Evolution is false

[AV1611VET]

That is neither a scientific book nor does it say anthing about a DNA code barriere, AFAIK. Better luck next time.

Well you could have fooled me --- as much time as you "scientists" spend here --- you'd think this was a Science Forum.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

in response tO:

perhaps you can reference scientific papers or books that speak of this "DNA Code Barrier".

it was written:

With pleasure:

perhaps book chapter and verse would help. i have read the Bible through, many times, yet i don't know where exactly you are pointing me.

afaik, DNA is never mentioned in it. but perhaps your KJV has a "Defenders Study Bible" footnote from H.Morris that you might want to quote to show this "DNA barrier". since i certainly don't have those footnotes in my Bibles, perhaps you could type them in here so we can read them.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

from the sticky on the forum

Welcome to the Scientific Discussion Forum (also know as the Evolutionary/Creationist debate forum)!

appears to be a scientific forum.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Well you could have fooled me --- as much time as you "scientists" spend here --- you'd think this was a Science Forum.

As much time you bible thumpers spend on this forum --- you'd think it was a general apologetics forum. Shouldn't you be out tarring and feathering people that disagree with you or something?

P.S. I love the way you put scientists in quotation marks, really ads to the argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

from the sticky on the forum

Welcome to the Scientific Discussion Forum (also know as the Evolutionary/Creationist debate forum)!

appears to be a scientific forum.

Somehow I don't think it's that sticky that draws "scientists" here. More like the name (Christian Forums) that attracts them, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

in response tO:

perhaps you can reference scientific papers or books that speak of this "DNA Code Barrier".

it was written:




perhaps book chapter and verse would help. i have read the Bible through, many times, yet i don't know where exactly you are pointing me.

afaik, DNA is never mentioned in it. but perhaps your KJV has a "Defenders Study Bible" footnote from H.Morris that you might want to quote to show this "DNA barrier". since i certainly don't have those footnotes in my Bibles, perhaps you could type them in here so we can read them.

• [bible]1 Chronicles 26:18[/bible]

 

[Biologist]

1) Aristotle - believe it or not, Aristotle was one of the first to introduce the theory of evolution, simply put, if you happen to know this guy and have taken an introductory physics class, you'll know perfectly well this is the guy that told everybody that objects of different sizes fell at different gravitational rates, this of course was accepted as a "fact" for thousands of years later until disproven by Galileo's experimentation on the Leaning Tower of Pize, incidentally, Aristotle creates the perspective that we "evolved" from ape-like creatures, today, many scientists and biologists believe the same exact man who told us about a false assumption about gravity with his theory that supposedly has made it's way through further "scientific observation" which supports it, though you'd be suprised.

Nope, nope, nope and nope. Aristotle purposed a chain of life. From lower life(mice and other small things) to higher life(humans) that was unchanging because life was absolutely perfect in his model. Creationism believes humans are better than other life and that all life is or once was perfect.

Evolution makes no difference between species to species and suggests life is ever advancing.

It should also be brought up that the models Aristotle purposed for physics, the universe(geocentric), and the model of life you just presented were accepted as evidence for the bible up until Galileo and others of his time.

So all you are really doing is bringing up things which were previously accepted as proof for Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

It should also be brought up that the models Aristotle purposed for physics, the universe(geocentric), and the model of life you just presented were accepted as evidence for the bible up until Galileo and others of his time.

So all you are really doing is bringing up things which were previously accepted as proof for Christianity.

From pathlights.com:

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn’t those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory:

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.

We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin’s theory.

 

[Contracelsus]

Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory

Dr. Schaefer is an expert on NMR and computational chemistry. While he is obviously very intelligent, I don't think his disagreement with evolution is necessarily a "peer-review" level disagreement since this is not his area of research.

And I am unsure how they "know" he was a Nobel Nominee since The NObel Committees keep their nominees names private for 50 years.

But still, indeed, science does include dispute. PBS is, however, not doing science but providing "edutainment" like stuff on the TLC or Discovery channels which doesn't mean they are required to be at the same level of scientific balance and rigor.

-Cc

 

[KerrMetric]

Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

Sad to say - but in my 25+ years experience in science this is almost a universal truth. There are exceptions but it's about as good a rule of thumb as you can have.

 

[KerrMetric]

Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin’s theory.

And THIS is a good example of why we cannot trust websites like pathlights.com

As someone else posted - The Nobel committee does NOT release the names of nominees for 50 years. For the non-Peace prizes the nominees are chosen by nominators who are themselves selected in private by a committee.

So you see - when you post things from such a website we know right away it is crap when they lie about the Nobel process.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sounds good to me, guys. If you wanna throw the baby out with the bathwater --- go right ahead.

