Creation vs. Evolution

[StanJ]

You say that like it is a bad word.

Can you list your presumptions in regard to science?

When you have done that I will list mine.

This way you will be seen for the liar you are for claiming "Having presumptions makes you a hypocrite."

I'm not the one making them, you are, This is typical of people of your ilk.
All mouth, NO substance.

 

[6days]

YECs know about genetic variation. Though they reject genetic variation (calling it mutation because it seems to help their argument - ........ I am very familiar with YEC strategies for arguing.

WOOOHOOOOO..... This must be your 'lucky' day since I respond to you so rarely.

If you knew YEC strategies for arguing as you claim.... then you would realize your whole argument is false. Of course we don't reject genetic variation, instead embracing it as evidence of our Creator. I have often argued that variation allows organisms to survive in various environments....and its possible because of pre-existing info and programming of our genome. *I'm sure you can find numerous posts in TOL by Stripe, Enyart, Jefferson and others who see genetic variation as evidence of the Biblical Creator.
Here is one from myself from previous. I was discussing speciation in this post, but also touched on programmed variation within kinds......

"As a Biblical creationist, I think I could give you quite a few examples of speciation. But keep in mind that the term 'species' and 'speciation' do not have an precise, universally excepted definition. Different species are simply different variations of God's created kinds.*
.......
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

Evolutionists in the past have often misunderstood the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation or adaptation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. One very interesting case involves sticklefish.*

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
Science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

Rapid changes are sometimes bewildering to evolutionists (They often use words such as 'surprise')..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most creatures with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

How amazing are the deeds of the Lord!
All who delight in him should ponder them.
Everything he does reveals his glory and majesty.
Psalm111:2,3

 

[alwight]

Unlike natural selection, you can create! And you have created a bit of a strawman. Beneficial traits can sometimes arise...but selection itself is not creating. Selection often / usually is a process of eliminating - never creating.*

Selection is simply that, selection.
It isn't about having a specific intent or purpose, it isn't about creating anything specific at all.
If those individuals which are selected for tend to have certain beneficial attributes then it's those attributes that may well be passed on and amplified over generations as selectable beneficial traits in the future.
The Panda's "thumb" for example isn't really a thumb at all, just a fairly crude adaption that happened to be of some benefit specifically for pandas, but which has a rather different original purpose otherwise.

For example we could selectively breed long haired cattle over several generations until the genetic info for short hair has been eliminated.*

A given length of hair is simply a value that determines length. There is no reason to suppose that any information would be lost whichever length of hair was currently more selectable.

Evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis *(Former wife of Carl Sagan) explained "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create."

Creation of new traits is simply the result of selection pressures usually over long periods of time and many generations. There is nothing specific that is going to be created by any particular round of selection, but what does happen over time and continued selection is something called "evolution", not creation . :idea:
New traits must evolve they are not created.

That is a bit of different topic since Kdall seemed to be confused about what natural and artificial selection is capable of.*

We have likely debated before if mutations are capable of creating, or causing a gain of complex specified information. We disagree on that.

I don't think Kdall wants to be confused and isn't, whereas you probably want to see confusion where there really isn't any. :nono:

 

[noguru]

I'm not the one making them, you are, This is typical of people of your ilk.
All mouth, NO substance.

So then you claim you have no presumptions in regard to science?

I am willing to admit my presumptions in that regard. You are the one who claimed I was being a hypocrite.

 

[Kdall]

So in your lay opinion no amount of artificial or natural selection would ever produce any beneficial traits that didn't already exist, and that genetic information cannot ever increase, by say gene duplication, which could then adapt as a new trait, right?
Geneticists who say otherwise are either incompetent fools or part of an atheistic/anti-creationist conspiracy, right?

According to 6days, inarguably yes

 

[Kdall]

Not what I said Kdall.....God created EVERYTHING. What you see as evolution is not what God created. He established pro-creation based on the Genesis 1 verses I showed you. The words "after their own kind" is key. The fall, sin, corrupted that process, which is why there are so many apparent anomalies, that some scientists like to point out. The fact that they START at the wrong place just means their science is corrupted from the get go.

