Creation vs. Evolution

[6days]

Scientists regularly use an "ID evolution" concept (the appearance of design attributed to evolution) and you have no problem with that, despite little corroborating evidence that evolution can intelligently design anything.

Exactly..... Evidence opposes evolutionism.

INFORMATION DECREASES
"An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.
Interestingly, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/an_essential_pr097521.html

NATURAL SELECTION CAUSES A LOSS
"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

Even so called "beneficial"
MUTATIONS CAUSE A LOSS OF FITNESS
Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist who was once married to Carl Sagan. There is a most interesting interview of her in the April issue of my 'Discover' magazine. She actually is far from being a creationist, but she says many things that creationists say. For example:
* "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."
That is the creationist position. Margulis also explains that Darwinists "teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA in a direction set by natural selection". She then gives an example of chickens that can lay bigger and bigger eggs. But that mutation which may have benefits has come at a cost of "hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs".
That is the creationist position. Mutations can alter an organism, but it becomes less fit.

* "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [that natural selection is not a mechanism for the evolution of new species]."

* "I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence".

 

[6days]

I mean that it's a story based in reality that has been heavily added to and romanticized in order to send a religious message, and that message changes based upon which god tells the "Noah" character to build an "ark."

The account of the flood is a historical event, described accurately in God's Word.

The "ark" was a round river craft built in a period of far less than 100 years and that contained one man's family and animals so that they could survive a very large regional flood that occurred in Mesopotamia.

The round craft and many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd and illogical compared to the oblong rectangular ship described in the Bible.

The Bible's flood account is younger than that of the Iraqi tablet and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Are you saying that every one of these accounts, all of which are nearly identical and all of which were created within several hundred years of each other, are describing a different flood events?

Gilgamesh is almost certainly one of the hundreds of stories, and pagan myths, that are a derivative of the actual account. The Biblical flood occurred about 4500 years ago.

Jesus: "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26–27)

 

[gcthomas]

Exactly..... Evidence opposes evolutionism.

INFORMATION DECREASES
"An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.
Interestingly, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/an_essential_pr097521.html

NATURAL SELECTION CAUSES A LOSS
"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

Even so called "beneficial"
MUTATIONS CAUSE A LOSS OF FITNESS
Lynn Margulis is an evolutionary biologist who was once married to Carl Sagan. There is a most interesting interview of her in the April issue of my 'Discover' magazine. She actually is far from being a creationist, but she says many things that creationists say. For example:
* "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create."
That is the creationist position. Margulis also explains that Darwinists "teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA in a direction set by natural selection". She then gives an example of chickens that can lay bigger and bigger eggs. But that mutation which may have benefits has come at a cost of "hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs".
That is the creationist position. Mutations can alter an organism, but it becomes less fit.

* "The critics, including the creationist critics, are right about their criticism [that natural selection is not a mechanism for the evolution of new species]."

* "I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change—led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence".

Here is another quote from Margulis: "All scientists agree that evolution has occurred—that all life comes from a common ancestry, that there has been extinction, and that new taxa, new biological groups, have arisen."

She offers no comfort for your antiscience position - she has no place for God or a young Earth. She just thinks that symbiosis has been the primary driver of evolution, with mutation and natural selection happening but less important.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Ummmm.... you? You wouldn't stop talking about how important and great your prediction even when we mocked it. Weren't you the one to say that if the New York Daily News had published it's article about you governments would fall and all manner of other chaos would erupt as a result?

I'm just saying you dwell a lot about the snow. We've discussed it plenty. I also said that some people will quit working their jobs.

I had several thousand posts but many of them got deleted (when many old threads got deleted) some years ago in server glitch/reset whatever. I've been much less active in more recent years.

Michael you should read more carefully. It says:

The fourth big storm of the winter cloaked the New York metropolitan area in five to six inches of new snow yesterday, snarling highway traffic and delaying thousands of homebound commuters and other travelers despite early office closings and reshuffled bus and rail schedules.

That's 5 to 6 not 5 to 8.

Look down at the 2nd entry where it says:

Snow, Followed by Sun, Brings a Day for Romping; SNOW, AND THEN SUN, BRINGS A DAY TO ROMP Ski Area Operators Happy Sunny Day Forecast residents of the New York metropolitan area -with a few exceptions-coped easily. yesterday with winter s latest assault, a snowfall of five to eight inches Friday that brought the season s accumulations to 99.2 inches in the city

'Snow, Followed by Sun..." It says 5 to 8 inches. You are the one who needs to read more closely.

I never really doubted that. It snows a lot in New York that time of year, I even mocked you for making such an unimpressive feat of predicting snow in a place it snows regularly.

The miracle was not that it snowed a lot in NYC. The miracle was that it would be 7 inches on a certain day. That's a whole different story, Ty!! And who are you joking saying, "I never really doubted that {there was snow on that day}. You were all over me about how it did not snow on March 3, 1978. You're quite mistaken.

Yes I already did that and I've shown you the results, you just don't believe them because they don't agree with you. And if we are going to get into the nitty gritty of location altering snow fall depth then why are you relying on a story from a newspaper other than the one whom you claimed got snowed on? How do you know exactly 7 inches fell on the Daily News building when you are relying on a story from the New York Post? Did you go to the building and measure it yourself?

They measured it there where the Daily News Building was {midtown Manhattan}. That's how I know. Plus, I was there. So was my girlfriend. So was the reporter, etc. We can all vouch for it. I am still in contact with her, but not him. He could be dead by now, for all I know.

A thousand isn't that impressive, there are kids on youtube with more followers than you.

The kids aren't sharing such incredible news as I am. They are sharing other different or silly stuff, etc. I've reached lots of people from different countries, but most right here in the U.S.

And does this mean you think you will die "extremely soon" (or sooner?). Since if you die after the apocalypse begins you've kind of missed the boat.

Don't you worry your head about it. God will take my life when He is ready.

Which begs the question I already asked. What is the point of you as a prophet? What is the point of your prophecy? Clearly you trying to convince people (and god sending snowstorms for you!) is folly given god doesn't want you to convince people or succeed. Why does god supposedly help you to try and convince people of your prophecy if he doesn't want you to convince people of your prophecy? But how do you know that isn't a deception in and of itself? Maybe the greatest trick the devil pulled was making you think the devil couldn't fool you long?

The Apostle Paul had only followers in the hundreds or less, but at this time, he has over a million. Things pick up as time goes on. Same with all of the disciples.

As you have already said the devil can fool you and at the time you can't tell it's not from god. Is it so hard to believe that sometimes you NEVER realise it's not god? You can't say you "just know" because you didn't "just know" when you got fooled the last time, until it blew up in your face that is. How long did you get fooled that you knew the rough date the apocalypse would come? Was it a month, a year, more? Sounds like it lasted a fairly long time. In the face of that why still so much confidence?

The devil doesn't 'fool' me for very long. Only as much as God will allow. If I didn't make mistakes, everyone would probably believe in me, and I'd be perfect to boot. It's not going to happen. God does not want certain people, like most atheists, murderers, etc. to know what is going on. It is not His Will for them to know. The same goes for those who commit lesser sins, like liars, thieves, blasphemers, irreverent, godless, fornicators and adulterers, etc. to know what is going on right now. They will ALL be SURPRISED later!

I actually wonder the same thing. Why do you continue to try and convince me (and others) of your divine nature and prophecy if as you say god does not want you to convince people? Or does he only want you to reach a few thousand? Which is weird and I have to ask why?

I don't care if you believe me or not. I've given you my testimony, not all of it of course. What you do with it is up to you. You aren't going to believe anyway, so I am wasting my time, but at least I can say that I've tried. If everyone believed in Jesus' testimony, they wouldn't have killed Him now, would they? You just don't understand how certain delicate matters operate.

Michael

 

[alwight]

Michael, I still think you are bonkers btw , but you are apparently arguing that predicting, perhaps correctly, that snow would fall in NYC in March is a sign from God that you are a prophet but the fact that the world didn't end as you predicted last year can be waved away as a glitch?
Come on man, get real for a change, you have no special insights from angels, as a prophet you suck and that snow falling in march in NYC is not exactly miraculous. lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

I didn't say it was a big deal, but that it is an example of what we were talking about--the very subtle, perhaps non-existent, distinction between evolutionism and creationism (not the conclusions, but how the presuppositions lead to conclusions that are oftentimes less than scientific).

I don't see how it demonstrates that at all.

Perhaps, but that would not be a reason to completely pull the paper, but rather to edit it, as the authors suggested. Somebody at PLOS ONE seems to disagree with you.

That's generally how the process works. You pull it, fix the errors, and publish the corrected version.

Not if "Nature" can do supernatural things. Like creating (sorry, but the word fits) life from non-life.

Then you need to show something like a scientific paper on the origins of life that invokes supernatural causes. Otherwise, the above is just a straw man.

Science is not harmed by acknowledging WHO did something. Science is harmed when we cease trying to figure out HOW it was done.

Which is exactly what allowing "God did that" as an explanation would do, unless you can explain how we investigate and test God.

And if you are just as comfortable saying "Nature/Evolution did that" as I am at saying "God did that", what is the difference, as long as we continue to work at how it was done?

Then explain how you propose to work out how God did something.

OTOH, if you stop trying to figure out how it was done because "Evolution did it", the harm is just as great, don't you think?

Again, unless you can show where this has actually occurred, it's nothing but a straw man.

How adamant are you against that kind of conclusion in research?

Very. From a scientific perspective, it's no more acceptable for you to say "God did that" than it is for a Wiccan to say "Magic did that".

But you see the issue--that you have to lump ID and creationism together to get any traction on why an ID concept is bad.

That's because ID is a form of creationism. ID creationists have said so themselves.

Scientists regularly use an "ID evolution" concept (the appearance of design attributed to evolution) and you have no problem with that, despite little corroborating evidence that evolution can intelligently design anything.

Example?

 

[Jose Fly]

INFORMATION DECREASES
"An essential, falsifiable prediction of Darwinian theory, therefore, is that functional information must, on average, increase over time.
Interestingly, a prediction of intelligent design science is quite the opposite. Since information always degrades over time for any storage media and replication system, intelligent design science postulates that the digital information of life was initially downloaded into the genomes of life. It predicts that, on average, genetic information is steadily being corrupted by natural processes. "
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/an_essential_pr097521.html

Rather meaningless since you have admitted that you have no idea how to measure "genetic information".

NATURAL SELECTION CAUSES A LOSS
"Negative frequency dependant selection) is one of the few forms of natural selection that can act to preserve genetic variation,[/b]*most forms of natural selection lead to the loss of genetic variation*as unfit alleles are "weeded out" of the population.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Selexio.htm

There's quite a bit more at that site that directly contradicts what you're saying. Cherry picking again?

* "Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.

No one has said otherwise. Mutations generate new traits, and selection acts on them. You didn't know that? :duh:

That is the creationist position.

The creationist position is that mutations generate traits and selection acts on them?

Margulis also explains that Darwinists "teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA in a direction set by natural selection". She then gives an example of chickens that can lay bigger and bigger eggs. But that mutation which may have benefits has come at a cost of "hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs".

So? There are other examples where there is a definitive net increase in fitness. What's your point?

That is the creationist position. Mutations can alter an organism, but it becomes less fit.

Therefore increases in fitness would contradict creationism, correct?

 

[Derf]

Scientists regularly use an "ID evolution" concept (the appearance of design attributed to evolution) and you have no problem with that, despite little corroborating evidence that evolution can intelligently design anything.

Example?

Um...Shall we go back through my last 2 posts?

 

[6days]

She offers no comfort for your antiscience position - she has no place for God or a young Earth. She just thinks that symbiosis has been the primary driver of evolution, with mutation and natural selection happening but less important.

yup... as I said she is anti-creationist but many of the things she said actually are the same things creationists say. Natural selection eliminates...mutations destroy.
(She passed away about 5 years ago, so she now knows 'In the beginning, God created')

 

[Jose Fly]

Um...Shall we go back through my last 2 posts?

Sure, but you'll have to actually demonstrate where they support what you're claiming.

 

[Derf]

Michael, I still think you are bonkers btw , but you are apparently arguing that predicting, perhaps correctly, that snow would fall in NYC in March is a sign from God that you are a prophet but the fact that the world didn't end as you predicted last year can be waved away as a glitch?
Come on man, get real for a change, you have no special insights from angels, as a prophet you suck and that snow falling in march in NYC is not exactly miraculous. lain:

@ Michael,
Alwight is all right in his premise here. If you maintain that you are a prophet, but you speak things prophetically that don't come to pass, you can't be considered a prophet by biblical standards. And this whole thread is arguing whether biblical standards are appropriate to apply to science, so why would we apply them less to the realm they deal more directly with?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. [Deu 18:22 KJV]

 

[Jose Fly]

yup... as I said she is anti-creationist but many of the things she said actually are the same things creationists say.

Like this?

Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred. They even know what drives it: the growth of any population of organisms beyond the ability of the environment to support them, the appearance of organisms that have novel genetic traits, and the greater growth of some of those variant organisms leading to changed populations over time - the process known as natural selection. But biologists are still debating the details of how it occurs. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is being continually revised and refined.

... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma.​

 

[gcthomas]

Like this?

Biologists have no doubt that evolution occurred. They even know what drives it: the growth of any population of organisms beyond the ability of the environment to support them, the appearance of organisms that have novel genetic traits, and the greater growth of some of those variant organisms leading to changed populations over time - the process known as natural selection. But biologists are still debating the details of how it occurs. The theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is being continually revised and refined.

... Scientific meetings on these subjects often generate great disagreements. These disagreements have been misrepresented to the public by creationists as evidence that the theory of evolution is in doubt. On the contrary, they are evidence that what is going on is the pursuit of science and not the shoring up of dogma.​

WHAT!!!!??? 6Days is quote-mining, you say? That claim would be a slur on his character (if it wasn't true )

 

[Greg Jennings]

Moved so 6days can't ignore it at the bottom of the page

 

[Greg Jennings]

WHAT!!!!??? 6Days is quote-mining, you say? That claim would be a slur on his character (if it wasn't true )

Nothing says "I'm a Christian!" like undermining the values that Jesus taught, like being honest.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The account of the flood is a historical event, described accurately in God's Word.

The round craft and many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd and illogical compared to the oblong rectangular ship described in the Bible.

You're an idiot. The people of that region used round river craft exactly as described in the tablet's story, and they continue to use them to this day in remote regions. You literally know nothing. Just actually do some research just once.

Gilgamesh is almost certainly one of the hundreds of stories, and pagan myths, that are a derivative of the actual account. The Biblical flood occurred about 4500 years ago.

And the Iraqi flood tablet is 5000 years old. What's your next excuse?

Jesus: "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26–27)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call descriptive language. It's meant to deliver a point, not be an accurate statement on history. Jesus is saying here, "If you choose not to follow me and descend into wickedness, then God will surely punish you all again just as He did previously." It's a metaphor, man. Jesus was huge fan of those.

 

[Jose Fly]

WHAT!!!!??? 6Days is quote-mining, you say? That claim would be a slur on his character (if it wasn't true )

He can be forgiven since this is the first time that.......oh wait....never mind. :chuckle:

 

[Greg Jennings]

It was literally ALL Animals. The Lord said that everything that hath the breath in it shall be destroyed.

I'm afraid that's far from possible, Michael. Doesn't make the story "wrong", it just got a makeover

 

[Yorzhik]

I really don't care what you think Shannon dictates Yorzhik, in reality the occasional mistake and error within the genetic transcription process isn't noise,

:darwinsm: You should re-write Shannon. You're a genius! In fact, you should have your own show! :darwinsm:

it remains only occasional errors durimg a transcription process and not a transmission system however much you'd like to spin it otherwise.

:darwinsm: Yeah, cause transcription is in no way transmitting anything :darwinsm:

Yorzhik tries hard to spin a transcription process into some kind of universal law of "noise"

Ah, yeah... I'm trying to spin transcription to be a UNIVERSAL LAW of "NOISE." :darwinsm:

to be apply anywhere that he thinks obfuscation is deemed necessary, meanwhile my eyes glaze over once again.

Your eyes glaze over because common descent is your religion you follow with blind faith.

Show me how Shannon applies to genetic transcription in any meaningful and practical way first, since that is only your assertion so far, despite what you say below.

Mistakes/errors are simply changes from the original, noise however would be an inherent feature within any transmission system which may or may not cause mistakes to the original message, but trying to apply the same to a transcription system just begs the question why you'd even want to do that or call it noise?

:darwinsm: So I'm thinking you dream of being a professional parody someday.

Call them what you like but I'm still not seeing any transmission system or go-between process.

A bit typically cryptic, just more smoke and mirrors Yorzhik? :idunno:

Oh, right. There is no go-between process between the DNA and the protein it makes. None. You figured it out. Good for you. :darwinsm:

 

[6days]

The account of the flood is a historical event, described accurately in God's Word.

The round craft and many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd and illogical compared to the oblong rectangular ship described in the Bible.

You're an idiot. The people of that region used round river craft exactly as described in the tablet's story, and they continue to use them to this day in remote regions. You literally know nothing. Just actually do some research just once.

Well, I may be an idiot Greg, but the round craft and many of the details in the Gilgamesh story are absurd and illogical.

Gilgamesh is almost certainly one of the hundreds of stories, and pagan myths, that are a derivative of the actual account. The Biblical flood occurred about 4500 years ago

.
And the Iraqi flood tablet is 5000 years old. What's your next excuse?

The Iraqi tablet is NOT 5,000 years old Greg. However secularists who seemingly are desperate to find something to discredit God's Word SPECULATE it is 5000 years old. We know that speculation is incorrect since the Genesis flood happened about 4500 years ago.

Jesus: "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the Ark. Then the Flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:26–27)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call descriptive language. It's meant to deliver a point, not be an accurate statement on history. Jesus is saying here, "If you choose not to follow me and descend into wickedness, then God will surely punish you all again just as He did previously." It's a metaphor, man. Jesus was huge fan of those.

Greg...literature is generally pretty easy to understand. When Jesus spoke in parables, or used metaphors...its easy to detect, as it is in other literature. Jesus and other Bible authors refer to Noah and the flood as a historical event.

The logic you are using is what Christ warns us about..... Not to be deceived by Satan that things will always continue. Unfortunately pre-flood people believed the lie. God's Word warns...
2 Peter 3:6,7 "Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood. And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed."