Creation vs. Evolution II

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

Good Morn. Observing your history of posts shows that if anything even remotely might have relevance to ideas about God or the Bible, for you that instantly becomes proof of your religious beliefs. I have a bit higher threshold of proof.

Dear redfern,

I guess you just don't know me then, definitely. If you are talking about who I give Thanks for, that is because they've said something that I agree with. If I don't agree, then I don't post positively. So no, I don't jump ships staying on the one that's afloat. I don't normally thank someone unless they deserve it. How can you say I am lousy at communicating. If that were true, then I would have been called aside and spoken to privately by one of my comrades here. Yes, I do have some. It's not me against the world. I haven't changed anything since my last thread from here, closed down. I didn't get here by sitting on my butt! In my heart, I have always wanted to respond one-on-one with each poster. I can't do that anymore because I'm gone one or two nights and then I was five or six pages behind. I do my best with this thread. I'm sorry to disappoint you. No enmity between us. I am just sharing.

You Are Still My Brother! Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Computers...Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist, invented computing machines.

From his own writings, Babbage believed that the worl changed according to fixed laws, and there were no miracles that broke these laws. He didn't believe in a 6 day creation. https://archive.org/details/ninthbridgewatai00babb

Cell phones[/B]...James Maxwell, Bible creationist, pioneered electromagnetic radiation theory upon which cell phones depend.

Whilst a Christian, he accepted that the Earth was very old.

But a theory of evolution of this kind cannot be applied to the case of molecules, for the individual molecules neither are born nor die, they have neither parents nor offspring, and so far from being modified by their environment, we find that two molecules of the same kind, say of hydrogen, have the same properties, though one has been compounded with carbon and buried in the earth as coal for untold ages, while the other had been “occluded” in the iron of a meteorite, and after unknown wanderings in the heavens has at last fallen into the hands of some terrestrial chemist. From Encyclopedia Britannica, 1875

Flight / airplanes... The Wright brothers who were both creationists invented the airplane after studying God's design of birds.

They didn't attend church, never credited God for any of their work or success, and from their comments were most likely humanists. I have never seen any quote suggesting that they were YECs, and you neglect to prove they were.

Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world

There's one (!) but he's not exactly a household name like the others on the list, and not exactly a prestigious scientist in his own right.

and even space travel.... Werner von Braun believed in a designer....opposing evolution. He headed the moon landing program.

He didn't head the Moon programme. And he only converted after his major work in Germany was completed, so his work on rocketry was certainly not guided by religiously inspired theories.

6Days — you keep on lifting thoughts from Creationist sites (your Wright brothers comment above was a direct cut'n'pase, for example) but you never check the sources. It makes you look either desperate or dishonest.

All you've shown here is that the serious scientists and aeronauts accepted the science of the day when they were doing their best work.

 

[gcthomas]

trillions of years (evolutionary) steps ahead.

Trillions?! Really?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I’m wondering how you know this. You must believe you are privy to the thought processes of every person who has advanced medicine in the past hundred years.

But I’ll go along with 6days' idea for a bit. Let’s think about medical training sans evolution, with Biblical medical knowledge substituted in the place of evolutionary understandings.

Students training in medicine take some general classes in biology. Now those classes will include instruction in how snakes can communicate with people utilizing human speech. Wow, just think how that is going to revolutionize biology – vocal cords are not really needed, the way we thought humans used muscles in the tongue and jaws and throat in forming audible sounds must have been misunderstood, cause that snake does fine without all of that stuff. And smart – why snakes can think through how to verbally entice people to do things they shouldn’t. Maybe being called a “snake in the grass” isn’t a put-down at all.

Donkeys? Students will study reports of donkeys that suddenly not only refuse to obey their masters, but actually argue with them, and win the argument. Cool.

Surfers suffering shark attacks? So what, heck, Jonah got completely swallowed and lived for several days inside, and came out pretty much unscathed.

When I am terminally ill, my 6days-trained doctor will assure me that after I die and start to stink, I very well might just get up and have dinner with my family and go back to work.

All men need to caution their wives that if the wives are disobedient, it makes perfect medical sense for them to instantly transform from living bones and tissue into a pillar of sodium chloride crystals.

The list goes on and on of the absurdities that are included in a claim that “Biblical creationism is the cornerstone of modern biology”. In fact no credible medical school in the world would stoop as low as 6days asks them to.

Dear redfern,

Maybe I had you pegged wrong. I thought you were a deist. I'll have you know, as you sit atop your high horse, that the serpent in the Garden of Eden communicated with mental telepathy. Same with the donkey. The serpent didn't become a snake until after he deceived Eve, who deceived Adam. Jonah was in the belly of a whale, not a shark. C'mon. And yes, Lot's wife did become a pillar of salt, as did the whole region of Sodom and Gomorrah. If God turned that entire land into salt, then simply turning Lot's wife into salt was no big deal. Well, she'll keep it private whatever she saw happening in Sodom. No tales for her to tell. You probably don't believe that God parted the sea for Moses. You are not a person of Faith, are you? The initial three angels who came to me, did not talk to me with their mouths either. It was an incredible loud, commanding voice that will never be so lowered that it wasn't with a mouth. The second and third angels that visited me, I did not see. But boy, did I hear. Same exact occurrence as the first angel. The first angel though, I did see. You don't even know what you would do if Jesus were returning 2morrow, now do you? You are eons behind all that is going on. Jesus' second coming is so near that the minute hand is one minute to midnight. Wrap things up in your life. You're in for quite an experience. If you want it to be a good experience, then drop on your knees and pray to God to accept you as one of His Sons. That is my best advice for you. You'd believe a fortune teller, but for me, you won't believe. Shows you how bad this Earth has become.

Are You A Christian Or Not?

Que Lastima!!

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

The part you are objecting to is "… Genetic change can not happen without pre-existing genetic information."

What do you mean by "genetic change"?

 

[redfern]

The part you are objecting to is "… Genetic change can not happen without pre-existing genetic information."

It is a mathematical given that you cannot change something without first having that something to change. Apparently evolution theory doesn't just harm society and science as a whole, it also addles brains in the logic department something fierce.

Of course in your creationist dishonesty you have to distort what the ToE says into a sickening parody. I do believe that a series of small changes, each one having some reproductive survival benefit for the organism, can lead from simple life forms to the diversity we see. By comparison, man’s rib to woman is a one-step monstrous change - a Biblical “hopeful monster” story that you assiduously believe in.

On my side there are thousands of museums and tens of thousands of fully documented studies that show the gradual progression of life forms over time. Your evidence is a disputed collection of ancient scribal writings recording some of the oral religious traditions that were current in a scientifically ignorant nomadic society.

 

[6days]

I haven’t wavered at all in what I mean by the ToE. You say that fits the Biblical creation model.

No, what I said was "empirical science showing changes in heritable characteristics fits the Biblical creation model explaining the diversity of life."

In any case the claim that evolutionism is crucial in things like space travel is false.

“Space travel” can (and hopefully will) include things like long-duration missions in which a firm understanding of biology is paramount.

Of course! (You pivot like Hillary and equivocate like the Donald)

 

[6days]

I do believe that a series of small changes, each one having some reproductive survival benefit for the organism, can lead from simple life forms to the diversity we see.

Your blind faith is admirable, sort of. Science however shows that the small changes are overwhelmingly deleterious leading to eventual distinction.

By comparison, man’s rib to woman is a one-step monstrous change - a Biblical “hopeful monster” story that you assiduously believe in.

We believe God's Word of special creation based on the evidence.

On my side there are thousands of museums and tens of thousands of fully documented studies that show the gradual progression of life forms over time.

The fact that organisms can adapt and do so rapidly is well documented. (That fits the Biblical model) That some believe a molecule can evolve into a molecular biologist is pseudoscience

 

[6days]

Charles Babbage, creationist but not Bible creationist

From his own writings, Babbage believed that the worl changed according to fixed laws, and there were no miracles that broke these laws. He didn't believe in a 6 day creation.

Likewise today, we believe that creation is sustained by fixed laws, and that science is possible because of an orderly creation.* The point, once again, is that while evolutionists claim their beliefs are crucial in computing science, space travel, food industry etc.... that science progresses because of the scientific method.* Beliefs about the past are usually irrelevant in developing new technologies or making medical advancements. Those beliefs however can interfere with progress when you start with a false premise.

 

[redfern]

… empirical science showing changes in heritable characteristics fits the Biblical creation model explaining the diversity of life.

You keep saying that empirical science supports the Biblical creation model, but you are impotent at showing that is true. If you disagree, then:

1) What empirical science can you present that shows that snakes have ever had the anatomy required for vocal speech?

2) What empirical science can you present that shows that a rib from a human male, deprived of its blood supply, severed from its neural connections to the spinal column and brain, etc. etc., will turn into an adult female?

3) What empirical science can you present that shows that sticks can turn into snakes?

 

[gcthomas]

Likewise today, we believe that creation is sustained by fixed laws, and that science is possible because of an orderly creation.* The point, once again, is that while evolutionists claim their beliefs are crucial in computing science, space travel, food industry etc.... that science progresses because of the scientific method.* Beliefs about the past are usually irrelevant in developing new technologies or making medical advancements. Those beliefs however can interfere with progress when you start with a false premise.

You aren't concerned that the scientists and engineers you picked were mostly not creationists? Will you just plough on as if you hadn't been caught out promulgating untruths again?

 

[redfern]

Science however shows that the small changes are overwhelmingly deleterious leading to eventual distinction.

If that is true, then all you need to do is refer back to the link at the end of post 21,234 from the old thread (you ignored it when I originally posted it). That link is to a scientific paper that deals exactly with what you are claiming, except it disagrees with your conclusion. The paper is fairly intensive mathematically, but actually nothing beyond what most engineers should have learned in their classes in multi-variable calculus. If you would like, I will agree to forward your proof that he is wrong to the author.

And a relevant note – he references over 90 previous studies that have relevance to the cumulative effect of mutations – “Mutation load and mutation-selection balance in quantitative genetic traits”, “The effect of deleterious mutations on neutral molecular variation”, “Mutation accumulation in finite outbreeding and inbreeding populations”, “Genetic loads and the cost of natural selection”, “Mutation, fitness, and genetic load”, “A phylogenetic estimator of effective population size or mutation rate”, “Population extinction by mutation load and demographic stochasticity”, “Molecular evolution over the mutational landscape”, “Deleterious mutations and the evolution of sexual reproduction”, “The mutation load in small populations”, “The mutational load with epistatic gene interactions in fitness”, “Dynamics of unconditionally deleterious mutations: Gaussian approximation and soft selection”, “Risk of population extinction from fixation of new deleterious mutations”, “The mutational meltdown in asexual populations”, “Genetic variability and effective population size when local extinction and recolonization of subpopulations are frequent …….(This list was from less than half of the references he used in his study).

I fully expect that rather than actually engaging the studies that disagree with you, you will elect to remain in your self-imposed ignorance and go on parroting your creationist lie whenever you think you might get away with it.

 

[redfern]

Dear redfern,
…
Are You A Christian Or Not?

Michael

Michael, you need to learn to focus on what is important. The label of “Christian”, or “atheist”, or “Hindu” says nothing about whether I (or anyone else) is being truthful. Are you interested in truth, or labels?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm sorry you feel that way

This has nothing to do with feelings; this is about you making a claim that you cannot back up.

as I said though I don't enjoy repeating myself so I don't.

You can't repeat something you never posted in the first place.

