Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Of course there is, just as there are evolutionist explanations.
Evolutionists assume Erv's are the result of common ancestry, mutations and natural selection.
Creationists assume Erv's are the result of a Common Designer, mutations and natural selection.

So what is the creation explanation then? What common designer?

Science doesn't tell us who the designer is, but evidence such as functionality and complex codes are evidence of a designer.

Evidence please.

The functionality of Erv's is evidence. I think you understand that both evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. (Same DNA, same mutations, the same fossils , the same universe etcetera).

Did you watch the video? After you've presented empirical evidence for a common designer,

Coming right up....soon as you present empirical evidence of a common ancestor.
Actually... neither of us can provide empirical evidence of the past. We can perform science on things here today, then interpret data about the past.
No.. I haven't watched the video recently. I think I have seen it 3 times previously. Miller is good and entertaining but he draws conclusions bases on some false assumptions. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to watch it again.

please explain how it trumps common descent as a clear and parsimonious explanation as per the video provided. But if you don't like that video there's loads more

Clear and parsimonious? I consider it muddy and convoluted. If I get a chance this coming weekend I will ' critique' it for you. However, I don't expect to convince you of anything, because we both look at such things through our own biased perspective.

Correct, sort of...it is no problem finding peer reviewed scientific articles in scientific journals by PhD scientists poking holes in ToE. The theory itself is not falsifiable though. It is like a fog that covers all landscapes.
BTW
Are you referring to evolutionist journals, or creationist journals?

Science journals. That would exclude anything with "creation" in the title

False and you are revealing just how biased your position is.
Journals are a private business that cater to a certain market. Creationist peer reviewed journals are highly unlikely to publish articles supporting ToE. Their subscribers would not be happy. Likewise with evolution based journals such as Nature, Both type of journals publish peer reviewed articles, written by PhD scientists.

When you are shown your assumptions are wrong, do you always try and cover with fallacy type arguments?
Moving the goal posts...you asked if Sanford had "anything peer reviewed by the science community".
The answer is yes... many times. So, play nice... admit Sanford understands genetics, and that he believes the evidence supports a young earth.
After you admit a field goal was scored, not a touchdown; and if you have other questions, or want to discuss "Creation science" ( whatever that is) we can.

You presented Sanford's view as an alternative to Ken Miller, who is a biology/evolution scientist so I naturally thought we were on the same page regarding the subject of peer reviewed science. Anyone can be reviewed in a different field but that doesn't give them credence regarding the subject at hand.

Nope.. I don't accept that explanation. If that was what you meant, or thought, you should have said that. I will remind you again that you asked if Sanford had anything peer reviewed by the scientific community. Indeed he has... over 70 articles in secular journals on the topic of genetics. In addition, Sanford may have an article or two in creationist journals.

As a geneticist, Sanford understands ToE just as well as Miller. In fact, Sanford was a committed evolutionist unit recent years.

But you're right about one thing. There is no such thing as Creation Science. My bad

Yeah... I think its sort of a meaningless term.
Sort of like 'evolution science' would be a fuzzy meaningless definition.

Science should be taught in the science classroom. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss the evidence no matter where it leads. They perhaps should even have the freedom to even discuss pros and cons of evolutionism. Right?

Call me old fashioned but I believe only science should be taught in the science class. And religion in theology class.

We agree!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dearest 6days,

I CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH!!! Seems like I have to stand alone against all of these atheists or evolutionists, or whatever moniker they please to have. You are COOL!! You must have went to QUITE A SCHOOL to be so wise.

Please help me on the other Evolution site also. I could use all the help I can get, and you are EXTREMELY helpful!!

God Bless You In The Highest!!

Michael

 

[6days]

Dear noguru,

My vast track record on this site has this thread alone past 14,000 visits and many reads and posts. Your double-talk does not change the fact that you just like to try to blow up at people for your own devious reasons.

Yes, I have admitted when I was wrong on this site when it was pointed out and it was true. I apologized and said I was sorry, and asked for forgiveness. You don't know as much as you like to spew. I am far from being a liar or a coward. If I'm a liar, then what I've said on Post 928, Pg. 62, will not happen, will it, as you say. Let's see what time brings. You sure are a volatile human being for a Christian.

Excuse Me For Having To Defend Myself,

Michael

Hey Michael...
I enjoy your posts.
But, you really don't need to respond to intolerant and hostile posters. I don't know about you, but I'm not here to get stressed out by people like that. Why not respond only to those who seem interested in debating / discussing?
I do see people here who can debate intelligently without the name calling, so respond to them.

God bless!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

Please see my Post No. 928 on Page 62 of this thread. I would love to get your feedback on it.

GOD BLESS YOUR HEART INDEED!!

MichaelC

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

They call me names and urge me on to call them names. I don't do it first. But I don't like to be confrontational at all. They just like to goad me into it. I will take your advice at heart though and ponder it. You are a marvelous person and I want us to be friends, if you'd like, I would like to add you to my Friend's Wall. Let me know if you want to be friends.

