Creationist "arguments" - different karyotypes

[Sam Davis]

That’s all I needed to know.

Good. We can end this conversation then so I don’t have to continue listening to you spew falsehood about the creation of the world.

 

[Speedwell]

Good. We can end this conversation then so I don’t have to continue listening to you spew falsehood about the creation of the world.

Great evangelical technique, I must say.

 

[Speedwell]

Actually it does. The credal statement is based on the Genesis account where God created man. The Nicene Creed is based on the Bible. The Creed doesn’t say that man evolved, it says the world was created.

How circular of you.

 

[Sam Davis]

Correct. Which does not rule out evolution.

The Bible clearly rules out man evolving from apes and so does the Creed.

 

[miamited]

Hi expo,

Thanks for your reponse:

Second, it is not correct to imply, as you appear to do, that evolution has to be “reproducible” in order to be accorded the status of scientific fact.

If you can't show that A does produce B, how can you possibly claim it as fact that A produces B? What you seem to be saying is that if everything is as I believe it to be and if there are no other variables to be considered, then it looks like A would produce B.

Consider the speed of light. We have equipment that can test, over and over again, how fast light waves travel through various atmospheric media. We can reproduce such tests and get the same answers over and over again. With evolution we have nothing to reproduce. All we have are guesstimations that because some creature has similar features or shares some part of a DNA profile, they must, somewhere back there, be related and from the same base animal. But we can't prove that. We can only accept that if we are willing to accept that, yes, because these two animals share whatever commonality they share, then they must be evolutionally related. But we cannot prove that they are actually related by some evolutionary process, we must accept that 'proof' on faith that we're not wrong about the connection of commonality.

However, I will readily admit that I am not in any way shape or form some evolution scientist. I've only looked at various reports that offer information to lay people about the various 'proofs' of evolution. So far, all I've seen in these various reports are commonality connections that are basically 'assumed' to be proofs of some evolutionary process. We haven't yet actually found any kind of skeletal or fossil remains showing that there is a bridge of evolution from say, a shark to a snake, or whatever animal you might choose to start with and end up with. All we can do is look at the DNA or skeletal information and pick out several common characteristics and 'assume' that they must be connected by some evolutionary process.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Speedwell]

Prove it.

The Church has always interpreted Genesis literally.

"For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally"

--Origen of Alexandria​

 

[expos4ever]

You have proved nothing here. You’ve only made dubious claims that are debunked by both scripture and reason.

Ok, time to take responsibility for your claims:

1. Explain to us exactly why we must take the creation account LITERALLY. Do you believe tree will clap their hands? Or that mountains will break forth in song? Scripture says they will. So why don’t you take such claims literally?

2. Provide one thing I have posted that defies reason. You will fail, I assure you.

 

[pitabread]

However, I will readily admit that I am not in any way shape or form some evolution scientist. I've only looked at various reports that offer information to lay people about the various 'proofs' of evolution. So far, all I've seen in these various reports are commonality connections that are basically 'assumed' to be proofs of some evolutionary process. We haven't yet actually found any kind of skeletal or fossil remains showing that there is a bridge of evolution from say, a shark to a snake, or whatever animal you might choose to start with and end up with. All we can do is look at the DNA or skeletal information and pick out several common characteristics and 'assume' that they must be connected by some evolutionary process.

That's not quite how it works.

Scientists started by observing the fact that populations of organisms change over time (e.g. the process of evolution). If modern species were the result of an accumulation of changes over time, then there are expected patterns of what we would observe in nature based on the understanding of how the process of evolution and common ancestry works.

The patterns that are observed in fossils, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography, etc, can either confirm or refute those expectations. In the case of organisms having come about by evolution, the observed patterns confirm those expectations. Hence, it's a conclusion that life shares common ancestry based on what is observed in nature.

 

[Sam Davis]

Ok, time to take responsibility for your claims:

1. Explain to us exactly why we must take the creation account LITERALLY. Do you believe tree will clap their hands? Or that mountains will break forth in song? Scripture says they will. So why don’t you take such claims literally?

2. Provide one thing I have posted that defies reason. You will fail, I assure you.

1. We need to rightly divide the word of truth. There are certain times metaphors are used but the creation account isn’t one of those times.

2. I already provided an example of your dubious claims: “that all experts agree”.

 

[expos4ever]

1. We need to rightly divide the word of truth. There are certain times metaphors are used but the creation account isn’t one of those times.

Not an answer. WHY isn’t the creation account “one of those times”?

 

[expos4ever]

I already provided an example of your dubious claims: “that all experts agree”.

Falsehood. I NEVER made such a statement. In fact, at least twice I have been quite clear that an overwhelming majority of experts agree.

 

[Sam Davis]

Falsehood. I NEVER made such a statement. In fact, at least twice I have been quite clear that an overwhelming majority of experts agree.

You better review post #54

 

[pitabread]

You better review post #54

Just as an observer, this is what was quoted in post #54:

We need to be truthful - the evidence is indeed conclusive; there is virtual unanimity among experts that evolution happened.

And that is indeed a true statement. The overwhelming consensus among relevant experts is that evolution is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

This isn't a controversial statement: Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

1. We need to rightly divide the word of truth. There are certain times metaphors are used but the creation account isn’t one of those times.

That smacks of Dispensationalism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... No one has yet been able to turn a dog into a cat or a bird into a dinosaur.

This is a common straw man misrepresentation of evolution. If the first of those examples was possible, it would falsify evolution - dog and cat evolution can only extend their own respective lineages. For the second, birds are the descendants of avian therapod dinosaurs, so they are already part of the dinosaur lineage.

 

[expos4ever]

You better review post #54

You may not understand English well enough to read my post correctly.

We need to be truthful - the evidence is indeed conclusive; there is virtual unanimity among experts that evolution happened.

This means almost complete unanimity; it does not mean complete, exception-less unanimity.

 

[Sam Davis]

That smacks of Dispensationalism.

How? I’m not a dispensationalist.

 

[Sam Davis]

This means almost complete unanimity

Which again is an incorrect statement.

 

[pitabread]

Which again is an incorrect statement.

It's not an incorrect statement.

Scientists and beliefs about human evolution

(It's also worth noting that the above survey is re: AAAS scientists in general. I'd wager that among biologists specifically the % would be higher, given how rare biologists who dispute evolution are. Most scientists who disagree with evolution are typically non-biologists.)

 

[Speedwell]

How? I’m not a dispensationalist.

"Rightly dividing the Word of God." (II Tim 2:15) is what the Dispensationalists think they are doing in creating creating the "dispensations." It's their catchphrase.