Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[OdwinOddball]

Who are you trying to kid? You only listen to what agrees with your preconceived beliefs and you reject anything that conflicts with your preconceived belief system.

No, unlike most of the Creationists on this board, most of the Evo folks actually read all the posts in a thread before replying. We examine the information and draw our own conclusions,rather than restating the conclusions of someone more knowledgeable.

Christians may do the same thing. But that does not change the prejudice that science has against Creationism that causes them to discredit it with any means possible. They do not want to admit how substantial a lot of creation science is.

The "prejudice" scientists have against Creationism is due to the complete lack of any science in Creationism. Time and time again we have asked for demonstrations of the evidence for Creationism, and every single time we either get silence, or "evidence" that is either in reality evidence FOR evolution, or completely misunderstood due to the lack of knowledge of the person siting said evidence, or evidence that has no relation to the subject being discussed.

Creationism as a movement continues to push for its inclusion in science classrooms, yet steadfastly refuses to do any actual science that would justify this. Even the largest Creation research groups have continued to fail to actually produce any science. instead they take the work of others, and try to find a way to twist it to fit their ideas.

Anyone that disagrees with the above, I challenge you to post any verified scientific research in Creationism: produced by an acknowledged creationist, that actually withstands scrutiny of other scientists, is demonstrable as accurate and consistent with the natural world, and is undeniably a result of Creation based methodology, such as divine intervention and not a mis-interpretation of evolution, abiogenesis, or big bang theory instead.

And as a follow up. Once you acknowledge that no such research exists, I further challenge you to take a month and actually learn what the Theory of Evolution is, what a Theory is in science, what Abiogenesis actually is, what the Big Bang Theory really states, how radiometric dating works and why it is reliable, what follization is and how it happens, basic genetics, how plate tectonics works, how a branching tree just like your family tree is an accurate description of the relationship of all life on earth, what ERV's are, what a Rign Species is, what speciation actually is, etc.

I know that there are people who claim to be christian and evolutionists. But a lot of evolutionary theory and belief dishonors christianity.

Only in the narrow view of Christianity held by fundamentalists such as yourself. Many people instead understand the truth.. That religion is religion, and science is science. That they speak on different subjects, and that using ancient religious texts as science books is no different than trying to use a manual for an IBM typewriter as a guide to replace the motherboard of a modern laptop.

We know that there will be a falling way from the truth, what is called the great apostasy. We know from our Bible that there is a dead, harlot apostate church out there. So we want to make sure that we are a part of the true church of Christ and not the false one.

2 Thes. 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,

Ya, ya ya, we 've heard it all before. The end times are coming. Well I ask you, how much longer are you going to keep pushing that malarkey? Ya'll been saying its coming soon for 2000 years. So is it really coming soon this time? Or is it just going to be put off for another decade when yet another fo your supposed prophecies fails to bring about the expected result? Will you push it back another 5 years? 10? 20? 50? 100? 1000? When will you finally give up and accept that, "Hey, it just isn't actually going to happen after all. Maybe, just maybe, I shouldn't take everything I read in a 2000 year old book written by mostly unknown authors that was actually assembled by a committee, as absolute literal truth instead of the allegory and moral lessons it was meant to be."

Grow up, time to put aside the fairy tales and learn about how things happen in the real world. Or just accept that religion is not science no matter how much you want it to be, and stop trying to force your views onto the scientific world as fact when you have absolutely no evidence to justify such action.

 

[TheBear]

No it doesn't "say that". DNA contains the information that will eventually be turned into a protein, but it doesn't make protein itself. The gene for a protein is copied into a disposable message, m-RNA in a process known as TRANSCRIPTION. This disposable copy of the gene is then used as a template and copied numerous times by the cellular mechinery into protein (TRANSLATION)

Here are some links with simple animations on how these work :
1. TRANSCRIPTION ANIMATION

2. TRANSLATION ANIMATION

3. Here is an index with a number of Windows Media movies on transcription, translation and the Lac Operon (which you also don't seem to understand either). The links are given in a window on the left-side of the screen.

4. Discussion of these processes from Kimball Biology



WHY would there be any reason for proteins to make a "return trip from proteins to DNA"? That's not the way cells "do business". It's DNA==> m-RNA ==> protein. There's no reverse process known. What's your point?

Some viruses that use RNA as their genetic code will go this route: RNA ==>DNA==>mRNA ==> proteins Link to Johns Hopkins site with animation for life cycle of HIV virus

BTW, you are quite wrong that proteins don't modify the DNA because they do. There are proteins that "tag" DNA. Some chemical tags can result in genes NOT being used. Others tell the cell that these genes should be used and when. Obviously you didn't read a bit of my Post #384 which links to discussions on this very subject.


No, there's no conscious "selection" by the body (whatever that means). There's no "intelligence" that does the "selecting". Earlier you posted this deceptive little quote-mine (I can see why you are so clueless).


The problem with this is that it was plucked from a one-page OPINION which SPECULATES on possible scenarios that MIGHT be used by bacteria. First, opinion pages aren't evidence for anything, especially ones that are now nearly 20 years old. I can't give a direct link to the pdf file from Science (you would need a subscription to view this reference ==>R Lewin. A heresy in evolutionary biology. Science 16 September 1988 241: 1431 [DOI: 10.1126/science.3047870] )
Here are some of the SPECULATIVE mechanism proposed by Cairns:


As it happens, NONE of these "what ifs" and "supposes" panned out. Here's some passages from pages 28-30 HERE (pdf) about Cairns:



Now like many hypotheses proposed by scientists, the notion of "adapative" mutations as proposed by Cairns didn't work out. The point here is that his ideas have been discussed and experimented on in full measure and in the open.

Here's a discussion of the issues raised by Cairns at TalkReason. What is very dishonest, supersport, is for you to present quote-mines like this one that are not only OUT-OF-DATE and SUPERSEDED, i.e., Cairn's "Lamarckian" speculations about "directed" mutation didn't work out), but imply that there's some kind of cover-up of the facts as well.

As a further demonstration of either your ignorance and/or dishonest, it should be noted that even Cairns disavowed "directed" spontaneous mutation for multicellular organisms. Cairns also pointed out that which such scenarios MIGHT be possible for prokaryotes like bacteria, the same thing could NOT be said of multicellular organisms, again quoting from the opinion page:

There doesn't look like there's any mechanism for animals like the Arctic fox or any other multicellular organism to simply break out their DNA at will and generate the needed proteins on "demand" in the manner you have been flogging here.



Wrong, there's quite a bit of difference between the DNA of a mouse and a fly. What we have found sequencing the genomes of organisms is that it the difference between a mouse and a fly does NOT require a VAST difference between their respective codes to produce the differences observed. This is actually a boost for evolution where different functions have been shown to arise from either small alterations in pre-existing genes and/or differential expressions of similar sequences.


Now the above is an assertion that you have YET to present any data to support. There is nothing about differential expression that falsifies any aspect of ToE. Do tell us WHY differential expression would "put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".

And out of that in-depth and detailed post, here's what JohnR7 slices out and runs with -

"put the death nail in the coffin of Darwinism".

Not only is the bulk of the post lopped off, but the first part of the quoted remark doesn't even make the quote, changing context, meaning and everything. Talk about moving goal posts? Here's a prime example.

This is what we're dealing with, folks. I hope you can all spot this lowest form of debating tactic, occuring right before your eyes.

 

[OdwinOddball]

aaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, I need to vent.

 

[AirPo]

My point is that I have to wonder about the people who attack and try to falsely discredit Creation Science.

I wonder about people who don't understand that is how science works.

 

[LightHorseman]

Natural Selection requires something to select. Darwin never resolved this issue and they still have not resolved it today. Other than to offer up their lame and unproven mutation theory. Perhaps they can show a benificial mutation, but where have they shown evolution as a result of a benificial mutation?

John, Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. There you go. beneficial mutation. Get me a sample of antibiotic susceptible bacteria, a petri dish, and a bottle of pills, and I guarantee you that within a couple of weeks of careful culturing, I can breed up, voracious, monster bugs who swim in clorhexidine and eat penicilin for breakfast.

 

[vipertaja]

*sigh*

John, John, John.

You've obviously never taken any chemistry classes, have you?

Please, allow a chemical engineer to enlighten you.

You. Are. Wrong.

Chemicals do tend to bond in certain ways, but under the right conditions (ie, using temperature, pressure, solvents, catalysts, etc) to our advantage, they can be made to join in almost any way we want. I personally work as a research assistant at a specialty chemical company. The molecules that I make every day are far more complex than can be made by simply "mixing chemicals together." It takes thought, careful planning, and effort, but it can be done. How else do you think they've gotten noble gases, namely xenon, to bond with other chemicals? NOBLE GASES, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

You're wrong, and you look like a fool. Stay out of things you don't understand. It'll help me keep my blood pressure down.

Bah! Everyone knows chemists just stand around all day pouring
the chemicals back and forth between two flasks. Thought?
Planning? Pfft!

 

[shadowmage36]

And people wonder why clear liquid A plus clear liquid B gives you opaque solid C.

 

[Edx]

Bah! Everyone knows chemists just stand around all day pouring
the chemicals back and forth between two flasks. Thought?
Planning? Pfft!

Man, I wish I was a chemist.

 

[vipertaja]

And people wonder why clear liquid A plus clear liquid B gives you opaque solid C.

Just keep mixing them long enough.

 

[jamie4418]

For myself, I'm gonna stop with this arguing about evolution. I found that it was causing strife and anger. This is obviously the devil trying to bait us into arguements.

What's far more important whether evolution is true or not is whether God created the world or not. Also, if Jesus died to save us from our sins so that we can have everlasting life. THESE are the things we should be discussing. Not evolution.


2 Timothy 2:23
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Timothy 6:4
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What's far more important whether evolution is true or not is whether God created the world or not. Also, if Jesus died to save us from our sins so that we can have everlasting life. THESE are the things we should be discussing. Not evolution.


fast forward to:
http://www.christianforums.com/f13-general-apologetics.html
http://www.christianforums.com/f272-outreach.html


however, there is a reason this is called:
Creation & Evolution

some people are interested in this topic and hence are here for discussion on C&E.

