Wild claims about only SDAs being young Earth Creationists in the 1800's and early 1900's.

[The Barbarian]

The evolutionist primary argument is to straw
man Ken Ham and other YE creationists and paint them as crack pots or losing a debate and admitting evolution has sufficient evidence

Ken's claim that primitive man likely killed T. rex by "tearing off his tiny arms" kinda makes that easy, doesn't it?

If Jesus is true in that respect, He is worth a look in the rest of scripture also, especially because He rose from the dead against all laws of nature.

It was presented as a miracle. Science doesn't deny miracles. But if you have to tack on any number of unscriptural miracles to make you new doctrines work, that's a pretty good clue that they are faulty.

Evolution wants to claim that it is non falsifiable

Evolution is just an observed phenomenon. But scientists would certainly not want evolutionary theory to be unfalsible. If it's not in principle falsible, it isn't science. And it's easily falsible if certain predictions of the theory are falsified. For example, if the allele frequencies of populations never change, that would falsify the theory. If you could show that any feature of any organism was for the sole benefit of a different organism, that would falsify the theory. Lots of others.

and those that are skeptical are just religious nuts.

There are certainly many rational YE creationists who admit the evidence indicates evolution, but prefer their understanding of Genesis.

A group of atheistic or non-religious scientists have started a group, called the Discovery Institute and the Center for science and culture

Well, no. They include deists, Christians, at least one Moonie (devotee of Myung Son Moon who claimed to be an improvement on Jesus) and so on.

Here's one of them on your new doctines:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on thereality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Discovery Institute fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

They have some of the world’s top scientists showing the flaws in Evolution

See above. And which of them do you think is a "top scientist" in his field? You've been kinda misled there.

I believe evolution is a theory that is about to go on the trash heap of history

Not likely. Notice that even some DI fellows are realizing that it's a fact. Denton isn't the only one. Michael Behe also admits the fact of evolution, but thinks God has to tinker with it a bit to make work, sometimes.

Would you like to learn more about that?

 

[The Barbarian]

I have some very old books on creationism and all of them apeak about tectonic plates.

How old would that be?

 

[The Barbarian]

If indeed God is Who He says He is, then why can't He create this world in just 6 days?

Could have done it instantaneously. Anything is possible for God. That doesn't mean that He is obligated to do everything that is possible for Him to do. Think.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Ken's claim that primitive man likely killed T. rex by "tearing off his tiny arms" kinda makes that easy, doesn't it?


It was presented as a miracle. Science doesn't deny miracles. But if you have to tack on any number of unscriptural miracles to make you new doctrines work, that's a pretty good clue that they are faulty.


Evolution is just an observed phenomenon. But scientists would certainly not want evolutionary theory to be unfalsible. If it's not in principle falsible, it isn't science. And it's easily falsible if certain predictions of the theory are falsified. For example, if the allele frequencies of populations never change, that would falsify the theory. If you could show that any feature of any organism was for the sole benefit of a different organism, that would falsify the theory. Lots of others.


There are certainly many rational YE creationists who admit the evidence indicates evolution, but prefer their understanding of Genesis.


Well, no. They include deists, Christians, at least one Moonie (devotee of Myung Son Moon who claimed to be an improvement on Jesus) and so on.

Here's one of them on your new doctines:
"it is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science - that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school". According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world - that is, on thereality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies."
Discovery Institute fellow Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny


See above. And which of them do you think is a "top scientist" in his field? You've been kinda misled there.


Not likely. Notice that even some DI fellows are realizing that it's a fact. Denton isn't the only one. Michael Behe also admits the fact of evolution, but thinks God has to tinker with it a bit to make work, sometimes.

Would you like to learn more about that?

Perfect example of ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Your tactic is always the same. You do not wish rational discussion. It’s like trying to play poker with a cheat. One can never win, because he always has an ace up his sleeve.

Instead of always asking me if I want to learn more, why dont you just say everything you have to say so we can both look at it ?

