View Full Version : What's the best evidence for evolution?
Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2012, 02:49 PM
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
Richard Amiel McGough
06-27-2012, 11:30 PM
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
Why are all the creationists so quiet?
There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
gilgal
06-28-2012, 12:29 AM
Why are all the creationists so quiet?
There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
Let me speak for myself. In the past i've seen many videos in the church and with friends. But my interest just died out as well as many around me after a while. I've watched Kent Hovind mostly.
I was more interested in reading books on conspiracy than on evolution/creation. But someone asked, "How can we prove it's true?" Of course he didn't bother reading such books and tried the throw me in doubt. But I realized that the same question can be asked to what interested him: creationism: "How can we prove it's true?" It's by reading, debating, comparing, studying...if you're interested. Not everyone's interested.
Why are all the creationists so quiet?
There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
Good morning Richard
Not quite sure what you are asking here. By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?
John
duxrow
06-28-2012, 07:51 AM
:talk002:
An orderly and scientific mind may be skeptical of the Biblical account that describes how we're all descended from the 3 sons of Noah, but any good encyclopedia documents the 3 races of mankind: the Negroid, Caucasoid, and Mongoloid are categories established by anthropologists who weren't necessarily pro-Christian. The stereotypes of these races today are undoubtedly the product of evolution and inbreeding, but the contention is actually moot, because all of us are descended from Adam, through Noah; and so even the 3 branches are derived from that one seed.
"The letter kills, but the spirit gives life", 2Cor3:6. It's the "Letter of the Law" that says you must dot the i's and cross the t's, and teaches good grammar; but it's the spirit of love that reads the epistles without condemnation or prejudice, even when errors seem evident. The O.T. Law said "If you sin, you die", and called for specific procedures, but the N.T. spirit says "Come and be forgiven", and gives you incentive and an example to follow. The threat of the Law didn't stop the sin, for that requires a change of heart. Lowering the speed limit isn't likely to effect driving habits of rebellious individuals -- they have to acknowledge to themselves that the LAW is good, and resolve to change their ways.:thumb:
David M
06-28-2012, 08:50 AM
Why are all the creationists so quiet?
There are folks on this forum who have loudly proclaimed "evolution is bullshit." Certainly such folks have a good grasp of the theory and can clearly state the two or three best arguments for it.
Hello Richard
The title of the thread is; 'What's the best evidence for evolution?' How do you expect creationists to give evidence of something they do not believe. The best evidence has to come from evolutionists.
You might rephrase the title to; 'What's the best evidence against evolution?' and then you will get creationists to respond.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 09:31 AM
Hello Richard
The title of the thread is; 'What's the best evidence for evolution?' How do you expect creationists to give evidence of something they do not believe. The best evidence has to come from evolutionists.
You might rephrase the title to; 'What's the best evidence against evolution?' and then you will get creationists to respond.
David
David,
Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.
Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
Do you now understand my logic?
All the best,
Richard
It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
Good morning Richard
Not quite sure what you are asking here. By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?
John
I made no suggestion about God at all. There may or may not be a god. That doesn't have anything to do with scientific questions about observable reality. You don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator, do you?
There are Christians who believe in both God and evolution so that question is irrelevant. We are talking about scientific evidence here. This thread is designed to see if people who reject evolution have any clue at all about the advanced scientific theory that they reject.
David,
Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.
Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
Do you now understand my logic?
All the best,
Richard
It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?
I have asked 2 fundamental questions that remained unanswered:
1) How did life enters non-living things? Please explain and demonstrate.
2) How did animals changed from one specie to another naturally. Please expalin and demonstrate.
If these 2 questions cannot be answered and demonstrated then Evolution is BULLSHIT! Obviously, they cannot be answered because there is no such thing as life entering non-living things and no specie ever evolve into another specie naturally.
Did bicycle evolved into motorcycle which then evolve into car then into van then into lorry then into bus then into truck then into......? You can wait billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion of years and they can never, never, never evolved by themselves. They are all CREATED!
May God Bless His creations :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 10:32 AM
I have asked 2 fundamental questions that remained unanswered:
1) How did life enters non-living things? Please explain and demonstrate.
2) How did animals changed from one specie to another naturally. Please expalin and demonstrate.
If these 2 questions cannot be answered and demonstrated then Evolution is BULLSHIT! Obviously, they cannot be answered because there is no such thing as life entering non-living things and no specie ever evolve into another specie naturally.
Did bicycle evolved into motorcycle which then evolve into car then into van then into lorry then into bus then into truck then into......? You can wait billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion and billion of years and they can never, never, never evolved by themselves. They are all CREATED!
May God Bless His creations :pray:
Cheow,
Your questions have nothing to do with this thread.
Would you debate calculus with someone who can't add 1 + 2? Of course not.
This thread is designed to determine if creationists can add 1 + 2. You have said that "evolution is bullshit" but you have never shown any real understanding of the science supporting evolution. So please demonstrate that you have a basic understanding of evolution by stating two or three of the best arguments for it. If you can't do this, you will be exposed as ignorant of evolution and therefore unqualified to have an opinion on it.
All the best,
Richard
David M
06-28-2012, 04:08 PM
David,
Your question exemplifies the fundamental creationist error. Creationism is based on GROSS IGNORANCE of science, plain and simple. They claim to understand the theory of evolution and to reject it because it is flawed on evidential grounds. But if they don't have a clue about anything the theory actually states they will be revealed to be fools of the first order. This is why I started the "What's the best evidence for ..." series. It reveals who is really seeking truth and who is just parroting talking points about things of which they are totally ignorant.
Did you read my OP? Here it is again:
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
Do you now understand my logic?
All the best,
Richard
It's like some hill billy who can't add 1 + 2 but who confidently declares that calculus is bullshit. Why do I have to explain this?
I am sorry Richard, I do not understand your logic. By the way you are responding to mine and others post's, I wonder if you are smoking some hallucinatory weed.
From my reading about Evolution I have no best evidence for to give. I cannot understand why you think creationists can give you the best evidence for it.. You have phrased the title wrong in my opinion. If I wantd to contribute, I cannot. I will argue against Evolution, but I will not put up evidence for it, or from what I know of it, what I would consider to be the best evidence. It is Evolutionists who must say what is their best evidence, just as Christians might say the resurrection of Jesus is best evidence and give reasons why. This is what Evolutionists should be doing. When they do, I might be able to make comment on what is put forward as evidence.
If you do not see the point I am making, there is no point replying and repeating yourself.
Regards
David
I made no suggestion about God at all. There may or may not be a god. That doesn't have anything to do with scientific questions about observable reality. You don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator, do you?.
Not sure what to make of the double negative in your question. Let me give it a shot, "I don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator". Perhaps I could agree with your position on this.
Your friend
John
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 05:47 PM
I am sorry Richard, I do not understand your logic. By the way you are responding to mine and others post's, I wonder if you are smoking some hallucinatory weed.
From my reading about Evolution I have no best evidence for to give. I cannot understand why you think creationists can give you the best evidence for it.. You have phrased the title wrong in my opinion. If I wantd to contribute, I cannot. I will argue against Evolution, but I will not put up evidence for it, or from what I know of it, what I would consider to be the best evidence. It is Evolutionists who must say what is their best evidence, just as Christians might say the resurrection of Jesus is best evidence and give reasons why. This is what Evolutionists should be doing. When they do, I might be able to make comment on what is put forward as evidence.
If you do not see the point I am making, there is no point replying and repeating yourself.
Regards
David
David,
I have no idea how it is possible that you failed to understand the point of this thread. I am not a Christian, but I can easily state the best evidence for Christianity. This is exactly what I did when I started the "What's the best evidence for Christianity" thread. This proves that I am open-minded and it supports my assertion that I have rejected Christianity because it fails on evidential grounds.
Can you say the same thing about your stance on evolution? Absolutely not. If you are incapable of stating the evidence supporting evolution, then you can't present any legitimate arguments against it because you are totally ignorant, by your own admission, of the science.
How is it possible that you don't understand these simple facts? Don't you understand that you must be able to articulate the view you reject? If not, then how do you even know what you are rejecting?
This thread is a test to reveal who are blind dogmatists and who are true Truth Seekers.
I think it would be great if you read the opening post again with an open mind. I know you have sufficient intelligence to understand the point I am making. The problem is that you are so deeply embedded into your dogmatism that you can't even consider the possibility that any other point of view might be right. I'm offering you a path to freedom from the blind dogmatism that has trapped your soul. Please try David. The fact that you cannot even state any evidence for evolution proves that your soul is currently in bondage that blinds your mind.
Richard
This is the second post in a new "What is the best evidence for ..." series of threads. The idea is based on my definition of a "true Truth Seeker." True Truth Seekers are people who are able and willing to state the best evidence for the opposing view. Many, if not most, internet discussions have little to do with truth seeking. They are usually dominated by people trying to convince others of their own opinions. The debaters simply talk past each other and refuse to admit any truth if it doesn't support their own presuppositions. I want to move past that to authentic discourse that will lead to solid, justifiable conclusions based on logic and facts.
This thread is to give folks who reject evolution an opportunity to show that they are "true Truth Seekers" who have a solid grasp of the theory that reject.
So get to it! What is the best evidence for evolution? And what are the reasons you reject that evidence?
I would like to suggest that the Grand Canyon presents the best evidence for change over time, so I will submit the Grand Canyon as the best evidence for evolution. I will decline your invitation to submit reasons to reject my submission.
Your competitor in the submission of evidence,
John
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 05:58 PM
Not sure what to make of the double negative in your question. Let me give it a shot, "I don't think that the theory of electromagnetism suggests there is no creator". Perhaps I could agree with your position on this.
Your friend
John
Hey there John,
You had asked: "By evolution vs creation are you suggesting that there is no creator for creation?"
My answer was meant to be "No. There is no connection between evolution and the concept of a creator."
Here's how you deal with double negatives:
Consider a proposition P. If I say "You don't think P?" you only need to say ask "What is P?". P is the proposition that "electromagnetism suggests there is no creator." Do you agree with P? Of course not. There is no connection between the science of electromagentism and the idea of a creator.
Therefore, you DON'T THINK P.
Now just change "electromagentism" to "evolution." Do you agree that "evolution suggests there is no creator"? I hope not, since that would be a big mistake. The science of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not there is a creator. Therefore, you DON'T THINK P.
That was the answer I was trying to communicate. I guess I could have done it in a clearer fashion.
But now I would really like to know if you have any opinion about evolution at all. If not, then you don't need to answer my opening post. But if you reject evolution then you must be able to state what the theory is and why scientists think it is valid. Otherwise, you will be exposed as an ignorant dogamatist. And that's good! Because understanding that you are believing something for no good reason other than ignorant dogmatism is the first step to FREEDOM! And that's what I'm hoping you will find.
All the best,
Richard
Luke1978abc
06-28-2012, 05:59 PM
Science shows the Universe to be about 13 billion years old and the earth 4 to 5 billion. Now a close look at the Big bang suggests that you actually need a concious observer as the sub-atomic particle will only be a wave unless observed. So all these sub-atomic particles in the hadron Collider that they like to smash together could not exist without an observer. Not so much that you have to physically observe but the act of measurement. On that point as the delayed choice quantum erasure shows us if you erase the which path information in the double slit experiment you go back to an interference pattern made by the waves of possibility(Superposition).
It's the knowledge of the which way path that collapses the wave into a sub-atomic particle.
So if there could be no big bang without a concious observer I'm not sure how anything could evolve without a concious observer as there would be no earth to evolve on.
So yes evolution could occur with a concious observer guiding the process which still acts as a creation. However irreducible complexity seems to indicate we were created as we are by that concious observer(Creator).
Obviously God is conciousness and that is why we are within him(Body of Christ).
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 06:03 PM
I would like to suggest that the Grand Canyon presents the best evidence for change over time, so I will submit the Grand Canyon as the best evidence for evolution. I will decline your invitation to submit reasons to reject my submission.
Your competitor in the submission of evidence,
John
I don't understand your answer John. Evolution is the science of how species change over time. It involves a lot of complex stuff like biology, DNA, fossils, and yes, geology. But there mere fact that a lot of time has passed is not evidence for evolution. Time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution.
I don't understand your answer John. Evolution is the science of how species change over time. It involves a lot of complex stuff like biology, DNA, fossils, and yes, geology. But there mere fact that a lot of time has passed is not evidence for evolution. Time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for evolution.
Hi Richard
Perhaps I didn't understand your question. I thought you were looking for the best evidence that presents change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution, if true, then the most obvious and perhaps best example of evolution is the Grand Canyon. Its there for everyone to see and who could refute the changes brought about by wind, water and time?
Just trying to compete.
John
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 07:52 PM
Hi Richard
Perhaps I didn't understand your question. I thought you were looking for the best evidence that presents change over time, which is the basic definition of evolution, if true, then the most obvious and perhaps best example of evolution is the Grand Canyon. Its there for everyone to see and who could refute the changes brought about by wind, water and time?
Just trying to compete.
John
I agree that the word "evolution" in the broadest sense means "change over time." When I was studying Quantum Physics (30 years ago! Egad! :eek:) we used the "time evolution operator" to translate a quantum state from time 0 to time t. It looks like this:
503
But since we know we are talking about biological evolution, I don't think we need to dig into Quantum Mechanics ... unless you really want to! <snicker>
So what do you think of evolution? Do you have any understanding of the theory? Do you have any idea why it is accepted by approximately 98% of all working biologists? Don't you think they must think they have some evidence supporting the theory? Think about it ... what modern science could stand if it directly contradicted all the observations of thousands of working scientists on a daily basis?
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 08:12 PM
Science shows the Universe to be about 13 billion years old and the earth 4 to 5 billion. Now a close look at the Big bang suggests that you actually need a conscious observer as the sub-atomic particle will only be a wave unless observed. So all these sub-atomic particles in the hadron Collider that they like to smash together could not exist without an observer. Not so much that you have to physically observe but the act of measurement. On that point as the delayed choice quantum erasure shows us if you erase the which path information in the double slit experiment you go back to an interference pattern made by the waves of possibility(Superposition).
It's the knowledge of the which way path that collapses the wave into a sub-atomic particle.
So if there could be no big bang without a concious observer I'm not sure how anything could evolve without a concious observer as there would be no earth to evolve on.
So yes evolution could occur with a concious observer guiding the process which still acts as a creation. However irreducible complexity seems to indicate we were created as we are by that concious observer(Creator).
Obviously God is conciousness and that is why we are within him(Body of Christ).
Hey there Luke,
Thanks for your interesting comments! I love physics. I specialized in Quantum Physics in grad school. I've seen your argument before. Some folks think it could be a "proof for God" since there has to be "someone" to collapse the state vector when no one else is looking. But that is a serious misunderstanding because if God was always looking the state would always be collapsed and Schroedinger's equation wouldn't work. The whole argument is based on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which introduced the idea of the "collapse of the wave-function." But it's not the only possible interpretation, and there are very big problems with it. First, science doesn't have a definition for "consciousness" and certainly has no way to measure it, so the assertion that "consciousness collapses the state-vector" is more of a philosophical than scientific statement. Another problem is that the idea of the "collapse of the state vector" contradicts Shroedinger's equation which governs the time evolution of the state vector. The technical term for issues relating to the "collapse of the wave function" is "The Problem of Measurement in Quantum Physics." It was a big part of my studies because I was working on the problem of temporal irreversibility.
Now the speculations you offer about there being "no earth" if there were no God to observe is really quite off-topic. I'd be delighted if you want to pursue that in another thread. This thread is a little more "mundane." We begin with the assumption that reality exists and physical processes are going on all the time. The question then is this: What is the best evidence for the theory of evolution? There must be a reason thousands of working scientists are convinced it is a very good theory. They couldn't use it every day if it was constantly being contradicted by observation. So what do you think? What's the best evidence?
Great chatting!
Richard
I agree that the word "evolution" in the broadest sense means "change over time." When I was studying Quantum Physics (30 years ago! Egad! :eek:) we used the "time evolution operator" to translate a quantum state from time 0 to time t. It looks like this:
503
But since we know we are talking about biological evolution, I don't think we need to dig into Quantum Mechanics ... unless you really want to! <snicker>
So what do you think of evolution? Do you have any understanding of the theory? Do you have any idea why it is accepted by approximately 98% of all working biologists? Don't you think they must think they have some evidence supporting the theory? Think about it ... what modern science could stand if it directly contradicted all the observations of thousands of working scientists on a daily basis?
Regarding quantum mechanics, it is the equivalent of mysticism and you are no more capable of explaining what is happening at the level than I am. Since you are stuck there, maybe you could present your verifiable evidence which introduces life into the biological world which would be an essential component to evolution, after all, no life, no evolution, right?
Oh by the way, it's a good candy bar.
Your friend
John
Richard Amiel McGough
06-28-2012, 08:22 PM
Regarding quantum mechanics, it is the equivalent of mysticism and you are no more capable of explaining what is happening at the level than I am. Since you are stuck there, maybe you could present your verifiable evidence which introduces life into the biological world which would be an essential component to evolution, after all, no life, no evolution, right?
Oh by the way, it's a good candy bar.
Your friend
John
The origin of DNA and the first cell is still a mystery. God could have done it for all I know, though I would be surprised if it didn't evolve through natural chemical evolution. But that's totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution which is the theory that explains the evolution of living organisms. The evidence strongly supports the idea that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. So it doesn't matter if God created the first cell - that wouldn't affect a single fact about the theory of evolution.
And yes, Snickers are the bomb! Yum. :sunny:
David M
06-29-2012, 05:13 AM
David,
I have no idea how it is possible that you failed to understand the point of this thread. I am not a Christian, but I can easily state the best evidence for Christianity. This is exactly what I did when I started the "What's the best evidence for Christianity" thread. This proves that I am open-minded and it supports my assertion that I have rejected Christianity because it fails on evidential grounds.
Can you say the same thing about your stance on evolution? Absolutely not. If you are incapable of stating the evidence supporting evolution, then you can't present any legitimate arguments against it because you are totally ignorant, by your own admission, of the science.
How is it possible that you don't understand these simple facts? Don't you understand that you must be able to articulate the view you reject? If not, then how do you even know what you are rejecting?
This thread is a test to reveal who are blind dogmatists and who are true Truth Seekers.
I think it would be great if you read the opening post again with an open mind. I know you have sufficient intelligence to understand the point I am making. The problem is that you are so deeply embedded into your dogmatism that you can't even consider the possibility that any other point of view might be right. I'm offering you a path to freedom from the blind dogmatism that has trapped your soul. Please try David. The fact that you cannot even state any evidence for evolution proves that your soul is currently in bondage that blinds your mind.
Richard
Richard
If you want an answer from me in the way you intend, the best evidence I see is; variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance.
It was not too hard to give an answer after all. l do not expect you to agree that this is the "best evidenc"e, only that is is "good" evidence, but do not challenge me on what I mean by "good", as that has been done in another thread.
David
Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 11:52 AM
Richard
If you want an answer from me in the way you intend, the best evidence I see is; variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance.
It was not too hard to give an answer after all. l do not expect you to agree that this is the "best evidenc"e, only that is is "good" evidence, but do not challenge me on what I mean by "good", as that has been done in another thread.
David
Hey there David,
You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! :congrats:
I agree that "variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance" is excellent evidence for evolution. Indeed, it is the very definition of biological evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02)!
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.
The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.
You will note that I struck out the words "within kinds" when agreeing with your comment because that idea has no meaning in science.
I'm really glad you decided to contribute your insights to this question. Thanks!
Richard
David M
06-29-2012, 04:58 PM
Hello Richard
Hey there David,
You hit the nail on the head! Congratulations! :congrats:
Thanks for the congratulations
I agree that "variation of species within kinds, as this shows changes over time by inheritance" is excellent evidence for evolution. Indeed, it is the very definition of biological evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02)!
Thanks for this link. I will have a look and read of some of the content.
This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.
"Evolution is a "fact" and not theory"" is to be decided, if we examine the best information. Not everyone agrees that Evolution is fact, so present the facts of the evidence and lets see if you can convince the Bible scholars on this forum.
You will note that I struck out the words "within kinds" when agreeing with your comment because that idea has no meaning in science.
I expected you to object to word "kinds". It is good of you to just strike it out.
OK Richard, we have overcome the title of the thread, but now the question remains; "what is the best evidence?" I have told you what is the best type of evidence, I have not given you any evidence. Now the evidence following this type of evidence has to be presented. I do not have a clue as to what of all the evidence available is the best.
I will put to one side how we get from nothing to a single atom. From the simplest atom hydrogen we get the heavier atoms that make up the periodic table of elements. From atoms we move on to the simplest molecules and then to complex molecules. We can start from the position of the simplest molecules necessary for the simplest of life. We start with amino acids and proteins and get to the first cell or bacterium? From a single cell we have the development to the different types of cells in order to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals. Somewhere in the chain starting with a single cell to complex living types, you are going to have to find a piece of the chain that is undeniably an evolutionary process.
I feel that there are going to be a lot of gaps and presumptions but I am prepared to consider anything evidence you want to put forward. Showing the links leading to the duckbillplatibus might be a challenge but let's start off with the simplest evidence as the simplest is likely to be the best. Getting from the simplest to the most complex can be the next stage. Whether examples of the best evidence presented is actual proof of Evolution has to be decided. I am prepared to keep an open mind as much as possible to see how far we can get in this challenge.
The next step I will leave to you.
All the best,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
06-29-2012, 06:13 PM
Hello Richard
Thanks for the congratulations
My pleasure! You deserved it.
This is why evolution is a "fact" and not a "theory." The "theory of evolution" is the set of scientific principles intended to explain the "fact of evolution." This is why creationism is not a science and cannot compete with science. It has no "theory" - no consistent set of testable principles - that explains anything.
"Evolution is a "fact" and not theory"" is to be decided, if we examine the best information. Not everyone agrees that Evolution is fact, so present the facts of the evidence and lets see if you can convince the Bible scholars on this forum.
I think you might still be confusing the "fact of evolution" with the "theory of evolution." Did you understand the difference between "fact" and "theory" as I explained it? Biological evolution is a fact like gravity. You said so yourself when you gave the definition of evolution as the "best evidence" for evolution. We look at the fossil record and see that the species that lived in the past are different than the species alive today. And the further back we look, the more they change. We can see that the changes follow patterns that branch out into more and more variety as time passes. So I really don't think there is any question about the fact of evolution. But if you think this point is debatable and that animals have stayed the same over the entire history of the planet, please present your evidence so I can evaluate it.
OK Richard, we have overcome the title of the thread, but now the question remains; "what is the best evidence?" I have told you what is the best type of evidence, I have not given you any evidence. Now the evidence following this type of evidence has to be presented. I do not have a clue as to what of all the evidence available is the best.
In my opinion, the best evidence is as follows:
DNA - the same kind of DNA evidence that is accepted in courts to determine paternity is used to show the relation between species. We are all related and come from a common ancestor.
The fossil record.
The Phylogenetic Tree of Life that shows the relation between all organisms. This coheres with both DNA and the fossil evidence.
The distribution of life on the planet. This is where geology and fossils mutually confirm the dating and the tree of life, etc.
A quick guide to the evidence for evolution is found here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01). It's very brief and should be very enlightening for folks not familiar with the evidence. If you find something you think is false or inaccurate, please bring it to my attention.
I will put to one side how we get from nothing to a single atom. From the simplest atom hydrogen we get the heavier atoms that make up the periodic table of elements. From atoms we move on to the simplest molecules and then to complex molecules. We can start from the position of the simplest molecules necessary for the simplest of life. We start with amino acids and proteins and get to the first cell or bacterium? From a single cell we have the development to the different types of cells in order to produce all the different kinds of plants and animals. Somewhere in the chain starting with a single cell to complex living types, you are going to have to find a piece of the chain that is undeniably an evolutionary process.
I feel that there are going to be a lot of gaps and presumptions but I am prepared to consider anything evidence you want to put forward. Showing the links leading to the duckbillplatibus might be a challenge but let's start off with the simplest evidence as the simplest is likely to be the best. Getting from the simplest to the most complex can be the next stage. Whether examples of the best evidence presented is actual proof of Evolution has to be decided. I am prepared to keep an open mind as much as possible to see how far we can get in this challenge.
The next step I will leave to you.
All the best,
David
You have stepped outside the question of this thread. When I speak of biological evolution I am talking only about how all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Questions about the origin of the universe, matter and energy, the formation of galaxies and planets are simply too big to tackle all at once. And they involve very advanced physics so we probably could not have a fruitful discussion. The same thing goes for the question of the origin of the first cell. We simply do not know enough to give any firm answers to that topic. For all I know, God could have created DNA and the first cell. But that's irrelevant to the question of biological evolution because that theory would remain the same no matter how the first cell got here. We must choose some starting point, so we should choose something we can know with some degree of certainty.
Great chatting my friend!
Richard
David M
06-29-2012, 08:41 PM
Hello Richard
I think you might still be confusing the "fact of evolution" with the "theory of evolution." Did you understand the difference between "fact" and "theory" as I explained it? Biological evolution is a fact like gravity. You said so yourself when you gave the definition of evolution as the "best evidence" for evolution. We look at the fossil record and see that the species that lived in the past are different than the species alive today. And the further back we look, the more they change. We can see that the changes follow patterns that branch out into more and more variety as time passes. So I really don't think there is any question about the fact of evolution. But if you think this point is debatable and that animals have stayed the same over the entire history of the planet, please present your evidence so I can evaluate it.
I accept biological changes can take place, but whether those changes happen in reality the way Evolutionists say must be proved. How can anyone be certain the tree of life is accurate? As an aside, I would really like to know if naturalists like David Attenborough believe evolutionist. He is forced to tow the line when presenting his natural history programs. Privately, I think he might not.
I will examine the best pieces of evidence you can give me. I accept changes from common ancestors of different kinds(species). Microevolution in species I can accept. Symbiotic relations between plants and animals needs to be explained and the tree of life might do that. Do you know if it does? I do not have a copy of the tree of life to check what it shows.
In my opinion, the best evidence is as follows:
DNA - the same kind of DNA evidence that is accepted in courts to determine paternity is used to show the relation between species. We are all related and come from a common ancestor.
The fossil record.
The Phylogenetic Tree of Life that shows the relation between all organisms. This coheres with both DNA and the fossil evidence.
The distribution of life on the planet. This is where geology and fossils mutually confirm the dating and the tree of life, etc.
A quick guide to the evidence for evolution is found here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01). It's very brief and should be very enlightening for folks not familiar with the evidence. If you find something you think is false or inaccurate, please bring it to my attention.
The problem I see with DNA is that I see this as one of God's fundamental building blocks for all complex life forms (a singel cell is comlex). It is not surprising to find similarities in DNA amongst species (or kinds). It would be logical for God when he designed His creation on earth, to design the simpler life forms first and then design progressively more tcomplex life forms building on previous designs. As I see it now, Evolution might be discovering the progression in God's design process. Let's continue as you want to proceed.
I see you mention the tree of life which I referred to in my reply to the previous paragraph, so I refer to my question there.
I do not have much faith in some of the dating methods, but I acknowledge you accept those methods are accurate. I am prepared to leave the fossil record out if the best evidence does not have to depend on the fossil record.
You have stepped outside the question of this thread. When I speak of biological evolution I am talking only about how all organisms descended from a common ancestor. Questions about the origin of the universe, matter and energy, the formation of galaxies and planets are simply too big to tackle all at once. And they involve very advanced physics so we probably could not have a fruitful discussion. The same thing goes for the question of the origin of the first cell. We simply do not know enough to give any firm answers to that topic. For all I know, God could have created DNA and the first cell. But that's irrelevant to the question of biological evolution because that theory would remain the same no matter how the first cell got here. We must choose some starting point, so we should choose something we can know with some degree of certainty.
By "putting that to one side", I meant we are not going to consider basic origins for the reason you have explained. Sorry if I presumed you knew what I meant. I agree we must choose some starting point.
The time this will take examing all the evidence to prove to me that Evolution leads to the many different species is going to take longer than I can expect to live and I think eternal life will be proven to me (or not) before Evolution can be proven to me. If you have an accelerated learning path to understanding Evolution and examining all the evidence, please let me know.
David
The time this will take examing all the evidence to prove to me that Evolution leads to the many different species is going to take longer than I can expect to live and I think eternal life will be proven to me (or not) before Evolution can be proven to me. If you have an accelerated learning path to understanding Evolution and examining all the evidence, please let me know.
David
Hi David,
The first books I read when I was just beginning to learn about evolution were The Language of Life by Francis Collins and The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. Both are excellent books by top scientists in their field.
Rose
Evolution is BULLSHIT. Do you know that we humans can create modified germs and modified plants and modified animals just by tweaking some of their DNAs? Soon humans will be able to create new species of animals by tweaking the animal's DNAs. They don't evolved but are all created by humans through genetic modification. Such tweaking of the DNAs in fact produces sub-species of germs, plants, animals. If humans can do that by CREATION, I see no reason why GOd cannot create animals and plants etc. by creation. It doesn't make sense to have "random creation" which either leads to nothing or is imperfect and impossible when intelligent design and creation is much faster and easier with predictable perfect outcome. It's the same and as easy as creating computer virus and bugs just by creating or changing computer codes. NOTHING IS EVOLVED, ALL ARE CREATED. Do you know that scientists have already created the world"s first bacteria from man-made DNA? This is a blow to Evolution; there is no stopping men from creating sub-species of living things:
http://www.google.com.sg/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=world's%20first%20created%20germ&cp=22&gs_id=3h&xhr=t&q=world's+first+man-made+germ&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=world's+first+man-made+germ&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=727b52a1e0ad6a4c&biw=792&bih=415&bs=1
Scientists create 1st bacteria strain from man-made DNA
Updated 5/20/2010 8:30 PM | Comment | Recommend Share on emailE-mail | Share on printPrint | Reprints & Permissions |
Enlarge Science/AAAS
Images of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 and WT M. mycoides at varying magnifications. Scientists designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map's chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, "and booted it up."
SCIENCE REPORTER TWEETS
Share
Add to Mixx Facebook TwitterMore
Fark Digg Reddit MySpace StumbleUpon Propeller LinkedInSubscribe
myYahoo iGoogleMore
Netvibes myAOL
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Genome researchers Thursday unveiled the first bacteria strain with a man-made collection of genes.
The long-anticipated advance, reported in the journal Science, is a $40 million milestone in the nascent field of "synthetic biology" and points towards a future of designer microbes manufacturing fuels, chemicals and materials.
"This is the first self-replicating cell we've had on the planet whose parent is a computer," says team chief Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Md., who called the bacteria "the world's first synthetic cell." Venter is best known for his leadership of private human genome mapping efforts in the last decade, but he has since become a leading figure in synthetic biology, with his team producing a series of advances over the past 15 years.
In this latest study, the team designed a non-infectious gene map for Mycoplasma mycoides bacteria, ordered the map's chemical constituents and assembled those chemicals into a gene chromosome inside yeast cells. Finally, they transplanted the genome into a different species of bacteria, "and booted it up," Venter says, noting "a lot of failed attempts" preceded the success.
The altered bacteria reproduced as blue colonies of mycoides cells (now held in a freezer and awaiting a museum), containing gene "watermark" codes contained only in the synthetic genome.
"This represents an important step in our ability to engineer organisms," says Howard Hughes Medical Institutes genome researcher Jim Collins of Boston University, who was not on the study team. The results represent a "methodological tour-de-force," he adds. "Certainly the yeast step they have developed should be repeatable. We should be able to do things in other bacteria to reprogram them," leading to microbes producing materials for manufacturing.
In a briefing, the team noted it has asked for bioethics and safety reviews of synthetic biology research. Venter says the team approached the Bush Administration for permission to openly publish past research in this area out of bioterrorism safety concerns.
"It would be possible for someone to synthesize a pathogen (dangerous microbe) in a new way this way," says Robert Friedman of the Venter Institute. But he says federal officials have undertaken rule-making procedures to police the ordering of the chemicals needed to synthesize genomes, as they do biologists ordering dangerous microbes. The team eliminated 14 genes from their synthetic genome that allow the mycoides bacteria to infect goats.
Technology assessment expert David Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington D.C., says the public knows little about synthetic biology and the study announcement may bring added concern. "If anything positive comes out of the (Gulf of Mexico) oil spill, it is that nobody is going to believe in 'failsafe' technologies for a long time, and that will apply to scientists tinkering with biology as well," he says.
The study team has taken patents on the synthetic genome process, Venter adds, and hopes to repeat its success in algae as a step to producing chemicals from engineered microbes. "This is not life from scratch," Venter says. "We are taking advantage of 3 billion years of evolution to transplant a genome into a cell."
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=modified+germs%2C+plants%2C+a nimals
God Blessed Creation:pray:
luke1978
06-29-2012, 10:35 PM
Evolution is BULLSHIT. Do you know that we humans can create modified germs and modified plants and modified animals just by tweaking some of their DNAs? Soon humans will be able to create new species of animals by tweaking the animal's DNAs. They don't evolved but are all created by humans through genetic modification. Such tweaking of the DNAs in fact produces sub-species of germs, plants, animals. If humans can do that by CREATION, I see no reason why GOd cannot create animals and plants etc. by creation. It doesn't make sense to have "random creation" which either leads to nothing or is imperfect when intelligent design and creation is much faster and easier with predictable perfect outcome. It's the same and as easy as creating computer virus and bugs just by creating or changing computer codes. NOTHING IS EVOLVED, ALL ARE CREATED.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=modified+germs%2C+plants%2C+a nimals
God Blessed Creation:pray:
First man claims to be a God unto himself and then he plagiarised his/her/it's work!
The verdict:
http://www.biblemaths.com/dna.pdf
God wins! - This should be good news even to an atheist. Now they can convert...
The origin of DNA and the first cell is still a mystery.
And yes, Snickers are the bomb! Yum. :sunny:
There is nothing mysterious about it at all. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Afterward He brought forth life. Origin of DNA and the first cell... resolved! What's so mysterious about that?
It really is that simple.
Your friend,
John
David M
06-30-2012, 06:14 AM
Hi David,
The first books I read when I was just beginning to learn about evolution were The Language of Life by Francis Collins and The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. Both are excellent books by top scientists in their field.
Rose
Thank you Rose for your recommendations. The best in the field is worth reading if only to challenge what they say. There is an avert for tinned fish that says' " it is the rest that John West rejects that makes John West the best" It is better I can refute the best and forget the rest. Let's see how we get on with this 'What is the best evidence for ...? series. I do not want to spend money on books that will not convince me, though I accept there can some things to be learnt from scientific research. I am not totally disbelieving of science; only that sientific results are not always accurate as scientist would have us believe. Only recently it was heard on the radio that scientists are now saying the dinosaurs were not as large as they have thought to be. Now this is an illustrating of science changing its statements. How can we trust statments that are subject to change? God is not changing His statements. It is man that is changing the statements of God; so be careful when saying; "the Bible says (states)" to quote accurately.
All the best,
David
David M
06-30-2012, 06:50 AM
Hello Cheow
There is not need for me to copy your post in my reply. It is interesting that man has been able to create bacteria strain from man-made DNA. Does this mean that bacteria has the same life that a man or woman has? Is there a special ingredient we call life? When it says; the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I can imagine this like giving Adam his first breath by artifical stimulation, like slapping the baby when it is delivered to take its first breath. If God created Adam quickly, there was no time for deterioration of the body to set in, all God had to do was kick-start life. God would have had to do the same with Eve. Once God got the process of breathing going, it has continued ever since and when a person stops breathing, they have already kept the human race alive by producing offspring who go on to breath. Life is simply a functioning body that is not dead and therefore cannot breathe and has not breath in it.
It is when we finally stop breathing we die. We can be kept alive on artifiical respirators till they switch off the machines or until the rest of the body has deteriorated so much that artificial breathing and introvenus feeding cannot save the body and it would not breathe when left on its own to live.
God preserves our spirit (another difficult subject to comprehend) at death (or before) which is what God has to reunite with a body at resurrection. Our spirit is made up of what is stored in our mind; it is that information that God must keep. I see by God taking back life, He stops the breathing process. Hence, there does not have to be a miracle substance that is "life"; life is simply an organism that has a way of breathing and functions as long as it is "breathing".
Take the analogy of a car. It has an engine which is kicked into life and continues to run so long as it is supplied with gas (food) and breathes air. The engine dies when it is starved of air or gas and then the car is useless. If the car has a black box/control unit (ECU) fitted, whereby the car is controlled and stores information of the car's performance, that ECU or black box is simply transferred to another car with a good engine. Is this how we can think of the sprit of man? The new car with a new engine functions again with the same intelligence/blackbox/ECU that was in the first car. This is my simple analogy to try and understand the meaning of the words "life" and "spirit" and "breath".
If bacteria are not in the same class as a breathing animal or human being, we have nothing to worry about by man's tinkering with DNA. Good things are being done with human DNA, but horrendous results could happen and that is a worry. Man's days will be shortened before he causes irreversible damage and converts humans to mutants that cannot reproduce and would die out.
Its good that we can express ideas that do not change our belief an God. As long as we know when we are trying to reason things out with human limitations the same as scientists have. Scientists have no choice other than to reason things out by the process of evolutionary once they have rejected God. All truth comes from what man can find out or is revealed by God. Man is finding out lots of things, but what has been found out has not proved Evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
Thanks for your posts Cheow.
David
Its good that we can express ideas that do not change our belief an God. As long as we know when we are trying to reason things out with human limitations the same as scientists have. Scientists have no choice other than to reason things out by the process of evolutionary once they have rejected God. All truth comes from what man can find out or is revealed by God. Man is finding out lots of things, but what has been found out has not proved Evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
David
Good morning David,
If there is a creator god, then truth about him should be revealed from what man through his intellect discovers. The only threat is to belief in a god created by man, such as the biblegod. Dogmatic, fundamentalist Christians have to put their god in a box constrained by what the Bible says, they are not free to allow creation to be the way it is. If the best evidence that man can come up with shows that evolution is the way life progressed forward - so be it - but that is not the case with a person who is limited by what the Bible says about god and creation, thus god must conform to man's ideas.
If there is an intelligent mind behind the formation of the universe, why put man made limits on how that intelligent mind chose to create it. Allow yourself the freedom to expand your mind, by laying aside the weights of being in bondage to a particular idea put forth by Bronze Age men.
All the best,
Rose
David M
06-30-2012, 10:48 AM
Good morning David,
If there is a creator god, then truth about him should be revealed from what man through his intellect discovers. The only threat is to belief in a god created by man, such as the biblegod. Dogmatic, fundamentalist Christians have to put their god in a box constrained by what the Bible says, they are not free to allow creation to be the way it is. If the best evidence that man can come up with shows that evolution is the way life progressed forward - so be it - but that is not the case with a person who is limited by what the Bible says about god and creation, thus god must conform to man's ideas.
If there is an intelligent mind behind the formation of the universe, why put man made limits on how that intelligent mind chose to create it. Allow yourself the freedom to expand your mind, by laying aside the weights of being in bondage to a particular idea put forth by Bronze Age men.
All the best,
Rose
Good morning Rose
I wish you can find God outside of the Bible (the original ancient scriptures and letters). What can you tell me about God if you think the god of the Bible is the imagination of bronze-age man?. I would be happier if you think that all the horrible stories of killings etc should be eliminated from the Bible and we retain all the good things attributable about God. However, if you say that eveything written in the Bible is the work of men and is not revealed by God, where are you going to get your knowledge of God. The God of the Bible is telling us about himself and if He only gets rid of people who are not worth saving and who are irredeemable but saves the righteous I do not see that there is anything unjust. If what you see is unjust you attribute to what men say of God, then leave that out. From what is left to know about God, have you reason to believe it.
I will reason about this other God who follows your morals if you have any solid information to back it up. As it is, I am able to give reasons for the things that God did or allowed that satisfies me as to God being jus.t God is always good to those who He is saving, all be it the chastening night not seem good at the time.
Please let us talk about your God and reason together.
All the best,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
06-30-2012, 10:48 AM
Hi David,
The first books I read when I was just beginning to learn about evolution were The Language of Life by Francis Collins and The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. Both are excellent books by top scientists in their field.
Rose
Both of those books are excellent. And they are quick reads. Only ignorant fools would think to oppose evolution without informing themselves of what the theory actually states and the evidence supporting it.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-30-2012, 10:50 AM
Hi David,
The first books I read when I was just beginning to learn about evolution were The Language of Life by Francis Collins and The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carroll. Both are excellent books by top scientists in their field.
Rose
Both of those books are excellent. They are quick reads, and the Language of Life was written by an evangelical Christian who also was the head of the Human Genome Project. Only ignorant fools would think to oppose evolution without informing themselves of what the theory actually states and the evidence supporting it.
Richard Amiel McGough
06-30-2012, 11:01 AM
There is nothing mysterious about it at all. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". Afterward He brought forth life. Origin of DNA and the first cell... resolved! What's so mysterious about that?
It really is that simple.
Your friend,
John
I take it that was meant as a joke. I can't imagine how you could be serious since most people understand the Bible as saying that God created each and every creature directly without going through the process of evolution. The Bible says nothing about God merely creating DNA and the first cell that then evolved into all the organisms that have ever lived.
And it's not true that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". The "heavens" (space) came into existence about 13.75 billions years ago, whereas the earth wasn't formed until about 9 billion years later. They were not created together "in the beginning."
The origin of DNA and first cell is a true mystery. Merely asserting that "God did it" is no answer at all.
[QUOTE=David M;46787]Hello Cheow
There is not need for me to copy your post in my reply. It is interesting that man has been able to create bacteria strain from man-made DNA. Does this mean that bacteria has the same life that a man or woman has?
Hi David, Of course germs do not have the same life as humans. What they did was getting the DNA from another germ and remake a new strain of bacteria. This proved that DNA can be altered to create a new strain or sub-strain of a germ. I am looking forward to the day when new animal species and plant species can be created the same way by altering the DNA of another species of animals. This will prove that animals and plants are created and it be a GREAT BLOW TO EVOLUTION. And the theory of Evolution will be the BIggest deceit of the world.
Is there a special ingredient we call life? When it says; the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. I can imagine this like giving Adam his first breath by artifical stimulation, like slapping the baby when it is delivered to take its first breath.
Oxygen is also known as the breath of life for without oxygen no animals and plants can live. Therefore when "God breathed into the nostrils the breath of life", I take that oxygen was given to this man (Adam) and he became a living being. Slapping a baby when delivering is a method of stimulating the baby to cry so that he started to breathe air after "swimming" for nine months in his mother's synovial fluid.
If God created Adam quickly, there was no time for deterioration of the body to set in, all God had to do was kick-start life. God would have had to do the same with Eve. Once God got the process of breathing going, it has continued ever since and when a person stops breathing, they have already kept the human race alive by producing offspring who go on to breath. Life is simply a functioning body that is not dead and therefore cannot breathe and has not breath in it.
You have the whole concept wrong. When someone dies, his/her spirit came out of the body i.e. the body is of no avail. Therefore, when the spirit is out of the body, the body is dead. This theorectically means that as long as the spirit is in the body, the body is still alive. Now when the spirit is out of the body means death and thus no matter what you did to the body whether by pumping oxygen and getting the heart to beat mechanically is of no avail.
It is when we finally stop breathing we die. We can be kept alive on artifiical respirators till they switch off the machines or until the rest of the body has deteriorated so much that artificial breathing and introvenus feeding cannot save the body and it would not breathe when left on its own to live.
It is just a dead corpse made to breathe and and his heart to pump by using a heart-lung machine....theorecticaly a living dead, physically alive but clinically dead. As long as there is blood and oxygen and carbon dioxide and some nutrients circulating in the body the corpse will not decay. But it is the spirit that gives life otherwise the artificial breathing corpse is just a vegetable.
God preserves our spirit (another difficult subject to comprehend) at death (or before) which is what God has to reunite with a body at resurrection. Our spirit is made up of what is stored in our mind; it is that information that God must keep. I see by God taking back life, He stops the breathing process. Hence, there does not have to be a miracle substance that is "life"; life is simply an organism that has a way of breathing and functions as long as it is "breathing".
Even if we can stimulate the brain to start the lungs breathing and heart pumping spontaneously, it will still be of no avail if the spirit have already left the body. We call this type as "Brain dead" meaning there is no brain activity except that the body is still breathing and the heart is still pumping. Clinically he has already died. No brain activity is actually the best sign to confirm death.
Take the analogy of a car. It has an engine which is kicked into life and continues to run so long as it is supplied with gas (food) and breathes air. The engine dies when it is starved of air or gas and then the car is useless. If the car has a black box/control unit (ECU) fitted, whereby the car is controlled and stores information of the car's performance, that ECU or black box is simply transferred to another car with a good engine. Is this how we can think of the sprit of man? The new car with a new engine functions again with the same intelligence/blackbox/ECU that was in the first car. This is my simple analogy to try and understand the meaning of the words "life" and "spirit" and "breath".
Your analogy is correct but without spirit is like without electricity or gas that made the car functions. The soul is like the software in the computer and the body is like the hardware; both must exist and work together in order for the computer to function perfectly when power is supplied. These 3 things must work together. In other words, the body is like the hardware, the soul is like the software, i.e. the brain that co-ordinates the functions of the body and the spirit is the energy that powers the body and brain thus making the whole body alive. Sometimes soul and spirit is used interchangeably in the Bible. I do not know exactly what spirit is made of but I speculate it is some kind of an electromagnetic force or radiation energy that carries the whole perfect makeup of the body so that it can be made physical if needed.
If bacteria are not in the same class as a breathing animal or human being, we have nothing to worry about by man's tinkering with DNA. Good things are being done with human DNA, but horrendous results could happen and that is a worry. Man's days will be shortened before he causes irreversible damage and converts humans to mutants that cannot reproduce and would die out.
Agree that tinkering with DNA may bring more harm than good. We can either produce perfect beings or monsters. This is what I believe that when God made Adam, there was an imperfection and God needed to test to ensure if he is skewed towards evil or skewed towards good. If he was skewed towards evil then there are several procedures necessary to make him become good. It is like a computer infected with computer viruses and is treated with anti-virus software and a whole series of tests have to be done to ensure that the computer is no more infected and its components and softwares are now working in perfect condition.
Its good that we can express ideas that do not change our belief an God. As long as we know when we are trying to reason things out with human limitations the same as scientists have. Scientists have no choice other than to reason things out by the process of evolutionary once they have rejected God. All truth comes from what man can find out or is revealed by God. Man is finding out lots of things, but what has been found out has not proved Evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
The ability for humans to make new strains of germs will inevitably lead to creating new species of animals and plants just by tinkering with their DNAs. When that time comes, only will human realized the folly of the theory of Evolution and embrace Creationism. The theory of Evolution will become the greatest deceit in human history. The only theory of Evolution that is plausible to me is micro-evolution which I dubbed as a process of adaptation.
Thanks for your posts Cheow.
Thanks to your posts as well, David. I enjoy them very much.
May God Bless us.:pray:
I take it that was meant as a joke. I can't imagine how you could be serious since most people understand the Bible as saying that God created each and every creature directly without going through the process of evolution. The Bible says nothing about God merely creating DNA and the first cell that then evolved into all the organisms that have ever lived.
The Bible points to God as the source of creation and life. Now, individuals can discount the Bible as a science book, one can even discount the Old Testament as a literal account of history, as set forth by Luke1978, but you have no power nor authority to dismiss it as the Word of God. You only demonstrate arrogance in trampling it underfoot because you disagree with its content.
One thing that rings loud and clear as I have been exposed to your reasoning, is your complete disregard for the interpretations and understandings of others.
There have been millions of lives which have come and gone, who have devoted their life to serving Christ through self sacrifice to make the world a better place. Those people have no idea what you are talking about. They do not understand the things you do because of the education gap, but they do understand the teachings of Scripture, and it has transformed their lives from meaningless to meaningful.
And it's not true that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
Since verification is your mantra, perhaps you could share your evidence of this "fact" with the rest of us.
The "heavens" (space) came into existence about 13.75 billions years ago, whereas the earth wasn't formed until about 9 billion years later. They were not created together "in the beginning."
Perhaps, Perhaps not. If God chose to initiate creation and life via the "Big Bang", how can you conclude that all of the elements necessary to spawn the stars and planets were not present in that act?
The origin of DNA and first cell is a true mystery. Merely asserting that "God did it" is no answer at all.
The Bible tells me the Who and What of life. Who? God. What? Life.
You see how simple it is Richard. This answer to the Who & What is a Biblical certainty. God has given us science and math as the keys to unlock the mysteries of the "How" and "When" of His creation. Don't try to hijack those keys from those who believe.
Your friend,
John
Richard Amiel McGough
07-01-2012, 10:25 AM
The Bible points to God as the source of creation and life. Now, individuals can discount the Bible as a science book, one can even discount the Old Testament as a literal account of history, as set forth by Luke1978, but you have no power nor authority to dismiss it as the Word of God. You only demonstrate arrogance in trampling it underfoot because you disagree with its content.
Good morning John, my friend! :tea:
I really appreciate your criticism, but when I take it to heart I have trouble understanding what exactly I have done that is "arrogant." As far as I know, I have given good reasons for the things I say. Sure, I could be wrong, but where is the "arrogance"? You will need to be a little more specific in your criticism so I can correct my behavior.
Your assertion that I am "arrogant" for rejecting the proposition that the Bible is the "Word of God" doesn't make sense to me. You reject all other religious Scriptures as "not the Word of God." So what is the difference between you and me? And when I think about it, it seems you have things backwards. If anything is "arrogant" is it not your assertion that one particular religious book is the "Word of God" to the exclusion of all others? Who gave you the "power and authority" to declare the Bible is the Word of God? You are not God, and you do not know if your assertion is true. And if you are wrong and the moral abominations attributed to God are libelous falsehoods then you are guilty of promoting gross falsehoods against God and misleading people about his true nature.
If anything is arrogant, it seems to be the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" when you know no such thing. What if you are wrong? Doesn't that matter to you at all? Why do you think you have the power and authority to declare that the Bible accurately describes God? And who gave you the authority to declare that all the other Scriptures of all the other religions are false? Does this not make you "arrogant" by your own definition since you (a mere man) are setting yourself up as a judge over all religious truth?
I think my position is much more humble. I simple admit that no one knows if any book is the "Word of God."
One thing that rings loud and clear as I have been exposed to your reasoning, is your complete disregard for the interpretations and understandings of others.
Again, I don't know what you are talking about so I have no way to change my behavior for the better. Your charge is just a broad generality with no content. I very much appreciate your criticism, but it would help if you gave me something to actually work with so I can change my "arrogant" ways.
There have been millions of lives which have come and gone, who have devoted their life to serving Christ through self sacrifice to make the world a better place. Those people have no idea what you are talking about. They do not understand the things you do because of the education gap, but they do understand the teachings of Scripture, and it has transformed their lives from meaningless to meaningful.
I guess I'm rather like those people since I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never said anything against anyone doing good in the world in the name of Christ. We are not talking about things like that. We are talking about the truth or falsehood about things like evolution and the Bible. But if you want to chastise someone for misleading the Christians who might be uneducated and simple-minded, you would do well to start with the professional creationists who regularly lie to them about the science of evolution. They are guilty of grossly deceiving simple-minded Christians when they teach that "evolution is bullshit with no scientific support of any kind." And worse, they are using the uneducated Christians to make money and spread their lies. They are simultaneously fleecing the sheep and corrupting their minds! That seems pretty wicked to me ... and they do it all in the name of defending the Bible as the "Word of God."
And it's not true that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".
Since verification is your mantra, perhaps you could share your evidence of this "fact" with the rest of us.
I already have. There is a large body of evidence that this universe we live in began about 13.75 billion years ago and that the earth was formed about 9 billion years later. A gap of 9 billion years between those two events means that they did not happen together "in the beginning." I have no problem with Genesis 1 as a poetic statement about how God is creator. The only problem that arises is when folks try to say that Genesis 1 trumps scientific facts. I'm talking about folks who think it is a literal historical narrative that implies a young earth and contradicts evolution.
The "heavens" (space) came into existence about 13.75 billions years ago, whereas the earth wasn't formed until about 9 billion years later. They were not created together "in the beginning."
Perhaps, Perhaps not. If God chose to initiate creation and life via the "Big Bang", how can you conclude that all of the elements necessary to spawn the stars and planets were not present in that act?
I never said that all those elements were not present in the big bang. As best we know, the elements began as mostly hydrogen and a little helium with almost no heavier elements. The heavier elements had to be cooked in the first generation of stars which then went nova and distributed them into the universe. Those elements then condensed into second generation stars and planets like earth.
The origin of DNA and first cell is a true mystery. Merely asserting that "God did it" is no answer at all.
The Bible tells me the Who and What of life. Who? God. What? Life.
You see how simple it is Richard. This answer to the Who & What is a Biblical certainty. God has given us science and math as the keys to unlock the mysteries of the "How" and "When" of His creation. Don't try to hijack those keys from those who believe.
Yes, those answers are a "Biblical certainty" just like Allah and Life are a "Quranic certainty." That doesn't mean either are true.
The problem is that anyone could invent that kind of answer. It require no knowledge at all. It is mere assertion like saying that Brahman is Creator.
I don't understand what you think I am trying to "hijack." All I have been doing is reasoning with you about the Bible and science.
Your friend,
John
Thank you for taking the time and effort to "wound" me. Your comments are much better than an enemy's kisses.
Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
Always your friend,
Richard
[QUOTE]
The ability for humans to make new strains of germs will inevitably lead to creating new species of animals and plants just by tinkering with their DNAs. When that time comes, only will human realized the folly of the theory of Evolution and embrace Creationism. The theory of Evolution will become the greatest deceit in human history. The only theory of Evolution that is plausible to me is micro-evolution which I dubbed as a process of adaptation.
Thanks to your posts as well, David. I enjoy them very much.
May God Bless us.:pray:
I have one simple question for you Cheow. How has the theory of Evolution harmed the progression of mankind's knowledge? It seems to me that the human quest for knowledge is what led Darwin to study how animals change over time, which then led others after him to discover the wonders of DNA and the genetic code, and on and on it goes.
The wonderful thing about science is that if a theory is wrong it will be found out because their hypothesis's will fail. If Evolution is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened!
Rose
[QUOTE=CWH;46853]
I have one simple question for you Cheow. How has the theory of Evolution harmed the progression of mankind's knowledge? It seems to me that the human quest for knowledge is what led Darwin to study how animals change over time, which then led others after him to discover the wonders of DNA and the genetic code, and on and on it goes.
The wonderful thing about science is that if a theory is wrong it will be found out because their hypothesis's will fail. If Evolution is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened!
Rose
The theory of Evolution will not harm the progression of man's knowledge. Did the theory of Phlogiston harmed mankind's knowledge on Chemistry? No, they will just need to revise their concept. Same as the theory of Evolution. Animals NEVER change over time, has anyone observed it personally?
If Evolution is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened!
Same with Creationism and if is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened! Scientists are not always correct, a good example is the theory of Phlogiston which was believed for 300 years before it was proven false and was replaced by the theory of Combustion. Likewise, the thoery of Evolution will ultimately fail and goes into the dustheap of human history as the greatest deceit in mankind.
Thank God for His Creation.:pray:
David M
07-02-2012, 01:30 AM
If Evolution is true, it does not give a person hope (of existing in the future). If God does not exist, the thought of God gives a person hope, and that has to be better than having no hope.
God has given man proof of His existence by fore-telling events before they happened. Man is still searching for evidence to prove Evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness).
I sugggest you take the advice of Paul to Timothy and put your trust in God who gives hope:
2 Timothy 3:5 (Man) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
The Creator (God) gives a person hope. Whatever your understanding of that hope is, as the psalmist writes;
(Psalm 16:9) Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
God put before Israel a choice and the same choice is yours today.
(Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
None of us reading this message from God can say when we stand before Jesus at the time of judgment; "I never heard about God's offer".
David
(Jude 25) To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
luke1978
07-02-2012, 04:03 AM
If Evolution is true, it does not give a person hope (of existing in the future). If God does not exist, the thought of God gives a person hope, and that has to be better than having no hope.
God has given man proof of His existence by fore-telling events before they happened. Man is still searching for evidence to prove Evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness).
I sugggest you take the advice of Paul to Timothy and put your trust in God who gives hope:
2 Timothy 3:5 (Man) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
The Creator (God) gives a person hope. Whatever your understanding of that hope is, as the psalmist writes;
(Psalm 16:9) Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
God put before Israel a choice and the same choice is yours today.
(Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
None of us reading this message from God can say when we stand before Jesus at the time of judgment; "I never heard about God's offer".
David
(Jude 25) To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
I choose blessing and life with my father in heaven forever and ever. May this be recorded in the book of life.
South Korean schools are now teaching Creationism, hopefully soon the US will follows:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/south-korean-creationists-removing-evolution-references-from-textbooks-76266/
SCIENCE
South Korean Textbooks Reject Evolution
Opponents of evolution have won a big victory in South Korea's schools
By CATHERINE TRAYWICK | June 12, 2012 |
77
Tweet
inShare
23
JULIE DELTON
Evolution
In South Korea, a growing antievolution movement has successfully laid claim to young students’ minds — or, at least, their textbooks. The country’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology announced last month that many South Korean textbook publishers will begin producing revised editions that will for the first time exclude discussions and examples of evolution. Biologists in Seoul are alarmed by the move, noting that scientists were not consulted by the ministry in this decision, reports the journal Nature.
The controversy should be familiar to Americans, who in recent years have watched several states spar over the constitutionality of teaching alternative theories in public schools. But while Americans have seen the theory of intelligent design make inroads against Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, South Korea’s latest changes are unabashedly rooted in the Book of Genesis.
(MORE: The Evolution Wars)
For instance, the country’s leading science institute, the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, has a creationism display on its campus. And in 2008, the Korea Association of Creation Research (KACR) sponsored a very successful exhibition on creationism at Seoul Land, a popular amusement park. KACR claims that the exhibition attracted more than 116,000 visitors in just a few months and that the park is now considering extending the program for up to a year.
About a third of South Koreans surveyed in 2009 for a documentary titled The Era of God and Darwin said they did not believe in evolution, a figure consistent with the global average, according to an Ipsos/Reuters poll. Yet efforts to institutionalize “creation science” seem to be more successful in South Korea than in the U.S., which maintains a higher proportion of evolutionary skeptics.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, South Africa and Brazil all outrank South Korea in percentage of the population that believes in creationism, according to the Ipsos/Reuters poll. Conversely, Sweden, Germany, China, Belgium and Japan boast the highest proportion of evolutionists.
God Bless Creationism.:pray:
If Evolution is true, it does not give a person hope (of existing in the future). If God does not exist, the thought of God gives a person hope, and that has to be better than having no hope.
God has given man proof of His existence by fore-telling events before they happened. Man is still searching for evidence to prove Evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt.
Good morning David,
Whether or not people have hope has nothing to do with Evolution being true. The validity of facts does not hinge on whether or not it gives someone hope. Facts are facts, they are supported by the evidence, not hope.
Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness).
The fact that man can "tinker" with Evolution proves it's validity!
I sugggest you take the advice of Paul to Timothy and put your trust in God who gives hope:
2 Timothy 3:5 (Man) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
The Creator (God) gives a person hope. Whatever your understanding of that hope is, as the psalmist writes;
(Psalm 16:9) Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
God put before Israel a choice and the same choice is yours today.
(Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
None of us reading this message from God can say when we stand before Jesus at the time of judgment; "I never heard about God's offer".
David
(Jude 25) To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen.
It is only wise to put your trust in things that are proven to be true, otherwise your hope is built on sand that washes out from under you when it is put to the test. Saying that God is trustworthy and faithful means nothing, until it is shown to be true.
Take care,
Rose
The theory of Evolution will not harm the progression of man's knowledge. Did the theory of Phlogiston harmed mankind's knowledge on Chemistry? No, they will just need to revise their concept. Same as the theory of Evolution. Animals NEVER change over time, has anyone observed it personally?
If Evolution is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened!
Same with Creationism and if is wrong then anything built upon that theory will fail,...and so far that has not happened! Scientists are not always correct, a good example is the theory of Phlogiston which was believed for 300 years before it was proven false and was replaced by the theory of Combustion. Likewise, the thoery of Evolution will ultimately fail and goes into the dustheap of human history as the greatest deceit in mankind.
Thank God for His Creation.:pray:
Hi Cheow,
I can't think of one theory that has been built on the foundation of Creationism. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me in that area...:yo: There have been many theories built on the foundation of Evolution and they are still standing.
Waiting your reply,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 10:34 AM
If Evolution is true, it does not give a person hope (of existing in the future).
Good morning David,
Your comment is illogical. The truth or falsehood of an hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not it gives "hope."
If God does not exist, the thought of God gives a person hope, and that has to be better than having no hope.
This too is illogical. "If God does not exist" then hoping in God is a delusion. Delusion is never better than reality.
God has given man proof of His existence by fore-telling events before they happened. Man is still searching for evidence to prove Evolution is true beyond all reasonable doubt.
This has never been established. It would be best for you to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims, don't you think? If you want to present the best evidence for fulfilled prophecies, please do so!
Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness).
That is illogical. The word "creator" refers to the being that created this universe. It has nothing to do with anyone who merely "tinkers" with parts of it.
I sugggest you take the advice of Paul to Timothy and put your trust in God who gives hope:
2 Timothy 3:5 (Man) Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
I'd do that in a heart-beat if you would give me any evidence that there is such a god.
The Creator (God) gives a person hope. Whatever your understanding of that hope is, as the psalmist writes;
(Psalm 16:9) Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope.
God put before Israel a choice and the same choice is yours today.
(Deuteronomy 30:19) I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
None of us reading this message from God can say when we stand before Jesus at the time of judgment; "I never heard about God's offer".
Correct. And neither can you say that you have not heard about Allah, the Trinity, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Hinduism, etc., etc., etc. ... so when you die, you will finally find out if you made the right choice during your brief time on earth as a fallible human with no way to establish the truth of such matters.
That's the one thing that struck me as the most irrational, cruel, and perverse about the Gospel. There is no way to know if you made the right choice until it's too late! And if you made the wrong choice you will be tormented forever in the flames of hell. How twisted is that? Of course, David, I know you don't believe in hell ... but what if you are wrong? :eek:
Richard
Twospirits
07-02-2012, 10:47 AM
Hi Cheow,
I can't think of one theory that has been built on the foundation of Creationism. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me in that area...:yo: There have been many theories built on the foundation of Evolution and they are still standing.
Waiting your reply,
Rose
Hi Rose,
I hate to burst your bubble but your statement does not hold up, in those fields science has disputed many of Evolution's theories. Here are some of them:
Scientific facts disputing Evolution.
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
4. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.
5. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
6. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
7. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process (non-intelligence-ie. matter) has ever been observed to produce a program.
8. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
9. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
God bless---Twospirits
Hi Cheow,
I can't think of one theory that has been built on the foundation of Creationism. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me in that area...:yo: There have been many theories built on the foundation of Evolution and they are still standing.
Waiting your reply,
Rose
The many theories of Evolutions come with many flaws and unanswered questions and speculations and with no convincing demonstrations and experiments that can validate the results to confirm its theories. The theory of Evolution is like trying to explain how animals, plants and nature are supposed to be formed. But if one gets the wrong basic fundamentals then everything that was learned and derived from that fundamental will be wrong just like the theory of Phlogiston in which it was believed there was a substance call phlogiston that caused combustion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I believe creation science is in the right direction and it will open up many possibilities unthink of in the discovery of science based on a new branch of science call Intelligent Design. I believe Intelligent Design is far superior to the supposed Evolutionary Science. Although Intelligent Design has connection in the belief in God but the main course is not this but to study how God or Nature (if one does not belief in God) design things intelligently to overcome problems in nature e.g. how wings and feathers and avian anatomy were created or design to ensure flight using the principles of aerodynamics, gravity etc. instead of telling us speculatively how wings and feathers are supposed to be derived from the supposed evolution from dinosaurs as in the theory of Evolution. Which is more superior?...telling us in details how computer works than to tell us how computers came about from its supposed history from mathematics and calculation machines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Thanks God for Intelligent Design.:pray:
David M
07-02-2012, 01:07 PM
Hello Rose
Good morning David,
Whether or not people have hope has nothing to do with Evolution being true. The validity of facts does not hinge on whether or not it gives someone hope. Facts are facts, they are supported by the evidence, not hope.
Hope has nothing to do with Evolution being true; that was the point. What hope does Evolution give you of a future life? That is the point you missed.
The fact that man can "tinker" with Evolution proves it's validity!
It proves nothing. Anyone can tinker with a car or an electronic circuit but it does not mean that those things have evolved.
It is only wise to put your trust in things that are proven to be true, otherwise your hope is built on sand that washes out from under you when it is put to the test. Saying that God is trustworthy and faithful means nothing, until it is shown to be true.
I agree and that is why I have put my trust in God, because of the evidence I can see; that was my point.
You are arguing without giving careful thought to the words written.
All the best,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 01:22 PM
Hope has nothing to do with Evolution being true; that was the point. What hope does Evoluntion give you of a future life? That is the point you missed.
Hope has nothing to with Evolution being true or false. That's why your point is pointless.
Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness).
The fact that man can "tinker" with Evolution proves it's validity!
It proves nothing. Anyone can tinker with a car? The results might not be good.
If evolution were false, it would be impossible to "tinker" with it. You asserted "Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness)." Therefore, if your assertion is true you are implying that evolution is true. Simple logic.
To use your analogy, if there were no cars no one could tinker with them for good or for ill. And whether the results are good or bad says nothing about the validity of evolution. Why do you keep repeating this fallacy?
It is only wise to put your trust in things that are proven to be true, otherwise your hope is built on sand that washes out from under you when it is put to the test. Saying that God is trustworthy and faithful means nothing, until it is shown to be true.
I agree and than is why I have put my trust in God who because to the evidence I can see; that was my point. I think you are arguing without carefully considering the words I have written. But that is par for the course.
All the best,
David
What evidence are you talking about? If you have evidence that can be verified, why don't you share it with us?
I have carefully considered your words and found them to contain many logical flaws.
All the best,
Richard
David M
07-02-2012, 02:05 PM
Hello Richard
I see you have responded to my reply to Rose before I finished correcting my typos. This saves me replying to your first reply.
I expected you to disagree with what I stated.
Hope has nothing to with Evolution being true or false. That's why your point is pointless.
Exactly true; it has nothing to do with Evolution being true and is most likely false. It can be beneficial psycologically to have hope whether God exists or not. I was being as brief as possible in my statements. The point is not pointless or it would not be a point. You fail to see the point of the statments, so I am not taking this discussion any further. The points stand as they are without further explanation.
If evolution were false, it would be impossible to "tinker" with it. You asserted "Once man starts to tinker with his "Evolution", he becomes a creator (having a form of godliness)." Therefore, if your assertion is true you are implying that evolution is true. Simple logic.
I have expalined to Rose that anyone can tinker with a car or an electronic circuit, but it does not mean those things have evolved. Your are tripping up over the simple logic of the statements I made. It shows that you are not thinking before you write your stock responses, which is what I am finding progressively more and more irritating.
To use your analogy, if there were no cars no one could tinker with them for good or for ill. And whether the results are good or bad says nothing about the validity of evolution. Why do you keep repeating this fallacy?
But there are cars, so deal with it. It does not matter what the result is I agree. Have cars evolved?
What evidence are you talking about? If you have evidence that can be verified, why don't you share it with us?
I have been sharing and was about to reason with you about prophecy in the Bible, but you say I abandoned the discussion when I refute that allegation. This thread is not the place to give you a shed load of evidence. I do not expect you to agree even though there are others who agree with my statements.
I have carefully considered your words and found them to contain many logical flaws.
Good for you!! I doubt anyone else will find as many flaws as you.
All the best,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Hello Richard
I see you have responded to my reply to Rose before I finished correcting my typos. This saves me replying to your first reply.
I expected you to disagree with what I stated.
Typos? Those weren't "typos." They were logical errors. It appears you are implicitly admitting this since you don't want to deal with my answer.
Exactly true; it has nothing to do with Evolution being true and is most likely false. It can be beneficial psycologically to have hope whether God exists or not. I was being as brief as possible in my statements. The point is not pointless or it would not be a point. You fail to see the point of the statments, so I am not taking this discussion any further. The points stand as they are without further explanation.
I have no problem with the possibility that delusions can be psychologically beneficial. Indeed, that's probably why they persist. But you have given no reason to think that your delusion is better than the delusions of a Muslim, Mormon, or Hindu. And besides, I think a careful analysis would show that the apparent benefit of delusions is illusory.
I have expalined to Rose that anyone can tinker with a car or an electronic circuit, but it does not mean those things have evolved. Your are tripping up over the simple logic of the statements I made. It shows that you are not thinking before you write your stock responses, which is what I am finding progressively more and more irritating.
Your comment is completely illogical. You used "tinkering with cars" as an analogy for "tinkering with evolution." You analogy has nothing to do with whether cars evolved or not!
My answers are not "stock responses." I am responding directly to what you said and I showed logical errors that you have not addressed, let alone refuted. Therefore they will stand as long as you fail to refute them.
But there are cars, so deal with it. It does not matter what the result is I agree. Have cars evolved?
Exactly my point. There must be cars or no one could tinker with them. The same goes for evolution. It must be true or no one could tinker with it. Why do I have to repeat your logical flaw? Why don't you understand the error of your analogy?
And again, your analogy had absolutely nothing to do with "cars evolving." Your analogy equated "tinkering with cars" with "tinkering with evolution." You are not thinking clearly. Perhaps an analogy of your analogy will help you understand the error in you logic. Suppose you said that "tinkering with cars" was like "tinkering with airplanes." Would you then say that "cars can't fly"?
I have been sharing and was about to reason with you about prophecy in the Bible, but you say I abandoned the discussion when I refute that allegation. This thread is not the place to give you a shed load of evidence. I do not expect you to agree even though there are others who agree with my statements.
I wasn't asking for you to produce the "evidence" in this thread. I was just saying that you should produce evidence to support your claims. You have not done that yet. I think it would be great if you started a thread and produced a nice compact easy to evaluate statement of the best evidence. Please avoid "shed loads" since they are usually used to just obfuscate the fact that none of the stuff in the shed is valid. The proper way to present evidence is to first find the BEST EVIDENCE and then state it as briefly as possible so that it can be evaluated without writing mile-long posts.
Good for you!! I doubt anyone else will find as many flaws as you.
Well, until anyone can find a single error in anything I have written, you doubts will remain nothing but pure speculation. In the meanwhile, I am fully justified to say that I have demonstrated that your comments were illogical and no one has refuted me.
Richard
All the best,
David[/QUOTE]
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 02:36 PM
The many theories of Evolutions come with many flaws and unanswered questions and speculations and with no convincing demonstrations and experiments that can validate the results to confirm its theories. The theory of Evolution is like trying to explain how animals, plants and nature are supposed to be formed. But if one gets the wrong basic fundamentals then everything that was learned and derived from that fundamental will be wrong just like the theory of Phlogiston in which it was believed there was a substance call phlogiston that caused combustion.
CWH,
Do you know anything about evolution at all? Do you know why it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists? You have never posted anything that demonstrates any knowledge of the evidence for evolution. So here's the deal: If you are ignorant of evolution, then all your comments are meaningless and will be rejected by anyone with real knowledge.
Just thought you'd like to know how the world really works.
Richard
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by David M http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46879#post46879)
If Evolution is true, it does not give a person hope (of existing in the future). If God does not exist, the thought of God gives a person hope, and that has to be better than having no hope.Hello Rose
Hope has nothing to do with Evolution being true; that was the point. What hope does Evolution give you of a future life? That is the point you missed.
Hello David,
I didn't miss your point, I even highlighted it in red! My response to you was that hope is not a criteria for something being true.
It proves nothing. Anyone can tinker with a car or an electronic circuit but it does not mean that those things have evolved.
If you want to use examples, use something that does evolve, not cars. There are many examples of micro-evolution like changing bacteria through gene splicing, or look at how people have changed dogs through selective breeding. It is possible to take a dog the size of a chihuahua and over time through selective breeding get a dog the size of a St. Bernard. If humans can do it why can't nature? We see evolution happening all the time, right in front of our eyes.
I agree and that is why I have put my trust in God, because of the evidence I can see; that was my point.
You are arguing without giving careful thought to the words written.
All the best,
David
Please show me where I have not logically responded to what you have written.
Take care,
Rose
The many theories of Evolutions come with many flaws and unanswered questions and speculations and with no convincing demonstrations and experiments that can validate the results to confirm its theories. The theory of Evolution is like trying to explain how animals, plants and nature are supposed to be formed. But if one gets the wrong basic fundamentals then everything that was learned and derived from that fundamental will be wrong just like the theory of Phlogiston in which it was believed there was a substance call phlogiston that caused combustion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
I believe creation science is in the right direction and it will open up many possibilities unthink of in the discovery of science based on a new branch of science call Intelligent Design. I believe Intelligent Design is far superior to the supposed Evolutionary Science. Although Intelligent Design has connection in the belief in God but the main course is not this but to study how God or Nature (if one does not belief in God) design things intelligently to overcome problems in nature e.g. how wings and feathers and avian anatomy were created or design to ensure flight using the principles of aerodynamics, gravity etc. instead of telling us speculatively how wings and feathers are supposed to be derived from the supposed evolution from dinosaurs as in the theory of Evolution. Which is more superior?...telling us in details how computer works than to tell us how computers came about from its supposed history from mathematics and calculation machines?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
Thanks God for Intelligent Design.:pray:
All creation science has to do is posit the idea that god created everything (not much research or study involved there), whereas scientists like Darwin didn't set out to prove creation wrong, but rather he was trying to understand what he saw happening in the world around him. With each new discovery in the field of evolution, creationism gets pushed back farther and farther to perhaps the first simple cell or the origin of DNA itself.
You seem to think that scientists are purposely inventing ideas about evolution, so they can disprove creationism and that is just not the case. Like I said, at the beginning Darwin believed in God and in creationism, so his goal was not to try and disprove God created life, but rather he wished to understand why animals of the same species changed over time to adapt to differences in their environments which led him to the ideas he proposed in The Origin of Species.
The purpose of gaining knowledge is to understand the world we live in so our lives can be made better, not to disprove the Bible...even though that is a consequence. The more we learn about how the universe works, the more we see how wrong the Bible is.
All the best,
Rose
Rose
If you want to use examples, use something that does evolve, not cars. There are many examples of micro-evolution like changing bacteria through gene splicing, or look at how people have changed dogs through selective breeding. It is possible to take a dog the size of a chihuahua and over time through selective breeding get a dog the size of a St. Bernard. If humans can do it why can't nature? We see evolution happening all the time, right in front of our eyes.
The example would be much better if humans are not involved in selective breeding or gene splicing so far there are no known example of interbreeding to form new specie of animals in the wild or by nature. Show me examples of evolution happening all the time before our eyes naturally, I don't see any. What we are seeing are adaptations happening before our eyes such as bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics, same as humans given vaccines to become immune to measles, smallpox etc. Can I say that humans have evolved to be more resistant to smallpox and measles after the vaccines were given? Furthermore after a period of several years (and several months for resistant bacteria) such immunity becomes reduced and the host returns back to the stage that they formerly were.
God Bless. :pray:
All creation science has to do is posit the idea that god created everything (not much research or study involved there), whereas scientists like Darwin didn't set out to prove creation wrong, but rather he was trying to understand what he saw happening in the world around him. With each new discovery in the field of evolution, creationism gets pushed back farther and farther to perhaps the first simple cell or the origin of DNA itself.
You seem to think that scientists are purposely inventing ideas about evolution, so they can disprove creationism and that is just not the case. Like I said, at the beginning Darwin believed in God and in creationism, so his goal was not to try and disprove God created life, but rather he wished to understand why animals of the same species changed over time to adapt to differences in their environments which led him to the ideas he proposed in The Origin of Species.
The purpose of gaining knowledge is to understand the world we live in so our lives can be made better, not to disprove the Bible...even though that is a consequence. The more we learn about how the universe works, the more we see how wrong the Bible is.
All the best,
Rose
Rose
What I am saying that evolutionists are wrong in their theories. There are alternative theories that may replace or complement the theories of evolution. The theory of evolution tries to explain creation without the creator whereas creation explains creation by a creator. Evolution science tries to explain the history of creation wheres creation not only explain the history of creation but also the how of creation. It explains many things that we could only speculate or unable to explain about how natural things come about. Intelligent design explains the smart "mechanics' and principles used in nature or natural creations.
In fact, the more we learn about the universe, the more we see how right the Bible was and that there is a creator God.
God Bless His Creations.:pray:
CWH,
Do you know anything about evolution at all? Do you know why it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists? You have never posted anything that demonstrates any knowledge of the evidence for evolution. So here's the deal: If you are ignorant of evolution, then all your comments are meaningless and will be rejected by anyone with real knowledge.
Just thought you'd like to know how the world really works.
Richard
In fact many scientists also believe in Creationism, why?I tell you why, because the found many flaws in evolution. Are you saying that scientists are always right and infallible? Look at the article below which explains some of these flaws. If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, uranium 235 will ceased to exist as they will have decayed away as their half life is more than 700 million years and uranium 238 will be rare as their half life is about 4.5 billion years. And if the universe is 13 billion years old, there will be no uranium left!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
Below is an article of the evidence of a young earth, if you care to read about it:
http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
God Bless His Creations.:pray:
The example would be much better if humans are not involved in selective breeding or gene splicing so far there are no known example of interbreeding to form new specie of animals in the wild or by nature. Show me examples of evolution happening all the time before our eyes naturally, I don't see any. What we are seeing are adaptations happening before our eyes such as bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics, same as humans given vaccines to become immune to measles, smallpox etc. Can I say that humans have evolved to be more resistant to smallpox and measles after the vaccines were given? Furthermore after a period of several years (and several months for resistant bacteria) such immunity becomes reduced and the host returns back to the stage that they formerly were.
God Bless. :pray:
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is called evolution, the structure of the bacteria changes over time to become immune to the antibiotics...it evolves. Humans, animals and plants evolve to become more resistant to diseases, because the strong survive to breed while the weak die off. Also humans have the advantage of being smart enough to discover vaccines to make their bodies resistant to certain diseases.
Anytime life forms go through changes it's called evolution. The very nature of reproduction continually produces change of which the strongest and most fit survives to pass on those changes to their offspring. After enough time passes species can change so dramatically that they can no longer breed with ancestors of their own species who have been separated from them.
We live in a world of constant change, not a static one like the Bible promotes. If there is an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe, it was designed to evolve...that is what the evidence tells us.
Rose
What I am saying that evolutionists are wrong in their theories. There are alternative theories that may replace or complement the theories of evolution. The theory of evolution tries to explain creation without the creator whereas creation explains creation by a creator. Evolution science tries to explain the history of creation wheres creation not only explain the history of creation but also the how of creation. It explains many things that we could only speculate or unable to explain about how natural things come about. Intelligent design explains the smart "mechanics' and principles used in nature or natural creations.
In fact, the more we learn about the universe, the more we see how right the Bible was and that there is a creator God.
God Bless His Creations.:pray:
The fact of the matter is that Christians are trapped in a narrow way of viewing the universe that only lets them explain the world around them in terms of creationism, whereas open-minded people are free to evaluate the evidence before coming to a hard and fast conclusion. Christians can only hold to the biblical dogma that says god created everything a few thousand years ago and just made the universe look old, like that article you linked to (http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm) which said the oldest living thing was 4,900 years old...:lol:
Remember, when Darwin began his search into the origin of species there were only creationists, so I don't think his motive was to disprove creationism. Darwin's mind was open to receive whatever evidence his search led him to, which is a good thing for us today. Creationism teaches us nothing, it only posits the idea that "god did it". It's like answering the question of how a baby is formed in the womb with the trite response of "mom did it", that tells the person asking the question nothing. The only way humans can advance in knowledge is by learning how things are made, just saying "god did it" gets us nowhere.
Rose
Rose
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is called evolution, the structure of the bacteria changes over time to become immune to the antibiotics...it evolves. Humans, animals and plants evolve to become more resistant to diseases, because the strong survive to breed while the weak die off. Also humans have the advantage of being smart enough to discover vaccines to make their bodies resistant to certain diseases.
Anytime life forms go through changes it's called evolution. The very nature of reproduction continually produces change of which the strongest and most fit survives to pass on those changes to their offspring. After enough time passes species can change so dramatically that they can no longer breed with ancestors of their own species who have been separated from them.
We live in a world of constant change, not a static one like the Bible promotes. If there is an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe, it was designed to evolve...that is what the evidence tells us.
Rose
Read this! Bacteria resistant to antibiotics is no evidence for evolution:
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria: evidence for evolution?
by Harlan Brown
The textbook Biology: The Dynamics of Life says on page 430, “Examples of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, such as penicillin, provide scientists with direct evidence for evolution in progress.” Is this true?
Microevolution vs. macroevolution
First, we must distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution:
microevolution Variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits
macroevolution The appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of microevolution. In “Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?” (www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm) John D. Morris, Ph.D., describes it like this:
In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
Superwimps and loss of information
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria typically involves a loss of genetic information, not the addition of new information. “Such mutations are often harmful in an ‘ordinary’ environment without antibiotics,” Dr. Jonathan writes in “Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?” (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp). “It is well documented that many ‘superbugs’ are really ‘superwimps’ for this reason.”
As described in “Superbugs not super after all” (www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp) by Carl Wieland, when the antibiotic is removed, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria begin to die out. ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive in a normal environment.
No progress toward macroevolution
Thus antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not an example supporting the theory of evolution (macroevolution). It represents a trait that is deleterious in a natural environment but happens to have the side benefit of survival in an unnatural (antibiotic) environment.
Practical implications
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria has a number of practical implications.
When you receive an antibiotic
Suppose you receive an antibiotic and the doctor says to take it for seven days, and you feel better after five days. What happens if you stop after five days instead of seven? It is possible that after five days a small number of resistant bacteria survive that would die if given seven days of the antibiotic. So, instead of killing all of the bacteria, you have just created a population of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can grow and reproduce.
Overuse of antibiotics
Although antibiotics have saved many lives, if they are overused, they can lead to more and more resistant bacteria. In fact, although antibiotic-resistant bacteria existed before the modern use of antibiotics in medicine, bacteria have become increasingly antibiotic-resistant since the use of antibiotics became widespread. Pharmaceutical researchers are continually developing more powerful antibiotics to cope with the increased resistance.
Antibacterial hand soap
Increased use of antibacterial hand soap may pose a similar danger. A study at Tufts University concluded that triclosan and other antimicrobials have valid uses in clinical areas, but cautioned against their indiscriminate use (www.nurseweek.com/features/98-10/soap.html). See also “Antibacterials? Here's the Rub” (www.worldwatch.org/pubs/goodstuff/soap/) by Mindy Pennybacker and “The Truth About Antibacterial Soaps--And Why You Should Avoid Them” (www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/antibacterial_soaps.htm) and “Antibacterial Soaps Popularity May be Spreading Resistant Bacteria” (www.mercola.com/2000/sep/24/antibacterial_soaps.htm) by Dr. Joseph Mercola.
Conclusion
In conclusion, antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not provide evidence for the theory of evolution, but understanding antibiotic resistance can help in practical ways.
http://cybergroundrr.yolasite.com/science_resistant-bacteria.php
.................................................. .....
19. Why Is It That Bacterial Resistance To Antibiotics Is Not An Example Of Evolution?
ne of the biological concepts that evolutionists try to present as evidence for their theory is the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Many evolutionist sources mention antibiotic resistance as an example of the development of living things by advantageous mutations. A similar claim is also made for the insects which build immunity to insecticides such as DDT.
However, evolutionists are mistaken on this subject too.
Antibiotics are "killer molecules" that are produced by microorganisms to fight other microorganisms. The first antibiotic was penicillin, discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1928. Fleming realised that mould produced a molecule that killed the Staphylococcus bacterium, and this discovery marked a turning point in the world of medicine. Antibiotics derived from microorganisms were used against bacteria and the results were successful.
Soon, something new was discovered. Bacteria build immunity to antibiotics over time. The mechanism works like this: A large proportion of the bacteria that are subjected to antibiotics die, but some others, which are not affected by that antibiotic, replicate rapidly and soon make up the whole population. Thus, the entire population becomes immune to antibiotics.
E. Coli bacteria
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evidence for evolution as suggested by Darwinists.
Evolutionists try to present this as "the evolution of bacteria by adapting to conditions."
The truth, however, is very different from this superficial interpretation. One of the scientists who has done the most detailed research into this subject is the Israeli biophysicist Lee Spetner, who is also known for his book Not by Chance published in 1997. Spetner maintains that the immunity of bacteria comes about by two different mechanisms, but neither of them constitutes evidence for the theory of evolution. These two mechanisms are:
1) The transfer of resistance genes already extant in bacteria.
2) The building of resistance as a result of losing genetic data because of mutation.
Professor Spetner explains the first mechanism in an article published in 2001:
Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics. 69
Spetner then goes on to say that this is not "evidence for evolution":
The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species. 70
So, we cannot talk of any evolution here, because no new genetic information is produced: genetic information that already exists is simply transferred between bacteria.
The second type of immunity, which comes about as a result of mutation, is not an example of evolution either. Spetner writes:
... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule. 71
In his book Not by Chance, Spetner likens this situation to the disturbance of the key-lock relationship. Streptomycin, just like a key that perfectly fits in a lock, clutches on to the ribosome of a bacterium and inactivates it. Mutation, on the other hand, decomposes the ribosome, thus preventing streptomycin from holding on to the ribosome. Although this is interpreted as "bacteria developing immunity against streptomycin," this is not a benefit for the bacteria but rather a loss for it. Spetner writes:
This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity. 72
To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops.
Finally, there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken.
The same situation holds true for the immunity that insects develop to DDT and similar insecticides. In most of these instances, immunity genes that already exist are used. The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying, "The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."73 Some other examples explained by mutation, just as with the ribosome mutation mentioned above, are phenomena that cause "genetic information deficit" in insects.
In this case, it cannot be claimed that the immunity mechanisms in bacteria and insects constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. That is because the theory of evolution is based on the assertion that living things develop through mutations. However, Spetner explains that neither antibiotic immunity nor any other biological phenomena indicate such an example of mutation:
The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO!74
http://harunyahya.com/en/books/964/The_Collapse_Of_The_Theory_Of_Evolution_In_20_Ques tions/chapter/12407
God Bless.:pray:
The fact of the matter is that Christians are trapped in a narrow way of viewing the universe that only lets them explain the world around them in terms of creationism, whereas open-minded people are free to evaluate the evidence before coming to a hard and fast conclusion. Christians can only hold to the biblical dogma that says god created everything a few thousand years ago and just made the universe look old, like that article you linked to (http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm) which said the oldest living thing was 4,900 years old...:lol:
Remember, when Darwin began his search into the origin of species there were only creationists, so I don't think his motive was to disprove creationism. Darwin's mind was open to receive whatever evidence his search led him to, which is a good thing for us today. Creationism teaches us nothing, it only posits the idea that "god did it". It's like answering the question of how a baby is formed in the womb with the trite response of "mom did it", that tells the person asking the question nothing. The only way humans can advance in knowledge is by learning how things are made, just saying "god did it" gets us nowhere.
Rose
Rose
Correct, Creationism says "Mom done it" but Evolution says, "Mom or Whoever probably did it this way". And Mom will say,'"Just believe me son, and don't go speculating, one day I will tell you exactly how I did it.". Creationism and Intelligent Design shows us how "Mom made birds and made them fly" but Evolution tells us "probably how the bird was made gradually without Mom".
I think you misunderstood the meaning of Intelligent Design; it does not necessary mean it is designed by God but that Nature or Something (whatever it is) design it with intelligence. It is more beneficial to study the intelligence behind the design than to study how probably the design comes about.
God Bless.:pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 09:21 PM
Hi Rose,
I hate to burst your bubble but your statement does not hold up, in those fields science has disputed many of Evolution's theories. Here are some of them:
Scientific facts disputing Evolution.
Hey there Henry,
If you really believe what you posted, it is your bubble that is about to burst my friend. The problem is that you don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to see how ridiculous the arguments from that site really are. You should not be posting canned arguments that you don't understand since you are incapable of judging if they are right or wrong.
And you really should stay away from those deceptive creationist sites. They will corrupt you heart and mind.
Now on to the arguments you posted:
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
FALSE. The Law of Biogenesis was formulated by Louis Pasteur in 1864, just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species (1859). It was in response to the false idea that fully formed organisms like flies and mice could be spontaneously generated from dead matter. It says absolutely nothing about evolution.
Now there is a much larger problem than the mere falsehood of this argument. I'm talking about its gross absurdity. If this argument were true, and the "Law of Biogenesis" contradicted evolution, then every working biological scientist must be consciously holding to the contradictory claim that they both do and do not believe in the Law of Biogenesis. Such an assertion is obviously absurd. It is obvious that evolutionary scientists accept the Law of Biogenesis and see no conflict with evolution.
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
FALSE. It is a mere assertion. The fact that we can't reproduce it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The jury is still out.
And worse - this argument is irrelevant to the theory of evolution because it doesn't matter how DNA or the first cell was formed. God could have done it and the theory of evolution would remain unchanged.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
FALSE. This is unscientific clap trap. There is no limit to variations within a species. Why do you believe stuff that you don't understand?
4. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they cite no evidence supporting their empty assertions.
5. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they argument indicates gross ignorance of evolution.
The rest aren't worth answering. It's just the typical ignorant and deceptive crap spewed out by creationist websites.
Listen Henry, if you really want to debunk evolution, all you need to do is learn what the theory really states and learn what the best evidence is for it. Then all you need to do is to show why that evidence fails. It's really pretty simple.
All the best,
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
07-02-2012, 09:34 PM
Read this! Bacteria resistant to antibiotics is no evidence for evolution:
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria: evidence for evolution?
by Harlan Brown
The textbook Biology: The Dynamics of Life says on page 430, “Examples of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, such as penicillin, provide scientists with direct evidence for evolution in progress.” Is this true?
Microevolution vs. macroevolution
First, we must distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution:
microevolution Variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits
macroevolution The appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is an example of microevolution. In “Do Bacteria Evolve Resistance to Antibiotics?” (www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-118b.htm)) John D. Morris, Ph.D., describes it like this:
In a given population of bacteria, many genes are present which express themselves in a variety of ways. In a natural environment, the genes (and traits) are freely mixed. When exposed to an antibiotic, most of the microbes die. But some, through a fortuitous genetic recombination, possess a resistance to the antibiotic. They are the only ones to reproduce, and their descendants inherit the same genetic resistance. Over time, virtually all possess this resistance. Thus the population has lost the ability to produce individuals with a sensitivity to the antibiotic. No new genetic information was produced; indeed, genetic information was lost.
Superwimps and loss of information
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria typically involves a loss of genetic information, not the addition of new information. “Such mutations are often harmful in an ‘ordinary’ environment without antibiotics,” Dr. Jonathan writes in “Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?” (www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp)). “It is well documented that many ‘superbugs’ are really ‘superwimps’ for this reason.”
As described in “Superbugs not super after all” (www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp)) by Carl Wieland, when the antibiotic is removed, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria begin to die out. ‘Supergerms’ are actually not ‘super’ at all. They are generally less hardy, and less fit to survive in a normal environment.
Sorry to burst your bubble CWH, but those lies have already been debunked.
And if there were any real science in your claims, why is there no link to a real scientific website? Your links point to the Institute of Creation Research which is anti-science and also known for spreading all sorts of lies (http://holysmoke.org/icr-cult.htm).
So here is a little REAL SCIENCETM for you to chew on while you are trolling creationist sites for more lies to support the "truth" of your religion. It's an article called Evolution myths: Mutations can only destroy information (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html):
Biologists are uncovering thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species. This claim not only flies in the face of the evidence, it is also a logical impossibility
Most people lose the ability to digest milk by their teens. A few thousand years ago, however, after the domestication of cattle, several groups of people in Europe and Africa independently acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood. Genetic studies show there has been very strong selection (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325934.800-a-taste-for-milk-shows-evolution-in-action.html) for these mutations, so they were clearly very beneficial.
Most biologists would see this as a gain in information (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726394.000-is-information-essential-for-life.html): a change in environment (the availability of cow's milk as food) is reflected by a genetic mutation that lets people exploit that change (gaining the ability to digest milk as an adult). Creationists, however, dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.
Rather than get bogged down trying to define what information is, let's just look at a few other discoveries made by biologists in recent years. For instance, it has been shown a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one (http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/content/full/20/19/2728). Surely this counts as increasing information?
TRIMming the genome
Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1000003), which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV. Here, a single mutation has resulted in a new protein with a new and potentially vital function. New protein, new function, new information.
Although such an event might seem highly unlikely, it turns out that the TRIM5-CypA protein has evolved independently in two separate groups of monkeys. In general, though, the evolution of a new gene usually involves far more than one mutation. The most common way for a new gene to evolve is for an existing gene to be duplicated. Once there are two or more copies, each can evolve in separate directions.
The duplication of genes or even entire genomes is turning out to be ubiquitous. Without a duplication of the entire genome in the ancestor of modern-day brewer's yeast (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19225831.100-festive-special-the-brewers-tale.html), for instance, there would be no wine or beer. It is becoming clear that every one of us has extra copies of some genes, a phenomenon called copy number variation (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025461.300-genomics-we-are-all-numbers.html).
The evolution of more complex body plans (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621045.100-when-we-were-worms.html) appears to have been at least partly a result of repeated duplications (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9690-ancient-gene-recreated-from-modern-descendants.html) of the Hox genes (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_brief_overview_of_hox_genes/) that play a fundamental role in embryonic development (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14820014.100-invasion-of-the-shapechangers.html). Biologists are slowly working out (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.hdy.6800621) how successive mutations turned a pair of protoHox genes in the simple ancestors of jellyfish and anemones into the 39 Hox genes of more complex mammals (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/creationism-tak.html).
Newly minted
Can mutation really lead to the evolution (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9953-introduction-evolution.html) of new species (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18024165.500-how-the-species-became.html)?
Yes (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822621.100-darwin-strikes-back.html). Several species of abalone shellfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone) have evolved due to mutations in the protein "key" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15921463.200-come-hither.html) on the surface of sperm that binds to a "lock" on the surface of eggs. This might appear impossible, but it turns out that some eggs are prepared to be penetrated by deviant sperm (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.281.5377.710). The same thing can happen in fruit flies (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16021621.600-splitting-heirs.html), and likely in many other groups too. In yeasts, the mutations that led to some new species forming have not only been identified, they have even been reversed (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17723851.500-genetic-tinkering-turns-one-species-into-another.html).
The list of examples could go on and on, but consider this (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7018394). Most mutations can be reversed by subsequent mutations - a DNA base can be turned from an A to a G and then back to an A again, for instance. In fact, reverse mutation or "reversion (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325861.200-the-ancestor-within-all-creatures.html)" is common (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0046-8177%2803%2900406-4). For any mutation that results in a loss of information, logically, the reverse mutation must result in its gain. So the claim (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html) that mutations destroy information but cannot create it not only defies the evidence, it also defies logic.
Good morning John, my friend! :tea:
I really appreciate your criticism, but when I take it to heart I have trouble understanding what exactly I have done that is "arrogant." As far as I know, I have given good reasons for the things I say. Sure, I could be wrong, but where is the "arrogance"? You will need to be a little more specific in your criticism so I can correct my behavior.
Wiki: Arrogance = Hubris, Pride...
Hubris = loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
Pride = refers to an inflated sense of one's personal status or accomplishments, often used synonymously with hubris.
Good morning Richard,
Thought I'd get the definition out of the way first. The "arrogant card" was not intended as an insult, but merely a characterization of your comments. We all exhibit arrogance from time to time and it's usually more perception than reality... but, lest we forget, not always.
Your presentation of evolutionary biology as a fact, comes across rather arrogantly, but so does the Biblical narrative. The difference is that the Biblical account from God is reliable, whereas yours is fallible. For example, let's contrast the fundamental differences:
Evolutionists position:
The world we inhabit today is the result of absolute biological evolution, and by implication, macro evolution. It is not merely a theory, but fact. Every living organism, including those which are divided by species such as aquatic creatures, reptiles, vegetation, insects, winged creatures of flight, mammals, animals and man, are the descendants of the initial, simplest, DNA endowed, single cell, appearing spontaneously. No plan, no design, no intellect necessary. Just matter, time and chance. Although in fairness to you, there is a little room for God in the beginnning, but based on your comments rejecting Him it appears that you lean toward the former.
Biblical assertion:
God created the heavens and the earth, He created all life forms by species with seed reproducing after their own kind. His crowning work was a special creation, made in His own image, man. Upon completion, He handed the keys of creation to man, to rule over it. The Bible reveals God in such fundamental terms that not only can it be understood by the simple, it poses challenges to the greatest of minds, puzzling even the deepest of thinkers.
Your assertion that I am "arrogant" for rejecting the proposition that the Bible is the "Word of God" doesn't make sense to me. You reject all other religious Scriptures as "not the Word of God." So what is the difference between you and me? And when I think about it, it seems you have things backwards. If anything is "arrogant" is it not your assertion that one particular religious book is the "Word of God" to the exclusion of all others?
Could you direct me to some other scriptures that compete at any level with the Bible, Old Testament and New?
Who gave you the "power and authority" to declare the Bible is the Word of God? You are not God, and you do not know if your assertion is true. And if you are wrong and the moral abominations attributed to God are libelous falsehoods then you are guilty of promoting gross falsehoods against God and misleading people about his true nature. If anything is arrogant, it seems to be the claim that the Bible is the "Word of God" when you know no such thing. What if you are wrong? Doesn't that matter to you at all? Why do you think you have the power and authority to declare that the Bible accurately describes God? And who gave you the authority to declare that all the other Scriptures of all the other religions are false? Does this not make you "arrogant" by your own definition since you (a mere man) are setting yourself up as a judge over all religious truth?
Authority = Matt 28:19-20
I accept the Old and New Testaments because in them alone I have discovered enough evidence to convince me that they are the inspired Revelation of God. Are there aspects of His Character that raise difficult questions? Sure, try this one:
Proverbs 1:25-33 (KJV)
25*But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26*I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27*When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28*Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29*For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:
30*They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31*Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32*For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33*But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.
It is Biblical to fear God. It is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom. We are rebellious creatures and God knows that better than we do. It is discipline from His Word that demonstrates His love and concern for us. But He also puts us on notice that there is another aspect to His character, and those who reject it do so at their own peril. The idea that God would laugh at one who is calling on Him for deliverance from some great horror is not a very comforting thought, even so, it is Biblical.
Always your friend,
Richard
I am your friend Richard.
John
David M
07-02-2012, 10:46 PM
The fact of the matter is that Christians are trapped in a narrow way of viewing the universe that only lets them explain the world around them in terms of creationism, whereas open-minded people are free to evaluate the evidence before coming to a hard and fast conclusion. Christians can only hold to the biblical dogma that says god created everything a few thousand years ago and just made the universe look old, like that article you linked to (http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm) which said the oldest living thing was 4,900 years old...:lol:
Hello Rose.
Believing Evolution is as narrow as believing Creation; both can be blinkered. Some can take a very narrow view becase they accept the simplicity of the Creation Story just as some accept the simple story of Evolution that is presented. Neither is simple and it takes more intelligence to reason matters out and then the more intellectuals amongst us cannot agree so those who take the simple view are not made any wiser by listening to intellectuals who cannot agree. You tar all Christians with the same brush in your generalization. I can understand how the earth can appear older and also how scientists can be fooled into thinking the earth is older than it is. There is much which is unexplainable in both camps, which is why the jury is out and so we might as well get on and study the whole revealation of God which is more essential, since eternal life is what is on offer.
Remember, when Darwin began his search into the origin of species there were only creationists, so I don't think his motive was to disprove creationism. Darwin's mind was open to receive whatever evidence his search led him to, which is a good thing for us today. Creationism teaches us nothing, it only posits the idea that "god did it". It's like answering the question of how a baby is formed in the womb with the trite response of "mom did it", that tells the person asking the question nothing. The only way humans can advance in knowledge is by learning how things are made, just saying "god did it" gets us nowhere.
Creationism is not meant to teach us eveything about Creation, it is not the only basis for believing the Bible. The Bible gives us a simple explanation to the origin of the earth and life upon. I don't think God ever intended for man to know how God did it and it is not necessary for man to know either. Neither Evolution nor Creation can be proved to the satisfaction of everyone and until that happens the origins of life remain unprovable. Until one or the other can be proved, it is pointless making generalizations or drawing conclusions about them, so we might as well get on with reasoning out the remainder of what God has revealed which is more important.
I agree that I learn by finding out how things are made and mostly, I am learning how man-made things have been made. I do this by taking things apart; the same applies to the things God has made; man takes them apart. Man has not learned enough yet to be able to create like God. You say; "learning by how things are made". What I think you meant to say is; from how things evolved. Evolution does not "make" anything in the way a designer designs and things are made to a design. Evolution is not a learning process from what Evolution has produced. Evolution is a progression taking different paths caused by mutations of which some continue and some come to a dead end. I think you have not quite freed yourself completely from using words which refer to a Creator you once believed in.
All the best,
David
Hey there Henry,
If you really believe what you posted, it is your bubble that is about to burst my friend. The problem is that you don't have sufficient scientific knowledge to see how ridiculous the arguments from that site really are. You should not be posting canned arguments that you don't understand since you are incapable of judging if they are right or wrong.
And you really should stay away from those deceptive creationist sites. They will corrupt you heart and mind.
Now on to the arguments you posted:
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
FALSE. The Law of Biogenesis was formulated by Louis Pasteur in 1864, just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species (1859). It was in response to the false idea that fully formed organisms like flies and mice could be spontaneously generated from dead matter. It says absolutely nothing about evolution.
Now there is a much larger problem than the mere falsehood of this argument. I'm talking about its gross absurdity. If this argument were true, and the "Law of Biogenesis" contradicted evolution, then every working biological scientist must be consciously holding to the contradictory claim that they both do and do not believe in the Law of Biogenesis. Such an assertion is obviously absurd. It is obvious that evolutionary scientists accept the Law of Biogenesis and see no conflict with evolution.
2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
FALSE. It is a mere assertion. The fact that we can't reproduce it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The jury is still out.
And worse - this argument is irrelevant to the theory of evolution because it doesn't matter how DNA or the first cell was formed. God could have done it and the theory of evolution would remain unchanged.
3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
FALSE. This is unscientific clap trap. There is no limit to variations within a species. Why do you believe stuff that you don't understand?
4. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they cite no evidence supporting their empty assertions.
5. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they argument indicates gross ignorance of evolution.
The rest aren't worth answering. It's just the typical ignorant and deceptive crap spewed out by creationist websites.
Listen Henry, if you really want to debunk evolution, all you need to do is learn what the theory really states and learn what the best evidence is for it. Then all you need to do is to show why that evidence fails. It's really pretty simple.
All the best,
Richard
Hello again Richard
Henry's post, and your reply to it raised several obvious questions that you neglected to deal with. If you could respond to them once more, it would be helpful.
Assertion One: 1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
FALSE. The Law of Biogenesis was formulated by Louis Pasteur in 1864, just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species (1859). It was in response to the false idea that fully formed organisms like flies and mice could be spontaneously generated from dead matter. It says absolutely nothing about evolution.
Your reply: Now there is a much larger problem than the mere falsehood of this argument. I'm talking about its gross absurdity. If this argument were true, and the "Law of Biogenesis" contradicted evolution, then every working biological scientist must be consciously holding to the contradictory claim that they both do and do not believe in the Law of Biogenesis. Such an assertion is obviously absurd. It is obvious that evolutionary scientists accept the Law of Biogenesis and see no conflict with evolution.
Not addressed in your reply: Has science established the fact that life can originate from non-living matter?
Assertion Two:2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
Your reply:FALSE. It is a mere assertion. The fact that we can't reproduce it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The jury is still out.
Addressed in your reply: You reject that it is an impossibility, yet with no evidence to support even a remote possibility. Why then is the assertion invalid if in fact, it is scientifically impossible?
And worse - this argument is irrelevant to the theory of evolution because it doesn't matter how DNA or the first cell was formed. God could have done it and the theory of evolution would remain unchanged.
Evolution is a fact. Things can change over time. What is not a fact is the "Theory" of bio-evolution in the macro sense. To make matters worse, it rests on evidence which is inconclusive at best and has no foundation for the origin of life, without which, there is no evolution.
Assertion Three:3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
FALSE. This is unscientific clap trap. There is no limit to variations within a species. Why do you believe stuff that you don't understand?
Please define "Unscientific Clap Trap". What evidence can you show to verify that there are no limitations?
Assertion Four:4. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they cite no evidence supporting their empty assertions.
Not addressed in your reply: A counter observation that genetic mutations are constructive on a scale necessary to accomplish the miraculous results of creation all around us.
Assertion Five:5. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they argument indicates gross ignorance of evolution.
Not addressed in your reply: I assume by your eagerness to back off, you acknowledge Assertion Five as a truth. Assertion Five depends on Assertion Four to be False. Why did you not use the term 'False" on Assertion Four and Five as you did elsewhere?
The rest aren't worth answering. It's just the typical ignorant and deceptive crap spewed out by creationist websites.
You could have answered everyone of them with little typing by the use of one word... FALSE. Instead, your scientific reply required two words..."deceptive crap".
Here they are once more if you would prefer that your refutation become record:
6. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
7. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process (non-intelligence-ie. matter) has ever been observed to produce a program.
8. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
9. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
Henry's post was rather challenging to the evolutionary assertions.
Your friend,
john
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 11:01 AM
Hello again Richard
Henry's post, and your reply to it raised several obvious questions that you neglected to deal with. If you could respond to them once more, it would be helpful.
Good morning John,
Thanks for "holding my feet to the fire" - :thumb:
Assertion One: 1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
FALSE. The Law of Biogenesis was formulated by Louis Pasteur in 1864, just a few years after Darwin published the Origin of Species (1859). It was in response to the false idea that fully formed organisms like flies and mice could be spontaneously generated from dead matter. It says absolutely nothing about evolution.
Your reply: Now there is a much larger problem than the mere falsehood of this argument. I'm talking about its gross absurdity. If this argument were true, and the "Law of Biogenesis" contradicted evolution, then every working biological scientist must be consciously holding to the contradictory claim that they both do and do not believe in the Law of Biogenesis. Such an assertion is obviously absurd. It is obvious that evolutionary scientists accept the Law of Biogenesis and see no conflict with evolution.
Not addressed in your reply: Has science established the fact that life can originate from non-living matter?
No, science has not established that life can originate from non-living matter. But neither has it established that it cannot. So your point is moot.
I was addressing the blatantly irrational falsehood of point #1. The "Law of Biogenesis" does not apply to evolution. It was formulated in response to the erroneous theory of spontaneous generation in 1864 before evolution was generally understood, let alone accepted. Creationists who cite this law as evidence against evolution are displaying their gross ignorance of the issues at hand, and their willingness to grasp at straws and to mislead others.
Creationists just don't understand that real scientists can't do anything but laugh at their mindless moronism when they try to set science against science to defend their dogmas.
Assertion Two:2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
Your reply:FALSE. It is a mere assertion. The fact that we can't reproduce it doesn't mean it didn't happen. The jury is still out.
Addressed in your reply: You reject that it is an impossibility, yet with no evidence to support even a remote possibility. Why then is the assertion invalid if in fact, it is scientifically impossible?
Your logic is confused on this point. I rejected the assertion that "chemical evolution of life is impossible" because there is no reason to believe that assertion is necessarily true. It may be true, it may be false, the jury is still out.
The real problem with point #2 is that it is based on a blatant logical fallacy. Merely asserting that it is "impossible" because people have not done it yet is no different than telling the Wright brothers that heavier than air flight was physically impossible because it had not been done yet. The logic is simply fallacious.
And worse - this argument is irrelevant to the theory of evolution because it doesn't matter how DNA or the first cell was formed. God could have done it and the theory of evolution would remain unchanged.
Evolution is a fact. Things can change over time. What is not a fact is the "Theory" of bio-evolution in the macro sense. To make matters worse, it rests on evidence which is inconclusive at best and has no foundation for the origin of life, without which, there is no evolution.
"Evolution is a fact" - we're making some real progress here! :thumb:
I'm not sure which parts of the "theory" you are saying are not supported by facts. Let's start with the most important theoretical conclusion - common descent. That seems to be the sticking point for you. There is a massive body of evidence supporting this theoretical conclusion. It explains a lot of facts:
1) The phyologenetic tree of life that shows how all organisms relate to all others.
2) DNA evidence strongly supports that phylogenetic tree of life
3) Morphological and other biological evidence confirms both the DNA evidence and the phylogenetic tree of life.
4) The fossil record and geology strongly supports the phylogenetic tree of life.
This is called "consilence" - the unity of knowledge. This is why it is so ridiculous to try to attack "evolution" as if it could be isolated from the rest of science. Science is a web of knowledge of vast proportions. Everything confirms everything else. If you knew anything about how science really works you would understand the utter absurdity of the whole creationist approach to this question. Case in point - the creationist assertion that biologists are such utter idiots that they simultaneously do and do not believe in the "Law of Biogenesis."
Assertion Three:3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
FALSE. This is unscientific clap trap. There is no limit to variations within a species. Why do you believe stuff that you don't understand?
Please define "Unscientific Clap Trap". What evidence can you show to verify that there are no limitations?
Webster's defines "clap trap" as "pretentious nonsense." It is an accurate description of these creationist arguments.
Your response is illogical. The burden of proof is not on me to "verify that there are no limitations." The burden of proof is on the person who made those assertions. Did he cite a single scientific reference that supports his conclusion? Nope. And why is that? It's probably because no such evidence exists. Did he give any evidence of any kind supporting his assertion? Nope. He merely asserted that "different combinations of genes are formed, but not different new genes." But that directly contradicts a mountain of scientific evidence that shows new genes can be formed. Here is an example of what real scientists have to say on this topic, from an article called Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes (http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/10/1313.full):
Ever since the pre-molecular era, the birth of new genes with novel functions has been considered to be a major contributor to adaptive evolutionary innovation. Here, I review the origin and evolution of new genes and their functions in eukaryotes, an area of research that has made rapid progress in the past decade thanks to the genomics revolution. Indeed, recent work has provided initial whole-genome views of the different types of new genes for a large number of different organisms. The array of mechanisms underlying the origin of new genes is compelling, extending way beyond the traditionally well-studied source of gene duplication. Thus, it was shown that novel genes also regularly arose from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes, protein-coding genes metamorphosed into new RNA genes, genomic parasites were co-opted as new genes, and that both protein and RNA genes were composed from scratch (i.e., from previously nonfunctional sequences). These mechanisms then also contributed to the formation of numerous novel chimeric gene structures. Detailed functional investigations uncovered different evolutionary pathways that led to the emergence of novel functions from these newly minted sequences and, with respect to animals, attributed a potentially important role to one specific tissue—the testis—in the process of gene birth. Remarkably, these studies also demonstrated that novel genes of the various types significantly impacted the evolution of cellular, physiological, morphological, behavioral, and reproductive phenotypic traits. Consequently, it is now firmly established that new genes have indeed been major contributors to the origin of adaptive evolutionary novelties.
Maybe those brilliant creationists should write a refutation of this paper, showing how it so blatantly violates "MENDEL'S LAWS!" :doh:
Assertion Four:4. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. "A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they cite no evidence supporting their empty assertions.
Not addressed in your reply: A counter observation that genetic mutations are constructive on a scale necessary to accomplish the miraculous results of creation all around us.
The assertion that "Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors" is ludicrous and not based on any facts. We can trace thousand of mutations that have had very beneficial effects. Only those ignorant of the evidence could assert that this is not true. All you need to do is read at least one REAL SCIENTIFIC BOOK that explains the evidence for evolution and you will know. I recommend The Making of the Fittest by Sean Carrol. It's an easy read that traces out a lot of evidence for beneficial mutations.
If you want to pursue the evidence relating to that study of the fruit flies you will have to educate yourself about it. Here is a brief review (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/21/science/21gene.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss) from the New York Times. Note that the scientists conducting the experiment did not draw the conclusions that the creationists said followed from the study that they obviously did not understand. Note also the references to "favorable mutations" by these evolutionary scientists.
The report (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09352.html), published in Nature last week, offers new evidence in a longstanding debate about how organisms evolve. One well-known path to change is a heavily favorable mutation in a single gene. But it may be well known only because it is easy to study. Another path is exploitation of mildly favorable differences that already exist in many genes.
The question has considerable practical importance because if complex traits, including susceptibility to disease, are influenced by just a few genes, then it should be easy to develop treatments that target the few genes’ products. But if tens or hundreds of genes are involved in each trait, the task may be close to impossible.
Theorists have argued over this point for years, but researchers have been able to address it only recently. With advanced DNA decoding machines they can now afford to decode every DNA unit in sample genomes of a population undergoing an evolutionary change.
Three biologists at the University of California, Irvine (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_california/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Molly K. Burke, Michael R. Rose and Anthony D. Long, followed populations of fruit flies through 600 generations and studied the whole genome of some 250 flies in order to see what kinds of genetic change they had undergone.
The flies live in populations of 2,000 or so, each kept in a shoe-box-size container and fed a mixture of bananas and corn syrup of which they never seem to grow tired, Ms. Burke said.
With each generation the researchers picked the flies that hatched earliest to be the parents of the next generation, and by the end of the experiment, the time to hatching had become 20 percent shorter. The question to be answered was how this happened.
The conventional view is that evolutionary change is generally mediated by a favorable mutation in a gene that then washes through the whole population, a process called a hard sweep because all other versions of the gene are brushed away. The alternative, called a soft sweep, is that many genes influence a trait, in this case the rate of maturation, and that the growth-accelerating versions of each of these genes become just a little more common. Each fly has a greater chance of inheriting these growth-promoting versions and so will mature faster.
In sequencing their subjects’ genomes, the researchers found that a soft sweep was indeed responsible for the earlier hatching. No single gene had swept through the population to effect the change; rather, the alternative versions of a large number of genes had become slightly more common.
So now you want me to believe that these leading biologists conducting cutting edge research are all idiots because they believe there is such a thing as a "favorable mutation?"
I wish I could express my true feelings about the creationists who spew out such unscientific clap trap but I must restrain myself, else you computer screen would melt.
Assertion Five:5. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
FALSE. And not worth refuting because they argument indicates gross ignorance of evolution.
Not addressed in your reply: I assume by your eagerness to back off, you acknowledge Assertion Five as a truth. Assertion Five depends on Assertion Four to be False. Why did you not use the term 'False" on Assertion Four and Five as you did elsewhere?
Your assumption that I "acknowledge Assertion Five as a truth" is absurd. How could you say such a thing? I simply reached my limit of mindless creationist crap for the day.
Irreducible complexity is not even science. It's not even a theory because it explains nothing and predicts nothing and so is totally untestable. It is not science.
The rest aren't worth answering. It's just the typical ignorant and deceptive crap spewed out by creationist websites.
You could have answered everyone of them with little typing by the use of one word... FALSE. Instead, your scientific reply required two words..."deceptive crap".
John, I'm guessing you didn't read my response to Twospirits in the other thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3168-There-are-no-gods&p=46937#post46937) where I showed how the creationist movement has been totally corrupted by liars who spew out crap to unsuspecting and gullible Christians who know nothing of the science. Twospirits was victimized by them recently. They duped him into repeating a blatantly deceptive quote from Francis Crick that misrepresented him as saying that life could not have originated through natural processes. THEY DELIBERATELY LIED LIED LIED and their lies are being copied by poor folks like Twospirits and presented here. If you have any love of the truth at all you will understand why I have such a strong revulsion for the putrid lies vomited into the world by the leading creationists.
Henry's post was rather challenging to the evolutionary assertions.
The only things Henry's post challenged was my patience as I had to deal with ignorance and deception spewed out by people claiming to worship the TRUTH in the person of Christ. Have you considered the implications? Why would Christians lie so abundantly? What does this say about the fundamental claims of their religion?
Thanks again for holding my feet to the fire. I absolutely LOVE it! You actually engaged me on the evidence. This is great! I hope it continues.
All the very best to you my friend,
Richard
Hello Rose.
Believing Evolution is as narrow as believing Creation; both can be blinkered. Some can take a very narrow view becase they accept the simplicity of the Creation Story just as some accept the simple story of Evolution that is presented. Neither is simple and it takes more intelligence to reason matters out and then the more intellectuals amongst us cannot agree so those who take the simple view are not made any wiser by listening to intellectuals who cannot agree. You tar all Christians with the same brush in your generalization. I can understand how the earth can appear older and also how scientists can be fooled into thinking the earth is older than it is. There is much which is unexplainable in both camps, which is why the jury is out and so we might as well get on and study the whole revealation of God which is more essential, since eternal life is what is on offer.
Hello David,
The simplicity of believing the biblical creation story is what creates a very narrow mindset that cannot be expanded, because to do so denies the Biblegod as creator, whereas evolution is an open ended theory that continues to expand, that which is proven false must be discarded in order to progress forward. Nothing can be built upon a false theory, that is why creationism begins and ends with God creating everything, so life becomes static with no progression or advancement.
Creationism is not meant to teach us eveything about Creation, it is not the only basis for believing the Bible. The Bible gives us a simple explanation to the origin of the earth and life upon. I don't think God ever intended for man to know how God did it and it is not necessary for man to know either. Neither Evolution nor Creation can be proved to the satisfaction of everyone and until that happens the origins of life remain unprovable. Until one or the other can be proved, it is pointless making generalizations or drawing conclusions about them, so we might as well get on with reasoning out the remainder of what God has revealed which is more important.
Biblical creationism teaches us nothing about how things were formed, it just says "the Biblegod did it", and with every step forward in science it is proven that the way "the Biblegod did it" is fundamentally wrong. If the Biblegod truly did create everything, he could have stated the way he did it in very simple, yet accurate terms. When a parent explains complex things to their children that are beyond their understanding it can be done in an accurate, yet very simplistic way.
Yes, the origins of life remain unprovable, but that is not what we are talking about. Creationism makes the claim that the origins of life began with the Biblegod, whereas Evolution is still in the process of discovery, it does not claim to know how life began, it is only beginning to understand how life evolved after it began as a single cell.
I agree that I learn by finding out how things are made and mostly, I am learning how man-made things have been made. I do this by taking things apart; the same applies to the things God has made; man takes them apart. Man has not learned enough yet to be able to create like God. You say; "learning by how things are made". What I think you meant to say is; from how things evolved. Evolution does not "make" anything in the way a designer designs and things are made to a design. Evolution is not a learning process from what Evolution has produced. Evolution is a progression taking different paths caused by mutations of which some continue and some come to a dead end. I think you have not quite freed yourself completely from using words which refer to a Creator you once believed in.
All the best,
David
What I meant by "The only way humans can advance in knowledge is by learning how things are made", is the process of discovering the ways in which matter (chemicals) interacts to form all the substances we know. Science has pushed that process of discovery back to understanding how a simple cell works, from which springs all known life on our planet. There are still many unknowns like how DNA was formed (possibly by intelligent design), but I'm sure there will come a day when that too will be discovered and understood.
My main point is that human understanding of the world around us is so far advanced beyond what the Bible tells us, that its god looks no different than any other mythological god created by primitive people who had no concept or knowledge of the things we know today about the workings of the universe. For all I know there could be an intelligent mind from which all things "sprung", but if there is it most definitely IS NOT the primitive, Biblegod.
Take care,
Rose
David M
07-03-2012, 02:13 PM
Hello David,
The simplicity of believing the biblical creation story is what creates a very narrow mindset that cannot be expanded, because to do so denies the Biblegod as creator, whereas evolution is an open ended theory that continues to expand, that which is proven false must be discarded in order to progress forward. Nothing can be built upon a false theory, that is why creationism begins and ends with God creating everything, so life becomes static with no progression or advancement.
The Bible Creation Story gives adequate answers to explain the origin of all living things and why? I have found closure which Evolution cannot give me. If my mind is closed to this subject, it is because I do not have to look any further. My mind is open to receive more important information that gives me a future to look forward to. Please tell me what hope have you Rose for a hundred years from now? What tells you of the hope you have? I can only believe your philosophy if it has a better foundation of truth than the Bible has.
Biblical creationism teaches us nothing about how things were formed, it just says "the Biblegod did it", and with every step forward in science it is proven that the way "the Biblegod did it" is fundamentally wrong. If the Biblegod truly did create everything, he could have stated the way he did it in very simple, yet accurate terms. When a parent explains complex things to their children that are beyond their understanding it can be done in an accurate, yet very simplistic way.
There is nothing wrong in not being told the detail. Prove to me that is possible for any person to understand the complexity of Creation/Evolution. Man is still finding things out and he is only hoping that hit is possible to find everything out, there is no certainty man will or that his knowledge will lead him to a better future. The Bible is full of certainty whether you believe it or not. What you say is just wishful thinking and has no basis whatsoever. You have rejected the Bible, so you have only the writings of men to rely on. You can say the Bible is the writings of men, but I differ as once you differed, but my belief has got stronger based on more insight based on the many evidences, which support the facts mentioned in the Bible I will never know everythting there is to know in the Bible, so my mind open in a different way to yours. Whatever your reason for rejecting the Bible, I have reasons for rejecting Evolution. We shall never resolve our differences of opinion about these things, so we shall keep passing each other by as I am doing with Richard..
Yes, the origins of life remain unprovable, but that is not what we are talking about. Creationism makes the claim that the origins of life began with the Biblegod, whereas Evolution is still in the process of discovery, it does not claim to know how life began, it is only beginning to understand how life evolved after it began as a single cell.
Rose, Richard is accusing me and John and Twospirits and Cheow for not understanding Evolution. If you are honest, you should be in the same camp as us. Starting from a single cell is a massive leap forward form the origin of life. The single cell is a highly complex structure. It is probably easier to construct a tree of life and link all living things back to a single cell, than it is to link back from a single cell back to the origin of life. It is a big ask to say have faith until we prove Evolution is correct. Richard has stated; "science has not established that life can originate from non-living matter". If the origin of Evolution cannot be established by science, science is in no position to rule out creation, until it has definite proof of Evolution replacing unproven creation.
What I meant by "The only way humans can advance in knowledge is by learning how things are made", is the process of discovering the ways in which matter (chemicals) interacts to form all the substances we know. Science has pushed that process of discovery back to understanding how a simple cell works, from which springs all known life on our planet. There are still many unknowns like how DNA was formed (possibly by intelligent design), but I'm sure there will come a day when that too will be discovered and understood.
Once again Rose, the cell is not as simple as you say. You admit that Evolution does not have the answers, and so I choose to stick with a source of information (you now reject) that gives me non-scientific knowledge which is more important than knowing about the origins of life.
My main point is that human understanding of the world around us is so far advanced beyond what the Bible tells us, that its god looks no different than any other mythological god created by primitive people who had no concept or knowledge of the things we know today about the workings of the universe. For all I know there could be an intelligent mind from which all things "sprung", but if there is it most definitely IS NOT the primitive, Biblegod.
I agree that man's knowledge has increased in science and the Bible makes no attempt to teach man science. You are not so resolute about Evolution as you appear to be at times. You have not ruled out an intelligent creator. This is a less controversial position to take on the matter. I only hope your perception of God evolves for the better as times go on.
All the best,
David
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 04:44 PM
Yes, the origins of life remain unprovable, but that is not what we are talking about. Creationism makes the claim that the origins of life began with the Biblegod, whereas Evolution is still in the process of discovery, it does not claim to know how life began, it is only beginning to understand how life evolved after it began as a single cell.
Rose, Richard is accusing me and John and Twospirits and Cheow for not understanding Evolution. If you are honest, you should be in the same camp as us. Starting from a single cell is a massive leap forward form the origin of life. The single cell is a highly complex structure. It is probably easier to construct a tree of life and link all living things back to a single cell, than it is to link back from a single cell back to the origin of life. It is a big ask to say have faith until we prove Evolution is correct. Richard has stated; "science has not established that life can originate from non-living matter". If the origin of Evolution cannot be established by science, science is in no position to rule out creation, until it has definite proof of Evolution replacing unproven creation.
You are correct that the origin of DNA and the cell is a massive step up from a mere chemical soup. Neither Rose nor I have ruled out "creation" in the sense of some kind of intelligence producing DNA and the first cell. We've both told you this repeatedly. So your point doesn't make any sense.
The kind of "creationism" you now are proposing has nothing to do with the Bible, so I don't understand why you are pressing it. If that's all you meant - that God created DNA and the first cell and then let everything evolve from there - you would have no problem with evolution at all. Your comment doesn't make sense because I know you have a BIG PROBLEM with evolution, right? So the issue of the first cell is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it got there. All the evidence for evolution remains the same regardless. I've repeated this at least five or ten times now. Could you please let me know if you understand this point? If not, we should discuss it. I know how frustrated you get when I repeat myself.
It is a big ask to say have faith until we prove Evolution is correct.
Neither Rose nor I have asked anyone to have any "faith" in evolution! That would be totally ridiculous. The theory of evolution is based on observable and verifiable facts. It has absolutely nothing to do with "faith" of the kind you put in the book.
Richard is accusing me and John and Twospirits and Cheow for not understanding Evolution.
I am not "accusing" anyone of not understanding evolution. I am stating the fact that neither you nor John nor Twospirits nor CWH have shown any real understanding of the theory at all. But I'm hoping that will change as the discussion continues. Indeed, I've already seen some signs of progress.
All the best,
Richard
RAM call Creationists liars, but actually Evolutionists were the real liars and fraudsters. So far no one can prove concretely Creationist are liars and fraudsters. It's pathetic to see them resort to these scams.,,,Archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Pekin Man.... Why did so if Evolution is true? This is an embarrassment to Evolutionists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug&feature=related
May God forgive them and us.:pray:
Good morning John,
Thanks for "holding my feet to the fire" - :thumb:
No, science has not established that life can originate from non-living matter. But neither has it established that it cannot. So your point is moot
It is a correct assertion then that man cannot conjur life from the non-living, barring a miracle.
The remaining assertions which are logical challenges to the "theory" were discarded on the basis that they cannot disprove macro evolution. For that reason they remain on the table since nothing of substance was presented to dismiss them.
1. Macro evolution is still plagued by the many finely tuned parameters necessary for something as primitive as a single cell to evolve into a higher state of being such as the human brain.
2. Mutations are known to cause more problems than constructive improvements.
3.Things of high order degrade to a state of disorder.
4. There are no acceptable fossils to bridge the gaping holes in macro evolution, so the evidence presented requires a stretch of the imagination in ways that Biblical faith does not.
5. There is no evidence of the many necessary transitional creatures to demonstrate any progression from one species to another. Simply not verifiable.
6. DNA similarities do not prove that all of creation evolved from one singe cell.
7. The more we learn about the complexities in the design of creation, the more unlikely that evolution can take credit.
These are legitimate arguments that challenge the Darwinian Theory but are simply dismissed as deceptive crap. It should be noted however, that most people have learned from experience how to spot and avoid a pile of crap, and macro evolution stinks from a distance.
Reasonable assertions are not to be dismissed unless they can be disproven.
Your friendly accountant.
John
Evolutionists lie and directly from their mouths! It is ok to lie to school children to believe in evolution:
http://creation.com/evolutionist-its-ok-to-deceive-students-to-believe-evolution
Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution
by Jonathan Sarfati
Published: 24 September 2008(GMT+10)
There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes
Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’1
Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.
Teaching lies to kids is OK!
But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution.2 An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE,3 proudly stated:
‘it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students.’ 4
And by ‘inaccuracies’, he didn’t mean approximations or simplifications (e.g. pi ~ 3 or 22⁄7 for quick calculations, or the octet rule taught to beginning chemistry students), but outright falsehoods — using analogies that he knows are inaccurate, and ideas he states are false.
For example, he discusses a common evolutionary propaganda tactic, NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), invented by the late Marxist Stephen Jay Gould. This pretends that science and religion are two non-intersecting categories of thought, so cannot prove or disprove each other. We have shown that this is a form of the fallacious fact-value distinction, and is philosophically bankrupt (see Stephen Jay Gould and NOMA). Zivkovic agrees that it’s false, but justifies its pretence all the same:
Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. … Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?—Evolutionist Bora Zivkovic
‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. (emphasis added)’
I.e. so never mind such archaic concepts as truth: the important thing is that they accept evolution!
Zivkovic continues by praising an account of a Florida teacher and fanatical evolutionary activist, David Campbell5 in the New York Times.6 This teacher used an argument about the changing face of Mickey Mouse as an example of ‘evolution’. Of course, this is just another form of Berra’s Blunder, and Zivkovic agrees that it’s fallacious. Yet he justifies teaching it:
‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’
If … those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Evolutionist Bora Zivkovic
Once again, better to have them believe overt falsehoods than deny the evolutionary religion.
So what is Zivkovic’s motivation? In his own words:
‘Education is a subversive activity that is implicitly in place in order to counter the prevailing culture. And the prevailing culture in the case of Campbell’s school, and many other schools in the country, is a deeply conservative religious culture.’
Translation: educrats like him are rather proud of trying to undermine Christianity, and so much the better if it means opposing the worldview of the parents of the students he teaches. This should be a lesson for Christian parents, as Christian author and columnist Cal Thomas points out:
‘The tragedy is that too many conservative Christian … parents who want their children to have a different worldview—their own—willingly participate in the destruction of their children’s minds by turning them over to a way of thinking that is antithetical to their beliefs. Parents who worship at conservative churches on Sunday willingly send their children to schools five days a week where what they are taught undermines what they learned in church and at home. They would never think of taking their kids to a church that teaches doctrines opposed to their beliefs, but they don’t give a second thought to doing the same thing by sending them to government schools. It makes no sense.’
Worse, the Christians parents pay the misotheists to program their children in a value system diametrically opposed to their own! It’s like Moses handing over shekels to the Canaanites to teach paganism to the Israelite children.
Zivkovic is not alone
Other evolutionary propagandists are also on record as setting greater store on evolutionary indoctrination than critical thinking and learning facts. E.g. the atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott, leader of the atheist–founded-and-operated and pretentiously named National Center for Science Education, tacitly admitted that if students heard criticisms of evolution, they might end up not believing it!
‘In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.’7
She also knows the indoctrinatory value of NOMA:
One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!—Antitheistic evolutionary propagandist Eugenie Scott.
‘ … I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist. … I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!’8
It should be pointed out that not all atheistic evolutionists agree with teaching NOMA, e.g. William Provine, biology professor at Cornell:
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’9
‘ … belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.’10
Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers are other misotheists who despise NOMA. And they made this, as well as their hatred of Christianity, very clear in their interviews shown in the movie Expelled. Some evolutionists have criticized Expelled for showing this: but these evolutionists’ problem is not with the opinions of these two, but that they give the game away. Such evolutionists would clearly prefer Zivkovic’s NOMA approach, but would probably rather he was not openly proud of his deliberate deception.
The foundational issue
Many Christians expect evolutionists to be honest and fair. Indeed many are. But we should not be too surprised whenever someone who denies an absolute moral Lawgiver chooses to trangress moral/ethical bounds deliberately, and what’s more, proclaims it as a worthy act. As explained in Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation, the claim is not that atheistic evolutionists cannot be moral, but that they have no objective basis for their morality.
While some creationists have been been known to lie, this is contrary to their professed belief system. When evolutionists lie, it is consistent with theirs.
While some creationists have been known to lie, this is contrary to their professed belief system, and not something they will openly defend or promote, as Zivkovic does. When evolutionists lie, it is consistent with theirs. For example, we have a page, Arguments we think creationists should NOT use, which is the 8th most read article on our site, and more popular than any article about arguments we should use. But where are the corresponding evolutionist-authored ‘Arguments evolutionists should not use’, mentioning the points at the top of this article?
As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) puts in the mouth of the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov, ‘Without God, everything is permissible; crime is inevitable.’ So when Christians debate atheists, or send their kids to secular schools, they should heed the warning of the 18th century British statesman and philosopher Edmund Burke: ‘There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men’ [meant inclusively in those days].11
Obviously, the Theory of Evolution is BULLSHIT!
May God forgive them. :pray:
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 07:09 PM
It is a correct assertion then that man cannot conjur life from the non-living, barring a miracle.
Yes, that is common knowledge. But it tells us nothing about whether we will be able to conjure life from non-living tomorrow. So what is your point?
The remaining assertions which are logical challenges to the "theory" were discarded on the basis that they cannot disprove macro evolution. For that reason they remain on the table since nothing of substance was presented to dismiss them.
So you are going to just ignore all my refutations of all the creationist crap and move on like nothing happened?
I'm sorry to say that is not a valid procedure. It indicates that you are trying to avoid truth and reality.
Now on to the new points that you just invented:
1. Macro evolution is still plagued by the many finely tuned parameters necessary for something as primitive as a single cell to evolve into a higher state of being such as the human brain.
What are you talking about? Your comment is not scientifically meaningful. What "parameters" are you talking about? The word "parameter" has not been used in this thread yet. Please cite the scientific literature that talks about so-called "macro"-evolution being "plagued by the many finely tuned parameters." And why are you introducing new arguments without dealing with my refutation of all the other arguments? That is not how serious discourse should be conducted.
2. Mutations are known to cause more problems than constructive improvements.
Why is that a problem for the theory? The harmful mutations are quickly removed from the gene pool. Only the neutral and beneficial mutations are passed on. That's how evolution works.
3.Things of high order degrade to a state of disorder.
FALSE. You don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Many purely physical systems generate order when there is an energy gradient because they are far from equilibrium. And the Second Law is fundamental to the operation of our bodies and yet our bodies begin as a single cell and grow to greater order. Therefore you assertion is obviously false and totally disproved.
4. There are no acceptable fossils to bridge the gaping holes in macro evolution, so the evidence presented requires a stretch of the imagination in ways that Biblical faith does not.
FALSE. There are plenty of "acceptable fossils" that bridge the gaps. You have been reading to much creationist propaganda.
5. There is no evidence of the many necessary transitional creatures to demonstrate any progression from one species to another. Simply not verifiable.
FALSE. There is plenty of transitional forms. This has been debunked for years.
6. DNA similarities do not prove that all of creation evolved from one singe cell.
FALSE. This shows that you don't understand the DNA evidence. I've already explained it to you, but I'm happy to do it again. The DNA evidence is not based on mere similarity. The DNA evidence is the same kind of evidence used in courts to determine paternity and capital cases. It shows how various species are related to each other and confirms the phylogenetic tree of life.
7. The more we learn about the complexities in the design of creation, the more unlikely that evolution can take credit.
FALSE. Mere assertion. Empty of any content.
These are legitimate arguments that challenge the Darwinian Theory but are simply dismissed as deceptive crap. It should be noted however, that most people have learned from experience how to spot and avoid a pile of crap, and macro evolution stinks from a distance.
FALSE on numerous counts. First, the things I dismissed as "deceptive crap" were things like when creationist publish deliberate lies such as quotes taken out of context to make them say the opposite of what the author intended. Second, the arguments you have presented are not valid, as I just showed, so they are "creationist crap." Third, your assertion that so-called "macro"-evolution is a "pile of crap" is ludicrous since you are totally ignorant of the science. You can't even state what the best evidence for the theory is and you amplify your ignorance by uncritically accepting pure crap written by creationist that has already been debunk a thousand times.
Reasonable assertions are not to be dismissed unless they can be disproven.
TRUE. And so most if not all of your assertions can now be dismissed.
Your friendly accountant.
I wish you were a better accountant. You somehow ignored all the refutations I wrote without answering a one of them, and then added a huge pile of undeserved and unearned credits to your own account.
That's not how accounting should be done ... unless you are working for Enron, I guess.
Richard
The Bible Creation Story gives adequate answers to explain the origin of all living things and why? I have found closure which Evolution cannot give me. If my mind is closed to this subject, it is because I do not have to look any further. My mind is open to receive more important information that gives me a future to look forward to. Please tell me what hope have you Rose for a hundred years from now? What tells you of the hope you have? I can only believe your philosophy if it has a better foundation of truth than the Bible has.
Hi David,
First off, the Bible doesn't give us any information about the origins of life except "God did it". Secondly, I'm not talking about the origin of life, like I've said I don't know how life began, the same as most biologists that study evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that life has been evolving to more complex and diverse forms ever since its beginning (however it started).
The hope I have for this planet 100 years from now is that it will be a hundred times better than it is now, as for myself I don't know what happens after our consciousness leaves this body.
What is the foundation of truth that the Bible has? When I read the Bible, especially the Old Testament all I find is male-bias and words from primitive minds who thought that women were property and should be denied equal human rights because of their gender...I do not consider that a foundation of truth.
There is nothing wrong in not being told the detail. Prove to me that is possible for any person to understand the complexity of Creation/Evolution. Man is still finding things out and he is only hoping that hit is possible to find everything out, there is no certainty man will or that his knowledge will lead him to a better future. The Bible is full of certainty whether you believe it or not. What you say is just wishful thinking and has no basis whatsoever. You have rejected the Bible, so you have only the writings of men to rely on. You can say the Bible is the writings of men, but I differ as once you differed, but my belief has got stronger based on more insight based on the many evidences, which support the facts mentioned in the Bible I will never know everythting there is to know in the Bible, so my mind open in a different way to yours. Whatever your reason for rejecting the Bible, I have reasons for rejecting Evolution. We shall never resolve our differences of opinion about these things, so we shall keep passing each other by as I am doing with Richard..
No one understands the complexity of Evolution yet, it is a gradual accumulation of knowledge through observation. There is no complexity to Creationism, it is just a matter of saying "God did it". You say your belief in Creationism has gotten stronger based on evidence that supports biblical facts. What might those facts be? And what are your reasons for rejecting Evolution across the board?
My reasons for rejecting the Bible come from studying it with "fresh eyes". As I have said many times, the Bible is so full of male-bias and unequal treatment of women for no other reason than gender, I could no longer delude myself into believing the Biblegod was gender neutral. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the god portrayed in the Bible is the invention of primitive, Bronze Age men, who believed that the female is inferior to the male and as such should be denied equal human rights.
Rose, Richard is accusing me and John and Twospirits and Cheow for not understanding Evolution. If you are honest, you should be in the same camp as us. Starting from a single cell is a massive leap forward form the origin of life. The single cell is a highly complex structure. It is probably easier to construct a tree of life and link all living things back to a single cell, than it is to link back from a single cell back to the origin of life. It is a big ask to say have faith until we prove Evolution is correct. Richard has stated; "science has not established that life can originate from non-living matter". If the origin of Evolution cannot be established by science, science is in no position to rule out creation, until it has definite proof of Evolution replacing unproven creation.
It doesn't matter how massive a leap it is, because you start from what you know. From the single cell forward Evolution explains how the diversity of life came to be, which can be found in the fossil record, before that it is just speculation...that is why I say I don't know how life originated. There could very well be an intelligent mind behind life's origins, but not the Biblegod.
Once again Rose, the cell is not as simple as you say. You admit that Evolution does not have the answers, and so I choose to stick with a source of information (you now reject) that gives me non-scientific knowledge which is more important than knowing about the origins of life.
I agree that man's knowledge has increased in science and the Bible makes no attempt to teach man science. You are not so resolute about Evolution as you appear to be at times. You have not ruled out an intelligent creator. This is a less controversial position to take on the matter. I only hope your perception of God evolves for the better as times go on.
All the best,
David
That's right, I have not ruled out an intelligent creator for the origin of life, but I have definitely ruled out the Biblegod. Like I said before, all the Bible posits is "God did it", that tells me nothing...any book can make that claim. What does the Bible show to back up the claim that "God did it" besides just stating it is so?
Take care,
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 07:37 PM
RAM call Creationists liars, but actually Evolutionists were the real liars and fraudsters. So far no one can prove concretely Creationist are liars and fraudsters.
Ha! I proved it in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3168-There-are-no-gods&p=46945#post46945). And take a look at what real scientists think of the book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis) by creationist Michael Denton: :lmbo:
Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertations accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]
Sorry Cheow, you can scream and shout and cry and wet your pants all you want, but it doesn't mean anything because your assertions have been proven false. There's no way for you to deny these facts because the creationists have spewed so many lies, distortions, and absurdities all around the planet for decades that they'll never be able to hide it no matter how hard they try.
For you to assert that "no one can prove concretely Creationist are liars and fraudsters" is simply the most absurd comment that any human could utter. It is entirely contrary to the facts that can be demonstrated with evidence. Just google "creationist lies." Their lies and distortions are very well documented. Sorry ... there's nothing you can do to cover up their lies. It is very unfortunate that you would want to cover up their lies because it shows that you have the same spirit within you. This is why I say that dogmatic religion tends to corrupt both the hearts and the minds of those who adhere to it. After years of of experience, I have concluded that fundamentalist Christianity breeds a contempt for the truth. Your response to the evidence only confirms this conclusion.
You have not proven anything I have written is false! Think about that for a minute. If my assertion that creationist lie and deceive were not supported by facts, you could prove me wrong. But you can't do that and I very much doubt you will even try. All you will do is spew more creationist propaganda that has already been debunked.
It's pathetic to see them resort to these scams.,,,Archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Pekin Man.... Why did so if Evolution is true? This is an embarrassment to Evolutionists:
Scientists are humans. Humans lie. So scientists must correct other scientists when they go astray. The difference between scientists and creationists is that creationists tell more lies to cover up their old lies. They never correct the lies when caught. Case in point: They have been misquoting Francis Crick for YEARS! Their lie has been exposed, but they continue to lie.
If you want to have a serious discussion about evolution, try presenting facts that can be verified. Quit with the absurd creationist talking points that have been debunked for years.
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 07:53 PM
Here's some great info about transitional forms that proves the creationists are lying when they say there are none. From the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik):
Tiktaalik (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɑː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ɨ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is a monospecific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monospecific) genus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genus) of extinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) sarcopterygian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii) (lobe-finned "fish") from the late Devonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian) period, with many features akin to those of tetrapods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapod) (four-legged animals).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#cite_note-Nature-0) It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian "fish" developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, which led to the evolution of tetrapods.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#cite_note-scientificamerican-1) Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellesmere_Island) in Nunavut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut), Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada).
Tiktaalik lived approximately 375 million years ago. Paleontologists suggest that it is representative of the transition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil) between non-tetrapod vertebrates ("fish") such as Panderichthys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys), known from fossils 380 million years old, and early tetrapods such as Acanthostega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega) and Ichthyostega (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthyostega), known from fossils about 365 million years old. Its mixture of primitive "fish" and derived tetrapod characteristics led one of its discoverers, Neil Shubin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Shubin), to characterize Tiktaalik as a "fishapod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha)".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#cite_note-Shubin_2008-3)
An excellent article that explains the science can be found here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik).
Tiktaalik is important, well-preserved, and certainly newsworthy — but it was not unforeseen. The paleontologists who found Tiktaalik went looking for it. Previous research suggested that vertebrates' invasion of land took place about 375 million years ago in a river — so Shubin and fellow researchers searched for fossils in 375 million year old rocks that had preserved a river delta ecosystem. Having studied other organisms from this water/land transition, the paleontologists knew what sort of animal they were looking for. And when they did discover Tiktaalik (after five separate expeditions to Canada), it wasn't much of a surprise: Tiktaalik had the set of characteristics that they had expected to find in such an organism. In sum, discovering Tiktaalik simply confirmed many of the hypotheses biologists had held for a long time regarding the origin of terrestrial vertebrates. So although Tiktaalik didn't revolutionize anyone's thinking in this area, it does play an important role in moving science forward. Biologists can now capitalize on this knowledge to elaborate their hypotheses (about, for example, why vertebrates moved onto land), to make other predictions, and to discover more transitional forms: huge tracts of rock from this era remain unexplored and ripe for paleontological prospecting.
See that? The discovery of another transitional fossil did not "revolutionize" anyone's thinking because all scientists already knew there were plenty of transitional forms. Creationists know that they are lying when they say there are no transitional forms. Or they could be so ignorant that they know nothing of evolution. Either way, they are totally wrong and have been proven to be utterly untrustworthy.
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 08:34 PM
RAM call Creationists liars, but actually Evolutionists were the real liars and fraudsters. So far no one can prove concretely Creationist are liars and fraudsters. It's pathetic to see them resort to these scams.,,,Archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Pekin Man.... Why did so if Evolution is true? This is an embarrassment to Evolutionists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1RUhkgqjug&feature=related
May God forgive them and us.:pray:
That video contains lies and misrepresentations. It is a perfect example of corrupt creationists. At 1:10 and again at 2:00 the narrator falsely asserts that no transitional forms have ever been found. THEY LIED. There are many transitional forms and anyone interested in the truth knows this because the information is freely available on the web. It is pathetic that this lie is found on the lips of countless Christians who have been deceived by the creationists.
Another deliberate deception in the video is their presentation of the "archeoraptor scandal" (2:50). In 1999 some Chinese people put together a fake fossil that was supposed to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The National Geographic was duped by those liars and published a report. Then SCIENCE came to the rescue and proved it was fake and so it was rejected. This is a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. No one can stop liars from lying, but science has a method that exposes lies and errors and so science ever advances towards the truth. Creationism is the opposite. The video presented the archeoraptor scandal as if it were proof that evolutionary scientists make a habit of deliberately falsifying the fossil record! That is not what happened. CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS! And they continue to spread their lies and they rarely if ever correct themselves. The continue to spread the same lies long after they have been exposed.
The proof is overwhelming. The whole creationist movement is utterly corrupt and filled with people willingly and knowingly lie.
There is a great irony here. The creationists who made the video claim to be Christians who worship the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ. But by their actions they show that they hate the truth. They have a contempt for the truth. And just as they claim to worship the TRUTH when they LIE, so they accuse evolutionist of LYING when they are in fact telling the truth. The creationists confirm that NO ONE should ever become a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion that corrupts the hearts and minds of believers. Creationists are the final nail in the coffin of religion. The lying freak Ergun Caner - who lied for ten years about being a former terrorist to make money off 9/11 - really helped free me from the confines of traditional Christianity. The fact that major Christian apologists like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler colluded with Caner to cover the lies convinced me more. And when the leadership of Liberty U and the leadership f the Southern Baptist Convention and many hyper-fundamentalist Christian Ministries joined the ORGY OF LIES I knew it was time to quit Christianity altogether. I HATE LIARS in general, but there's nothing quite as disgusting as LIARS masquerading as those who "worship the truth" even as the LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
ETA: At 7:00 the narrator equates "spontaneous generation" with "abiogensis"! Those are totally different concepts! The producers of the video are not only LIARS, they are also IGNORANT FREAKS that make UTTER FOOLS out of anyone who listens to them. They are a primary source of the mental corruption that we see in Christians all around the world. It is very interesting that this video contained this misrepresentation since it was the first point I refuted in the previous post about the "Law of Biogenesis" which creationists say contradicts evolution. I can't believe how these ludicrous absurdities have been spread into so many Christian minds. Creationism manifests the power of corruption that is innate within dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The fact that the members of the religions have no way to clean up their own corruption makes a mockery of their claim that there religion is the only way to get "cleansed" by God.
luke1978
07-03-2012, 09:24 PM
Luke1978 theory of evolution - I don't believe it by the way but if evolution was true this is one way I could see"God" doing it.
A.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth(Actually many planets that can sustain life) using a big bang method. This way some planets would be suitable and others wouldn't. Law of averages.
B.He seeded many appropriate planets probably by asteroids.
C.The "seed" was actually an intelligent process consisting of DNA which would mutate based on the environment until a species evolved high enough to reason(Obtain higher knowledge of itself)
D.He sent his word through prophets and the like as he is invisible and a Bible was compiled. He,She,It resides outside of time so made sure the bible came together mathematically and had a spritual meaning so man could make the next evolutionary leap. Reasoning creature to spirit. So that is why the number 7 is encoded all the way through the bible. You just need to see the violence as spiritual warfare that still could be based on actual events. Double fulfillment.
E.Obviously with reason(knowledge) comes death just like eating from the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden. Death did not exist to me until I had reason and knowledge as I grew up.
F.At specific points in history on each planet God(The all that is) sends in his son(incarnation of himself) to show death can be overcome and tell us to evolve spiritually according to "his word"
H.Each planet where life has taken off from the "seed of God" eventually evolves to the point of ascension which is why nobody visits us from other planets.
I.Again I must say I don't believe it was done this way but if you feel rattled by monkeys looking similar to us don't be too concerned. Colonel Sanders has a secret recipe and maybe God has his own version which creates highly intelligent beings around the universe. If a spiritual view of the Bible is taken scientists messing with DNA and claiming to be Gods will not shake the Christian people whatever they find.
1. Macro evolution is still plagued by the many finely tuned parameters necessary for something as primitive as a single cell to evolve into a higher state of being such as the human brain.
What are you talking about? Your comment is not scientifically meaningful. What "parameters" are you talking about? The word "parameter" has not been used in this thread yet. Please cite the scientific literature that talks about so-called "macro"-evolution being "plagued by the many finely tuned parameters." And why are you introducing new arguments without dealing with my refutation of all the other arguments? That is not how serious discourse should be conducted.
The theory depends on mutations, which are random and almost always harmful, please explain how you can get to a complex human being with all of the organs, and intellect from a single cell in a very limited amount of time. What are the progressive species? Please begin with the cell and tell us the fossils and the chronology to arrive at a very complex human being. Take whatever space you need.
2. Mutations are known to cause more problems than constructive improvements.
Why is that a problem for the theory? The harmful mutations are quickly removed from the gene pool. Only the neutral and beneficial mutations are passed on. That's how evolution works.
Since most mutations are harmful, many of no effect, and only a very few under controlled environments capable of producing a minimal benefit (and often at the expense of other systems), what remains after subtracting all of the negatives, would necessitate divine intervention to achieve your results.
3.Things of high order degrade to a state of disorder.
FALSE. You don't understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Many purely physical systems generate order when there is an energy gradient because they are far from equilibrium. And the Second Law is fundamental to the operation of our bodies and yet our bodies begin as a single cell and grow to greater order. Therefore you assertion is obviously false and totally disproved.
Please explain how the second law can construct the complexity of a human being from single cell without a program of instructions.
4. There are no acceptable fossils to bridge the gaping holes in macro evolution, so the evidence presented requires a stretch of the imagination in ways that Biblical faith does not.
FALSE. There are plenty of "acceptable fossils" that bridge the gaps. You have been reading to much creationist propaganda.
So, if I understand your assertion, you can produce a fossil for every transitional creature between species. Is that what you are stating?
5. There is no evidence of the many necessary transitional creatures to demonstrate any progression from one species to another. Simply not verifiable.
FALSE. There is plenty of transitional forms. This has been debunked for years.
Name the transitional species the precedes man and tell us the sum total of your evidence which should not take many words.
6. DNA similarities do not prove that all of creation evolved from one singe cell.
FALSE. This shows that you don't understand the DNA evidence. I've already explained it to you, but I'm happy to do it again. The DNA evidence is not based on mere similarity. The DNA evidence is the same kind of evidence used in courts to determine paternity and capital cases. It shows how various species are related to each other and confirms the phylogenetic tree of life.
Your tree has no trunk. Where did it go pray tell? Or maybe it works on levitation like the rest of the theory. Of course, since the theory has no need of a creator, why should its tree branches need to connect to a trunk.
7. The more we learn about the complexities in the design of creation, the more unlikely that evolution can take credit.
FALSE. Mere assertion. Empty of any content.
If there is anything in this thread that is empty of content, it is evidence to support the progressive evolution from the single cell to everything we see in nature. Where's your content in the form of verifiable evidence?
These are legitimate arguments that challenge the Darwinian Theory but are simply dismissed as deceptive crap. It should be noted however, that most people have learned from experience how to spot and avoid a pile of crap, and macro evolution stinks from a distance.
FALSE on numerous counts. First, the things I dismissed as "deceptive crap" were things like when creationist publish deliberate lies such as quotes taken out of context to make them say the opposite of what the author intended. Second, the arguments you have presented are not valid, as I just showed, so they are "creationist crap." Third, your assertion that so-called "macro"-evolution is a "pile of crap" is ludicrous since you are totally ignorant of the science. You can't even state what the best evidence for the theory is and you amplify your ignorance by uncritically accepting pure crap written by creationist that has already been debunk a thousand times.
Again, you have unloaded a mouthful of words (I don't blame you since most of them were "crap"), but nothing of substance to promote the theory.
Reasonable assertions are not to be dismissed unless they can be disproven.
TRUE. And so most if not all of your assertions can now be dismissed.
The real irony of this thread that you started, was an invitation to submit the best evidence for and/or against this radical theory. Yet you have submitted nothing verifiable that will support the weight of this overloaded theory. Perhaps it's your turn to put up.
I wish you were a better accountant. You somehow ignored all the refutations I wrote without answering a one of them, and then added a huge pile of undeserved and unearned credits to your own account.
That's not how accounting should be done ... unless you are working for Enron, I guess.
Richard
Your theory is the one bankrupt of verifiable evidence.
Your unoffended friend:yo:
John
luke1978
07-03-2012, 10:32 PM
The theory depends on mutations, which are random and almost always harmful, please explain how you can get to a complex human being with all of the organs, and intellect from a single cell in a very limited amount of time. What are the progressive species? Please begin with the cell and tell us the fossils and the chronology to arrive at a very complex human being. Take whatever space you need.
Since most mutations are harmful, many of no effect, and only a very few under controlled environments capable of producing a minimal benefit (and often at the expense of other systems), what remains after subtracting all of the negatives, would necessitate divine intervention to achieve your results.
Please explain how the second law can construct the complexity of a human being from single cell without a program of instructions.
So, if I understand your assertion, you can produce a fossil for every transitional creature between species. Is that what you are stating?
Name the transitional species the precedes man and tell us the sum total of your evidence which should not take many words.
Your tree has no trunk. Where did it go pray tell? Or maybe it works on levitation like the rest of the theory. Of course, since the theory has no need of a creator, why should its tree branches need to connect to a trunk.
If there is anything in this thread that is empty of content, it is evidence to support the progressive evolution from the single cell to everything we see in nature. Where's your content in the form of verifiable evidence?
Again, you have unloaded a mouthful of words (I don't blame you since most of them were "crap"), but nothing of substance to promote the theory.
The real irony of this thread that you started, was an invitation to submit the best evidence for and/or against this radical theory. Yet you have submitted nothing verifiable that will support the weight of this overloaded theory. Perhaps it's your turn to put up.
Your theory is the one bankrupt of verifiable evidence.
Your unoffended friend:yo:
John
Hi John,
Honestly it is ridiculous to believe we evolved so I agree with you. I find it offensive towards God. Man is just trying to attribute everything to random chance so he can be a God unto himself.
regards
Luke
That video contains lies and misrepresentations. It is a perfect example of corrupt creationists. At 1:10 and again at 2:00 the narrator falsely asserts that no transitional forms have ever been found. THEY LIED. There are many transitional forms and anyone interested in the truth knows this because the information is freely available on the web. It is pathetic that this lie is found on the lips of countless Christians who have been deceived by the creationists.
Another deliberate deception in the video is their presentation of the "archeoraptor scandal" (2:50). In 1999 some Chinese people put together a fake fossil that was supposed to be a transitional form between reptiles and birds. The National Geographic was duped by those liars and published a report. Then SCIENCE came to the rescue and proved it was fake and so it was rejected. This is a perfect example of how science is supposed to work. No one can stop liars from lying, but science has a method that exposes lies and errors and so science ever advances towards the truth. Creationism is the opposite. The video presented the archeoraptor scandal as if it were proof that evolutionary scientists make a habit of deliberately falsifying the fossil record! That is not what happened. CREATIONISTS ARE LIARS! And they continue to spread their lies and they rarely if ever correct themselves. The continue to spread the same lies long after they have been exposed.
The proof is overwhelming. The whole creationist movement is utterly corrupt and filled with people willingly and knowingly lie.
There is a great irony here. The creationists who made the video claim to be Christians who worship the TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ. But by their actions they show that they hate the truth. They have a contempt for the truth. And just as they claim to worship the TRUTH when they LIE, so they accuse evolutionist of LYING when they are in fact telling the truth. The creationists confirm that NO ONE should ever become a Christian or a Muslim or any other religion that corrupts the hearts and minds of believers. Creationists are the final nail in the coffin of religion. The lying freak Ergun Caner - who lied for ten years about being a former terrorist to make money off 9/11 - really helped free me from the confines of traditional Christianity. The fact that major Christian apologists like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler colluded with Caner to cover the lies convinced me more. And when the leadership of Liberty U and the leadership f the Southern Baptist Convention and many hyper-fundamentalist Christian Ministries joined the ORGY OF LIES I knew it was time to quit Christianity altogether. I HATE LIARS in general, but there's nothing quite as disgusting as LIARS masquerading as those who "worship the truth" even as the LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.
ETA: At 7:00 the narrator equates "spontaneous generation" with "abiogensis"! Those are totally different concepts! The producers of the video are not only LIARS, they are also IGNORANT FREAKS that make UTTER FOOLS out of anyone who listens to them. They are a primary source of the mental corruption that we see in Christians all around the world. It is very interesting that this video contained this misrepresentation since it was the first point I refuted in the previous post about the "Law of Biogenesis" which creationists say contradicts evolution. I can't believe how these ludicrous absurdities have been spread into so many Christian minds. Creationism manifests the power of corruption that is innate within dogmatic religions like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The fact that the members of the religions have no way to clean up their own corruption makes a mockery of their claim that there religion is the only way to get "cleansed" by God.
Really now Richard, four paragraphs of outrageous condemnation and you could muster no more than two accusations of ambiguous falsehoods in the entire content?
John
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 11:00 PM
The theory depends on mutations, which are random and almost always harmful, please explain how you can get to a complex human being with all of the organs, and intellect from a single cell in a very limited amount of time. What are the progressive species? Please begin with the cell and tell us the fossils and the chronology to arrive at a very complex human being. Take whatever space you need.
What time period are you suggesting when you say "very limited amount of time"?
The progression of forms you are looking for can be found by looking at the exceedingly well established phylogenetic tree of life. There is a massive amount of evidence. It would take you years to review it all.
Since most mutations are harmful, many of no effect, and only a very few under controlled environments capable of producing a minimal benefit (and often at the expense of other systems), what remains after subtracting all of the negatives, would necessitate divine intervention to achieve your results.
Your comment is mere assertion without any basis in science. Do you really think you can overthrow an advanced science like evolution with such rhetoric?
You need to learn the basics of evolution before you could think to overthrow it. Why can't you understand something so obvious? Would you think to challenge General Relativity with talking points like that?
Please explain how the second law can construct the complexity of a human being from single cell without a program of instructions.
Your question demonstrates that you know nothing of the Second Law or of Evolution. How is it possible that you could think to dispute the advanced science of evolution which is practiced by scientists with Ph.Ds when you know nothing about the topic? Would you walk into an operating room and grab the scalpel from a brain surgeon?
So, if I understand your assertion, you can produce a fossil for every transitional creature between species. Is that what you are stating?
Of course not. Don't be absurd. Your caricature of my comment is just that - an foolish caricature.
Name the transitional species the precedes man and tell us the sum total of your evidence which should not take many words.
Sorry, but it would take thousands of pages to present all the evidence. And there is no need, the evidence is available online as you would know if you were a true Truth Seeker.
Your tree has no trunk. Where did it go pray tell? Or maybe it works on levitation like the rest of the theory. Of course, since the theory has no need of a creator, why should its tree branches need to connect to a trunk.
FALSE. The trunk is in the first cell.
If there is anything in this thread that is empty of content, it is evidence to support the progressive evolution from the single cell to everything we see in nature. Where's your content in the form of verifiable evidence?
The content would fill a library. The fact that you are ignorant of the evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.
Again, you have unloaded a mouthful of words (I don't blame you since most of them were "crap"), but nothing of substance to promote the theory.
I have refuted all your points, but you don't care. That is, of course, precisely what defines a closed-minded dogmatist who has no love for the truth.
Sorry to have to speak such plain words, but hey, the "wounds of a friend" are much better than the kisses of the creationist liars who have so thoroughly deceived you and so many others.
The real irony of this thread that you started, was an invitation to submit the best evidence for and/or against this radical theory. Yet you have submitted nothing verifiable that will support the weight of this overloaded theory. Perhaps it's your turn to put up.
It is ludicrous to call evolution a "radical theory." If anything is "radical" it is the radical rejection of all truth in favor of radical lies that we see in the utterly delusional proponents of creationism.
Your theory is the one bankrupt of verifiable evidence.
You are free to assert whatever falsehoods float your boat. I've provided verifiable evidence. You have rejected reality. So be it.
Your unoffended friend:yo:
John
Excellent! I am very glad we can have this frank conversation without anyone getting offended. I'm certainly not offended, and I'm glad you aren't either.
All the best to you my friend. I will continue to wound you with the truth at every opportunity.
Richard
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 11:10 PM
Really now Richard, four paragraphs of outrageous condemnation and you could muster no more than two accusations of ambiguous falsehoods in the entire content?
John
First, it was a short video (8:56). Even the creationists are limited by how many lies they can cram into a short amount of time. And I didn't even try to list all the lies.
Second, there was nothing "ambiguous" about their lies.
Third, one deliberate lie would be enough to condemn them as deliberate liars and hence, from a Christian perspective, SONS OF THE DEVIL.
Fourth, they spent about 2 minutes (25% of the video) repeating variations on the lie that there are no transitional forms.
Fifth, I listed three, not two, points where they lied and deliberately misrepresented the facts and I easily could have listed more. All from one video of less than nine minutes! Creationists are utterly corrupt liars.
Sixth, outrageous lies, especially when spewed out by those claiming to be Christians, deserve outrageous condemnation.
Your criticism is pathetically absurd. You are disgracing yourself in service of known liars. That is the kind behavior I witnessed when Ergun Caner was caught LYING from the pulpit for ten years. He lied with extreme boldness. It was a total outrage to witness. The entire leadership of the "Christian" Liberty University lied. The entire leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention lied. Leading apologists like John Ankerberg and Norm Geisler lied. And many independent "Christian" ministries who preach nothing but the BuyBull all day lied and deleted evidence to protect their beloved liar Ergun Caner. They are all one mass of corrupt Christian creationist liars. Why have you chosen to align yourself with that corrupt crowd?
Richard Amiel McGough
07-03-2012, 11:38 PM
Hi John,
Honestly it is ridiculous to believe we evolved so I agree with you. I find it offensive towards God. Man is just trying to attribute everything to random chance so he can be a God unto himself.
regards
Luke
So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent expert scientists are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the science were false it wouldn't work? If a theory is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are biologists so confident their theory is valid?
And how is evolution offensive to God? It says nothing about God at all. Is General Relativity offensive to God?
And I don't see how evolution allows man to be a "God unto himself." That seems like a non sequitur.
Excellent! I am very glad we can have this frank conversation without anyone getting offended. I'm certainly not offended, and I'm glad you aren't either.
All the best to you my friend. I will continue to wound you with the truth at every opportunity.
Richard
Richard,
You underestimate my ability to conduct research and overestimate the infallibility of your theory. The questions I raise are the same questions raised by well educated scientists who have legitimate doubts about macro evolution. And why is that? Because the theory lacks the verifiable evidence necessary to declare it a fact. When you personally present it as a factual dogma, that too can be misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity one bit and I really do respect your broad spectrum of knowledge, but is does not mean that you have a corner on the truth.
To most laymen the terms, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis equate to the same result, life from non-living things, unassisted by a creator, or "spontaneous life" if you will. The term Spontaneous Generation is obsolete and rightfully so and I assume that Abiogenesis will most likely reach the same dead end, and when it does, you can be sure a new term will arise disguising the same old concept, life from the non-living. It's really nothing more than a circular game of semantics.
Someday, it may be established that God did set life into motion with the conception of one cell from which all living creatures evolved, after all, time is no factor to Him and He is certainly capable of accomplishing it in that manner, and if that day comes, God's true children will accept it. Why shouldn't they? But for now, it is open to debate and there are some very good questions about the theory which remain unanswered for both the commoner and the educated.
Believe me Richard when I say that I am as open minded a Christian as they come because I place no limits on my Father in Heaven. I simply begin with His Word as the starting point and trust Him to reveal things to me little by little, line upon line and precept upon precept.
I shall call it a day now and head for bed to, as Luke 1978 has said... Sleep Well!
I remain your friend.
John
Richard Amiel McGough
07-04-2012, 12:18 AM
Richard,
You underestimate my ability to conduct research and overestimate the infallibility of your theory.
What makes you think I've underestimated your ability to do research? Go for it! Show us the evidence you find! :thumb:
But please, don't pretend I have ever claimed "my" theory is infallible. You know I do not think that the theory of evolution is "infallible."
The questions I raise are the same questions raised by well educated scientists who have legitimate doubts about macro evolution. And why is that? Because the theory lacks the verifiable evidence necessary to declare it a fact. When you personally present it as a factual dogma, that too can be misleading. I don't doubt your sincerity one bit and I really do respect your broad spectrum of knowledge, but is does not mean that you have a corner on the truth.
The questions you have presented would not be put forth by any "well educated scientist." That's why they are so easy to refute. Most of them are ridiculous creationist talking points based on gross ignorance of basic science, let alone the advanced science that requires a lifetime to master.
You have confused legitimate questions about aspects of the theory with denial of the facts that support the theory. Your confusion appears to be based on you uncritical acceptance of anything creationists say. You have no scientific knowledge to understand why those questions are so absurd. I have explained why, but you simply reject my answers without showing any error in anything I wrote.
I present nothing as "factual dogma." I present verifiable facts that are substantiated in the literature.
I never claimed to have anything like a "corner on the truth." But now that you bring it up, it is your dogmatic religion that you are projecting on to me. Your entire world view is based on the dogmatic assertion that YOU have a "corner on the truth" (along with everyone who agrees with you). And the irony is that you know there is no verifiable evidence supporting your dogma.
To most laymen the terms, spontaneous generation and abiogenesis equate to the same result, life from non-living things, unassisted by a creator, or "spontaneous life" if you will. The term Spontaneous Generation is obsolete and rightfully so and I assume that Abiogenesis will most likely reach the same dead end, and when it does, you can be sure a new term will arise disguising the same old concept, life from the non-living. It's really nothing more than a circular game of semantics.
And that's why the average "layman" is totally unqualified to make judgments about the validity of the science of evolution! They don't even understand something as simple as the difference between spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.
To say that spontaneous generation is equivalent to abiogenesis leads directly to the first false "evidence against evolution" that I refuted earlier in this thread concerning the "Law of Biogenesis." The people who produced that argument are either grossly ignorant or deliberately deceptive. In either case, they are unqualified to inform anyone about anything concerning evolution.
The term spontaneous generation is not obsolete. Real scientists know what it means.
There error has nothing to do with a "circular game of semantics" except in as much as they deliberately confuse terms to make false assertions and so to deceive people. Science is built upon precision of terminology. Creationists deliberately confuse terms to deceive people.
Someday, it may be established that God did set life into motion with the conception of one cell from which all living creatures evolved, after all, time is no factor to Him and He is certainly capable of accomplishing it in that manner, and if that day comes, God's true children will accept it. Why shouldn't they?
Finally! A point of agreement. :woohoo:
But for now, it is open to debate and there are some very good questions about the theory which remain unanswered for both the commoner and the educated.
Debate is great! Debate is what drives science forward.
Believe me Richard when I say that I am as open minded a Christian as they come because I place no limits on my Father in Heaven. I simply begin with His Word as the starting point and trust Him to reveal things to me little by little, line upon line and precept upon precept.
I believe you my friend.
I shall call it a day now and head for bed to, as Luke 1978 has said... Sleep Well!
I remain your friend.
John
Sleep well my friend. Rose is giving me that look too - time for bed. We had quite a vigorous day. I hope tomorrow our conversation will be a little more mellow.
Your friend in truth,
Richard
David M
07-04-2012, 05:04 AM
Time Out!!
It’s time to call a time-out, have a break, and recoup. End of round one!
Instead of a boxing match, it looks more like a street brawl. Punches (points) should be exchanged; instead there is much lashing out (pointless words). Nevertheless, let’s sit down, have a breather, and think about what to do in the next round. We all want to hit home and give knockout punches, but I doubt that is going to happen.
We all know there has been ignorance in both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps. Lies out of ignorance have gone forth. Alas, those lies have crept into the textbooks and now on to the internet; including the likes of Youtube videos. There is an abundance of lies (“crap”) that has built up over the years and remains, so it is difficult to get to the truth, because of the perpetuated lies that have to be waded through. What can be done is to expose the lies in each camp and then both camps agree on which lies exposed can be discarded and confined to the rubbish bin.
This thread could do with a moderator who is impartial and has no belief in Creation or Evolution. I am unable to be moderator in this process, because I am biased towards Creation; not that I believe everything all Creationists say. I seek to find the elements of truth in both camps that might be considered common ground. Creationists cannot agree doctrines contained in the Bible, so it is not surprising that Bible scholars have their own ideas as to what was involved in Creation. The Bible does not attempt to explain Creation in scientific terms. The Creation story is the most basic account giving some sort of order starting at the beginning and ending with the pinnacle of all life forms; that is man and woman. The Bible explains the purpose of life, whereas Evolution has no purpose to explain.
For hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists, we can we remove the Bible/God altogether from the debate. If Creationists win the argument for intelligent design, then there is the need to explain the intelligence behind the Universe and then we can introduce God and God’s word(the Bible).
Evolutionists need to prove how the Universe came about and needs to prove a connection between all living life forms (plants and animals). From when the elements were first formed out of the Big Bang (theory), Evolutionists haved to prove it is possible for the first cell to evolve from which all other living cells evolved.
Creationists need to prove that everything has come about by intelligent design.
Neither camp (up to now) has given evidence that is provable to the satisfaction of the other camp. Evolution and Creation remain theory. The best thing to do is report findings that are evidence to support the theories until a one of the theories eventally is proven (which might never be achieved).
There is no halfway house that will satisfy both camps (as much as I/we would like to think there is). Hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists are unable to compromise. A compromise means that intelligence has to be accepted by the Evolutionists. If both compromising Evolutionists and Creationists accept there is intelligence behind Evolution and Creation that is where the discussion can switch to a separate theological discussion about God. The god of the Bible supports Creation, whereas men’s ideas of god can invent a god who creates and then lets life evolve. For the purpose of this debate, the God of the Bible can be kept out of the debate until the theory of Evolution or the theory of Creation is proven or a compromised theory is proven.
What are the challenges?
Evolution has to prove the intermediary steps existed whereby it is possible that complex structures evolved.
Evolutionists have to prove how the interdependence of animals and plants came about gradually when neither can exist for any length of time without the other and where one species depends on the other as food for their sustainability.
Creationists have to prove intelligence created everything..
Evolutionists have to prove no intelligence is required for evolution to begin.
It would appear from the list that Evolutionists have more to prove than Creationists though it only takes one challenge to be insurmountable to defeat the theory.
Please contribute to this list of challenges if I have missed any.
Can compromises can be made? Here are two to think about.
Creationists have to accept that each day could have been much longer than 24 hours allowing for a creative process over a very long time which includes room for evolution.
Evolutionists have to accept intelligent design which also enabled evolution to proceed from a certain stage.
Should we all go away now until we can come back with a piece of evidence to submit? Then as each piece if evidence is put forward for debate, it can be debated without digressing into other areas.
Unless we have some structure to this type of debate, I cannot see it leading to any conclusion other than to agree to disagree. Until then, there will be a lot of frustration and heated words which do not help the discussion.
This is all I can say. From here on, I shall bow out of the discussion until the discussion continues in a reasoned way. Let’s find a moderator who is not an Evolutionist or a Creationist to keep the debate on track. Compile and agree an agenda by which an intelligent and rational debate continues. Failing this, I wish you all well in continuing as we have been doing.
David
So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent expert scientists are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the science were false it wouldn't work? If a theory is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are biologists so confident their theory is valid?
And how is evolution offensive to God? It says nothing about God at all. Is General Relativity offensive to God?
And I don't see how evolution allows man to be a "God unto himself." That seems like a non sequitur.
Richard, allow me to apply your logic from post 71:
"So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent theologians are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work? If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?"
Now I'm off to the river with our grown chidren and our 11 grandkids to celebrate the holiday for a few days.
Happy 4th to all!!!
John
Richard Amiel McGough
07-04-2012, 08:29 AM
Time Out!!
It’s time to call a time-out, have a break, and recoup. End of round one!
Instead of a boxing match, it looks more like a street brawl. Punches (points) should be exchanged; instead there is much lashing out (pointless words). Nevertheless, let’s sit down, have a breather, and think about what to do in the next round. We all want to hit home and give knockout punches, but I doubt that is going to happen.
Good call David!
:thpeace_dove_olive_
Blessed are the peacemakers! :thumb:
We all know there has been ignorance in both the Creationist and Evolutionist camps. Lies out of ignorance have gone forth. Alas, those lies have crept into the textbooks and now on to the internet; including the likes of Youtube videos. There is an abundance of lies (“crap”) that has built up over the years and remains, so it is difficult to get to the truth, because of the perpetuated lies that have to be waded through. What can be done is to expose the lies in each camp and then both camps agree on which lies exposed can be discarded and confined to the rubbish bin.
Yes ... there is a place for rubbish. :chores037:
I love the idea of coming to agreement. "Opponents" are the most valuable people, because when they challenge my views they are really helping to remove weeds of error from my garden of truth ... for free! And that's a wonderful service that I like to return to others.
This thread could do with a moderator who is impartial and has no belief in Creation or Evolution. I am unable to be moderator in this process, because I am biased towards Creation; not that I believe everything all Creationists say.
The moderator's job is to keep unruly members from getting out of line and disrupting the forum. Even though our recent conversation got very heated, most people seemed able to focus on the issues, and there was nothing I would have wanted to moderate no matter what side I was on. I think we've done very well without a moderator. CWH is free to say "evolution is bullshit" and I'm free to respond in kind when appropriate. Thankfully that kind of "discourse" has not taken over. We're all adults here. It's a very free zone - and I'm pretty liberal about free speech. I don't see any posts from either side that would need moderation.
I seek to find the elements of truth in both camps that might be considered common ground. Creationists cannot agree doctrines contained in the Bible, so it is not surprising that Bible scholars have their own ideas as to what was involved in Creation. The Bible does not attempt to explain Creation in scientific terms. The Creation story is the most basic account giving some sort of order starting at the beginning and ending with the pinnacle of all life forms; that is man and woman. The Bible explains the purpose of life, whereas Evolution has no purpose to explain.
It seems like a non sequitur to say "evolution has no purpose to explain." Evolution is science, and no science explains things like "purpose." You don't reject chemistry because it doesn't explain "purpose."
Of course, there are many creationists who reject geology and astrophysics because they contradict their beliefs about the age of the earth.
And so we see that science is just science, and most religions couldn't care less about it except when it contradicts one of their dogmas. That's the source of all the conflict - religious dogmas.
For hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists, we can we remove the Bible/God altogether from the debate. If Creationists win the argument for intelligent design, then there is the need to explain the intelligence behind the Universe and then we can introduce God and God’s word(the Bible).
Evolutionists need to prove how the Universe came about and needs to prove a connection between all living life forms (plants and animals). From when the elements were first formed out of the Big Bang (theory), Evolutionists haved to prove it is possible for the first cell to evolve from which all other living cells evolved.
Creationists need to prove that everything has come about by intelligent design.
I really love the way you are trying to clarify the debate! It is very helpful, lucid, and logical. :thumb:
Neither camp (up to now) has given evidence that is provable to the satisfaction of the other camp. Evolution and Creation remain theory. The best thing to do is report findings that are evidence to support the theories until a one of the theories eventally is proven (which might never be achieved).
Here I must interject that there is no equivalence between Evolution and Creationism as "theories." Evolution is a true scientific theory based upon millions of observations and tested by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Creationism is nothing like that at all. It's not even a "theory" - it's just a religious dogma. Neither it no Intelligent Design (which is really just a Trojan horse for Creationism) are "scientific theories" because they have no theory other than "Goddidit" and they cannot make any testable predictions. And worse, Creationism is generally contrary to consilience of science. It just doesn't "fit" into the web of knowledge that is so tightly integrated. There are no conflicts of any kind between Math, Physics, Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy ... until "Creationism" come along and crashes the party, stepping on everyone's toes, stumbling around like a drunk, dancing entirely out of step, knocking over folks' wine glasses and shouting during the arias. It's nice that Creationism got a fancy new modern (1950s style) Intelligent Design suit, but it takes more than a suit to make a man. All science cares about is results, and Creationism simply can't provide them.
There is no halfway house that will satisfy both camps (as much as I/we would like to think there is). Hardcore Evolutionists and Creationists are unable to compromise. A compromise means that intelligence has to be accepted by the Evolutionists. If both compromising Evolutionists and Creationists accept there is intelligence behind Evolution and Creation that is where the discussion can switch to a separate theological discussion about God. The god of the Bible supports Creation, whereas men’s ideas of god can invent a god who creates and then lets life evolve. For the purpose of this debate, the God of the Bible can be kept out of the debate until the theory of Evolution or the theory of Creation is proven or a compromised theory is proven.
What are the challenges?
Evolution has to prove the intermediary steps existed whereby it is possible that complex structures evolved.
Evolutionists have to prove how the interdependence of animals and plants came about gradually when neither can exist for any length of time without the other and where one species depends on the other as food for their sustainability.
Creationists have to prove intelligence created everything..
Evolutionists have to prove no intelligence is required for evolution to begin.
It would appear from the list that Evolutionists have more to prove than Creationists though it only takes one challenge to be insurmountable to defeat the theory.
Please contribute to this list of challenges if I have missed any.
Can compromises can be made? Here are two to think about.
Creationists have to accept that each day could have been much longer than 24 hours allowing for a creative process over a very long time which includes room for evolution.
Evolutionists have to accept intelligent design which also enabled evolution to proceed from a certain stage.
Should we all go away now until we can come back with a piece of evidence to submit? Then as each piece if evidence is put forward for debate, it can be debated without digressing into other areas.
Unless we have some structure to this type of debate, I cannot see it leading to any conclusion other than to agree to disagree. Until then, there will be a lot of frustration and heated words which do not help the discussion.
This is all I can say. From here on, I shall bow out of the discussion until the discussion continues in a reasoned way. Let’s find a moderator who is not an Evolutionist or a Creationist to keep the debate on track. Compile and agree an agenda by which an intelligent and rational debate continues. Failing this, I wish you all well in continuing as we have been doing.
David
Very interesting suggestions David. Thank you! I will review them more and get back to you.
All the very best to you, my rational peace-making friend!
A very happy 4th to you and yours,
Richard
It is interesting to read testimonies of Evolutionists turn Creationists. Many are well known scientists. Of course, there are testimonies of Creationists turn Evoluntionists but the issue is if the theory of Evolution is so good why did they turn to Creationism?
Do real scientists believe in Creation?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html#4
"I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"
-Frank
It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:
"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. …These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1
These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.
Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus:
"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2
As Science Digest reported:
"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3
One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.
"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6
Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.
More Lists:
http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html
Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.
Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”
Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."
"Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged." Dr. Gary Parker's testimony as to how he went from teaching evolution at the college level to being a leading spokesman for Biblical creationism. - See the full story at From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
Dr. D. Russell Humphreys (Physicist)
While neither of the two links we have for Dr. Humphreys states that he was a former evolutionists and atheist, we know this to be true from a 1999 debate he participated in at Harvard University in which he stated these things. See this interview with Dr. Humphreys at: Creation in the Physics Lab.
Dr. Alan Galbraith (Watershed Science)
"I attended a creation seminar arranged by my pastor. I had only been a Christian for some four years or so, and was still a convinced evolutionist. I have to admit that I went with the attitude — what can this pastor, whose last science course was probably in junior high school, tell me about the area I know so much about?" See Recovery from evolution (Alan Galbraith interview)
Dr. Donald Batten (Agriculturist)
As a young Christian in boarding high school I naively thought that 'science was facts' and tried to believe in evolution and the Bible by accepting the notion that 'God used evolution', days-are-ages, 'progressive creation', etc.
Dr. David Catchpoole (Plant Physiologist)
Until his mid-20s, David was an ardent evolutionistic atheist, but a personal crisis while working in Indonesia brought him to embrace Christianity. However, for a decade he struggled to reconcile popular evolutionary beliefs with the Bible...
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith (3 Doctorates and a NATO 3-star General)
The late Dr. Arthur E.Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. His background is referenced in footnote #4 at Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net.
Dr. Robert V. Gentry - (Physicist)
According to modern evolutionary theory, our planet originated from the accumulation of hot, gaseous material ejected from the sun, and the Precambrian granites were among the first rocks to form during the cooling process. University science courses convinced me that the evolution of the earth was just a part of the cosmic evolution of the universe. As a result I became a theistic evolutionist. Years later I began to re-examine the scientific basis for that decision. My thoughts turned to the age of the earth and the Precambrian granites. Were they really billions of years old? See Dr. Gentry's Book Overview. See his web site at Earth Science Associates.
God Bless Creationism.
Richard Amiel McGough
07-04-2012, 08:54 AM
Richard, allow me to apply your logic from post 71:
"So you think the thousands upon thousands of highly intelligent theologians are what ... all part of a big conspiracy? All liars? Insane? How do you account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work? If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected. Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?"
Now I'm off to the river with our grown chidren and our 11 grandkids to celebrate the holiday for a few days.
Happy 4th to all!!!
John
Good morning John, :tea:
It's a new morning! :sunny:
Our friend David M has introduce some fresh rationality to our conversation. We should applaud him. :congrats:
Now as for you analogy. I think it is entirely fallacious on every point.
Your question about how I could "account for the fact that if the Bible were false it wouldn't work?" is based on the false assumption that the Bible "works." I see no evidence for that at all. I don't even know what it means. In what way does the Bible "work"? When I said that science "works" we all know what I mean. Just look around you - computers, airliners, modern medicine. Science works. That's all it has going for it. Your attempt to make an equivalence between Science and the Bible makes no sense to me at all.
And your assertion that "If a faith is false in any other field, it is quickly rejected" is obviously and entirely false. We all know that people hold to false religious "faiths" no matter how much the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
And finally, your question "Why are theologians so confident their faith is valid?" makes no sense because all theologians differ with many other theologians in fundamental ways. They have no common edifice like Science. Muslim theologians directly contradict Christian theologians and Christian theologians directly contradict Christian theologians from other sects. So there is no equivalence of any kind with Science which enjoys broad acceptance based on verifiable facts.
I hope you enjoy your celebrations of Independence Day!
Richard
PS: I am still hoping you will take a few minutes to answer post #71. I truly think it is an irrefutable refutation of the argument that Christians could not have gone around Jerusalem proclaiming the empty tomb if it was false.
Richard Amiel McGough
09-04-2012, 10:27 AM
I'd still like to know if there is one anti-evolutionist who knows anything about the theory they oppose.
If you are an anti-evolutionist, prove that you know the best evidence for the theory you reject! Come on, I dare you! :p
Richard Amiel McGough
11-28-2012, 05:37 PM
I'd still like to know if there is one anti-evolutionist who knows anything about the theory they oppose.
If you are an anti-evolutionist, prove that you know the best evidence for the theory you reject! Come on, I dare you! :p
:playball:
Here is a short video explaining in very simple terms the "Theory of Evolution".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 06:17 PM
Evolution is simply multiple logical fallacies imposed on biological observations.
Begging the question, affirming the consequent, negative proof and cherry picking are several of the more popular fallacies invoked.
The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 06:26 PM
Evolution is simply multiple logical fallacies imposed on biological observations.
Begging the question, affirming the consequent, negative proof and cherry picking are several of the more popular fallacies invoked.
The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy.
Hey there GourmetDan,
Welcome to our forum!
:welcome:
You seem to be painting with a very broad and poorly defined brush. If you want your comments to convince anyone of anything, you will need to give examples of some central evolutionary claims that are obviously fallacious.
Do you deny the DNA evidence that strongly supports common descent? Such evidence is accepted in court to determine parentage and guilt in capital offenses such as murder.
How to do you explain the millions of different species that obviously developed over vast spans of time? The Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious.
I look forward to your presentation of the evidence that supports your assertions.
Richard
PS: Did you notice the title of this thread? The purpose is for anti-evolutionists to display their knowledge of that which they oppose (evolution) by stating what they think is the best evidence supporting the theory. If you can't answer this question, it would indicate a total ignorance of the actual science that the vast majority of working biologists find convincing.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 06:38 PM
The Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious.
PS: Did you notice the title of this thread? The purpose is for anti-evolutionists to display their knowledge of that which they oppose (evolution) by stating what they think is the best evidence supporting the theory. If you can't answer this question, it would indicate a total ignorance of the actual science that the vast majority of working biologists find convincing.
And the evolutionary explanation is obviously fallacious also.
The argument is not about evidence but about fallacies applied to evidence. Did you not understand my statement that the fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved', without engaging in logical fallacy?
Appealing to the 'vast majority of working biologists' is itself a logical fallacy. It's the same as arguing the truth of the Bible because so many Christians believe it is true.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 06:50 PM
And the evolutionary explanation is obviously fallacious also.
That's your assertion. You have not given any evidence supporting it as yet.
The argument is not about evidence but about fallacies applied to evidence. Did you not understand my statement that the fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved', without engaging in logical fallacy?
No, I did not understand your comment because it has no context. Who said that "the fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior" is supposed to be "evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved'"? Your comment appears to be less than a straw man because I don't even know what scientific theory you think you are disputing. You need to state clearly what you are disputing and then give good evidence that it is fallacious. You have done nothing like that.
Appealing to the 'vast majority of working biologists' is itself a logical fallacy. It's the same as arguing the truth of the Bible because so many Christians believe it is true.
It is not a fallacy to state a fact. I did not appeal to that fact as proof that evolution is correct, but rather to remind you that it is an absurd creationist delusion to think that all those scientists are believing evolution for ideological reasons rather than because of evidence.
Why are you refusing to answer my direct questions? Here they are again:
Do you deny the DNA evidence that strongly supports common descent? Such evidence is accepted in court to determine parentage and guilt in capital offenses such as murder.
How to do you explain the millions of different species that obviously developed over vast spans of time? The Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious.
Richard
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 06:57 PM
That's your assertion. You have not given any evidence supporting it as yet.
Yours was an assertion also without evidence.
No, I did not understand your comment because it has no context. Who said that "the fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior" is supposed to be "evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved'"? Your comment appears to be less than a straw man because I don't even know what scientific theory you think you are disputing. You need to state clearly what you are disputing and then give good evidence that it is fallacious. You have done nothing like that.
Again, the argument is not about 'evidence' but about fallacies applied to evidence.
It is not a fallacy to state a fact. I did not appeal to that fact as proof that evolution is correct.
OK, so how about you don't appeal to any 'fact' unless you believe it to be proof that evolution is correct?
Why are you refusing to answer my direct questions? Here they are again:
Do you deny the DNA evidence that strongly supports common descent? Such evidence is accepted in court to determine parentage and guilt in capital offenses such as murder.
That DNA 'strongly supports' common descent is based on the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent being applied to the reality that is DNA.
How to do you explain the millions of different species that obviously developed over vast spans of time? The Biblical explanation is obviously fallacious.
That millions of different species developed over 'vast spans of time' is an extrapolation based on assumptions 'supported' by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The evolutionary explanation is obviously fallacious as well.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:06 PM
Yours was an assertion also without evidence.
The evidence that the Biblical account is fallacious is common knowledge. If you are ignorant of it then you are not qualified to comment on anything relating to evolution and the Bible. Your assertions, on the other hand, are entirely empty and they directly contradict much demonstrable knowledge.
No, I did not understand your comment because it has no context. Who said that "the fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior" is supposed to be "evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved'"? Your comment appears to be less than a straw man because I don't even know what scientific theory you think you are disputing. You need to state clearly what you are disputing and then give good evidence that it is fallacious. You have done nothing like that.
Again, the argument is not about 'evidence' but about fallacies applied to evidence.
Your words are still empty. You have not stated anything with content as yet. I don't have a clue what you think you are talking about.
OK, so how about you don't appeal to any 'fact' unless you believe it to be proof that evolution is correct?
I will state whatever facts I think will help you understand science and reality.
That DNA 'strongly supports' common descent is based on the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent being applied to the reality that is DNA.
Sorry, but your comment is mere assertion. Exactly how does the evidence of common descent "commit the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent"? How does it differ from the DNA evidence that proves paternity? You have not said anything with any content as yet.
That millions of different species developed over 'vast spans of time' is an extrapolation based on assumptions 'supported' by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The evolutionary explanation is obviously fallacious as well.
Your comments are utterly devoid of any content. It sounds like you are rejecting all the compound evidence that is used to date fossils. Is this true? Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:16 PM
Your assertions, on the other hand, are entirely empty and they directly contradict much demonstrable knowledge.
I see an assertion without evidence.
I will state whatever facts I think will help you understand science and reality.
Like what?
Sorry, but your comment is mere assertion. Exactly how does the evidence of common descent "commit the fallacies of begging the question and affirming the consequent"? How does it differ from the DNA evidence that proves paternity? You have not said anything with any content as yet.
There is no 'evidence' of common descent. It is assumed because common descent is assumed (begging the question) and commonalities in DNA are then interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You have 2 fallacies 'supporting' the 'evidence'. There is really no 'evidence' 'supporting' evolution there, just logical fallacy applied to biological observation.
Your comments are utterly devoid of any content. It sounds like you are rejecting all the compound evidence that is used to date fossils. Is this true? Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
You seem intent on characterizing my comments in emotional terms as 'support' for your position. Engaging in a little bit of the fallacy of 'poisoning the well' perhaps?
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:23 PM
There is no 'evidence' of common descent. It is assumed because common descent is assumed (begging the question) and commonalities in DNA are then interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You have 2 fallacies 'supporting' the 'evidence'. There is really no 'evidence' 'supporting' evolution there, just logical fallacy applied to biological observation.
Your comment is absurd. Common descent is not merely "assumed". Your assertion that there "is not evidence" indicates that you are radically ignorant of it. Have you read even one book written by an evolutionary scientist that explains the evidence? I doubt it. A good place to start would be Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest.
And you seem OCD about "fallacies". Your constant assertions about "fallacies" is itself one grand fallacy.
Your comments are utterly devoid of any content. It sounds like you are rejecting all the compound evidence that is used to date fossils. Is this true? Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
You seem intent on characterizing my comments in emotional terms as 'support' for your position. Engaging in a little bit of the fallacy of 'poisoning the well' perhaps?
Not at all. I am simply trying to find out where you are coming from. But I can see why you would think it is "poisoning the well" since Young Earth Creationism is totally absurd.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:27 PM
Your comment is absurd. Common descent is not merely "assumed". Your assertion that there "is not evidence" indicates that you are radically ignorant of it. Have you read even one book written by an evolutionary scientist that explains the evidence? I doubt it. A good place to start would be Sean Carroll's The Making of the Fittest.
I note that you provide no 'facts' to support your belief in common descent.
And you seem OCD about "fallacies". Your constant assertions about "fallacies" is itself one grand fallacy.
If you don't engage in fallacy, I won't point them out.
Not at all. I am simply trying to find out where you are coming from. But I can see why you would think it is "poisoning the well" since Young Earth Creationism is totally absurd.
Again with characterizing my comments in emotionally-charged terms...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:33 PM
There is no 'evidence' of common descent. It is assumed because common descent is assumed (begging the question) and commonalities in DNA are then interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You have 2 fallacies 'supporting' the 'evidence'. There is really no 'evidence' 'supporting' evolution there, just logical fallacy applied to biological observation.
Your comment contains a straw man misrepresentation of the evidence for common descent. Their is more than mere "commonality". The evidence refers to specific mutations that can be traced and which conform with the other evidence that supports the philogenetic tree of life, such as fossils and morphology.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:37 PM
I note that you provide no 'facts' to support your belief in common descent.
I presented the fact of DNA evidence and you indicated that you are ignorant of it.
If you don't engage in fallacy, I won't point them out.
Yeah, right. Judging by your comments so far in this thread, it seems unlikely that you could write a single sentence that didn't contain a fallacious charge of some "fallacy".
Again with characterizing my comments in emotionally-charged terms...
I can't help it if you react emotionally to factual terms like "absurd". They wouldn't bother you if you didn't believe in absurdities.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:40 PM
Your comment contains a straw man misrepresentation of the evidence for common descent. Their is more than mere "commonality". The evidence refers to specific mutations that can be traced and which conform with the other evidence that supports the philogenetic tree of life, such as fossils and morphology.
Mutations cannot be 'traced' unless you engage in 'begging the question' for assuming that common descent exists and that the 'philogenetic tree of life' is a reality rather than a mental construct. The fact that fossils and morphology exist is not evidence of common descent unless you assume that common descent exists in the first place (begging the question) and that similarities support common-descent (affirming the consequent).
As I said at the beginning, "The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy."
If you don't want me to point out the multiple logical fallacies that you make in every post, please stop making them.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:43 PM
I presented the fact of DNA evidence and you indicated that you are ignorant of it.
The fact that DNA exists is not evidence that it 'evolved' unless you assume that 'evolution' produced DNA in the first place. That is the fallacy of begging the question.
Yeah, right. Judging by your comments so far in this thread, it seems unlikely that you could write a single sentence that didn't contain a fallacious charge of some "fallacy".
It seems equally unlikely that you can 'support' your beliefs without engaging in logical fallacy.
I can't help it if you react emotionally to factual terms like "absurd". They wouldn't bother you if you didn't believe in absurdities.
Ah, so now you know my mind. Interesting...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:46 PM
Mutations cannot be 'traced' unless you engage in 'begging the question' for assuming that common descent exists and that the 'philogenetic tree of life' is a reality rather than a mental construct. The fact that fossils and morphology exist is not evidence of common descent unless you assume that common descent exists in the first place (begging the question) and that similarities support common-descent (affirming the consequent).
As I said at the beginning, "The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy."
If you don't want me to point out the multiple logical fallacies that you make in every post, please stop making them.
Not true. We can map the genome, and we can identify a parent-child relationship by specific mutations that are inherited. There is nothing "begging the question" about any of this. It is used in the courts to determine parentage. Your assertions are false.
Your attempt to refute the science of evolution is not unlike an ignorant hill billy who can't 1 + 2 thinking to refute general relativity. Your comments indicate a total and absolute ignorance of the most basic science that you think you are refuting. Nothing could be more absurd, or pathetic.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:51 PM
Not true. We can map the genome, and we can identify a parent-child relationship by specific mutations that are inherited. There is nothing "begging the question" about any of this. It is used in the courts to determine parentage. Your assertions are false.
Ah, now you are engaging in equivocation (another fallacy) for equating the use of DNA for determining legal parentage with the idea of common descent. What exactly would be observably different about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage if all humans were descended from Adam and Eve?
Your attempt to refute the science of evolution is not unlike an ignorant hill billy who can't 1 + 2 thinking to refute general relativity. Your comments indicate a total and absolute ignorance of the most basic science that you think you are refuting. Nothing could be more absurd, or pathetic.
Again with the use of emotionally-charged terms as 'argument'...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 07:55 PM
The fact that DNA exists is not evidence that it 'evolved' unless you assume that 'evolution' produced DNA in the first place. That is the fallacy of begging the question.
Another ludicrous straw man. I never said that the existence of DNA was evidence it evolved. You obviously don't even understand the theory you think you are refuting!
It seems equally unlikely that you can 'support' your beliefs without engaging in logical fallacy.
I have no trouble supporting my ideas logic and facts. It's called science. You should learn something about it before thinking to refute it.
I can't help it if you react emotionally to factual terms like "absurd". They wouldn't bother you if you didn't believe in absurdities.
Ah, so now you know my mind. Interesting...
Ha! Your are totally OCD with common internet troll techniques! You have not established any argument for your position. So you distract everything with emotion and empty assertions about false "fallacies" that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual science being conducted by grown ups. Man, you are like a little child brainwashed by his religion to think that he is invincible, when in fact you speak as an ignorant fool. All you can do it write absurd straw men. I was not saying that I "knew" you mind. I was merely commenting on what seemed to me to be the most likely reason for your emotional response.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 07:57 PM
Another ludicrous straw man. I never said that the existence of DNA was evidence it evolved. You obviously don't even understand the theory you think you are refuting!
I don't think you ever actually say anything. What is your evidence that DNA 'evolved'?
I have no trouble supporting my ideas logic and facts. It's called science. You should learn something about it before thinking to refute it.
OK, let's see some. No fallacies now.
Ha! Your are totally OCD with common internet troll techniques! You have not established any argument for your position. So you distract everything with emotion and empty assertions about false "fallacies" that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual science being conducted by grown ups. Man, you are like a little child brainwashed by his religion to think that he is invincible, when in fact you speak as an ignorant fool. All you can do it write absurd straw men. I was not saying that I "knew" you mind. I was merely commenting on what seemed to me to be the most likely reason for your emotional response.
Again with the emotionally-charged terms as 'argument'...
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 08:00 PM
Since you hate avoiding questions, I have to ask again.
"What exactly would be observably different about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage if all humans were descended from Adam and Eve?"
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 08:09 PM
Ah, now you are engaging in equivocation (another fallacy) for equating the use of DNA for determining legal parentage with the idea of common descent.
I did not equivocate. From the beginning I told you that the kind of DNA evidence used in paternity cases is the same kind of DNA evidence used to determine common descent. If you want to challenge that assertion, you will need to explain why they are different and why that difference would invalidate the conclusion that it supports common descent. But that would require that you actually engage the evidence with understanding, rather than merely spewing out blatantly fallacious "fallacies" that indicate only your own ignorance.
What exactly would be observably different about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage if all humans were descended from Adam and Eve?
There would be nothing different "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" at all. You totally missed the point. The difference would not be "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" but rather in the history of the human genome that is supported by the DNA evidence. It prohibits the idea that all humans descended from a single pair a mere few thousand years ago.
Your attempt to refute the science of evolution is not unlike an ignorant hill billy who can't 1 + 2 thinking to refute general relativity. Your comments indicate a total and absolute ignorance of the most basic science that you think you are refuting. Nothing could be more absurd, or pathetic.
Again with the use of emotionally-charged terms as 'argument'...
Not true. I did not try to use emotional terms as an "argument." I was simply telling you what I think of your arguments.
Emotion is part of what makes us human. Your constant charge of "fallacies" is really nothing but mindless emotion masquerading as intellect. Any person seriously interested in truth would begin by establishing a foundation of agreement upon demonstrable facts. You could then prove your case using generally accepted facts that I explicitly agreed to. But you didn't do that. You began by spouting very rude absurdities that imply that I and all people who are convinced by the evidence are somehow "fools" whose ideas are totally filled with obvious "fallacies." Your "schtick" reminds me of the mindless game of "presuppositional apologetics" that is based upon the assumption that Christianity is true (now that's begging the question!).
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 08:13 PM
Since you hate avoiding questions, I have to ask again.
"What exactly would be observably different about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage if all humans were descended from Adam and Eve?"
I didn't avoid any questions. I answered that question in a separate post #118 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=58751#post58751).
You are quick to accuse. This indicates a very bad character, that you are not interested in truth at all, but rather displaying your pride to yourself as you delve into your delusion that you are actually refuting the science of evolution. Like I said, your delusion is as pathetic as a hill billy who can't add one plus two thinking to refute general relativity. I asked if you had read even one book written by an evolutionary scientist. You have yet to answer that question. Please do so now.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 08:17 PM
I did not equivocate. From the beginning I told you that the kind of DNA evidence used in paternity cases is the same kind of DNA evidence used to determine common descent. If you want to challenge that assertion, you will need to explain why they are different and why that difference would invalidate the conclusion that it supports common descent. But that would require that you actually engage the evidence with understanding, rather than merely spew out mindless "fallacies" that indicate only your own ignorance.
Sorry, but parentage used to determine paternity is observable. The parents exist. In assumed common descent, the parents do not exist. They are assumed and you are begging the question that they did.
There would be nothing different "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" at all. You totally missed the point. The difference would not be "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" but rather in the history of the human genome that is supported by the DNA evidence. It prohibits the idea that all humans descended from a single pair a mere few thousand years ago.
Um no, you missed the point. If there is nothing observably different between creation and common descent in determining legal parentage using DNA, then the only thing that is left is the logical fallacies that common descent is based on. As you yourself admit, there is no observable scientific difference.
Not true. I did not try to use emotional terms as an "argument." I was simply telling you what I think of your arguments.
If you can't provide observable scientific arguments that are free from logical fallacy, all you are doing is making assertions and expressing opinions.