I've explained it in previous posts if you care to look back, otherwise take care man

So you're no different than the other creationists here. Figured.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionary biology does not contribute anything towards newer technologies or better medicines.

What a fundamentally dishonest person you are. Funny how the person claiming to be defending "God's word" is the one who can't go a couple of posts without being ridiculously dishonest.

Says a lot.

 

[Jose Fly]

Food... Modern day creationist John Sanford has inventions which improved food crops, feeding the world

Except as we covered earlier, all of Sanford's contributions to science took place while he was an "evolutionist", and once he underwent a religious conversion to creationism, his scientific productivity came to a complete and total halt.

 

[6days]

Science however shows that the small changes are overwhelmingly deleterious leading to eventual distinction.

If that is true, then all you need to do is refer back to the link at the end of post 21,234 from the old thread (you ignored it when I originally posted it).

This was some of your comments from #21234.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519385701671

I don't think you understand the article. Kondrashov admits the problem then tries to come up with a scenario to fit his belief in millions of years. Like the abstract says, Kondrashov is suggesting "Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations."

The vast majority of mutations are in non-coding areas of the DNA, and have almost no effect on the fitness of the individual. So your 100 mutations turns into probably less than 10 that really count

There are two mistakes with your statements.
1. In the past evolutionists thought non-coding DNA was mostly useless biological leftovers. So, mutations in the non-coding area were thought to have "almost no effect. *Science has been showing that the non coding DNA is largely functional serving regulatory purposes. So its wrong to dismiss 90% of mutations as "almost no effect". We still are learning just how much of the non coding DNA is serving a purpose...70%? 100%?
2. Even if we only look at your number of 10 mutations added to our genome each generation, that is devasting long term, to our population that produces less than 3 children for every two adults. IOW selection can't remove them.... they accumulate generation to generation.
Back in 1950 geneticist Muller started speculating about the problem of genetic load. His concern, based on the science of that time thought that the deleterious mutation rate could be as high as .3 per person per generation. P-149,150 Human Genetics. (Crow repeated similar concern in 1997)
BTW....the 100 additional mutation rate per generation is likely very low. In 2000 Crowell and Nachman estimated the number at 175 just within our reproductive cells.

If any of those 10 are seriously deleterious, selection will keep you from spreading that through the population.

Correct. The key word in your sentence is "serious". However, harmful mutations are still accumulating generation to generation in our genome.
So.... there is no such thing as individuals being "unusually free of deleterious changes".

I can’t help it if you are ignorant of statistics.

One of us might be ignorant. If you don't think you have many deleterious mutations, you are wrong. Kondrashov says that "The total number of new mutations per diploid human genome per generation is about 100...at least 10% of these are deleterious".
Kondrashov is an evolutionist. He admits the problem and then tries to explain it away. But in any case...there is no such thing as individuals being "unusually free of deleterious changes". And, in any case...I am glad to help you out with statistics.*

By contrast, the (admittedly rare) beneficial mutation will spread more rapidly (that is why it is called a beneficial mutation – it is one that aids in reproductive success).

That is what you must believe for evolutionism to work. That is what R.Dawkins and many others teach. But... it is more like wishful thinking than it is science.
Your "rare beneficial mutation" is likely not as beneficial as Talkorigins would have you believe. Generally, if not always these mutations might have a beneficial outcome, but at the expense of damage to preexisting information. For example, most if not all resistant bacterium have digressed genetically and are unable to survive without antibiotics. They no longer have the genome to survive multiple environments like the parent population. What evolutionism needs though, is not mutations that have a beneficial outcome but a mechanism that creates*

In the real world of science, these things have been studied for years.
Exactly!!!

... For about 100 years now.*

But those studies are not at the level of he silly misleading “100 mutations per generation” sound bytes that you guys have to rely on. They actually involve some pretty serious mathematics and research. For example, here is one from over 20 years ago

I agree. we shouldn't rely on sound bytes. I agree that 100 mutations per generation is a low estimate. But, even that low number causes problems to evolutionary beliefs. That is why many articles from evolutionists such as Kondrashov, Crowell, Kimura, Crow,Walker and Keightley and more admit the problem then try understand the data within their worldview.

