What makes a creationist a creationist?

[Biblewriter]

I don't mean to argue WingsOfEagles07, but at its most basic evolution is allele frequency changes in populations, to deny that is to ignore everything we know about genetics. An easy example is that you are different from your parents and they are different form their parents, it is a form of evolution called micro-evolution, which most creationists agree with.

This has been argued by evolutionists in recent years, but it is nonsense. If all we are talking about is allele frequency changes in populations, we are not talking about any genetic change at all. Nothing can be more obvious than that when two variant alleles exist within a population, changes in the environment can effect the relative survival rates of individuals within that population. So if we apply this simplistic view of evolution, it becomes easy to demonstrate evolution within a population.

A widely discussed case of this is a moth population in Great Briton. It was widely published that a hundred years ago, they were white, and now they are grey. But the truth is that a hundred years ago, 90% of them were white and 10% of them were grey. Now 90% of them are grey and 10% of them are white. There was no genetic change at all! there was only a change in the frequency of alleles within the population. This is NOT evolution. It is only natural selection.

It is indeed true that natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. But it is only a part of the theory. For evolution to proceed, two things are absolutely required. One is natural selection, and the other is beneficial mutations.

Evolutionists typically admit that "less than 1%" of all mutations are beneficial. This is akin to saying it would take "more than a day" to row a boat around the world. In my university days I did a study on beneficial mutations in the fruit fly (drosophilas melanogaster) for a senior level genetics course. I found that 90% of all mutations are lethal, and 90% of all non-lethal mutations are obviously crippling. About 1% of them were of doubtful nature, such as a change in eye color. But of the five thousand mutations that had been cataloged at that time, not even one was listed with results that were obviously beneficial. I did find one allegation that there had been one such mutation observed, but that allegation cited no details, so it was dismissed as hearsay.

Recently there has been an allegation in this forum that a mutation has been observed that gave its recipients an ability to survive at a temperature 10 degrees cooler that their previous habitat. But such claims leave me suspicious. Ten degrees cooler than their previous habitat does not mean ten degrees cooler that they could previously survive. And without extensive documentation, I would doubt that it had been demonstrated that no individuals within the previous population had the ability to survive within such a cooler temperature.

The same poster claimed that beneficial mutations had been observed various other species, even including humans. This is tommyrot! It has its sole basis in an unproven assumption that current populations are descended from the populations whose remains form the fossils that have been found in various places.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record shows gradual change. This is simply not true. The fossil record shows a long series of stable ecosystems. Each of these ecosystems appeared suddenly, (in geological terms) flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a different ecosystem.

Every professional geologist I have presented this fact to has at first denied it, and then, after some discussion, finally admitted that he personally knew this to be correct. I am not accusing them of lying, but rather of not realizing the truth inherent in the facts they already knew.

Like you don't like the gap theory for the days in genesis, but in most circles they are still considered creationists.

The gap theory is not the theory that the days in creation were actually long periods of time. A gap theorist like myself is properly called an old earth creationist. I believe that, when correctly understood, the Bible not only allows, but actually requires, a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

The universe is at least millions of years old based on direct observations of supernova. We can measure how far away they are using trigonometry e.g. supernova 1987A is 160,000 light years away.

A light year is approximately 1,630,000,000 miles. 160 million light years is 261,000,000,000,000 miles. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth. So taking the full width of an orbit around the sun, we have a base 186,000,000 miles wide. To measure 160 million light years by triangulation would require a measurement of one twenty-four thousandth of a degree. To measure this within 1% would require measurement within one 2.4 millionth of a degree! Are we to believe that we have instruments capable of measuring angles within a half of a millionth of a degree?

The scientific meaning, which is essentially speciation(which we have observed), and the creationist meaning which is changes between kinds, which we have not observed yet according to creationists.

This is only true of things like different breeds of dogs or cats, and is a product of nothing more than selective breeding. The only way that speciation sufficient to prove evolution has been observed is by assuming that the present populations are descended from the fossil ones. To demonstrate a speciation sufficient to prove evolution, it would necessary to demonstrate a species that is descended from a different species and is sufficiently different from the parent species that if cannot be interbred. There has never been even one such case of speciation observed in any living population.

There aren't that many assumptions in science, the only two that I'm aware of is that the universe is real, and that the same laws that we observe here on Earth are the same everywhere in the universe. Other than that everything must be scruitinized to the highest degree..

The most basic assumption of evolutionary "science" is uniformity of process. It is based on the unproven and unprovable assumption there was no intervention in the normal flow of these process by a God of any kind or description.

You don't have to have faith in scientists to accept what they say as valid.

This is the biggest error in all you have said. To accept even their allegations of observed data, much less their conclusions, you have to have faith in them.

And this faith is not well placed. My personal faith in science was severely disrupted during my university days. When I entered the university, it was well known that man had 48 chromosomes. In my next to last year, it was announced that a student in Japan had found a human cell that only had 46 chromosomes. A few months after that, it was announced that it had been discovered that all humans have only 46 chromosomes, not 48 as had been previously believed.

Here was a very simple fact that any beginning biology student could check for himself. How many chromosomes are there in that cell? The textbook said 48, so everyone counted and recounted until he got 48. The entire scientific community had it wrong! How many other errors have we accepted as proven fact?

 

[marktheblake]

How many other errors have we accepted as proven fact?

probably countless ones that we don't know about yet!
(that applies to everyone)

Even if 100% of scientists consent to a 'theory' that does not make it an established fact. Michael Shermer himself makes the statement that "evolution is not fact, it is the best explanation based on our current knowledge"

I don't think much of Shermer ( I read his articles every week or so) but at least he is honest.

 

[Darkness27]

I do believe in variation in kinds, but not any evolution.

That is essentially what evolution explains, the diversity of life.

There are many different ways for light to reach earth. Faster than normally expected to.

