In The Light Of Creationism

[Justatruthseeker]

Interesting...

So we have 3 biblical creationists here posting one after another.

They all disagree on what Genesis is saying.

Funny.

Sort of like no single evolutionist can agree on how life came to be from non-life? Which one of the 20 different scenarios do you "believe" in? I just love how evolutionists always ignore that they have 20 theories for everything, and then complain because Christians have at the most 4. Man, you just gotta love their warped reasoning's.

 

[MikeEnders]

In one of my recent threads, I pointed out the numerous significant scientific advancements that our understanding of evolution and common descent enabled - advancements that would make no sense without, at the very least, a common ancestor between birds and humans.

From what I saw you more like begged...not present any firm proof. Most doctors believe in God and not a single advancement in medicine doesn't require testing on human beings and a process that is no different between medical professionals who believe in creation or believe in evolution

So, just for laughs, let's ask the reverse question. What predictions could we make based on special creationism? What does creationism tell us about the world? How does the knowledge that all kinds of animals are unrelated, created some 6,000 years ago, help us understand reality?

Lets see....even though apparently you will beg and plead otherwise against the facts Creationist predicted that function would be found for junk DNA and have been repeatedly shown right. Creationist s predicted that we would find more examples of creatures with near identical sequences without relatedness and yep they have been found and had to be classified as Molecular convergence. Creationist predicted that life would be shown to explode reasonably suddenly in design patterns and along came the cambrian

Furthermore in your gleeful ignorance you forgot to mention that just about every field of science was founded by a creationist. Perhaps read some more history? Meanwhile none of the great discoveries of the 20th and 21 century upon which we rely on have any stake in Darwinistic evolution. Some idiotic darwinists point to bacteria resistance etc but no creationist ever denied that mutations occurred and almost all except what they call micro evolution.

You are pretty much sucking salt on this - at least anyone truly educated and unbiased.

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting.

I googled it, but came up with nothing.

Is this a term unique to martial arts?

Yes. Here: http://i1.mhimg.com/kl688file/2012-3/2012030711374242528.jpg
(somehow the link function does not work)

 

[Split Rock]

Scientific consensus is not even science and is based on human opinion.

What is interpretation of scripture, if not "human opinion?" Yet you guys constantly label your human opinions "divine truth."

 

[Split Rock]

From what I saw you more like begged...not present any firm proof. Most doctors believe in God and not a single advancement in medicine doesn't require testing on human beings and a process that is no different between medical professionals who believe in creation or believe in evolution



Lets see....even though apparently you will beg and plead otherwise against the facts Creationist predicted that function would be found for junk DNA and have been repeatedly shown right. Creationist s predicted that we would find more examples of creatures with near identical sequences without relatedness and yep they have been found and had to be classified as Molecular convergence. Creationist predicted that life would be shown to explode reasonably suddenly in design patterns and along came the cambrian.

Some junk DNA has function, but much does not, as evidenced by the fact it can be removed without any change in phenotype. Also, some species, like the puffer fish, don't even have junk DNA. Why is that a prediction of creationism anyway? Why couldn't God have put that DNA there, even if it doesn't have a function? Don't we also hear how DNA is "degraded" since The Fall?

Can you give us an example of this molecular convergence?

As far as the Cambrian, this was a period of hundreds of millions of years. How does that support instant special creation? Also, where are the fish, crabs, lobsters, gastropods, snails, shrimp, eels, starfish, etc., that should also have been present if they were all specially created at the same time?

 

[Split Rock]

Earth is the only source of life in the cosmos.

Benefits are
we don't need to waste any money or resources looking elsewhere.
We can focus our interests on the 99% our planet not yet explored.
Likely we've only documented the existence of 1/2 of the existing species,
so we can focus on sustainability studies and figure out how to keep food supplies going.

So, if we find life elsewhere, this would falsify creationism? Why couldn't your god create life elsewhere is he so wished to?

 

[MikeEnders]

Some junk DNA has function, but much does not, as evidenced by the fact it can be removed without any change in phenotype.

