Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Stripe]

evolutionary experimentation led to the development of mass penicillin production

:darwinsm:

Darwinists will say anything to get the topic away from a critique of their precious religion. They cannot abide that.

 

[6days]

Evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past.
Both belief systems use the same scientific method... and examine the same data.
However..... Only a belief in evolution has lead to things like eugenics and the holocaust.
Not to mention how evolution-ism often has hindered scientific progress with incorrect beliefs about genetics, useless organs, junk DNA, transitional humans, aliens,,,,ETC

Maybe you just don't understand.....I'll rephrase it a bit.....
What scientific breakthroughs have been the result of experiments held using the "biblical model of creation"? You know, like in a similar way to how evolutionary experimentation led to the development of mass penicillin production

Haha.......
Read Stripes comment.

Greg you don't understand science. The development of penicillin and antibiotics have nothing to do with a belief in common ancestry nor common Designer. Many of the founding fathers of modern science developed their fields of science believing in the Biblical creator such as Joseph Listor (Surgery) Louis Pasteur (bacteriology) Georges Cuvier (anatomy) ETC. Fleming However did not believe in the Creator,

Re your question..." What scientific breakthroughs have been the result of experiments held using the "biblical model of creation"?
I suppose we could say that modern science itself came about as a result of the Biblical model of creation.
Even evolutionists such as Loren Eiseley, evolutionary anthropologist have admitted "The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation… It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption."

 

[Greg Jennings]

:darwinsm:

Darwinists will say anything to get the topic away from a critique of their precious religion. They cannot abide that.

Preach, brother

 

[6days]

Preach, brother

Wooooo I had to give you a positive rep for that Greg! Stripes comment was spot on!

 

[Greg Jennings]

Moved so 6days will see

 

[chair]

...
There's a good reason for that. There is no evolution, in the Bible or anywhere else in reality. It only exists in the minds of Darwinists....

This thread has centered about the Creationist idea that animals changed form "kinds" to the specific species that we see today in the matter of a few thousands years at most. That is evolution, meaning change over time, even if the proposed mechanism is different than what biologists propose.

Nope. Simple necessity from the assumption that the Bible is an accurate description of history.

This "necessity" leads to a very creative, non-literal reading of the text.

 

[chair]

Lets God's Word explain it to you...

Unfortunately there is simply nothing worth responding to in your post. There isn't any real content, just Biblical verses that don't support your ideas and "hints" that don't hint towards your ideas either.

 

[Stripe]

This thread has centered about the Creationist idea that animals changed form "kinds" to the specific species that we see today in the matter of a few thousands years at most.

Nope. The kinds became diversified within their kinds. We're not going to try to say they became species because that term has almost no value in a scientific setting. I once saw Darwinists claiming that a bird singing a new song was speciation.

That is evolution, meaning change over time, even if the proposed mechanism is different than what biologists propose.

Darwinists want everything to be evolution.

Evolution is the notion that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. We disagree that this happened. Darwinists like to say "evolution is change" to insulate their religion against criticism, because who could argue that change does not happen.

Man up. Your idea is being challenged. Defend it instead of painting it a new color and calling it something else.

This "necessity" leads to a very creative, non-literal reading of the text.

Nope. That's just you not willing to think. The definition I have coined aligns perfectly with the text.

 

[Stripe]

So you're telling me that the scientists who learned that some bacteria can incorporate loose plasmids of genetic info from other organisms into their own genome, then use that new info to code for production of a protective substance (e.g. penicillin) that gives them and their offspring a selective advantage, had nothing to do with evolutionary research?I know you're a bit slow when it comes to this stuff, so I'll try to simplify it all for you. You see, microbiologists studying certain bacteria realized that some bacteria had the ability to incorporate foreign DNA into their own genome, then use the new DNA to code for production of a new protein or substance, an ability which the bacterium obviously then passes on to its offspring. Using that knowledge, scientists took the right DNA sequence out of the fungus species that produces penicillin and set it in the same petri dish as a bacterial colony (E. coli if I'm remembering correctly). Predictably, some of the bacteria in the colony incorporated the penicillin-producing sequence into their own genome, and voila! You have a new strain of penicillin producing bacteria courtesy of evolutionary research on the ways that bacteria change their genetic information.Understand?So once again, what has young earth creationism contributed to science in the past 100 years? (It's pretty clear from your dodging over and over that the answer is nada)

Darwinists will do anything to lead the conversation away from a discussion that exposes their precious religion.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Unfortunately there is simply nothing worth responding to in your post. There isn't any real content, just Biblical verses that don't support your ideas and "hints" that don't hint towards your ideas either.

He believes that Noah lived for 950 years. Reality ain't his strong suit

 

[Stripe]

He believes that Noah lived for 950 years. Reality ain't his strong suit

And you believe your forebears were rocks.

 

[Greg Jennings]

So you're telling me that the scientists who learned that some bacteria can incorporate loose plasmids of genetic info from other organisms into their own genome, then use that new info to code for production of a protective substance (e.g. penicillin) that gives them and their offspring a selective advantage, had nothing to do with evolutionary research?

I know you're a bit slow when it comes to this stuff, so I'll try to simplify it all for you. You see, microbiologists studying certain bacteria realized that some bacteria had the ability to incorporate foreign DNA into their own genome, then use the new DNA to code for production of a new protein or substance, an ability which the bacterium obviously then passes on to its offspring.
Using that knowledge, scientists took the right DNA sequence out of the fungus species that produces penicillin and set it in the same petri dish as a bacterial colony (E. coli if I'm remembering correctly). Predictably, some of the bacteria in the colony incorporated the penicillin-producing sequence into their own genome, and voila! You have a new strain of penicillin producing bacteria courtesy of evolutionary research on the ways that bacteria change their genetic information.

Understand?

So once again, what has young earth creationism contributed to science in the past 100 years?
(It's pretty clear from your dodging over and over that the answer is nada)

Darwinists will do anything to lead the conversation away from a discussion that exposes their precious religion.

I don't know about that, but you and 6 will do anything to avoid answering simple questions. Because of that sort of behavior (as well as a lack of any evidence) creationists are the laughingstock of real scientists everywhere. It'll be great when in 100 years, even Christians will look back on the YEC days and think, "Man we were idiots believing that unrealistic baloney." Just as flat-earth theory and geocentrism gave way to reality, so will YECism. God is good

 

[Greg Jennings]

And you believe your forebears were rocks.

Not that I expect you to answer this with anything besides another one of your mindless copy-n-pasted mantras, but do you actually think that anybody involved with evolution says life came from rocks? Or are you just being purposefully dishonest?

 

[Stripe]

Do you actually think that anybody involved with evolution says life came from rocks? Or are you just being purposefully dishonest?

Darwinists are reluctant to talk about many things that are true of their religion. The most pertinent of those in this thread is how they define the term "species."

They will do anything to avoid that topic.

 

[chair]

...

Evolution is the notion that all living things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutation and natural selection. We disagree that this happened. Darwinists like to say "evolution is change" to insulate their religion against criticism, because who could argue that change does not happen...

The word "evolution" means "change over time". The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that explains how that happens, including the mechanism.

SO, if it makes you happy, call in "rapid change over time". Something that is simply not in the text.

 

[Stripe]

The word "evolution" means "change over time".

We do not oppose the word; we oppose the theory.

The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that explains how that happens, including the mechanism.

Using random mutation and natural selection.

Making it as if we oppose "change" is a common Darwinist tactic designed to define the debate out of existence. They do it to insulate their precious religion against criticism.

SO, if it makes you happy, call in "rapid change over time". Something that is simply not in the text.

Nobody claimed rapid change was spelled out in the Bible.

 

[chair]

...

Nobody claimed rapid change was spelled out in the Bible.

The Biblical creation story explains how God created all the types of animals and plants in the very beginning. It is rather clear about that. Your theory is that the creation of the types of creatures that we know today actually took place after the Flood.
By the way- when was this process completed?

 

[6days]

The Biblical creation story explains how God created all the types of animals and plants in the very beginning.

Yes... but not a "story". God's Word describes how He created "in the beginning"

It is rather clear about that. Your theory is that the creation of the types of creatures that we know today actually took place after the Flood.

Uh..... I think you are misrepresenting things. I have never heard Stripe say that, and neither have I.

 

[Stripe]

The Biblical creation story explains how God created all the types of animals and plants in the very beginning. It is rather clear about that. Your theory is that the creation of the types of creatures that we know today actually took place after the Flood.

Not exactly. We just look at the evidence and say that it is very possible that the diversity within the kinds emerged from what could have been a far different zoological scene pre-flood.

For example, pre-flood there was a super cat kind, after the flood the largely homogeneous population diversified into lions and tigers, among others.

There hasn't been any "creating" since Genesis 1.

By the way- when was this process completed?

It is not "complete." We can see the kinds becoming more diverse even today. What we do not see is diversification arising from random mutation and natural selection. The evidence makes it clear that creatures adapt in predictable and repeatable ways according to changes in their environment.

No random mutations, no natural selection.

 

[6days]

The word "evolution" means "change over time". The "theory of evolution" is a scientific theory that explains how that happens, including the mechanism.

Wow..... That sounds like the Biblical creation model. God programmed the various kinds with the genetic information allowing them to change and adapt over time... but still remaining the same kind that He created