 

[Biologist]

Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn’t those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

It all has to do with budget. We scientist have to eat too. If people would fund us to engineer cures for cancer we would. Our current progress is limited by budget.

Same for stem cells. We could cure or provide preminant positive results for nearly everyone with a disease, but since there's almost no budget for that type of thing people die/suffer everyday from something that we could prevent with a nicer budget. Instead, we are only funded to provide treatment for those illnesses, so we can only engineer treatments.

Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

Science is a dictatorship since the evidence controls theories. A theory must provide strong answers for all the evidence. biology, geology, chemistry, biochemistry, physics, and evolutionary biology match this perfectly. You have very little knowledge over even the most basic Biological concepts and even less over Evolution so you wouldn't know what the evidence suggests. Answers in Genesis preys on that disability and is evident because they assert many times that no 'uphill' evolution has ever occured. Then when the examples come along they purpose something not based on evidence, make up statistics/calculations, and hope you the reader have limited knowledge in the area. So you won't catch it. And still leave in there other articles the assertion that no 'uphill' evolution has occured.

The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

I would call 98-99% percent virtually every scientist. When creationists challenged that they collected quite a few names on there "intellectual doubters of darwinism." but it had many flaws. First off many of the people on the list have no degrees in anything but they are included because they have written books. There are also many people on that have degree that have nothing to do with Science. For example: 144. John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics. Also another problem with the list is it isn't only limited to doubters of Evolution. Anyways, the creationist list could never live up to the standards of Project Steve.

 

[birdan]

From pathlights.com:

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn’t those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

This article (and you by quoting it and from your past posts) confuses science with public policy and private enterprise. Science discovers how things work, fundamental principles of nature, etc. Public policy (Manhattan Project, Mutual Assured Destruction, etc.) and private enterprise are neither in the realm nor in the control of science. Einstein's special theory of relativity led to the production of the atomic bomb, but it also led to cures for cancer. His theory is neither good nor bad, it is simply a more accurate description of how the universe works. If you have objections to applications of knowledge, write to your Congressmen or organize boycotts of products you find detrimental to society. Since the vast majority of the leaders of these groups are Christian, you shouldn't have much problem getting them to change.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Well you could have fooled me --- as much time as you "scientists" spend here --- you'd think this was a Science Forum.

I have absolutely no idea of what you are trying to say here, but I'll gladly sum up the discussion for you.

perhaps you can reference scientific papers or books that speak of this "DNA Code Barrier".

To which you replied:

With pleasure:

After it was shown to you that the Bible is neither a scientific text, nor does it contain the term "DNA Code Barrier", you made your strange claim about this apparently not being a scientific forum.

So, AV1611, the original question still stands: where in the Bible does it say "DNA Code Barrier"?

 

[RichardT]

seeker arguing for creation?

 

[Tenka]

Another good point is why are there paintings cave paintings of dinosaurs and descriptions of "dragons" when dinosaurs were thought to have died out millions of years ago before humans came along?

You should also note that these dragons are commonly depicted with four walking limbs as well as a set of wings. However there is absolutely no evidence of any hexepedial vertebrates existing outside fantasy, (exceptions are of course birth defects that pop up from time to time)
An explanation for these illustrations is that people long ago had imaginations just like we do today and shared them as they travelled. I think this is far more probable than research missing an entire order of large vertebrates that lived as recently as a few thousand years ago.

seeker arguing for creation?

Yeah, you never know what those seekers beliefs are I think I've seen them argue from every possible front.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Yeah, you never know what those seekers beliefs are I think I've seen them argue from every possible front.

That's because we seekers, those of us who truly wish to learn, are each coming from different places. We each have our own opinions, our own point-of-view and perspectives, on which we have lived and grown (often, most of our lives) that have influenced our lives and made us who we are today.

I like to think that a Seeker is someone who wants Challenges everything that they thought they knew because, either by Frustration or by Inspiration, they decide that only by challenging long held ideas can one distinguish the Truth from the Lies and whatever stands up against all scrutiny is what we decide to be "Our Truth!"

So, andone can be a Seeker. Even a Disillusioned Evolutionist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well you could have fooled me --- as much time as you "scientists" spend here --- you'd think this was a Science Forum.

Perhaps you haven't noticed; this is a science forum. It just happens to be in a Christian superforum. Funny that.

 

[Apos]

I'm still waiting to find out where the Bible talks about DNA.

I'm endlessly confused as to how people like Boltwave can actually read something (generally a creationist text), believe it, post it, have pointed out to them a blatant misrepresentation or gross factual error about what evolution even says (forget the debate over whether it's true or not: just an obvious case in which the creationist has clearly misrepresented what evolution describes), and still not find any reason to question their original source.

It doesn't bother them when someone LIES to them, and then encourages them to spread the lie, making them look foolish?