Evolution/Creation on Trial

[RickG]

I don't agree with that, evolution can still be easily discredited. Scientists have not really taken account yet of freedom in the universe, that things can turn out several different ways, that it is decided. That provides a huge potential for overthrowing evolution theory.

How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?

 

[SkyWriting]

No. I am talking about people who argue against something who have absolutely no background in an area but present themselves as if they are more knowledgeable. An excellent example is the one where you addressed my comment and Cadet responded showing where your assertion was completely false.

This is a chat forum, not a review committee for Ivory Tower Publications Inc.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The few papers from Cadet I've glace at seems to pointed toward Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" where mutation are not random as they appeared. Just like the Wright Brothers used "trial and error" to fine tune information to find a solution to a problem (like build a wing with less drag and more lift) so can asexual organisms like bacteria can uses "trial and error" by allowing mutations in hot spot to find a solution to a problem. Usually changing it's genetic code come at a cost which is why living system tries to resist mutations. This is new information but it's a known fact there is a limit of the amount of information that can be produce through "trial and error" programs even with a super computer. Notice that "trial and error" works best with organism large population like bacteria while less useful with small populations like mammals.

This is a real problem with evolution as the amount of mechanics found in living systems increases the more magical evolution becomes as it somehow has to creates all the mechanism which it runs on.

Agree somewhat, but bacteria which produce asexually (binary fission) already contain both sets of genomes, in a simpler format. All mating pairs each carry one strand each of what is to become the new DNA strand. Asexual reproducing creatures already contain both strands. This is why E. coli can be mutated into a breed that can survive on citrus - but still remains E. coli. Just as an Asian can mate with an African - combining that genome - and produce another breed within the species.

To imply trial by error implies an intentional, rational, thinking process. It is either random - or it is designed - designed to adapt to most situations except those catastrophic ones. How would a living system - a genome - know mutation might be harmful if it does not think - or is not designed to resist them to begin with? Those who practice evolution want you to believe that the genome is 98% error prone, and that less than 2% actually functions correctly. They want you to believe that since an amoeba has almost all of its genome consisting of protein manufacture, that it, despite it's known affinity for mutations, has hardly any useless code in it's genes. While the human genome which contains DNA of which it's function is unknown - if any - is far superior evolutionary-wise to those simple lifeforms - or so they claim. What they fail to contemplate - is that it is those so-called useless genomes that are the difference between an amoeba and a human - and is what makes the human so complex. To which we would not be human without them, but amoeba's. Even evolutionary theory falsifies their own version of the human genome.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?

Because you refuse to accept those 6 creations in which life arose fully formed and the 5 destruction's that followed - of which the fossil record is a record of the death of almost every living creature alive at the time of those cataclysms, just like those that refuse to accept it in young earth theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

This is why in every single epoch layer - almost all previous life ceases to exist - and all new forms arise, because evolution is false, as well as is the belief in a young earth and only one creative act.

 

[whois]

Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?

koonin, noble, and smith are not dismissing anything.
i especially like the work of koonin for 2 important reasons.
first, he calls it like he sees it.
second, he's the lead investigator of NCBI

smith is on the record in 1995 with saying there are no theories (explanations) for the increasing complexity of the record, nor is there any empirical evidence of this increasing complexity.
i hardly call smith a creationist and he isn't dismissing anything.

likewise noble, who agrees with koonin that the modern synthesis needs replaced rather than merely extended.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

if you take evolution to mean a natural origin for life and its diversity, then in order to prove this assumption then you must disprove a supernatural one.

Do I also need to disprove the existence of demons before I accept that seizures originate from epileptogenic discharges in the brain?

 

[RickG]

This is a chat forum, not a review committee for Ivory Tower Publications Inc.

koonin, noble, and smith are not dismissing anything.
i especially like the work of koonin for 2 important reasons.
first, he calls it like he sees it.
second, he's the lead investigator of NCBI

smith is on the record in 1995 with saying there are no theories (explanations) for the increasing complexity of the record, nor is there any empirical evidence of this increasing complexity.
i hardly call smith a creationist and he isn't dismissing anything.

likewise noble, who agrees with koonin that the modern synthesis needs replaced rather than merely extended.