 

[LightHorseman]

Amazing...

here we are, in a thread with a title about evolution, and some twit comes in telling us its not the issue!

Christian- Thetre is no evidence for evolution

Evolutionist Christian- Well actually here is a bunch of evidence, do you have evidence for a different mechanism?

Christian- Um, er, well shouldn't we be talking about the REAL issue? Jesus Christ?

Hey, ever think that maybe if your faith can't stand up to close scrutiny or through looking at actual scientific evidence (thats evidence God created for us to see) then maybe your faith is mistaken somehow? No. Its everyone else thats wrong, obviously.

 

[JohnR7]

Christian- Thetre is no evidence for evolution

Evolutionist Christian- Well actually here is a bunch of evidence, do you have evidence for a different mechanism?

There is a lot of evidence that shows it could have happened that way. There is no evidence to show that it DID happen that way.

The evidence shows that it COULD be true, but the evidence does NOT show that evolution IS true.

 

[JedPerkins]

There is a lot of evidence that shows it could have happened that way. There is no evidence to show that it DID happen that way.

The evidence shows that it COULD be true, but the evidence does NOT show that evolution IS true.

I consider this a giant leap forward for you, John.

 

[LightHorseman]

JohnR7 has once again quote mined, and missed the point completely. Someone was saying we shouldn't talk about evolution because it is somehow a divisive issue.
MY point is that in a thread with evolution in the title, we can talk about it if we want, and don't try to change the topic just because your preffered side of the topic is sinking. Since you want to quote me, perhaps you would like to answer?

Hey, ever think that maybe if your faith can't stand up to close scrutiny or through looking at actual scientific evidence (thats evidence God created for us to see) then maybe your faith is mistaken somehow? No. Its everyone else thats wrong, obviously.

And while I'm talking to John, I'll go out on a limb and say, yes. There is evidence that evolution is the way it happens. Tonnes of it. and thats tonnes more than the evidence it happens in any way aproaching any similarity to YEC theories.

 

[LightHorseman]

and from a different thread that our good friend JohnR7 never answered...

I think the literalists we have had join us have done a beautiful job of validating my point far better than I ever could.

"There are no flaws!"
"Oh, wait, there are flaws, its just a problem with the delivery system, so what it says is flawed, but what it MEANS is not flawed"

This all underlines my point wonderfly. Here is God, who puts us in a world with an myriad flying things, and our literalist bretheran would rather beleive in a book that says all flying things are fowl, rather than the clear evidence of the God that made them.

Then make excuses for how the mistakes aren't really mistakes.

Can you imagine them trying to discuss these things with the almighty?

God- Its just a book, OK? Trust me, bats ar not in the same group as birds, anyway you look at it.

JohnR7- No God, you're wrong! The bible puts them in the same list, see?

God- No really! Bats, have fur, suckle live young, have seperate organs of reproduction and excretion, have teeth and visible ears... birds, feathered, beaked, lay eggs, cloaca, COMPLETELY different bone structure of the wing... trust me on this, I was there, the ancient Israelites should have looked more closely, the differences are really pretty obvious...

JohnR7- Nuh uh God, they both fly, so they are the same. It says in the Bible, and the King James version is totally infallible!

God- What about that crap about Pi = 3 then? I go to all the trouble of making Pi a universa;l constant, and they can't even be bothered to measure a cauldron in MY temple accurately!

JohnR7- No God, you're wrong again see, Pi is a universal constant then, but the KJV says that the caudron was 30:10, so Pi must have equaled 3 in that bit of the universe, either that, or they wrote it down wrong.

God- Wrote it down wrong?

JohnR7- Yes

God- In the King James Bible?

JohnR7- Yes

God- Which is infallible?

JohnR7- Yes

God- Wow... talk about "sees, and beleiveth not"!​

Or, in other words, IDOLATRY

 

[JohnR7]

"There are no flaws!"

This really is an apologics issue. There is no problem between science and the Bible. There is no error in the Bible. The only error is in the understanding that different people have about the Bible.

You keep coming up with one strawman arguement after another.

 

[JohnR7]

And while I'm talking to John, I'll go out on a limb and say, yes. There is evidence that evolution is the way it happens. Tonnes of it. and thats tonnes more than the evidence it happens in any way aproaching any similarity to YEC theories.

Tons and tons of evidence that shows what? Just what evidence do you think that you have?

 

[gladiatrix]

And while I'm talking to John, I'll go out on a limb and say, yes. There is evidence that evolution is the way it happens. Tonnes of it. and thats tonnes more than the evidence it happens in any way aproaching any similarity to YEC theories

Tons and tons of evidence that shows what? Just what evidence do you think that you have?

Let's start with the just this very incomplete list of evidence here in these links:

Six lines of evidence, one conclusion...evolution ain't going away

Or how about reviewing some of the evidence for human evolution and taking Scigirl's Chromosome Challenge?(Post #96)

Let's see you give a reasoned argument to the contrary against any part of the the above.

 

[XTE]

Testing