Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Here is another description of the aquifer under the desert (it is not a lake of sea, unfortunately.)

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...etected-beneath-worlds-deserts/9651438102018/

 

[DavisBJ]

This was a response I made to a comment that Cadry made about the Piltdown hoax:

I am not aware that we know who perpetrated the fraud known as Piltdown man. Do you? Some scientists were probably remiss in not detecting the fraud earlier than they did, but the deception was against the scientific community, not by science. It is far more likely that someone like you, with a pathological hatred of the success that science has had when compared with religion, who was the one that perpetrated the deception.

6days used that as an excuse to author a post disparaging of science well beyond the question of the Piltdown man culpability:

The hoax was swallowed by most of the evolutionary community and promoted as a proof of common ancestry in textbooks and scientific journals for many years. Unfortunately evolutionists often are so eager to believe something that scientific investigation is shoddy. After all.... it should have been noticed that filing marks were on the bones to make a chimp jaw fit in a human skull.

Sadly evolutionists are still the same today. They often are eager to believe and forgo investigation promoting false conclusions. Recent examples include "Sediba" and "Ida" and last years announcement "confirming cosmic inflation". Ida was promoted as a missing link with a news conference carried around the world. Likewise the announcement from the South Pole telling the world they had evidence of primordial waves...a smoking gun of the Big Bang.

The pattern is as typical now as back in Haeckels day .... grand announcements for evolutionism. ...science proves it wrong.... slow reluctant and quiet retractions.

In his response 6 days didn’t touch at all on the question of who actually was the culprit in putting together the hoax. Instead, he didn’t hesitate to dishonestly lump a technical study in cosmology right in with some disputed anthropology results as though they were all performed by “evolutionists”. It would be nice if creationists were a bit more honest in recognizing that there are branches of science that, though they may conflict with Genesis timelines, still exist independently of the ToE.

Though my initial comment indicated that Cadry regularly disses science when he doesn’t like what it says, 6days is afflicted with the same malady.

 

[User Name]

The hoax was swallowed by most of the evolutionary community and promoted as a proof of common ancestry in textbooks and scientific journals for many years. Unfortunately evolutionists often are so eager to believe something that scientific investigation is shoddy. After all.... it should have been noticed that filing marks were on the bones to make a chimp jaw fit in a human skull.

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science - Piltdown Man

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science - Nebraska Man

​

 

[noguru]

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science - Piltdown Man

How Creationism Taught Me Real Science - Nebraska Man

​

Good videos. But I predict 6days will continue to use this fallacy in the future. Fallacies are all he has. And he has not corrected one of them since he began posting here. Yet there are some who take his advice.

 

[MichaelCadry]

~

~

Good videos. But I predict 6days will continue to use this fallacy in the future. Fallacies are all he has. And he has not corrected one of them since he began posting here. Yet there are some who take his advice.

Hey noguru! Good to hear from you! Someone said I use too many punctuations. I listened to the second video on your post. Seems good to me, except the dating methods. I don't trust the Man being Created to look like an ape. You see, you're trumped by the fact that man was created in the image of God and Jesus. Jesus said, "He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father." Jesus was in human form then, when He said it. God created man and ape separately. Your efforts to believe that man was descended from an ape man or a chimp is in error. Nice try.

God Bless Your Heart With Tons Of Love!

Michael

 

[noguru]

Hey noguru! Good to hear from you! Someone said I use too many punctuations. I listened to the second video on your post. Seems good to me, except the dating methods. I don't trust the Man being Created to look like an ape. You see, you're trumped by the fact that man was created in the image of God and Jesus. Jesus said, "He who hath seen me, hath seen the Father." Jesus was in human form then, when He said it. God created man and ape separately. Your efforts to believe that man was descended from an ape man or a chimp is in error. Nice try.

God Bless Your Heart With Tons Of Love!

Michael

What is "the image of God"?

Also man was not created to look like an ape. There is common ancestry, according to evidence, with Bonobo chimps. Hominids are a distinct genus and homo sapien sapien is a distinct species within that genus.

You really need to be more accurate about these ideas.

At any rate, you missed the whole point about 6days deceit/lack of accuracy. His tendency to avoid accuracy and continue with deception indicates the quality of his character. And a message often has only as much integrity as the individual who carries it.

I wish you peace
noguru

 

[DavisBJ]

Seehigh asked Cross Reference:

By what process do you think that bacteria develop resistance to medications?

To which CR deflected the question about evolution to a question about origins:

Well, first you have to have bacteria to work with. If bacteria develop resistance they must first exist that they might develop said resistance. Get my drift?? So where did they spring from?

Seehigh, this is a bit late, but I recommend you simply note that there are good Christians who believe that God created the first bacteria at the same time as other life forms. Some of these good Christians see evolution as a mechanism put in place by God, and they study the details of how evolution allows the bacteria to evolve resistance to antibiotics.

 

[M. A. Williams]

Whether you consider me or others friend or foe, I'd like to take a moment to extend my best wishes and hope you all have a blessed Lord's Day.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear M. A. Williams,

Hey, no problem. You're always welcome here. We are a place of those who believe in evolution and those who believe in the Creation story in the Bible. Are there those who believe neither? I can't really say that I know. I think that some agnostics believe both!! And some Christians and 'Others' believe both also. It's a world of too many choices, maybe. Of course, I believe in the Creation Story. "The mystery of God shall be finished, as He hath declared to His servants, the prophets." {See Rev. 10:7KJV}. You will all be quite surprised and so will I. I only know as much as the Lord gave to me to know, so all of the details, I do not know. I was supposed to go get Chemo 3 mos. ago, and haven't done it. More on that later.

