Evolution giving practical results in many fields today

[AnswersInHovind]

Your point was that speciation doesn't happen. I showed that not only does speciation happen, but you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to biology and so probably shouldn't be trusted on such matters.

wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!

Sure. You start.

Evolution: flu vaccines and other medical treatments to help our lives.

Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity

 

[laconicstudent]

time

We've had several billion years of it so far. Geneticists think it is enough, what makes you think that mutations do not occur frequently enough?

 

[laconicstudent]

Maybe we should compare the benefits of evolutionary science with creation science.

But creation science doesn't have any....

 

[laconicstudent]

Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity

Jesus grants us salvation, not Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Mallon]

wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!

Science shows there's time enough for evolutionary change to take place. The Bible might imply otherwise, but the Bible says the sky is a solid dome, too. It isn't a science textbook.

Evolution: flu vaccines and other medical treatments to help our lives.

Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity

Except we aren't saved by our belief in creation science. We are saved by our faith in Christ as our saviour. One can believe in a young, specially-created earth and still not be saved. Look at Muslims.
It's ironic that evolutionary creationists are the ones being labelled as heretics lately.

It's also interesting that you didn't list any scientific advancements as benefits stemming from creation science. Interesting, but not surprising.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

In the abst of the most read article, it said:
"The canyon between evolutionary biology and medicine is wide. ..."

This article was written in 2008. You tell me why does this "canyon" still exist after the idea of evolution was brought up a few hundreds of years ago.

I tell you why: Medicine have already used all methods of study known to science. But it does not need to mention the very word of evolution even for a single time. Evolution is an idea, not a scientific method. There is not ONE scientific method (based on logic) needs the idea of evolution.

Wow Juvie, quote mine much?

Here is the context from which this creationist lifted this:

Evolutionary biology is an essential basic science for medicine, but few doctors and medical researchers are familiar with its most relevant principles. Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications. The canyon between evolutionary biology and medicine is wide. The question is whether they offer each other enough to make bridge building worthwhile. What benefits could be expected if evolution were brought fully to bear on the problems of medicine? How would studying medical problems advance evolutionary research? Do doctors need to learn evolution, or is it valuable mainly for researchers? What practical steps will promote the application of evolutionary biology in the areas of medicine where it offers the most? To address these questions, we review current and potential applications of evolutionary biology to medicine and public health. Some evolutionary technologies, such as population genetics, serial transfer production of live vaccines, and phylogenetic analysis, have been widely applied. Other areas, such as infectious disease and aging research, illustrate the dramatic recent progress made possible by evolutionary insights. In still other areas, such as epidemiology, psychiatry, and understanding the regulation of bodily defenses, applying evolutionary principles remains an open opportunity. In addition to the utility of specific applications, an evolutionary perspective fundamentally challenges the prevalent but fundamentally incorrect metaphor of the body as a machine designed by an engineer. Bodies are vulnerable to disease – and remarkably resilient – precisely because they are not machines built from a plan. They are, instead, bundles of compromises shaped by natural selection in small increments to maximize reproduction, not health. Understanding the body as a product of natural selection, not design, offers new research questions and a framework for making medical education more coherent.

We see yet again another example of a creationist searching an article for a phrase that can be snipped out to misrepresent the article and look like it supports creationism, when it doesn't. Reading Juvie's snippet in context shows that the abstract says the exact opposite (that evolution is relevant to medicine) compared to what Juvie tried to say it said (that evoluton was not relevant to medicine because there was this "canyon" separating them.

And some wonder why creationists are so widely known for being dishonest, and in doing so, making the idea of "Christian morals" sound like a contradiction in terms. This, from the same guy who misrepresented himself to us here, and intentionally filled thread after thread with nonsense.

Ouch.

Papias

 

[Papias]

AIH wrote:

I guess there is a big difference in the definition of species between myself and those articles.

So you are saying that you ignore proper scientific definitions, and redefine words to use to mean something other than their actual definition to suit your own purposes, and expect people to take you seriously?

The first one goes into great length to make a definition, and I understand why. When dealing with something like gradual change, the line between one "species" and another can be indistinguishable.

So you again agree that creatures evolve smoothly from to the other, so much so that when looking at a short period of time, it can be difficult to say exactly when one species has become another?

As far as the time goes, you might find this thread interesting: http://www.christianforums.com/t7426528/ in fact, going down to post #4, and not to the whole train wreck of the rest of the thread, summarizes it nicely.

Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity

So, as others have pointed out, you think Jesus is insufficient for salvation, and that Muslims are saved, but not hundreds of millions of Christians of both Protestant and Catholic denominations?

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

So you are saying that you ignore proper scientific definitions, and redefine words to use to mean something other than their actual definition to suit your own purposes, and expect people to take you seriously?

Oh indeed. Because I was talking about something different than what Mallon was, and he pushed the conversation into a domain outside what I was refering to, obviously I am wrong.

Species to your average person means something entirely different than to a biologist. Here I thought I was talking to average people and they would get my point, but apparently they can't handle my point so they move to a semantics argument and when victorious declare their opponent to be a hack because he isn't as l33t with word games.

How am I supposed to take any of you seriously when the majority of your posts are attempts to mock rather than address.

"Look at that YEC! He's so dumb! Even though his point is obvious to us, let's make a word game out of it to discredit him!"

So, as others have pointed out, you think Jesus is insufficient for salvation, and that Muslims are saved, but not hundreds of millions of Christians of both Protestant and Catholic denominations?

Papias

Thats just like TE's to extract information from a statement that isn't there.

Of course believing in creationism doesn't save a person, but neither does believing in evolution protect somebody from the flu. Evolutionary theory leads to the development of the flu vaccine, just as creation leads to the knowledge of God.

There are a lot of tesimonies from people who saw the evidence of creation and pursued a path to Jesus Christ. A great example is the construction of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where many of the contruction workers hired to build it weren't Christians, but after seeing the evidence for God and the truth of His word, they sought the salvation of Jesus Christ.


So are we done with the straw men? Or are there some words I misused that you would like to open up some rabbit trails with? Perhaps a speling mistake will prove my argument to be false.

 

[mark kennedy]

wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!

The goal is not to convince anyone of anything. What they do is beat up on every creationist they find. Time makes very little difference which is why the continue to emphasis it. Think about this, how did things evolve in say...4000 years from what proceeded from the Ark?

I won't comment on the rest, I arrived late, forgive me.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm still waiting to hear the biological mechanism which prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

 

[crawfish]

There are a lot of tesimonies from people who saw the evidence of creation and pursued a path to Jesus Christ. A great example is the construction of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where many of the contruction workers hired to build it weren't Christians, but after seeing the evidence for God and the truth of His word, they sought the salvation of Jesus Christ.


So are we done with the straw men? Or are there some words I misused that you would like to open up some rabbit trails with? Perhaps a speling mistake will prove my argument to be false.

I'm currently working with someone who was completely turned off of Christ by creationism; in fact, from how he understood Christianity there was no other way to believe. In his mind, he had to sacrifice reason and reality to believe in God. I, among others, are trying to help him see that it does not. In the end, if he chooses to become a Christian it will not be because of how eloquently I explain that the scriptures allow for evolution and an ancient universe; it will be because God will reach him through us, His faithful servants. It will be experiential rather than rational.

The point is, I think he really wants Christ in his life. He has an emptiness that only God can fill, and I think he understands that. In his case, though, creationism is a barrier rather than a boon.

What is being objected to when you say that YEC gives us "eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity" is that you imply that OEC or EC does not. I think our point would be that any creation view does not grant eternal salvation; only God's grace does that, and He gives that despite our lack of understanding (and not because of it).

The question remains: do you know of any real-world application of Creation science as a science? That is the ultimate test of any science; if it cannot be applied or used, it is worthless (as a science). What discoveries have we made using assumptions of Creation science that we would not have gained otherwise?

 

[Mallon]

Species to your average person means something entirely different than to a biologist. Here I thought I was talking to average people and they would get my point, but apparently they can't handle my point so they move to a semantics argument and when victorious declare their opponent to be a hack because he isn't as l33t with word games.

With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?

 

[laconicstudent]

With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?

I applaud this post.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?

wow. That is the first time in this thread that statement has been made! Thanks for that wonderful input! I never saw it like that before.

except the point of my post had nothing to do with species the way the awe inspiring definition you have uses it. So I don't understand the problem.

What word should I have used to express my disbelief that dinosaurs couldn't turn into birds?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I'm still waiting to hear the biological mechanism which prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

when did I say I thought there was one?

oh thats right... I didn't.

 

[laconicstudent]

What word should I have used to express my disbelief that dinosaurs couldn't turn into birds?

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shernren]

I'm currently working with someone who was completely turned off of Christ by creationism; in fact, from how he understood Christianity there was no other way to believe. In his mind, he had to sacrifice reason and reality to believe in God. I, among others, are trying to help him see that it does not. In the end, if he chooses to become a Christian it will not be because of how eloquently I explain that the scriptures allow for evolution and an ancient universe; it will be because God will reach him through us, His faithful servants. It will be experiential rather than rational.

And I just talked yesterday to a friend of mine who's stopped going to church for a few months. She studies science too, and one of the things that had caused her to reconsider her faith was because some Christians were so aggressive and unthoughtful in opposing scientific facts that she was starting to doubt how she could remain a Christian scientist.

Sure creationism leads some people to Christ, praise God for that. And everybody knows an uncle who smoked a pack a day and still lived to a spry old age with nary a sign of cancer. But anecdotes do not a case make.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so we can agree that species will work for all intents and purposes? especially since I didn't really make an argument at all. I'm curious as to why you've been so offensive (defensive?) in this thread.

 

[laconicstudent]

so we can agree that species will work for all intents and purposes? especially since I didn't really make an argument at all. I'm curious as to why you've been so offensive (defensive?) in this thread.

I was merely defining the type of argument you were describing.

In what way have I been offensive? Because I keep asking a question you refuse to answer?


What is the biological mechanism that separates so-called "microevolution" from so-called "macroevolution"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[juvenissun]

The question remains: do you know of any real-world application of Creation science as a science? That is the ultimate test of any science; if it cannot be applied or used, it is worthless (as a science). What discoveries have we made using assumptions of Creation science that we would not have gained otherwise?

Very much so.

Set up the conclusion first. Then try to find evidence to support it.

It is absolutely no less scientific than any conventional scientific methods.