Creation vs. Evolution

[Kdall]

It DOES seem too hard to understand for most evolutionists. Each successive generation is less fit because of genetic burden. Secular geneticists recognize the problem and refer to it with such terms as 'the population bomb'.

You are so thick. Just read!

Each successive generation can only be less fit if artificial circumstances come into play. In nature, a less fit animal will get killed faster than others and therefore NOT pass on its genes.

Now, explain your population bomb to me so that I can A) dismiss it as a YEC lie, or B) prove that you've misrepresented a term that actually is an established evolutionary principle

 

[everready]

RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

You are so thick. Just read!

Each successive generation can only be less fit if artificial circumstances come into play. In nature, a less fit animal will get killed faster than others and therefore NOT pass on its genes.

Now, explain your population bomb to me so that I can A) dismiss it as a YEC lie, or B) prove that you've misrepresented a term that actually is an established evolutionary principle

Maybe you can explain how the religion of evolution became science?

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems.

The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/


everready

 

[DavisBJ]

It DOES seem too hard to understand for most evolutionists. Each successive generation is less fit because of genetic burden. Secular geneticists recognize the problem and refer to it with such terms as 'the population bomb'.

I suspect the question of whether or not mutations would inevitably result in genetic degradation, or whether positive mutations might be able to more than compensate for the deleterious effects of negative mutations is something that would be amenable to mathematical modelling. Has such modeling been done, and if so, what were the results?

 

[Kdall]

Maybe you can explain how the religion of evolution became science?

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems.

The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/


everready

I've never heard that any religion was based on evolution, but I can tell you why evolution itself isn't one. It started as an idea, then scientists went out and gathered data objectively that ended up suggesting that A) the Earth itself is very very old and B) that transitional fossils and observed speciation that was determined to be due to Mendelian genetics (Gregor Mendel was a Christian monk btw) all pointed to evolution being far more than an idea.

Evolution has real, tangible evidence backing it up, as opposed to the majority of any religion's belief system, which is based purely on ancient texts alone and has not or can not be verified scientifically

 

[MichaelCadry]

If only the fittest survive, then that should make the next generation at least as, or more fit, genome-wise, right? Look how we've surpassed our ancestors' intelligence, more superior inventions, better educated, etc. We've continually succeeded further in a lot of ways. Right?

Michael

 

[Stripe]

I suspect the question of whether or not mutations would inevitably result in genetic degradation, or whether positive mutations might be able to more than compensate for the deleterious effects of negative mutations is something that would be amenable to mathematical modelling. Has such modeling been done, and if so, what were the results?

http://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-has-not-been-solved
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/haldanes-dilemma-what-does-science-really-say/
http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.php

 

[MichaelCadry]

You Said IT!!

You Said IT!!

Maybe you can explain how the religion of evolution became science?

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism, gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe, presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are fundamentally evolutionary systems.

The cosmos, with its innate laws and forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form (as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world religions—Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/

everready

Dear everready,

Good job!! Yes, too many are believing in evolution because if it seems to make sense, it must be true. But sometimes, two things might seem to make sense, but only one of them is right. It happens, doesn't it. There is only one right path to God, Jesus said: the narrow path, and not the wider path{s}. If God tells me that He created man in the same week as He created the Universe, and in the same week that He created the Sun and Moon, and the hosts of Heaven, that's fine by me. It is written, and He spoke it and it was done. He spoke all of creation into being. He is God. What do you want Him to do? Come down and spread some tree seeds and wait for them to grow before creating man. He created the trees and plants already grown, whose seed was in itself. And He created man and woman, whose seed was in themselves. He didn't create Adam as a sapling or seed, but as a young man, not a baby or young boy. Now would you rather believe in the story of Creation, or instead, evolution? Which one is poison?

Praise God,

Michael

 

[The Barbarian]

It's simple physics: No matter how good the selection process, no random change will ever improve a genome.

It's been demonstrated again and again. No point in denying it. Even honest creationists admit the fact. Would you like to see some more examples?

The ideas evolutionists present always hide an intelligent agent acting behind what they call random.

In the sense of a Creator who made nature to produce all of it. He makes this clear when He tells us that non-living matter produced life as He intended. For some reason, a Creator that great bothers you.

And there's no reason to fear Him for that. In the end, YE creationism is based on an irrational fear.

 

[Jonahdog]

It's been demonstrated again and again. No point in denying it. Even honest creationists admit the fact. Would you like to see some more examples?

I see you ask that question over and over again. Anyone here ever respond "Yes, show me?"

 

[The Barbarian]

I suspect the question of whether or not mutations would inevitably result in genetic degradation, or whether positive mutations might be able to more than compensate for the deleterious effects of negative mutations is something that would be amenable to mathematical modelling. Has such modeling been done, and if so, what were the results?

Yes. The creationists stopped looking at any such studies made after 1957. The reason they won't read more recent papers on the subject was in that year, Haldane published a paper which seemed to show that the cost of selection was higher than a population could withstand, in order to have a new mutation spread in it.

Haldane wrote:
I shall try to make quantitative the fairly obvious statement that natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.

One of his assumptions was that any beneficial mutation must be the result of the environment changing to make the old genotype maladaptive, and thus the number of deaths would be excessive.

But observation has shown that favorable mutations do not necessarily require such a degradation. And this does not include the founder effect. Haldane himself wrote:
I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf
(p.23)

He also alludes to the issue of founder effect as a problem for his idea, but doesn't pursue the question. That's a particularly important, given that the evidence shows most speciation occuring in small, isolated populations.

He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.

Won't he?

 

[The Barbarian]

I see you ask that question over and over again. Anyone here ever respond "Yes, show me?"

No. It's mostly rhetorical; I know that the last thing they want to see is evidence. But I wanted to make the point a bit sharper.

In that case, I'm just dealing with the creationist cycle:

1. put forth a spurious argument
2. get that argument soundly refuted
3. shut up for a while
4. go to (1.)

 

[Kdall]

No. It's mostly rhetorical; I know that the last thing they want to see is evidence. But I wanted to make the point a bit sharper.

In that case, I'm just dealing with the creationist cycle:

1. put forth a spurious argument
2. get that argument soundly refuted
3. shut up for a while
4. go to (1.)

2.5. accuse opponent of "moving goalposts," "strawman" argument, or "begging the question fallacy"

 

[Stripe]

It's been demonstrated again and again. No point in denying it. Even honest creationists admit the fact. Would you like to see some more examples?In the sense of a Creator who made nature to produce all of it. He makes this clear when He tells us that non-living matter produced life as He intended. For some reason, a Creator that great bothers you.And there's no reason to fear Him for that. In the end, YE creationism is based on an irrational fear.[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"]Yes. The creationists stopped looking at any such studies made after 1957. The reason they won't read more recent papers on the subject was in that year, Haldane published a paper which seemed to show that the cost of selection was higher than a population could withstand, in order to have a new mutation spread in it.Haldane wrote: [COLOR="DarkRed"]I shall try to make quantitative the fairly obvious statement that natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.[/COLOR]One of his assumptions was that any beneficial mutation must be the result of the environment changing to make the old genotype maladaptive, and thus the number of deaths would be excessive.But observation has shown that favorable mutations do not necessarily require such a degradation. And this does not include the founder effect. Haldane himself wrote:[COLOR="DarkRed"]I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision[/COLOR]
[url]https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf[/url]
(p.23)He also alludes to the issue of founder effect as a problem for his idea, but doesn't pursue the question. That's a particularly important, given that the evidence shows most speciation occuring in small, isolated populations.[COLOR="DarkRed"]He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.[/COLOR[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma[/url]But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.Won't he?[/QUOTE][QUOTE="The Barbarian, post: 0"]No. It's mostly rhetorical; I know that the last thing they want to see is evidence. But I wanted to make the point a bit sharper.In that case, I'm just dealing with the creationist cycle:1. put forth a spurious argument2. get that argument soundly refuted3. shut up for a while4. go to (1.)

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, preferring your anti-Bible "billions of years."

 

[DavisBJ]

Meanwhile, you reject the plain teaching of scripture, preferring your anti-Bible "billions of years."

Are there reputable scholars of ancient Hebrew that hold that the ancient Hebrew word for “day" in the Genesis creation account could correctly be understood to mean a long period of time?

 

[everready]

Yes. The creationists stopped looking at any such studies made after 1957. The reason they won't read more recent papers on the subject was in that year, Haldane published a paper which seemed to show that the cost of selection was higher than a population could withstand, in order to have a new mutation spread in it.

Haldane wrote:
I shall try to make quantitative the fairly obvious statement that natural selection cannot occur with great intensity for a number of characters at once unless they happen to be controlled by the same genes.

One of his assumptions was that any beneficial mutation must be the result of the environment changing to make the old genotype maladaptive, and thus the number of deaths would be excessive.

But observation has shown that favorable mutations do not necessarily require such a degradation. And this does not include the founder effect. Haldane himself wrote:
I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision
https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/haldane2.pdf
(p.23)

He also alludes to the issue of founder effect as a problem for his idea, but doesn't pursue the question. That's a particularly important, given that the evidence shows most speciation occuring in small, isolated populations.

He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.

Won't he?

Creationists stopped looking at those studies when they realized evolutionists were a fulfillment of scripture.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.

Won't he?

(no, actually Stipe cut and ran, again)

Everready explains why evidence is evil:

Creationists stopped looking at those studies when they realized evolutionists were a fulfillment of scripture.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Do you think it was wise to bring that one up with you guys dodging facts? You may profess yourself to be wise, but you would have probably been better off not doing it this time.

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Like you guys claiming that your "designer" might be a "space alien?"

Right now, you're probably feeling a little... um...

Yep. That one.

 

[everready]

Barbarian observes:
He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.

Won't he?

(no, actually Stipe cut and ran, again)

Everready explains why evidence is evil:




Do you think it was wise to bring that one up with you guys dodging facts? You may profess yourself to be wise, but you would have probably been better off not doing it this time.



Like you guys claiming that your "designer" might be a "space alien?"

Right now, you're probably feeling a little... um...

Yep. That one.

Yes, your evidence is quite evil when it does this.

Romans 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


everready

 

[Stripe]

Are there reputable scholars of ancient Hebrew that hold that the ancient Hebrew word for “day" in the Genesis creation account could correctly be understood to mean a long period of time?

Evolutionists love the appeal to authority. No matter what their investment in a discussion, they cannot stay away from it.

Barbarian observes:[COLOR="DarkRed"]He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.[/COLOR[url]http:// en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Haldane% 27s_dilemma[/url]But I'm sure Stipe will utilize his mathematical expertise to show us that Haldane's dilemma will still work in the real world, with those factors included.Won't he?(no, actually Stipe cut and ran, again) explains why evidence is evil:Do you think it was wise to bring that one up with you guys dodging facts? You may profess yourself to be wise, but you would have probably been better off not doing it this time.Like you guys claiming that your "designer" might be a "space alien?" Right now, you're probably feeling a little... um..[IMG]http:// curezone .com /upload/ClipArt /emotions /Emoticons_32x32/Foot _in_Mouth.png[/IMG]Yep. That one.

Meanwhile, you reject the Bible in favor of your "billions of years" and lie about what scripture says.

 

[The Barbarian]

I note that Stipe's "mathematics against evolution" story backfired, again. Stipe, how about setting aside your revision of Genesis, and tell us about the math of Haldane's Dilemma, and how it works in the real world with those factors?

Show your work.

Or dodge and make excuses again. We already know what you're going to do

 

[Stripe]

Tell us about ... math.

Why would I want to talk math with a guy who thinks that "six days" and "billions of years" are compatible? :idunno: