proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

Are you talking about macro-evolution or micro-evolution?

Both.

 

[David_M]

When you understand that salamanders remaining salamanders is not evidence of evolution, get back to me.

Unproved theories need to be criticised if they are offered as evidence.

Thanks for providing confirmation that you don't understand how evolution works or how science works.

 

[BradB]

Well, no, because of the reasons I mentioned. If we didn't have that evidence regarding who built the Pyramids, then we wouldn't just say that the Egyptians built them - in fact there are structures in the middle east and in the UK that appear to have been built prior to the Pyramids, but don't have markings on them and are built in different ways. We haven't assumed anything about who built them, and still don't know for sure who did... Despite Stonehenge find Malta’s temples still oldest oldest

Yes and that is precisely the point. In the future I shall use Stonehenge as an analogy, thank you. We may not be able to know anything about "who" built it but we can be sure there was a "who."

Wow. You're aware that Biblical Literalists in the Christian faith are the minority by a long way, right? Many, many more Christians accept Science and all that goes with it and it doesn't shake their faith in the least. Unfortunately for you, Evolution, like any other scientific field, is an applied science. That's to say, it's so real that it's producing tangible results when practically applied. You'll never see the day when Evolution will be set aside as incorrect by the scientific community.

Well yes I am very aware of this fact. In fact I am likewise aware of the prophetic statement made by Christ Himself who predicted this condition. He spoke of a great movement of "MANY" who claim He is Christ but He will tell them to depart from Him for He never knew them. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus went on to describe who is solid in their faith with Him. In verse 24 He said it is the one's who not only "hear" His words but actually put them into practice. That obviously means there are things we are to take...ahem...literally. So here is Jesus telling us that there will be many who claim to know Him but they really don't and this is made obvious by the fact that they do not take His words seriously and literally. So I am not at all surprised when I see that those who do take His word literally are in the minority.

Of course not. How do you know a Multiverse (if one exists) is not infinite? I didn't say that it was finite, and since time as we know it is intrinsic to the properties inside and of this universe (and not outside of it, remember) then a Multiverse would be just as insulated as your supposed God is from what we know as time ... and for that matter, anything else outside this universe would be free of our temporal existence too.

I see well I thought you meant "multiverse" in the sense as others who claim one finite universe spun off another and that one another and so on forever. But you seem to mean some sort of infinite multiverse spinning entity? If you add in the fact that ours displays characteristics of specificity which are intrinsically only associated with intelligence...then how is that not the same definition we usually ascribe with the term "God?"

It could be a Quickening of sorts - i.e. it might be that our universe collapses after a period of time and restarts from that infinitesimal point again.

Actually you are talking about the oscillating universe theory which has been shown that if such a system occurred it would have long since died a heat death.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

if so why so many scientists (including biologists) reject evolution?

If you actually find a scientist who rejects evolution (which will be very hard to do) then you will find that scientist is a strong believer in a religious faith that denies evolution. That is a hint for the answer to your question.

 

[BradB]

Are you aware that DNA and RNA and proteins that encode as a result are all just chemical reactions following all the basic laws of physics, just like those chemical reactions you were telling me about too?

My Sunday News paper has ink that bonds to it through something that is just a basic chemical reaction following the laws of physics also. It's the arrangements of the ink on the paper we are talking about and all the biological literature describes the code in DNA as highly specified.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's the arrangements of the ink on the paper we are talking about and all the biological literature describes the code in DNA as highly specified.

I cannot recall reading in any biology textbook, or research paper, that the DNA code is "highly specified". "Highly specified" is not a term used in biology. It is a term introduced by advocates of Intelligent Design. It is misleading, as you have done, to suggest that the biological literature directly supports the concept. You may argue - incorrectly - that the findings of biology, as revealed in the literature, point towards DNA code being highly specified. Unfortunately that is not what your sentence construction is doing.

Thus, I hope you will do two things. Rephrase that statement in a manner that does not mislead. Provide some justification for the, presently, unsupported assertion that the DNA code is highly specified. Remember - the biological literature does not say this.

 

[Speedwell]

Well yes I am very aware of this fact. In fact I am likewise aware of the prophetic statement made by Christ Himself who predicted this condition. He spoke of a great movement of "MANY" who claim He is Christ but He will tell them to depart from Him for He never knew them. (Matthew 7:21-23) Jesus went on to describe who is solid in their faith with Him. In verse 24 He said it is the one's who not only "hear" His words but actually put them into practice. That obviously means there are things we are to take...ahem...literally. So here is Jesus telling us that there will be many who claim to know Him but they really don't and this is made obvious by the fact that they do not take His words seriously and literally. So I am not at all surprised when I see that those who do take His word literally are in the minority.

So what do you intend to do about it? There are close to two billion people in the world who are convinced (wrongly, acording to you) that they are your fellow Christians. They believe (falsely, according to you) that their faith in Christ, in his life, death and resurrection will save them. Most of them know nothing of literal inerrancy or right-wing fundamentalist Protestant theology. They believe as their churches have taught for centuries. Don't you people feel some responsibility towards them? Why do you offer them nothing but denunciation and hostility?

 

[BradB]

Trying to make Hebrew words agree with English definitions is the problem.

So you seem to be calling into question the countless translators that have translated the Hebrew text into the English language for our convenience. The problem with this theory is that there are so many that we can look at them all and get a perfect image of what the text is conveying. The majority do not agree with you at all. As I said 2 Peter 3:16, and Titus 3:10.

 

[BradB]

I cannot recall reading in any biology textbook, or research paper, that the DNA code is "highly specified". "Highly specified" is not a term used in biology. It is a term introduced by advocates of Intelligent Design.

Hmm... that is odd that you would say that because just a quick Google search of the term being used in non ID publications popped up several times. For example a Dr. Alan L. Gillen who is a professor of biology uses the term “highly specified” when referring to DNA many times in his book The Genesis of Germs: The Origin of Diseases and the Coming Plagues. See specifically page 79.

A published scientific paper entitled “Broad Specificity Profiling of TALENs Results in Engineered Nucleases With Improved DNA Cleavage Specificity,” by doctor John Guilinger and six others, uses the term “highly specified” when referring to DNA specifically on page 4, page 8, and page 15 note 26.

A publication entitled “Identification of five putative yeast RNA helicase genes,” by doctors Tien-Hsten Chang, Jaime Arenas, and John Abelson, uses the term “highly specific” when referring to DNA specifically on page 1573.

Perhaps you should do a little research before accusing someone of being misleading?

 

[BradB]

So what do you intend to do about it? There are close to two billion people in the world who are convinced (wrongly, acording to you) that they are your fellow Christians. They believe (falsely, according to you) that their faith in Christ, in his life, death and resurrection will save them. Most of them know nothing of literal inerrancy or right-wing fundamentalist Protestant theology. They believe as their churches have taught for centuries. Don't you people feel some responsibility towards them? Why do you offer them nothing but denunciation and hostility?

Well here is my most recent video of me "doing something" about it to try and reach them. And here, and here, and here, and here. And especially HERE and HERE! Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. To proclaim His words from the roof top. So I intend to take His word "literally" and do just that. What about you?

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmm... that is odd that you would say that because just a quick Google search of the term being used in non ID publications popped up several times. For example a Dr. Alan L. Gillen who is a professor of biology uses the term “highly specified” when referring to DNA many times in his book The Genesis of Germs: The Origin of Diseases and the Coming Plagues. See specifically page 79.

A published scientific paper entitled “Broad Specificity Profiling of TALENs Results in Engineered Nucleases With Improved DNA Cleavage Specificity,” by doctor John Guilinger and six others, uses the term “highly specified” when referring to DNA specifically on page 4, page 8, and page 15 note 26.

A publication entitled “Identification of five putative yeast RNA helicase genes,” by doctors Tien-Hsten Chang, Jaime Arenas, and John Abelson, uses the term “highly specific” when referring to DNA specifically on page 1573.

Perhaps you should do a little research before accusing someone of being misleading?

I have done plenty of research, which is why I made the assertion I did. I shall explore the examples you have offered up and look for further instances and then respond as appropriate.

Just to be clear, are you asserting any of the following?
1. The term "highly specified" is common in biological literature.
2. The term "highly specified" is a term from mainstream biology.
3. The term "highly specified" was not introduced by ID advocates.

If you are asserting any of these then it is likely that you are being misleading.

 

[BradB]

I have done plenty of research, which is why I made the assertion I did. I shall explore the examples you have offered up and look for further instances and then respond as appropriate.

Just to be clear, are you asserting any of the following?
1. The term "highly specified" is common in biological literature.
2. The term "highly specified" is a term from mainstream biology.
3. The term "highly specified" was not introduced by ID advocates.

If you are asserting any of these then it is likely that you are being misleading.

Yes to one and two as demonstrated by a quick Google search of the term. And haven't got a clue about 3. I honestly have no idea who coined the phrase.

 

[Speedwell]

Well here is my most recent video of me "doing something" about it to try and reach them. And here, and here, and here, and here. And especially HERE and HERE! Jesus said go into all the world and preach the gospel. To proclaim His words from the roof top. So I intend to take His word "literally" and do just that. What about you?

Not as good a Christian as you, evidently. I admire your courage to preach like that and respect you for it. But how specifically do you approach those who agree with what you preach, who hold Jesus in their hearts but who don't believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis and whose salvation in Him you therefore deny? In fact, at one point you assert that all that is required for salvation is true faith in Christ, His life, death and resurrection. Isn't that false preaching on your part, given what you really believe? I also noticed some snotty remarks in there about Traditional Christians, their manner of prayer and view of the Sacraments--which you clearly know nothing about. How is that outreach?

 

[BradB]

Not as good a Christian as you, evidently. I admire your courage to preach like that and respect you for it. But how specifically do you approach those who agree with what you preach, who hold Jesus in their hearts but who don't believe in the literal inerrancy of Genesis and whose salvation in Him you therefore deny? In fact, at one point you assert that all that is required for salvation is true faith in Christ, His life, death and resurrection. Isn't that false preaching on your part, given what you really believe? I also noticed some snotty remarks in there about Traditional Christians, their manner of prayer and view of the Sacraments--which you clearly know nothing about. How is that outreach?

I believe the word of God does its work my friend. Does a Coast Guard rescue worker just drop down into the fridged ocean water and tell the person he's trying to save to hold on to his ankles while they are lifted out? Well that person may have the strength to hang on and actually make it to safety but the Coast Guard rescuer wants to be sure they're strapped in well. I can look around and see a lot of Grey areas where people may be saved but just barely. I want to do everything in my power to ensure they're strapped in well. Meaning though they're clinging to Christ if I see they're also trusting in things that can fail I would be derelict in my duty not to say anything. Only trusting in Christ and Christ Alone ensures you are strapped in. Trust in religious rituals, religious prayers prayer beads and other religious rites can cause the unsaved to cling to the wrong thing and be lost. So I'm sorry my friend if I don't pull any punches. You see I once also preached a man tainted gospel. And for that I had to earnestly beg God's forgiveness. I once preached that people should come to Jesus because he wanted to make them healthy wealthy and wise. That he loved them and had a perfect plan for their life. I failed to recognize God's plan was for us to be persecuted and hated buy the world. To be stoned to be Shipwrecked to be hungry and outcast. When people come to Jesus for the wrong motives they abandon him when the heat of the Sun beats upon them because they have no root they wither away. I believe that God sent me to this forum for a reason. I believe that God's word does its work. And I believe it will do its work in you my beloved brother.

 

[Speedwell]

. Only trusting in Christ and Christ Alone ensures you are strapped in. Trust in religious rituals, religious prayers prayer beads and other religious rites can cause the unsaved to cling to the wrong thing and be lost.

My point, exactly. To insinuate that Traditonal Christians trust "religious rituals, religious prayers prayer beads and other religious rites" as an alternative to trusting Christ is a gratuitous insult. They know better than that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Get on board. We are discussing scientific evidence

You are doing that?

Ok, you have seen the chart showing various fossils of hominids leading to humans. I have shown you the evidence. Do you have any response?

Now that we are on a roll, here is another picture:

That guy on the left is my favorite. Do you have any explanation for this 1.9 million year old fossil, other than that he is transitional between ape-like creatures and humans?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It's just a painfully transparent and pathetic tactic. Any evidence presented can be ignored by typing "but how?".

Omega has added nothing to this thread with his trolling.

Like a kid continuously asking "why".

 

[doubtingmerle]

The usual evo talking points with no explanation as to HOW it is possible. Hypothesis are not evidence. They are only a guess, which fits in perfectly with evolution. Cats producing cats and nothing but cats for 1000 of years supports "after their kind," and can't be falsified.

Since it can't be falsified, it is true.

Beans always producing beans and nothing but beans for 1000 of years proves "after their kind and can't be falsified.

Eagles always producing eagles and nothing but eagles for 1000 of years prove "after their kind and can't be falsified

Humans always producing humans and nothing but humans for 1000 of years prove after their kind and can't be falsified.

A land animal wading in the ocean eating fish, will NEVER cause a leg to become a fin or a nose to become a blowhole. Since it can't, it is already falsified.

Eohippus producing Eohippus for 40 million...

Wait, the evidence clearly shows they evolved into Equus, right?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Like a kid continuously asking "why".

And when you point out that the how has been covered he denies it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Just FYI - Dr Gillen is both an Intelligent Design creation proponent and a young earth creationist, so its not surprising that he's attempting to stealthily insert ID concepts into his own books.

He even has his own entry at the Encyclopedia of American Loons!

And, he teaches at Liberty University, which requires all faculty members to agree and sign on with its doctrinal positions as terms of their employment. These doctrinal positions include:

We affirm that all things were created by God.
The universe was created in six historical days and is continuously sustained by God; thus it both reflects His glory and reveals His truth.
Human beings were directly created, not evolved, in the very image of God.
​

And, he's an Answers in Genesis contributor. Which also requires its authors and employees to sign up to a statement of faith of literal six day, young earth creationism.

So, when considering whether the term 'specified complexity' is used by anyone other than those on the extreme fringe of biologist, it's probably not the best idea to use an example of someone on the extreme fringe of biology, who is required by the terms of his employment to ascribe to a literal six day creation account and direct human creation by the Abrahamic deity and will literally not accept any other answer.