What do you mean by the first sentence? And the speed of light is a constant: 186,000 miles per second. Or 300,000 k/s

There are a lot of assumptions in "evolution". The Big Bang = assumption

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution

The Primeval Soup = assumption

abiogenesis, not evolution.

We came from previous life forms = assumption

That is not an assumption that is the conclusion of evolution, plus we knew that species have lived, gone extinct and changed before Darwin and Mendel, the two found a way for life to diversify, Mendel with alleles and Darwin with natural selection.

Earth being million(s)/billion(s) of years = assumption.

Geology proved the Earth was at least millions, and when they found out that the sun got its energy from nuclear fusion it brought up the potential age up drastically which was later shown to be true and today we are confident the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.

And many more. Why is this? Because no one was there in the past to show that was true. For scientists to come up with this stuff they have to assume this is what happened based on their "belief/interpretation" of the evidence given. Therefore it takes "faith" to believe in.

They don't assume, they go where the evidence leads, and the evidence does not support a young Earth.

Their form of science is inconsistent within itself. Because in order to do science we have to have the preconditions of intelligibility in which this only makes sense in the Biblical Creation worldview.

What do you mean by intelligibility? While scientists do need to make basic assumptions about the world, the YEC model makes so many more assumptions that are ultimately false.

Yes you have to have faith in scientists to believe what they say is true because if you do not how do you that they are right or wrong? You must believe what they are saying.

You don't need faith, the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity.

Also, you Empiricle evidence. empiricle - all knowledge is gained through observation. There is evidence for GOD, In his CREATION and more than enough. Read Romans 1:18-20 - it talks about how people will suppress truth in unrighteousness. And by creation there is more than enough evidence for GOD. go read it. =]

That verse is famous, or at least I've seen it a lot. While I would agree that since anything exists it points to God, it is not a foundation to disprove any scientific theory. Christianity survived going from geocentric to heliocentric, I'm sure Christianity will survive switching to evolution, the catholic church has already made the switch, and the majority of protestants have already accepted evolution, Christianity will endure.

I totally forgot to post those links and i am sorry, I will post them tomorrow, okay. =]

Don't worry about it

 

[Darkness27]

Neither can soft tissue, so cool there is now two significant recent discoveries that are causing the evolutionists some headaches.

I know with the T-Rex hype it turned out to be a contaminant and not from the original dinosaur 65+ million years ago. I don't know what WingsOfEagles is talking about, that's news to me.

I beleive that is what they call convergent evolution. My understanding is that implies say a dog in africa evolved from a worm in africa, and a dog in america evolved from a worm in america.

Sort of, We evolved the eye and it was selected for our environment, similarly other organisms evolved eyes that were selected for their own environment. And it is not just the eye itself, but where it is located with in the skull.

 

[Darkness27]

Anybody that tells you they know all there is to know about the Bible or has the "perfect" interpretation.......run from them as fast as you can.

Man can do nothing perfectly including having the correct interpretation of every verse of God's Word.

I agree completely!

 

[marktheblake]

I know with the T-Rex hype it turned out to be a contaminant and not from the original dinosaur 65+ million years ago.

Interesting I havent heard that?
I did some googling ,and couldnt come up with anything conclusive. Most search results were back in 2005 at time of the orginal discovery.

This one article indicates that the jury is still out
Genomics, Evolution, and Pseudoscience: Dinosaur proteins from T. rex and hadrosaurs

Do you have a significant source?

 

[metherion]

Sort of, We evolved the eye and it was selected for our environment, similarly other organisms evolved eyes that were selected for their own environment. And it is not just the eye itself, but where it is located with in the skull.

I know darkness got to this a little bit, I would like to expand upon what was said.

Convergent evolution is when two unrelated organisms both evolve a trait that effectively acts the same. Note, not is the same, but acts the same.

Examples.
Bats and birds are way way way far apart. One is a mammal, the other is... well... a bird. Birds are birds, hard huh? But all have wings, and all can fly. Are bird wings and bat wing identical? NO! Far from it. They can't all even fly the same way. Gliding, fluttering, flapping, etc. But they all use wings, and they all fly. But the, according to YEX they're not related, and according to evolution, the last common ancestor is WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY back, so far back that they are effectively unrelated. But all have wings. This would be... convergent evolution!

More examples!

Platypus beak vs bird beak (both beaks, both do about the same thing... one mammal one bird)

Echolocation: Bats, dolphins, shrews

Balleen (plankton strainers, basically) in whale sharks and whales (fish vs mammal)

Leglessness of glass lizard versus true snakes

Independend eye movement in chameleons and sandlance fish

Silk: Silk moths, weaver ants, and caddis flies

Swim bladders: Fish, jellyfish, octopi

The list can go on and on. Are these animals close at all? No, they're often different orders! Mollusks, fish, mammals, reptiles, amphibians... etc. But the STRUCTURES are similar, and the effect the provide to the organism is the same, so they are termed 'convergent evolution' because, well, despite different ancestry and different pathways, evolution 'converged' on those structures.


Metherion

 

[Biblewriter]

You don't need faith, the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity.

In all points about which they care nothing, yes, sort of... except of course when it breaks down, as in the case of how many chromosomes a human cell contains. The entire scientific community had accepted the fact that there were 48 of them until the 1960's. Then it was discovered that there were 46, not 48!

But whenever the fact in question challenges their religious belief, all integrity disappears. I say religious belief because evolution has all the earmarks of a religious belief, even though it is dressed up as science.

As in a religion, evolutionists, get angry when their belief is challenged. I know that you will probably have trouble admitting this, but I have observed it countless times.

As in a religion, evolutionists ignore all evidence that calls their belief into question. You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are a great many facts that do not fit the template of evolutionary thought. But science as a whole simply ignores these facts. A favorite of mine is the homonoid footprints that occur in carboniferous strata over a wide area of eastern United States. I have read articles about them in scientific journals. But one such stands out in my memory, from the journal of Geology in the 1950's or early 1960's. it said (approximately, this is from memory- I have lost my notes n this one.) "If man, or man's early ape ancestor, or that early ape ancestor's early mamalian ancestor lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, the whole science of geology is so wrong all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attracrive notion that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet."

As in a religion, evolutionists are willing to misrepresent facts in order to persuade others that their belief is correct. Evolutionists continue to argue the theory of recapitulation, even though embryologists as a whole have realized that it is incorrect. In my university days, it was taught to beginning biology students, and its error was taught to senior level embryology students.... by the same professor!!!

And as in a religion, evolutionists attempt to suppress all argument against their beliefs. I have read calls for boycotts against certain publishers in scientific journals, based entirely on the fact that they dared to publish a book challenging evolution as a fact. Many evolutionists have attempted to get colleagues fired from their jobs, just for daring to openly state that they do not believe in evolution.

I could go on at length, but I will not.

 

[Biblewriter]

Sort of, We evolved the eye and it was selected for our environment, similarly other organisms evolved eyes that were selected for their own environment. And it is not just the eye itself, but where it is located with in the skull.

The eye is, in and by itself, an extreme problem for evolution. It contains many sub-organs that would be useless unless other sub-organs were also present. But many of these sub-organs would be, not only useless, but actually harmful, without the presence of the other sub-organs. I recently detailed a large part of this in this very forum, but was largely ignored.

This is also true of most of the organs that exist in most of the organisms. They contain many features which are beneficial in combination, but would be useless or even harmful separately.

Now you may ask, why is this a problem for evolution?

Because according to evolutionary theory, natural selection will discard useless or harmful organs. So the various sub-organs would have to have developed simultaneously. Further, many or these sub-organs would actually be a liability, rather than an asset, in anything less than a fully developed state. So natural selection would reject them. Instead of developing gradually, they would have to have suddenly appeared in a fully developed state. Otherwise, natural selection would have rejected them before they became sufficiently developed to be an asset.

This is called the theory of irreducible complexity, and is one of the strongest arguments for intelligent design.

A second insurmountable difficulty is the origin of sexual reproduction. For this to have evolved, a fully functional male and a fully functional female would both have to have suddenly appeared. Both of these would have to have suddenly appeared in the same species, and close enough together in time and space for them to have gotten together!

 

[Darkness27]

This has been argued by evolutionists in recent years, but it is nonsense. If all we are talking about is allele frequency changes in populations, we are not talking about any genetic change at all...
A widely discussed case of this is a moth population in Great Briton. It was widely published that a hundred years ago, they were white, and now they are grey. But the truth is that a hundred years ago, 90% of them were white and 10% of them were grey. Now 90% of them are grey and 10% of them are white. There was no genetic change at all! there was only a change in the frequency of alleles within the population. This is NOT evolution. It is only natural selection.

LOL, me and a friend was just talking about this; that when all you do is change the frequency of alleles without adding in any new ones it is still called evolution, but at the same time it's not. And we used the exact example as you did with the moths before and after the industrial revolution in Europe.

It is indeed true that natural selection is part of the theory of evolution. But it is only a part of the theory. For evolution to proceed, two things are absolutely required. One is natural selection, and the other is beneficial mutations.

I agree with you on everything but "beneficial" mutations. Because many mutations are neutral in respect to survival, and even some harmful mutations can be passed on from generation to generation. While beneficial is ideal, it is not required for evolution to happen.

Evolutionists typically admit that "less than 1%" of all mutations are beneficial. This is akin to saying it would take "more than a day" to row a boat around the world. In my university days I did a study on beneficial mutations in the fruit fly (drosophilas melanogaster) for a senior level genetics course. I found that 90% of all mutations are lethal, and 90% of all non-lethal mutations are obviously crippling. About 1% of them were of doubtful nature, such as a change in eye color. But of the five thousand mutations that had been cataloged at that time, not even one was listed with results that were obviously beneficial. I did find one allegation that there had been one such mutation observed, but that allegation cited no details, so it was dismissed as hearsay.

I am skeptical of this claim, mutations happen all the time, very rarely does transcription and translation happen so that no 'mistakes' occur. If 90% of all mutations were lethal I would dare say around 90% of your fruit flies died due to genetic diseases.

Recently there has been an allegation in this forum that a mutation has been observed that gave its recipients an ability to survive at a temperature 10 degrees cooler that their previous habitat. But such claims leave me suspicious. Ten degrees cooler than their previous habitat does not mean ten degrees cooler that they could previously survive. And without extensive documentation, I would doubt that it had been demonstrated that no individuals within the previous population had the ability to survive within such a cooler temperature.

Since I was the one who brought it up... it has been a while since I saw it and I don't know if I'll find it again, but I'll try. Nonetheless, even if you want to discount the temperature, it became a clear instance of speciation as one population under the normal temperature didn't breed with the population in the colder temperature. And when they did breed either no offspring was produced or the offspring was completely infirtile, thus speciation was observed.

The same poster claimed that beneficial mutations had been observed various other species, even including humans. This is tommyrot! It has its sole basis in an unproven assumption that current populations are descended from the populations whose remains form the fossils that have been found in various places.

I wasn't talking about millions of years of evolution, but recently, like a few thousand years. Lactose tolerance is a prime example of human evolution, as well as skin color. Not to mention we have documented people with a mutation that makes them immune to AIDS dating back to the black plague. There's others, like blue eyes, hyper dense bones, increased tolerance of cholesterol, being able to stay at high altitudes without getting altitude sickness (this evolved twice independent of each other), and the list goes on. Another good example is teeth, they are becoming less robust as we have gotten better and better food processing techniques. Or humans out in the Pacific islands that evolved slow metabolism rates, and now thanks to modern exploration they have suddenly increased their sugar, fat and calorie intake and they have real problems with obesity and diabetes because their whole society has been selected for a low fat/calorie diet for thousands of years.

Evolutionists claim that the fossil record shows gradual change. This is simply not true. The fossil record shows a long series of stable ecosystems. Each of these ecosystems appeared suddenly, (in geological terms) flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be suddenly replaced by a different ecosystem.

And populations that were able to adapt to their new environment lived on to reproduce.

Every professional geologist I have presented this fact to has at first denied it, and then, after some discussion, finally admitted that he personally knew this to be correct. I am not accusing them of lying, but rather of not realizing the truth inherent in the facts they already knew.

I am neither a geologist nor a professional in any field. And to this claim I neither condemn it nor condone it.

The gap theory is not the theory that the days in creation were actually long periods of time. A gap theorist like myself is properly called an old earth creationist. I believe that, when correctly understood, the Bible not only allows, but actually requires, a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

What about Genesis 1:2 to 1:3 and so on? How old do you think the Earth and Universe are? Sorry if I'm a little blunt on the questions, I just want to know exactly what you think about this so I don't say something incorrect about your theology and essentially produce a straw-man argument.

A light year is approximately 1,630,000,000 miles. 160 million light years is 261,000,000,000,000 miles. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth. So taking the full width of an orbit around the sun, we have a base 186,000,000 miles wide. To measure 160 million light years by triangulation would require a measurement of one twenty-four thousandth of a degree. To measure this within 1% would require measurement within one 2.4 millionth of a degree! Are we to believe that we have instruments capable of measuring angles within a half of a millionth of a degree?

Yes, we can measure stars with stunning accuracy through parallax now, it did not use to be the case. Of course before we had telescopes we couldn't measure any parallax of stars, that is why the Greeks thought that the heavens/stars were fixed and they were all the same distance away. Besides, even if we weren't able to observe parallax in such great detail, there are other methods like brightness of certain supernova, and variable stars that scientists can use to determine distance.

This is only true of things like different breeds of dogs or cats, and is a product of nothing more than selective breeding. The only way that speciation sufficient to prove evolution has been observed is by assuming that the present populations are descended from the fossil ones.

Not entirely true. Just type in "observed instances of speciation" in google and you get a whole bunch of them. You don't need to assume anything came from a fossil to prove speciation is a fact.

To demonstrate a speciation sufficient to prove evolution, it would necessary to demonstrate a species that is descended from a different species and is sufficiently different from the parent species that if cannot be interbred. There has never been even one such case of speciation observed in any living population.

Look it up on google, you are wrong.

The most basic assumption of evolutionary "science" is uniformity of process. It is based on the unproven and unprovable assumption there was no intervention in the normal flow of these process by a God of any kind or description.

Science is the methodology of understanding the natural world around us, not the supernatural. Since science can't produce any answers beyond the natural, it is wrong to only asses the natural, and leave the ideas of the supernatural in the hands of theologians? Through this methodology and thinking we have the modern world in which we live in.

This is the biggest error in all you have said. To accept even their allegations of observed data, much less their conclusions, you have to have faith in them.

To have faith means to believe without, or despite, the evidence. I have no reason to suspect that they would give out false information on purpose, or that their standards are less than rigorous when presented with information. I don't have faith, I have trust. It would take more faith to believe you than the scientific consensus, the overwhelming majority of the experts in science say that evolution is correct and nothing in science supports a literal reading of Genesis.

And this faith is not well placed. My personal faith in science was severely disrupted during my university days. When I entered the university, it was well known that man had 48 chromosomes. In my next to last year, it was announced that a student in Japan had found a human cell that only had 46 chromosomes. A few months after that, it was announced that it had been discovered that all humans have only 46 chromosomes, not 48 as had been previously believed.

Imagine that, scientists discovering new things and revising data, theories, models ect. to fit with the new data. Although it shouldn't have taken so long to realize this, this is not grounds to put everything in question.

Here was a very simple fact that any beginning biology student could check for himself. How many chromosomes are there in that cell? The textbook said 48, so everyone counted and recounted until he got 48. The entire scientific community had it wrong! How many other errors have we accepted as proven fact?

Lots, the Earth is flat, we live in a geocentric model, Pangenesis, the list is too numerous to count. But just because we got things wrong, doesn't mean we should ignore the millions and billions of man hours put into finding new discoveries and making new theories and revising old ones. For someone who claims to have a science degree, you have a very pesimistic view about science and the scientific comunity in general.

 

[Mick116]

I know about alle's, and genetic things because I had biology class in 10th grade im in 11th grade this year. I am sorry but I do not accept any kind of evolution, because GOD created every living creature "after his own kind" not evolution from another creature. I do not care what man says about the genetics of animals or humans, GOD says each animal and creature that is created reproduces "after its own kind" not evolution over millions of years. millions of years is wrong anyway. Here is one link,

The Earth's Magnetic Field is Young

and tomorrow, i will post some other links for you to read that shows the earth is young and not old. by accepting any kind of evolution to me is like putting your faith in what a "scientist" says because his work is based on assumptions, like the age of rocks, the scientist depends and puts his "faith" in the object that fallible man made in order to produce the correct answer. And accepting what he says, is like putting your faith into what he is saying is true. I only believe the Word of GOD and the word of GOD alone. =] And were not arguing, It's all cool =]

I firmly believe that God says that the universe is billions of years old, and that life has changed over time. And no, you didn't miss the scripture reference where God says this; the clues are written into the very universe that God has created. Scientists are simply reading those clues. So God is either dishonest in one or both of his "books" (the book of scripture or the book of nature), or, the scriptures are simply writings of men and not at all of God... or else God has communicated in Genesis through poetry and symbolism. Personally, the last position makes most sense to me theologically.

God bless,

Michael.

 

[Darkness27]

In all points about which they care nothing, yes, sort of... except of course when it breaks down, as in the case of how many chromosomes a human cell contains. The entire scientific community had accepted the fact that there were 48 of them until the 1960's. Then it was discovered that there were 46, not 48!

And we used to think that bumps on the cranium would tell you about all sorts of things about a person too, but the scientific knowledge grows and old ideas that don't fit the data are tossed out for newer, more accurate data and models. Why do you have a problem with that? Why do you think that science should render an explanation on every point right now and not get anything wrong?

But whenever the fact in question challenges their religious belief, all integrity disappears. I say religious belief because evolution has all the earmarks of a religious belief, even though it is dressed up as science.

Where is the supernatural element in evolution? Where is the holy scripture, where is the mythology, what binds all believers to that supernatural element?

As in a religion, evolutionists, get angry when their belief is challenged. I know that you will probably have trouble admitting this, but I have observed it countless times.

I'm sure if there was a force that challenged Relativity a lot of scientists would get angry at that as well.

As in a religion, evolutionists ignore all evidence that calls their belief into question. You seem to be unaware of the fact that there are a great many facts that do not fit the template of evolutionary thought. But science as a whole simply ignores these facts. A favorite of mine is the homonoid footprints that occur in carboniferous strata over a wide area of eastern United States. I have read articles about them in scientific journals. But one such stands out in my memory, from the journal of Geology in the 1950's or early 1960's. it said (approximately, this is from memory- I have lost my notes n this one.) "If man, or man's early ape ancestor, or that early ape ancestor's early mamalian ancestor lived as far back as in the carboniferous period, the whole science of geology is so wrong all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence, science rejects the attracrive notion that man made these footprints in the mud of the carboniferous period with his feet."

I'm not a geologist so I can't comment on the actual evidence. But I'm sure that if studies came out that said that the speed of light is not a constant I'm sure every scientist would shun away from that conclusion until all other options have been eliminated. Likewise, when there is a finding that threatens the dismantlement of entire fields people will shun away from such conclusions until there is no other option to explain the data.

As in a religion, evolutionists are willing to misrepresent facts in order to persuade others that their belief is correct. Evolutionists continue to argue the theory of recapitulation, even though embryologists as a whole have realized that it is incorrect. In my university days, it was taught to beginning biology students, and its error was taught to senior level embryology students.... by the same professor!!!

If this is all true then why did you stay and get a degree in a corrupt field?

And as in a religion, evolutionists attempt to suppress all argument against their beliefs. I have read calls for boycotts against certain publishers in scientific journals, based entirely on the fact that they dared to publish a book challenging evolution as a fact. Many evolutionists have attempted to get colleagues fired from their jobs, just for daring to openly state that they do not believe in evolution.

Scientists don't try to suppress real evidence presented, only the baseless accusations made by creationists that either lie or don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Biblewriter]

Where is the supernatural element in evolution? Where is the holy scripture, where is the mythology, what binds all believers to that supernatural element?

In actuality, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that to believe in special creation. The supernatural element in evolution is random chance. the holy scripture is The origin of Species. And the mythology is the beneficial mutation.

I'm not a geologist so I can't comment on the actual evidence. But I'm sure that if studies came out that said that the speed of light is not a constant I'm sure every scientist would shun away from that conclusion until all other options have been eliminated.

Actually, such studies have recently been published, and there was no outcry. Scientists took a wait and see attitude.

If this is all true then why did you stay and get a degree in a corrupt field?

because I needed the degree to pursue my chosen field of work.

Scientists don't try to suppress real evidence presented, only the baseless accusations made by creationists that either lie or don't know what they're talking about.

Real scientists inded do not. But unfortunately, evolutionists do this regularly. I have seen many cases of such suppression.

 

[marktheblake]

Both of these would have to have suddenly appeared in the same species, and close enough together in time and space for them to have gotten together!

errrrr - thats Incest!

 

[Darkness27]

In actuality, it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that to believe in special creation. The supernatural element in evolution is random chance. the holy scripture is The origin of Species. And the mythology is the beneficial mutation.

By random chance you mean random mutations? As to the holy scripture we know Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and no one in their right mind would think that The Origin of Species is separate from human intervention. To the mythology, mythology are stories that teach morals and life lessons, how to behave, what is right was is wrong, ect. Even if beneficial mutations were completely fictitious they would not be considered mythology. How would you use the beneficial mutation lactose tolerance as mythology?

P.S. I know this is the creation only section, and technically I'm not really supposed to be here or go against creationism. And if you feel that this is not the place to settle our differences, I would be okay with moving our discussions to a more appropriate section.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

That is essentially what evolution explains, the diversity of life.



What do you mean by the first sentence? And the speed of light is a constant: 186,000 miles per second. Or 300,000 k/s

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution abiogenesis, not evolution. That is not an assumption that is the conclusion of evolution, plus we knew that species have lived, gone extinct and changed before Darwin and Mendel, the two found a way for life to diversify, Mendel with alleles and Darwin with natural selection. Geology proved the Earth was at least millions, and when they found out that the sun got its energy from nuclear fusion it brought up the potential age up drastically which was later shown to be true and today we are confident the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. They don't assume, they go where the evidence leads, and the evidence does not support a young Earth.



What do you mean by intelligibility? While scientists do need to make basic assumptions about the world, the YEC model makes so many more assumptions that are ultimately false.



You don't need faith, the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity.



That verse is famous, or at least I've seen it a lot. While I would agree that since anything exists it points to God, it is not a foundation to disprove any scientific theory. Christianity survived going from geocentric to heliocentric, I'm sure Christianity will survive switching to evolution, the catholic church has already made the switch, and the majority of protestants have already accepted evolution, Christianity will endure.


Don't worry about it

First part of my sentence I mean that, evolutionists think that the earth must be old in order for the light to reach the earth. Well there are ways for light to travel faster than it is suggested to by different methods in science.

If the Big Bang did not relate to evolution then how can evolution be true? If the "Big Bang" is not evolution then How did the earth get here for the evolution process to start? Therefore the BB is apart of evolution. No Big bang no evolution. If Abiogenesis is not evolution then tell me exactly what was the first organism we evolved from? No abiogenesis no evolution. Yes Abiogenesis pertains evolution. If there was no Big Bang, there is no Abiogenesis, therefore no evolution. Like I also said Darkness,Everyone in this world has the same Universe, Same Animals, Same Fossils, Same Evidence, Same everything. How we interpret these things is what counts. You think just because supposedly smart people Darwin and Mendel were telling the exact truth just because they were scientists then you are very wrong. You are choosing mankind's belief and assumptions over God's authority in the Bible? This is very illogical interpreted by the faulty reasoning pernicious ways of evolutionists who only assume what they "believe" as to what happened.

I once watched a video not to long ago, and it showed a scientist walking up to this dead tree out somewhere in the desert that was in the layers of rocks, and what he said did not surprise me. At first it was interesting, until he said the word "ASSUME" He said, "we assume" that this tree was expanded like this. This is his belief about this tree, the evidence that was provided did not say, "Hey, I am billions of years old, and I had a canopy that was shaped like this." Man kind gets the age of these things by ASSUMPTIONS. Also Do you really think that these "dating methods" are actually reliable? You do not know this, You have only "heard" of the dating methods.

Creationists do not make assumptions. We know that that the earth is young. If the earth was billions of years the oceans would be nothing but salt and you could walk across it by foot. If we do make assumptions, we have a basis for such claims that we make and that is on the Bible. What justification does evolution have to prove and give a logical rational explanation for there claims on a foundation that has no basis? therefore we can conclude that Evolution is illogical and inconsistent within there worldview based upon the assumptions of scientists who claim they know what happened in the past by basing it on the evidence in the present and you cannot do this in an evolutionary worldview because this is called, Uniformity of nature, The key to future is like the past and the past is like the future. That is what the Uniformity of nature is and it is a precondition of intelligibility in which only the Biblical Creation worldview can account for this ability because in an evolutionary worldview for this to make sense the evolutionists has to be inconsistent because this goes contrary to there worldview and thus can be counted as arbitrary because they do not have a logical explanation as to why they use such a principle for the claims that they make on a foundation with no basis which gives no justification. The key to past Biblically is the Revelation of JESUS. Whenever Creationists make assumptions they base it on the infallible word of God. What do evolutionists base their assumptions on? Their own opinionated belief is what, and what If one evolutionist believes differently? Whenever you use the Bible to interpret the evidence for us. It lines up perfectly with the word of God. Evidence does not line up with evolution. Evolution is inconsistent within themselves as I have showed above. They use Biblical principles that they cannot account for which are the preconditions of intelligibility. Scientists assume these things in order to do science but base is upon their opinionated beliefs.

haha you just contradicted yourself. You said the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity. And it does not take faith? lol Oh But it does, it does very. Okay, Tell me on basis do these evolutionists base their "rigorous" standards? I can tell you, there own opinionated standards that they have no basis for, This results in circular reasoning fallacy. Because to show where "standards" come from they would contradict their own philosophy.

haha, I can tell you this, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS! OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT! BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE I SHALL SERVE THE LORD GOD IN HEAVEN ALMIGHTY WHO CREATED ALL THINGS! ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE, I SHALL LIVE FOR JESUS AND HIS MAJESTY! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THIS GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE NOT WITH IT! READ YOUR BIBLE! YOU SHALL KNOW! 2 PETER 3:3-9 -- ROMANS 1:18-32 -- ROMANS 3:9-20 -- JUDE (WHOLE THING) -- 2 PETER 2:9, 12-13 ALL OF THESE VERSES ARE THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES RIGHT NOW!

 

[Biblewriter]

By random chance you mean random mutations?

The essence of evolution is that all this developed through mutations that occurred by random chance.

As to the holy scripture we know Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, and no one in their right mind would think that The Origin of Species is separate from human intervention. To the mythology, mythology are stories that teach morals and life lessons, how to behave, what is right was is wrong, ect.

You are confusing fables, as in Aesop's Fables, with mythology. There is absolutely zero moral teaching in most of Greek mythology, and there is no mythology in the Bible.

Even if beneficial mutations were completely fictitious they would not be considered mythology. How would you use the beneficial mutation lactose tolerance as mythology?

lactose tolerance is not a beneficial mutation. lactose intolerance is a detrimental mutation.

P.S. I know this is the creation only section, and technically I'm not really supposed to be here or go against creationism. And if you feel that this is not the place to settle our differences, I would be okay with moving our discussions to a more appropriate section.

Being a pure scientist by education, and an applied scientist by profession, I have studied this question in great detail, and I am satisfied that I can prove that evolution is not even a good explanation for the actual data that has been observed, much less a proven fact. But that would take a great deal of my time and I am not interested in wasting a lot of time on numerous individuals who are more interested in proving that the Bible is not correct than in coming to an understanding of the truth.

If you want to discuss this (not debate it) here, I will be glad to accommodate you.

I will simply begin by asserting that every one of the widely circulated "proofs" of evolution is rejected as factually inaccurate by widely recognized experts in the specific fields to which each of these individual "proofs" apply.

 

[Darkness27]

The essence of evolution is that all this developed through mutations that occurred by random chance.

You forgot natural selection.

You are confusing fables, as in Aesop's Fables, with mythology. There is absolutely zero moral teaching in most of Greek mythology, and there is no mythology in the Bible.

From wiki: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story.[11][12][13]

Using the definition of mythology by folkloristics, Genesis is mythology, and the definition I got from my religion professor was religious stories that teach people things, among them morals and life lessons, which Genesis does indeed fit into. In addition he also added that every single religion has mythology, and no religion is absent of mythology.

lactose tolerance is not a beneficial mutation. lactose intolerance is a detrimental mutation.

Again you are at odds with the entire scientific community as far as I know, I have never heard of this claim. I assume lactose tolerance was in our genetic code whenever you say that God created humans. But why would lactose tolerance be expressed in three different ways, each one with a distinct geographical location? It has all the markers that lactose tolerance co-evolved three separate times in Europe while lactose tolerance is not really seen in Africa, Asia, Australia or the Americas for the most part. Even if it was present in the original DNA, lactose intolerance should not have spread so rapidly in non-European populations.

Being a pure scientist by education, and an applied scientist by profession, I have studied this question in great detail, and I am satisfied that I can prove that evolution is not even a good explanation for the actual data that has been observed, much less a proven fact.

What is your definition of evolution?

But that would take a great deal of my time and I am not interested in wasting a lot of time on numerous individuals who are more interested in proving that the Bible is not correct than in coming to an understanding of the truth.

I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, only your interpretation through civilized discussion. But I understand that educating someone in science does require a lot of time, and in less than a month I will not have the time as school will be starting up again. So not going into lengthy detail on the subject will be mutually agreeable.

If you want to discuss this (not debate it) here, I will be glad to accommodate you.

Not debate, only discuss, although sometimes it will look like a debate as we have opposing views.

I will simply begin by asserting that every one of the widely circulated "proofs" of evolution is rejected as factually inaccurate by widely recognized experts in the specific fields to which each of these individual "proofs" apply.

Can you give an example?

 

[Biblewriter]

You forgot natural selection.

I did not forget natural selection at all. Mutations do not rise through natural selection. The theory of evolution, at its most basic level, is that the myriads of life forms that we see today all came about through natural selection of changes that occurred through random mutations.

While natural selection is indeed a part of the process, the random mutations are the heart of the theory.

From wiki: The term "myth" is often used colloquially to refer to a false story;[4][5] however, the academic use of the term generally does not refer to truth or falsity.[5][6] In the field of folkloristics, a myth is conventionally defined as a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form.[7][6][8] Many scholars in other academic fields use the term "myth" in somewhat different ways.[8][9][10] In a very broad sense, the term can refer to any traditional story.[11][12][13]

Using the definition of mythology by folkloristics, Genesis is mythology, and the definition I got from my religion professor was religious stories that teach people things, among them morals and life lessons, which Genesis does indeed fit into. In addition he also added that every single religion has mythology, and no religion is absent of mythology.

It is very convenient to re-define a myth to a form that the word can legitimately be applied to the Bible. But in the commonly accepted meaning of the word, there is not even one myth in the entire Bible.

Again you are at odds with the entire scientific community as far as I know, I have never heard of this claim. I assume lactose tolerance was in our genetic code whenever you say that God created humans. But why would lactose tolerance be expressed in three different ways, each one with a distinct geographical location? It has all the markers that lactose tolerance co-evolved three separate times in Europe while lactose tolerance is not really seen in Africa, Asia, Australia or the Americas for the most part. Even if it was present in the original DNA, lactose intolerance should not have spread so rapidly in non-European populations.

My contention was (and remains) based on the simple and (at least almost) universally understood fact that lactose is a basic requirement of mammalian life. As lactose is critical to life, lactose intolerance had to have been a mutation.

This is not only a requirement of a belief in creation, although it is, it is also required by basic evolutionary theory. If the root stock of mammalian life were lactose intolerant, mammals would never have developed mammary glands, for they would have conferred no reproductive advantage. (Did you forget natural selection? )

What is your definition of evolution?

I gave it above.

I'm not trying to disprove the Bible, only your interpretation through civilized discussion.

I am not even trying to prove the Bible. i am trying to demonstrate that you have bought a bill of goods in simply accepting evolution as proven fact.

But I understand that educating someone in science does require a lot of time, and in less than a month I will not have the time as school will be starting up again. So not going into lengthy detail on the subject will be mutually agreeable.



Not debate, only discuss, although sometimes it will look like a debate as we have opposing views.



Can you give an example?

The first of these is the fossil record, which is still touted as proving evolution. They still pretend that it shows a long chain of gradual changes. But that is not what it shows.

The fossil record clearly shows, written in unchangeable stone, that this planet has undergone a long series of stable ecosystems that appeared suddenly, flourished virtually unchanged for long periods of time, and then suddenly disappeared, only to be just as suddenly replaced by a different stable ecosystem.

Evolutionists at first rejected this obvious fact, but creationists did manage to press it sufficiently hard they they finally realized it was true. So Jay Gould come up with a new theory, which he called "punctuated equiblibrium." This theory was acceptable because it maintained the sacredness of the holy grail of this religion, the theory of evolution itself. It just said that evolution proceeded very fast until it reached an equilibrium, and then essentially stopped until something punctuated that equilibrium.

But the ONLY evidence to back up this new theory, which has now become stylish, is the suddenness of the changes written into the geological record, and their unwillingness to conceede even a possibility that these sudden changes even might be evidence that God had repeatedly created new ecosystems, when great catastrophies destroyed the existing ones.

I am out of time, and will have to continue later. Please check out my eye thread, which I resurrected for this discussion.

 

[Darkness27]

First part of my sentence I mean that, evolutionists think that the earth must be old in order for the light to reach the earth. Well there are ways for light to travel faster than it is suggested to by different methods in science.

There is no way light can travel at different speeds, it is a constant represented by Einsteins equation E=MC^2. While I suppose you could argue that light from distant stars or galaxies were there before the Earth formed, and indeed we do find those light sources, it does say definitively that the universe is at least as old as the farthest light source, which happens to be 13Ga(billion) light years away.

If the Big Bang did not relate to evolution then how can evolution be true? If the "Big Bang" is not evolution then How did the earth get here for the evolution process to start? Therefore the BB is apart of evolution. No Big bang no evolution.

While the questions are valid your conclusions are not. In science theories are designed to explain a specific set of facts. For example the theory of gravity explains why things fall to Earth, and why moons orbit planets and planets orbit stars and so on. The theory of gravity doesn't explain how stars, planets or moons got there, only how they interact with each other due to their masses. Just because gravity doesn't explain the origins of such objects, it doesn't make the theory in less valid. Similarly just because evolution can't explain how the Earth got here, or how the first organisms came to be, it doesn't invalidate the explanations for the diversity of life evolutionary theory was meant to explain.

If Abiogenesis is not evolution then tell me exactly what was the first organism we evolved from? No abiogenesis no evolution. Yes Abiogenesis pertains evolution. If there was no Big Bang, there is no Abiogenesis, therefore no evolution.

Abiogenesis has certain elements of evolution, like natural selection, but no matter how abiogenesis unfolds it doesn't do anything to the theory of evolution. Although the two are somewhat connected, the two fields of study focus on different facts, and in the end the two stand on their own.

Like I also said Darkness,Everyone in this world has the same Universe, Same Animals, Same Fossils, Same Evidence, Same everything. How we interpret these things is what counts. You think just because supposedly smart people Darwin and Mendel were telling the exact truth just because they were scientists then you are very wrong. You are choosing mankind's belief and assumptions over God's authority in the Bible? This is very illogical interpreted by the faulty reasoning pernicious ways of evolutionists who only assume what they "believe" as to what happened.

Darwin and Mendel were brilliant people, but they did not discover the whole truth, and many of Darwin's ideas are just plain wrong! It has been over a hundred years since those two, and science has gone a long way since then. I do not choose man over God, I'm just not a fundamentalist and don't adhere to a literalist, inherent, or infallible interpretation to the Bible. My position isn't recent in theological history, St. Augustine was very outspoken against a literal interpretation of the Bible, and this is hundreds of years before Darwin. In actuality the fundamentalist movement, from where modern creationism originates from, was originally invented to combat Darwin's theory and theologically has only been around for about a hundred years.

I once watched a video not to long ago, and it showed a scientist walking up to this dead tree out somewhere in the desert that was in the layers of rocks, and what he said did not surprise me. At first it was interesting, until he said the word "ASSUME" He said, "we assume" that this tree was expanded like this. This is his belief about this tree, the evidence that was provided did not say, "Hey, I am billions of years old, and I had a canopy that was shaped like this." Man kind gets the age of these things by ASSUMPTIONS. Also Do you really think that these "dating methods" are actually reliable? You do not know this, You have only "heard" of the dating methods.

I have not studied dating methods in any depth, but I have a general idea of how most of them work. I know you don't learn hardly anything about them in high school.

Creationists do not make assumptions. We know that that the earth is young. If the earth was billions of years the oceans would be nothing but salt and you could walk across it by foot. If we do make assumptions, we have a basis for such claims that we make and that is on the Bible.

You assume that the Bible is literally true on every point and can be used in a myriad of fields. Because YEC's cannot question the Bible under any circumstances, they cannot do true science.

What justification does evolution have to prove and give a logical rational explanation for there claims on a foundation that has no basis? therefore we can conclude that Evolution is illogical and inconsistent within there worldview based upon the assumptions of scientists who claim they know what happened in the past by basing it on the evidence in the present...

Let us start off with what foundation is evolution built upon in your opinion? And what does evolution fail to explain that creationism, or a literal interpretation of the Bible, can?

haha you just contradicted yourself. You said the scientific community has rigorous standards of credibility and integrity. And it does not take faith? lol

lol indeed. It is not a contradiction because I never suggested anything other than what I said. Your opinion may be that I am wrong, but I in no way contradicted myself in that sentence. One could be wrong on a thousand points, but it doesn't mean that they contradicted themselves, only that they are wrong on a thousand points.

Oh But it does, it does very. Okay, Tell me on basis do these evolutionists base their "rigorous" standards? I can tell you, there own opinionated standards that they have no basis for, This results in circular reasoning fallacy. Because to show where "standards" come from they would contradict their own philosophy.

Science does have very rigorous standards, I'm sure even Biblewriter would agree with me there.

haha, I can tell you this, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS! OTHER CHRISTIANS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT! BUT AS FOR ME AND MY HOUSE I SHALL SERVE THE LORD GOD IN HEAVEN ALMIGHTY WHO CREATED ALL THINGS! ALL THE DAYS OF MY LIFE, I SHALL LIVE FOR JESUS AND HIS MAJESTY! I WILL NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION BECAUSE THIS GOES AGAINST THE BIBLE NOT WITH IT! READ YOUR BIBLE! YOU SHALL KNOW!

As before, the heliocentric model destroyed some theological ideals back in its day, but Christianity survived. Religion and science for the most part have been at odds, but it is because people hold on to their dogma too much, they can't differentiate between dogma and God. Over time Christianity accepted the heliocentric model and now only a select few still hold on to the geocentric model, and even older is the flat Earth idea. Christianity will survive the transition to accepting evolution, because Christianity isn't about making claims about science, it is about God, and through His grace Christianity will persevere.

2 PETER 3:3-9

There have been scoffers for ever, not just in the end of days will there be those who mock Christianity. I think this passage was written to second generation Christians where disciples were starting to revert back to Judaism, and he was trying to keep them in the Christian faith.

ROMANS 1:18-32

How is this a prophesy? If anything it is talking about past or present events to when it was written, not future events. I myself see this passage as more timeless than anything, and can be applied to past, present and future.

ROMANS 3:9-20

I don't know how you got a prophesy out of this. In basic terms all it says is that everyone falls short the glory of God, and if you read a little further, only through God's grace can we be saved. It then goes on to make other statements of faith and theological implications.

JUDE (WHOLE THING)

I only saw one prophesy about the end of times, verse 18. And it is a quote from 2 Peter mentioned above.

2 PETER 2:9, 12-13 ALL OF THESE VERSES ARE THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES RIGHT NOW!

I don't see 2 Peter 2 as a prophesy, more of a warning from his own experiences in preaching. He probably saw how false prophets gathered members and logically assumed that there will be false prophets for the next generation. Even if this is a prophecy, there have been false preachers since Christianities existence, why do you say they are just now being fulfilled?