assumptions of evolution

[Oncedeceived]

Unfortunately it's one that would, if true, destroy Abrahamic theology as we know it.

Oh, and how is that?

You see, the "common designer" idea is proposed because of a known behaviour of human designers- design reuse.

Bunk, sorry but just bunk. Think about common anatomy. There are many times that there is a common anatomy without any evidence for a common ancestor. This is more in support for a common designer than a common ancestor.

Design Reuse is employed for one reason: limited resources. Reusing parts and designs reduces design time, design cost, tooling investment for manufacturing, training requirements, and maintenance costs. It also improves reliability without the need to redo all previous testing.

Reuse is not the same as common design.

Not one of the above is of any use to an omniscient, omnipotent being.

That is because it is a strawman.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

^A very typical combination straw man and "poison the well" argument used by atheists.

Of course "Loudmouth" ( ) neglects to mention that there aren't any creation scientists who claim that there are "invisible flu demons".

By the way, the scientist whose experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease was none other than Louis Pasteur---devout Christian and anti-evolutionist!

Pasteur disproved the various idiotic abiogenesis/spontaneous generation hypotheses that were being proposed by the atheists/evolutionists of his day.

Pasteur's research has never been falsified. There is no credible scientific proof that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation has EVER occurred. It is simply an atheist creation myth that atheists accept as a matter of faith.

Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis. The former is the claim that, for example, maggots form on meat out of thin air.

Elite atheist scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle understand that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation isn't a scientifically viable hypothesis, which is why they've had to resort to other ridiculous atheist creation myths like "panspermia".

If you want to read about some of the utterly ridiculous things that atheists believe in, do a google search with these keywords--- crick hoyle panspermia.

Read about Crick's "rocket sperms" and Hoyle's "comet creatures". You'll LYAO when you read what utter nonsense elite atheist scientists believe.

Which is why none of the other "elite atheist scientists" believes them.

 

[Reanimation]

From Encylopedia Britannica Online:

"Spontaneous Generation

also called Abiogenesis

Wowz! It must be true!!!

Next time, try a scientific source.

 

[KCfromNC]

You can't.
You can't prove Him either.
You can't prove most of anything in Science either.

Yes, but you left out the most important part. We can (and we have) disproved lots of things using science. Properly formed scientific ideas can be disproved - this comes along with the fact that theories make testable predictions. We test them,and if the predictions are wrong we can discard the theory and move on to another possible explanation.

Your creator is vague enough not to make any concrete predictions, so it's useless in a scientific setting.

 

[KCfromNC]

What I meant by what I said is that a Creator creating life could as well used common elements for His creation. I was presenting a possibility.

You don't get to claim your hypothetical creator could or could not do something until you explain what that creator is. All of the creators we have evidence for produce designs which do not follow a nested hierarchy. So you're obviously proposing a creator which is totally different from what evidence we do have of beings which create things. You'll need to put in a bit more work here before just randomly making claims about what this unevidenced hypothetical creator can and can't do.

The creation narrative of Genesis 1 has predictions so to speak that many have been led to believe to be falsified. Now it is true that it can not be proven or falsified in the way that science is modeled. I think that as time goes on, Genesis 1 will make more sense and will be clearer in respect to supportive scientific evidence. Science can be used as a tool for determining the accuracy of Genesis 1.

I think scientists have pretty conclusively discarded the idea that a solid dome separates the waters of heaven from the waters on earth. In fact, I think we've pretty conclusively disproved the idea of water surrounding us in the sky in general. And Genesis 1 goes downhill from there.

You don't get a special pass on how evidence works just because a claim is written in the Bible opposed to some other book. Either a claim is supported by evidence or not.

 

[KCfromNC]

^A very typical combination straw man and "poison the well" argument used by atheists.

Of course "Loudmouth" ( ) neglects to mention that there aren't any creation scientists who claim that there are "invisible flu demons".

Maybe not, but do a Google search on metal illness caused by demons and you'll see some results which surprise you. There's a large contingent of Christians who believe that at least some diseases are caused by them...