Okay, will get going for now.

May God Blow The Wind Into Your Sail,

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Re antibiotic resistant bacteria.... The bacteria always remain bacteria and often less fit than other bacteria.

If the antibiotic-resistant bacteria are actually “less fit”, then does this mean the bacteria are becoming less virulent, and that eventually they will become so “unfit” that they can be pretty much ignored?

 

[The Barbarian]

If the antibiotic-resistant bacteria are actually “less fit”, then does this mean the bacteria are becoming less virulent, and that eventually they will become so “unfit” that they can be pretty much ignored?

One common way that bacteria become more fit, is to become less virulent. If bacteria can live on your skin or digestive tract without causing you harm, it usually means a more secure environment for the bacteria. And the host is much less likely to evolve defenses against such bacteria.

There are a few forms of bacteria that go the other route, becoming more virulent, to more quickly spread in a population, but their rarity suggests that this is an evolutionary dead end.

It goes without saying that a virulent bacterium, in modern human society is more fit if it is antibiotic resistant, which is why antibiotic resistance has evolved and is spreading.

 

[Hedshaker]

Whether you consider me or others friend or foe, I'd like to take a moment to extend my best wishes and hope you all have a blessed Lord's Day.

Well that makes a pleasant change from the usual, "I'm here to pick a fight," post. And in return, on behalf of the threads sceptics, may we wish you a good secular and rational day in science and reason :thumb:

 

[6days]

In his response 6 days didn’t touch at all on the question of who actually was the culprit in putting together the hoax.

We don't know but have some pretty good suspicions.*
But WHO did it is not as important as HOW most of the evolutionary community so easily fell for the hoax, teaching it as fact*in school books, newspapers, magazines, and journals. What is important is WHY evolutionists fell for the hoax.....it fit their beliefs.*

Instead, he didn’t hesitate to dishonestly lump a technical study in cosmology right in with some disputed anthropology results as though they were all performed by “evolutionists”.

The connection between the points was that many evolutionists still often are quick to believe poor conclusions when it fits their beliefs. *The connection is that things haven't changed much in how evolutionists make grand announcements and slow, quiet retractions when science proves them wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

It is not interesting that the Bible proposes sea fossils on mountain tops are due to a global flood

It's another reason creationism isn't accepted by scientists. Mt. Everest doesn't merely have sea fossils on top of it. It's made of sea fossils. The rock of which it's made was once coastal shelf in Northern India. But the collision of Asia with India buckled up the coastal rocks to form the Himalayas.

If your belief was true, the fossils would only be on the surface. There is no way to reconcile the actual evidence with a flood.

while the theory of evolution proposes that it's the movement of plates over many millions of years colliding?

The collision is still going on. We can measure the movement of India and Asia, which are still coming together a few centimeters a year, and the continuing rise of the Himalaya mountains, likewise slowly rising.

You've inadvertently introduced evidence that your belief is wrong.

 

[gcthomas]

Interestingly, the Piltdown hoax was not accepted by the consensus and was challenged years before the test proof arrived. But 6days knows this as he has been told before - lying his just his thing, and he can't change.

 

[DavisBJ]

Re: Dr. John Sanford:

Agree... He is more clever than your average scientist. He has published over 80 scientific publications...has over 30 patents, including the gene gun which has helped feed billions of people.

And at one time, evolutionism trumped science for him. He says "I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being."

Haaa... you sure find it difficult to admit that Biblical creationists such as Sanford understand science, and understand genetics.

Wikipedia: "Sanford is a prolific inventor with more than 32 issued patents. At Cornell Sanford and colleagues developed the "Biolistic Particle Delivery System" or so-called "gene gun".[3][4][5]He is the co-inventor of the Pathogen-derived Resistance (PDR) process and the co-inventor of the genetic vaccination process. He was given the "Distinguished Inventor Award" by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995. He has founded two biotechnology companies, Sanford Scientific and Biolistics. In 1998 he retired on the proceeds from the sale of his biotech companies, and continued at Cornell as a courtesy associate professor."

Clearly Dr. Sanford has good academic credentials, an impressive work history, a number of technical innovations in cellular biology to his credit, and an enviable number of peer-reviewed articles in his field. By all appearances, he is in a prime position to meet his colleagues head-on in showing that Darwinian evolution was not supportable scientifically. Yet, after a bit of searching on my part, among all of his peer-reviewed publications in the mainstream scientific journals, I only saw two that seemed to focus on issues that might be problems for natural selection (these had to do with how influential either beneficial or deleterious mutations would have to be for natural selection to be influenced by them). The great majority of his mainstream published articles dealt with techniques he seemed to have pioneered in introducing materials into cells.

I see that there are a couple of books that Dr. Sanford helped author supporting YEC views, but these are marketed to a specific religious audience rather than his scientific peers who are not beholden to his religious convictions. 6days, can you identify technical articles or books where Dr. Sanford, in the field where he is recognized as an authority, showed his academic colleagues that they were wrong in believing in evolution?

 

[User Name]

Interestingly, the Piltdown hoax was not accepted by the consensus and was challenged years before the test proof arrived. But 6days knows this as he has been told before - lying his just his thing, and he can't change.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.

Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[gcthomas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

What are you saying with that quote?

 

[User Name]

What are you saying with that quote?

It helps to explain creationists' posts on the subject of this thread.

 

[gcthomas]

It helps to explain creationists' posts on the subject of this thread.

Ah, yes. It is not cognitive dissonance itself that is the problem, but how you feel with it.

Ta