Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

does not say there are other Creators. It DOES say we are not to have other gods. I think everyone has a 'god' or two. Some people have a girlfriend that is their god; others have booze, or education, or sex, or sports, or.....

So now in the most typical apologetic manner, you're going to exclaim that the meaning of "GOD" is not consistent throughout the bible.

You are being foolish.*

Words often have various meanings defined by context.*

 

[6days]

So in your opinion:
Religion != highly religious belief system

pls do explain

Perhaps quote what I really said instead of creating strawman arguments.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, welcome to my world, trying to have a normal conversation with this guy......

Oh, get used to it. But at least he does agree with us that creationism is merely a belief and not a science, and doesn't contribute anything to science.

Of course he thinks the same thing about evolution, but he's been shown to be wrong on that so many times, it's become sort of a running joke.

 

[alwight]

Originally Posted by alwight
How exactly is "Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong."?

In much the same way that science proved evolutionists wrong on things like "junk DNA" and "useless appendix". *Evolutionists commonly attribute lack of function to common ancestry because of their belief system. Then science often shoes it was not a lack of function, but instead a lack of knowledge. *(Likewise with Dawkins arguments about poor design, science shows that it is his arguments that are poorly designed)

I don't believe that "junk DNA" (non-coding DNA) was ever declared useless and simply acquire that flippant title which is perhaps not too helpful these days since YECs clearly like to use it to show how science has got it all wrong.
(This has all been gone over before btw.)

As for the appendix, even if there is now a proposed immunological function going on within it, that still doesn't alter the probability of it being a vestigial remnant from a more distant time and diet. It isn't an example of science being wrong but is imo an example of science improving its knowledge.

It isn't "evolutionists" who are producing evidence and conclusions of common ancestry it is all the natural sciences (eg ERVs). It's up to free thinking individuals to decide for themselves whether they find it convincing or not. If you otoh have a prior commitment to believe in something else come what may then that's your business. lain:

 

[6days]

we are wonderfully made

we are wonderfully made

In much the same way that science proved evolutionists wrong on things like "junk DNA" and "useless appendix". *Evolutionists commonly attribute lack of function to common ancestry because of their belief system. Then science often shows it was not a lack of function, but instead a lack of knowledge. (Likewise with Dawkins arguments about poor design, science shows that it is his arguments that are poorly designed)

I don't believe that "junk DNA" (non-coding DNA) was ever declared useless

I didn't say it was called useless. However other derogatory terms besides "junk" was used. (Parasite, flotsam (garbage), or like R. Dawkins say that most of the genome may as well not be there for all the difference it makes). Science continues to prove those evolutionary beliefs are false.

and simply acquire that flippant title which is perhaps not too helpful these days since YECs clearly like to use it to show how science has got it all wrong.

Science didn't get it wrong. Evolutionists got it wrong. *Creationists were correct in saying that future research may reveal function/ and non function can also be interpreted as a loss caused by thousands of years of mutations.*

As for the appendix, even if there is now a proposed immunological function going on within it....

http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/10151

*that still doesn't alter the probability of it being a vestigial remnant from a more distant time and diet.

It does not alter the probability that our appendix may have had even more function in the past and lost some functionality due to mutations.

It isn't an example of science being wrong but is imo an example of science improving its knowledge.

Science wasn't wrong.

Science is never wrong.*

The evolutionists were wrong.*

The evolutionist are almost always wrong.*

They start with the wrong assumptions then try make the data fit their beliefs.

It isn't "evolutionists" who are producing evidence and conclusions of common ancestry.....

Of course it IS evolutionists who are coming up with all those wrong conclusions.
*It was evolutionary beliefs that caused many scientists to ignore non-coding DNA for so many years.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that caused so-called pseudogenes to be ignored thinking they were biological remnants.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that led to Neanderthals being called subhuman and dimwitted.
ETC

These are exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully*and*wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and*that*my soul knoweth right well." Psalms 139:14*

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis,

Oh yeah, stick out a magazine, having an article by Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, or Lord Kelvin and see how well that is received. By millions, eh? The Bible is the best seller, not your scientists' writings. Who are you kidding??