 

[Split Rock]

You're the one who needs to learn some science. Spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are the same thing, and Pasteur falsified it.

Not one living thing in all of history has been scientifically proven to have originated via spontaneous generation/abiogenesis.

From Encylopedia Britannica Online:

"Spontaneous Generation

also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life. Pieces of cheese and bread wrapped in rags and left in a dark corner, for example, were thus thought to produce mice, according to this theory, because after several weeks, there were mice in the rags."

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9069208/spontaneous-generation

My regards to Britannica Online, but they are wrong... spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not the same. Spontaneous Generation was the idea that complex multicellular life (such as flies or mice) could appear spontaneously from dirty rags, or rotting meat. Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that very simple unicellular life developed by chemical processes from organic molecules over a long process.

 

[Loudmouth]

^A very typical combination straw man and "poison the well" argument used by atheists.

Of course "Loudmouth" ( ) neglects to mention that there aren't any creation scientists who claim that there are "invisible flu demons".

It was an analogy. You fail to mention that creationists do propose that an invisible being magically poofed the universe into being. Sounds about the same to me.

By the way, the scientist whose experiments confirmed the germ theory of disease was none other than Louis Pasteur---devout Christian and anti-evolutionist!

Pasteur disproved the various idiotic abiogenesis/spontaneous generation hypotheses that were being proposed by the atheists/evolutionists of his day.

As others have stated, Pasteur disproved the idea of spontaneous generation, the formation of large,complex animals from dead matter within the time period of a few days to a week. Pasteur never tested for self-replicating polymers in any of his experiments so he could not have disproved abiogenesis.

Elite atheist scientists like Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle understand that abiogenesis/spontaneous generation isn't a scientifically viable hypothesis, which is why they've had to resort to other ridiculous atheist creation myths like "panspermia".

Panspermia moves abiogenesis into outer space instead of on Earth. Crick proposed this model because he thought conditions on Earth were not conducive to the formation of RNA/DNA polymers. He thought that space offered a much better place for life to originate.

If you want to read about some of the utterly ridiculous things that atheists believe in, do a google search with these keywords--- crick hoyle panspermia.

They aren't nearly as silly as the things theists believe in. Read Genesis. A man magically poofed into being from a lump of mud by an invisible deity? Sounds like a fairy tale to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would totally agree if we are talking only in scientific terms here. What I was referring to in my post was that it is easy when we see things from the past in the present. We can see the connectedness of life and see certain processes and some can assume that those processes alone take away the possibility of God.

What you are missing is that NEW discoveries continue to fall in line with what we would expect if evolution were true. Not to beat a healthy horse, but the ERV evidence is a shining example. The deeper we dig the more evidence we find for evolution. We do see a connectedness of life, and that connectedness is exactly what we would expect if evolution were true.

I don't think that is possible.

Then creationism/ID is unfalsifiable, just as we have always said. You would consider any evidence as evidence for a Creator, no matter how ludicrous it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I meant by what I said is that a Creator creating life could as well used common elements for His creation. I was presenting a possibility.

What would be impossible for this Creator to do? If nothing, then creationism is unfalsifiable. No evidence, no matter how ludicrous, would ever falsify the Creator hypothesis.

The creation narrative of Genesis 1 has predictions so to speak that many have been led to believe to be falsified. Now it is true that it can not be proven or falsified in the way that science is modeled. I think that as time goes on, Genesis 1 will make more sense and will be clearer in respect to supportive scientific evidence. Science can be used as a tool for determining the accuracy of Genesis 1.

Then I will ask again. What evidence, if found, would falsify those predictions?

 

[flatworm]

Oh, and how is that?
Bunk, sorry but just bunk. Think about common anatomy. There are many times that there is a common anatomy without any evidence for a common ancestor.

Like what?

You still haven't refuted the basic fact of engineering that the fundamental reason for commonality in design is limited resources.

Reuse is not the same as common design.

Exactly how is it different?

 

[Naraoia]

That's an accurate assessment. The moral of the story is that once the tRNA and amino acid relationships are solidified you can't suddenly change those associations. Why? A change in this association would change EVERY protein, and probably not for the best. Proteins can handle small changes, or even protein domain swapping, but you can't start changing every 10th amino acid and hope to have a functional protein.

True, yeah Totally forgot that part of the story. I was just trying to point out that the assignment could've been most anything to begin with.

The important bit is that the codon differences occur in the last base of the codon. This relationship was the last to evolve, while the 1st and 2nd base in the codon evolved in that order.

<nods> Well said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but you left out the most important part. We can (and we have) disproved lots of things using science. Properly formed scientific ideas can be disproved - this comes along with the fact that theories make testable predictions. We test them,and if the predictions are wrong we can discard the theory and move on to another possible explanation.

Your creator is vague enough not to make any concrete predictions, so it's useless in a scientific setting.

You can't have it both ways. Some people say that Genesis 1 has been refuted by science so it is falsified and then here you are saying that the Creator can not be falsified due to not making any concrete predictions.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

You can't have it both ways. Some people say that Genesis 1 has been refuted by science so it is falsified and then here you are saying that the Creator can not be falsified due to not making any concrete predictions.

Those are two different things. We cannot falsify God (at least not without a stringent definition), but we can falsify the claim that God, should he exist, created this planet in the manner described in Genesis 1.

 

[shevar]

You can't have it both ways. Some people say that Genesis 1 has been refuted by science so it is falsified and then here you are saying that the Creator can not be falsified due to not making any concrete predictions.

Genessis 1 has been refuted as a literal description that god created the earth 6000 years ago.

Unless you want to make really messy assumptions regarding the fact that god would make the earth look like it is really old and such But that's not really logical. Which is basicly what is meant with it being unrefutable, since there are still people clinning to the assumption that the world is 6000 years old.


What currently hasn't been refuted and is pretty much the last straw ID has is the fact it is currently unknown how the first cells came into excistance. Though I would call it more likely it was created through chemical reactions then through some magical beeing saying poof!

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't get to claim your hypothetical creator could or could not do something until you explain what that creator is. All of the creators we have evidence for produce designs which do not follow a nested hierarchy. So you're obviously proposing a creator which is totally different from what evidence we do have of beings which create things. You'll need to put in a bit more work here before just randomly making claims about what this unevidenced hypothetical creator can and can't do.

First of all I was "claiming" a possibility which was being eliminated on a scientific basis. Science does not allow for the supernatural but the supernatural is possible and I was stating that science does not know if God was part of the process or not.

There are scientists that claim the universe "looks designed" even though they claim it is not. So how can something look designed in even a scientist's eye yet be considered it is not evidence of design?

I think scientists have pretty conclusively discarded the idea that a solid dome separates the waters of heaven from the waters on earth. In fact, I think we've pretty conclusively disproved the idea of water surrounding us in the sky in general. And Genesis 1 goes downhill from there.

The Hebrew raqia (the “firmament” of the KJV, ASV, RSV, et al.) means an “expanse” (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII; Wilson, n.d., p. 166), or “something stretched, spread or beaten out” (Maunder, 1939, p. 315; Speiser, 1964, p. 6). Keil and Delitzsch offered this definition in their monumental commentary on the Pentateuch: “to stretch, to spread out, then beat or tread out...the spreading out of air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere” (1980, 1:52). In an article discussing the firmament of Genesis 1:6-8, Gary Workman observed that this word is an “unfortunate translation” because it “not only is inaccurate but also has fostered unjust criticism that the Bible erroneously and naively pictures the sky above the earth as a solid dome” (1991, 11[4]:14). Strictly speaking, of course, “firmament” is not actually a translation of raqia at all, but rather, more accurately, a transliteration (i.e., the substitution of a letter in one language for the equivalent letter in another language) of an “unfortunate translation.” Allow me to explain.
The Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek produced by Jewish scholars in the third centuy B.C. at the behest of the Egyptian pharaoh, Ptolemy Philadelphus, for inclusion in his world-famous library in Alexandria) translated raqia into the Greek as stereoma, which connotes a “solid structure” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Apparently, the translators of the Septuagint were influenced by the then-popular Egyptian view of cosmology and astronomy [they were, after all, doing their translating in Egypt for an Egyptian pharaoh] that embraced the notion of the heavens being a stone vault. Unfortunately, those Hebrew scholars therefore chose to render raqia via the Greek word stereoma—in order to suggest a firm, solid structure. The Greek connotation thus influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate, he used the word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support—from which the word “firmament” is transliterated) to reflect this pagan concept (McKechinie, 1978, p. 691). In his Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Old Testament scholar W.E. Vine stressed:

While this English word is derived from the Latin firmamentum which signifies firmness or strengthening,...the Hebrew word, raqia, has no such meaning, but denoted the “expanse,” that which was stretched out. Certainly the sky was not regarded as a hard vault in which the heavenly orbs were fixed.... There is therefore nothing in the language of the original to suggest that the writers [of the Old Testament—[SIZE=-2]BT[/SIZE]] were influenced by the imaginative ideas of heathen nations (1981, p. 67).​

Raqia denotes simply an expanse, not a solid structure (see Harris, et al., 1980, 2:2218). Furthermore, the actual substance of the expanse is not inherent in the word. Numbers 16:38 juxtaposes raqia and pahim (plates), suggesting literally an “expanse of plates.” Here, “plates” specifies the actual material involved in the expansion. In Genesis, “heavens,” not solid matter, is given as the nature of the expanse (Genesis 1:8,14,15,17,20). The original context in which raqia is used does not imply any kind of solid dome above the Earth. The Bible equates “firmament” with the “heavens” (Psalm 19:1), even using the compound “firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:14-15,17). God provided the correct definition on the second day of creation when He “called the firmament Heaven” (Genesis 1:8). It was described further when Isaiah said that the Lord “stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in” (Isaiah 40:22). “Heavens” always is dual in the Hebrew and, in general, refers to the “heights” above the Earth. As such, there are three particular applications of the word in Scripture. There are the atmospheric heavens (Jeremiah 4:25), the sidereal heavens (outer space) where the planetary bodies reside (Isaiah 13:10), and the heaven of God’s own dwelling place (Hebrews 9:24). As the context requires, “firmament” may be used in reference to any one of these. Birds are said to fly in “the open firmament of heaven” (the atmospheric heavens, Genesis 1:20). The Sun, Moon, and stars are set in “the firmament of heaven” (the sidereal heavens, Genesis 1:17). And the psalmist spoke of God’s “sanctuary” as being “in the firmament” (Psalm 150:1). R.K. Harrison, writing on the word “firmament” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, observed:

The relationship of the firmament to the concept of heaven can be clarified if the firmament is identified with the troposphere, and then by thinking of the celestial heavens either as a topographic dimension beyond the firmament itself, or as the designated abode of God (1982, 2:307).​

The context of Genesis 1:6-8,14-22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky above the Earth.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2168

You don't get a special pass on how evidence works just because a claim is written in the Bible opposed to some other book. Either a claim is supported by evidence or not.

There is evidence to support Genesis 1.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

You can't have it both ways. Some people say that Genesis 1 has been refuted by science so it is falsified and then here you are saying that the Creator can not be falsified due to not making any concrete predictions.

You are not the only believer in the world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like what?

A frog's digits/our hands.

You still haven't refuted the basic fact of engineering that the fundamental reason for commonality in design is limited resources.

Okay, you first. Prove that the fundamental reason for commonality in design is limited resources.

Exactly how is it different?

For instance, the eye. It had to evolve at least three times in organisms unrelated to each other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Those are two different things. We cannot falsify God (at least not without a stringent definition), but we can falsify the claim that God, should he exist, created this planet in the manner described in Genesis 1.

So Genesis 1 makes predictions that can be verified against known scientific data. The problem with this is that "known" has some very tenuous meanings.

 

[Reanimation]

So how can something look designed in even a scientist's eye yet be considered it is not evidence of design?

Because scientists know how evolution works. And because scientists aren't really into the whole 'give-up-and-start-throwing-around-arguments-from-incredulity' thing either.

There is evidence to support Genesis 1.

That being?