Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

So the dog ate your homework Michael? :AMR:

I know what convinces me that Darwinian evolution is true, it's the evidence that supports it, which also apparently convinces a great many Christians too, including Catholics.

Where you get the idea from that only a few thousand people "follow" Darwin is rather hard to understand. In all the natural sciences around the world Darwinian evolution is pretty much entirely regarded by scientists as a fact of life, there is no need for any ongoing argument against it, and there isn't one.
But these aren't people who simply "follow" Darwin and credulously believe whatever he said. They are mainly free thinking intelligent individuals who can and do work out for themselves whether reality and evidence matches the theory.

I'll have to conclude here that you simply can't tell me why the Bible texts should to be regarded as infallible literal truths while other religious scriptures can be dismissed.
Also I've never suggested that a God is not somehow behind it all nor that "evolutionists" are making a case against deities, because that is just not true.
What is evidentially true however is that the creationist account of things is plain wrong.

Dear alwight,

I can understand your thinking in this response much better! We should have shared it sooner. I was not aware that you felt this way. I know that you come from a rock and a hard place. It's good to hear your views on this matter. I've got to tell you that it is finally hitting 3:30a.m. here and I am logged way back. Everyone started writing fast and now I am several pages behind. I might have to just end things here and go to the front. But then, posts like yours, I might miss. So I'll figure something out. Will chat with you soon, alwight!!

Bless You And Your Days!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

There can only be One God who created everything.
Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I see. You have a liking for ancient creation myths from iron-age scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes. "God's invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen"??? Does it make sense to you that invisible things have been clearly seen?

 

[MichaelCadry]

There can only be One God who created everything.
Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Dear 6days,

I see how they all bug you and ask you things they don't even know.

I've copied the atheists response to your post and will post it now and the answer I have for it. Here goes:


Quote:
Originally Posted by 6days View Post To Jonahdog:

"There can only be One God who created everything.
Other than your Bible verse---why?"

My response:

Dear Jonahdog,

What about all of the others who believe that One God Created Everything? Have you thought about the other Christians, and Catholics, and ALSO the believers of Islam, etc.

Much of the world believes in One God. You are part of the unusual few. That's up to you, your poor man. Oh you don't know the truth about God which makes you a poor man. For shame on you. Better for the agnostics than for you. At least they aren't "sure" about a belief in God or not. Better than not believing in Him or not. Praise be to those who believe in God AND Jesus. They have a better chance. I do not have time to chat with you right now, so don't think I've given up on you or anything. It's just 4a.m. here and I should get to bed soon!! I am a few days behind on my reply answering on this thread. Will chat again soon, I believe.

Best Wishes,

Michael

:think: :rapture: :angel: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

There can only be One God who created everything.
Rom. 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Dear jonahdog,

Most people BELIEVE in God. You are the minority!! Speak English!! Look up the verse in your Bible or google and find out what it says yourself. You might then learn something. You're probably afraid of what it might say. Right?

6days says exactly what he should say about Our Father, Our God!! God may divvy up 'assignments' to Jesus, His Son, or to His angels, to get work done. He doesn't need help from another God, if there were one, which there isn't. God tells us He is the ONLY God. So that is Who we believe; not an Atheist, unfriendly, person.

Sincerely,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael was correct.

ERV's are simply one more thing that science is proving evolutionists wrong on ( like "junk" DNA, "useless" organs like appendix, Neandertals not breeding with humans, psuedogenes etc).*

For creationist and Biblical perspective there are many articles on ERV'S, such as....
"Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’"
http://creation.mobi/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools?"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/junk-dna/human-endogenous-retroviruses-hervs-gods-tools/

"Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?"
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/do-shared-endogenous-retroviral.html?m=1

Dear All here,

6days post is correct here!! You have gotten way ahead of me in Page Nos. of this Thread. I will try to answer those addressed to me as soon as possible. I am still on Page 899. Will be caught up soon. Thanks for understanding. I may answer new posts and old posts at the same time, so like today where I had to do that, I make sure you get answers on the same day that you write them. I try. So, I can only thank you for your patience. Be With You Soon, God Willing!! Right now, I am going to bed. It is getting near 5a.m. here. Much Love To You All!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9:
​

 

[alwight]

Michael, ERVs can indicate something very specific. It isn't about just having them, it is about where exactly they appear in the genome. They are foreign randomly acquired DNA, if two similar species both have them at the same place it is a virtual certainty that they were once the same species when they were acquired.
Chimps and humans do share some of the same ERVs in exactly the same places, which can only rationally mean that they were the same species when they were acquired.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Michael was correct.

ERV's are simply one more thing that science is proving evolutionists wrong on ( like "junk" DNA, "useless" organs like appendix, Neandertals not breeding with humans, psuedogenes etc).*

For creationist and Biblical perspective there are many articles on ERV'S, such as....
"Large scale function for ‘endogenous retroviruses’"
http://creation.mobi/large-scale-function-for-endogenous-retroviruses

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools?"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/junk-dna/human-endogenous-retroviruses-hervs-gods-tools/

"Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?"
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/2012/01/do-shared-endogenous-retroviral.html?m=1

Well, your creationist eye candy and apologetics 6days will obviously try to raise and focus on a few doubts wherever it can. That's to be expected of course, which indeed they do as best they can, but there seems to be no attempt made by ID proponents to falsify or even seriously contradict genuine scientific conclusions.
They sometimes do seem to accept that yes ERVs are probably acquired but then waffle on about being intelligently designed with a purpose and about "junk" DNA having a real purpose and science previously being wrong about it, therefore science is probably more often wrong than right, right?

But there is nothing in your links that I've found that actually contests any scientific conclusions imo, it merely tries to give the appearance that it does. But if you want to highlight something that you think shows that specific ERVs being in their very specific positions in very specific species is not a strong indication of their common ancestry, at least for secular discussion, then please do.

Of course otoh if your YEC God exists and is for some reason miraculously micromanaging all DNA by divine means, which from an earthly scientific perspective appears to have a rational and scientifically explainable sequence of events in a natural world then perhaps you would just explain the need for such a Godly deception?

On a similar tack, if we simply concern ourselves for a while with natural science rather than having to find a role for a YEC type intelligent designer, it seems that DNA dynamically changes and adapts over time as life evolves, and as we've seen it even seems to acquire new sequences from outside...

btw 6days why couldn't God simply have used evolution as a method, or do YECs perhaps worship an ancient scripture more than God?

...It seems from DNA (again from a secular scientific pov) that, our simian distant ancestors would have been able to produce their own vitamin C at some stage, as most other comparable animals can still do today, but since fruit was a main source of food for simians then an ability to self produce it just wasn't a selectable requirement. This ability has duly become lost in humans due to a particular mutation, as I'm rather sure The Barbarian or Alate_One has already told you about.
ERVs too also provide more compelling specific solid indicators of our common ancestry due to the same changes being present in the same places within the genome. From a purely scientific and naturalistic view the evidence of common descent seems particularly convincing enough for me, whatever an ancient scripture may otherwise say.

 

[alwight]

Dear jonahdog,

Most people BELIEVE in God. You are the minority!! Speak English!! Look up the verse in your Bible or google and find out what it says yourself. You might then learn something. You're probably afraid of what it might say. Right?

6days says exactly what he should say about Our Father, Our God!! God may divvy up 'assignments' to Jesus, His Son, or to His angels, to get work done. He doesn't need help from another God, if there were one, which there isn't. God tells us He is the ONLY God. So that is Who we believe; not an Atheist, unfriendly, person.

Sincerely,

Michael

Michael, I know this is your thread, but the topic is not about the existence of God or atheism, it is about Creation or Evolution.
Darwinian evolution does not preclude God, nor does it exclude the Bible as a figurative or allegorical basis for belief.
I see no contradiction at all in both believing in God and in concluding that Darwinian evolution is true.

Creationists otoh must deny scientific conclusions because for them it doesn't matter what natural evidence based science may say because it is automatically presupposed to be wrong if it appears to contradict a literalist interpretation of Genesis, regardless of how rigorous the science.
This is about evidence based rationality v fundamentalist creationism not theism v atheism.
6days however seems to go one step further because he will pretend that science says what he wants it to say rather than what it does

 

[6days]

I see. You have a liking for ancient creation myths from iron-age scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes.

I do have a liking for great literature.*

Others do too.....

Thomas Huxley
"The BIBLE has been the Magna Charta of the poor and oppressed.* The human race is not in position to dispense with it"

Sir Isaac Newton
"have a fundamental belief in the BIBLE as the Word of G-D, written by men who were inspired.* I study the BIBLE daily."

Abraham Lincoln
"I believe the BIBLE is the best gift G-D has ever given to man.* All the good of the Savior of the world is*communicated to us through the Book.* But for it,* we could not know right from wrong?"

Immanuel Kant
"The existence of the BIBLE, as a book for the people, is the greatest benefit which the human race has ever experienced.**
Every attempt to belittle it is a crime against humanity"

John Quincy Adams*
"So great is my veneration for the BIBLE that the earlier my children begin to read it, the more confident will be*my hope that they will prove useful citizens to their country and respectable members of society"

Sir Walter Scott
"The most learned, acute, and diligent student cannot, in the longest life, obtain an entire knowledge of the BIBLE.**
The more deeply he works the mine, the richer and more abundant he finds the ore."

Queen Elizabeth
"To what greater inspiration and counsel can we turn than to the imperishable truth to be found in*
this Treasure House, the BIBLE?"

Pascal
“I prefer to believe those writers who get their throats cut for what they write."

Napoleon
"The BIBLE is not merely a book;* it is a Living Being, with an action, a power, which invades everything that*
opposes its extension,* behold!* It is upon this table:* This Book, surpassing all others;*
I never omit to read it, and every day with some pleasure"

Ronald Reagan
"Of the many influences that have shaped the United States into a distinctive nation and people, none*
may be said to be more fundamental and enduring than the BIBLE"

Prof. Edward Meyer,*University of Berlin, *(authority on*ancient history)
“…There is no ground at all for refusing to accept these oldest traditions (Bible) as historically trustworthy in all essentials, and in their chronological ordering of history.”

Kurt Wise, paleontologist
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture."

"God's invisible qualities ... have been clearly seen"??? Does it make sense to you that invisible things have been clearly seen?

Certainly! Can your friends clearly see that you are trustworthy? Etc
We can gain some understanding of God through His creation. But, for a fuller understanding, we need His Word.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, your creationist eye candy and apologetics 6days will obviously try to raise and focus on a few doubts wherever it can. That's to be expected of course, which indeed they do as best they can, but there seems to be no attempt made by ID proponents to falsify or even seriously contradict genuine scientific conclusions.
They sometimes do seem to accept that yes ERVs are probably acquired but then waffle on about being intelligently designed with a purpose and about "junk" DNA having a real purpose and science previously being wrong about it, therefore science is probably more often wrong than right, right?

But there is nothing in your links that I've found that actually contests any scientific conclusions imo, it merely tries to give the appearance that it does.

IOW, 6days did a Google search and posted whatever creationist websites came up.

 

[TheDuke]

Everyone life forms uses the same DNA CODE.
Every life forms has the same molecular motors like APP Synthaze.
Evidence of a single Designer.

Evidence of common origin actually, but I see why you get confused.

Maybe, just maybe, there are many gods responsible and they were just practicing industrial espionage, eh?

 

[TheDuke]

What people believe does not change who He is. There can only be One who created everything.

Is that so, then why does he waste the very first commandment admitting that there are others?

 

[TheDuke]

Dear jonahdog,

Most people BELIEVE in God. You are the minority!!
...
He doesn't need help from another God, if there were one, which there isn't. God tells us He is the ONLY God. ...

Sincerely,

Michael

As a matter of fact, you're a bit wrong. The majority of the world's population does believe in deities, but most of them have OTHER deities
AND, already today there are more atheists in the first world than religious people. The trendline is not so much in your favour!

& check out my previous note...


Cheers!

 

[TheDuke]

Wrong. Many atheists believe many things. For example, atheists BELIEVE that life came from non life. Atheism often is not an absence of belief, but it is a highly religious belief system. *

No, atheists have no religion (clue: it's in the title)
Abiogenesis deals with the question of exactly how life arose from organic matter.

Now why is it not a belief? Simply because it won't be defended against all evidence (at this point you should be able to recognize your own behaviour).
The moment there is a better scientific explanation, atheists will embrace it with pleasure.

But I know where you and your kind will be: in total denial, as always.

 

[TheDuke]

What you have shown is that evolutionism is not science...it is not falsifiable....it is faith based.

Recall it was you who brought up the so called tree of life to show common ancestry beliefs were not faith based. Recall it was you who said "tree of life" is the result of evidence from genetic analysis and comparative anatomy.
There is absolutely no need for faith in science!"*

What I have shown is that the evolutionists *'tree of life' is a tangled mess according to an evolutionist in Scientific American'. The 'tree' is turning out to be more like a garden according to genetic analysis. *That garden...that evidence is a fit with the Biblical model.

My dear fellow,

I don't know what's going on in that head of yours, clearly you have some sort of preinstalled filter that bounces off any reason and logic in order to protect that fragile indoctrination.

Tell me which words to use in order to convey the same point yet again:

You think that the tree of life is wrong because there's no agreement over some aspects of it.
--> Maybe you're projecting the house-of-cards nature of your precious bible onto the granite pillars of science.
Common descent in not faith because it is inferred from actual, real evidence.

Also it IS FALSIFIABLE by virtue of the same evidence.
If you can find any living being on earth that does not fit into the tree of life due to its genotype or phenotype incongruence - there you have it! That would show the theory is wrong or incomplete.

So, good luck!!!

 

[6days]

Wrong. Many atheists believe many things. For example, atheists BELIEVE that life came from non life. Atheism often is not an absence of belief, but it is a highly religious belief system.

No, atheists have no religion (clue: it's in the title)

Strawman fallacy.

What I actually said is that atheism is often a highly religious belief system. They attend meetings...they argue vigoursly in religious forums defending their beliefs....they buy books and magazines about their belief system...they attend conferences, etc

Abiogenesis deals with the question of exactly how life arose from organic matter.

What I said, and what is correct is that atheists believe life came from non life. This inspite of science and the law of biogenesis telling us that life does not arise from non living material.

 

[6days]

What people believe does not change who He is. There can only be One who created everything.

Is that so, then why does he waste the very first commandment admitting that there are others?

It does not say there are other Creators. It DOES say we are not to have other gods. I think everyone has a 'god' or two. Some people have a girlfriend that is their god; others have booze, or education, or sex, or sports, or.....

 

[6days]

Everyone life forms uses the same DNA CODE.
Every life forms has the same molecular motors like ATP Synthaze.*
Evidence of a single Designer.

Evidence of common origin actually, but I see why you get confused.

No... not confused*. You have a different belief about the past so you attempt to interpret evidence through your belief system.

I believe that the appearance of design in things such as molecular motors is evidence that leads to our Creator.

 

[DavisBJ]

Everyone life forms uses the same DNA CODE.
Every life forms has the same molecular motors like APP Synthaze.
Evidence of a single Designer.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that getting life to start naturally would require the development of some intricate mechanisms. So once it did get started, it’s not much surprise that all life forms we know of seem to trace back to that primitive DNA early life. But apparently your God isn’t any better at the job, since as you say, he hasn’t demonstrated anything more than evolution did. Is He too incompetent to come up with more than just the DNA solution?

 

[DavisBJ]

I do have a liking for great literature.

Others do too.....

I don’t contest the literary value of the Bible. Nor do I contest the literary value of a number of other fictional accounts.

But when the question turns to factual accounts, then my interest is less in literary content than in verifiable fact. In the Bible, I’m still stuck on how to get some guy to live in the intestines of a really big fish for a few days.

We can gain some understanding of God through His creation. But, for a fuller understanding, we need His Word.

That’s where the rub is. With the exception of some Christians who are religiously motivated, by and large the gulf between what science has found about the creation and your nomadic creation tale is getting wider and wider.

 

[6days]

I don't know what's going on in that head of yours, clearly you have some sort of preinstalled filter that bounces off any reason and logic in order to protect that fragile indoctrination.

Ad hominem fallacy.

"An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence."

Also it (common ancestry beliefs)IS FALSIFIABLE by virtue of the same evidence.*
If you can find any living being on earth that does not fit into the tree of life due to its genotype or phenotype incongruence - there you have it! That would show the theory is wrong or incomplete.

Your beliefs are strong it seems but science is not about beliefs. *Notice we can substitute the words "our common Designer" into your statement. Our beliefs about the past are not science.