Too afraid to come into the light ?

We are not talking about cartoonish veggie tale creation vs wacko Bill Nye the science guy. This is real science. Intellectual honesty vs denial of truth because one does not wish to believe it.

I just realized what it’s like to talk to you. It’s like trying to discuss the incarnation of God with a Jehovah’s Witness. No matter what one says or how much biblical proof we have, they will always deny it. They never put their whole position on the table and just want to confuse the other party
If one tries to understand their position they invariably say that’s not what we believe.

You don’t want to discuss science, you only want to be right and protect yourself from ever thinking you could be wrong just like the JWs
If it were not true, then you would place your position on the table so we could discuss it instead of always holding back.

In the words of Joshua from the movie War Games. Strange game. The only winning move is not to play

 

[The Barbarian]

Perfect example of ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

You touted the Discovery Institute. I just showed you what one of their members says. He's not the only member who acknowledges the fact of evolution.

Would you like to see more about it?

Your tactic is always the same.

Scientist here. So facts matter to me. True for most people, I think. You do not wish rational discussion. But that's what you got yourself into.

It’s like trying to play poker with a cheat. One can never win, because he always has an ace up his sleeve.

The "aces" are just facts I can cite to support my position. You're frustrated because you don't know anything about the issue, and so you're struggling without anyway of supporting your new beliefs.

Instead of always asking me if I want to learn more, why dont you just say everything you have to say so we can both look at it ? I'm showing you real science.

What you don't get, would fill a book. But feel free to challenge me, if you want more detail on specific things.

I just realized what it’s like to talk to you.

It means you have to face facts in considerable detail. And you don't know anything about the subject, which makes it very, very hard for you. It’s like trying to discuss Sumerian language when you don't even know what "Sumerian" means. Almost everything you've been told was untrue, and for almost all of that, I can show you data that clearly falsifies it. And you don't know enough about it to put a decent counter-argument together. Must be frustrating.

They never put their whole position on the table and just want to confuse the other party

I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm trying to enlighten you. I expect that will be a failure, but others here will see our discussions and some of them will have open minds and make their own conclusions. Which is a good thing, I think.

You don’t want to discuss science,

I've shown you a lot of science here, and offered to show you more detail where you'd like to see it. C'mon.

you only want to be right

I suppose everyone wants to be right, but you seem to have protected yourself from any facts that might lead you to think you are wrong, like some JWs. The winning move is not refusing to play, but rather not playing until you know enough to intelligently discuss the issue.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You touted the Discovery Institute. I just showed you what one of their members says. He's not the only member who acknowledges the fact of evolution.

Would you like to see more about it?

Scientist here. So facts matter to me. True for most people, I think. You do not wish rational discussion. But that's what you got yourself into.

The "aces" are just facts I can cite to support my position. You're frustrated because you don't know anything about the issue, and so you're struggling without anyway of supporting your new beliefs.

What you don't get, would fill a book. But feel free to challenge me, if you want more detail on specific things.

It means you have to face facts in considerable detail. And you don't know anything about the subject, which makes it very, very hard for you. It’s like trying to discuss Sumerian language when you don't even know what "Sumerian" means. Almost everything you've been told was untrue, and for almost all of that, I can show you data that clearly falsifies it. And you don't know enough about it to put a decent counter-argument together. Must be frustrating.

I'm not trying to confuse you. I'm trying to enlighten you. I expect that will be a failure, but others here will see our discussions and some of them will have open minds and make their own conclusions. Which is a good thing, I think.

I've shown you a lot of science here, and offered to show you more detail where you'd like to see it. C'mon.

I suppose everyone wants to be right, but you seem to have protected yourself from any facts that might lead you to think you are wrong, like some JWs. The winning move is not refusing to play, but rather not playing until you know enough to intelligently discuss the issue.

Confusion and misdirection don’t work, you resort to insult? I am incapable of understanding what you say?
You are right. I have no idea how some one can think that the articles which you have shown me are science. Every one of them contains speculative language. I have even pointed it out to you, yet you cling to them as fact.
To insult my intelligence and speak in condescending terms is projection. It is fair of you disagree with me or believe what I say to be false. That is a discussion. To imply that I am too feeble to grasp what you are saying is absurd
Projection is a psychological defense of the human mind used in order to protect it from cognitive dissonance. That is the uncomfortable feeling that one might be wrong, so the human mind projects its fault on to another. I am not the feeble one. It’s that guy over there. It works in the short run, but tiresome as time goes on.
I have no doubt that you have read extensively and have attempted to defend your position, but you don’t realize that you are not enforcing it with science. You use narrative dressed like science to make it look good.
To be real science, one has to accept the possibility of intelligence in the universe above the laws of nature. If one does not then it becomes an ardent search for natural causes of phenomena, not matter how fanciful or impossible.
An objective scientist weighs evidence. We do not make up fanciful stories such as if we had 10 million monkeys typing on a type writer for 10 million years we could write the Bible. No you wouldn’t, you would get 10 million years of gibberish. That is the same argument used to say life happens by evolution. The genome is too complex to have happened without intelligence.

But the thinking in evolution is that they have eliminated that possibility of their being wrong, so they are never wrong. It is very frustrating as my position must appear to you
The difference is we have the words of the Creator of the Universe sealed in His blood and proved by His resurrection.
Yet evolutionists do not believe. They are the same way as the Roman soldiers. They witnessed the resurrection. They felt the earthquake, they saw the lightening and the angels. The text does not say, but I reasonably believe that they saw Jesus walk from the sepulcher. Yet they were able to convinced by the Pharisees to lie to Pilate in exchange for money. They did not believe.
It is as the Lord taught in parable. They have the law and the prophets, let them believe them. If not, neither will they believe one who has risen from the dead.
The Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation, including the seven books of the deuterocanon.
Evolutionists view it as a fairy tale, even though it can be demonstrated that Jesus rose from the dead by historical fact.
When that is eliminated from any scientific inquiry, it ceases to become science and is willful ignorance.
When one does not look for evidence or even discards the idea that evidence exists, one will never find the evidence. The holes in Darwin’s theory are covered with fanciful tales of limitless time, like that would solve the problem. Same story as the typing monkeys. Then they a priori assume that the Bible is myth, so there can’t possibly have been a flood, so we won’t look for it or consider it, yet we acknowledge a catastrophic extinction event, but that is covered up by saying that happened millions of years ago and Christianity is only 2000 years old, and they were not as smart as us back then, so they know nothing of the origin of life, even through they talked directly with the Creator. We even have a woman that suckled the Creator at her breast, raised Him as a boy into a young man, and the Creator was subject to her. You don’t think that during those thirty years they ever talked of creation? And if theistic evolution were true, that would here been the time to discuss it? Strange it never came up, yet we know Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Nature cannot create itself. The law of conservation of mass says so. “Matter cannot either be created or destroyed”, this was later modified to the law of the conservation of energy. The amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant and cannot be annihilated, only conveyed from one to the other.
Our Lord said what does it profit a man if he should gain the whole world, yet lose his soul?
That is how I view evolution. So what if I never win your respect and you recognize that I have knowledge? If is not necessary for me to go through life, follow my God and win your respect. The universe can get along without me, and it can get along without you.
I have to prepare to meet my creator, so I will listen to His commands and study His Church. I need not follow Darwin’s narrative to its logical conclusion because it is impossible. The argument is circular

Feel free to insult me again, in light of almighty God, I am a worm from mere dust, the esteem of men I need not. I seek the love of my God, which He has already shown by His suffering and death.

I pray that you get to know and love the Lord some day as much as your apparent love for materialism

 

[The Barbarian]

Confusion and misdirection don’t work, you resort to insult?

I'm just pointing out that a lot of very basic stuff in this matter was unknown to you. Would you like me to recap?

