Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

Subduction Zone · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Abiogenesis is so far fetched that it is virtually impossible. Check out Professor James Tour for the best explanation as to why. 70 years of research has proven fruitless. If it can't be done in a lab, how is it possible in nature? Oh, I know. The Evolution Fairy sprinkled Evo dust on a dirt puddle in Africa. Now all we need to know is where the Evolution Fairy came from. And where she is now. We want answers! Not the truth, that would be too much.

LOL! Tour's videos have been solidly debunked. He lied in at least one of his videos and ended up giving a mealy mouthed apology to Jack Szostak. In case you do not know who Jack Szostack is he is a Professor at Harvard who has won a small award that you may have heard of. Can you guess what it is? Tour is well respected, in his field, but abiogenesis is not his field. His field is not even biochemistry. He is well out of his area of expertise when he attacks others.

Tell me, what level of education that you have had. If you had even a year of chemistry at the majors level at university you will be able to understand how Tour lied. Here is just one link to Szostak's work. It is informal, but I could link his peer reviewed papers too. You won't find any work of Tour at all in this field:

Research Spotlight: Jack Szostak

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Dog breeds were deliberately bred by people with a specific objective in mind. However, if the genetic information was not contained in the original mongrel dogs, they could not have been selectively bred. And never will I accept that adaptation is evolution.

Do you think that domesticated dogs were bred from wolves originally? Or are dogs and wolves not otherwise related?

Did you read the source you previously linked re canine genetics?

I'm still not clear on how you think canine genetics works.

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

QvQ said:
Dogs are not genetically wolves. Dogs descended from Dogs (there are hundreds of google pages claiming one or the other) but I trust the site I referenced

Are dogs and wolves independently created "kinds" then? E.g. they aren't the same kind?

(Btw, I'm not sure what site you are talking about. My reply was to Aussie Pete in regards to a paper he linked.)

muichimotsu · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
People come across mysteries all the time. Recently, a metal pole appeared for no apparent reason in Arizona. Was it formed over millions of years by volcanic action or some kind of crystal growth? No way. That theory is utterly implausible. No animal could done it. It had all the hallmarks of a human's work. I find it just as implausible as life evolving from nothing. The reason I believe that God created all that we see is simple. He said so. I see the evidence of what He did before my eyes. And who decided that science was some kind of infallible god that everyone must bow down and worship? Science is as good or bad as humanity itself. Evolution is bad science. I could care less about science. My interest is in truth. If science happens to stumble on truth, good. Evolution denies truth.

I think that was a monolith and it wasn't metal, but the reasonable answer is not magic or unfalsifiable claims

No one said life evolved from nothing, because nothing as a substantive thing ceases to be nothing in the sense you're using the word, which would be absolute negation and thus has no possibility of anything: ex nihilo nihil fit

Never said that either, more strawmanning that shows you don't understand science in the slightest, which is not just wrong because it can be wrong but also isn't regarded as infallible, but far more reliable than faith

Oh, never mind, you just admit you don't really care about truth while ironically claiming you do, because mere conviction is not the same as truth and what you're convinced of is not the same as what is true independent of your vast ignorance and biases that are clouding any rational judgment

Evolution doesn't deny truth, you have to substantiate such a claim, I'm not just going to agree to disagree when you're making a claim that you have the onus to show while evolution has presented the evidence and you act like it's "fake news" because you can't understand it or you've found someone "debunking" it online

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Evolution is bad science. I could care less about science.

I imagine you mean "couldn't", not could. That said, it's always ironic when creationists pass judgement on science, but then simultaneously reveal they care (and know) nothing about it.

muichimotsu · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
No abiogenesis, no evolution. It's yet another dishonest intellectual trick by evolutionist to dodge an issue that they cannot explain. There are a number of sources that explain how animals could indeed be saved by Noah's Ark. Of course, none of these are acceptable because they don't fit evolutionist prejudices.

Evolutionists don't study abiogenesis, that's a different group of scientists, you are being thoroughly dishonest and disingenuous to conflate them in the same way I could just because one group of physicists can't answer a question that is better suited for this other group of physicists that means I can't trust either. Would you ask a botanist about fungus?

"Theory" likely meaning pure speculation that has no predictive power, but I don't think you understand what scientific theory means. But maybe you can prove me wrong, let's see.

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
No abiogenesis, no evolution.

All that is needed for evolution to occur is the existence of life. Once you have populations (and they are reproducing), you have evolution.

And I think we can all agree that life appears to both exist and reproduce.

Aussie Pete · Dec 30, 2020

pitabread said:
All that is needed for evolution to occur is the existence of life. Once you have populations (and they are reproducing), you have evolution.

And I think we can all agree that life appears to both exist and reproduce.

All that is needed is life? All? It is the most mystifying and astounding thing in the universe. And no, I do not accept that evolution occurs just because things are alive. Just the fact that creatures do indeed reproduce is astonishing. To have viable creature, a male and a female had to form at the same time in the same place and somehow know that it was necessary to mate. I won't go on. It's pointless.