Hahaha so the fact that they start from a position other than, "God did it. I don't know how but He did. I have no evidence, but trust me anyway," means that they're incorrect? Hilarious

 

[Kdall]

and here we have the basic crux of the so-called science of evolution.
It's called presumption. Yet those who make these presumptions slam people of faith because they just believe in God's Word?
How typically hypocritical.

Actually the reason for the canines are A) they are bears, and their ancestors passed on these sharp canines, B) the sharp canines are still somewhat useful in breaking and splitting large bamboo stalks, and C) as mentioned already, self-defense.


StanJ, before I ask my real question to you, I will preface it with this one: Do you know what a marsupial is?

 

[Kdall]

6days is correct in recognizing that selection – whether natural or artificial – does only that – it selects. Selection does not create new diversity, that has to be done by some mechanism that introduces novel capabilities into the species for selection to act on (such as mutation). When evolutionists get a bit lazy (as sometimes happens) and refer to natural selection as if it was synonymous with evolution they leave themselves exposed to legitimate criticism from the creationist community.

Fair point, but if you look at my posts you'll see that I always mention mutations as the ultimate source of diversity

 

[Kdall]

I'm not the one making them, you are, This is typical of people of your ilk.
All mouth, NO substance.

Yet you presume that the Bible is 100% accurate and infallible based on very little, and in many cases no, real world evidence. All you base your presumptions on is one narrow view of "In the beginning, God...." while science bases its 'presumptions' on tried and tested theories that have undergone decades or centuries of peer scrutiny.

Science's presumptions = tested, observed, supported by evidence
Your presumptions = unobserved, untestable, have no scientific evidence behind them, and are completely based on a 4000 year old story that's unverifiable

I rest my case

 

[Kdall]

WOOOHOOOOO..... This must be your 'lucky' day since I respond to you so rarely.

If you knew YEC strategies for arguing as you claim.... then you would realize your whole argument is false. Of course we don't reject genetic variation, instead embracing it as evidence of our Creator. I have often argued that variation allows organisms to survive in various environments....and its possible because of pre-existing info and programming of our genome. *I'm sure you can find numerous posts in TOL by Stripe, Enyart, Jefferson and others who see genetic variation as evidence of the Biblical Creator.
Here is one from myself from previous. I was discussing speciation in this post, but also touched on programmed variation within kinds......

"As a Biblical creationist, I think I could give you quite a few examples of speciation. But keep in mind that the term 'species' and 'speciation' do not have an precise, universally excepted definition. Different species are simply different variations of God's created kinds.*
.......
Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

Evolutionists in the past have often misunderstood the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments. Evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years. The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation. Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome. It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion. It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation or adaptation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. One very interesting case involves sticklefish.*

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
Science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

Rapid changes are sometimes bewildering to evolutionists (They often use words such as 'surprise')..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most creatures with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

How amazing are the deeds of the Lord!
All who delight in him should ponder them.
Everything he does reveals his glory and majesty.
Psalm111:2,3

You reject speciation prior to 6000 years ago, but because the Bible has lineages adding up to an Earthly age of 6000 years, you accept it afterwards. That right there proves that EVERYTHING you believe is not based in science at all, but rather purely on one specific, hotly disputed detail in the Bible. If the lineages had added up to 20,000 years, then you'd be whining about how "evolutionists" we're covering up the fact that the Earth is 20,000 years old instead.


PS: you previously rejected the fact that Darwin's finches are different species. You don't even seem to know what you believe yourself

 

[noguru]

WOOOHOOOOO..... This must be your 'lucky' day since I respond to you so rarely.

"Lucky" or "unlucky" depending upon perspective. I really don't care if you respond to me or not. I continue to respond to misinformation as I see fit and time allows. You throw so much misinformation around that I would prefer you just stopped posting. But I am not in control of your wacky mind. Perhaps if you took some time and actually read my posts, you would not continue making the same errors.

If you knew YEC strategies for arguing as you claim.... then you would realize your whole argument is false. Of course we don't reject genetic variation, instead embracing it as evidence of our Creator.

