How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[bhsmte]

What's the going rate for snake oil these days, ten percent of gross?

You type well for a dead man.

 

[HitchSlap]

You type well for a dead man.

I resurrected.

 

[Smidlee]

If you disagree, then try to explain the matching DNA and morphological phylogenies without using evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

I already seen with my own eyes someone taking a few biology papers and remove the evolution assumption without touching the data in the paper. It's very easy to match DNA without evolution since there are many cases of them finding are matching DNA from species they didn't believe wasn't the result of common ancestors. There are so many of them that some have crop down Darwin's tree of life and replace it with a bush.

 

[Davian]

Yep. Rain. 40 days and 40 nights and the world series will be cancelled.

Where I live, 40 days and nights of rain is normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Vancouver#Precipitation

 

[Davian]

What's the going rate for snake oil these days, ten percent of gross?

“Selling eternal life is an unbeatable business, with no customers ever asking for their money back after the goods are not delivered.” ― Victor J. Stenger

 

[Loudmouth]

I already seen with my own eyes someone taking a few biology paper and remove the evolution assumption without touching the data in the paper.

Examples?

It's very easy to match DNA without evolution since there are many cases of them finding are matching DNA from species they didn't believe wasn't the result of common ancestors.

I am not talking about matching DNA to species. I am talking about phylogenies.

For physical characteristics, we can organize species on a cladogram where the nodes that connect each branch are the shared features in the branches that attach to that node.

Completely independent of physical characteristics, we can do the same with DNA. We can align DNA and organize species so that branches that attach to a node share the most DNA bases.

Those two independent phylogenies correlate with each other.

How do you explain that without evolution?

There are so many of them that some have crop down Darwin's tree of life and replace it with a bush.

Darwin's tree of life still applies to eukaryotes.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

 

[Smidlee]

Examples?



I am not talking about matching DNA to species. I am talking about phylogenies.

For physical characteristics, we can organize species on a cladogram where the nodes that connect each branch are the shared features in the branches that attach to that node.

Completely independent of physical characteristics, we can do the same with DNA. We can align DNA and organize species so that branches that attach to a node share the most DNA bases.

Those two independent phylogenies correlate with each other.

How do you explain that without evolution?



Darwin's tree of life still applies to eukaryotes.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

These trees as noted in your article is based on human opinion. Notice man had no trouble created a trees in the past that we now know is completely wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

These trees as noted in your article is based on human opinion.

It is based on real DNA and morphological data.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to pipe off with, "It's all just opinion" and ignore the data.

Notice man had no trouble created a trees in the past that we now know is completely wrong.

If we can know which trees are wrong and which trees are right, then they are objective trees, not subjective as you claim.

 

[Blue Wren]

First, this post brought me back to this site after seven years of inactivity. I'm honestly surprised my account is still valid.

That aside, I'm not much good at the math/statistics, so I'm afraid I can't contribute to that, but my recent experience might have some bearing on the conversation.

I was, until two weeks ago, the Youth Pastor at a Southern Baptist church in north-central Ohio. I was pressured by the other pastors to resign after they became convinced that I rejected the doctrine of Inerrancy (for the record, I do believe in inerrancy) due to my belief in Old-Earth Creation. How the age of the earth affects the accuracy of the Biblical account, I haven't been able to figure out yet, but the fact remains that I find myself cast out and disgraced due to "doctrinal differences."

I sure hope my story is an outlier, but if one church is ready to chase a pastor out over creation, how alienated must non-Christians/skeptics feel when creationism is preached with pseudo/no science? Small wonder so many people cite creationism as a reason they left the church.

I do not think your experiences were an outlier, unfortunately. If the behaviour & attitudes, that I've encountered in certain sections of this forum, are representative of how young earth creationists treat those who do not believe in it, I think others are alienated, also.

I wrote a simple post in the Baptist section, in response to one about how if you have faith, you can believe that a global flood happened, the world was created in six literal days, 6000 years ago. I explained, that for me, faith, it's not about the rejection of evidence that is seen. I explained, that Jesus is my cornerstone, of my faith, not creationism. I was told that my faith was rubbish, I'm a phony Christian, I call Jesus a liar, I call God a liar, I spit on the Bible. It was all, very bizarre to me. I'm Swedish. Creationism, it is extremely rare, had been unheard of to me. The Baptist church I was attending with friends, whilst in the US on a science research programme, it was "liberal" for Baptists, but I hadn't realised that at the time, I started participating. That church, they accept evolution, believe in female pastors, women can have careers, it was normal, to me. I was surprised, by the huge differences, between Baptists & the intolerance of those differences. Other people, who also calmly gave their own beliefs, oftentimes with credible evidence to explain, they were also met, with much hostility. So much drama. A moderator, deleted half the pages in that thread, then closed it. So many threads, relating to young earth creationism, science issues, were closed there, as people couldn't have civilised discussions with one another. I stopped posting there. It's fruitless, to have a conversation with people, who will just tell you, their views, they are God's views, and everyone else, who has a different interpretation of scripture, is just proud in her own eyes. A man wrote to me saying he had been to hell in his dreams, and wanted to describe what I was going to experience, if I kept believing in evolution. He said was scared for my soul, because I reject the "truth of God's word", by not believing in a young earth, as he said Jesus did.

This is just an internet forum, of course. It's not of much consequence. It was, off-putting, to family & friends, who are not Christians. I had shared, the link to the section, on Facebook, as at first, I had liked it, and thought Baptist friends might also. Then people read some of the threads with so much acrimony. It was not a good representation, of Christianity. What worries me, is that there are other young Christians, who are treated that way, by their church communities. Alienated, as you were. Treated with haughtiness, scorn, as on this place, but in person. That would be far more damaging. Being lead to believe, that you must choose, between accepting evolution, or accepting Jesus, I think it is very damaging, especially to young Christians.

 

[Blue Wren]

It would be even more accurate if the evolutionist would say " Nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution to me."
They want to speak for everyone.

Is your profession, or your studies, related to biology?

 

[Smidlee]

Is your profession, or your studies, related to biology?

Man is a scientist by nature. Even in the deepest part of the jungle you will find man doing science.

 

[bhsmte]

Man is a scientist by nature. Even in the deepest part of the jungle you will find man doing science.

Can you give us an example?

 

[Smidlee]

Can you give us an example?

Like Neanderthals inventing their own super-glue and the fact it's wired into man to look to the stars think there life in the heavens? Man researching poisons and medicine since recorded history. Why do you think man is the only creature on earth waste time and resources just to find out how many rings Saturn has?

 

[Blue Wren]

Man is a scientist by nature. Even in the deepest part of the jungle you will find man doing science.

The straight answer, to the question, is no, correct? Your paid occupation, it is not in the profession of biology, correct? You are not, enrolled as a student, in an accredited university, studying a subject reliant on biology, correct?

 

[Astrophile]

QUESTIONS EVOLUTION BELIEVERS ALWAYS DODGE, BELOW:

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates.

I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc.

Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all.

We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.

Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it.

Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.

Kindly don't say, "Change IS evolution!" It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing, sometimes into new species, but they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution!


Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.

Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states.

In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc.

(Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not one example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles or into anything but fish. Find a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.

I doubt whether I shall get a sensible answer to this, but I will at least try it. Consider the ancestry of any living thing, its parents, its grandparents, its great-grandparents, etc. Every living thing has an unbroken chain of ancestors extending indefinitely far back into the past. We know from the fossil evidence that there were, for example, no apes during the Eocene epoch, no dinosaurs during the Paleozoic era, no multicellular organisms of any sort during the Middle Proterozoic, and yet apes must have had Eocene ancestors, dinosaurs must have had Paleozoic ancestors, and all the multicellular organisms of the present day must have had Middle and Early Proterozoic ancestors. Therefore apes, dinosaurs, and indeed all multicellular organisms must have evolved from living things of different kinds. It is not a matter of saying that bacteria still exist, therefore they didn't evolve into anything else; it is more a matter of saying that non-bacteria didn't exist during the Archaean and the Early Proterozoic, therefore they must have evolved from the bacteria that did exist at those times.

Think about the analogy of language. There are still books written in Latin, and there are even Latin websites. Are we to conclude that because the Latin language still exists it has not evolved into other languages, or are we forced to infer that since there is no record of Italian, French, Spanish or Portuguese when Cicero and Julius Caesar were alive these languages have all evolved from Latin since the time of Cicero and Caesar?

 

[Smidlee]

The straight answer, to the question, is no, correct? Your paid occupation, it is not in the profession of biology, correct? You are not, enrolled as a student, in an accredited university, studying a subject reliant on biology, correct?

Are the only one who can say anything about evolution and biology is those few who happen to have taken biology? Do you know a person can be an engineer without a degree? Bill Gates got rich long before he got his degree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are the only one who can say anything about evolution and biology is those few who happen to have taken biology? Do you know a person can be an engineer without a degree? Bill Gates got rich long before he got his degree.

Bill Gates doesn't go around telling geologists that they have it all wrong.

Without any knowledge, training, or experience in biology, you feel you are qualified enough to tell scientists who have been working in the field for decades that they are all wrong, and you are right.

Don't you think that's a tad arrogant and misguided?

 

[Smidlee]

Bill Gates doesn't go around telling geologists that they have it all wrong.

Without any knowledge, training, or experience in biology, you feel you are qualified enough to tell scientists who have been working in the field for decades that they are all wrong, and you are right.

Don't you think that's a tad arrogant and misguided?

I'm not stupid that I can't read a geologists prediction and later learn he was dead wrong. You don't have to know anything about a car to know when the mechanic failed to fix your car.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not stupid that I can't read a geologists prediction and later learn he was dead wrong.

Can you show how this geologist is wrong?

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

 

[Smidlee]

I need to get my time-machine in the shop first.