I am incapable of understanding what you say?

Not incapable. You just didn't know much about it.

Projection is a psychological defense of the human mind used in order to protect it from cognitive dissonance.

I would prefer to think you're just a little upset, not projecting. For example, you seemed rather surprised to find that members of the Discovery Institute which you touted, are "evolutionists" with one even pointing out the scientific reasons why special creationism cannot be reconciled with the facts.

To be real science, one has to accept the possibility of intelligence in the universe above the laws of nature.

No, that's completely false. You might as well say "to be real plumbing one has to accept the possibility of intelligence in the universe above the laws of nature." Because science and plumbing don't (and can't ) consider supernatural causes, anyone trying to graft religion onto those disciplines would no longer be doing plumbing or science.

"Well", you might say. "what if the problem really was demons of blockage? What then?" Then the plumber would be baffled, and you'd have to find an exorcist. The plumber couldn't help you.

I am not the feeble one. It’s that guy over there.

I'd prefer to think of you as uninformed. Or possibly just very, very stubborn. You seem reasonably intelligent.

The difference is we have the words of the Creator of the Universe sealed in His blood and proved by His resurrection.
Yet evolutionists do not believe.

Guess how we know you don't know many scientists. Most of us are theists. We don't believe your new alterations of Genesis, but we do believe in God and those of us who are Christians believe in His ministry, His death and resurrection.

The holes in Darwin’s theory are covered with fanciful tales of limitless time, like that would solve the problem.

So far, you've been completely unsuccessful at finding any holes. Here's an example of your misfires:

Same story as the typing monkeys.

Your error here, is that Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Someone who knew no more than you do about the way evolution works, told you that story and you believed it.

Then they a priori assume that the Bible is myth,

I don't think your revisions of the Bible are a "myth." I merely note that they are errors. And not errors that are going to affect your salvation, unless you make an idol of them and insist that they must be believed in order to be saved.

I pray that you get to know and love the Lord some day as much as your apparent love for materialism

May God bless you and keep you, and let you understand that your faith should be a net, not a sharp stick.

 

[sfs]

You want a response? Have you defended a thesis? If so, you would not have made that statement.

Your reasoning seems to need a tune-up. Yes, I've defended a Phd thesis, in experimental particle physics at Yale (it's listed here). I've also spent twenty-five years as a full-time genetics researcher, affiliated variously with Harvard, MIT, and the Broad Institute. Much of that research has directly studied or has relied upon common descent. It's sound science -- something that's recognized by every relevant science-related institution in the world.

Your statement that a fusion has to only occur once is incorrect. A single fusion is most likely not able to be a fertile organism.

No, that's still incorrect. As long as both centromeres in the fused chromosome are still functional (and there's no reason they wouldn't be), the two short chromosomes can pair with the fused chromosome and behave exactly as if the fusion had never taken place. The only hitch occurs during meiosis: a substantial number of gametes will be produced with the wrong collection of chromosomes, which is why fertility can be reduced. This information is readily available, e.g. here.

When I read evolutionary literature it’s like a lawyer’s nightmare. Objection, assumes facts not in evidence and then the assumption is presented as evidence. The only tactic used is to ridicule the skeptics rather than revise their presentation. Try this in a PhD defense and you alienate your examiners and you will not get your degree. I know no panel that would put up with that behavior. Try it and see how long it takes to get a degree or even a PI that would retain you to continue your work.

Your understanding here is pure fantasy. I suggest you and anyone else interested look at what the National Academy of Sciences -- the most prestigious institution in American science -- has to say about evolution. Take a look at this book (which you can download for free). From the description: 'In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts ... explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution...'. Or there's this: 'In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences awarded its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal, to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, for her distinguished work to "…improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution.”' You can see other steps the NAS has taken to support education about and public support for evolution here.

In short, it's not me you're disagreeing with here: it's all of the best scientists in the world.