Our phenome is evidence of a 'Super Intelligence'...even Natural selection appears to be a designed mechanism to help preserve life in our fallen world. The evidence suggests man has been on our planet a relatively short time, just as the Bible says. The evidence shows, death is a certainty..... and through Jesus Christ who defeated death, we can look forward to the day when "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

 

[Angel4Truth]

By falsifying scientific history, I am not referring to Darwin, I am referring to the Theory of Evolution.



What does gravity care about morals, or what does nuclear physics care about morals? Let science do what science is designed to do – help us understand how the physical world functions.

Which is why im asking why you would be so bothered that darwin was an abject and complete racist, why does it bother you so much? Its the logical conclusion to evolutionary theory anyway, put forth by Darwin. Since he is so wrong about that, why does the fact that he could be wrong about TOE too bother you?

Science also doesnt care about your emotions.

 

[redfern]

Which is why im asking why you would be so bothered that darwin was an abject and complete racist, why does it bother you so much?

In the first place, I am not convinced you guys aren’t exaggerating his racism as a way to discredit his theory – you know, like when you hate your neighbor but can’t do anything to him you kick his dog instead. But secondly, I have been clear that the correctness of his theory does not depend on his personality. I would like my heroes in science to all be nice guys, but in fact I already know some of them were not. I love Newton’s work, but by all I have read I probably would have been repulsed by Newton the man.

And remember, in science the ultimate judge of the correctness of a theory is supremely unconcerned with who discovers the theory or what type of person they were. That judge is nature itself. If you don’t abide by nature’s rules, you fail, period. Doesn’t matter if you are the pope, a bum, a Professor, a housewife, white, black, or even stupid. Nature doesn’t care.

Its the logical conclusion to evolutionary theory anyway, put forth by Darwin.

Blithering hogwash. Natural selection says those who have the most reproductive success will come to predominate. In the animal world, where conscious intent does not extend far beyond immediate survival, competition for critically scarce resources can lead to extinction of the less reproductively successful species. You really think Darwin was advocating genocide just because one part of human society can slaughter another?

Since he is so wrong about that, why does the fact that he could be wrong about TOE too bother you?

Except he isn’t “wrong about that”, that is simply a straw man you guys erect to beat up on. And the ToE has long since surpassed any dependence on Darwin. There are many thousands of highly qualified scientists who have extended our understanding of the ToE far past what was available to Darwin. As gcThomas eloquently phrased it recently, “if Darwin was revealed to be a racist bigot of the worst kind, a wife beater and poodle puppy torturer, it would have no effect on the veracity Theory of Evolution.”

I am bothered by the ToE being wrong to the same degree I am bothered that Newton was wrong about gravity and I just might float off into space tonight while asleep. What I am bothered by is religiously-motivated attacks on science.

Science also doesnt care about your emotions

I agree. And???

 

[Angel4Truth]

In the first place, I am not convinced you guys aren’t exaggerating his racism as a way to discredit his theory – you know,

I quoted the government on it. Look back in the thread and read - they maintain there is no way to seperate a "good" scientific darwin, from a "bad" social one, and admit the issues with his racism. However his racism, was part of his evolutionary theory which hitler tried to finish following out, so the science is mixed with the social thought by saying some are lower due to evolution.

And remember, in science the ultimate judge of the correctness of a theory is supremely unconcerned with who discovers the theory or what type of person they were. That judge is nature itself. If you don’t abide by nature’s rules, you fail, period. Doesn’t matter if you are the pope, a bum, a Professor, a housewife, white, black, or even stupid. Nature doesn’t care.

Sadly the TOE put forth by darwin included whites on top and others at the bottom of that food chain and hitler wanted to hurry it up. Like it or not, its the truth.