You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.

"Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?"

 

[RickG]

Because you refuse to accept those 6 creations in which life arose fully formed and the 5 destruction's that followed - of which the fossil record is a record of the death of almost every living creature alive at the time of those cataclysms, just like those that refuse to accept it in young earth theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

This is why in every single epoch layer - almost all previous life ceases to exist - and all new forms arise, because evolution is false, as well as is the belief in a young earth and only one creative act.

Who believes in six creations as described by you other than you?

 

[SkyWriting]

You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.

"Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?"

People misinterpret everything all day long. That's the basis for our legal system.

 

[joshua 1 9]

evolution is basically the concept of a natural explanation of life and its diversity (no supernatural influence).
darwinism and others are the theories that attempt to explain the concept of evolution.
the above makes it clear that even though the theories may be wrong, the concept of evolution can still be valid.
the vast majority of the people mistakenly believe that if darwinism is wrong, then there must be a god.

You can agree on principle but if you do not agree on particulars then you don't have a deal. That is the difference between academia and the real world. Those who can do, those who can't teach.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Who believes in six creations as described by you other than you?

In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.

 

[Syamsu]

How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?

Not really concerned about it. Accepting as fact that freedom is real, then any creation theory would be better than any evolution theory. That a child is a modified descendant of it's parents is not a satisfactory explanation for the origins of the child. Only the description of the decisions by which things comes to be is a satisfactory explanation for origins of anything.

 

[Smidlee]

That's nice. But since it has no bearing on whether evolution is credible or not, I fail to discern its relevance in this thread.

I disagree it's has no bearing. This is a real problem with evolution is there is nothing can touch it including contradicting evidence. Even if a scientist claims it look as the simplest bacteria appeared as if it engineered by someone a millions times smarter than man we are reinsured that "evolution did it." Evolutionist have to continue deceiving themselves that it evolved and not designed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I disagree it's has no bearing. This is a real problem with evolution is there is nothing can touch it including contradicting evidence.

What's contradicting about what you posted?

 

[RickG]

In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.

I have never hear of that coming from mainstream theology, on that of "creation science", which is quite different from what "Creationism" used to be.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Just as an Asian can mate with an African - combining that genome - and produce another breed within the species.

They are whatever they want to be. Whatever they want to call themselves. Most blacks in America are descended from the slave masters and their "fancy" slave girl friends.

 

[RickG]

Not really concerned about it. Accepting as fact that freedom is real, then any creation theory would be better than any evolution theory. That a child is a modified descendant of it's parents is not a satisfactory explanation for the origins of the child. Only the description of the decisions by which things comes to be is a satisfactory explanation for origins of anything.

I am not concerned whether a person accepts or denies evolution. My concern is that "creation science" denies evolution by way of misrepresenting science. Thus rejecting it for the wrong reasons.

 

[bhsmte]

In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.

What evidence did you base this conclusion on?

 

[joshua 1 9]

What evidence did you base this conclusion on?

99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Can you imagine if you were to go to a zoo that had a representive of all those extinct species? Other then Jurassic park of course. It is actually evolution that demands a continuum.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...em-perished-in-five-cataclysmic-events-t.html

Interesting how this is the 6th extinction that we are going though and the Bible says we are at the end of the 6th day. So we see the same theme play itself in a lot of different ways. There does seem to be a correlation and that is why I accept both YEC and OEC creationism. They are both correct from their rather limited perspective. Even though I am a dispensationalist.

 

[whois]

You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.

"Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?"

first of all, i'm not arguing for or against a god.
second, if there was indeed a god, would it make any difference for the issue at hand?
DNA, RNA, and proteins obey laws and rules don't they?
OTOH, there are some truly mystifying things about biological life, the inability of science to recreate it even given a functional sample.
the apparent "will" of life to change what they are.
what is this stuff all about?
instead of hiding from this stuff, we need to put it on the table and say "look at it and give me your opinion".
my opinion is, i don't have an opinion.
i find "tings becoming alive" as ridiculous as some kind of god.
personally i can only arrive at the conclusion that life is eternal and intimately connected with the universe somehow.