genesis (say) to be any kind of evidence let alone evidence sufficient to trump any rigorous science no matter what.

Or, scientists such as geneticist Dr John Sanford, who says the evidence points to a recent creation.

A notable YEC (and horticulturist) who can't believe his own findings if scripture contradicts them, which may be why he plays safe and sticks to flowers.

 

[alwight]

Welcome to TOL, mind the hounds!

Hounds?

 

[Hedshaker]

Hounds?

“The devil’s agents may be of flesh and blood, may they not?”
― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles

 

[6days]

So then, how does creationism support Endogenous retrovirus'[/URL]

I suspect you mean...'how do creationists interpret endogenous retronirus within the creationist framework?'
No so different from evolutionists who begin with a premise then interpret data to fit that premise. Evolutionists assumed certain things about ERV's based on their belief system. Creationists said "Wait, it is possible we don't understand ERV's completely yet." As we discover more and more that 'junk' DNA is a misnomer (and evolutionist assumptions incorrect).. And as we find more about the functions of "ERV's", we see the creationist position of design was correct.

Yeah, just looked him up. No apologetics agenda there then :nono:
Can you point us to anything peer reviewed by the science community by this fellow?

Certainly... Wikipedia says "... Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals"
Also take note of his inventions which have helped to feed billions of people.

Welcome to TOL, mind the hounds!

Hounds??.... only a cute little puppy so far...ha. I appreciate your welcome.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Hedshaker,

You're made of flesh and blood, are you not?

May God Help You In Your Life,

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

Welcome aboard!! Now you know what I'm faced with every day. The atheists will say anything to keep their fingernail grip on the edge of the building without falling off. Thanks so VERY MUCH for your IMMENSE HELP in these matters. I didn't go to college, but I have had better than that, and God's help has been with me for almost 40 years now (in March 2014). I've been in training during all those years.

May God BLESS And KEEP YOU SAFE AND WISE!!

MichaelCadry

 

[Yves21]

I believe we were created into one thing then we evolved from that.

Posted from the TOL App!

 

[Hedshaker]

repeat

 

[Hedshaker]

I suspect you mean...'how do creationists interpret endogenous retronirus within the creationist framework?'
No so different from evolutionists who begin with a premise then interpret data to fit that premise. Evolutionists assumed certain things about ERV's based on their belief system. Creationists said "Wait, it is possible we don't understand ERV's completely yet." As we discover more and more that 'junk' DNA is a misnomer (and evolutionist assumptions incorrect).. And as we find more about the functions of "ERV's", we see the creationist position of design was correct.

So there is no creationist explanation then? They look at the evidence, sideways through squinted eyes and see anything but the most parsimonious scientific explanation, common descent. So then, you should have no problem finding a peer reviewed (by the science community not a creationist site) paper that falsifies The Theory of Evolution in that respect. I wouldn't hold your breath. All creationists ever do is attempt to discredit evolution, as if by doing so their religious notions somehow becomes the only alternative. What they never do is show us how the evidence fits a creation model, thus leaving it open to be falsified.

ETA: Note that Ken Miller is a biology/evolutionary scientist not a Professor of Horticulture or David Beckham studies or some such. It's also of note that Ken Miller is also a Christian, as is the Judge at the Dover trial who ruled against Intelligent Design.

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERV's)

Certainly... Wikipedia says "... Sanford has published over 70 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals"
Also take note of his inventions which have helped to feed billions of people.

I see, inventions and papers in "Horticultural Sciences". And there was me thinking we were discussing creation vs evolution. So, to make it clear, can you point to his peer reviewed work in "Creation Science"?

When they start teaching creationism in schools, in science class, be sure to come back and tell us all about it.

Ken Miller on creationism in schools