Emotion is part of what makes us human. Your constant charge of "fallacies" is really nothing but mindless emotion masquerading as intellect. Any person seriously interested in truth would begin by establishing a foundation of agreement upon demonstrable facts. You could then prove your case using generally accepted facts that I explicitly agreed to. But you didn't do that. You began by spouting very rude absurdities that imply that I and all people who are convinced by the evidence are somehow "fools" whose ideas are totally filled with obvious "fallacies." Your "schtick" reminds me of the mindless game of "presuppositional apologetics" that is based upon the assumption that Christianity is true (now that's begging the question!).
So? The fact that we have emotions means nothing in the debate about common descent.
You admitted above that there is no observable, scientific difference between creation and common descent. You haven't provided any 'evidence' that supposedly has you convinced. Just assertion, opinion and fallacy.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 08:25 PM
I didn't avoid any questions. I answered that question in a separate post #118 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3176-What-s-the-best-evidence-for-evolution&p=58751#post58751).
You are quick to accuse. This indicates a very bad character, that you are not interested in truth at all, but rather displaying your pride to yourself as you delve into your delusion that you are actually refuting the science of evolution. Like I said, your delusion is as pathetic as a hill billy who can't add one plus two thinking to refute general relativity. I asked if you had read even one book written by an evolutionary scientist. You have yet to answer that question. Please do so now.
Sure you did. I asked the question in post #114. You did not answer the question in post #115. I asked again in post #117. You responded in post #118.
I didn't answer because I don't remember if I read even one book by an evolutionary scientist. Does your whole position rest on whether I have read a book by an evolutionary scientist? Do you think their arguments are more convincing than your own?
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 08:32 PM
Sorry, but parentage used to determine paternity is observable. The parents exist. In assumed common descent, the parents do not exist. They are assumed and you are begging the question that they did.
You are displaying your ignorance again. The parent-child relationship is demonstrated by specific patterns in the DNA. Those patterns are inherited. The validity of this evidence is not compromised by whether or not the subjects are still alive or how many generations separate them. Like I said, you appear to be totally ignorant of why intelligent people have found the DNA evidence convincing. Have you ever read a single book on the subject written by an evolutionary scientist? If not, how can you think that you are qualified to comment at all?
Um no, you missed the point. If there is nothing observably different between creation and common descent in determining legal parentage using DNA, then the only thing that is left is the logical fallacies that common descent is based on. As you yourself admit, there is no observable scientific difference.
You are still missing the point. The fact that there is no "nothing observably different between creation and common descent in determining legal parentage using DNA" is totally irrelevant. The point is this: We can determine if people are or are not related by looking at their DNA. If everyone descended from a single pair in the recent past then we would expect to see the evidence of that common parentage in our DNA. We do not see that evidence. Therefore, we can conclude people did not descend from Adam and Eve. But we do see evidence that links the human genome to the other great apes, and that supports the concept of common descent.
You admitted above that there is no observable, scientific difference between creation and common descent. You haven't provided any 'evidence' that supposedly has you convinced. Just assertion, opinion and fallacy.
Not true. You totally failed to understand my point because you are totally ignorant of the most basic elements of the science of evolution. Here is what I said. Please try to read it with understanding this time:
There would be nothing different "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" at all. You totally missed the point. The difference would not be "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" but rather in the history of the human genome that is supported by the DNA evidence. It prohibits the idea that all humans descended from a single pair a mere few thousand years ago.
Get it? The DNA evidence shows that humans evolved over a few million years after splitting off from the other great apes. If you want to challenge this evidence, please do so. Merely asserting that there are some "logical fallacies" proves nothing but your own ignorance.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 08:38 PM
You are displaying your ignorance again. The parent-child relationship is demonstrated by specific patterns in the DNA. Those patterns are inherited. The validity of this evidence is not compromised by whether or not the subjects are still alive or how many generations separate them. Like I said, you appear to be totally ignorant of why intelligent people have found the DNA evidence convincing. Have you ever read a single book on the subject written by an evolutionary scientist? If not, how can you think that you are qualified to comment at all?
Um no, the parent-child relationship is demonstrated because the parents and the child are available for DNA sampling. That observable does not exist in common descent.
It's OK if you can't answer yourself. Maybe you could read a book by an evolutionary scientist and post what you think are relevant quotes.
You are still missing the point. The fact that there is no "nothing observably different between creation and common descent in determining legal parentage using DNA" is totally irrelevant. The point is this: We can determine if people are or are not related by looking at their DNA. If everyone descended from a single pair in the recent past then we would expect to see the evidence of that common parentage in our DNA. We do not see that evidence. Therefore, we can conclude people did not descend from Adam and Eve. But we do see evidence that links the human genome to the other great apes, and that supports the concept of common descent.
No, observability is scientific, not 'totally irrelevant'.
Not true. You totally failed to understand my point because you are totally ignorant of the most basic elements of the science of evolution. Here is what I said. Please try to read it with understanding this time:
There would be nothing different "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" at all. You totally missed the point. The difference would not be "about the use of DNA for determining legal parentage" but rather in the history of the human genome that is supported by the DNA evidence. It prohibits the idea that all humans descended from a single pair a mere few thousand years ago.
Get it? The DNA evidence shows that humans evolved over a few million years after splitting off from the other great apes. If you want to challenge this evidence, please do so. Merely asserting that there are some "logical fallacies" proves nothing but your own ignorance.
Uh, the 'history of the human genome' is assumed and is based on the fallacy of begging the question. You assume that there is a history from the great apes to man and then affirm the consequent by applying what you observe to that assumption. That is logical fallacy, not science.
GourmetDan
10-13-2013, 08:40 PM
I'll pick up your next reply later.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 08:40 PM
Sure you did. I asked the question in post #114. You did not answer the question in post #115. I asked again in post #117. You responded in post #118.
Not true. I answered other questions in post #114 after which I noticed I missed one. It was while I was answering that question that you asked me again in post #117. That's why my answer was post #118. It is silly to be disputing this point. Is this the only way you know to make yourself feel like you are winning the debate?
I didn't answer because I don't remember if I read even one book by an evolutionary scientist. Does your whole position rest on whether I have read a book by an evolutionary scientist? Do you think their arguments are more convincing than your own?
You would have to have the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in some biological science (self-taught at the very least) before you could even think to refute an established science like evolution because as it is you don't even understand the words they use or the underlying established facts. It's like you think you could refute electricity but you don't even know what a volt or ohm is! How freaking pathetic. The obvious fact is that you are parroting creationist talking points. You are utterly ignorant of the science and so you write absurdities. Do you go about refuting Einstein? Heisenberg? Do you refute Chemistry and Physics? Do you think you could refute Bill Gates on questions of Software Design? Where in the world did you get the arrogance to think that someone as ignorant as you would be qualified to refute a science that is based on tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers that you could not understand at all?
Wow. Religion really does a number on the heads of believers.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2013, 08:47 PM
Um no, the parent-child relationship is demonstrated because the parents and the child are available for DNA sampling. That observable does not exist in common descent.
Wrong again. We can sample the DNA of living primate relatives as well as some that have been preserved in bones, teeth, hair, etc.
No, observability is scientific, not 'totally irrelevant'.
You missed the point yet again. What is that, three in a row now?
Uh, the 'history of the human genome' is assumed and is based on the fallacy of begging the question. You assume that there is a history from the great apes to man and then affirm the consequent by applying what you observe to that assumption. That is logical fallacy, not science.
Wow. It is not "assumed." It is measured in the lab! You would know this if you knew anything about the science of DNA and evolution. But you have chosen the path of pure ignorance, by you own admission you "don't remember" if you have even read a single book explaining the science of evolution. Therefore, you are exactly like an ignorant hill billy that can't add one plus two thinking to refute Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I cannot imagine anything more absurd, or pathetic. How is it possible that you could willingly choose to walk a path of such arrogant ignorance?
GourmetDan
10-14-2013, 06:23 AM
Wrong again. We can sample the DNA of living primate relatives as well as some that have been preserved in bones, teeth, hair, etc.
No, you engage in the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that living primates are 'relatives' by common descent. You simply assume the truth of the thing that you are trying to prove. That is a logical fallacy every time.
You missed the point yet again. What is that, three in a row now?
Actually, you engaged in fallacy yet again. I don't have the time to count how many times you have done that.
Wow. It is not "assumed." It is measured in the lab! You would know this if you knew anything about the science of DNA and evolution.
It obviously is assumed. You cannot measure the 'history of the genome' in a lab because the lab has not existed and taken measurements over the entire, assumed 'history of the genome'. You affirm the consequent of the 'history of the genome' when you apply pre-existing beliefs to observations. Again, simple logical fallacy.
But you have chosen the path of pure ignorance, by you own admission you "don't remember" if you have even read a single book explaining the science of evolution. Therefore, you are exactly like an ignorant hill billy that can't add one plus two thinking to refute Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I cannot imagine anything more absurd, or pathetic. How is it possible that you could willingly choose to walk a path of such arrogant ignorance?
And again with the emotionally-charged terms as 'argument'...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2013, 06:55 AM
No, you engage in the fallacy of begging the question by assuming that living primates are 'relatives' by common descent. You simply assume the truth of the thing that you are trying to prove. That is a logical fallacy every time.
It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence. Your obsession with fallacies is ludicrous. Your intellect seems no more advanced than a fly constantly crashing into a window pane. You are so bloody ignorant that you don't even understand the most basic elements of the science of evolution. You don't understgand that it is a SCIENCE no less than theories of gravity, electricity, chemistry. If you were correct about the fallacies, you could prove your case and win the Nobel prize. But we both know that's not going to happen.
Actually, you engaged in fallacy yet again. I don't have the time to count how many times you have done that.
Wrong again. You are dodging the fact that you have missed the point three times in a row. You don't understand the most elementary statements about the science that is entirely over your ignorant head.
It obviously is assumed. You cannot measure the 'history of the genome' in a lab because the lab has not existed and taken measurements over the entire, assumed 'history of the genome'. You affirm the consequent of the 'history of the genome' when you apply pre-existing beliefs to observations. Again, simple logical fallacy.
What a load of brain rot! We measure the genome in the lab. We can compare that with genomes found in old bones, such as Neanderthals, as well as primates.
Is this all you've got? A brain dead moronic obsession with fallacious "fallacies"? And you actually believe the crap you write? Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You have admitted that you "don't remember" if you have ever even read a single scientific textbook on evolution, yet you think you are able to refute it with sophistry? How. Freaking. Pathetic. You are a poster child for how your religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers.
But you have chosen the path of pure ignorance, by you own admission you "don't remember" if you have even read a single book explaining the science of evolution. Therefore, you are exactly like an ignorant hill billy that can't add one plus two thinking to refute Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I cannot imagine anything more absurd, or pathetic. How is it possible that you could willingly choose to walk a path of such arrogant ignorance?
And again with the emotionally-charged terms as 'argument'...
I did not present it as an "argument" you freaking moron! I was speaking directly to you and telling you what I think of your lunacy.
You are like a little child crying "mommy! The big bad man with a brain doesn't believe my stwory! Wahhahahah." You have not presented anything like an argument and your posts deserve nothing but derision because you have committed yourself to arrogance and ignorance in the name of God.
GourmetDan
10-14-2013, 08:00 AM
It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence. Your obsession with fallacies is ludicrous. Your intellect seems no more advanced than a fly constantly crashing into a window pane. You are so bloody ignorant that you don't even understand the most basic elements of the science of evolution. You don't understgand that it is a SCIENCE no less than theories of gravity, electricity, chemistry. If you were correct about the fallacies, you could prove your case and win the Nobel prize. But we both know that's not going to happen.
Yes, it's an assumption based on pre-existing beliefs. You believe that evolution is true, therefore humans are 'related' to great apes. That is the fallacy of begging the question every time.
As I related in my first post, "The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy." This is still obviously true.
Wrong again. You are dodging the fact that you have missed the point three times in a row. You don't understand the most elementary statements about the science that is entirely over your ignorant head.
Not at all. You keep engaging in logical fallacy and presenting it as though it is scientific evidence. It isn't.
What a load of brain rot! We measure the genome in the lab. We can compare that with genomes found in old bones, such as Neanderthals, as well as primates.
You were referring to the 'history of the genome', now it's just 'the genome'. A little slippery but nothing that isn't obvious. Differences in genomes found in old bones mean nothing without assumptions applied as logical fallacy. It is also instructive that you keep equating shorter-term examples with longer-term assumptions. That, again, is the fallacy of equivocation.
Is this all you've got? A brain dead moronic obsession with fallacious "fallacies"? And you actually believe the crap you write? Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. You have admitted that you "don't remember" if you have ever even read a single scientific textbook on evolution, yet you think you are able to refute it with sophistry? How. Freaking. Pathetic. You are a poster child for how your religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers.
If you had any substantive quotes from these 'authoritative' scriptures that you believe in (i.e., books by evolutionary scientists), you would produce them. You don't. There is nothing there but hand-waving. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. That's the Negative Proof fallacy.
I've not seen you produce anything except assumptions piled on top of pre-existing belief filtered through logical fallacies. And that is supposed to be science? It's nothing more than a belief in philosophical naturalism that is equal to any religion.
I did not present it as an "argument" you freaking moron! I was speaking directly to you and telling you what I think of your lunacy.
You never do present an argument or evidence, just opinion. Opinion means nothing. I would think you would have more than your opinion.
You are like a little child crying "mommy! The big bad man with a brain doesn't believe my stwory! Wahhahahah." You have not presented anything like an argument and your posts deserve nothing but derision because you have committed yourself to arrogance and ignorance in the name of God.
Project much?
sylvius
10-14-2013, 09:09 AM
Best evidence against evolution:
We can put monkeys in cages, but monkeys cannot put humans in cages.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-14-2013, 08:07 PM
It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on evidence. Your obsession with fallacies is ludicrous. Your intellect seems no more advanced than a fly constantly crashing into a window pane. You are so bloody ignorant that you don't even understand the most basic elements of the science of evolution. You don't understgand that it is a SCIENCE no less than theories of gravity, electricity, chemistry. If you were correct about the fallacies, you could prove your case and win the Nobel prize. But we both know that's not going to happen.
Yes, it's an assumption based on pre-existing beliefs. You believe that evolution is true, therefore humans are 'related' to great apes. That is the fallacy of begging the question every time.
Not true. Its a conclusion based on evidence, logic and facts. If it were not supported by evidence, I would not believe it.
As I related in my first post, "The fact that biology exhibits any particular characteristic or behavior is not evidence that such characteristic or behavior 'evolved' without engaging in logical fallacy." This is still obviously true.
The only thing obvious about that statement is its vacuity.
The more you post the more you reveal the vacuity of your mind. You imply that all the scientists with advanced degrees in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology are all idiots and that you are some cosmic genius who can refute them all while remaining utterly ignorant of science? Wow. Just wow. Is there no bottom to the abyss of your mind? Your arrogance soars high above the stars of God! You think you can refute the entire planetary scientific community with you mindless sophistry? You are a poster child for how religion corrupts the minds and moral of believers. That's why I'm glad you are taking time to post. The more you post, the fewer believers there will be, and the world will be a better place.
Wrong again. You are dodging the fact that you have missed the point three times in a row. You don't understand the most elementary statements about the science that is entirely over your ignorant head.
Not at all. You keep engaging in logical fallacy and presenting it as though it is scientific evidence. It isn't.
And you keep dodging the fact that you missed my point three times in a row.
And man! You gotta get back on your meds! You are totally OCD on "logical fallacies".
If you had any substantive quotes from these 'authoritative' scriptures that you believe in (i.e., books by evolutionary scientists), you would produce them. You don't. There is nothing there but hand-waving. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. That's the Negative Proof fallacy.
There it is! The key to your insanity. You think science is as absurd and unfounded as your religion! That explains everything. You don't have a clue about reality. You don't have a clue that the same science that makes possible the computer you are using to spew your brain dead moronic religious beliefs is the same science that produced the theory of evolution.
And this is confirmed by your appeal to "substantive quotes" - that's what corrupt creationists do! They quote mine (take quotes out of context) in there effort to pervert truth in service of their false religion. It's really funny to see you challenge me on this point since we both know that you would scream "FALLACY! Appeal to authority" if I actually quoted someone. You are the most transparent troll I've encountered in quite a while.
I've not seen you produce anything except assumptions piled on top of pre-existing belief filtered through logical fallacies. And that is supposed to be science? It's nothing more than a belief in philosophical naturalism that is equal to any religion.
You cannot remember reading even a popular level intro to the science of evolution, and you charge me with failing to produce evidence? By your own admission, you are totally ignorant of the actual science of biology and evolution, yet you set yourself up as a Satan-clown in your ludicrous pride, thinking that you could refute real science supported by tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles with your moronic sophistry. Wow. Your religion really is a mind killer. I wish there were a way for you to appreciate the great work you are doing in keeping people safe from your filthy ignorant arrogant religion.
You never do present an argument or evidence, just opinion. Opinion means nothing. I would think you would have more than your opinion.
If you were even slightly interested in evidence, you would have educated yourself. It's free all over the internet. You are ignorant by choice.
The really pathetic thing is that you must know you are a liar, since you know that you are not interested in the evidence that has convinced the planetary scientific community. You are like a person who thinks the earth is flat and six thousand years old. How's that working out for you?
Project much?
Troll much?
You freaks are so freaking transparently pathetic. How do you live with yourself?
sylvius
10-14-2013, 10:50 PM
Best evidence against evolution:
We can put monkeys in cages, but monkeys cannot put humans in cages.
Like Noach building the ark to put in there also monkeys.
I was a monkey-cage builder too, it started in 1975 and lasted till 1993, a living together of monkeys and humans (and dogs and cats and cavias) in one house (and garden), on top of it I had my night-sky watch.
Although it turned out to be a failure, fiasco, i have a certain right of speech.
The monkeys still figure in my dreams, they can talk.
sylvius
10-15-2013, 01:34 AM
In the same monkey-building-house on top of which I had my starry-heaven watch I did see how the number 666 of Revelation 13:18 is to be found Genesis 1:31, sitting in the front room (where the monkeys had no entry), at the table under the lamp with my Hebrew bible I did buy second hand at De Slegte's bookshop.
It was like as being hit by lightning: "I found it!".
Note that "number of the beast" is just a translation, It is ἀριθμός τοῦ θηρίου, "number of the animal" , a monkey being also a θηρίον, even a wild animal. (At a certain fateful moment I've been seriously wounded by the father-monkey with his fangs, although we had always a very good relationship; even also thereafter, although I never dared to be with him together in the same room anymore).
LXX Genesis 1:25 , καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ θηρία τῆς γῆς κατὰ γένος, and God made the wild animals of the earth after their kind
If man wouldn't have been created the first chapter of Genesis would have ended in v.25
"and God saw that it was good, and it was evening and it was morning, a sixth day" to be continued with "and they were completed the heaven and the earth and all their host".
But then it wouldn't have been written at all, since monkeys cannot read and write ..
From that house we moved to our present house (we still live in) in 1985. It had to become the most fantastic monkey-human-living-together-place (with a big garden). Now the former monkey-room is my working room. So that's kind of a comfort.
GourmetDan
10-15-2013, 06:19 AM
Not true. Its a conclusion based on evidence, logic and facts. If it were not supported by evidence, I would not believe it.
Assuming that something 'evolved' is the fallacy of begging the question. Assuming that 'evolution predicted' what you see and that this therefore 'supports evolution' is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
The only thing obvious about that statement is its vacuity.
You prove it correct every time you 'defend' evolution.
The more you post the more you reveal the vacuity of your mind. You imply that all the scientists with advanced degrees in physics, chemistry, geology, and biology are all idiots and that you are some cosmic genius who can refute them all while remaining utterly ignorant of science? Wow. Just wow. Is there no bottom to the abyss of your mind? Your arrogance soars high above the stars of God! You think you can refute the entire planetary scientific community with you mindless sophistry? You are a poster child for how religion corrupts the minds and moral of believers. That's why I'm glad you are taking time to post. The more you post, the fewer believers there will be, and the world will be a better place.
Actually, the more you post the more you reveal how little you understand about 'evolution' and how much you like to characterize other people.
And you keep dodging the fact that you missed my point three times in a row.
And man! You gotta get back on your meds! You are totally OCD on "logical fallacies".
And you keep missing the fact that you constantly engage in logical fallacy as a 'defense' of evolution.
There it is! The key to your insanity. You think science is as absurd and unfounded as your religion! That explains everything. You don't have a clue about reality. You don't have a clue that the same science that makes possible the computer you are using to spew your brain dead moronic religious beliefs is the same science that produced the theory of evolution.
And you again failed to provide any evidence or argument not based on logical fallacy.
And this is confirmed by your appeal to "substantive quotes" - that's what corrupt creationists do! They quote mine (take quotes out of context) in there effort to pervert truth in service of their false religion. It's really funny to see you challenge me on this point since we both know that you would scream "FALLACY! Appeal to authority" if I actually quoted someone. You are the most transparent troll I've encountered in quite a while.
OK, give me a few 'insubstantial quotes' if you have any of those.
You cannot remember reading even a popular level intro to the science of evolution, and you charge me with failing to produce evidence? By your own admission, you are totally ignorant of the actual science of biology and evolution, yet you set yourself up as a Satan-clown in your ludicrous pride, thinking that you could refute real science supported by tens of thousands of peer reviewed articles with your moronic sophistry. Wow. Your religion really is a mind killer. I wish there were a way for you to appreciate the great work you are doing in keeping people safe from your filthy ignorant arrogant religion.
And you again fail to produce any arguments or evidence as 'support' for evolution.
If you were even slightly interested in evidence, you would have educated yourself. It's free all over the internet. You are ignorant by choice.
As I have explained numerous times, the argument is not about evidence. It is about logical fallacy applied to evidence. Perhaps this is why you continually fail to provide either argument or this alleged evidence.
The really pathetic thing is that you must know you are a liar, since you know that you are not interested in the evidence that has convinced the planetary scientific community. You are like a person who thinks the earth is flat and six thousand years old. How's that working out for you?
I see that you have once again failed to provide either argument or evidence in 'support' of your beliefs.
Troll much?
You freaks are so freaking transparently pathetic. How do you live with yourself?
Projecting again, I see...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2013, 07:04 AM
Assuming that something 'evolved' is the fallacy of begging the question. Assuming that 'evolution predicted' what you see and that this therefore 'supports evolution' is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
First, evolution is not "assumed". It began as a scientific hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and so now is a "scientific fact" not unlike gravity and electricity. There have been many related hypotheses that have been rejected because of the evidence, such as Lamarkianism. You simply don't have a clue about how science works. You are the incarnation of ignorance.
You prove it correct every time you 'defend' evolution.
I haven't even begun to "defend" evolution because you are too ignorant and arrogant to even attempt a rational conversation. You reject the most basic elements of science, such as the ideas of forming and testing a hypothesis by evidence! You mind is a wreck.
Actually, the more you post the more you reveal how little you understand about 'evolution' and how much you like to characterize other people.
Mindless mimicry is about all you have to offer.
And you keep missing the fact that you constantly engage in logical fallacy as a 'defense' of evolution.
Bullshit. You are OCD about "fallacies" and don't understand the most basic facts of science, let alone the science of evolution.
And you again failed to provide any evidence or argument not based on logical fallacy.
Bullshit. You are OCD about "fallacies" and have proven you don't give a shit about evidence or truth since you are thinking to refute a modern science with sophistry.
OK, give me a few 'insubstantial quotes' if you have any of those.
Why bother? You have proven you despise truth. That's why you are a Christian worshiping your own micro-mind as "God".
And you again fail to produce any arguments or evidence as 'support' for evolution.
And once again, let me remind you that you are despise evidence. You are devoted to ignorance as a religion!
Projecting again, I see...
You can quit trying to prove you are a troll. I'm convinced already.
sylvius
10-15-2013, 08:00 AM
Its a conclusion based on evidence, logic and facts. If it were not supported by evidence, I would not believe it.
This is also what Tubal-Cain told Lamech, according to Rashi:
[The story was] that Lemech was blind, and Tubal-cain was leading him. He spotted Cain, who appeared to him as an animal, and he told his father to draw the bow, and he killed him
GourmetDan
10-15-2013, 09:03 AM
First, evolution is not "assumed". It began as a scientific hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and so now is a "scientific fact" not unlike gravity and electricity. There have been many related hypotheses that have been rejected because of the evidence, such as Lamarkianism. You simply don't have a clue about how science works. You are the incarnation of ignorance.
Yes, it is assumed. What is observed is defined as being 'evolution' and is then held up as proof that 'evolution' is true. These are the fallacies of Begging the Question and Equivocation, nothing more.
I haven't even begun to "defend" evolution because you are too ignorant and arrogant to even attempt a rational conversation. You reject the most basic elements of science, such as the ideas of forming and testing a hypothesis by evidence! You mind is a wreck.
Ah yes, it's MY fault you can't defend evolution. How convenient.
Mindless mimicry is about all you have to offer.
I assume this would be another of your opinions? Or is this 'argument'?
Bullshit. You are OCD about "fallacies" and don't understand the most basic facts of science, let alone the science of evolution.
You constantly engage in logical fallacy and then complain when I point them out. Don't want me to point them out, don't engage in them.
Bullshit. You are OCD about "fallacies" and have proven you don't give a shit about evidence or truth since you are thinking to refute a modern science with sophistry.
As you admit above, you don't 'defend' evolution with argument or evidence because it's MY fault.
Why bother? You have proven you despise truth. That's why you are a Christian worshiping your own micro-mind as "God".
OK, so you have neither substantive nor insubstantial quotes from the scriptures of the alleged high priests of evolution.
And once again, let me remind you that you are despise evidence. You are devoted to ignorance as a religion!
As you admit above, you have provided no evidence to be despised.
You can quit trying to prove you are a troll. I'm convinced already.
Projecting again I see...
duxrow
10-15-2013, 02:08 PM
Richard wrote: Ah ... you almost had me, then you reminded me of the blatant anachronism of the saying "take up thy cross and follow me". Is it possible to imagine that Christ really said those words before his crucifixion when his follows had not a clue that he would be crucified. Nope. They are obviously made up and inserted by his followers long after the religion was invented.
Au contrare.. Rather, it's an example of the 'figurative cross' compared to the literal account of being 'hung on a tree'.
The Apostle John was there to hear about that figurative cross, and that's what he was speaking of in John19:17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha". If it weren't for this being MISUNDERSTOOD, there would be no basis for saying that Jesus carried his own wooden cross -- Simon the Cyrenian carried it, as all the synoptics attest! :woah:
Yes, it is assumed. What is observed is defined as being 'evolution' and is then held up as proof that 'evolution' is true. These are the fallacies of Begging the Question and Equivocation, nothing more.
Hello GourmetDan
I think this video has been posted before, but I thought it might be helpful since you seem to be quite ignorant of what the theory of evolution really is ... all you seem interested in doing is throwing around logical fallacies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2013, 06:22 PM
Au contrare.. Rather, it's an example of the 'figurative cross' compared to the literal account of being 'hung on a tree'.
The Apostle John was there to hear about that figurative cross, and that's what he was speaking of in John19:17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha". If it weren't for this being MISUNDERSTOOD, there would be no basis for saying that Jesus carried his own wooden cross -- Simon the Cyrenian carried it, as all the synoptics attest! :woah:
Hey there Dux,
It appears you missed my point. I totally agree that it was the "figurative cross." But no one could know what the "figurative cross" meant before the tradition of the literal cross was established. That was my point. It was entirely anachronistic for Christ to talk about folks taking up their cross before he went to his.
As for the confusion about who carried the cross - why am I not surprised? Confusion saturates Scripture. The most fervent believers cannot even agree if Jesus was God or man!
Richard Amiel McGough
10-15-2013, 07:02 PM
(http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58811#post58811)First, evolution is not "assumed". It began as a scientific hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and so now is a "scientific fact" not unlike gravity and electricity. There have been many related hypotheses that have been rejected because of the evidence, such as Lamarkianism. You simply don't have a clue about how science works. You are the incarnation of ignorance.
Yes, it is assumed. What is observed is defined as being 'evolution' and is then held up as proof that 'evolution' is true. These are the fallacies of Begging the Question and Equivocation, nothing more.
No, it is not assumed. The things that are observed are called "facts". Not everything that is observed is "defined as evolution". Your assertions are pathetically moronic. And worse, you have never defined what you mean by "evolution" and by your comments it is quite obvious you don't have a clue what the word actually means, so all your assertions concerning evolution are equivocations deliberately designed to deceive. From a biblical perspective, you are a lying son of the devil, and from a psychological perspective you are not much better.
Ah yes, it's MY fault you can't defend evolution. How convenient.
Damn straight you freaking moron! It would be easier to explain the Theory of General Relativity to a three year old than to "defend evolution" with a person as willfully ignorant as you. You despise the truth. Your ignorance it entirely your choice, and so it is your own fault.
Mindless mimicry is about all you have to offer.
I assume this would be another of your opinions? Or is this 'argument'?
It is a demonstrable truth, judging by your comments in this thread.
You constantly engage in logical fallacy and then complain when I point them out. Don't want me to point them out, don't engage in them.
Bullshit! I have proven that you have been repeating the fallacy of equivocation because you have been making supposedly "logical" assertions about something you call "evolution" without even defining the term. You are a most pathetic example of how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers.
Bullshit. You are OCD about "fallacies" and have proven you don't give a shit about evidence or truth since you are thinking to refute a modern science with sophistry.
As you admit above, you don't 'defend' evolution with argument or evidence because it's MY fault.
As I showed above, your invincible ignorance most definitely is your own fault. Your mind is corrupt. You don't give a shit about evidence or truth, which from a Christian perspective means that you hate God, Christ, and the Bible.
Why bother? You have proven you despise truth. That's why you are a Christian worshiping your own micro-mind as "God".
OK, so you have neither substantive nor insubstantial quotes from the scriptures of the alleged high priests of evolution.
Your statement does not follow. I have stated my reasons and you have ignored them. For you to state such an obviously illogical and absurd non sequitur is yet more proof that your mind is utterly corrupt. You are nothing but a troll who can't form anything like a logical response, let alone argument.
Projecting again I see...
Wow - you are a mindless, braindead robot. Wow.
sylvius
10-15-2013, 10:25 PM
Hello GourmetDan
I think this video has been posted before, but I thought it might be helpful since you seem to be quite ignorant of what the theory of evolution really is ... all you seem interested in doing is throwing around logical fallacies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
This video can be seen kind of an illustration of Genesis 2:19,
And the Lord God formed from the earth every beast of the field and every fowl of the heavens, and He brought [it] to man to see what he would call it, and whatever the man called each living thing, that was its name.
It's not about "in the beginning, long time ago" (like you might have learned in Kindergarten), but about the here and the now,
and also:
And man named all the cattle and the fowl of the heavens and all the beasts of the field, but for man, he did not find a helpmate opposite him.
a helpmate = "ezer" , which is also in the name Eliezer, Abraham's servant with whom he did defeat the four kings (the square-minded) in favor of the five.
sylvius
10-15-2013, 11:31 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6vycM8HoUoA/TViV1i_q43I/AAAAAAAAAAg/18aSE4PpsF4/s1600/banksy_stanmore2.jpg
sylvius
10-16-2013, 03:22 AM
"Imagination is more important than knowledge"
Genesis 8:21,
And the Lord smelled the pleasant aroma, and the Lord said to Himself, "I will no longer curse the earth because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth, and I will no longer smite all living things as I have done.
Rashi:
from his youth: This is written מִנְּעֻרָיו [i.e., without a “vav,” implying that] from the time that he [the embryo] shakes himself [נִנְעָר] to emerge from his mother’s womb, the evil inclination is placed in him. — [from Gen. Rabbah 34:10]
sylvius
10-16-2013, 03:28 AM
From the same Bansky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDIz7mEJOeA#t=37
sirens of the lambs.
If man did evolve from animal life, then animals must have human traits.
But that's not the case.
sylvius
10-16-2013, 03:35 AM
In Egypt the lamb was revered as a godhead, the slaughtering of the pascal lamb in fact was the slaughtering of the Egyptian deity, i.e. the evolutionist's deity
GourmetDan
10-16-2013, 06:45 AM
No, it is not assumed. The things that are observed are called "facts". Not everything that is observed is "defined as evolution".
OK, what observed biological fact is defined as 'not having been created by evolution'?
Bullshit! I have proven that you have been repeating the fallacy of equivocation because you have been making supposedly "logical" assertions about something you call "evolution" without even defining the term.
Actually, I have been showing your use of logical fallacy in that which you call 'evolution'. I give you complete freedom to define 'evolution' in any manner the YOU choose and I will show that it is still based on logical fallacy.
Your statement does not follow. I have stated my reasons and you have ignored them. For you to state such an obviously illogical and absurd non sequitur is yet more proof that your mind is utterly corrupt. You are nothing but a troll who can't form anything like a logical response, let alone argument.
Do you mean the 'reason' that others misquote therefore you do not have to support your hand-waving claim that 'books written by evolutionary biologists explain evolution'? Blaming others for your failure to defend 'evolution' again?
Wow - you are a mindless, braindead robot. Wow.
Projecting again I see...
GourmetDan
10-16-2013, 06:53 AM
Hello GourmetDan
I think this video has been posted before, but I thought it might be helpful since you seem to be quite ignorant of what the theory of evolution really is ... all you seem interested in doing is throwing around logical fallacies.
Actually, what I do is point out the logical fallacies that evolutionists use. Take any quote from your video that you think confirms evolution, post it along with the time stamp of the video and then I will explain the logical fallacies involved.
Actually, what I do is point out the logical fallacies that evolutionists use. Take any quote from your video that you think confirms evolution, post it along with the time stamp of the video and then I will explain the logical fallacies involved.
I'll make it easy for you, which hopefully will break you out of your "logical fallacy" loop. :lol: The most basic meaning and foundation of Evolution is: CHANGE OVER TIME. Micro evolution is happening around us all the time, and over time micro evolution turns into macro evolution ... it doesn't get any simpler than that. Evolution is a FACT! Change over time is not even debatable anymore.
Here is a quote from Wiki, "Evolution is a scientific theory used by biologists. It explains how living things changed over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are" and a link to their page explaining all aspects of evolution... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
sylvius
10-16-2013, 08:33 AM
I'll make it easy for you, which hopefully will break you out of your "logical fallacy" loop. :lol: The most basic meaning and foundation of Evolution is: CHANGE OVER TIME. Micro evolution is happening around us all the time, and over time micro evolution turns into macro evolution ... it doesn't get any simpler than that. Evolution is a FACT! Change over time is not even debatable anymore.
Here is a quote from Wiki, "Evolution is a scientific theory used by biologists. It explains how living things changed over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are" and a link to their page explaining all aspects of evolution... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
What is time?
Can it be grasped?
What is time?
Can it be grasped?
Whether or not time can be defined, or grasped has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is the process of CHANGE OVER TIME ... micro > > > macro.
sylvius
10-16-2013, 08:46 AM
Whether or not time can be defined, or grasped has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is the process of CHANGE OVER TIME ... micro > > > macro.
Change of what?
What is the principle thing that changes?
Change of what?
What is the principle thing that changes?
We are talking about evolution! It is a fact that over the course of life existing on earth, with every act of reproduction change occurs. You are not the same as your parents and your children are different from you ... over time through natural selection, mutation and adaptation organisms change. Organisms change over time. In life nothing stays static!
sylvius
10-16-2013, 09:36 AM
We are talking about evolution! It is a fact that over the course of life existing on earth, with every act of reproduction change occurs. You are not the same as your parents and your children are different from you ... over time through natural selection, mutation and adaptation organisms change. Organisms change over time. In life nothing stays static!
Also in your own life things change, from conception to birth and from baby to adult until your present state. In fact you change from second to second, the one you were for one hour / minute/ second ago is not there anymore.
Or is there a constant that doesn't change, but stays the same over time?
Also in your own life things change, from conception to birth and from baby to adult until your present state. In fact you change from second to second, the one you were for one hour / minute/ second ago is not there anymore.
Or is there a constant that doesn't change, but stays the same over time?
What's your point?
sylvius
10-16-2013, 09:41 AM
Another nice one from Blanksy
http://www.banksyny.com/
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/QUEENS-high-private.jpg
what is eternity?
sylvius
10-16-2013, 09:43 AM
What's your point?
That we don't descend form animals.
That we don't descend form animals.
What do you mean? We are animals! Our DNA (genome) is around 98% the same as chimpanzees.
sylvius
10-16-2013, 10:30 AM
What do you mean? We are animals! Our DNA genome is around 98% the same as chimpanzees.
I have got no tail.
sylvius
10-16-2013, 10:32 AM
I have got no tail.
Oh :eek:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_chimpanzees_have_tails
I have got no tail.
Neither do Bonobos or Chimpanzees. Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives (http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives)
sylvius
10-16-2013, 11:22 AM
Neither do Bonobos or Chimpanzees. Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives (http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives)
http://news.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumb_article_l/public/article_images/sn-bonobo.jpg
Encaged, and subject of human scientific research...
Ok, they can encage me too,
or better we all are encaged already,
but not by Bonobos.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-16-2013, 07:55 PM
GorumetDan,
I found this old post (http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CreationEvolutionDesign/conversations/topics/3924) on Yahoo groups from someone using the name GourmetDan. It sounds a lot like you. Did you write these words, and if so, do you still believe them?
At 12:01 PM 08/30/2002, you wrote:
>Hi, I'm a new member to the group. The moderator recommended that I
>give a brief position statement to the group.
>
>My basic position is recent creation (< 10,000 yrs) of the universe,
>earth and all life with the earth occupying a geocentric position in
>the universe.
>
>I do not believe that any of the opposing positions (theism,atheism,
>creation/evolution, young/old universe, helio/geocentism) are
>scientifically falsifiable and the choices are, in fact, the result
>of the supernatural human capability normally referred to as 'free
>will'.
>
>
>GourmetDan
sylvius
10-16-2013, 11:24 PM
Neither do Bonobos or Chimpanzees. Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives (http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-animals/2012/06/bonobos-join-chimps-closest-human-relatives)
Our monkeys had tails, you could master them by taking them firmly by their tails.
java-aap (https://www.google.com/search?q=java+aap&client=firefox-a&hs=r52&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&channel=np&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=boBfUvXYGuf04QTNnYCgCg&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=934#imgdii=_)
But you cannot encage them, they need freedom.
Yet they were rather domesticated. It happened more times that they found a way to escape, and they did spend then the rest of the day playing in the trees and in the neighbouring gardens to return home when it got dark.
It began with one female I took over from a blonde nightclub-singer; she couldns't handle her no more.
With one monkey it worked well, we could take her everywhere out in the streets and outside in the woods and fields without her having on a line. I had also a dog, and they two were close, dog + monkey.
Just that she had fun in stealing jewelry from people, very handy she was, and putting the booty in her pouches; we had to take it then out again.
Then there was an advertisemant in the paper: For sale, Java-monkey.
We went there to see how our monkey would react. It was a little male, who had come (imported) with a female, probably his mother. They did sell the female.
Our monkey, after hesitance, took him, through the baluster, in her arms.
So then we couldn't leave him there and we had two monkeys.
Now the relationship was such: we mastered the female, but she mastered the little boy. Yet it still was nice, we could go outside with them, in the meantime a second dog (who was left alone somewhere in the fields) had also joined our "family".
Then there came a man, who had seen us with the monkeys, begging us to take care of his female- monkey, for he was going on holiday.
This was an already older female, who had been going from hand to hand, living on beer and french fries.
When he came back she refused to go with him; we had no choice then to take her over.
this went fine, the first female still was the boss, and we were the boss over her. The last female was the underdog in the monkey-group.
But then the male became sexually mature, and that changed everything. It was the beginning of the end.
There were six monkeys born with us in the course of time.
The first was bitten to death right after birth by his father, like a kind of Solomon's judgement, since the first female did steal it away immediately after birth from the mother, the second female. It was terribel fight in the middle of the night, until father
decided it.
since then I made provisisons, ik made different appartments, so that I could separate them when this seemed proper to me.
The second female bacame pregnant again, and agiants child-bearing i did put her apart, she got a daughter.
In that time also the first female became pregnant. Till then the male had considered her as her mother. She also got a daughter.
I then had the group rejoined. The second female now was the upper-female, with her daughter, number two female, and the first female with her daughter were the underdogs.
The second female bore two more babies, these were males. In the meantime the father got sexual interest for his daughters. My wife wanted to prevent him having children with his daughters, and that's why we had him sterilized. He was brought under narcose then, and we did put him back in the group when he was still restrengthening. But seemingly to early, The second female with her daughter and two sons, took over the first place.
In that time we did move to our present house. But then we also ourselves got a child (and there should come three more).
The group being very instable, the boy-monkeys growing older, etc.
Although I had made an ingenious cage -system ( not yet ready, it had t be enlarged still more), it was not that ideal as the cages in the previous location, especially because of in winter they couldn't sit in the sun, like they could there, the house lying in another angle.
There were many fights and sickness came, they all died one by one, the last, a male, who had bitten his brother to death, just from sadness ..
sylvius
10-17-2013, 07:42 AM
Moreover I am not my DNA.
By the way,
Many Christians read: "and the word became flesh" as : "and the word became a man".
Question:
How do "word" and "flesh" relate to DNA?
Is the word already human DNA, or does it become human DNA in the course of time?
And how about my DNA? Is it as divine as Jesus' DNA?
Or: What was special or extraordianry about Jesus' DNA?
Moreover I am not my DNA.
By the way,
Many Christians read: "and the word became flesh" as : "and the word became a man".
Question:
How do "word" and "flesh" relate to DNA?
Is the word already human DNA, or does it become human DNA in the course of time?
And how about my DNA? Is it as divine as Jesus' DNA?
Or: What was special or extraordinary about Jesus' DNA?
What do you mean "divine DNA"?
If human DNA is 98-99% identical to Chimps and Bonobos, are you then saying that the 1% difference is what is divine?
sylvius
10-17-2013, 09:07 AM
What do you mean "divine DNA"?
If human DNA is 98-99% identical to Chimps and Bonobos, are you then saying that the 1% difference is what is divine?
one drop of oil might change the whole liquid :pop2:
sylvius
10-17-2013, 09:18 AM
More questions:
would the DNA of the risen Jesus be different than the DNA of the crucified Jesus?
Or underwent the DNA a metamorpohisis in the resurrection?
Is DNA afterall spiritual?
Like is said: "God is spirit", "For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth."
GourmetDan
10-17-2013, 10:03 AM
I'll make it easy for you, which hopefully will break you out of your "logical fallacy" loop. :lol: The most basic meaning and foundation of Evolution is: CHANGE OVER TIME. Micro evolution is happening around us all the time, and over time micro evolution turns into macro evolution ... it doesn't get any simpler than that. Evolution is a FACT! Change over time is not even debatable anymore.
And this is where the fallacies of Begging the Question and Affirming the Consequent come in. What 'is happening all around us' is defined as 'evolution' through the fallacy of Begging the Question. It is assumed that what 'is happening all around us' is 'evolution'. Then, everything that qualifies as biological 'change' is taken as support for the theory through the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
The normal result of discussing the 'micro turns into macro over time' argument is that the Negative Proof Fallacy is invoked, where you claim that I must prove that micro cannot turn into macro rather than you proving that it does.
Defining what you see as being evolution and then claiming that evolution is a FACT as a result of that definition is a very small circular-reasoning exercise. Shockingly small really, but regularly invoked by evolutionary believers.
Nothing really there but logical fallacy.
Here is a quote from Wiki, "Evolution is a scientific theory used by biologists. It explains how living things changed over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are" and a link to their page explaining all aspects of evolution... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
What is that? The fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion?
GourmetDan
10-17-2013, 10:05 AM
Also in your own life things change, from conception to birth and from baby to adult until your present state. In fact you change from second to second, the one you were for one hour / minute/ second ago is not there anymore. Or is there a constant that doesn't change, but stays the same over time?
Well, the weather is constantly changing too but it isn't building any skyscrapers...
GourmetDan
10-17-2013, 10:13 AM
GorumetDan,
I found this old post (http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/CreationEvolutionDesign/conversations/topics/3924) on Yahoo groups from someone using the name GourmetDan. It sounds a lot like you. Did you write these words, and if so, do you still believe them?
Have you given up trying to defend evolution?
You have claimed that books by evolutionary biologists are all that is needed to understand evolution, but have no examples of this assumed wisdom and claim that it is my fault that you do not.
You claimed that some observed biological facts are not claimed as the result of evolution, but have provided no examples of such.
And now you want to change the subject?
GourmetDan
10-17-2013, 10:21 AM
Moreover I am not my DNA.
As most real biologists know anyway, it is not the genome that defines the phenotype it is the proteome, a much larger set.
And this is where the fallacies of Begging the Question and Affirming the Consequent come in. What 'is happening all around us' is defined as 'evolution' through the fallacy of Begging the Question. It is assumed that what 'is happening all around us' is 'evolution'. Then, everything that qualifies as biological 'change' is taken as support for the theory through the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
:hysterical:
The normal result of discussing the 'micro turns into macro over time' argument is that the Negative Proof Fallacy is invoked, where you claim that I must prove that micro cannot turn into macro rather than you proving that it does.
:lmbo:
Defining what you see as being evolution and then claiming that evolution is a FACT as a result of that definition is a very small circular-reasoning exercise. Shockingly small really, but regularly invoked by evolutionary believers.
Nothing really there but logical fallacy.
:lol:
What is that? The fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion?
:rofl:
In the news...
DMANISI, Georgia (AP) - The discovery of a 1.8-million-year-old skull of a human ancestor buried under a medieval Georgian village provides a vivid picture of early evolution and indicates our family tree may have fewer branches than some believe, scientists say. The fossil is the most complete pre-human skull uncovered. With other partial remains previously found at the rural site, it gives researchers the earliest evidence of human ancestors moving out of Africa and spreading north to the rest of the world, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. More on the story...
(http://www.kimatv.com/news/national/18-million-year-old-skull-gives-glimpse-of-our-evolution-228226651.html)
Unregistered
10-17-2013, 04:25 PM
I dont know much about evolution, but im anxiously waiting to hear the "indisputable" proof for it, that Richard and Rose have finally uncovered, and are now ready to share with the rest of the world. It must pretty convincing, to make them walk away from God after seeing it.
I dont know much about evolution, but im anxiously waiting to hear the "indisputable" proof for it, that Richard and Rose have finally uncovered, and are now ready to share with the rest of the world. It must pretty convincing, to make them walk away from God after seeing it.
All we had to do was open our eyes! Maybe if you educated yourself on evolution you too would understand why the proof is indisputable.
Once I realized how extremely biased the Bible was in favor of men, it was plain to see that its male authors created a warrior god in their own image. No true god could ever call himself righteous and just, yet ordain and sanction the unequal treatment of women. The Bible is filled with immoral behavior condoned and promoted by its god, once I becomes aware of that I could never feel the same about the Bible again. Just think how you would feel if your daughter was denied equal rights under the laws of the land simply because she is female ... well it's the same with the Biblegod.
Take care
Rose
Richard Amiel McGough
10-17-2013, 09:07 PM
You have claimed that books by evolutionary biologists are all that is needed to understand evolution, but have no examples of this assumed wisdom and claim that it is my fault that you do not.
Not true. I never claimed that "books by evolutionary biologists are all that is needed to understand evolution". In terms of logic, that is a straw man fallacy because you misrepresented my position. And in terms of morality, it is a lie designed to deceive.
(http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58811#post58811)First, evolution is not "assumed". It began as a scientific hypothesis that has been rigorously tested and so now is a "scientific fact" not unlike gravity and electricity. There have been many related hypotheses that have been rejected because of the evidence, such as Lamarkianism. You simply don't have a clue about how science works. You are the incarnation of ignorance.
Yes, it is assumed. What is observed is defined as being 'evolution' and is then held up as proof that 'evolution' is true. These are the fallacies of Begging the Question and Equivocation, nothing more.
No, it is not assumed. The things that are observed are called "facts". Not everything that is observed is "defined as evolution". Your assertions are pathetically moronic. And worse, you have never defined what you mean by "evolution" and by your comments it is quite obvious you don't have a clue what the word actually means, so all your assertions concerning evolution are equivocations deliberately designed to deceive. From a biblical perspective, you are a lying son of the devil, and from a psychological perspective you are not much better.
You claimed that some observed biological facts are not claimed as the result of evolution, but have provided no examples of such.
Not true. I never claimed that "some observed biological facts are not claimed as the result of evolution". I said that the things that are observed are defined as "facts". I wrote that in response to your deliberate misrepresentation of scientific observations as being DEFINED as evolution. You put words in my mouth that I never said, and so have committed yet another straw man fallacy, which also is another deliberate lie designed to deceive.
You have proven yourself to be utterly corrupt.
And now you want to change the subject?
Ha! You won't even stand by your own words. A man who won't stand by his own words is no man at all.
sylvius
10-17-2013, 09:17 PM
. A man who won't stand by his own words is no man at all.
a primate?
Richard Amiel McGough
10-17-2013, 09:34 PM
I dont know much about evolution, but im anxiously waiting to hear the "indisputable" proof for it, that Richard and Rose have finally uncovered, and are now ready to share with the rest of the world. It must pretty convincing, to make them walk away from God after seeing it.
I find it rather unlikely that you are "anxious" to see the evidence, for if that were the case you would have found it long ago. It's not like it's hidden. The only people who don't see it are those who are simply ignorant and/or have been brainwashed by religious propaganda.
And where did you get the idea that Rose and I quit Christianity because of evolution? There are countless Christians who accept the evidence for evolution. Even Catholic Popes have said that evolution is a scientific fact. For example, here is a quote (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19956961/#.UmC1442siSo) from Pope Benedict XVI speaking about the "absurdity" of the clash between creationism and evolution:
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
Rose and I quit Christianity because we don't believe it any more. We don't believe that the true God, if one exists, could have commanded the genocidal murder of every man, woman, and child of the Midianites except for 32,000 sexy virgins that were the distributed to the brutal soldiers that had just slaughtered every person they ever loved. We can not believe that the true God could inspire a religion that condones slavery, genocide, and sexism (see my article The Inextricable Sexism of the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/18/the-inextricable-sexism-of-the-bible/) and Rose's online book The Male Bias of the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/)). We cannot believe that all the contradictions, errors, absurdities, superstitions, and mythologies in the Bible are true. And after years participating with every variety of "Christian" on internet forums, we finally came to see that there is on such thing as "Christianity" at all, but rather a bedlam of confused and contradictory "Christianities" that are really nothing but competing cults. Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, ten thousand varieties of Protestants, Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Harold Camping followers, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-17-2013, 09:40 PM
a primate?
More like a degenerate human.
sylvius
10-17-2013, 10:10 PM
Once I realized how extremely biased the Bible was in favor of men, it was plain to see that its male authors created a warrior god in their own image. No true god could ever call himself righteous and just, yet ordain and sanction the unequal treatment of women. The Bible is filled with immoral behavior condoned and promoted by its god, once I becomes aware of that I could never feel the same about the Bible again. Just think how you would feel if your daughter was denied equal rights under the laws of the land simply because she is female ... well it's the same with the Biblegod.
Take care
Rose
Is the biblegod that you reject kind of a monkey-king?
sylvius
10-18-2013, 05:04 AM
We got still one monkey left.
He was never born.
When his mother (the first monkey we got) was about to give birth she was bitten to death by the father or the brother of the father, one of the third monkey's two sons being the father. (By the way, they got names, we gave them names they listened to)
The animal-doctor did take him out of the dead mother's body and did put him on vertaling spirits.
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/PA180011.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/PA180011.jpg.html)
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 06:42 AM
:hysterical:
:lmbo:
:lol:
:rofl:
Good answers...
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 06:43 AM
In the news...
DMANISI, Georgia (AP) - The discovery of a 1.8-million-year-old skull of a human ancestor buried under a medieval Georgian village provides a vivid picture of early evolution and indicates our family tree may have fewer branches than some believe, scientists say. The fossil is the most complete pre-human skull uncovered. With other partial remains previously found at the rural site, it gives researchers the earliest evidence of human ancestors moving out of Africa and spreading north to the rest of the world, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science. More on the story...
(http://www.kimatv.com/news/national/18-million-year-old-skull-gives-glimpse-of-our-evolution-228226651.html)
Everyone has their Holy Scriptures. The wonderful thing about the evolutionist's Holy Scripture is that it can't be relied upon because they get to change it at will...
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 06:45 AM
All we had to do was open our eyes! Maybe if you educated yourself on evolution you too would understand why the proof is indisputable.
I used to believe in evolution until I educated myself and found that it was based on logical fallacies...
sylvius
10-18-2013, 06:47 AM
How could Daniel predict the crucifixion of Jesus and the destruction of the temple (like Richard does contend) if he was just an upgenerated ape (Überaffe)?
Or can monkeys have visions too?
Or didn't he predict it at all and was he writing about events that happened already? ( http://usccb.org/bible/daniel/9 An anointed one: the high priest Onias III, murdered in 171 B.C., from which the author dates the beginning of the persecution. Onias was in exile when he was killed. A leader: Antiochus IV.)
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 06:49 AM
Not true. I never claimed that "books by evolutionary biologists are all that is needed to understand evolution". In terms of logic, that is a straw man fallacy because you misrepresented my position. And in terms of morality, it is a lie designed to deceive.
OK, so what do you claim is needed to 'understand evolution'?
Not true. I never claimed that "some observed biological facts are not claimed as the result of evolution". I said that the things that are observed are defined as "facts". I wrote that in response to your deliberate misrepresentation of scientific observations as being DEFINED as evolution. You put words in my mouth that I never said, and so have committed yet another straw man fallacy, which also is another deliberate lie designed to deceive.
If observations are not defined as the result of evolution, how do you conclude that they are the result of evolution?
You have proven yourself to be utterly corrupt.
Projecting again?
Ha! You won't even stand by your own words. A man who won't stand by his own words is no man at all.
What words of your own have you stood by? "Evolution is true! I don't have to support it! Just believe!"
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 06:52 AM
How could Daniel predict the crucifixion of Jesus and the destruction of the temple (like Richard does contend) if he was just an upgenerated ape (Überaffe)?
Why would anyone believe what an Überaffe thinks about their evolutionary 'origins' anyway?
Richard Amiel McGough
10-18-2013, 07:15 AM
Not true. I never claimed that "books by evolutionary biologists are all that is needed to understand evolution". In terms of logic, that is a straw man fallacy because you misrepresented my position. And in terms of morality, it is a lie designed to deceive.
OK, so what do you claim is needed to 'understand evolution'?
I proved you lied and you agreed, saying "OK". Amazing. The corruption of your heart and mind appears to be total. As far as I can tell, you don't give a shit about truth or your integrity. Amazing.
What is needed to understand evolution? The requirements are the same as for any other science. What is required to understand chemistry, physics, biology? Your questions indicate that you are profoundly ignorant of the most basic elements of both science and philosophy.
Not true. I never claimed that "some observed biological facts are not claimed as the result of evolution". I said that the things that are observed are defined as "facts". I wrote that in response to your deliberate misrepresentation of scientific observations as being DEFINED as evolution. You put words in my mouth that I never said, and so have committed yet another straw man fallacy, which also is another deliberate lie designed to deceive.
If observations are not defined as the result of evolution, how do you conclude that they are the result of evolution?
Your error is that observations are not DEFINED as the result of evolution. That is not part of their definition. If you want to pretend you are some great logician, you will need to learn how to use words accurately. You are a very sloppy thinker. You have repeatedly misquoted me and committed blatant logical fallacies. Your attack on evolution, science, and philosophy could not be more absurd.
As for biological observations: I look at a dog that is the result of human breeding. That is an observation. I conclude that the particular breed is the result of breeding, not natural evolution. Duh.
You have proven yourself to be utterly corrupt.
Projecting again?
Not at all. I am stating the facts about you derived from your own behavior. And every time you respond by ignoring the evidence and mindlessly throwing it back at me only confirms that you are utterly corrupt. But perhaps I am mischaracterizing your condition, and your real problem is a profound mental illness (a mix of OCD and autism perhaps?).
Ha! You won't even stand by your own words. A man who won't stand by his own words is no man at all.
What words of your own have you stood by? "Evolution is true! I don't have to support it! Just believe!"
So you choose to spew out yet another straw man fallacy? Why am I not surprised? Your beliefs are utterly disconnected from reality. I would be surprised if you were not living in a mental institution.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-18-2013, 07:19 AM
:hysterical:
:lmbo:
:lol:
:rofl:
Good answers...
They were more than your fallacious absurdities deserved ...
I used to believe in evolution until I educated myself and found that it was based on logical fallacies...
Maybe that's the problem ... you educated yourself. :lol:
sylvius
10-18-2013, 08:21 AM
Maybe that's the problem ... you educated yourself. :lol:
Ok, I need eduacation too,
Genesis 1:31,
And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.
I think "evolutionists" and "creationists" share the opinion that this is about long time ago, for evolutionists reason to reject the bible, while creationists stick to the letter "this was 5774 (or roundabout) years ago". If i'm wrong, just say it.
But I say that it is about all that is in the here and now, God created it all, or better, he acquired it by being present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", the sixth day and they were completed = bought, even with his own blood.
I got a certain righ of speech :yo:, but no certificate :sad:
duxrow
10-18-2013, 08:45 AM
:typing: Like it! Sylvie.. "Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest. Ex31:15,17. "...for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." When we see a "for" or a "therefore", we consider the passage and what it's there for. In this case the HolyGhost Author is comparing the six days of God's creation, with the six days given to mankind.
Sabbaths. There's a pattern which goes beyond the fifty two weeks of each year, and extends to the entire age of mankind as we know it. Not only was there a weekly sabbath, but also a yearly, plus special or "high sabbaths" (Jn19:31), and the Jubilee was every fifty years. Forty Jubilees adds up to 2,000 yrs., or two "days" as the Lord sees it, 2Pet3:8.. and 40 x 50 = 2000:yo: or two days..
http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc8.htg/7day.gif
Ok, I need eduacation too,
Genesis 1:31,
And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good, and it was evening and it was morning, the sixth day.
I think "evolutionists" and "creationists" share the opinion that this is about long time ago, for evolutionists reason to reject the bible, while creationists stick to the letter "this was 5774 (or roundabout) years ago". If i'm wrong, just say it.
But I say that it is about all that is in the here and now, God created it all, or better, he acquired it by being present in the initial letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim", the sixth day and they were completed = bought, even with his own blood.
I got a certain righ of speech :yo:, but no certificate :sad:
There are so many things scientifically wrong with the Genesis account of creation. Here are three for starters:
1. There is light that causes day and night to happen before the sun and stars are made.
2. The oceans cover the planet before there is dry land.
3. Plants are formed before the sun.
Timmy
10-18-2013, 01:29 PM
There is no evidence for evilution.
There R piecemeal remains from the past, and there is a whole bunch of speculation based on assumptions devilutionists call fact...assuming that earth conditions were the same as they are now for starters.
These evilutional speculations are virtual mathematical impossibiities.
This is just an interjection, and isnot going to be argued. If anyone really wants to find out if these contrarwise things be so, they will do so...instead of attempting to take differing pieces of information and believe in an inconsistent scenario out from the minds of men...grasping at different none conjunctive pieces of information and continually fail to glue them all together coherently.
Fiction is designed to be palatable to our ways of thinking...thats why it sells.
The truth is stranger than fiction and most people cannot handle it, much less even work toward seeing things are not what they seem.
When science can explain why all the protons at the atoms nucleus stay together...i might be inclined to listen more, but have read all that rubbish i can handle...so mayhaps not.
Bottom line is, you do not know becauze you were not there.
Evilution is a religion for people who are completely incapable of seriously exploring all the possibilities for the sake of believing they able to do whatever they desire without consequence.
They call him Neanderthal but was he really?
...as for Piltdown or Java or whatever else about the evolution of man they have lied to you about, these things do not really and have not existed.
What a fossil means is a cataclysm that produced it. Every fossil tells us one thing: that it is indeed a fossil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ
So if you think you are just another primate in an unending chain of progressing lifeforms, guess again.
Entropy is not developmental progress, and if you BELIEVE you are only an animal, your RELIGIOUS CONVICTION about your RELIGION OF EVOLUTION denies your own God given priveledges.
Cognitively biased,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
There is no evidence for evilution.
There R piecemeal remains from the past, and there is a whole bunch of speculation based on assumptions devilutionists call fact...assuming that earth conditions were the same as they are now for starters.
These evilutional speculations are virtual mathematical impossibiities.
This is just an interjection, and isnot going to be argued. If anyone really wants to find out if these contrarwise things be so, they will do so...instead of attempting to take differing pieces of information and believe in an inconsistent scenario out from the minds of men...grasping at different none conjunctive pieces of information and continually fail to glue them all together coherently.
Fiction is designed to be palatable to our ways of thinking...thats why it sells.
The truth is stranger than fiction and most people cannot handle it, much less even work toward seeing things are not what they seem.
When science can explain why all the protons at the atoms nucleus stay together...i might be inclined to listen more, but have read all that rubbish i can handle...so mayhaps not.
Bottom line is, you do not know becauze you were not there.
Evilution is a religion for people who are completely incapable of seriously exploring all the possibilities for the sake of believing they able to do whatever they desire without consequence.
They call him Neanderthal but was he really?
...as for Piltdown or Java or whatever else about the evolution of man they have lied to you about, these things do not really and have not existed.
What a fossil means is a cataclysm that produced it. Every fossil tells us one thing: that it is indeed a fossil.
Cognitively biased,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
Hello Timmy
You weren't there either, so why do you believe the words of primitive men who wrote the Bible that had no scientific knowledge whatsoever, or one shred of evidence to back up what they said?
Just wondering ... :confused:
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 03:31 PM
Maybe that's the problem ... you educated yourself. :lol:
You are the one who recommended it, now you are against it?
What do you do? Let someone else tell you what to think?
Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip...
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 03:40 PM
I proved you lied and you agreed, saying "OK". Amazing. The corruption of your heart and mind appears to be total. As far as I can tell, you don't give a shit about truth or your integrity. Amazing.
Or maybe I wasn't agreeing with that part of your statement, eh?
What is needed to understand evolution? The requirements are the same as for any other science. What is required to understand chemistry, physics, biology? Your questions indicate that you are profoundly ignorant of the most basic elements of both science and philosophy.
What basic elements of science and philosophy am I ignorant of?
Your error is that observations are not DEFINED as the result of evolution. That is not part of their definition. If you want to pretend you are some great logician, you will need to learn how to use words accurately. You are a very sloppy thinker. You have repeatedly misquoted me and committed blatant logical fallacies. Your attack on evolution, science, and philosophy could not be more absurd.
What are they defined as being the result of?
As for biological observations: I look at a dog that is the result of human breeding. That is an observation. I conclude that the particular breed is the result of breeding, not natural evolution. Duh.
So a dog isn't 'evolved'? Is it created then?
Not at all. I am stating the facts about you derived from your own behavior. And every time you respond by ignoring the evidence and mindlessly throwing it back at me only confirms that you are utterly corrupt. But perhaps I am mischaracterizing your condition, and your real problem is a profound mental illness (a mix of OCD and autism perhaps?).
What evidence? A dog is evidence but it isn't evolved? Is it created? What evidence supports evolution without being defined as having evolved?
So you choose to spew out yet another straw man fallacy? Why am I not surprised? Your beliefs are utterly disconnected from reality. I would be surprised if you were not living in a mental institution.
Projecting again?
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 03:41 PM
They were more than your fallacious absurdities deserved ...
And if I provided the same conclusions and answers to your posts, would that impress you too?
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 04:09 PM
There are so many things scientifically wrong with the Genesis account of creation. Here are three for starters:
1. There is light that causes day and night to happen before the sun and stars are made.
2. The oceans cover the planet before there is dry land.
3. Plants are formed before the sun.
1. What is 'scientifically wrong' with light before the sun and stars. Are you saying that light can only be generated by the sun and stars. Don't tell Sir George Stokes.
2. What is 'scientifically wrong' with oceans covering a planet?
3. What is 'scientifically wrong' if there is a light-source that produces day/night?
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between science and belief. This is quite typical for philosophical naturalists. They like to claim that others don't understand science and yet they routinely display profound ignorance about what is actually science and what is belief.
1. What is 'scientifically wrong' with light before the sun and stars. Are you saying that light can only be generated by the sun and stars. Don't tell Sir George Stokes.
2. What is 'scientifically wrong' with oceans covering a planet?
3. What is 'scientifically wrong' if there is a light-source that produces day/night?
Looks like somebody doesn't understand the difference between science and belief. This is quite typical for philosophical naturalists. They like to claim that others don't understand science and yet they routinely display profound ignorance about what is actually science and what is belief.
I am astounded at your questions.
1. On planet earth, which is what Genesis 1 is speaking of the only thing that can cause daylight is the sun ... the absence of sunlight causes night. Genesis 1 says there was day and night before the sun was created ... WRONG
2. When planet earth was formed from stellar dust there were no oceans covering the planet. Only hundreds of thousands of years after the earth was formed did water begin to accumulate to form the oceans. Genesis 1 says the earth was covered in water from the beginning ... WRONG
3. The only light source that produces daylight on planet earth is the sun. Genesis 1 says plants were formed before the sun ... WRONG
Timmy
10-18-2013, 04:52 PM
Hello Timmy
You weren't there either, so why do you believe the words of primitive men who wrote the Bible that had no scientific knowledge whatsoever, or one shred of evidence to back up what they said?
Just wondering ... :confused:Hi Rose,
I have spoken with a few former evolutionary scientists online, and they have provided me with more than enough information to debunk nearly every shred of it...that is why evolution is not even considered cogent.
Dr. Hoyle at Oxford has done all the legwork that need be done to show the incompatibility of the evolutionary models that currently exist are at best fiction, and at worst farce.
Though evolutionists believe men who speculate because they have a science guy badge, you need to define primitive before i answer you...and it isn't because any certain man wrote anything either.
I look to Y'shua as my source and supply, and He has always come through for me.
The two biggest problems seen with the whole evolution thing, as i currently perceive things, is that by believing in it, there is no way to determine what is actually right or wrong, and in living as though what it says is true, personal relationships are merely a matter of decision and not commitments with love (be that familial, philail, platonic, etc.
Please don't take that the way it was not intended. What is meant is that without a standard of measurement, people fail to recognise the consequences of their actions.
You can shout primirive men and bronze age tribal war God all you want, but through attempting to stick with what our forefathers have brought to us, we are some of the most successful people on the face of this earth. Look how tiny our land Y'israel is, yet we have the second strongest military force in the world, because of a bronze age tribal war God (if you insist)....and had we not sold the technology we developed, beginning with the transistor, and now blazing trails in cyber developments, biology, botany, atomic sciences, electronics, medicine and the list goes on and on...maybe you all might have been better off listening to your fathers as well (but they were primitive, right?
Our nation still exists through many insurmountable setbacks, because our Bronze Age Tribal War God cares enough about us to discipline us when we are wrong...but on whom can other nations depend? Themselves? The recorded history of the nations doesn't speak in favor of that.
I could go on and on about all the blessings we have received from a so-called tribal war God, but it might just provoke you.
One last thing thought, aside from our wealth, prosperity, and power in the world...we are a peace loving people who desire for all to be able to work together and succeed...and that is why we share and give. That was one major something something that is instilled in us, because we were taught this by our Bronze Age Tribal War God through our primitive ancestors...this and the way to have healthy wholesome family life, which helps community, and flows out to benefit others who do not have these things...the ripple effect.
Remember that, what was it, the 1,000,000,000 dollar question to be answered about Moab, why don't you just check out their culture for starters, how the nTion began and what proceeded from that. When Richard brought up that issue it was already a moot point to me. (There's more, but if you really want to know, you will check for yourself...
...which brings me to this: it doesn't matter who anyone wants to blame for destroying any other nation, or who is assumed to be the ultimate outside (supposed) source for their demise. Most all nation that ends up in ruin, historically speakng, were already rotting from the inside out...and when these nations continue killing their babies, it shows that even the.deeply instilled nature for mothers to protect and nurture her young is corrupted to the core. Nations that kill the helpless and spread violence as though it were a coat to put on or take off do not stay on the world scene too long...
...and btw, we are not only known for having the most solid and lasting relationships statistically, but we better distinguish between what is right and wrong. Our track record is not because we are supposedly better than anyone else, because we are not. It is because of the traditions handed down because a "Bronze Age Tribal War God" said to Avraham Avinu, "I m your abundance and better reward than all that exizts. Follow me, and walk blameless.
This is the primitive way you denigrate, but it works.
I see kids taught evolution in school...oh never mind that; but if you teach a child their great grandpa was an orangutan, what are they going to act like, a human dignified or some base manimal? If you see others as animals, what's next?
Evolution has no answer for the human condition and can leave one standing in a cold impersonal world alone, where whatever you do or whatever happens is supposed progress: the circle of lies. Get it?
People are not merely biological machines, B.F.S.(kinner) or the Evolutionary religions would have you think.
Morality is not inherent, and living for oneself to the detriment of those around us is only a fastrack to deathandhell.com
Evolution and Biblical instruction are not compatible. That is just the way it is. It's one or the other, and my choice is more than obvious.
We'll stick with what has worked for many centuries and you experiment with your lives: what's it worth to you: your life??? Don't buy into the lie that what doesn't kill me only makes me stronger because that is not how things work.
Just as there are natural laws, there are instructions for better relationship with God and man who is made in His image. If you cannot accept that, this is the problem you will continue to try and work out.
The enigma for scientist and worldly "wise-ones" is that they can only gain a picture of the world that almost makes sense without the God of the Bible, and in the end, our worm Ourboros is not only eating it's own tail. I've had more than enough of trying to bootstrap the serpent for this lifetime...and more successful at that than not a few.
The problem as i currently can see this situation, the Bible and God (your so-called inventions of men about a Bronze Age Tribal War God) is this: When anyone chooses not to believe in Yaweh/Y'shua, it isn't that they will believe in nothing (but themselves); rather, that they will believe and follow almost anything to satiate that empty missing part.trying to fill the void that only gapes into a weeping wound through disappointment after failure, broken promises and heartaches perpetually hounding them to their grave.
What kind of value is place on human life through evolution, and what do you think your life is worth?
The race does not always go to the fleetest foot, and it is not only the strong that survive...or FTM thrive.
Do you consider others before yourself, or are they either means to an end, and if not, just in your way?
Evolution reduces the value of every persons life. It is a religious philosophy invented by men for men who in want for an excuse to devalue their own lives, in the process devalue those around you.
No matter how many laws get passed against human abuses, until peoples hearts are changed, the only thing that will happen is that such abuses will become more clandestine; and that through extreme force if need be.
What has evolution done to make our lives better?
I'm asking because i want to know what you feel about this, seriously curious...and really doubt you to be confused as you say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q24z4XcJxnM
AGAPEO,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 07:04 PM
I am astounded at your questions.
You said, "There are so many things scientifically wrong with the Genesis account of creation. Here are three for starters:"
There is nothing 'scientifically wrong' with the Genesis account of creation. It is your philosophy that has the problem, not science.
1. On planet earth, which is what Genesis 1 is speaking of the only thing that can cause daylight is the sun ... the absence of sunlight causes night. Genesis 1 says there was day and night before the sun was created ... WRONG
Again, what is 'scientifically wrong' with a light source other than the sun as the Bible obviously claims? Scientific Answer: nothing. Philsophical Answer: everything. You are focused on the philosophical answer when you claimed that it was a scientific problem. It isn't.
2. When planet earth was formed from stellar dust there were no oceans covering the planet. Only hundreds of thousands of years after the earth was formed did water begin to accumulate to form the oceans. Genesis 1 says the earth was covered in water from the beginning ... WRONG
Again, you are focused on your philosophical beliefs, not a scientific problem. Scientifically there is nothing wrong with a water-covered planet. In fact, were one to be discovered you can be sure the 'scientists' would be screaming LIFE, LIFE, LIFE!
3. The only light source that produces daylight on planet earth is the sun. Genesis 1 says plants were formed before the sun ... WRONG
You have a philosophical problem with it because you don't want to believe that a day/night light source is possible without the sun. There is no 'scientific problem' there, however.
You claimed there were 'scientific problems'. There are none. There are only philosophical problems. You need to learn the difference but since you don't believe in self-education, I suppose you will have to wait until someone whom you trust tells you what to believe...
Hi Rose,
I have spoken with a few former evolutionary scientists online, and they have provided me with more than enough information to debunk nearly every shred of it...that is why evolution is not even considered cogent.
Hello Timmy,
If you want to talk about debunking things the Bible is a good place to start. Evolution isn't just some crazy idea that popped into Darwin's head out of thin air, it began as a theory based on piles of evidence that has only continued to accumulate over the years. The discovery of DNA and the mapping of the human genome has done nothing but strengthen the theory of evolution to the point of it being considered a fact instead of a theory.
The two biggest problems seen with the whole evolution thing, as i currently perceive things, is that by believing in it, there is no way to determine what is actually right or wrong, and in living as though what it says is true, personal relationships are merely a matter of decision and not commitments with love (be that familial, philail, platonic, etc.
Please don't take that the way it was not intended. What is meant is that without a standard of measurement, people fail to recognise the consequences of their actions.
What is right or wrong in evolution is determined the same as with any of the sciences. Evidence is gathered and hypothesis's are formed, if they hold up they are deemed to be a supportable theory if not a new hypothesis must be made ... that is the scientific method, the standard by which all evidence is tested. Any credible scientist knows that evidence must hold up to rigorous testing in order for it to be accepted as valid.
You can shout primirive men and bronze age tribal war God all you want, but through attempting to stick with what our forefathers have brought to us, we are some of the most successful people on the face of this earth. Look how tiny our land Y'israel is, yet we have the second strongest military force in the world, because of a bronze age tribal war God (if you insist)....and had we not sold the technology we developed, beginning with the transisto, and now blazing trails in cyber developments, biology, botany, biology, medicine and the list goes on and on...maybe you all might have been better off listening to your fathers as well (but they were primitive, right?
Our nation still exists through many insurmountable setbacks, because our Bronze Age Tribal War God cares enough about us to discipline us when we are wrong...but on whom can other nations depend? Themselves? The recorded history of the nations doesn't speak in favor of that.
I could go on and on about all the blessings we have received from a so-called tribal war God, but it might just provoke you.
It's the truth! Primitive Bronze Age men created a tribal war god in their own image and just because you think we are the most successful people on the face of the earth has nothing to do with whether or not the Biblegod is true. Alexander the Great was pretty successful and so was Genghis Khan that says nothing about the validity of the gods they worshiped.
As far a blessings go I can't think of one blessing that I can truly say came from god. All the blessings I see in my life and all around me come from people helping other people. It is so common to hear a person say "Thank God!" when its the doctor, policeman or the fireman they should be thanking.
One last thing thought, aside from our wealth, prosperity, and power in the world...we are a peace loving people who desire for all to be able to work together and succeed...and that is why we share and give. That was one major something something that is instilled in us, because we were taught this by our Bronze Age Tribal War God through our pri.itive ancestors...that and the way to have healthy wholesome family life, which helps community, and flows out to benefit others who do not have these things...the ripple effect.
The god of the Old Testament can by no means be called peace-loving! He is the most immoral, cruel, vindictive, vengeful, warlike, misogynistic and bloodthirsty being I can think of, and this god is who Jesus called father!
...which brings me to this: it doesn't matter who anyone wants to blame for destroying any other nation, or who is supposed as the ultimate outside (supposed) source for their demise. Most all nation that ends up in ruin, historically speakng, rotted from the inside out...and when they continue killing their babies, it shows that even that instilled nature for mothers to protect and nurture their young is corrupted to the core. Nations that kill the helpless and spread violence as though it were a. Oat to put on or take off do not stay on the world scene too long...
I see kids taught evolution in school...oh never mind that; but if you teach a child eir great grandpa was an orangutan, what are they going to act like, a human dignified or some base manimal?
There is nothing wrong with teaching children that humans share a common ancestor with Chimps and Orangutans if that is the truth ... it's a lot better than teaching them lies about Adam and Eve being the first humans that were created 6,000 years ago from a lump of clay!
Evolution has no answer for the human condition and can leave one standing in a cold impersonal world alone, where whatever you do or whatever happens is supposed progress: the cicler of lies. Get it?
People are not merely biological machines, B.F.S.(kinner) or the Evolutionary relivions would have you think.
Morality is not inherdnt, and living for oneself to the detriment of those around us is only a fastrack to deathandhell.com
Evolution and Biblical instrucgion are not compatible. That is just the way it is.
Evolution isn't a doctrine like Biblical instruction is, it is a fact ... so just because it isn't compatible with the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with its validity. The Biblegod was created in the minds of a handful of Bronze-age men with no evidence to back up their claims; whereas evolution has been confirmed by evidence presented by hundreds of thousands of scientists. Evolution isn't supposed to have an answer for the human condition, it is only an explanation of how orgainsims change over time, or "evolve".
We'll stick with what has worked for many centuries and you experiment with your lives: what's it worth to you: your life??? Don't buy into the lie that what doesn't kill me only makes me stronger because that is not how things work.
Just as there are natural laws, there are instructions for better relationship with God and man, who is made in His image. If you cannot accept that, this is the problem you will continue to try and work out.
Things have not always worked out so well for many people who have lived under Christian rule ... especially women. The Bible is chock-full of misogyny and male bias and women have suffered greatly because of it. If egalitarian societies had ruled instead of patriarchal societies like the Bible promotes, women would be a lot better off than they have been throughout history.
The enigma for scientist and worldly "wise-ones" is that they can only gain a picture of the world that almost makes sense, without the God of the Bible...and in the end, our worm Ourboros is not only eating it's own tail. I've had more than enough of trying to bootstrap that serpent for this lifetime...and more successful at that than not a few.
The problem as i currently can see this situation, the Bible and God (your so-called inventions of men about a Bronze Age Tribal War God) is this: When anyone chooses not to believe in Yaweh/Y'shua, it isn't that they will not believe in anything; but, that they will believe and follow almost anything to satiate that empty missing part of us, filling the void that only gapes into a weeping wound through disappointment after failure perpetually hound them to their grave.
You are absolutely wrong! Richard and I are living proof of that ... we are not willing to believe anything in order to fill some so-called missing part. In fact its quite the opposite, we are much more skeptical now then we were before.
Fundamentalist belief in the Bible tends to corrupt the morals of those who fall victim to its doctrines. Men think that they are superior to women and that they should rule over them and women should be subservient to them, because according to the Bible men are the head of the woman. Wow! Talk about corrupt thinking.
What kind of value is place on human life through evolution, and what do you think your life is worth?
The race does not always go to the fleetest foot, and it is not only the strong that survive...or FTM thrive.
Do you consider others before yourself, or are they either means to an end, and if not, just in your way?
Evolution reduces the value of every persons life. It is a religious philosophy invented by men for men who with to exculse devaluing their own lives, and in the process devalue those around you.
No matter how many laws get passed against human abuses, until peoples hearts are changed, the only thing that will happen is that such abuses will become more clandestine; and that through extreme force if need be.
My life and the life of others is ever bit as valuable as it was when I was a Christian. Christianity has nothing to do with making a persons life meaningful, or worthwhile. Evolution doesn't take anything away from life's purpose. Evolution is just an explanation for how we came to be who we are.
The most important thing we can do with our lives is to try and help and support the well being of others, that is something Christianity has done a very poor job of throughout its history, especially when it comes to the treatment of women, or those that believe in a different doctrine than Christianity teaches.
What has evolution done to make our lives better?
I'm asking because i want to know what you feel about this, seriously curious...and really doubt you to be confused
AGAPEO,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
Evolution is change over time, it is the way that life continues, which has nothing to do with whether or not it makes our lives better. Evolution is not an idea created in someones head like the Biblegod, it is the process discovered by Darwin that answers the question of the vast diversity of life we see all around us.
Positing a god does nothing to answer the questions of how the human body works and does nothing to increase our knowledge of life, so that diseases can be cured and defects can be healed. The human drive to understand the world around us is what has lead to all the discoveries including evolution. If people had been content with only relying on what the Bible teaches we would be a sorry lot indeed when it comes to our well-being. Science continues to make our lives better and better, which cannot be said for the misogynistic teaching of the Bible.
Take care
Rose
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 08:05 PM
If you want to talk about debunking things the Bible is a good place to start. Evolution isn't just some crazy idea that popped into Darwin's head out of thin air, it began as a theory based on piles of evidence that has only continued to accumulate over the years. The discovery of DNA and the mapping of the human genome has done nothing but strengthen the theory of evolution to the point of it being considered a fact instead of a theory.
Actually, evolution is an old pagan idea.
Nothing 'scientific' about it at all.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/1holden.htm
There is nothing 'scientifically wrong' with the Genesis account of creation. It is your philosophy that has the problem, not science.
If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese, you would say "There is nothing 'scientifically wrong' with the Genesis account of creation." No matter what the Bible says you are compelled to believe it. What a sad state of affairs.
Actually, evolution is an old pagan idea.
Nothing 'scientific' about it at all.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/09/1holden.htm
That's right! There was nothing scientific about the old pagan idea; whereas Darwin's theory of evolution was based on scientific evidence.
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 08:19 PM
If the Bible said the moon was made of cheese, you would say "There is nothing 'scientifically wrong' with the Genesis account of creation." No matter what the Bible says you are compelled to believe it. What a sad state of affairs.
Well, it doesn't say that. The fact that you have to make things up to have a point shows that you are compelled to believe whatever evolutionists tell you to believe.
Now that's a sad state of affairs...
GourmetDan
10-18-2013, 08:21 PM
That's right! There was nothing scientific about the old pagan idea; whereas Darwin's theory of evolution was based on scientific evidence.
There was nothing scientific about the old pagan idea and there was nothing scientific about Darwin's 'theory'. It's the same belief.
sylvius
10-18-2013, 11:36 PM
There are so many things scientifically wrong with the Genesis account of creation. Here are three for starters:
1. There is light that causes day and night to happen before the sun and stars are made.
2. The oceans cover the planet before there is dry land.
3. Plants are formed before the sun.
It is not meant to be a modern scientific or historical work.
From your statements it is clear that you never bothered much for a deeper meaning.
You didn't give a cent for it.
sylvius
10-18-2013, 11:55 PM
I am astounded at your questions.
1. On planet earth, which is what Genesis 1 is speaking of the only thing that can cause daylight is the sun ... the absence of sunlight causes night. Genesis 1 says there was day and night before the sun was created ... WRONG
2. When planet earth was formed from stellar dust there were no oceans covering the planet. Only hundreds of thousands of years after the earth was formed did water begin to accumulate to form the oceans. Genesis 1 says the earth was covered in water from the beginning ... WRONG
3. The only light source that produces daylight on planet earth is the sun. Genesis 1 says plants were formed before the sun ... WRONG
1) It is written: "He called the light day and the darkness he called night" -- which has nothing to do with (the rotation of) the earth.
2) It is not said that "the earth was covered in water", but that the dry land (he called earth) appeared (= became visible) when the waters from beneath the firmament gathered in one place,
3) Genesis 2:5 says that no plant did grow until the sixth day. "The blind man's delight" = rain :yo:
sylvius
10-19-2013, 12:16 AM
The evolution theory implies that mankind is just a stage, and that there has to come an "Übermensch", a higher species of man, like man is a higher species of monkey.
Maybe the evolutionist considers himself as to be already a representative of this "Übermensch"-kind, "überlegen" as he is over primitive thought, over the primitive worldview expressed in the Jewish bible.
Which implies that there is no rest at all (no Sabbath). Man ever has to be still perfected. This being the fate of Cain, the "manslayer from the beginning", to be "na v'nad" - to be a restless wanderer.
"na"= 120
"v'nad"= 60
showing a 2:1 ratio.
ever striving for the oneness that was broken.
sylvius
10-19-2013, 01:20 AM
Monkey on my back (around 1976)
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/monkeyonmyback.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/monkeyonmyback.jpg.html)
sylvius
10-19-2013, 03:25 AM
This was the first monkey we got. We did have her for about a year before the second monkey came. With her we ever had the best relationship, she was very human. She was the one between us and the rest of the monkeys.
At first she was the top-monkey, at last she was the down under monkey...
It is not meant to be a modern scientific or historical work.
From your statements it is clear that you never bothered much for a deeper meaning.
You didn't give a cent for it.
Hello Sylvius
The point isn't whether or not the Bible has deeper meaning, the point is that it is impossible for the Bible to be the word of god, or for Yahweh to be anything more than a god made up in the minds of men. I have studied the Bible in great depth and found it to be extremely male biased, which is why I wrote a booklet about it found here: http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/
I know the Bible is not meant to be a scientific work, but its authors chose to speak for who they thought was god, and describe how the heavens and earth were made and life formed without having any scientific knowledge. As people gained more and more scientific knowledge it became clearer and clearer that the biblical story of creation is WRONG!
Take care
Rose
This was the first monkey we got. We did have her for about a year before the second monkey came. With her we ever had the best relationship, she was very human. She was the one between us and the rest of the monkeys.
At first she was the top-monkey, at last she was the down under monkey...
Thanks for sharing...:rolleyes:
duxrow
10-19-2013, 09:02 AM
Hello Sylvius
The point isn't whether or not the Bible has deeper meaning, the point is that it is impossible for the Bible to be the word of god, or for Yahweh to be anything more than a god made up in the minds of men. I have studied the Bible in great depth and found it to be extremely male biased, which is why I wrote a booklet about it found here: http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/
I know the Bible is not meant to be a scientific work, but its authors chose to speak for who they thought was god, and describe how the heavens and earth were made and life formed without having any scientific knowledge. As people gained more and more scientific knowledge it became clearer and clearer that the biblical story of creation is WRONG!
Take care
RoseGreat depth indeed, Rose: "Way Over Your Head" .. :eek:
Great depth indeed, Rose: "Way Over Your Head" .. :eek:
Anyone with average intelligence can see the Bible is extremely male-biased. So, if that is the case and you believe the Bible was inspired by god, then it means the god you believe in is misogynistic, and unjust! Yikes! :eek:
sylvius
10-19-2013, 10:17 AM
Anyone with average intelligence can see the Bible is extremely male-biased. So, if that is the case and you believe the Bible was inspired by god, then it means the god you believe in is misogynistic, and unjust! Yikes! :eek:
Whether or not created, mankind exists of males and females (with a few exceptions)
Females can get pregnant and give birth to children, not males.
You might think that this is exceedingly cruel, due to either evolution or God.
http://nl.bab.la/woordenboek/nederlands-engels/baren
I therefore enquired if this equality stems from the law of nature or from statute law, and what can be done to enable men to bear children.
sylvius
10-19-2013, 10:26 AM
Hello Sylvius
The point isn't whether or not the Bible has deeper meaning, the point is that it is impossible for the Bible to be the word of god, or for Yahweh to be anything more than a god made up in the minds of men. I have studied the Bible in great depth and found it to be extremely male biased, which is why I wrote a booklet about it found here: http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/
I know the Bible is not meant to be a scientific work, but its authors chose to speak for who they thought was god, and describe how the heavens and earth were made and life formed without having any scientific knowledge. As people gained more and more scientific knowledge it became clearer and clearer that the biblical story of creation is WRONG!
Take care
Rose
One strange thing is that we express ourselves with words and languages that we nor our parents or grandparents or grand-grandpartents ,etc. did invent, but that come from ancient sources, from which also those primitives who had not any scientific knowledge did draw.
Whether or not created, mankind exists of males and females (with a few exceptions)
Females can get pregnant and give birth to children, not males.
You might think that this is exceedingly cruel, due to either evolution or God.
http://nl.bab.la/woordenboek/nederlands-engels/baren
I am not speaking of the natural differences between male and female, rather the unjust and immoral laws and edicts supposedly decreed by the Biblegod, which are fashioned in a very biased manner favoring the male.
Since history gives us a clear record of the extreme bias men have towards women, it is easy to draw a conclusion that the Bible was written solely from the minds of men ... especially since the god they constructed is biased in favor of the male and against the female.
One strange thing is that we express ourselves with words and languages that we nor our parents or grandparents or grand-grandpartents ,etc. did invent, but that come from ancient sources, from which also those primitives who had not any scientific knowledge did draw.
It is impossible to know the exact origins of spoken language, since written language hadn't been developed yet ... :lol: But most likely spoken language developed slowly over a long period of time just like written language.
sylvius
10-19-2013, 11:56 AM
It is impossible to know the exact origins of spoken language, since written language hadn't been developed yet ... :lol: But most likely spoken language developed slowly over a long period of time just like written language.
Yet you don't know where it comes from.
At least not from the rational mind.
Maybe from the subconsciousness.
The word, what is it?
Is'nt science in search for the final word, the final formula, that declares everything?
sylvius
10-19-2013, 12:05 PM
I am not speaking of the natural differences between male and female, rather the unjust and immoral laws and edicts supposedly decreed by the Biblegod, which are fashioned in a very biased manner favoring the male.
Since history gives us a clear record of the extreme bias men have towards women, it is easy to draw a conclusion that the Bible was written solely from the minds of men ... especially since the god they constructed is biased in favor of the male and against the female.
But wasn't the male not already favored by nature / evolution? Did the man-invented biblegod do anything else than confirming the natural law? Or did he overstress it?
But wasn't the male not already favored by nature / evolution? Did the man-invented biblegod do anything else than confirming the natural law? Or did he overstress it?
How can you say nature/evolution favored the male? Without the equality of both neither could continue. If nature/evolution were to favor one over the other it would be the female, because in most species after the male spreads his seed he is no longer needed; whereas the female usually must nurture the seed in her womb and then nurture her offspring until they are able to survive on their own. It is also the female in many species that chooses the male she wishes to mate with, not the other way around as men do in patriarchal societies.
sylvius
10-19-2013, 12:47 PM
How can you say nature/evolution favored the male?
He doesn't have to "nurture the seed", etc. and be worn out.
Without the equality of both neither could continue. If nature/evolution were to favor one over the other it would be the female, because in most species after the male spreads his seed he is no longer needed; whereas the female usually must nurture the seed in her womb and then nurture her offspring until they are able to survive on their own.
Ok, men, after giving their seed, are more or less superfluous
Women and children first.
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/women-and-children-first.html
It is also the female in many species that chooses the male she wishes to mate with Is this not also the case in our modern society?
not the other way around as men do in patriarchal societies. are you a victim of that, or do you speak for other(s) (societies)?
Timmy
10-19-2013, 02:00 PM
For Rose
:icon_hello:Oh hello and g'day Shoshana:yo:
Hoping all is more than pleasant for you and yours.
Are you ready to recall something? If you just click on this, you might. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRLyfZDi-bI)
I said i really did not want to get into this because, as a general rule, people who are evolutionist tend to ignore the encompassing evidence that speaks louder than any one delusional presupposition it adheres to.. So, thinking about this, maybe i am wrong--which remains to be seen, but Evolution is no different than any other false religion, with it's own type of psedo-metaphysical philosophy and needs to see other perspectives than it's own..
Evolution is not true Science. It is not mathematically cogent compared with this one fact being true for developments in all the other sciences. Add to this the insurmountable weight of evidential facts proving evolution is a bassackwards approach toward what it is swiftly becoming just another misgnomer to be forgotten. It has yet to prove differently than all the physical proofs that clearly state otherwise. It is changing as you say, but to me it seems this is because inferred assumption following each speculation has been show to be flawed thinking.
This world is created in such a way that innumerable possibilities and innumerable factors employing innumerable principles with law as well as things that just are the way they are, so that within this physical framework where we all live and breathe and do, there are thousands upon thousands of interesting things about right here right now and beyond.
Right now i am thinking about the neutron star, all of which are currently understood to weigh hundreds of millions of tons, yet are the size of a teaspoon...and to think that some humans are ignorant enough to think they will figure everything out shows our own insistently stubborn human hearts are so corrupt we think what we are capable of knowing or experiencing is all there is...or that we could discover and do whatever we please without consequence.
If the biological geneticists do not make this place tougher to survive upon, as they have been doing ( as if those formerly unknown plant hybrids or even viruses came from nowhere), maybe nuclear fallout can synch it?
Just let me speculate when i do, and don't take my non-conclusions as though they were already proven fact: whether impossible, possible, improbable, or probable.
We all tend to lock ourselves into certain modes of existence, and when we come to realize it too is another form of enslavement, we either succumb to it or move on. Only those who cannot see beyond those boxes stacked Babushka dolls, one within another end up stuck in the illusuion that this is all there is.
Reading your mentioning elsewhere that what we can see is all there is really made me wonder what has you thinking that. The wind, the air, your very breath is not visible…and it would be quite amusing to see you attempt to stop or change any of them.
So if you want to argue about evolution, "let us go to" and babble on. In the meantime, it is requested that you, and your beau as well, look at what you are doing attempting to begin an argument with the Timmy. The both of you have been observed based on what you write and more. Whether you realize or care to admit it or not, we three have much affinity. All three of us have written about the things that move us, things that are thought, said, and done. If it were only this, we cannot find this factor with a majority of people who tend to blur the lines between fact and fiction.
Granted, by default i live a bit more on the adventuresome side; but maybe we three all in our own different ways love all the leaping and laughter we can bring to the dailys. I am beginning to get bored again with routine thinking all the while we can never rule our world being slaves to the grind...and memory drifts to last year and one month from today, a kayak trip through the 'Gator pits in the Irish Bayou (just outside of New Orleans proper)--danger and adventure at once...those ferocious hard scaled beasts circling in the water like they do and swimming beneath we who were just passinv through repeatedly upsetting the balance of such tipsy watercrafts…it was fun and i would love to go back and do it all again; but, i'm looking for something with a faster thrill ride along with as much danger.
I guess i'll come up with the idea while doing my bed jumping hatha yoga, and every one in awhile whacking my head coming up with another brilliant idea...don't ask me how that state of conscilusness is achkeved doing that cause i don't know.
From the way things are perceived, you have an axe to grind, or is this just making small talk and exploring possibilities?
For me, there is no drive to flatter or cajole as there is no philosophy to debate or sermon to deliver. This upfront approach is past simple beliefs: that kind of seriousness coming from what has been repeated repeatedly works for me in mutiple directions all at once...so blabber on about menial mental myths of primitive men about Yaweh Elyon. I don't think you need be told what despair and desire have in common, love lost then found, or the condition of the damned.nMy words will be mostly realistically pragmatic, yet sometimes metaphysical because i wonder if you may not be confusing the road for the map sometimes and other times the map being mistaken for the road. I would love for this to be proved wrong, so let's get down to it and see what's what.
You will have more than enough time to think about where our interaction goes,and i would love Richard to interject his own thoughts in his own words whenever he deems it fitting...but the next few weeks are going to be very taxing long days.
What has evolution done to make our lives better?
I'm asking because i want to know what you feel about this, seriously curious...and really doubt you to be confused
AGAPEO,
Þ.Œ.
Evolution is change over time, it is the way that life continues, which has nothing to do with whether or not it makes our lives better. Evolution is not an idea created in someones head like the Biblegod, it is the process discovered by Darwin that answers the question of the vast diversity of life we see all around us.
Positing a god does nothing to answer the questions of how the human body works and does nothing to increase our knowledge of life, so that diseases can be cured and defects can be healed. The human drive to understand the world around us is what has lead to all the discoveries including evolution. If people had been content with only relying on what the Bible teaches we would be a sorry lot indeed when it comes to our well-being. Science continues to make our lives better and better, which cannot be said for the misogynistic teaching of the Bible.
Take care
Rose
Since you think there is change over time, and i am pretty sure nothing really changes in character, we may be at odds already; but if your conclusion that it has nothing to do with making anything better is the case, what importance does the idea of evolution serve??? Aren't there more beneficial ways to be spending time than speculating over something without good effect?
Evolution theory has changed so much over time....from Egyptian Religion to Greece to Darwin with a whole bunch of alterations in between. Much of what Darwin posited has been disproven, and newfangled theories how been built upon that edifice that continues crumbling.
From this engineers perspective, it does not seem like a very sound way of building something that can stand before something beneath it that has not yet collapsed crumbles. It is worse than trying to set a firm foundation on sand.
How do you know that the changes in evolutionary theory are not what has actually changed more than Earth's living creation traveling through time?
There are not more advanced lifeforms coming into existence and the fossil record shows lifeform on this planet were more diverse and advanced in their complexity than what now is known to exist.
Evolution theory has everything to do with whether or not it makes or lives better or not. Simply from a scientific point of view, knowing and accepting that the world is de-volving andndigressing, rather than evolving puts a completely different spin on everything. Evolution says that entropy drives it to produce better more complex life forms when the fossil record says this is hardly the case. It appears that evolutionary "science" is turning a blind eye, since these facts have debunked so much of what the religion of evolution proposes.
In comment to your bringing something into this interaction i never started with, for those who do not experience a relationship with Yaweh who oversees and guides my every step, of course they assume it is made up.
Evolution has always been blinded by assumptions based on inferences based on speculations. If this is not out from the devisings of men's mind, tell me exactly what it is?
Entropy says things are digressing and the false notion of evolution out from fallible minds insists things are progressing....hmmm, which of these has been repeatably proven to be something that can be mathematically determined with precision: Entropy through the second law of thermodynamics or evilutionary theory invented by faillible minds also corrupted through this entropy affecting every facet of existence?
The fossil record indicates every thing is deteriorating, yet devoutly religious evolutionists claim once again, like all the many hoaxes they have touted before that there is proof life evolved when there is none that clarifies this to be factual.
Evolution is an imaginary fantasy directly out from the minds of men that does not stand up to the fossil record, mathematics, or the laws of physics.
Positing a god You are the one who posited your misgnomers about a Biblegod prove He did not have anything to do with life as it is.
I never brought that into this discussion.
Evolution is such a fallacy there is no need to appeal to anyone that Yaweh proves evolution is false, but he has just through what now exists.
You were saying evolution disproves your Biblego, so wouldn't that be a mute point for me to discuss when you are bound by your own misinformation already.
I was just going to prove that this notion of progressively evolving (and not digressively, if at all) is manufactured through the minds of men is no more scientific than something like Scientology, misusing the evidence available...oh but noooo, you just had to go there, which only complicates this delusion you appear to almost be obsessed with.
It's supposed a person only needs to be without God in the world before they start inventing or believing pre-manufactured myths pre-designed to seem more palatable for human consumption more than the facts and the truth behind everything.
So what if my theory of everything is only a two lettered--three in english--word. You have stepped into a mess, and now you think you are going to disprove El(ohim) when i am debunking the fallacious mythos of evolution?
You have set yourself to two tasks when you have yet to prove one.
Evolution is not a discovery. Evolution is a hypothesis made up in the minds of men who didn't know any better...or just were unwilling to admit God created is the case.
In this little discussion we are having, you posited that i posited anything about any god, and i did not. I never stated any position regarding God. I just began answering what you wrote about this.
I have mentioned three factors, and i will add one more since you just passed it over when the video was posed explaining how currently used dating methods (and other issues related) are incorrect, which only verifies that this story of evolution is a fantastic myth; but the myth makers and bards and spin doctors of evolution start their stories with either "billions" or "millions of years ago" instead of "Once upon a time...".
(If you want to talk about scientific evolutionary precision, how can even one million equal one billion?)
Evolution assumes facts will evidence it to be true...and the physical record says differently, the facts about current dating methods used, as does mathematics and physics. Fossils and earth strata prove it is a lie.
There is more that says the human invention of evolution straight from human myth makers minds is false, a lie, and incompatible with the real world, helping people become more off guard about the fact that entropy is everywhere present and progressing instead of fairytales how everything is improving in diversification through biological improvements.
This is boring to me now looking out the window.
i don't know when i'll be back here next, but please save me a spot.
i promise to try and check if there is any response from you, Rose.
There is so much to reply about every paragraph you wrote,
I am going to have to spend alot of time editing
Before a complete response to what you wrote to me
is posted for you here.
In the meantime, please watch these two videos
Each about thirty minutes.
The first is above mentioned
(the one you apparently never looked at)
and the second is concerning the fossil record.
I can handle the physics and math details myself, but it has been so long since exploring all these possibilities covering how untrue the tall tale of evolution really is, there has got to be much more evidence debunking this farce, myth, fantasy, lie, deception, whatever it is...that i am going to brush up before posting more anyway.
If Richard has not slapped back already, his thoughts/opinions/ideas/beliefs would be appreciated also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Wr-lXLGCxQ
Living Fossils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKPnxHKhU7E
I'm gonna' go to your blog, make one of your recipes and feast bcalefore heading out on the bicycle. (You shall be sent something very tasty, quick and easy to make by PM in return.)
Thank you for taking the time to write, considering how much of an obverse rascal i have been when writing to you on forum in the past.
:sos:...i apologize sincerely...:sos:
Still, my cognative bias about all this is not without fact.
Shabbat Shalom,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
sylvius
10-20-2013, 01:36 AM
Adam and Eve had relationproblems too:
Genesis 4:25,
And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son, and she named him Seth, for God has given me other seed, instead of Abel, for Cain slew him.
Rashi:
And Adam knew, etc.: Lemech came to the first man (Adam) and complained about his wives. He (Adam) said to them, “Is it for you to be so strict concerning the decree of the Omnipresent? You perform your commandments, and He will do His.” They [the wives] said to him, “Correct yourself first. Haven’t you separated from your wife already 130 years since death was decreed because of you?” Immediately,“And Adam knew, etc.”
What is the meaning of עוֹד [again]? This is to say that his desire [for Eve] was increased above his previous desire [Genesis Rabbah 23:4: 5]. See also Eruvin 18b.
Without "his desire" Seth and his descendents never would have been born, and there would have no Noach to find favor and to build the ark. Mankind would have been exstinguished, and we would never have been there,
Desire = "taavah"= sexual desire, lust.
increased = from root "yasaf", from which also the name Yoseif = Joseph.
As long as Jacob lived in the presumption that Joseph was dead, teared to pieces by a wild animal, he was not in the (spiritual state of) Israel.
Genesis 45:27-28,
And they told him all of Joseph's words that he had said to them, and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, and the spirit of their father Jacob was revived. And Israel said, "Enough! My son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die."
So now you might understand how the name Joseph has sexual connotation.
Jacob loved his mother Rachel not in platonic sense.
duxrow
10-20-2013, 02:36 PM
Adam and Eve had relationproblems too:Genesis 4:25,
As long as Jacob lived in the presumption that Joseph was dead, teared to pieces by a wild animal, he was not in the (spiritual state of) Israel.
And they told him all of Joseph's words that he had said to them, and he saw the wagons that Joseph had sent to carry him, and the spirit of their father Jacob was revived. And Israel said, "Enough! My son Joseph is still alive. I will go and see him before I die."[/I]
So now you might understand how the name Joseph has sexual connotation.
Jacob loved his mother Rachel not in platonic sense.
With all due respect, Sylvie, I think it's garbage from Rashi. Gen 30:24 And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son.
No call for sexual connotation, IMO.
Not sure about your last sentence--are you implying something between Joseph and his mother? Rashi might be dwelling on an instance between Ham and the wife of Noah, but to make this accusation again Joseph is really over the top.. :eek:
For Rose
:icon_hello:Oh hello and g'day Shoshana:yo:
Hoping all is more than pleasant for you and yours.
Are you ready to recall something? If you just click on this, you might. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRLyfZDi-bI)
Hello Timmy :yo:
Thank you for sharing ... I do love Heart. :D
From the way things are perceived, you have an axe to grind, or is this just making small talk and exploring possibilities?
Since you think there is change over time, and i am pretty sure nothing really changes in character, we may be at odds already; but if your conclusion that it has nothing to do with making anything better is the case, what importance does the idea of evolution serve??? Aren't there more beneficial ways to be spending time than speculating over something without good effect?
Shabbat Shalom,
Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:
One look at the size of your colorful post and my head was spinning :dizzy: so I decided to chop it down to a size I can handle. :lol:
I have no axe to grind, only a heartfelt desire to share my freedom with the world. The freedom I speak of is that which allows me to pursue every avenue of thought and explore every question that comes to mind. The idea of exploring evolution was sprung on me quite by surprise a few years ago while I was reading a book called Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd. Partway through the book I was inspired to gain some real understanding of evolution starting with The Making of the Fittest by Sean B. Carroll. The more I learned the more I realized how ignorant I had been of what evolution was. My understanding of evolution was just one of the stepping stones that helped to lead me out of Christianity.
Evolution is not an idea that was intentionally designed to serve a purpose, rather it is called such because organisms evolve, that is to say they "change over time". Things do get better, but they can also get worse because of mutations. Many species have gone extinct because they couldn't adapt or evolve quickly enough to survive in a world of changing climatic conditions. Evolution makes a lot less sense if you posit a designer behind it, because if you look at most organisms there are many things that could have been made to work much better if they were intentionally designed. In humans for example our backs were designed very poorly for standing upright on two legs, that is why so many people have back problems. The eye is another part of our bodies that could have been designed better, most people start having to wear reading glasses in their late forties and early fifties.
If there really is an intelligent designer I think most of us would like to return our bodies for a better version. :lol:
Nice chatting with you,
Rose
sylvius
10-20-2013, 11:28 PM
With all due respect, Sylvie, I think it's garbage from Rashi. Gen 30:24 And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son.
No call for sexual connotation, IMO.
Not sure about your last sentence--are you implying something between Joseph and his mother? Rashi might be dwelling on an instance between Ham and the wife of Noah, but to make this accusation again Joseph is really over the top.. :eek:
The man Jacob wrestled with at the crossing of the Jabbok touched him "b'kaf yareicho", which seems to be kind of euphemism for to denote his male organ. (Genesis 32:26)
"kaf" = palm (of hand); sole (of foot); spoon; scale.
"yareiach" = hip, thigh.
Jacob became impotent, not able to get an erection anymore. And Benjamin hadn't been procreated yet.
So when Rachel named Joseph, "may the Lord add to me yet another son", she might have already foreseen the events at the Jabbok, which can be read also from the next verse Genesis 30:25,
It came to pass when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, "Send me away, and I will go to my place and to my land.
Rashi:
when Rachel had borne Joseph: When the adversary of Esau was born, as it is said (Obadiah 1:18): “And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau shall become stubble.” Fire without a flame does not burn anything a distance away. As soon as Joseph was born, Jacob trusted in the Holy One, blessed be He and desired to return [to Canaan]. — [from B.B. 123b, Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel, Gen. Rabbah 73:7]
The name Benjamin being declared as (Rashi on Genesis 35:18):
Benjamin means“the son of days” (בֶּן יָמִים) , because he was born in his (Jacob’s) old age, only that it is spelled with a “nun” like“at the end of the days (הַיָמִין)” (Dan. 12:13).
But also Joseph wasn't procreated in a normal way.
Genesis 29:31, Rachel was barren.
Genesis 30:14,
Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, "Now give me some of your son's dudaim."
"dudaim" = love apples.
some kind of aphrodisiac.
sylvius
10-20-2013, 11:51 PM
But also Joseph wasn't procreated in a normal way.
Genesis 29:31, Rachel was barren.
Genesis 30:14,
Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, "Now give me some of your son's dudaim."
"dudaim" = love apples.
some kind of aphrodisiac.
http://www.dudaim.org/
http://www.dudaim.org/graphics/dudas.jpg
Mandrakes
(Targum; Ibn Ezra; Radak, Sherashim; Josephus). Dudaim in Hebrew, from the word dodim denoting passion or carnal love (Radak, Sherashim; cf. Ezekiel 16:8, 23:17, Proverbs 7:16). It was called this because of its use as an aphrodisiac and fertility potion (Midrash Ne'elam, Zohar 1:134b). The mandrake (mandragora officinarum) is a herb of the beladonna or potato family. It has a thick perenial root, often split down the middle, like the lower limbs of the human body. Stalkless, it has large leaves that straddle the ground and violet flowers (cf. Rashi). In the spring, its yellow fruit, the size of a tomato, ripens. This fruit can have an intoxicating fragrance (Song of Songs 7:14).
The variety found by Reuben was a rare species that gives off deadly fumes when pulled from the ground (Midrash Aggadah on Genesis 49:14, quoted in Tzeror HaMor as Midrash HaGaluy; Toledoth Yitzchak on Genesis 49:14. Cf Niddah 31a; Josephus, Wars 7:6:3). In the Talmud, there appears to be a dispute as to whether Reuben brought home the violet flowers, the fruits or the roots (Sanhedrin 99b). Other sources indicate that he brought home two fruits (Tzava'ath Yissachar 1:3,5,7; Josephus, Antiquities 1:19:8).
Obviously, the Patriarchs and Matriarchs knew how to use these plants in mystical ways (Genesis 30:37). Still, Rachel did not bear children because of the mandrakes, but because of her prayers (Genesis 30:2, 30:22; cf. Zohar 1:157b). According to one ancient source, Rachel did not eat the mandrakes, but offered them to God (Tzava'ath Yissachar 2:6).
duxrow
10-21-2013, 05:34 AM
:sEm_oops: Jacob's WRESTLING with the angel is like WE wrestle with the scriptures--something we're [maybe] doing right now, and our "walk" is changed when we prevail in becoming believers in the One True GOD. :stop:
Jacob (name means supplanter) is father of Joseph, We All Know, BUT have you considered the only other Jacob, father of Joseph in Matthew 1:16 ?
Joseph's name (the Lord will add a son) was prophetic concerning the 12th son 'Benjamin', but when you consider from the viewpoint of Mary's husband, it meant that God was the bio father of Jesus.
For extra credit, consider how Enoch#7 and Lamech#9 are the only two with identical names used in Cain Line, and how the "Jacob father of Joseph" in Matthew 1:16, is Jacob#63 in the pedigree of Jesus! (Final Four being: Jacob to Joseph to Mary to Jesus). :cool3:
sylvius
10-21-2013, 05:56 AM
:sEm_oops: Jacob's WRESTLING with the angel is like WE wrestle with the scriptures--something we're [maybe] doing right now,
Something like creationist versus evolutionist?
duxrow
10-21-2013, 06:08 AM
Could be, Sylvie, Not that anything wrong about sex or aphrodisiac being part of Life. Candies dandy but liquor quicker..
SofS 7:13 "The mandrakes give a smell, and at our gates are all manner of pleasant fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for thee, O my beloved".
Smells fishy to me when someone imagines scripture was intended for gutter sense, but of course it was Reuben (in the days of wheat harvest?) who "defiled his father's bed". 1Chr5
duxrow
10-21-2013, 08:33 AM
Thanks David.. :animated_runner:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3062-WALK-by-Faith&p=43972#post43972
and..to "walk humbly", Micah 6:8, as reminded by David M. :winking0071:
sylvius
10-21-2013, 10:34 PM
The man Jacob wrestled with at the crossing of the Jabbok touched him "b'kaf yareicho", which seems to be kind of euphemism for to denote his male organ. (Genesis 32:26)
"kaf" = palm (of hand); sole (of foot); spoon; scale.
"yareiach" = hip, thigh.
Jacob became impotent, not able to get an erection anymore. And Benjamin hadn't been procreated yet.
So when Rachel named Joseph, "may the Lord add to me yet another son", she might have already foreseen the events at the Jabbok, which can be read also from the next verse Genesis 30:25,
It came to pass when Rachel had borne Joseph, that Jacob said to Laban, "Send me away, and I will go to my place and to my land.
Rashi:
The name Benjamin being declared as (Rashi on Genesis 35:18):
But also Joseph wasn't procreated in a normal way.
Genesis 29:31, Rachel was barren.
Genesis 30:14,
Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest, and he found dudaim in the field and brought them to Leah, his mother, and Rachel said to Leah, "Now give me some of your son's dudaim."
"dudaim" = love apples.
some kind of aphrodisiac.
So you might say that Benjamin was born, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (after John 1:13)
That it was God who added another son to Rachel, as fulfillment of the name she gave to her first child, "may the Lord add to me yet another son"
Which also might explain why Matthew and (after him) Luke did choose Joseph as name of Jesus's father :yo:
sylvius
10-22-2013, 01:53 AM
So you might say that Benjamin was born, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (after John 1:13)
That it was God who added another son to Rachel, as fulfillment of the name she gave to her first child, "may the Lord add to me yet another son"
Which also might explain why Matthew and (after him) Luke did choose Joseph as name of Jesus's father :yo:
That John had such thing in mind, might be clear from the story of the miraculous fish-catch.
Benjamin, Binyamin, means "Son of the right hand"
John 21:6,
“Cast the net over the right side of the boat and you will find"
They found the number of 153 large fish, the number 153 being the hidden value of the third day = day of the resurrection :winking0071:
There are so many things scientifically wrong with the Genesis account of creation. Here are three for starters:
1. There is light that causes day and night to happen before the sun and stars are made.
2. The oceans cover the planet before there is dry land.
3. Plants are formed before the sun.
Here is another example of problems with the order of the creation account in Genesis.
4. Gen.1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so ... And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Seed bearing plants did not form on the earth until 200-100 million years ago and grasses did not form until around 40 million years ago, this is long after the first animals came onto land from the sea approximately 530 million years ago. Even Dinosaurs were around before the first flowering plants and grasses, so it looks like once again Genesis got it WRONG!
If people are going to claim that the Bible is the word of god and that he created the heaven and earth, it should at least get its facts right.
GourmetDan
10-25-2013, 06:58 AM
Here is another example of problems with the order of the creation account in Genesis.
4. Gen.1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so ... And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Seed bearing plants did not form on the earth until 200-100 million years ago and grasses did not form until around 40 million years ago, this is long after the first animals came onto land from the sea approximately 530 million years ago. Even Dinosaurs were around before the first flowering plants and grasses, so it looks like once again Genesis got it WRONG!
Please learn the difference between assumption and science. The order you assume as fact is merely a multitude of assumptions.
If people are going to claim that the Bible is the word of god and that he created the heaven and earth, it should at least get its facts right.
If people are going to claim that the Bible has 'scientific' errors, they should at least understand the difference between science and assumption...
Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2013, 07:38 AM
Please learn the difference between assumption and science. The order you assume as fact is merely a multitude of assumptions.
You need to learn the difference between arguments based on logic and evidence vs. mere assertion.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2013, 08:20 AM
Please learn the difference between assumption and science. The order you assume as fact is merely a multitude of assumptions.
If people are going to claim that the Bible has 'scientific' errors, they should at least understand the difference between science and assumption...
This reveals your pathetic ignorance GourmetDan. All human knowledge involves "assumptions" to a greater or lesser degree. It is absurd to suggest that there could be any science entirely free of any assumptions.
And of course there could be no greater irony than a Bible believer complaining about "assumptions" since your entire religious delusion is one grand assumption almost entirely disconnected from reality.
What a joke! :lmbo:
GourmetDan
10-25-2013, 09:32 AM
This reveals your pathetic ignorance GourmetDan. All human knowledge involves "assumptions" to a greater or lesser degree. It is absurd to suggest that there could be any science entirely free of any assumptions.
Which is simply a rationalization that you believe justifies claiming that assumptions are 'science'.
And of course there could be no greater irony than a Bible believer complaining about "assumptions" since your entire religious delusion is one grand assumption almost entirely disconnected from reality.
The only greater irony is an evolutionist not realizing that their beliefs are no better than the creationist they so despise... :lmbo:
GourmetDan
10-25-2013, 09:36 AM
You need to learn the difference between arguments based on logic and evidence vs. mere assertion.
And you need to learn that 'logic and evidence' still includes engaging in logical fallacy.
That's what the 'logical' part of 'logical fallacy' stands for... :lmbo:
Please learn the difference between assumption and science. The order you assume as fact is merely a multitude of assumptions.
Anyone who knows how to read understands that the order of creation that Genesis lays out starting at Day 1 and continuing to Day 7 is not an assumption ... it's what the authors believed and the text says.
If people are going to claim that the Bible has 'scientific' errors, they should at least understand the difference between science and assumption...
I must say you are the perfect example of someone who seems to have very little scientific knowledge, yet makes the huge assumption that the Bible is true without any evidence. :lol:
Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2013, 03:46 PM
And you need to learn that 'logic and evidence' still includes engaging in logical fallacy.
That's what the 'logical' part of 'logical fallacy' stands for... :lmbo:
As if anything you wrote wasn't saturated with logical fallacies! What a pathetic joke.
Richard Amiel McGough
10-25-2013, 04:14 PM
This reveals your pathetic ignorance GourmetDan. All human knowledge involves "assumptions" to a greater or lesser degree. It is absurd to suggest that there could be any science entirely free of any assumptions.
Which is simply a rationalization that you believe justifies claiming that assumptions are 'science'.
It is not a "rationalization" to use a demonstrable fact in an explanation. All human knowledge, including science, involves assumptions. Your ignorance on such a fundamental point only confirms, yet again, that you are not qualified to comment on this topic.
And of course there could be no greater irony than a Bible believer complaining about "assumptions" since your entire religious delusion is one grand assumption almost entirely disconnected from reality.
The only greater irony is an evolutionist not realizing that their beliefs are no better than the creationist they so despise... :lmbo:
Perfect! You have exposed the fundamental logical fallacy of your position. You are equivocating on the word "believe" -
1) Scientific belief: To affirm a conclusion based on demonstrable logic and facts.
2) Religious belief: To believe in totally insane bullshit with no valid justification of any kind.
This is one of the most common tactics used by the corrupt creationists. You know there is no evidence for your position, so you try to level the playing field by dragging down science to your ludicrous level of unjustified belief like every good cult member. By your standard, you have no more reason to be a Christian than a Muslim or a Mormon or a Scientologist. All beliefs are the "same." You are insane, simple as that.
sylvius
10-27-2013, 01:47 AM
It is not a "rationalization" to use a demonstrable fact in an explanation. All human knowledge, including science, involves assumptions. Your ignorance on such a fundamental point only confirms, yet again, that you are not qualified to comment on this topic.
Perfect! You have exposed the fundamental logical fallacy of your position. You are equivocating on the word "believe" -
1) Scientific belief: To affirm a conclusion based on demonstrable logic and facts.
2) Religious belief: To believe in totally insane bullshit with no valid justification of any kind.
This is one of the most common tactics used by the corrupt creationists. You know there is no evidence for your position, so you try to level the playing field by dragging down science to your ludicrous level of unjustified belief like every good cult member. By your standard, you have no more reason to be a Christian than a Muslim or a Mormon or a Scientologist. All beliefs are the "same." You are insane, simple as that.
Scientific truth is outside reality.
cf. Mark 4:11-12
“The mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables, so that
‘they may look and see but not perceive, and hear and listen but not understand, in order that they may not be converted and be forgiven.’”
In fact it is illusion.
"The beast" is also a scientist:
Revelation 13:13,
It performed great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of everyone.
Matthew 24:24,
False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.
sylvius
10-27-2013, 02:59 AM
The reaper:
http://vimeo.com/77838376
Pharao did dream about him,
Genesis 41:8,
Now it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; so he sent and called all the necromancers of Egypt and all its sages, and Pharaoh related to them his dream, but no one interpreted them for Pharaoh.
all the necromancers of Egypt and all its sages = modern day scientists.
v. 15,
And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter for it, but I have heard it said of you that you can hear a dream to interpret it."
v. 45, And Pharaoh named Joseph Zaphenath Pa'neach,
Rashi:
Zaphenath-Pa’neach: He who explains hidden things, and Pa’neach has no parallel in Scripture. — [from Targum Onkelos]
Hebrew צָפְנַת פַּעְנֵחַ, gematria 828, like of "m'galeh mistarim" (Baal Haturim) = revealer of hidden things.
Interesting also:
828 = 1/2 x 1656, 1656 being the amount of years before the flood, and also full value of "Tarshish", to where Jonah intended to flee and also Paul's birthplace :yo:
duxrow
10-27-2013, 06:38 AM
OK Sylvie, sounds fine to me...
One Upsmanship
If you'd tell your dream to Joseph, he'd tell you what it meant..
But Daniel went 'one up' on him -- he'd tell you what you dreamt!
The DREAM and the INTERPRETATION are like the Old and New...
The Abstract and the Literal are both within our view!
Come on down to the real world and tell it like it is,
The test of actuality knows all about the monkey biz..
Water doesn't run uphill, horse races might be fixed,
The rabbit in the hat is slight of hand, and magic mixed.
Lots of people like to tell of wild and crazy dreams,
Imagination runs amok with surrealistic schemes.
From Picasso art to aliens; From mythology to fable,
Issues that we know aren't real, all get the abstract label.
Everybody speculates about the truth of what's unknown,
Arriving at solutions they can live with or condone...
But when the secret is revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt, :yo:
The person absolutely knows it's truth with major clout!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.