Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

DavisBJ

New member
Untellectual, if you weren’t such a nice guy (gal?), I probably wouldn’t bother responding to your posts. But I honestly feel you have some potential. (Now that I have buttered you up, I am going to bang on you just a bit more.)

You are not very conversant with some of the relevant terminology, and I suspect you are equally lacking in understanding how science works. The looseness in your terminology makes it look like you are constantly shifting your position on the scientific issues (maybe you really are shifting your position, though I hope you are not that type of a person).

Specifically – scientific theories. After denigrating evolution through the course of several posts, you say:
The theory of evolution is a theory of science as far as I can tell.
Do you know what you just said? In science, an idea is not granted the honor of being called a theory until it has been subjected to some pretty rigorously validation. Clearly science uses the term “theory” in a much more restrictive way that the word “theory” in common parlance. In its status as a scientific theory, evolution is considered to be a Tom Cruise (or Brad Pitt, or Sandra Bullock). It is not a local bit player trying out for a two-week run as Romeo. Which, in effect, means that even though you earlier disparaged evolution, by saying it is a theory of science as you just did you are now saying it is a superstar in the world of science.
Evolution as a whole stands opposed to God and the Bible.
Do you realize how many tens of thousands of faithful Bible-believing Christians, who also happen to be well-qualified scientists, you slap in the face with a statement like that?
When I was in college there were courses in Physics and Chemistry, but I don't think Evolution was even a course I could take.
If it is not prying too much, what college did you attend? I have had dealings with a lot of colleges, and I only know of a couple, who for theological reasons, did not have evolution as an option.
For example, some Biologists believe in macro evolution in addition to micro evolution. They hold to the theory of evolution. But not all Biologists do so. Biology is the field of their study, but they differ on whether or not they affirm the theory (of evolution).
I can show you places where credible scientists dispute important aspects of astronomy, and biology, and physics, and chemistry. But you chose to list those as valid scientific disciplines, but not evolution. If dissenters is really a reason to reject a branch of science, then science is pure hokum, top to bottom.
Also, my understanding is that evolution as an idea (at least of some sort) existed before it existed as a theory of science.
Yup, and the same is true for almost all the major theories in science. Just like there were predecessors that many of the Bible stories were built on.
… the scientific methodology, though we can trust it, is much different from trusting God!
Very true. If you find yourself in a boat that is taking on water in a storm, you can trust that God will do as the Bible says, and let you get out and walk on the water, or you can trust science and put on a life preserver. Which would you do?
I believe that believing in macro evolution is believing in a false belief.
But you don’t have that belief because of evidence, you have it because of the narrow understanding you have of the meaning of the religious legends of nomads.

I would ask you to specifically answer - are you a YEC? (Meaning a belief in creation less than 10,000 years ago).
 

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
... But they don't want to call that "evolution."

Rapid speciation / rapid change is part of the Biblical creationist model. There is a good reason not to refer to it as "evolution". ... the term is ambiguous and used by evolutionists to promote their religious beliefs in a common ancestor.

Barbarian said:
The "goo to you" is a creationist idea

The Biblical Creationist 'idea' is "
God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Barbarian said:
6days said:
Change in allele frequency is observable science.

Of course, it's what accounts for speciation, and ultimately, common descent.

You equivocate.... Speciation is observable science. Common descent is an unobservable belief.

Barbarian said:
Makes no sense at all from a "common designer" standpoint....

I guess we both believe our god / God is capable of creating unique creatures and features.[/QUOTE]

Barbarian said:
6days said:
The platypus is a very unique and highly complex creature that God created.

True. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Its not a matter of approving anything. Its a matter of believing what He says..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened.
God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good....

Then God looked over all he had made, and he saw that it was very good! And evening passed and morning came, marking the sixth day"


Barbarian said:
6days said:
Half life DNA studies suggest evolutionary beliefs are hopelessly flawed.
Show us.!

DNA half life 521 years

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year-half-life-1.11555


DNA found in dinos.

Schweitzer, in Bone journal... Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules.

And...

Woodward, in ScienceArticleDNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments


Evolutionists now are devising rescue devices to explain how blood cells and DNA fragments can survive and salvage their beliefs.

Barbarian said:
6days said:
(Just like their faulty conclusions about coelacanths going extinct 65 million years ago.)
...But it just means that the line survived longer than we thought....
No...it shows the plasticity of evolutionism. It shows how evolutionism cant be falsified. It shows how evolutionary beliefs are bad science in *the numerous bad conclusions.

Creationist prediction... Carbon dating will find radiocarbon in the soft tissue.
Barbarian said:
Yep. It's been done. Traces of C-14 consistent with the slow production from nitrogen. Ionizing radiation produces C-14 from nitrogen, but so little that it only produces results close to the limit of the test.
We see it in diamonds, too, because ....