My point was that you reject it as evidence that natural processes (which were also created by the creator) are responsible for the novel characteristics of organisms. So again you are being deceitful.

I have often argued that variation allows organisms to survive in various environments....and its possible because of pre-existing info and programming of our genome.

Yes, preexisting in the creation. The only difference between you and I, is that you think all information was jam packed into every single genome of every organism on earth. Something for which we have no evidence. On the other hand I accept that God allowed natural processes to produce this variation for Him. Something which all the evidence supports.

*I'm sure you can find numerous posts in TOL by Stripe, Enyart, Jefferson and others who see genetic variation as evidence of the Biblical Creator.

I've read the tripe from Stripe, Enyart, Jefferson and you. You guys consistently paint yourself into a logical/illogical box because you do not stick closely to reality while you are painting your masterpiece of deception. Which you can only escape with either willful ignorance or more of your deceit.

Here is one from myself from previous. I was discussing speciation in this post, but also touched on programmed variation within kinds......

"As a Biblical creationist, I think I could give you quite a few examples of speciation. But keep in mind that the term 'species' and 'speciation' do not have an precise, universally excepted definition. Different species are simply different variations of God's created kinds.*

Can you show us those kinds and the mechanistic boundaries between them?

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model. So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.*

I was taught about YECism in the history part of science class. I am very familiar with your lord, Bishop Ussher, and the chronology he published prior to the onset of modern science.

Evolutionists in the past have often misunderstood the ability of animals to quickly adapt to changing environments.

Some maybe have. But science is progressive. Science adopts the new evidence into the theory. Unlike your chosen model from Ussher's chronology.

Evolutionists thought change and speciation was a slow gradual process taking millions of years.

It is slow for the most part. Though we do know that flora/fauna can evolve quickly (that is geological time) when in a new niche environment/biome. That is natural selection working and whittling down all the previously neutral variations because they now represent a reproductive disadvantage.

The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation.

Yes, and we have no evidence that flora and fauna has been able to rapidly evolve from the few brought on the ark to the vast variation we see today.

Adaptation~ speciation usually happens when natural selection, 'selects' information that already exists in the genome.

Yes, because most mutations are immediately neutral in regard to reproductive advantage. The reproductive advantage of those genetic variations is usually only realized when they have colonized a new environment/biome.

It is a process identified by a creationist (Edward Blyth) before Charles Darwin popularized the notion.

Darwin looked at Blyth's work with artificial selection. He transferred the logical analysis to nature. And eureka! He stumbled on his idea of natural selection. We have covered this subject many times. Darwin even gave Blyth credit for that contribution. Why do you keep bringing it up?

It is a process similar to that of breeding animals... artificial selection. Selection is a process that usually eliminates unwanted information... It does not create new information.*

Yes, again we have covered this. Why do you keep bringing it up?

As an example Darwin noted different species of finches in the Galapagos Islands. Evolutionists thought that these species have developed over the course of up to 5,000,000 years. That time frame was not based on science, but on the belief that everything evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions and millions of years. Real science involving observation has now shown that these different species likely developed over the course of a few hundred years.*

Darwin never claimed that it took finches 5 million years to evolve to their current state on the Galapagos Islands. He was simply noting the two mechanisms of genetic variation and natural selection. So again, you are being deceitful.

But even a few hundred years is a very long time. Speciation or adaptation can happen over the course of just a few generations.... a matter of several years. One very interesting case involves sticklefish.*

Another singular example of rapid evolution. But still not what is needed to fill that gap in time and biodiversity from Noah till now.

Another example of rapid speciation (creationist model) comes from a study of guppies in Trinidad. One of the researchers speaking from the evolutionary perspective says " ‘The guppies adapted to their new environment in a mere four years—a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates determined from the fossil record" IE. He says that the actual observed rate does not match the evolutionary assumptions of million of years in the fossil record.*
Science; Predator-free guppies take an evolutionary leap forward (Morell)*

Rapid changes are sometimes bewildering to evolutionists (They often use words such as 'surprise')..... but make perfect sense in the creationist model. God created most creatures with a very polytypic genome ( programmed variation) . They can change and adapt to various situations because of the wide array of info in their DNA.

