Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

6days

New member
I don’t contest the literary value of the Bible.
OK. ..pardon me then but it did seem like it when you said it was "... creation myths from iron-age scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes."
Those iron age scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes put out some pretty good literature!
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
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.
You started out so well there!

But in your second sentence you threw logic and science out the window.

Trying to find patterns to fit your belief system is not science. If anything science supports the Biblical model. The law of biogenesis tells us that life does not arise from non life. God's Word tells us that life came from life...the Life-giver.
 
Last edited:

gcthomas

New member
You started out so well there!

But in your second sentence you threw logic and science out the window.

Trying to find patterns to fit your belief system is not science. If anything science supports the Biblical model. The law of biogenesis tells us that life does not arise from non life. God's Word tells us that life came from life...the Life-giver.

The law of biogenesis? Haha. You are funny.

(You were trying to be funny, weren't you?)
 

6days

New member
alwight said:
6days said:
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-fun...s-retroviruses

"Human Endogenous Retroviruses (HERVs)—Evolutionary “Junk” or God’s Tools?"
https://answersingenesis.org/genetic...vs-gods-tools/

"Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?"
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.ca/201...viral.html?m=1

But there is nothing in your links that I've found that actually contests any scientific conclusions imo...

...that contests scientific conclusions?

I think you mean evolutionary conclusions which science proved to be false.*

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "useless appendix" were wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "Junk DNA" were wrong.

* Science proved evolutionary conclusions about different races of humans was wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about coelacanths was wrong.

*Science proved that evolutionary conclusions about Neanderthals were wrong.

Just as...
*Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong.

As one of the above articles concludes.....
"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates."
 

DavisBJ

New member
Those iron age scientifically illiterate nomadic tribes put out some pretty good literature!
Ever read The Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowolf, Aesop’s Fables? You need to realize there is a difference between good literature and factual accounts. The Hebrews were both savage and scientifically illiterate, and it shows in their writing.
 

DavisBJ

New member
If anything science supports the Biblical model.
Rather than an interminable argument over what is good science, I will simply note that across the world, almost every major university, in their science curriculum, contradicts the silliness you want to have us believe is correct. I wonder what it would be like to be in your shoes, knowing that hundreds of PhDs every year are awarded using and advancing science that you think is fallacious. Whereas the Bible, your most revered source of scientific truth, is the same as was used more than a thousand years before Newton or Galileo or Kepler or Maxwell or Lord Kelvin.
 
Last edited:

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Dear DavisBJ,

I think that reading the way in which Noah was supposed to build his ark was highly interesting. I think of it more than I used to as I have grown. Have any of you atheists really checked it out?? Do you know how much a cubit is?? Do you know where to find these dimensions in the Bible. If so, let me know, and I will post them. See Gen. 6:14 for starters. It is an enormous undertaking and it is seaworthy, because God wouldn't let Noah do all that hard work and have it collapse during the Flood. I've read in a Science magazine that the Ark could be something deep below in a crevasse of Mt. Ararat, but it's too hard to get at. It's frozen in place by tons of ice for starters. Okay, I'll get going for now. Let me know what you think.

Your Good Buddy,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture: :rapture:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Rather than an interminable argument over what is good science, I will simply note that across the world, almost every major university, in their science curriculum, contradicts the silliness you want to have us believe is correct. I wonder what it would be like to be in your shoes, knowing that hundreds of PhDs every year are awarded using and advancing science that you think is fallacious. Whereas the Bible, your most revered source of scientific truth, is the same as was used more than a thousand years before Newton or Galileo or Kepler or Maxwell or Lord Kelvin.


Dear Davis,

Oh yeah, stick out a magazine, having an article by Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, or Lord Kelvin and see how well that is received. By millions, eh? The Bible is the best seller, not your scientists' writings. Who are you kidding??

Stay Calm,

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :rapture: :thumb:
 

MichaelCadry

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


Dear The Duke,

Because God knows Satan's handiwork. He knew that the people would want a god symbol that they could SEE. God is invisible for the most part. So He didn't work out like they had hoped for. We now have a Cross and Jesus to hang around our neck. Those who serve God and Jesus, and the Holy Ghost!!! He was trying to get through to a people that there was only ONE GOD!! Still the Hindus and Confucianism, Taoisms, Buddhists, Hinduism, etc. Still, Christianity can definitely hold it's own. And Islam believes in One God. They are not ALL nuts. There are some very good Muslims. Many who want to embrace Christianity. They want copies of the Bibles. There is a shortage. Someone needs to buy them some. They are too poor to buy them themselves.

Oh well, I didn't plan on writing a lot here. You take good care of yourself and I'll chat with you in a bit!!

Regards & Sincerely,

Michael

:think: :rapture: :rapture: :guitar:
 

MichaelCadry

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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!!!


Dear TheDuke,

I hardly believe in Common Descent!! God made each creation the way that He wanted each creation to be. Similar, different, whatever. Some with 4 legs, some with 6, some with 2, and the millipede and centipede with a lot!! Now Crabs and spiders have 8. It goes on and on!! Snakes don't have any legs. That is the problem for the serpent who beguiled Eve in the Garden of Eden. God said 'upon thy belly thou shalt go and lick the dust of the earth all thy life; in other words; a snake. Clams with one leg?? Starfish with 5??

Well, I can't spend too long on each post. I am supposed to be on Page 899. I can't start from way back there now, but I will try to check those posts out soon.

Many Blessings!!

Michael
 

alwight

New member
But there is nothing in your links that I've found that actually contests any scientific conclusions imo......
that contests scientific conclusions?

I think you mean evolutionary conclusions which science proved to be false.*

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "useless appendix" were wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "Junk DNA" were wrong.

* Science proved evolutionary conclusions about different races of humans was wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about coelacanths was wrong.

*Science proved that evolutionary conclusions about Neanderthals were wrong.

Just as...
*Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong.

As one of the above articles concludes.....
"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates."
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? :rolleyes:

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.
I think it's clear that I went into plenty of detail about what I did mean and practically all of it was ignored by you it seems.
Science doesn't "prove" things it comes to rational evidence based conclusions open to better ideas and yes it will sometimes falsify previous ones based on later or better evidence or to modify them.
How exactly is "Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong."? Or is this just more creationist eye candy from a YEC website?
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
Ever read The Iliad, The Odyssey, Beowolf, Aesop’s Fables? You need to realize there is a difference between good literature and factual accounts. The Hebrews were both savage and scientifically illiterate, and it shows in their writing..
If you see equivalency between those books and the Bible then perhaps you should spend some time on book club websites disparaging the authors of those books.*

God's Word is different than the illiad. His Word is inerrant on all matters including history, science and even on our eternity. His Word convicts, challenges and inspires. His Word is loved and revered across the world from world leaders to the poorest of the poor. His Word is also rejected and hated...exactly as Jesus said it would be.
 

6days

New member
alwight said:
Science doesn't "prove" things it comes to rational evidence based conclusions open to better ideas and yes it will sometimes falsify previous ones based on later or better evidence or to modify them

True....we agree.

alwight said:
How exactly is "Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong."?
In much the same way that science proved evolutionists wrong on things like "junk DNA" and "useless appendix". *Evolutionists commonly attribute lack of function to common ancestry because of their belief system. Then science often shoes it was not a lack of function, but instead a lack of knowledge. *(Likewise with Dawkins arguments about poor design, science shows that it is his arguments that are poorly designed)
 

6days

New member
DavisBJ said:
I wonder what it would be like to be in your shoes, knowing that hundreds of PhDs every year are awarded using and advancing science that you think is fallacious.

Pfffft...

Come, come my friend. You know that statement isn't true.*

DavisBJ said:
Whereas the Bible, your most revered source of scientific truth, is the same as was used more than a thousand years before Newton or Galileo or Kepler or Maxwell or Lord Kelvin.

Yes... just as true and accurate now as then.*

As Johann Kepler said, "Great is our Lord and great His virtue and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him, ye heavens, praise Him, ye sun, moon, and planets, use every sense for perceiving, every tongue for declaring your Creator…to Him be praise, honour, and glory, world without end. Amen"
 

Jose Fly

New member
...that contests scientific conclusions?

I think you mean evolutionary conclusions which science proved to be false.*

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "useless appendix" were wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about "Junk DNA" were wrong.

* Science proved evolutionary conclusions about different races of humans was wrong.

*Science proved evolutionary conclusions about coelacanths was wrong.

*Science proved that evolutionary conclusions about Neanderthals were wrong.

Just as...
*Science is now proving that evolutionary conclusions about pseudogenes and ERV'S are wrong.

As one of the above articles concludes.....
"Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates."

So now we can add one more falsehood to the list of things you will repeat ad nauseum, with no regard for accuracy.

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.
 

TheDuke

New member
So now we can add one more falsehood to the list of things you will repeat ad nauseum, with no regard for accuracy.

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

Yes, welcome to my world, trying to have a normal conversation with this guy......
 

TheDuke

New member
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


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.



So in your opinion:
Religion != highly religious belief system

pls do explain


I'm giving up trying to penetrate the firewall in your mind about what the lack of faith is, since it appears rather pointless :doh:



You missed one crucial detail:
Law of biogenesis - living organism don't arise SPONTANEOUSLY from matter! Just think peanut butter if it helps......
 

TheDuke

New member
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.....


Really????.....???!
So now in the most typical apologetic manner, you're going to exclaim that the meaning of "GOD" is not consistent throughout the bible.
Oh, the desperation in your voice, I can hearken it through the internets


BTW, just FYI the only real god is: BACON!
 

TheDuke

New member
Ad hominem fallacy.

Original quote:
"
Also it (theory of common descent) 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.


How cute, a creationist tapping in the dark in search of logical fallacies :idunno:

Too bad you didn't even care to read the definition you provided, or else you'd notice the fallacy applies only when a person is discredited instead of addressing their argument, you know, kind of like almost what you did next, only that you also sprinkled some ignorance on top of the icing of a non sequitur.

You, who wouldn't recognize logic, even if you were possessed by the ghost of Mr. Spock himself, have the audacity to claim to understand what science is and how it works. And yet, curiously, keep eluding the obligation to answer any hard question directly. :luigi:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top