Yep....and also consistent with the Biblical creationist model. Not knowing ratios of C13 and C14 when God created....not knowing how the global flood changed the ratios, we would still expect to find C14 in soft dino tissue.

Do you have a link for C14 testing soft tissue?

Dino bones have tested as young as 22, 000 years showing it lived very recently. (Much more recently than 22,000 years)

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Blood vessels, connective tissue and cells found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation...
Except, none of the debris so far, has actually shown any such things. There are some microscopic round things in the heme, but no one can show that they are cells. It's like those little microscopic round things found in some Martian rocks; they might be cells, but no one can show that they are.
Ok...so,Blood vessels, connective tissue and DNA material found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation.
And... Molecular analysis supports controversial claim for dinosaur cells

New evidence adds heat to the argument over prehistoric dinosaur tissue


http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

Barbarian said:
So we find those genes only in birds, and feathers only in birds and dinosaurs. Which is another confirmation of Huxley's prediction, based on skeletal anatomy in the 1800s.
What it does is show why evolutionists have seen feathers where none exist. What it does is show the psuedoscience of evolutionists who have jumped to conclusions and dŕawn elaborately feathered dinos in magazine articles.
Barbarian said:
Moreover, we find in some therapods, a bird respiratory system!

Sure... like they found lungs in coelacanths :) its a good thing science comes along to show evolutionism is built on beliefs... not science.

Barbarian said:
and of course all those transitionals that are impossible to confidently classify as birds or dinosaurs.
Such as archaeoptrryx with its perfect feathers....evidence of our Creator...evidence against feather evolution.



Barbarian said:
There's a lot of things involved, that creationists don't want you to know. Genetics, and specifically Mendel's discoveries are why modern evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's theory.

Genetics is helping us understand how wrong evolutionists have been. We are beginning to understand that evolutionary assumptions about "junk" DNA and psuedogenes were psuedoscience. *We are just beginning to understand how "fearfully and wonderfully made" we are.

Barbarian said:
You're wrong about that. He greatly admired Darwin, and even sent his paper on factors to him. It's in Darwin's papers, but unfortunately, it appears that Darwin (who received many, many papers from others) never actually read it. Too bad, it would have saved him a lot of concern about a very real objection to his theory at the time.

Yes... you are correct but you forgot to mention that although Mendel admired Darwin, he didn't agree with Darwins common ancestry beliefs...

Its too bad Darwin hadn't read what Mendel sent him. Instead people fell for Darwins false idead which likely hindered genetic research and medical progress by 40 years.


Barbarian said:
6days said:
Modern geneticists such as John Sanford and James S. Allan were atheists... claimed to live and breath evolutionism, are now convinced that genetics proves evolutionism is impossible.

Sanford now worships the ID designer, who some of them say could be a "space alien." But it's instructive that he abandoned science when he accepted that new religion.

Ad*hominem

An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence"



I suppose Sanford is abandoning science in the same sense Galileo did. And you are like the pope attacking scientists who dont go with the flow?


Barbarian said:
Last time I checked, using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and the list from Project Steve, about 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology

Woooo.... you must be getting desperate now going after that *ha ha. You will find that many Biblical creationist scientists have not bothered with that list because they don't support the Discovery Inst and the ID movement. Others haven't bothered for a variety of reasons. In any case.....Last I looked at that list 700+ scientists all with a PhD have signed on.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Untellectual, if you weren’t such a nice guy (gal?), I probably wouldn’t bother responding to your posts. But I honestly feel you have some potential. (Now that I have buttered you up, I am going to bang on you just a bit more.)
I am a guy DavisBJ.
You are not very conversant with some of the relevant terminology, and I suspect you are equally lacking in understanding how science works. The looseness in your terminology makes it look like you are constantly shifting your position on the scientific issues (maybe you really are shifting your position, though I hope you are not that type of a person).
Though I have studied science I have not studied evolution in any detail. I spent time with Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, Mathematics years ago and some math recently. However, math is a basic for science not science itself. And on TOL I don't claim to understand evolution. But I am useful for pointing people to what the Bible says.
Specifically – scientific theories. After denigrating evolution through the course of several posts, you say:

Do you know what you just said? In science, an idea is not granted the honor of being called a theory until it has been subjected to some pretty rigorously validation. Clearly science uses the term “theory” in a much more restrictive way that the word “theory” in common parlance. In its status as a scientific theory, evolution is considered to be a Tom Cruise (or Brad Pitt, or Sandra Bullock). It is not a local bit player trying out for a two-week run as Romeo. Which, in effect, means that even though you earlier disparaged evolution, by saying it is a theory of science as you just did you are now saying it is a superstar in the world of science.
I know it is wrong when a teacher says the theory of evolution is the fact of evolution, or that evolution is a fact. I group facts and evidence as akin to each other, though they are not the same. But theories and conclusions, or hypothesis then testing with repeatability and reproducibility and results communicated as theory are not the same thing... though we may approach them (different ideas about what constitutes a theory) differently in different life situations. Though science and scientific methodology employ principles from philosophy the first idea here about theory is more akin to philosophy than science.
Do you realize how many tens of thousands of faithful Bible-believing Christians, who also happen to be well-qualified scientists, you slap in the face with a statement like that?
The theory of evolution is broad and can probably be seen to encompass both micro evolution AND macro evolution. But I don't believe macro evolution makes sense even being accepted by any scientists. Not all scientists accept evolution as a whole or in general. However, your comment is about how many who believe in the Bible and profess Christianity are scientists who believe in evolution. Though I would encourage them to consider what they believe of course I am not on a set course to change their thinking. But I am intending in all of this for you to know what I believe as a Bible-believing Christian. I would not want to lead you astray. Pointing to what the Bible says about creation... I don't see anything wrong in that.
If it is not prying too much, what college did you attend? I have had dealings with a lot of colleges, and I only know of a couple, who for theological reasons, did not have evolution as an option.
Most of my science background goes back to High School and Community College. My University degrees are in engineering rather than science, though they are both bachelor's of science degrees.
I can show you places where credible scientists dispute important aspects of astronomy, and biology, and physics, and chemistry. But you chose to list those as valid scientific disciplines, but not evolution. If dissenters is really a reason to reject a branch of science, then science is pure hokum, top to bottom.
If I remember correctly there has been debate about what can be called a branch of science. But this is different from what is a scientific or academic and/or intellectual discipline.
Yup, and the same is true for almost all the major theories in science. Just like there were predecessors that many of the Bible stories were built on.
I actually am unsure of what you might mean here about the stories related in the Bible. As for the science part and what we might see as agreement remember I separate between an idea or conjecture considered in science and the scientific methodology itself.
Very true. If you find yourself in a boat that is taking on water in a storm, you can trust that God will do as the Bible says, and let you get out and walk on the water, or you can trust science and put on a life preserver. Which would you do?
Well, I will always trust God. But I can also be sensible when God provides a life preserver for every individual.
But you don’t have that belief because of evidence, you have it because of the narrow understanding you have of the meaning of the religious legends of nomads.
Not sure why you call them nomads. Well, I know a theory is not evidence.
I would ask you to specifically answer - are you a YEC? (Meaning a belief in creation less than 10,000 years ago).
All I can say as a point here is that I believe the age of the universe is greater than the age of mankind, even if only by 5 or 6 days. But that the age of mankind is likely under 6,000 years.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Rapid speciation / rapid change is part of the Biblical creationist model.

Nope. For a very long time, creationists denied the fact of speciation. As you may have noticed, some still do. However, the hyperspeciation that would be required to repopulate the Earth with species from a bottleneck a few thousand years ago, is far faster than any evidence says it would be.

There is a good reason not to refer to it as "evolution". ...

It's a change in allele frequency over time in populations, so by definition, evolution.

the term is ambiguous

Nope. Very specific and definite. A change in allele frequency in a population is evolution.

Barbarian observes:
The "goo to you" is a creationist idea

The Biblical Creationist 'idea' is "
God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Creationists will go that far; they just won't accept the way He did it. Of course, the "image" is in our souls and minds; God is a spirit, as Jesus says, and He also says that spirits don't have a body.

Barbarian observes:
Change in allele frequency is observable science.
Of course, it's what accounts for speciation, and ultimately, common descent.

You equivocate....

Nope. Very specific.

Common descent is an unobservable belief.

Nope. Inference from evidence. Like the rest of science. If you're trying to claim that we can't know anything we didn't personally observe, you're completely wrong. Forensics, fire investigation, geology, astronomy, etc. depend on evidence to learn what happened before. And as you have seen, the many confirmed predictions of common descent are compelling evidence.

I guess we both believe our god / God is capable of creating unique creatures and features.

I assume the "god" is the "space alien of the "intelligent design" people. My God is no mere designer. He's the Creator.

The platypus is a very unique and highly complex creature that God created.

Barbarian observes:
True. You just don't approve of the way He did it.

Its not a matter of approving anything. Its a matter of believing what He says..."Then God said, "Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind--livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals." And that is what happened.

I know, you're willing to accept that God used nature to make organisms, but you aren't willing to accept the way He did it.

God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind.

Actually, that's not what it says. Another creationist addition to scripture.

Half life DNA studies suggest evolutionary beliefs are hopelessly flawed.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us.!

DNA half life 521 years
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a...f-life-1.11555

That source claims that the oldest sample of DNA is about half a million years old. About a thousand times longer than creationists think you have. And these guys are making a theoretical projection as far as how long DNA should last, if it's exposed to water. Did you miss something? Obviously, if it's not so exposed, things go differently. Not surprisingly, the cases of very ancient DNA are in dry deposits.

Evolutionists now are devising rescue devices to explain how blood cells and DNA fragments can survive and salvage their beliefs.

See above. Surprised? Often, creationists make up stories about what scientists have concluded. This is another of those cases.

(Just like their faulty conclusions about coelacanths going extinct 65 million years ago.)

From time to time, we find that a relict population of something remains long after it went extinct everywhere else. Coelacanths are like that. Darwin discussed some cases himself. The point, of course, is that modern coelacanths have evolved to become very different fish in that time.

It shows how evolutionism cant be falsified.

You already learned many ways evolution could be falsified. Feathered mammals, an insect genetically more closely related to a mammal than the mammal is to other mammals, and so on.

Creationist prediction... Carbon dating will find radiocarbon in the soft tissue.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. It's been done. Traces of C-14 consistent with the slow production from nitrogen. Ionizing radiation produces C-14 from nitrogen, but so little that it only produces results close to the limit of the test.
We see it in diamonds, too, because nitrogen inclusions are in diamonds.

Yep....and also consistent with the Biblical creationist model.

Nope. The dates are pretty close to 50,000 years, which is the limit of the method currently. So even if it was from living material (how did it get into diamonds?) it would be far too old for creationists.

Not knowing ratios of C13 and C14 when God created....

That's been extremely well calibrated, using lake varves. Would you like to learn how?

not knowing how the global flood changed the ratios,

A flood would not change nuclear behavior. Any change in that would require a change in the speed of light. And a significant speeding up would cause so much background radiation that it would fry all living things on Earth.

Do you have a link for C14 testing soft tissue?

I did. Let me look...

Um, nothing in the literature, but there are some things in websites:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blood-from-stone/

BTW, someone figured out why tissue only survived in particular circumstances:

Iron is an element present in abundance in the body, particularly in the blood, where it is part of the protein that carries oxygen from the lungs to the tissues. Iron is also highly reactive with other molecules, so the body keeps it locked up tight, bound to molecules that prevent it from wreaking havoc on the tissues.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Blood vessels, connective tissue and cells found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation...

Except, none of the debris so far, has actually shown any such things. There are some microscopic round things in the heme, but no one can show that they are cells. It's like those little microscopic round things found in some Martian rocks; they might be cells, but no one can show that they are.

Ok...so,Blood vessels, connective tissue and DNA material found in dinosaur bones is amazing evidence of recent creation.

See above. Turns out, it's a lot older than creationists hoped.



Even your creationist link says that it's far older than creationism would permit. On the other hand, Argon/argon and other testing shows those bones to be much, much older.

Sue, the famous T-rex in Washington, was dated by Argon methods, which gave an of 67,000,000 years.

And we know it works, because (for example) it accurately dated the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii. The problem of groundwater infiltration, carrying residual CO2 and other molecules, makes Carbon dating much less accurate, which is one reason scientists don't use it when they have better methods at hand. Here's a way you can learn about those, and why they correlate so well:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Read it carefully, and learn why it's so accurate. Joe is a well-respected expert in the field, but even better, he's very good at explaining technical issues for laymen.

Barbarian observes:
So we find those genes only in birds, and feathers only in birds and dinosaurs. Which is another confirmation of Huxley's prediction, based on skeletal anatomy in the 1800s.

What it does is show why evolutionists have seen feathers where none exist. What it does is show the psuedoscience of evolutionists who have jumped to conclusions and dŕawn elaborately feathered dinos in magazine articles.

You've been misled by that. The first unequivocal case was archaeopteryx, originally thought to be a pterosaur or a small dinosaur, until fossils with clear impressions of feathers were found.

It's more of a dinosaur than a bird, but there it is. There have been many, many others. Want to learn about them?

Barbarian observes:
Moreover, we find in some therapods, a bird respiratory system.

Sure... like they found lungs in coelacanths

Actually, lungs were a very early adaptation in fish. Would you like to learn about that?

its a good thing science comes along to show evolutionism is built on beliefs... not science.

You're seeing a lot of things for the first time, here. Many fish have outpouchings of the upper digestive tract that absorbs oxygen. That's why goldfish gulp air. Some, like lungfish, have greatly evolved examples. Lungfish are pretty close to the line that led to tetrapods. Genetically, the are closer to us than they are to (for example) a trout. Another verified prediction of the theory.

Barbarian observes:
and of course all those transitionals that are impossible to confidently classify as birds or dinosaurs.

Such as archaeoptrryx with its perfect feathers

Pretty good feathers, but not as good as on true birds. It had a dinosaur skeleton, lacked the fused vertebrae and the "keel" sternum of true birds, but it could fly. (assymetrical feathers). More primitive dinos has symmetrical feathers that are not as efficient for flying.

.evidence of our Creator...evidence against feather evolution.

Actually, it turns out that scutes (scales found on birds and dinosaurs) can be induced to form feathers. Genetically, they are very much alike.

Scutes are the thick scales on the top of a bird's foot (see figure at right). There are smaller scutes on the back of the foot, called scutellae, and scales on the bottom of the digits, called reticulae. Analyses by Alan Brush have shown that bird scutes, scuttelae, claw sheathes, beak sheathes, and scales around the eyes are of the same chemical composition as feathers, and are controlled by the same genes. The reticulae have been shown to be identical to crocodilian scales both in composition and their location on the DNA strand.
In all cases where a chick was infected with the inhibitor virus at days 15-18 of development, at least some of the scutes developed into feathers. The feather development ranged from thickening of the edge of the scute, to short, fat feathers, to long, thin feather filaments (see figures at left and right; click on the images to see larger hi-res picture). These feathers contained the barbs characteristic of normal feathers, although the barbs were more numerous. The scutellae also developed into feathers to various degrees.

http://www.skeptive.com/sources/66982/source_urls/235148

Barbarian observes:
There's a lot of things involved, that creationists don't want you to know. Genetics, and specifically Mendel's discoveries are why modern evolutionary theory is based on Darwin's theory.

Genetics is helping us understand how wrong evolutionists have been.

As you learned, it was Mendel's discovery of genetics that saved Darwin's theory.

We are beginning to understand that evolutionary assumptions about "junk" DNA and psuedogenes were psuedoscience.

You were misled about that, too. When I was an undergrad in the 60s, there were articles in journals about the functions of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists call it). The point is that Mendel's discovery made Darwin's theory feasible.

Yes... you are correct but you forgot to mention that although Mendel admired Darwin, he didn't agree with Darwins common ancestry beliefs...

Show us that, from Mendel's writing. He was interested in various theories of evolution at the time, but I don't think he had decided whether Lamarck or Darwin was correct.

Its too bad Darwin hadn't read what Mendel sent him. Instead people fell for Darwins false idead which likely hindered genetic research and medical progress by 40 years.

The irony is that during the Stalin year, Darwin was banned and geneticists imprisoned and killed. Soviet biology has yet to catch up with us.

Sanford now worships the ID designer, who some of them say could be a "space alien." But it's instructive that he abandoned science when he accepted that new religion.

Ad*hominem

Yep. When you tout an "expert", you put his credibility up for discussion.

I suppose Sanford is abandoning science in the same sense Galileo did.

Nope. As you might know, Galileo wrote that the Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

Barbarian observes:
Last time I checked, using the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists who doubt Darwin" and the list from Project Steve, about 0.3% of scientists with doctorates in biology. The bandwagon argument is a very bad choice for creastionists.

You will find that many Biblical creationist scientists have not bothered with that list because they don't support the Discovery Inst and the ID movement.

Sounds like an excuse.

Others haven't bothered for a variety of reasons. In any case.....Last I looked at that list 700+ scientists all with a PhD have signed on.

The vast majority of them aren't biologists, and many don't even have a doctorate. Project Steve requires a doctorate in biology or a related field, and be named "Steve" or some variant. If you cull out the Discovery Institute list with the same requirements, you get very few names. As you might know, 700 scientists are a tiny, tiny fraction of all scientists, or even a tiny fraction of all biologists.
 

Stuu

New member
And on TOL I don't claim to understand evolution.
So don't comment until you do then.

I know it is wrong when a teacher says the theory of evolution is the fact of evolution, or that evolution is a fact.
The fact of evolution (as obvious in the fossil record and in many other lines of evidence) is explained by the theory of natural selection. You could argue perhaps that, technically, evolution is a theory. But then the fact of the attractive nature of gravitational force is technically a theory too, waiting for that falsifying event of someone being gravitationally repelled from the planet.

But I don't believe macro evolution makes sense even being accepted by any scientists.
"Making sense to you" isn't a valid criterion for determining how the universe works.

Not all scientists accept evolution as a whole or in general.
It's about 4% in that category, and most of them are hydrologists and chemical engineers. Some of them might know as little as you about evolution. But, the real test would be to find out how many of those doubters are atheists. How many would you say DON'T have a pre-existing commitment to fantasy conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends running the universe? More than zero, do you think?