Where is your evidence? Let’s take a look at an article and subject it to higher criticism.

I already suggested one place to start: here. Explain to me why that isn't evidence for evolution.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

May God show you that you do not need the esteem of men to know the truth.

Evolution is not a new theory, it was proposed in ancient times, there is no doubt Jesus was aware of it, yet He did not think it worth mentioning.

Anaximander lived around 585 BC and claimed that life came from the sea and evolved into what we see today

Empedocles lived form 495 -435 BC and he believed that life evolved from primitive forms due to the actions of natural forces, earth , air , Fire and Water.

Lucretius living from 99-55 BC believed that life evolved and it was by chance.

These theories were present in Jesus day, and were thought so preposterous that the Creator of the Universe did not think them worth mentioning , yet we think that we are so modern and sophisticated that we eschew ancient theories.
Evolution is sold as science that must be objectively true because it’s science. Religion is myth and science is real. Wrong What we are being sold is just a rehash of ancient thinking dismissed by our Lord Himself.

Evolution is a narrative passing itself off as science that is completely modern, but it’s not

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Your reasoning seems to need a tune-up. Yes, I've defended a Phd thesis, in experimental particle physics at Yale (it's listed here). I've also spent twenty-five years as a full-time genetics researcher, affiliated variously with Harvard, MIT, and the Broad Institute. Much of that research has directly studied or has relied upon common descent. It's sound science -- something that's recognized by every relevant science-related institution in the world.

No, that's still incorrect. As long as both centromeres in the fused chromosome are still functional (and there's no reason they wouldn't be), the two short chromosomes can pair with the fused chromosome and behave exactly as if the fusion had never taken place. The only hitch occurs during meiosis: a substantial number of gametes will be produced with the wrong collection of chromosomes, which is why fertility can be reduced. This information is readily available, e.g. here.

Your understanding here is pure fantasy. I suggest you and anyone else interested look at what the National Academy of Sciences -- the most prestigious institution in American science -- has to say about evolution. Take a look at this book (which you can download for free). From the description: 'In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts ... explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution...'. Or there's this: 'In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences awarded its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal, to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, for her distinguished work to "…improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution.”' You can see other steps the NAS has taken to support education about and public support for evolution here.

In short, it's not me you're disagreeing with here: it's all of the best scientists in the world.

I already suggested one place to start: here. Explain to me why that isn't evidence for evolution.

Your link got a 404 not found error

 

[sfs]

Your link got a 404 not found error

Sorry, it got mangled. I've fixed it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is a narrative passing itself off as science that is completely modern, but it’s not

Evolution is a phenomenon that is directly observed to be happening in living populations today.

I think you've confused the fact of evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Even Darwin didn't claim common descent of all living things. Until we understood how genes work, that was not known for certain.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Your reasoning seems to need a tune-up. Yes, I've defended a Phd thesis, in experimental particle physics at Yale (it's listed here). I've also spent twenty-five years as a full-time genetics researcher, affiliated variously with Harvard, MIT, and the Broad Institute. Much of that research has directly studied or has relied upon common descent. It's sound science -- something that's recognized by every relevant science-related institution in the world.

No, that's still incorrect. As long as both centromeres in the fused chromosome are still functional (and there's no reason they wouldn't be), the two short chromosomes can pair with the fused chromosome and behave exactly as if the fusion had never taken place. The only hitch occurs during meiosis: a substantial number of gametes will be produced with the wrong collection of chromosomes, which is why fertility can be reduced. This information is readily available, e.g. here.

Your understanding here is pure fantasy. I suggest you and anyone else interested look at what the National Academy of Sciences -- the most prestigious institution in American science -- has to say about evolution. Take a look at this book (which you can download for free). From the description: 'In the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism, a group of experts ... explain the fundamental methods of science, document the overwhelming evidence in support of biological evolution...'. Or there's this: 'In 2010, the National Academy of Sciences awarded its most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal, to Dr. Eugenie Scott, Director of the National Center for Science Education, for her distinguished work to "…improve public understanding of both the nature of science and the science of evolution.”' You can see other steps the NAS has taken to support education about and public support for evolution here.

