ICR Acts and Facts

[pitabread]

Well what are your questions then? I was just showing that a YEC geneticist can reject all evolutionary hypotheses of evolutionary genetics and do quite well in the field!

But they haven't apparently done "quite well" in the field. From their posted publishing history, it looks like they've accomplished next to nothing.

 

[pitabread]

Well as only the last one even bothered to mention anyone studied, it seems they are drawing their own conclusions from their own biases.

Casually dismissing studies because you claim they are drawing biased conclusions isn't a particularly compelling criticism. It sounds like you just don't want to believe what they've concluded.

Studying 40 Muslim males and not even sitting them down and interviewing them in depth is poor psychology. I am a board certified counselor and I know you cannot draw conclusions without interviewing or counseling the people involved.

I can arrange a test for you and show you that you have a intense need for cognitive closure as well.

Have you ever performed and/or published any scientific studies in the field of psychology?

I became a follower of christ who became a YEC because of researching the claims of evolution (which I strongly believed in in the 70's) and YEC in light of empirical science. The claims of both were diametrically oppossed so one had to be more false than the other.

If you follow the brand of YECism promoted by Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, etc, then you actually are reliant on a form of hyper-evolution. Massive amounts of evolution far beyond any observed rates in nature are needed to account for the diversity of Earth's species from the lifeforms on Noah's ark in the span of only 4000 years.

Either that or start invoking extra-Biblical miracles.

Genetics doesn't support any of that, but that's what they require all the same. So it's a little funny to hear YECs claim to "oppose" evolution when they in fact heavily reliant on that same process for their narrative.

Second, your conversion to YEC sounds like all the conversions to YEC: started out as a Christian, then became a YEC later.

At no point have I ever seen the opposite. Which only reinforces the religious nature of YECism and that it's not a science.

 

[Astrophile]

Well as you are using the very shopworn "that is your interpretation", argument

Enlighten if you please as to what you think Jesus meant when He said these words:

Matthew 19:2-5 King James Version (KJV)
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Keying in on teh word beginning in verse 4 please.

Also:

Matthew 24:36-39 King James Version (KJV)
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

If I cited Othello as an example of the dangers of jealousy and of trusting a man who had been deprived of promotion, or King Lear as an example of how not to treat one's children, or Romeo and Juliet as a warning against rushing into marriage with a member of a hostile family, or Titus Andronicus as a warning against human sacrifice, would you think that I believed that Othello, Desdemona, Iago and Cassio, King Lear and his daughters, Romeo and Juliet, and Titus Andronicus, were real people who said and did the things in Shakespeare's plays? (To make sure that you understand me, I should say that I don't think that any of these people were historical.)

The same argument applies to Jesus. The fact that he cited the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and Jonah and the whale, doesn't necessarily mean that he regarded these stories as history.

 

[pitabread]

I have no clue as to how or why God created. It doesn't bother me. I am intensely curious, but don't lose a nano sdecond of sleep over it.

Have you ever investigated how God did anything? Have you ever wondered how to test competing ideas in creationism?

If two creationists had differing ideas of how the Flood of Noah was perpetuated, how would you test those ideas to determine which was more likely?

The hypothesis of goo to you via the zoo is just simply extrapolating what we have observed and can confirm and applying it to things on a much larger scale- like fins to feet, gills to lungs, scales to feathers a simple self replicating cell to asll the present biodiversity.

We have no reason to think such a process couldn't accomplish the very same though. More than anything I think this is strictly a conceptual issue.

Once again we have no empirical evidence that one genus evolved from another. We have conclusions and educated guesses, but no actual evidence, just interpretations of the fossils and extrapolating conclusions from modern genetics.

A genus is just a man-made categorization. They have no meaning in nature; organisms don't come with a stamp that says Cyanocitta cristata or Megaptera novaeangliae. That's just stuff we make up for the purpose of classification.

Consequently talking about a genus evolving into another genus doesn't make any sense from the perspective of such categorization being artificial in the first place.

If creationists want to demonstrate a natural barrier to evolution, they need to do so independent of any man-made classification system.

Also things like genomes, fossils, biogeography, developmental biology, etc, are all lines of evidence that support common ancestry. To claim there is no evidence is to fundamentally misunderstand what the evidence is. This is again what Todd Wood was trying to explain to other creationists that yes, there really evidence for evolution and that simply denying it doesn't serve any useful purpose other than to make creationists appear ignorant.

 

[Speedwell]

Well as you are using the very shopworn "that is your interpretation", argument

Enlighten if you please as to what you think Jesus meant when He said these words:

Matthew 19:2-5 King James Version (KJV)
2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Keying in on teh word beginning in verse 4 please.

The word beginning verse 4 is "and." So what?

Also:

Matthew 24:36-39 King James Version (KJV)
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Those are both familiar passages in which Jesus refers to the text of Genesis. I'm not sure what posting them is supposed to prove. Certainly referencing a text for pastoral purposes does not, in itself, endorse any particular genre determination.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hey hey shem, havent you got a discussion with me already? I think you need to concentrate all your efforts there, ill wait patiently for you to respond Dont run off on me, it is now time for a discussion.

So you have accused me of quoting out of context and you used scripture to confirm your accusation.

So lets check out psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

So to quotemine psalm 14:1 - leaves us with this statement "there is no God". This statement misrepresents the whole context and leaves us with a meaning that is not intended by the author.

Lets check out the whole context of 3 replies @VirOptimus has made.

Page 33 of ICR Acts and Facts

Post 653
"Evolution is observed."

Post 650
"Evolution is a fact."

And

Page 48 of Why evolution isn't scientific

Post 943
"My response is in no way incompatible with Kylies answer.

The ToE just is."

You were kind enough to give me an example using the bible, could you show me how i quotemined these 3 statements by @VirOptimus.

Would you accept this as an answer "God just is"?

Cheers

I'll grant you 100% that within the specific posts there was not further context.

I was reading the post in context of the somewhat difficult discussion with nolidad and I saw your statement "Are you suggesting that you didnt say these things?", which is a common statement I've seen used to defend the practice of quote mining and I lost my temper.

So, over the entire discussion, I feel that evolutionary concepts have been well presented, but not within the specific thread of your dialogue with Kylie. I misread that and I apologise.

 

[the iconoclast]

Hey hey Iconoclast, aren't you the guy who asked me for evidence for evolution, then ran away when I gave you some?

Hey hey brother

I don't recall this situation and i usually have a good memory. If you say it is so how about you present the evidence you speak of and ill try not to run away?

Cheers brother and lets do this

 

[the iconoclast]

What's with the winky thing, are you being sarcastic?

Wow hey jimmy d

Sometimes i like to wink, sometimes i pull out my tongue, most of the time its a smile but in this case it was a substitute for a wave and also an acknowledgement that i seen @VirOptimus do something similar many times.

I might just take a leaf from his book and respond with "God just is" from now on

Cheers, God just is

 

[the iconoclast]

Ok?

Hey hey slappy

Ok is not an adequate reply.

How do things actually exist in contrast to what idealistic or notional idea?

Dont be shy.

 

[the iconoclast]

Evolution is not "the atheist position."

Hey hey brother

Please excuse me my dear brother I never said it was, I said the atheist position is weak. You decided that was my intention. You seem to have an elitist manner that suggests we creationist are not smart. You also seem to team up with atheists to gang up on creationists.

Anyone is welcome to accept evolution, including Christians, and many hav

Wow they can? Never would have guessed, you see im not very bright and know nothing outside of my comfort zone.

Hey @JimmyD, that was sarcasm.

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I'll grant you 100% that within the specific posts there was not further context.

I was reading the post in context of the somewhat difficult discussion with nolidad and I saw your statement "Are you suggesting that you didnt say these things?", which is a common statement I've seen used to defend the practice of quote mining and I lost my temper.

So, over the entire discussion, I feel that evolutionary concepts have been well presented, but not within the specific thread of your dialogue with Kylie. I misread that and I apologise.

Hey hey my dear

No worries cobber Well since you cannot show me how i quotemined, i guess the accusation is false.

Cheers

 

[VirOptimus]

Wow hey jimmy d

Sometimes i like to wink, sometimes i pull out my tongue, most of the time its a smile but in this case it was a substitute for a wave and also an acknowledgement that i seen @VirOptimus do something similar many times.

I might just take a leaf from his book and respond with "God just is" from now on

Cheers, God just is

Please stop referencing, quoting or responding to me. Just put me on ignore.

 

[the iconoclast]

Please stop referencing, quoting or responding to me. Just put me on ignore.

Hey hey

Please excuse me my dear

 

[Jimmy D]

Wow hey jimmy d

Sometimes i like to wink, sometimes i pull out my tongue, most of the time its a smile but in this case it was a substitute for a wave and also an acknowledgement that i seen @VirOptimus do something similar many times.

I might just take a leaf from his book and respond with "God just is" from now on

Cheers, God just is

So you were serious in saying that there's "nothing to back up" the statement that evolution is observed? Wow.

 

[Speedwell]

Hey hey brother

Please excuse me my dear brother I never said it was, I said the atheist position is weak. You decided that was my intention. You seem to have an elitist manner that suggests we creationist are not smart.

Creationists as a group have less formal education than evolutionists and are proud of that fact.

You also seem to team up with atheists to gang up on creationists.

Yes, I do. I am an Anglican, and creationists are hostile to Anglicans, denying our membership in the body of Christ. Atheists are equally despised by creationists, but are not hostile to Anglicans.

Wow they can? Never would have guessed, you see im not very bright and know nothing outside of my comfort zone.

The founder of modern creationism, Henry Morris, established his work with the Statement "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God." That is a lie and I want no one to forget that it is a lie. The theory of evolution does not deny the existence of God nor any essential point of Christian doctrine. It only denies a literal interpretation of Genesis, but not on purpose, only incidentally.

 

[nolidad]

Those are both familiar passages in which Jesus refers to the text of Genesis. I'm not sure what posting them is supposed to prove. Certainly referencing a text for pastoral purposes does not, in itself, endorse any particular genre determination.

He validates them!

Israel believed in a literal Genesis
Jesus believed in a literal genesis
The church for centuries believed in a literal genesis(until greek philosophy corrupted the church and then the secularists)

Isn't it funny that god would have to wait approx. 5,800 years to tell teh world how He created things? And that by one who was but a nominal Christian and by many athiests!

Amazing how He couldn't bother to tell Adam or any of the patriarchs the truth in simple form. Especially as verifiable proven science speaks against macro evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- Especially as verifiable proven science speaks against macro evolution.

Ahahaha, no. Thats a lie.

Why this lies for Jesus? Cant you handle truth?

 

[nolidad]

We have no reason to think such a process couldn't accomplish the very same though. More than anything I think this is strictly a conceptual issue.

If two creationists had differing ideas of how the Flood of Noah was perpetuated, how would you test those ideas to determine which was more likely?

And you have no reason to think it can! You have no evidence that it has only interpretation of fossils by people who don't know the history of the fossils when they were living!

But at least you are closing in on the heart of the argument. If you want to BELIEVE in evolution, that is fine But to call it science when it fails the scientific method- is wrong.

As for the flood? There are only two theories I know of- a meteor strike and simple tectonic activity.

I actually believe in both as there is ample evidence for a major strike. Just that the evolutionist shave dated it wrong by only 64,995,600 years give or take, by their faulty methods of dating.

 

[nolidad]

Ahahaha, no. Thats a lie.

Why this lies for Jesus? Cant you handle truth?

Well show the empirical evidence for the evolution of scales to feathers then! That has been declared a fact and facts are supoosed to be based on evidence! So show the mutations that took a scale to a feather! I am not asking for the whole evolutionarty tree your pseudo scientists have planted- just a teeny weeny itsy bitsy little thing they call fact.

 

[nolidad]

But they haven't apparently done "quite well" in the field. From their posted publishing history, it looks like they've accomplished next to nothing.

So how many papers you can vomit out is a key to being succesful???

would you consider creating a life saving apparatus that is now used by millions kinda a sign of doing something?