All I can say as a point here is that I believe the age of the universe is greater than the age of mankind, even if only by 5 or 6 days. But that the age of mankind is likely under 6,000 years.
The magnitude of your error is about the same as believing that the distance from San Francisco to New York is less than 80 miles, and maybe as little as a couple of hundred yards, and you know it. You should be ashamed to even claim a science background. How could you have taken on all that training, presumably contributed to humanity by it, and benefited from it too, and yet simultaneously poison it all by posting as you do? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I guess some christians would be too prideful to feel any shame at that.

Stuart
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
So don't comment until you do then.
This thread is about creation vs. evolution, not just evolution. I know enough to comment, but not enough to teach it (to say what it is).
The fact of evolution (as obvious in the fossil record and in many other lines of evidence) is explained by the theory of natural selection. You could argue perhaps that, technically, evolution is a theory. But then the fact of the attractive nature of gravitational force is technically a theory too, waiting for that falsifying event of someone being gravitationally repelled from the planet.
"Making sense to you" isn't a valid criterion for determining how the universe works.
What I mean is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's about 4%, and most of them are hydrologists and chemical engineers. Some of them might know as little as you about evolution. But, the real test would be to find out how many of those doubters are atheists. How many would you say DON'T have a pre existing commitment to fantasy conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends running the universe? More than zero, do you think?
I don't know what you just said here. 4% do believe (or doubt) what?
The magnitude of your error is about the same as believing that the distance from San Francisco to New York is a couple of hundred yards, and you know it. You should be ashamed to even claim a science background. How could you have taken on all that training, presumably contributed to humanity by it, and benefited from it too, and yet simultaneously poison it all by posting as you do? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. I guess some christians would be too prideful to feel any shame at that.

Stuart
I haven't claimed a science background. I simply claimed that my background and degrees include courses in science. That is a different statement/claim.

I have been studying the Bible since I was a child though. That is where my strength lies, apart from having a well-rounded education (5 post secondary degrees/certificates, no Master's Degree).
 

Stuu

New member
This thread is about creation vs. evolution, not just evolution. I know enough to comment, but not enough to teach it (to say what it is).
So you don't know the thing you oppose. What kind of attitude is that?

What I mean is it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
And what scrutiny have you given it? None, by the look of it. You don't even know the thing you rail against.

I don't know what you just said here. 4% do believe (or doubt) what?
Should I be worried about using anything you have engineered?

I haven't claimed a science background. I simply claimed that my background and degrees include courses in science. That is a different statement/claim.
So when you wrote "My University degrees are in engineering rather than science, though they are both bachelor's of science degrees.", you didn't mean you had science degrees??

I have been studying the Bible since I was a child though. That is where my strength lies, apart from having a well-rounded education (5 post secondary degrees/certificates, no Master's Degree).
You just need to read books to know the thing you wish to oppose. Maybe if you did that you would realise that you are wrong about natural history.

Stuart
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear Stuu,

So you are schooling Untellectual in the fine theory of evolution? Natural selection? I think God does the selecting. I think God does the changing of everything: plants, trees, fish, fowl, creatures in the sea or on earth, etc. He created each of them. He makes every little change in them cause to happen. He's in total control. Whether He is destroying people off of the earth because of rampant sins or murders, or just to be an example for all other people that come afterwards, it's up to Him. What do you think of a Creator not being in control of His Creation?? Why can He say, He can form a man out of the ground? Why did His Son Jesus say "God can make men out of these rocks?" That being the case, don't you think God knows when any nuclei are out of place, etc. He has an exquisite and intensely awesome imagination to do all that He has done. He is able to deliver you. So don't worry. Maybe you think too little of God in the first place. Check it out sometimes. Go to a church service and worship God the way it was intended to be. Why must the clay pot strive with it's maker? Do you understand that? He makes everything change! He can flip this Earth so that the north pole becomes the south pole, and vice versa. He said the Earth will reel to and fro like a drunkard in that day, and shall be utterly removed from it's place. This is supposed to happen at this resurrection or the next. Can't say for sure, but you bet it will happen because the Lord God said it. You don't have to know how to do it to believe Him Who told it to you. You just have to trust in the words God has spoken. With that, you need to prove nothing ever again. God will reprove whoever is correct or answer any question you ask that He feels like answering for you. Don't forget, God has much love and forgiveness, and patience to give for those willing to accept it. If God says that they are facts, then they are, whether you believe in Him or not. And whether their explanation is what you want to hear or not, does not matter. If something is hidden or spoken in parables, it must be His Will. So don't bother yourselves wondering how, for it just takes us from doing what we should, worshiping and adoring Him. Allele or Hell, who cares?

