Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

However, it seems you do consider them the hero of the plot.
Natural selection does not create....you agreed.

Um......sure 6days....sure.

Pre-existing = existed earlier
Genetic information = coded information in DNA / specified complexity / instruction manual

Your hilariously circular definition aside, have you come up with a way to measure "genetic information" yet?

Yes of course. We have a DNA strand from each parent. Our phenotype may be as much as 3,000,000 Nucleotides different from either parent.
Mutations account for a few thousand nucleotide difference.

Does that mean you have a "destroyed" genome? Do you have more, less, or the same amount of "genetic information" than your parents? Or are you still trying to figure out how to measure it?

Harmful....deleterious, or from Merriam-Webster "to cause (something) to end or no longer exist : to cause the destruction of (something) : to damage (something) so badly that it cannot be repaired"

And no, I'm mot just referring to deletions. There are also inversions, duplications, substitutions and even mitochondrial mutations. While most of these are consider neutral, geneticists would classify many of these as mildly deleterious. Geneticists would also agree that several deleterious mutations are added to our genome with each successive generation, that selection is incapable of removing.

So now you're citing the conclusions of geneticists? Would that be all of their conclusions?

 

[Jose Fly]

Evidence in the case of evolution versus creation generally better supports the creation account. However most people do not realize that.

Including the people who collect, study, analyze, and publish said data. Oh, but if "6days" at "theologyonline" says black is white and up is down, then it must be so.

Most people have never been taught anything about the creation model.

Probably because no one knows what the "creation model" is. Shoot, you can't even describe it!

So evidence is always interpreted in light of the only model that they have been taught, the evolution model.

What's stopping creationists from doing their own work and showing their model to be superior? I've shown you several examples of scientists applying an evolutionary framework to various data and using it to produce real, highly useful results. Why can't creationists do the same? The certainly have enough money and resources to build fake museums and theme parks, go on church speaking tours, and produce DVD's....but the one thing they just can't manage to get around to doing is actually showing the superiority of their ideas.

Funny how that works. :chuckle:

The creationist model calls for the ability to rapidly change and even rapid speciation.

Yet you can't point to the chapter and verse where rapid evolution is described in the Bible.

Funny how that works. :chuckle:

 

[Rosenritter]

Including the people who collect, study, analyze, and publish said data. Oh, but if "6days" at "theologyonline" says black is white and up is down, then it must be so.



Probably because no one knows what the "creation model" is. Shoot, you can't even describe it!



What's stopping creationists from doing their own work and showing their model to be superior? I've shown you several examples of scientists applying an evolutionary framework to various data and using it to produce real, highly useful results. Why can't creationists do the same? The certainly have enough money and resources to build fake museums and theme parks, go on church speaking tours, and produce DVD's....but the one thing they just can't manage to get around to doing is actually showing the superiority of their ideas.

Funny how that works. :chuckle:



Yet you can't point to the chapter and verse where rapid evolution is described in the Bible.

Funny how that works. :chuckle:

Readers digest had an article about microorganisms, specifically beneficial bacteria. When the researchers wanted to know what types of nutrients and microorganisms would serve the human body best, they said they looked to what was designed for the infant, breast milk.

DESIGNED.

Evolution theory was worthless for their research. Application of creation theory, evidence and presumption of design, worked.

 

[Jose Fly]

Readers digest had an article about microorganisms, specifically beneficial bacteria. When the researchers wanted to know what types of nutrients and microorganisms would serve the human body best, they said they looked to what was designed for the infant, breast milk.

DESIGNED.

So your logic is "natural breast milk is better for infants than designed formula, therefore breast milk is designed"?

Man but you creationists are entertaining. :rotfl:

Evolution theory was worthless for their research. Application of creation theory, evidence and presumption of design, worked.

Link or citation, so we can all see how they applied creation theory?

 

[Rosenritter]

So your logic is "natural breast milk is better for infants than designed formula, therefore breast milk is designed"?

Man but you creationists are entertaining. :rotfl:



Link or citation, so we can all see how they applied creation theory?

You are missing the point. The basis for their hypothesis was that they would start with what was designed for human infants. You can't make such a presumption under an evolution framework, because nothing is designed, it just "happens" to be good enough to work, but there is always better. In spite of the article putting in a few obligatory "millions of years" and "evolution" buzzwords, the researchers approached the problem like creationists, and that enabled them to progress.

Readers digest. Oct 2012. By Erin Miller.

 

[Jonahdog]

Readers digest had an article about microorganisms, specifically beneficial bacteria. When the researchers wanted to know what types of nutrients and microorganisms would serve the human body best, they said they looked to what was designed for the infant, breast milk.

DESIGNED.

Evolution theory was worthless for their research. Application of creation theory, evidence and presumption of design, worked.

Anyone know how many scientists publish in Readers Digest?

Like putting credence to a article in "Islam Today" that suggests your Jesus was only Muhammed's starting point.

 

[Rosenritter]

Anyone know how many scientists publish in Readers Digest?

Like putting credence to a article in "Islam Today" that suggests your Jesus was only Muhammed's starting point.

Yet evolution theory does not aid actual science. It is a religion, and must be defended zealously and believed by faith. The mind of an engineer sees the constructs in the world (such as the eye) and applies it towards legitimate science. She knows that complex structures don't appear by accident, and has the background to recognize interdependent systems that render accident an impossible explanation.

Jonahdog, your argument of "so and so believes such and they own the magqazines right now" is not a legitimate persuasive technique. You might as well try to pull Kim Kardashian or Justin Beiber to your cause. The popularity of the religious belief does not render it more legitimate.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Disagreeing with you, when God created Man, he warned them that they could indeed die. When he did issue the sentence of death, he was very specific as to what death meant, that Man would return to the dust from whence he came, that Adam was indeed dust. Authors throughout the scripture describe death as the cessation of being, of thought, that the dead have no more being or even knowledge that they are dead. When God promises destruction, that is also defined as a destruction, as silence, as darkness, where the remains are burnt up and consumed, not preserved and tortured without end.

Tyr is right to protest that a different gospel, not of resurrection to life and a final destruction of that which is evil to eliminate human suffering for ever, but a curse of eternal life so that eternal misery might indeed be infinite, is a wrong message. You aren't doing God a favor by perpetuating that type of misconception. Honestly, I believe that "Eternal Conscious Torment" doctrine from within Christianity to be far more harmful than anything that any atheist has done.

Talk to me about this elsewhere by private message or board thread?

Dear Rosenritter,

You can disagree if you like. You shall see in the future. Did you look at the Scriptural references I noted in the post? What did you make of when Jesus talked about hell? What about the other scriptures I mentioned? I said some stuff that is new to you, of course, but it was revealed to me by an angel. The Lord also revealed to me the words written of in Daniel 12:3, "And they that be 'wise' shall 'shine' like the brightness of the firmament {starlight}; and they that turn many to righteousness 'shall be' as the stars for ever and ever." I was also told that when we die and go to Heaven, we are given a heavenly body {star} in place of our earthly body, from which our spirit pops out of.

I don't have time right now to delve into this further. I know what I'm talking about here and will explain further, but for now, I have to get going for a couple hours. Don't feel bad if we disagree. We are still brethren in Christ! Can't agree ALL of the time. I've gone through A LOT of experiences, some of which you would find hard to fathom.

God Be With You, Amigo,

Michael

 

[Rosenritter]

Dear Rosenritter,

You can disagree if you like. You shall see in the future. Did you look at the Scriptural references I noted in the post? What did you make of when Jesus talked about hell? What about the other scriptures I mentioned? I said some stuff that is new to you, of course, but it was revealed to me by an angel. The Lord also revealed to me the words written of in Daniel 12:3, "And they that be 'wise' shall 'shine' like the brightness of the firmament {starlight}; and they that turn many to righteousness 'shall be' as the stars for ever and ever." I was also told that when we die and go to Heaven, we are given a heavenly body {star} in place of our earthly body, from which our spirit pops out of.

I don't have time right now to delve into this further. I know what I'm talking about here and will explain further, but for now, I have to get going for a couple hours. Don't feel bad if we disagree. We are still brethren in Christ! Can't agree ALL of the time. I've gone through A LOT of experiences, some of which you would find hard to fathom.

God Be With You, Amigo,

Michael

Michael, without trying to be mean, your revelations haven't proven themselves right so far. The Bible doesn't use hell to mean Greek mythology style hell except in one parable, which by definition uses fictional elements. That immortality torment doctrine contradicts dozens of clear passages, lacks any scriptural proof, and also paints God as infinitely sadistic. If your revelations told you otherwise, you may have to choose between those revelations and scripture.

You are welcome at the "is eternal conscious torment biblical" thread, that's the specific forum to discuss this. It happened to overlap here because it does directly call God's character into question, a tangent you and Tyr were spinning off towards.

 

[Jonahdog]

Jonahdog, your argument of "so and so believes such and they own the magqazines right now" is not a legitimate persuasive technique. You might as well try to pull Kim Kardashian or Justin Beiber to your cause. The popularity of the religious belief does not render it more legitimate.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? My comment was based on the fact that you were using Readers Digest to get your knowledge of science. I do appreciate that is easier to read and understand the Readers Digest than Nature or Science but suggest it may be not quite as detailed nor as accurate.

 

[Tyrathca]

Readers digest. Oct 2012. By Erin Miller.

Reader's Digest?!?!?!

You can't be serious Rosen! Hahaha, good joke..... Oh wait you are serious.......

 

[Stripe]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? My comment was based on the fact that you were using Readers Digest to get your knowledge of science. I do appreciate that is easier to read and understand the Readers Digest than Nature or Science but suggest it may be not quite as detailed nor as accurate.

Reader's Digest?!?!?!You can't be serious Rosen! Hahaha, good joke..... Oh wait you are serious.......

Darwinists love criticizing the source and ignoring the idea. They can't help themselves from arguing logical fallacies.

 

[Tyrathca]

Darwinists love criticizing the source and ignoring the idea. They can't help themselves from arguing logical fallacies.

And Stripe loves jumping into conversations with canned lines and nothing of substance to add.

The idea was essentially that someone somewhere once said that human milk was designed for babies therefore human milk is the product of an intelligent designer. Not exactly a compelling argument.

 

[Stripe]

And Stripe loves jumping into conversations with canned lines and nothing of substance to add.

Which is tacit agreement that my criticism was on the money, while your criticism of me has no value.

The idea was essentially that someone somewhere once said that human milk was designed for babies therefore human milk is the product of an intelligent designer. Not exactly a compelling argument.

And yet you chose to mock the source.

If you disagree with an idea, tell us why. It's called rational dialogue. :up:

Why is this not a good argument? Because you say so?

 

[chair]

It's pretty simple really. We see populations evolve all the time, every single day. It's such a common process that we even manipulate it to our own ends (e.g., domestication). That means evolution is an observed fact. We see it happen.

Given that, we now need some sort of explanation for how that process happens. What are its mechanisms? What pathways does it take and has it taken in the past? From that need we've developed the Theory of Evolution, which describes the mechanisms as well as its pathways.

So if you're going to dispute the Theory of Evolution, then you need to provide new mechanisms for how evolution occurs and/or different pathways that evolution takes or has taken.

Make sense?

My understanding of the creationist viewpoint (and they can correct me if I am wrong)is that evolution itself doesn't and didn't happen. The observed facts of evolution, whether it be the fossil record or genetic data or whatever do not fit in with a literal Biblical view that God created all the creatures that we see today, and that happened about 6,000 years ago.It's even worse if you think that there was no death before "The Fall".

All of this dickering over mechanisms is irrelevant. It makes no difference how it happened. If it happened, Bible literalists and Creationists have a problem. It did happen, and they can't deal with it. So they get involved in arguments about mechanisms and statistics, since they can't deal with the observed fact of evolution.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, without trying to be mean, your revelations haven't proven themselves right so far. The Bible doesn't use hell to mean Greek mythology style hell except in one parable, which by definition uses fictional elements. That immortality torment doctrine contradicts dozens of clear passages, lacks any scriptural proof, and also paints God as infinitely sadistic. If your revelations told you otherwise, you may have to choose between those revelations and scripture.

You are welcome at the "is eternal conscious torment biblical" thread, that's the specific forum to discuss this. It happened to overlap here because it does directly call God's character into question, a tangent you and Tyr were spinning off towards.

Dear Rosen,

I only screwed up on one thing and that was recently. These things were told me long before then. God's 'character' is magnificent, omnipotent, and fair. He is not a 'meanie' Who likes to see souls suffer, except they've done as Satan has urged them. Satan is His enemy and adversary. So are those who chose Satan and/or his ways! As far as "ECT" goes, it is God's prerogative, you must give Him that. See Rev. 20:10KJV, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the 'beast' {antichrist}, and 'false prophet' are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Now what part of 'forever and ever' don't you believe?

See Rev. 21:8KJV, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death." See Rev. 20:15KJV, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life WAS cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." Rosen, see Rev. 14:10KJV, "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the present of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb {Jesus}." "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night..." {See Rev. 14:10,11KJV}.

Rosen, why do you think this is mentioned time and time again in the Bible if it is not true?? Don't change what the Bible says just for Tyrathca's sake. Instead, keep these words in your mind and heart, and share them with others.

Rosen, now why are you trying to disbelieve the scriptures and say they mean something other than what the Lord said?? Hey, don't forget that I am on YOUR SIDE!! I'm just making you aware of some scriptures that are written and recorded for those in the future who try to Dismiss God. And I do not have to go to an "ECT" thread to discuss this. I can discuss this on my own thread, which is this thread. It is timely and pertinent here and now, and I am not being rude or harmful at all.

Praise God!!

Michael

 

[Jonahdog]

My understanding of the creationist viewpoint (and they can correct me if I am wrong)is that evolution itself doesn't and didn't happen. The observed facts of evolution, whether it be the fossil record or genetic data or whatever do not fit in with a literal Biblical view that God created all the creatures that we see today, and that happened about 6,000 years ago.It's even worse if you think that there was no death before "The Fall".

All of this dickering over mechanisms is irrelevant. It makes no difference how it happened. If it happened, Bible literalists and Creationists have a problem. It did happen, and they can't deal with it. So they get involved in arguments about mechanisms and statistics, since they can't deal with the observed fact of evolution.

As I read it, the more "enlightened" creationists accept a form of evolution or "adaptation" from their deity's "kinds" post Noah. Exactly how that happened and when and why it stopped are questions that remain unanswered. Perhaps unbeknownst to the rest of the world these are hot topics for research at Liberty University.

 

[Jonahdog]

And yet you chose to mock the source.

Stripey, ever read Readers Digest? It's good for corny jokes anyway.

 

[Tyrathca]

Which is tacit agreement that my criticism was on the money, while your criticism of me has no value.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you

And yet you chose to mock the source.

If you disagree with an idea, tell us why. It's called rational dialogue. :up:

Why is this not a good argument? Because you say so?

The argument was a pure argument from authority so of course I mocked the source. You would too (who am I kidding you'd probably mock your own grandmother, it's like breathing to you), someone somewhere said it was "designed" therefore it was designed by an intelligent creator. There was no more to the argument to even address.

 

[Jonahdog]

someone somewhere said it was "designed" therefore it was designed by an intelligent creator. There was no more to the argument to even address.

No, we know where it was per Rosy, in Readers Digest. We don't know when or who said it, but it was in The Readers Digest. Very impressive source if you have an 8th grade reading level.