Stay Calm,

Michael

Let’s apply a less superficial test than the number of sales of a book. Your Bible has been around for some 20 millennia. In the first 1800 years of that time span, civilization advanced from chariots to stage coaches. Then those new ideas of Newton and such came into vogue, and in 10% of the time the Bible had existed, science led to international travel at 35,000 feet altitude while watching movies, real-time talking with friends in other countries, men walking on the moon, eradication of some deadly diseases, etc. etc. The scorecard is hardly in favor of your tribal creation tales when compared with science. Who were you trying to kid?

 

[DavisBJ]

Alwight asked 6days:

… How exactly is "Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong."?

6days responded:

In much the same way that science proved evolutionists wrong on things like "junk DNA" and "useless appendix". Evolutionists commonly attribute lack of function to common ancestry because of their belief system. Then science often shoes it was not a lack of function, but instead a lack of knowledge. (Likewise with Dawkins arguments about poor design, science shows that it is his arguments that are poorly designed)

Notice the dodge on 6days’ part? Alwight asked for specifics on pseudogenes and ERVs, and 6days simply says that science found it was wrong on junk DNA and useless appendix. Not one specific detail about why either the pseudogene argument or the ERV argument is wrong.

 

[DavisBJ]

Thinking of 6days, I contemplated:

I wonder what it would be like to be in your shoes, knowing that hundreds of PhDs every year are awarded using and advancing science that you think is fallacious.

6 days seemed to take exception:

Pfffft...

Come, come my friend. You know that statement isn't true.

I honestly don’t know what 6 days thinks isn’t true. Within 10 feet of me a have the most recent several thousand issues of “Science”, and almost every issue has detailed articles about aspects of Darwinian evolution, stars that are millions of years old, geology reaching back millions of years. Maybe 6 days thinks those are just hallucinations, less reliable than a creation fable from nomads that lived thousands of years ago?

 

[DavisBJ]

6 days has said (several times lately):

...Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "useless appendix" were wrong.

I agree with 6 days. But more importantly, I wonder why 6days is quite careful to always append the adjective “useless” in front of the word “appendix”. I am pretty sure he is trying to discredit the concept of vestigial organs, but being vestigial does not require that the organ be useless. 6 days prefers to avoid the real issue of vestigial?

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

I think that reading the way in which Noah was supposed to build his ark was highly interesting. I think of it more than I used to as I have grown. Have any of you atheists really checked it out?? … Let me know what you think.

Michael

I think that if entertainment value is what you are seeking, then I recommend “The Lord of the Rings”. It involves spirits (you know about spirits), big boats, travels to new lands, heroes, bad guys, magic spells, - almost like a repackaging of the Genesis type of account. Try it, you would love it.

 

[DavisBJ]

… Logic tells us that something which has existed uncaused, throughout eternity, caused everything.

What does “eternity” mean, if time does not exist?

 

[DavisBJ]

6days, referring to the Bible:

How many of those god's have provided a inerrant history book of real events and real people?

Oh yes, you have made it clear that you consider the Bible to be historically accurate. I was not a history major in college, but I did take some history classes. I am sure I would have remembered if “history” such as a pile of mud getting up and walking around and talking had been mentioned, or wooden staffs composed largely of cellulose, when thrown down, transformed into reptiles with lungs and circulatory system and a skeleton and a digestive system, or that a river composed of primarily H2O molecules suddenly was loaded with hemoglobin, or that the outcome of battles depended on whether or not one of the commanders could hold his arm out or not. Can you point me to a text used in the history department of any major university that includes these items?

 

[DavisBJ]

Many atheists believe many things. For example, atheists BELIEVE that life came from non life. Atheism often is not an absence of belief, but it is a highly religious belief system.

I believe that life came from non –life. I also believe my shoes will be by my bed in the morning, right where I took them off. In both cases – life from non-life, and the location of my shoes, I might be wrong. Does my belief about my shoes staying put qualify as a religious belief system?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I didn't say it was called useless. However other derogatory terms besides "junk" was used. (Parasite, flotsam (garbage), or like R. Dawkins say that most of the genome may as well not be there for all the difference it makes). Science continues to prove those evolutionary beliefs are false.

Science didn't get it wrong. Evolutionists got it wrong. *Creationists were correct in saying that future research may reveal function/ and non function can also be interpreted as a loss caused by thousands of years of mutations.*

http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/news_and_publications/news_office/news/10151


It does not alter the probability that our appendix may have had even more function in the past and lost some functionality due to mutations.


Science wasn't wrong.

Science is never wrong.*

The evolutionists were wrong.*

The evolutionist are almost always wrong.*

They start with the wrong assumptions then try make the data fit their beliefs.


Of course it IS evolutionists who are coming up with all those wrong conclusions.
*It was evolutionary beliefs that caused many scientists to ignore non-coding DNA for so many years.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that caused so-called pseudogenes to be ignored thinking they were biological remnants.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that led to Neanderthals being called subhuman and dimwitted.
ETC

These are exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully*and*wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and*that*my soul knoweth right well." Psalms 139:14*

Dear 6days,

You're doing a wonderful job. I know it's rough sometimes though. Yes, these are exciting times for Christians and non-Christians alike. We are actually living in the time of Jesus' 2nd Coming!! Just because I got the season wrong doesn't mean it's not going to happen. I was just mistaken. I wasn't alone. Many churches and religious organizations made the same mistake. I find the future more exciting than ever!! These are AWESOME times that we live in, especially for those who already believe in Jesus Christ and in God. Can you believe that many men from the past wish they lived in these days?!! And we are!! COOL!! I can hardly wait. I am chomping at the bit!!

But others don't share my passion. I care about them and want them to accompany us, not be left without. That is why I'm here. Why should I be with those who already know that He's returning soon? I'm here, with people who need that extra boost to rise above their misgivings about God being a myth or story!! He is REAL!! 6days and I know that. So do many others. Interplanner, patrick jane & everready know it also. I could go on and on. Do you want me to?? This is going to be the best thing that could happen to someone!! 6days and I shouldn't care what happens to anyone else if they don't want to believe. We can leave you all behind in the dust, if that's what you want. Either way, you can come around, or 6days and I, etc. will go alone, with our other Christian Friends!! There's one more time to change your mind and that is what 6days and I are trying to do because we love you brothers very much!! Don't fall into a pit. Grab a branch. I know it's like quicksand. Anyone could make the same mistake. Never forget, you guys; God Loves You Too, if you are wondering!! O well, I will get going!!

God Be With My Atheist Brethren, In Spite Of Themselves!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :guitar:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

6days, referring to the Bible:

Oh yes, you have made it clear that you consider the Bible to be historically accurate. I was not a history major in college, but I did take some history classes. I am sure I would have remembered if “history” such as a pile of mud getting up and walking around and talking had been mentioned, or wooden staffs composed largely of cellulose, when thrown down, transformed into reptiles with lungs and circulatory system and a skeleton and a digestive system, or that a river composed of primarily H2O molecules suddenly was loaded with hemoglobin, or that the outcome of battles depended on whether or not one of the commanders could hold his arm out or not. Can you point me to a text used in the history department of any major university that includes these items?

Dear DavisBJ,

A pile of mud didn't get up and walk around talking. A flesh and blood creation called man was created using Intense Chemistry which our God, being a Master Chemist, is quite able to do. You sell Him short!! And yes, God can easily change a staff into a snake, and so did the magicians besides Him did. Except his snake ate up those two smaller snakes. Ahh, and the river ran red. It doesn't necessarily mean it was blood/hemoglobin. It could have been turned red by another means. Look at the blood moon. It is red, 'like' blood, but not actually blood. Just appears like blood. You are without Faith, that is all. You don't know that many miracles that the Lord did were exceptional, possible, and actually done by Him. God is able to raise up men from a few rocks in a pile. He is the Chemist that you are NOT. That is all. Those who have Faith will make it to be with Him. Believe without actually seeing. Like the oxygen/air that we breathe. We know it's there because we breathe it. We know that the wind is there because we feel it. But we cannot see it!! I don't know how you can't figure out these things.

Well, I've got to get going for a couple hours. Will be back!! Much Love Coming Your Way!!

God Bless You, Davis,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DavisBJ,

What does “eternity” mean, if time does not exist?

Time exists and eternity is forever. Time is just irrelevant. Just like the devil, Satan, shall be in the Lake of Fire forever. Same with his father, Lucifer. And his antichrist and false prophet, both of them shall be cast in the lake of fire. If our Sun dies out, then another younger Sun will replace it, as God will have it. When He says that they shall burn forever, He means it.

They Can't Get Out Of It!!

Michael

:think: :rapture: :rapture: :rapture: :angel:

 

[alwight]

In much the same way that science proved evolutionists wrong on things like "junk DNA" and "useless appendix". *Evolutionists commonly attribute lack of function to common ancestry because of their belief system. Then science often shows it was not a lack of function, but instead a lack of knowledge. (Likewise with Dawkins arguments about poor design, science shows that it is his arguments that are poorly designed)

I don't believe that "junk DNA" (non-coding DNA) was ever declared useless

I didn't say it was called useless. However other derogatory terms besides "junk" was used. (Parasite, flotsam (garbage), or like R. Dawkins say that most of the genome may as well not be there for all the difference it makes). Science continues to prove those evolutionary beliefs are false.

But Dawkins is a scientist, subject to peer review, who like almost all natural scientists of whatever theistic position, have no doubts at all about common descent without having to be entitled as "evolutionists".

Your attempts to divide off "evolutionists" as somehow misrepresenting science rather than just presenting it honestly, is just a baseless assertion. If what is said does not relate to real science then the time to point that out is at the time not now that your accusations can no longer be examined.

and simply acquire that flippant title which is perhaps not too helpful these days since YECs clearly like to use it to show how science has got it all wrong.

Science didn't get it wrong. Evolutionists got it wrong. *Creationists were correct in saying that future research may reveal function/ and non function can also be interpreted as a loss caused by thousands of years of mutations.*

I'd be more of the opinion that non-coding "Junk" DNA represents a possible historical insight into a very long evolutionary journey. I'd also suggest that if life today has only existed for as long as YECs would have us all believe then there would be very little "Junk DNA" to speak of, if any. Its mere existence is yet more evidence that life has been around for a very long time indeed.

As for the appendix, even if there is now a proposed immunological function going on within it....

http://corporate.dukemedicine.org/ne...ice/news/10151

*that still doesn't alter the probability of it being a vestigial remnant from a more distant time and diet.

It does not alter the probability that our appendix may have had even more function in the past and lost some functionality due to mutations.

Whatever, but in your worldview there is no reasonably adequate amount of time for any such long term adaption, for anything to become considered as probably vestigial and having had a previous established long term function.

It isn't an example of science being wrong but is imo an example of science improving its knowledge.

Science wasn't wrong.

Science is never wrong.*

The evolutionists were wrong.*

The evolutionist are almost always wrong.*

They start with the wrong assumptions then try make the data fit their beliefs.

I rather suspect 6days that your "evolutionists" are simply something plucked from your imagination. Concluding that Darwinian evolution just is a better and more rational explanation for modern life being as it is than that offered by a literalist interpretation of Genesis doesn't make me feel that I do so as an "evolutionist". In my mind at least what I advocate is whatever I consider to be evidence based, scientifically verifiable, reasonable and rational, not because I have an overarching agenda to push evolution.

It isn't "evolutionists" who are producing evidence and conclusions of common ancestry.....

Of course it IS evolutionists who are coming up with all those wrong conclusions.
*It was evolutionary beliefs that caused many scientists to ignore non-coding DNA for so many years.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that caused so-called pseudogenes to be ignored thinking they were biological remnants.

* it was evolutionary beliefs that led to Neanderthals being called subhuman and dimwitted.
ETC

You may not like the scientific conclusions and try to reassign them to something you call "evolutionists" but like it or not natural science as a whole has nevertheless concluded that common descent is for all intents and purposes a real fact of life.

As one of your so called "evolutionists" 6days I personally never came to any conclusions about how clever, dim-witted or subhuman any earlier races of humans were. Evolution imo tends to produce creatures that are able to cope with their environment and being dim-witted is hardly a selectable attribute.

These are exciting times for Christians as science helps confirm the truth of God's Word.
"I will praise thee; for I am fearfully*and*wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and*that*my soul knoweth right well." Psalms 139:14*

Psalms 139:19-22

 

[6days]

*believe that life came from non –life. I also believe my shoes will be by my bed in the morning, right where I took them off. In both cases – life from non-life, and the location of my shoes, I might be wrong. Does my belief about my shoes staying put qualify as a religious belief system?

Absolutely!!! Ha

Well.... if you make a habit of reading articles about your missing shoes, I wouldn't call that religious.But, if the mystery of your missing shoes starts to become a driving force in your life, then perhaps you will start 'preaching' about shoes to others... Well, maybe your missing shoes does become sort of a religious belief system.

For more info www.shoeskeptic.com

 

[TheDuke]

So now in the most typical apologetic manner, you're going to exclaim that the meaning of "GOD" is not consistent throughout the bible.
Oh, the desperation in your voice, I can hearken it through the internets

Words often have various meanings defined by context.*

So hi there pal:

It's hilarious for a secularist to have to point out to you something about the original old testament.
But since you've asked, I may at least try to amplify your cognitive dissonance:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/elohiym.html

 

[6days]

Dawkins say that most of the genome may as well not be there for all the difference it makes). Science continues to prove those evolutionary beliefs are false.

But Dawkins is a scientist, subject to peer review, who like almost all natural scientists of whatever theistic position, have no doubts at all about common descent without having to be entitled as "evolutionists".

Well hail Dawkins and peer review....but there assumptions were proved wrong by science.*

Your attempts to divide off "evolutionists" as somehow misrepresenting science rather than just presenting it honestly, is just a baseless assertion. If what is said does not relate to real science then the time to point that out is at the time not now that your accusations can no longer be examined.*

Hmmmmm. .... That sounds like a topic in itself...examining the many many baseless assertions of evolutionists.

I'd be more of the opinion that non-coding "Junk" DNA represents a possible historical insight into a very long evolutionary journey. I'd also suggest that if life today has only existed for as long as YECs would have us all believe then there would be very little "Junk DNA" to speak of, if any. Its mere existence is yet more evidence that life has been around for a very long time indeed.

That is the type of thinking that has hindered science and medical progress. Scientists are just beginning the journey of discovery into our non coding DNA. Assuming it is junk because you don't understand the function, is more religion than it is science.*

Whatever, but in your worldview there is no reasonably adequate amount of time for any such long term adaption, for anything to become considered as probably vestigial and having had a previous established long term function.

Again you speak from your belief system and not from evidence.

How long do you think it took for blind cave fish to lose sight? *There are many known instances of rapid adaptation, fitting the Biblical creation model.

I rather suspect 6days that your "evolutionists" are simply something plucked from your imagination. Concluding that Darwinian evolution just is a better and more rational explanation for modern life being as it is than that offered by a literalist interpretation of Genesis doesn't make me feel that I do so as an "evolutionist". In my mind at least what I advocate is whatever I consider to be evidence based, scientifically verifiable, reasonable and rational, not because I have an overarching agenda to push evolution.

Alwight... with all respect, your beliefs in common ancestry are not evidence based...and certainly not scientifically verifiable. Instead, both of us have beliefs about the past through which we interpret the evidence.*

Going back to the appendix as an example.....evolutionists thought it was useless because of common ancestry. *Creationists said it may have function not yet known...or it may have become useless since we live in a fallen world.*

You may not like the scientific conclusions and try to reassign them to something you call "evolutionists" but like it or not natural science as a whole has nevertheless concluded that common descent is for all intents and purposes a real fact of life.

I think Stripe would tell you that evolutionists seem to believe that majority opinion is science. Fortunately, science doesn't work like that or we would still believe that life arose from non life.*

As one of your so called "evolutionists" 6days I personally never came to any conclusions about how clever, dim-witted or subhuman any earlier races of humans (like Neandertals) were. Evolution imo tends to produce creatures that are able to cope with their environment and being dim-witted is hardly a selectable attribute.*[/quote
Great!

However your fellow evolutionists were not so wise. *Neandertals were originally said to be stooped over, inarticulate and dimwitted. Science now has upgraded Neandertals to homo sapiens. ...wise man.*