Much Love In Christ, Stuu,

Michael
 

Stuu

New member
So you are schooling Untellectual in the fine theory of evolution? Natural selection?
Not really. To learn something requires some effort, will, and love of discovery. Untellectual doesn't have that when it comes to natural history. It is a matter of living in a state of denial, not a state of hope for enlightenment.

I think God does the selecting.
Perhaps you should consider Genesis 2:1-2.

Why did His Son Jesus say "God can make men out of these rocks?"
That would make 5 methods that this god apparently uses to make humans:
1. Fashioned from dirt.
2. Fashioned from a rib.
3. By spontaneous appearance from nowhere (the wives of Cain, Abel and Seth).
4. The usual way.
5. From rocks (is that from Matthew 3:9?).

Can't the Judeo-christian book of talking snakes get anything right?

Mammals have always been made by Method 4.

Stuart
 

Hedshaker

New member
People put their faith in science. But the scientific methodology, though we can trust it, is much different from trusting God! And also the methodology is different from the theories science claims as its own. As for the theory of evolution I believe there may be evolution on a small scale, called micro evolution. But I don't believe macro evolution has ever occurred. I believe that believing in macro evolution is believing in a false belief.

What you believe is irrelevant!
 

Hedshaker

New member
Unless one has demonstrated that they have a sincere desire to understand things accurately. Untellectual demonstrates that he prefers inaccuracy.

The point is I think, having cherished beliefs is well and good, up until they impede ones will to discover and learn something new. When beliefs conflict with real world evidence to the point of blanket denial instead of a desire to examine the evidence objectively (or as objectively as possible) then this is a suppression of human curiosity. Yet we find many can do it by either incorporating what the evidence shows into their belief system or compartmentalising the two.

Dogmatic blanket denial cannot be a good thing.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Science 2 May 2003:
Vol. 300 no. 5620 pp. 791-795

Diverse Plant and Animal Genetic Records from Holocene and Pleistocene Sediments

From the abstract:

Genetic analyses of permafrost and temperate sediments reveal that plant and animal DNA may be preserved for long periods, even in the absence of obvious macrofossils. In Siberia, five permafrost cores ranging from 400,000 to 10,000 years old contained at least 19 different plant taxa, including the oldest authenticated ancient DNA sequences known, and megafaunal sequences including mammoth, bison, and horse. The genetic data record a number of dramatic changes in the taxonomic diversity and composition of Beringian vegetation and fauna. Temperate cave sediments in New Zealand also yielded DNA sequences of extinct biota, including two species of ratite moa, and 29 plant taxa characteristic of the prehuman environment. Therefore, many sedimentary deposits may contain unique, and widespread, genetic records of paleoenvironments.
 

DavisBJ

New member
Well, I will always trust God. But I can also be sensible when God provides a life preserver for every individual.
Every boat I have been on had the life preservers provided by mortal people. And you trust that man-made flotation device far more than walking on water.
Not sure why you call them nomads.
Then either you have not read your Old Testament, or you don’t know what the word “nomad” means.
But I am useful for pointing people to what the Bible says.
But as we have seen, some of what you claim the Bible says is ludicrous. If I interpreted a sacred record as saying that neither Asia nor Antarctica actually existed, I might try to have reference to those continents expunged from history books, taken off maps, and never taught in schools (like creationists actively oppose aspects of science). Would that be OK with you, or would you prefer I not try to dumb down our kids?
I know it is wrong when a teacher says the theory of evolution is the fact of evolution, or that evolution is a fact.
And with an equal level of truth, I could say that it is wrong to teach that Asia and Antarctica are real, since they are just fictions put forth by secularists.

You see, when you can’t differentiate between what is factual and what is allegorical in the Bible, then there are very real consequences. You become an active agent in the dumbing down of kids that look up to adults for accurate information.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
So you don't know the thing you oppose. What kind of attitude is that?
?? I know evolution is wrong. That is why I oppose it.
And what scrutiny have you given it? None, by the look of it. You don't even know the thing you rail against.
"Rail against"? I honestly don't know what you mean here. I think you mean I am really really against evolution, and I am. But I wouldn't said I "rail against" it.
Should I be worried about using anything you have engineered?
I haven't engineered anything. I just graduated. I don't think you have anything to worry. If I used evolution to engineer something I think you should worry.
So when you wrote "My University degrees are in engineering rather than science, though they are both bachelor's of science degrees.", you didn't mean you had science degrees??
Engineering requires science (an Engineering degree that is a Bachelor's Degree is a Bachelor's of Science, not a Bachelor's of Arts).
You just need to read books to know the thing you wish to oppose. Maybe if you did that you would realise that you are wrong about natural history.

Stuart
What is natural history? I have enough exposure to evolution to know I don't need to waste my time with it.
 

Mark SeaSigh

BANNED
Banned
Would you believe my Electric Went out Yesterday, Right when I started to Debate Barbie, and BJ.

BJ;

Yes, I'm aware of the Blue Green Algae Deposits, that were found as Fossils, which Evolutionists suppose are 3.5 Billion Years Old.

Now, Could you Explain to me the Difference between the Modern Blue Green Algae that we can observe Today, and the Ones which were in the Fossil Layers of the Grand Canyon?

Is it, No Difference?

=M=

Do the Modern Versions Fully Function the Same As the Algae in the Fossil Layers, which you Evols are obviously Wrong about the Age of, at least to Some Degree?

If algae still uses the Same Exact Processes to Get Energy from the Sun, How could the Theory of Evolution Be true? If all of these Fossils, contained all the Same Anatomical Features, that the Modern ones do Today. Given Evols believe that Creatures Gain Anatomical Features overtime, why does this Blue Green Algae seem to be assumed to have Remained unchanged for over 3.5 Billion Years?

Barbie, Are you hungry old Girl?

Want a Cookie?

I know you are on here, somewhere. Maybe I should go get some Popery, I heard she was into that Kind of Thing.

You better Come through, so I can give you Your, "Cookie of Creation Knowledge" today.

======================================

Ok, I can't hang out all Day, So I will use a Point that Dr. Kent Hovind found, originally.

Here is Your Cookie, Or, Cookies barbie, i know how hungry you get.

images



polystrate-tree-lycopsid-joggins-wikipedia1.jpg


polystrate%20tree.jpg


Yes these are Trees Growing Through Fossil Layers. So, Given you believe that these Fossil Layers Represent Eras of Time that Span Millions of Years, Why Are these trees Growing Through them?

For the Sake of your Theory, I hope these Are not Real. Cause if they Are, You Have Some Explaining to do Barbie!!!

Here's a Good one that Shows Proof of a Flood;

polystrate_trees_wide.jpg


Did these trees really get covered so Quickly by Dirt and Sediment, that they were Fossilized Standing Up?

That is Crazy!!!!

Look, these Leaves are still on their branches;

Ancient-Forest7-537x307.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
Every boat I have been on had the life preservers provided by mortal people. And you trust that man-made flotation device far more than walking on water.
This goes back to God having provided the life preservers. If there is not enough for everyone?! then those who are unsaved should be wearing the life preservers!
Then either you have not read your Old Testament, or you don’t know what the word “nomad” means.
Which verse are you talking about? The word nomad can be used variously. But the people of Israel have a home in the promised land.
But as we have seen, some of what you claim the Bible says is ludicrous. If I interpreted a sacred record as saying that neither Asia nor Antarctica actually existed, I might try to have reference to those continents expunged from history books, taken off maps, and never taught in schools (like creationists actively oppose aspects of science).
Science is not the issue, evolution is. When evolution is taught it should be noted when falsehood appears. Otherwise children believe lies from teachers who should be teaching them the truth.
Would that be OK with you, or would you prefer I not try to dumb down our kids?
If you mean teaching evolution strengthens children's resolve against falsehood? As long as kids know it is false and a part of the history of science albeit wrong. But to be taught something like evolution and get a bad grade for not believing it... that would be wrong.
And with an equal level of truth, I could say that it is wrong to teach that Asia and Antarctica are real, since they are just fictions put forth by secularists.
I think you are joking.
You see, when you can’t differentiate between what is factual and what is allegorical in the Bible, then there are very real consequences. You become an active agent in the dumbing down of kids that look up to adults for accurate information.
The Bible is true. Evolution is not. It doesn't make sense to teach falsehood to anyone.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
Yes these are Trees Growing Through Fossil Layers. So, Given you believe that these Fossil Layers Represent Eras of Time that Span Millions of Years, Why Are these trees Growing Through them?

Sediment forms at different rates, at different times. If you think there are never cases of a series of floods that bury standing trees in sediment, you are very, very gullible.

For the Sake of your Theory, I hope these Are not Real. Cause if they Are, You Have Some Explaining to do Barbie!!!

Some of these are forming near my house. A dam fooded some wooded areas, and the trunks are now being buried by annual deposits of muck. In a few centuries, it will become compacted, and over millions of years, harden into rock. Did you really not realize how this happens?

Here's a Good one that Shows Proof of a Flood;

Several floods, from the look of it. Do you not see the boundaries where one flood stopped, and the next began?

If you really don't get this, you're a lot dumber than people think you are, and that's saying something.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top