Thanks tons,

Michael

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

They call me names and urge me on to call them names. I don't do it first. But I don't like to be confrontational at all. They just like to goad me into it. I will take your advice at heart though and ponder it. You are a marvelous person and I want us to be friends, if you'd like, I would like to add you to my Friend's Wall. Let me know if you want to be friends.

Thanks tons,

Michael

SURE

I'm not sure how much time I can be on this site. But, don't let people get to you. Just keep letting Jesus shine through your life. I'm shutting down for the night.

 

[6days]

Dear 6days,

Please see my Post No. 928 on Page 62 of this thread. I would love to get your feedback on it.

GOD BLESS YOUR HEART INDEED!!

MichaelC

I will try reply tomorrow...

 

[noguru]

If anyone is interested in whether 6days is being honest with us here is what wiki has about Dr. John Sanford's support in proposing ID in the Kansas evolution hearings. Also here is an interesting quote from there that I think summarizes 6days as well as Sanford's motivations regarding criticisms of evolution.

This is from Borofsky, who was Dembski's personal assistant during that time.

"It really is ID in disguise. The entire purpose behind all of this is to shift it into schools...at least that is the hope/fear among some science teachers in the area. The problem is, if you are not going to be dogmatic in Darwinism that means you inevitably have to point out a fault or at least an alternative to Darwinism. So far, the only plausible theory is ID. If one is to challenge Darwin, then one must use ID. To challenge Darwin is to challenge natural selection/spontaneous first cause...which is what the Kansas board is attempting to do. When you do that, you have to invoke the idea of ID.

I think Borofsky is the only honest one in the bunch. Because the other researchers from Discovery Institute as well as 6days and MichaelCadry keep denying that they are trying to teach their religion in the science classroom. However, it is quite obvious that they are all lying about this.

Here is another interesting portion of that article:

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association spoke out against the new science standards; in addition to separate statements from each opposing the standards, the two groups issued a joint statement that the new Kansas standards are improved, but as currently written, they overemphasize controversy in the theory of evolution and distort the definition of science. The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association offered to work with the board to resolve these issues so the state standards could use text from the National Research Council's National Science Education Standards and National Science Teachers Association's Pathways to Science Standards, though they ultimately declined to grant use of the text due to Kansas State Board of Education members insisting on language "emphasizing controversy in the theory of evolution" and "distorting the definition of science."

The position of the scientific community is that there is no controversy to teach, that evolution is widely accepted within the scientific community as a valid, well-supported theory and that such disagreements that do exist are about the details of evolution's mechanisms, not the validity of evolution itself.

For example the National Association of Biology Teachers in a statement endorsing evolution as noncontroversial quoted Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." and went on to state that the quote "accurately reflects the central, unifying role of evolution in biology. The theory of evolution provides a framework that explains both the history of life and the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes." They emphasized that "Scientists have firmly established evolution as an important natural process" and that "The selection of topics covered in a biology curriculum should accurately reflect the principles of biological science. Teaching biology in an effective and scientifically honest manner requires that evolution be taught in a standards-based instructional framework with effective classroom discussions and laboratory experiences."

 

[intojoy]

Mikec,

View attachment 18244

Your puttin me to sleep bro


Posted from the TOL App!

 

[intojoy]

At least I know if its 3am you'll be on TOL




Posted from the TOL App!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear 6days,

OK! I would really appreciate your feedback on it. I'm going to send you a Friend Request. Thank you once again so very much. I'm sorry I was off of the puter for quite a bit there.

God Bless You More Than Words Can Do Justice,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I am not trying to teach religion in the classroom. I go to the classroom to be taught Science. I just do not believe in Darwinism or Evolution. I believe other things in Science class. Like how tadpoles grow legs after being like fish; and caterpillars growing wings and becoming butterflies or moths. God determined all of this and made it all this way. Just like He gave some rodents wings like bats. But I do like learning about all of these creatures, but not someone's assumption that they weren't created separately from each other. Certain ones, of course.

Enough for now.

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

I am not trying to teach religion in the classroom. I go to the classroom to be taught Science. I just do not believe in Darwinism or Evolution. I believe other things in Science class. Like how tadpoles grow legs after being like fish; and caterpillars growing wings and becoming butterflies or moths. God determined all of this and made it all this way. Just like He gave some rodents wings like bats. But I do like learning about all of these creatures, but not someone's assumption that they weren't created separately from each other. Certain ones, of course.

Enough for now.

No Michael, that is "enough" from you for the future as well.

What you choose to believe or not is irrelevant to the reality. You keep demonstrating that your judgement is not to be trusted. You claim to have a "good" understanding of science, but what you demonstrate is quite different. You don't have the slightest idea of what assumptions in philosophy are, or how that applies to the matter of science. This is all jumbled up in your head because of your muddied thinking. I do not "just accept" your assumptions on this, because you do not even know what they are.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

I am not an imbecile. I can understand all of what you are writing. My vocabulary handles that just fine. I can spell words you can't even pronounce. I was in Spelling Bees as the last one standing. I was in Merit Algebra Trig. classes, Human Physiology classes (I was going to be a doctor. I asked God for some other way to help people besides saving their lives, and I could think of nothing. Then later He said I will help you save people's souls instead of their lives. So I didn't need a doctor's education. I am quite capable in the English language. I was a writer in school and had a few things published. In school, I studied writing heavily. Had many Creative Writing classes. So don't worry about me. Thanks!

