Creation vs. Evolution

[gcthomas]

Nobody claimed it was a modern dog. You are creating another strawman.
Notice I said it was "dog like"... and about the size of a modern dog.*

I asked for evidence that a modern animal was found in rocks with dinosaurs - this is what was provided as the best argument. And it sucks.

Get real, 6D. You wriggle like an eel.

 

[gcthomas]

You never, nor has anyone else, rebutted any evidence I brought against mutation + NS. Or concerning Shannon information.

That just isn't true. You simply rejected the rebuttals or failed to respond to the technical criticisms of your fanciful claims. As you do with all arguments that you disagree with for faith reasons. (It disagrees with your correct faith, so it must be wrong despite the arguments, eh?)

 

[Yorzhik]

My recollection is that you were repeatedly asked to define just what "a feature" meant, but you declined to give a clear answer.

I gave a very clear answer. A "new feature" is something that was not coded in the DNA of a population before that gives an organism in that population a selective advantage.

Do you have some 'feature change' in mind that cannot have a series of evolutionarily favourable or stable intermediates? Let's have a straightforward answer.

Most of them. Because in general, it takes more than 7 mutations to create a new feature.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't know that you have any of the former but your disregard for the latter is obvious.

Of course I have the former. I wouldn't cast dispersions on the latter if they didn't go against it.

I can't help for what you might erroneously think is true.

I think general math is true. That's part of what is against mutation + NS being true. If I recall, your eyes glaze over even with general math.

You may think that you provided evidence but I don't recall anyone conceding anything even if you did declare victory.

Of course no common descentist is going to concede anything. Like you, common descent is religion.

No, what you might claim is evidence of disagreement with common descent doesn't seem to have been particularly convincing to anyone. Your obvious lack of interest for a naturalistic explanation and consensus rather indicates your supernatural preference.

We'll never know from you since you never discuss the evidence. But please note that I'm the only one interested in the naturalistic explanation since I'm the only one between us actually discussing the evidence.

Ya' mon. Rolling your eyes and your eyes glazing over are pretty much your level of conversation on this topic.

 

[Yorzhik]

That just isn't true. You simply rejected the rebuttals or failed to respond to the technical criticisms of your fanciful claims. As you do with all arguments that you disagree with for faith reasons. (It disagrees with your correct faith, so it must be wrong despite the arguments, eh?)

Since I have been arguing on a level below faith and staying with the weaker scientific arguments, you couldn't possibly be talking about my discussions. That's the point - your side can't even handle the scientific arguments much less the philosophical ones. If you'd like to find posts where I responded to a scientific argument with a philosophical (or faith based) one, then please do.

 

[alwight]

Of course I have the former. I wouldn't cast dispersions on the latter if they didn't go against it.

Clearly you have no respect for a scientific consensus if it doesn't tally with yours.

I think general math is true. That's part of what is against mutation + NS being true. If I recall, your eyes glaze over even with general math.

You seem to be seeking mathematical reasoning that you then erroneously try to claim provides negative proof against positive random adaptions, or even a chance sequence of random adaptions ever leading to a new beneficial trait. Nevertheless sexual reproduction obviously does naturally provide a wide range of adaptions, combinations and variations between generations whether you think it's mathematically possible or not. Any of which could just happen to form the basis of a new beneficial trait, which is very arguably the whole reason for sexual reproduction even existing.
Admit it, your purpose is only to falsify any naturalistic conclusions leaving only the supposed supernatural. You have no interest in finding a better naturalistic answer because you have pre-concluded the miraculous and supernatural.

Of course no common descentist is going to concede anything. Like you, common descent is religion.

Seems to me Yorzhik that you are the one with all the religion.

We'll never know from you since you never discuss the evidence. But please note that I'm the only one interested in the naturalistic explanation since I'm the only one between us actually discussing the evidence.

Well then it must surely be time provide your naturalistic answer by now?

Ya' mon. Rolling your eyes and your eyes glazing over are pretty much your level of conversation on this topic.

It must be a gift you have for doing that by being uninspiring. lain:

 

[6days]

I*asked for evidence that a modern animal was found in rocks with dinosaurs ...

Not true...

What you really said was*
"challenge 6D, which should be easy for you if what you claim is true: Can you give me a list of modern species that have been found in the same strata as dinosaurs?

I said your challenge was silly since you know that the Biblical creation model was rapid adaptation and speciation. Also the challenge was silly since species is a rubbery word, and that classification can not be determined from bones.*

Anyways.... modern animals ARE found in dinosaur layers.....Example:
"We’ve been fortunate to unearth some of the most complete and best preserved specimens of fossil vertebrates (backboned animals including fishes, frogs, turtles, snakes, lizards, crocodiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals) from the Cretaceous"

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/17/unearthing-the-story-of-madagascar-fossil-by-fossil/

(Also... side point... this article talks about rapid burial of these fossils. That is the flood model and that is what we find *around the world.... evidence of the biblical creation and flood model)

 

[MichaelCadry]

Does Science Agree With The Bible?


Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written.

The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1)

In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg.

The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25)

Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods.

The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7)

Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle.

Rivers and springs are fed by water that has evaporated from the oceans and other sources and then has fallen back to earth as rain, snow, or hail. (Job 36:27, 28; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 55:10; Amos 9:6)

The ancient Greeks thought that rivers were fed by underground ocean water, and this idea persisted into the 18th century.

The mountains rise and fall, and today’s mountains were once under the ocean. (Psalm 104:6, 8)

In contrast, several myths say that the mountains were created in their current form by the gods.

Sanitary practices protect health.

The Law given to the nation of Israel included regulations for washing after touching a dead body, quarantining those with infectious disease, and disposing of human waste safely. (Leviticus 11:28; 13:1-5; Deuteronomy 23:13) By contrast, one of the Egyptian remedies in use when these commands were given called for applying to an open wound a mixture that included human excrement.

Are there scientific errors in the Bible?

A reasonable examination of the Bible shows the answer to be no. Here are some common misconceptions about the scientific accuracy of the Bible:

Myth: The Bible says that the universe was created in six 24-hour days.

Fact: According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”—Genesis 2:4.

Myth: The Bible says that vegetation was created before the sun existed to support photosynthesis.—Genesis 1:11, 16.

Fact: The Bible shows that the sun, one of the stars that make up “the heavens,” was created before vegetation. (Genesis 1:1) Diffused light from the sun reached the earth’s surface during the first “day,” or epoch, of creation. As the atmosphere cleared, by the third “day” of creation, the light was strong enough to support photosynthesis. (Genesis 1:3-5,12, 13) Only later did the sun become distinctly visible from the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:16.

Myth: The Bible says that the sun revolves around the earth.

Fact: Ecclesiastes 1:5 says: “The sun rises, and the sun sets; then it hurries back to the place where it rises again.” However, this statement merely describes the apparent motion of the sun as viewed from the earth. Even today, a person can use the words “sunrise” and “sunset,” yet he knows that the earth revolves around the sun.

Myth: The Bible says that the earth is flat.

Fact: The Bible uses the phrase “the ends of the earth” to mean “the most distant part of the earth”; this does not imply that the earth is flat or that it has an edge. (Acts 1:8). Likewise, the expression “the four corners of the earth” is a figure of speech referring to the entire surface of the earth; today a person might use the four points of the compass as a similar metaphor.—Isaiah 11:12; Luke 13:29.

Myth: The Bible says that the circumference of a circle is exactly three times its diameter, but the correct value is pi (π), or about 3.1416.

Fact: The measurements of “the Sea of cast metal” given at 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 indicate that it had a diameter of 10 cubits and that “it took a measuring line 30 cubits long to encircle it.” These dimensions might have been merely the nearest round numbers. It is also possible that the circumference and diameter represented inner and outer measurements of the basin respectively.


Joshua_Verum, Christian Forums
'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Joshua_Verum, Dec 31, 2015

 

[Jose Fly]

Obviously there is a distinction between saying "creationism has not contributed to science" and saying "Christians have not contributed to science." The distinction, as far as you are concerned, being that a "Christian" can make a contribution while "creationism" per-say, can not.

For example, lots of Christians work in the field of evolutionary biology, e.g. Francis Collins. So no dispute there.

Then we must consider the Christian who is also a creationist. Can he make a contribution to science? I think that he can, Sir Newton being a prime example of one who, despite being an ardent creationist, was able to do his small part for science.

But can you name a contribution creationism has made in the last 100 years?

So although you can make the statement that creationism has not, in-and-of-itself, contributed to science, it is not, in-and-of-itself, detrimental to science either.

As it stands, creationism is irrelevant to science.

 

[noguru]

For example, lots of Christians work in the field of evolutionary biology, e.g. Francis Collins. So no dispute there.



But can you name a contribution creationism has made in the last 100 years?



As it stands, creationism is irrelevant to science.

I predict that Morton's Demon will not allow that information to be absorbed accurately.

 

[patrick jane]

Congratulations Michael for having the most viewed thread in the history of the whole wide world !!! The most posts ever, as well !! You are the best ever !! :rapture:

 

[Husband&Father]

Not a dog. Not a forerunner of dogs. Dogs did not descend from this order of mammals. Not remotely related to dogs. Not early, just thoroughly wrong. (I mentioned the different Order/Genus details just to avoid this sort of challenge.)

Got it.
But all life evolved from the first life right?
So to say "this order of mammals" are "not remotely related to dogs" is not, strictly speaking, true is it?
In fact, by the very definition of conman decent evolution every mammal is related the only question his how remote the relation. If dogs are a different t order of mammal than the mammal in question, so-be-it, but can you say they are not "remotely" related and still maintain that this mammal and dogs share a remote ancestor?
Are we (humans) related to our most remote ancestors? Do dogs and pigs and boys share ancestors (albeit very remote).

Also I totally agree with you about the speed at which mammals can gain size according to their environment. Anyone who has any experience with rats knows that the very same spices of rat can differ greatly in size. One living on a pig farm in Up-State NY might be the size of a normal rat, while his cousin in NY City, living outside a dumpster in China Town might be the size of a small dog (although not remotely related to an actual small dog)

 

[patrick jane]

Also I totally agree with you about the speed at which mammals can gain size according to their environment. Anyone who has any experience with rats knows that the very same spices of rat can differ greatly in size. One living on a pig farm in Up-State NY might be the size of a normal rat, while his cousin in NY City, living outside a dumpster in China Town might be the size of a small dog (although not remotely related to an actual small dog)

:chuckle: I like your style and arguments against a common ancestor, also a funny rat story.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Congratulations Michael for having the most viewed thread in the history of the whole wide world !!! The most posts ever, as well !! You are the best ever !! :rapture:

Dear patrick jane,

Oh, you are so exhuberant, aren't you?!! Thanks for the joy, but there are other threads who have more posts than me and more views. I believe aCW has tons more. Ask him and you will find out. He has archived his first two threads and started a new one {his third?}. Knight has many more also. I'm not sure what is involved with archiving, but I will soon have to ask for Knight to help me with this thread, because when they get too long, they are too hard to upload. Soon, I will have to put this baby to rest and start a part two thread. Do you know what I mean??

Hey! You're one of the BEST, patrick jane!! Keep posting on my thread, if you like. I always try to pick the right font for you; something different all of the time. And the color. I only do this for a few people and only if their thread is at least a few sentences long. If I'm too far behind and don't have time, then I'm not even able to do that. Sometimes, I get swamped here. I cannot believe how many good people have been to this Creation thread. I'm so blessed to have such posters, because you must know, they and God are the reason the thread is so large. It isn't me patrickj. Know that. OK, will let you go, twin bro'.

God Increase Your Countenance And Wisdom!!

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar: :singer:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

How are you doing, peppy!! You're hanging in there!! Are you eating good? I get done with my radiation therapy on Jan. 28th/this month. Yippee!! Sounds excellent to me. I guess everyone missed my article that I posted. No comments, no life from it. If God can keep Daniel and his friends from burning up in a super-hot furnace by sending an angel in with them, then God can surely make a molten earth with electromagnetic force and gravity in one day, and still have time to do other things, who are we to question that. How come they didn't burn up in the furnace??!! Read the book of Daniel.

God also kept them from being eaten by hungry lions!! Haven't you heard of Daniel in the lion's den? Miracles are God's specialty. That is why we can have a Universe and Earth, and animals, plants, and mankind all in 6 days. And God rested on the 7th as an example to man/us to not work 7 days a week, but to instead take a day of rest. We have magnified it to 2 days off per week, which is very good. Some people still work every day though. I know who they are. Also some work 6 days. I hope they take the Sabbath off of work, but no, they take Sunday off instead, not realizing that Constantine is the one who changed the true Sabbath from Sat. to Sun. What a ripoff!!

Oh, there is so much I could say, but I can't put it all on this thread. Will close for now. I know I am lucky if 3 people read this particular post, so why do I do it; I don't know. Those will be 3 valuable people when Armageddon comes. Few seem to understand. I have so many close friends that know the REAL me and they believe what I tell them. But you all don't know me and I can understand that it is harder. They also understand when I make a mistake. They don't throw out all of the old clothing, because maybe someone in need can wear it. Someone out there would love to have your warm coat that you have to get rid off for closet space. So it has not pockets and you don't want it anymore. Give to those in need. Of course, be sure you are not being used; be careful!! Trust your intuition and your heart, and you'll do fine. That's what I do. All of this began with Daniel being helped MIRACULOUSLY by God's angels and servants. Miracles Do Happen!! So don't be surprised if the Earth is only 7,000 years old instead of 3 billion or whatever. Miracles happen. Will close for now.

To Him Who Can Do Anything He Wants!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

How are you doing, peppy!! You're hanging in there!! Are you eating good? I get done with my radiation therapy on Jan. 28th/this month. Yippee!! Sounds excellent to me. I guess everyone missed my article that I posted. No comments, no life from it. If God can keep Daniel and his friends from burning up in a super-hot furnace by sending an angel in with them, then God can surely make a molten earth with electromagnetic force and gravity in one day, and still have time to do other things, who are we to question that. How come they didn't burn up in the furnace??!! Read the book of Daniel.

Hi Michael, this is a forum to discuss your own views, nobody wants to read something you copied from elsewhere.
Your claims of what God can do doesn't explain anything, it merely gives you a convenient place to stop seeking real answers. Conclusions of a supernatural rather than a natural are more of a product of a mindless rather than an enquiring mind.

God also kept them from being eaten by hungry lions!! Haven't you heard of Daniel in the lion's den? Miracles are God's specialty. That is why we can have a Universe and Earth, and animals, plants, and mankind all in 6 days. And God rested on the 7th as an example to man/us to not work 7 days a week, but to instead take a day of rest. We have magnified it to 2 days off per week, which is very good. Some people still work every day though. I know who they are. Also some work 6 days. I hope they take the Sabbath off of work, but no, they take Sunday off instead, not realizing that Constantine is the one who changed the true Sabbath from Sat. to Sun. What a ripoff!!

Ancient words simply don't matter about how we choose to live today. Having an ordered fixed routine may be the way some people deal with life but we have a brain and should use it to create our own agendas rather than mindlessly adhere to someone else's.
Al

 

[TheDuke]

Evolutionism is like a fog that can cover any landscape. The article admitted the find contradicted conventional evolutionary theory..... but evetything can be shoehorned to fit a non falsifiable belief system.

So you think that conjoining random words into a sentence is how a meaningful statement is created, cute....

 

[TheDuke]

A meme generator is a person that always answers in ready-made soundbites instead of discussing a topic rationally.

Cool, then be so kind and give me a list of these soundbites and I promise I'll avoid using them

So if I asked you for a couple things, for instance, what good points have YEC made that you acknowledge? or how many mutations, on average, does it take to change one feature to another? I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't give a straightforward answer to them.

How does your changing the subject help me on my quest for your evidence, eh?

Anyway it seems there's a history that others are aware of, and I personally don't want to get involved. As long as you don't show me anything, I'll just assume you have nothing to show.

Now for the sport, here are the answers:
1) good points by YEC - 0 so far, but I'm certainly not familiar with everything creationists have come up with, so - surprise me!
2) the "number of mutations for a feature" is poorly defined, but it seems you have already answered your own question.

 

[TheDuke]

Hi Michael, this is a forum to discuss your own views, nobody wants to read something you copied from elsewhere.
Your claims of what God can do doesn't explain anything, it merely gives you a convenient place to stop seeking real answers. Conclusions of a supernatural rather than a natural are more of a product of a mindless rather than an enquiring mind.

Ancient words simply don't matter about how we choose to live today. Having an ordered fixed routine may be the way some people deal with life but we have a brain and should use it to create our own agendas rather than mindlessly adhere to someone else's.
Al

Well said, but it falls on deaf ears

 

[Caino]

God created evolution!