In short, it's not me you're disagreeing with here: it's all of the best scientists in the world.

I already suggested one place to start: here. Explain to me why that isn't evidence for evolution.

Ok I read the article, with all due respect, and I mean it, not like in the movies Ricki Bobbi says all due respect means you get to insult some one, the article makes the argument from human perception not fact, then it uses statistics in an attempt to prove its point. It would be an article where a man is making an hypothesis based on his perception. It looks like this is mutation to me, the he makes the declaration that it is evolutionary mutation based on his perception.

What we need is to dig deeper. The genetic code is more than A,T,C and G. In the DNA molecule A always pairs with T and C always pairs with G. So half of those “mutations” would not be real mutations but mistakes as an A substituted for C would cause the two strands of DNA not to match and lose function.
Also, the genetic code is not in single base pair arrangement. Genes are grouped in triplet pairs called Codons. DNA contains the source code. RNA enters the nucleus and transcribes the source code in reverse then travels to the ribosome to transcribe the code into protein
Each triplet code is paired with a particular amino acid to build a protein molecule in sequence, and there is a triplet that tells the ribosome to stop transcribing called fhe stop codon. One form of muscular dystrophy is caused by a mutation in the DNA that caused the RNA to present a stop codon too early and the protein that maintains muscle integrity is not formed.
Single base pair mutations or fusions such as happens in a world full of ionizing radiation, result in mistakes. We all like to think that if we had enough gamma radiation we could be the Hulk, but it does not work that way. That is why radiation sickness causes your skin to slough off, eyes to melt, massive nausea and vomiting, and your hair to fall out. The mutations in the rapidly dividing cells of skin, hair and stomach lining have died due to excess mutation and they cannot function. It is also what we try to do to cancer when we hit it with radiation. We want it to die.
The article you cited does not prove evolution, but it can show that further investigation is needed. Where is that investigation? A person using the article that you cited would be spinning a narrative, not practicing science. There is way more to the story

Do you see what I mean, or am I mistaken?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Evolution is a phenomenon that is directly observed to be happening in living populations today.

I think you've confused the fact of evolution with common descent, which is a consequence of evolution. Even Darwin didn't claim common descent of all living things. Until we understood how genes work, that was not known for certain.

You can’t get your story straight. Do you believe that there is proof that all life descended from a common ancestor?

The phenomenon observed is changes in population over time. That is not equivalent to species to species evolution, but you say it is

Modification within a population over time is the phenomenon, evolution from one species to another is the narrative.

A narrative is a story. Line up a bunch of bones and tell a story about them. That is human imagination not science

I spoke about the discovery institute. They are more than one person. I never said that they all disbelieved evolution, but they are doubting Darwin’s narrative. They see intelligence in the genetic code not random mutations.

Like the bacterial flagella is a perfectly constructed outboard motor. It is too complex to have developed in bits and pieces over time. A naturalist tried to argue that it was, but his research has been debunked.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Another thing to consider. The Genetic code is a language. A language implies intelligence, but not necessarily. If it were shown that the genetic code or language were the same across species, it would be a major clue for but not proof of evolution; however if the genetic code differs between species then evolution becomes astronomically more unlikely.

The amount of changes necessary to change from one species to another would be so great so as not to happen. A development of a different language between species makes the possibility of a common ancestor also more unlikely

DNA between human and chimp has been said to be 98% the same but does that represent the genetic code, aka the language the species uses to form and reproduce? It appears not, as while DNA appears to be similar, the proteins that are produced from that DNA are vastly different leaving chimp and human only 20% similar. This implies that even with the same DNA, the two species use a different language to function and reproduce.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378111904006705

 

[The Barbarian]

You can’t get your story straight.

No, you're having trouble following the history. Darwin couldn't say with confidence that all life had a common ancestor, because he had no evidence for that. In fact, the last sentence of his book, he says that maybe there were a number of created forms from which everything came. Only after we figured out how DNA works, were we able to verify common descent.

The phenomenon observed is changes in population over time. That is not equivalent to species to species evolution, but you say it is

You learned earlier. even the most prominent creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and sometimes families of organisms come from previous ones. Would you like me to show you again? They could hardly deny it, since speciation has also been directly observed.

A narrative is a story. Line up a bunch of bones and tell a story about them.

If you think so, you have no understanding of anatomy at all.

I spoke about the discovery institute. They are more than one person. I never said that they all disbelieved evolution, but they are doubting Darwin’s narrative.

Michael Denton, for example, admits Darwinian evolution, but thinks the universe was "front loaded" at creation to produce all this stuff. I think he's right. Michael Behe, on the other hand, thinks Darwinian evolution is a fact, but he supposes that God has to step in every now and then to make it work properly.

They see intelligence in the genetic code not random mutations.

As you found out earlier, Darwin's discovery is that the genetic code is not due to chance. However, if you're a Christian, it wouldn't be a problem if some of it was due to chance. As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, God can use contingency as easily as He can use necessity to effect His will.

Like the bacterial flagella is a perfectly constructed outboard motor. It is too complex to have developed in bits and pieces over time.

Turns out, you're wrong. It's made from parts of the cell originally used for other things. Would you like to learn how we found out?

 

[The Barbarian]

Another thing to consider. The Genetic code is a language. A language implies intelligence, but not necessarily. If it were shown that the genetic code or language were the same across species, it would be a major clue for but not proof of evolution;

Then you have some problems with your assumption. It's not the same for all organisms and organelles. But it is consistent within taxa.
1. The genetic code was thought to be identical ("universal") in all biological systems until 1981, when it was discovered that the coding system in mammalian mitochondria differed from the universal code in the use of codons AUA, UGA, AGA and AGG. 2. Many other differences have since been discovered, some in mitochondria of various phyla, others in bacteria, ciliated protozoa, algae and yeasts. 3. The original thesis that the code was universal and "frozen" depended on the precept that any mutational change in the code would be lethal, because it would produce widespread alterations in the amino acid sequences of proteins. Such changes would destroy protein function, and hence would be intolerable. 4. The objection was "by-passed" by nature. It is possible for a codon to disappear from mRNA molecules, often as a result of directional mutation pressure in DNA: thus all UGA stop codons can be replaced by UAA. 5. The missing UGA codon can then reappear when some UGG tryptophan codons mutate to UGA. The new UGA codons will be translated as tryptophan, as is the case in non-plant mitochondria and Mycoplasma. Therefore, no changes have taken place in the amino acid sequences of proteins. 6. Variations of this procedure have occurred, affecting various codons, and discoveries are still being made. The findings illustrate the evolutionary interplay between tRNA, release factors and codon-anticodon pairing.
Jukes TH, Osawa S. Evolutionary changes in the genetic code. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 1993 Nov;106(3):489-94. doi: 10.1016/0305-0491(93)90122-l. PMID: 8281749.

if the genetic code differs between species then evolution becomes astronomically more unlikely.

See above. The part that damages creationism the most is that variations nicely fit evolutionary phylogenies.

And while non-coding DNA in humans and chimps varies a lot more than the actual coding DNA, it remains true that by any measure of DNA, chimps and humans are more like each other than either is to any other ape.

They didn't tell you that, did they?

 

[The Barbarian]

What we need is to dig deeper. The genetic code is more than A,T,C and G. In the DNA molecule A always pairs with T and C always pairs with G. So half of those “mutations” would not be real mutations but mistakes as an A substituted for C would cause the two strands of DNA not to match and lose function.

That was the assumption. But it turns out to work the other way, more frequently than suspected:

Where do new genes come from?" is a long-standing question in genetics and evolutionary biology. A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected.

"This shows very clearly that genes are being born from ancestral sequences all the time," said David Begun, professor of evolution and ecology at UC Davis and senior author on the paper.

Geneticists have long puzzled about how completely new genes appear. In a well-known model proposed by geneticist Susumu Ohno, new functions appear when existing genes are duplicated and then diverge in function. Begun's laboratory discovered a few years ago that new genes could also appear from previously non-coding stretches of DNA, and similar effects have since been discovered in other animals and plants.

"This is the first example of totally new genes still spreading through a species," said Li Zhao, a postdoctoral researcher at UC Davis and first author on the paper.

New genes spring from non-coding DNA

"Where do new genes come from?" is a long-standing question in genetics and evolutionary biology. A new study from researchers at the University of California, Davis, published Jan. 23 in Science Express, shows that new genes are created from non-coding DNA more rapidly than expected. "This...

www.ucdavis.edu

And you probably didn't know, but replication only works if the double strand unwinds. And then of course, the mRNA would have no way of detecting what the complementary base would have been.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, a small minority of Christians always thought the Earth was young. YE creationism, as we see it today, was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the last century.

That's a common error. In fact, the Bible nowhere says how old the Earth is. That is man's addition to God's word.

That’s not true at all if you actually take what was written literally. Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1-2 both tell us that the earth, the heavens, the seas, and everything in them were created in 6 days. That’s what the scriptures literally say. Then you have the genealogies from Adam to Christ amounting to 4,000 years. So those two pieces of information do in fact tell us how old the earth is without adding anything to scripture.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

And you probably didn't know, but replication only works if the double strand unwinds. And then of course, the mRNA would have no way of detecting what the complementary base would have been.

With a statement like that, you reveal your ignorance. You seem to constantly disparage my knowledge or lack thereof for no reason other than to belittle me. That is not a discussion, which increases knowledge but a win lose argument to puff yourself up and intimidate me.

What you say is false. DNA is in sequence A always pairs with T and G always pairs with C in dsDNA. mRNA has no need of knowing what the complementary strand of DNA would be because they are exactly complementary. mRNA is transcribed from one of the DNA strands, but it exactly matches the DNA sequence of the complementary strand with the exception of Uracil substituted for Thymine. That single base substitution distinguishes mRNA from DNA, but the transcripted mRNA contains the information from the complementary strand due to the laws of DNA. If DNA has an A then mRNA has a U, if T then A, if C then G, if G then C. For example only

A DNA gene of TTTCGATCG would produce a mRNA of AAAGCUAGC. The unused complementary DNA would have the sequence
AAAGCTAGC. There is no need for the mRNA to know the complementary base pair to mimic it.

The mRNA is the read by the ribosomal RNA in three base codons to build a protein molecule

The point is that if a set of DNA is 98 % identical, yet produces only 20% protein similarity, it implys a different RNA code to build those proteins. This means that if the species have closely related DNA, they are using different languages to interpret it

I did not say that it is eliminated, but it supremely decreases the chances of a common ancestor as the two species cells do not even speak the same language. Only someone committed to a naturalistic solution to an unknown can’t see that. The rest of us see intelligence in the genetic code that should not be there by natural means.

I admit that I can’t prove my position. My faith does not rest in my knowledge of science. I have faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ who loved me and gave Himself for me.

There were evolutionary theories around in His day, yet He thought them not worth mentioning as He is the creator of the Universe and evolution was the ramblings of pagans. What fellowship has light with darkness?

Faith in a common ancestor is not required for me to do my work, nor understand modern scientific methods. I disagree with naturalistic faith for my previously mentioned reasons

I have no reason to become a naturalist to please men. No one has proven a common ancestor and the possibility that one exists gets less and less the more we know. It is only naturalistic faith that keeps the search for a common ancestor alive, not science. I can understand DNA, RNA and proteins just fine without it. It is not a new religion, it has been around a long time, Darwin was not the first.