God Be Near To You Noguru!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Antidisestablishmentarianism; pneumonaultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis;

Do you See. One is a creed and one is a disease of the lungs.

God Bless,

MichaelC

 

[noguru]

Antidisestablishmentarianism; pneumonaultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis;

Do you See. One is a creed and one is a disease of the lungs.

God Bless,

MichaelC

How old are you Michael?

 

[Hedshaker]

Science doesn't tell us who the designer is, but evidence such as functionality and complex codes are evidence of a designer.

Sorry no it isn't. It is evidence for natural functionality and complex codes, nothing more IMO.

The functionality of Erv's is evidence. I think you understand that both evolutionists and creationists use the same evidence. (Same DNA, same mutations, the same fossils , the same universe etcetera).

I understand that scientists do all the hard work and then creationists come along and claim the evidence uncovered supports their assertions. But no one doing genuine science (which includes many Christians) takes them seriously any more than they do flat Earthers, big foot spotters and other wack-jobs.

Coming right up....soon as you present empirical evidence of a common ancestor.

Watch the video, the one on ERV's. Parsimony and Occam's Razor greatly favours common descent over any supernatural flim flam.

Actually... neither of us can provide empirical evidence of the past. We can perform science on things here today, then interpret data about the past.
No.. I haven't watched the video recently. I think I have seen it 3 times previously. Miller is good and entertaining but he draws conclusions bases on some false assumptions. Perhaps on the weekend I might have time to watch it again.

The evidence for evolution is abundant. It makes no difference what you think or your opinion of scientists like Ken Miller. Science will continue to progress just fine without you.

Clear and parsimonious? I consider it muddy and convoluted. If I get a chance this coming weekend I will ' critique' it for you. However, I don't expect to convince you of anything, because we both look at such things through our own biased perspective.

Yes of course you do, as would be the case with anything that doesn't comply with your cherished beliefs. Reality suits me just fine, warts an all. But please don't bother doing a "critique" I can only swim the murky waters of creationist apologetics for so long before I suffocate.

False and you are revealing just how biased your position is.
Journals are a private business that cater to a certain market. Creationist peer reviewed journals are highly unlikely to publish articles supporting ToE. Their subscribers would not be happy. Likewise with evolution based journals such as Nature, Both type of journals publish peer reviewed articles, written by PhD scientists.

That's right, I'm biased toward reality. Scepticism is the heart of the scientific method after all and science is pretty successful at enhancing all our lives through medicine and technology. Creationism appears to be an old boys club among a minority of Christians.

Nope.. I don't accept that explanation.

Suit your self, it's the best you're going to get. I'm not here to pander to your expectations'

As a geneticist, Sanford understands ToE just as well as Miller. In fact, Sanford was a committed evolutionist unit recent years.

What is an Evolutionist? Not that I really care so probably best you don't answer that. You either accept the evidence for what it is, deny it, or claim it really supports some cherished belief or other, AFAIK. Asides, is Sanford at liberty to suggest otherwise even if he wanted to? This was brought up here.

Yeah... I think its sort of a meaningless term.
Sort of like 'evolution science' would be a fuzzy meaningless definition.

Except The Theory of Evolution is an actual science theory and creationism is a religious notion built of ancient creation myths.

We agree!

Good, on that note I'm done with this. I don't do long drawn out, repetitive conversations that go on for weeks and go no where. You're not going to change my view nor I yours.

I'll be interested to see your reply to nogugu's posts though, assuming you have nothing to fear there. You do seem to be ignoring other posters who have opposed your views in this thread.

Thanks for the chat...... :wave2:

 

[gcthomas]

Just like He gave some rodents wings like bats.

Oh dear.

Bats are less related to rodents than they are to humans. (Bats don't, for example, have the continually growing incisors that all rodents have.)

 

[noguru]

Oh dear.

Bats are less related to rodents than they are to humans. (Bats don't, for example, have the continually growing incisors that all rodents have.)

On average Michael is wrong 5 out of 6 six times whenever he comments on his understanding of science. I think this is indicative of the quality of education he sought, as well as his high level of oblivion regarding his own incompetence in science.

 

[6days]

I'm not trying to push Creationism as a science. Far from it. I'm trying to state that there is such a thing as the Creation and that there is such a thing as science.

True.
Creationism is the belief that God created. We know its true because its in Gods Word, the Bible.
Science is what God created for us to discover the world around us. Modern science is rooted in Christianity and the Biblical belief that God created our universe in an orderly fashion that could be discovered and understood.

So, Michael. You are correct that there is such a thing as creationism and science. Sometimes creationists can make mistakes in what they say or believe. However, Gods Word never makes mistakes. Science and Gods Word are always harmonious.