:think:

Are you paying attention at all?

How amazing are the deeds of the Lord!
All who delight in him should ponder them.
Everything he does reveals his glory and majesty.
Psalm111:2,3

Yes, the Lord is amazing.

You, not so much.

 

[StanJ]

So then you claim you have no presumptions in regard to science?

I am willing to admit my presumptions in that regard. You are the one who claimed I was being a hypocrite.

No, when it goes against what the Bible says, it IS WRONG, no presumption. I also KNOW that most who push the so-called science of evolution don't really know much other than what they have been told is the truth.

Did I? Where?

 

[StanJ]

I see you seize upon the use of a single word that connotes some degree of uncertainty, and try to make that into an indictment far broader than just the subject that was being discussed. Is this your normal MO?

Only because it is the basis with which most who purport to quote real science, word their opinions. It happens with the so-called scientists as well.

 

[Kdall]

No, when it goes against what the Bible says, it IS WRONG, no presumption.

Smh. That IS a presumption

I also KNOW that most who push the so-called science of evolution don't really know much other than what they have been told is the truth.

And that, too, is a presumption. For someone who doesn't make presumptions, you sure make a lot of them


Explain to me why the Bible is more reliable than the Quran?

 

[StanJ]

Yet you presume that the Bible is 100% accurate and infallible based on very little, and in many cases no, real world evidence. All you base your presumptions on is one narrow view of "In the beginning, God...." while science bases its 'presumptions' on tried and tested theories that have undergone decades or centuries of peer scrutiny.

Science's presumptions = tested, observed, supported by evidence
Your presumptions = unobserved, untestable, have no scientific evidence behind them, and are completely based on a 4000 year old story that's unverifiable

I rest my case

I don't presume Kdall, I believe. Normal for a real Christian. Narrow is the gate that leads to Eternal Life.

As you NEVER show or cite any real or observable science, we wouldn't know would we?

 

[Kdall]

I don't presume Kdall, I believe. Normal for a real Christian. Narrow is the gate that leads to Eternal Life.

As you NEVER show or cite any real or observable science, we wouldn't know would we?

'Believing' isn't the same as 'being certain of,' dingus. A lot of people believe that Bigfoot exists. Does that make it a fact?

I'll ask you for a third time, Stan: will you read a link I post? If so, please pick any specific issue and I'll gladly post it for your reading pleasure

 

[StanJ]

That IS a presumption

Are you really a Christian? I ask because you have no idea what faith is.

And that, too, is a presumption. For someone who doesn't make presumptions, you sure make a lot of them
Explain to me why the Bible is more reliable than the Quran?

Nope...I guess you're not really a Christian. You should not show you are then.

 

[Kdall]

Are you really a Christian? I ask because you have no idea what faith is.



Nope...I guess you're not really a Christian. You should not show you are then.

I'm pretty comfortable in my standing as a Christian. Jesus told us to question our faith and seek truth. You're the one coming up short there.

You didn't tell me how you know that the Bible is more reliable than the Quran. Running from tough questions again?

 

[StanJ]

'Believing' isn't the same as 'being certain of,' dingus. A lot of people believe that Bigfoot exists. Does that make it a fact?

I'll ask you for a third time, Stan: will you read a link I post? If so, please pick any specific issue and I'll gladly post it for your reading pleasure

Now you gone to the proverbial fall back for most of your ilk, and being supercilious doesn't engender ANY respect or credulity whatsoever.

You continue to go in circles, and as you have very clearly demonstrated you have NO credulity whatsoever here, I doubt very much I would take the time to read ANY link you post. If YOU can't make your point and cite fact, I have no compunction to play your games.

 

[StanJ]

I'm pretty comfortable in my standing as a Christian. Jesus told us to question our faith and seek truth. You're the one coming up short there.

You didn't tell me how you know that the Bible is more reliable than the Quran. Running from tough questions again?

Your standing has been questioned so it really doesn't matter how YOU feel. No, Jesus said to believe and question spirits of false teaching. Apparently you believed them without question, and now want everyone else to.
No thanks.

If you ask a stupid question like this in a Christian forum you get exactly what you deserve....