That "fact" has not held up since some function are only activated at specific times. You can deactivate certain genes and not see the repercussions for years and maybe even never if not exposed to other contributing factors. Sorry but the point is not even worth debating. Darwinists made all kinds of claims of no function and the evidence continues to point to function where they claimed there never was. Guaranteed you will claim yet again as many have that this or that has no function and if history repeats be shown wrong in 1-5 years

Also, some species, like the puffer fish, don't even have junk DNA. Why is that a prediction of creationism anyway?

Again not debatable. Ten fifteen years ago many darwinist I debated claimed great things for Junk DNA as an evidence when I and other creationists claimed function would be found we were laughed at. So there is no "why would it be?" . IT WAS a prediction.

Why couldn't God have put that DNA there, even if it doesn't have a function? Don't we also hear how DNA is "degraded" since The Fall?

To a certain degree of course some degradation is present but not to the level Darwinists claimed and that is being borne out as a creationist prediction that whether you like it or not is holding water.

Can you give us an example of this molecular convergence?

Normally I would but with such a unique and easy to search for term I really can't take the questions seriously. Surely you know how to use google search. I try not to reward rank laziness.

As far as the Cambrian, this was a period of hundreds of millions of years. How does that support instant special creation?

IF you know anything about the subject you know creationists do not subscribe to all of your dating models. So what s the point of stating your claims as if they agree with you? if anything soft tissue and now protein preservation gives creationist a legitimate reason to query your dating models particularly since its dubious you can any longer claim that radioactive decays is an invariable constant

Also, where are the fish, crabs, lobsters, gastropods, snails, shrimp, eels, starfish, etc., that should also have been present if they were all specially created at the same time?

sorry but if you are claiming no fish are anywhere in the Cambrian and thats you above saying "fish" then its quite obvious you have no clue what you are saying.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13414.html

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontolog...metaspriggina-walcotti-origin-jaws-01986.html

and given the way you write don't try to gloss over your huge blunder. You would be all over a creationist for making such seriously erroneous claim. You might want to go back to the erroneous Darwinist site that made the claim no fish were present in the Cambrian - yet another Darwinist claim gone bust.

 

[sfs]

That "fact" has not held up since some function are only activated at specific times. You can deactivate certain genes and not see the repercussions for years and maybe even never if not exposed to other contributing factors. Sorry but the point is not even worth debating. Darwinists made all kinds of claims of no function

"Darwinism" has nothing to do with it. To the extent that evolutionary biology had an expectations about function, it would have predicted that almost all DNA was functional. That was, in fact, the expectation. It turned out to be wrong.

and the evidence continues to point to function where they claimed there never was.

Sorry, but the evidence continues to point to most of the genome (the human genome, at least) being nonfunctional, meaning that the composition of the sequence has no effect on the functioning of the organism.

Guaranteed you will claim yet again as many have that this or that has no function and if history repeats be shown wrong in 1-5 years

The claim has rarely been that a specific locus has no function; that's a hard claim to support, since not all function is known. What's claimed is that most of the genome lacks function. I'm willing to bet good money that that claim will still be standing in 5 years. Are you?

Again not debatable. Ten fifteen years ago many darwinist I debated claimed great things for Junk DNA as an evidence when I and other creationists claimed function would be found we were laughed at. So there is no "why would it be?" . IT WAS a prediction.

Citations, please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What is interpretation of scripture, if not "human opinion?" Yet you guys constantly label your human opinions "divine truth."

What is your interpretation of the natural world, if not "human opinion?" Yet you guys constantly label your human opinions as beyond divine truth - as uncontroversial fact, even when you are still arguing amongst yourselves over which theory is to be used. Yet no matter who is telling us, it's always fact. I assert you are also claiming "divine truth," because you certainly refuse to correct your mistakes or to even consider another possibility.

I am asking nothing but you accept scientific fact: That every single one of Darwin's Finches are the same species since they interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But you will not even accept this simple scientific fact, let alone the multitude of others.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's because people interject things that are not found in the text and base their belief on the unscriptural additions.

Agreed, sort of like evolutionists claiming Darwin's Finches are all separate species even if they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. They interject things not found in nature anywhere.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Sorry, but the evidence continues to point to most of the genome (the human genome, at least) being nonfunctional, meaning that the composition of the sequence has no effect on the functioning of the organism.

Citations, please.

Afraid not, genome research keeps advancing and showing the non-viability of that "belief."

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Transposons-or-Jumping-Genes-Not-Junk-DNA-1211

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm

Would you like more citations?

 

[sfs]

Afraid not, genome research keeps advancing and showing the non-viability of that "belief."

http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/250006.php

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/Transposons-or-Jumping-Genes-Not-Junk-DNA-1211

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130802101900.htm

Would you like more citations?

More citations? No. Citations that suggest that most of the human genome is functional, yes. Even one would be nice. (And I mean citations to the primary literature, by the way. News reports about junk DNA tend to be mired in misunderstanding. They often treat non-coding DNA as synonymous with junk DNA.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More citations? No. Citations that suggest that most of the human genome is functional, yes. Even one would be nice. (And I mean citations to the primary literature, by the way. News reports about junk DNA tend to be mired in misunderstanding. They often treat non-coding DNA as synonymous with junk DNA.)

Why, you'll just dismiss those too because they conflict with your pre-concieved beliefs...

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7111/full/443521a.html

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.genet.37.040103.103949

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111900006028

Especially when you are willing to ignore what those who decoded the Human DNA have to say.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...364236326092/Science-2012-Pennisi-1159-61.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/89/22/10706.short

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/263/5147/608.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=9FF3985925689194B08956BB9C3A6071.f04t01

 

[MikeEnders]

More citations? No. Citations that suggest that most of the human genome is functional, yes. Even one would be nice.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7512/full/512009e.html

there you have it. An article from nature no less that states some scientist think the function could be as high as 80% of the genome. I am sure you will point to those who believe its 8% but your claim that there is no scientific source of legit scientist that suggest that the majority is functional is absolute babbling nonsense.

 

[MikeEnders]

NICE JOB Just Truth!! Its funny to see a darwinist try and twist and turn from scientific papers that show where the trend is going.

 

[Davian]

1. Man came before woman.
2. The dust on the moon won't be as deep as scientists say it is.
3. The universe is expanding.

With the exception of #1, these are predictions YECs made prior to their confirmation by science.It shows there is much more to reality than meets the eye.

In other words, science is myopic.

You are not saying that science is myopic, you are saying that science is wrong.

 

[sfs]

Especially when you are willing to ignore what those who decoded the Human DNA have to say.

I'm one of those people. Are you willing to ignore what I'm saying?

 

[sfs]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v512/n7512/full/512009e.html

there you have it. An article from nature no less that states some scientist think the function could be as high as 80% of the genome. I am sure you will point to those who believe its 8% but your claim that there is no scientific source of legit scientist that suggest that the majority is functional is absolute babbling nonsense.

I've been pretty clear about what I mean by function: the specific sequence has to affect the organism in some real way. I was clear to avoid confusion with the definition employed by ENCODE -- the ones with the 80% functional claim. Their definition is "biochemically active", as noted in the piece you link to. I have no doubt that 80% of the genome is biochemically active. What I claim is that the evidence to date strongly supports the idea that most of the genome does not affect our health or reproductive ability, or anything else that we would usually call "function". The one ENCODE paper (the one by Manolis Kellis) that did attempt to estimate how much of the genome might be functional in something like that sense came up with a number in the neighborhood of 10%. You might note that many of these people are my colleagues, and that I've discussed the issue with some of them (particularly Manolis) at some length.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are not saying that science is myopic, you are saying that science is wrong.

That too.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

What is your interpretation of the natural world, if not "human opinion?" Yet you guys constantly label your human opinions as beyond divine truth - as uncontroversial fact, even when you are still arguing amongst yourselves over which theory is to be used. Yet no matter who is telling us, it's always fact. I assert you are also claiming "divine truth," because you certainly refuse to correct your mistakes or to even consider another possibility.

I am asking nothing but you accept scientific fact: That every single one of Darwin's Finches are the same species since they interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But you will not even accept this simple scientific fact, let alone the multitude of others.

Garbage. I know of NO scientist who claims that science provides either
A. Divine Truth or beyond Divine Truth.
or
B. Impossibility of error.
In science, we also correct our mistakes, but creationists are the ones who refuse to consider another possibility. Stop projecting.

Some theories in science are simply non-controversial, at least in general terms. One of these happens to be evolution. The evidence is simply too strong in support of it. If you don't like that because your pet origins story conflicts with it? Tough.