Larniavc · Dec 30, 2020

nonaeroterraqueous said:
Things are evolving positively: the simpler and inferior things are causing complex, superior things.

Things are evolving negatively: the superior things are degenerating, causing simpler and inferior things.

A third factor was the cause of both: God made everything, which is why everything has a commonality.

None of the above are part of TOE.

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
And no, I do not accept that evolution occurs just because things are alive.

Evolution is simply the change in allele (gene variations) in a population over time. We directly this occurring in populations.

Just the fact that creatures do indeed reproduce is astonishing. To have viable creature, a male and a female had to form at the same time in the same place and somehow know that it was necessary to mate.

You know there are more modes of reproduction than purely sexual reproduction, yes? Lots of organisms can asexually reproduce, some can reproduce asexually and sexually (e.g. hermaphrodites), some organisms even change sex.

The evolution of sexual reproduction is not such a big mystery when you start examining actual modes of reproduction in biology.

Speedwell · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
All that is needed is life? All? It is the most mystifying and astounding thing in the universe. And no, I do not accept that evolution occurs just because things are alive. Just the fact that creatures do indeed reproduce is astonishing. To have viable creature, a male and a female had to form at the same time in the same place and somehow know that it was necessary to mate. I won't go on. It's pointless.

It certainly is if you don't know any more about how sexual reproduction evolved than that.

Larniavc · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
Surely their ancestors could have survived sinless? Yet the bible says that all have sinned. It makes no sense to me.

That’s the bit I don’t understand about creationists. When a book co traduces reality the book must be wrong: not the other way around.

driewerf · Dec 30, 2020

BobRyan said:
More to the point "what evidence do you have that horses or any other kind will pop out of rocks, dust, gas and sunlight given enough time and chance?"

Close to 200 years after the first publication of The origin of Species, creationists still have nothing more but ignorance and ridicule. Nothing has changed since the days of the debate between Huxley and bishop Wilberforce.

watch and listen. Wilberforce's argument in the 1860's. Listen especially from 2:45 onwards

It is not so long ago that Ken Ham used this picture:

A clear reference to Wilberforce's phrase.
Ridicule, mockery and ignorance. That's all creationists have to offer.
And certainly no science or knowledge.

Larniavc · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
So the world, which was once Pug free, is now blighted with one of the ugliest critters on the planet.

Crikey! Something g I can agree with you on.

Pugs are awful.

Aussie Pete · Dec 30, 2020

muichimotsu said:
Evolutionists don't study abiogenesis, that's a different group of scientists, you are being thoroughly dishonest and disingenuous to conflate them in the same way I could just because one group of physicists can't answer a question that is better suited for this other group of physicists that means I can't trust either. Would you ask a botanist about fungus?

"Theory" likely meaning pure speculation that has no predictive power, but I don't think you understand what scientific theory means. But maybe you can prove me wrong, let's see.

Honestly, I don't care who studies what. Scientists used to be clever enough to study a wide range of fields. A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.

Also, science is not God, in spite of the inflated egos that demand to be treated as if they are gods. Are seriously trying to tell me that OOL researchers do not believe in evolution and evolutionists (mostly) believe in abiogenesis?

driewerf · Dec 30, 2020

Subduction Zone said:
LOL! Tour's videos have been solidly debunked. He lied in at least one of his videos and ended up giving a mealy mouthed apology to Jack Szostak. In case you do not know who Jack Szostack is he is a Professor at Harvard who has won a small award that you may have heard of. Can you guess what it is? Tour is well respected, in his field, but abiogenesis is not his field. His field is not even biochemistry. He is well out of his area of expertise when he attacks others.

Tell me, what level of education that you have had. If you had even a year of chemistry at the majors level at university you will be able to understand how Tour lied. Here is just one link to Szostak's work. It is informal, but I could link his peer reviewed papers too. You won't find any work of Tour at all in this field:

Research Spotlight: Jack Szostak

If I may add, here is a link to the first part out of three of Youtube videos given by Szostak on the research of abiogenesis. It's a few years old, but still valuable.

Strathos · Dec 30, 2020

The Bible was never meant to be a science book. It describes other phenomena, like the hydrological cycle, in clearly metaphorical terms (Job 38:37, for example), but I don't see anyone going around insisting that there's a big conspiracy to cover up that rain really comes from bottles in the sky and not clouds.

BobRyan · Dec 30, 2020

BobRyan said:
Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"

=====================

Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"

hmmm.. logical... obvious.

by contrast --

driewerf said:
Close to 200 years after the first publication of The origin of Species, creationists still have nothing more but ignorance ...

pitabread · Dec 30, 2020

Aussie Pete said:
A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing.

BobRyan · Dec 30, 2020

Strathos said:
The Bible was never meant to be a science book. .

it describes the real events of the real 7 day creation week and the real virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ - but does not hand out a science text on how deity is incarnate or how the dead come to life after three days and rise up into heaven.

I think we all knew that to start with.

Does equating evolution with atheism prevent creationists from understanding God's Creation?

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

I Spit On Perfection

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

a day at the Zoo

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."

Well-Known Member

a day at the Zoo

No one important

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency