Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

Montalban said:

I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.

Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school

Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Right. I get you. I've got many things like that in my files and over the years they have had to cough up as negative after claiming 'evidence' for evolution.

But the people we are debating with are not honest people. I trust that there were those reading this debate that saw the matter clearly and benefited from it.

Thank you for your comments but I think we have covered the bases here. Maybe we can talk on another subject.

God bless you.

progmonk said:

LOL Haeckel.

And abiogenesis is not evolution

Click to expand...

More lies. 'abiogenesis' was once called 'chemical evolution'. In the age of Alexander Oparin.

proof:
Chemical evolution may refer to:

• Nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements in the universe either through the Big Bang, or supernovae
• Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems

Wikipedia.

But most evolutionists will believe any lie if it favors Darwinism.

Assyrian: "Not that it matters."!

That says it all. You're done bub.

Or is it...............Mola?


'Not that it matters'.

Just a reminder that we have seen unicellular organisms evolve into multicellular organisms in the lab.

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

shernren said:

Just a reminder that we have seen unicellular organisms evolve into multicellular organisms in the lab.

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Click to expand...

You mean we have seen unicellular organism become a colonial organism.(animals will often do the same thing to survive) Multi-cellular are made of different type of cell that can't survive on their own. No matter how many dogs you put together they are not any closer to become an elephant.

progmonk said:

LOL Haeckel.

Click to expand...

Long after he was shown to be a fraud we were still given his drawings as a demonstration.

Thank you for your well-thought out response.

progmonk said:

And abiogenesis is not evolution

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking no it's not. However evolution begs the question of how life began and Darwin too speculated on this. However, most importantly - that's what we were taught in a course on evolution.

shernren said:

Just a reminder that we have seen unicellular organisms evolve into multicellular organisms in the lab.

Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Click to expand...

My reading of the beginning of that article is that it became a multi-cellular organism, but a clump of unicellular organisms coming together in defence.

They still are unicellular organisms.

Smidlee said:

You mean we have seen unicellular organism become a colonial organism.(animals will often do the same thing to survive) Multi-cellular are made of different type of cell that can't survive on their own. No matter how many dogs you put together they are not any closer to become an elephant.

Click to expand...

That seems to be the case here. But I often find that they change definitions to suit the theory.

Another case is the definition of species... which I always understood to mean, in particular for multicellular sexually producing organisms that if two healthy samples (one of each sex) come together and cannot successfully produce viable young then they are of a different species. Now take that and look at explanations for the way Neanderthal vanished. It's supposedly a different species of man, but some suggest that it was bred out with modern man so that today's population is descendant from them.

That would mean that they were the SAME species.

Montalban said:

Long after he was shown to be a fraud we were still given his drawings as a demonstration.

Thank you for your well-thought out response.


Strictly speaking no it's not. However evolution begs the question of how life began and Darwin too speculated on this. However, most importantly - that's what we were taught in a course on evolution.

Click to expand...

Seeing as how I never heard of his fraudulent drawings or seen them until I started participating in origins debates I find that hard to believe, but will bow out of the discussion on this "proof" of evolution's invalidity, due to not knowing that much on them.

Why does it beg the question of how life began, it can sit quite perfectly without the need for an origin of life explanation.

Kirkwhisper said:

Assyrian: "Not that it matters."!

That says it all. You're done bub.

Click to expand...

Of course, I not only said your quote didn't matter, I explained why it was irrelevant. You didn't came up with a source for the quote either.

But, if it gives you an excuse to end our conversation about according to their kind, it save you from having to back up your claim it means reproduce according to their kind.

Or is it...............Mola?


'Not that it matters'.

Click to expand...

Eeyore surely?

Kirkwhisper said:

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics

Click to expand...

Citation please.

“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

Click to expand...

See here: Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

Click to expand...

and another one: Review: The Bone Peddlers

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Comment on these statements and tell the readers why they are all wrong.

Click to expand...

I can't seem to find anything on the last quote, but from my understanding, without outside impetus artificial selection of characteristics (breeding) is restricted to what is there already.

progmonk said:

Seeing as how I never heard of his fraudulent drawings or seen them until I started participating in origins debates I find that hard to believe, but will bow out of the discussion on this "proof" of evolution's invalidity, due to not knowing that much on them.

Click to expand...

The world doesn't revolve around you and your observations.

progmonk said:

Why does it beg the question of how life began, it can sit quite perfectly without the need for an origin of life explanation.

Click to expand...

I've already responded to this.

In case you missed: Darwin addressed it, and it was what I was taught as part of High School Biology.

It's still being taught:

UNIT 8 : ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF LIFE
8.1 Origin of life, Big bang theory, various theories, panspermia, abiogenesis, chemical evolution – Oparin- Haldane Hypothesis, Harold Urey & Stanley Miller experiment, Theories of Evolution – Lamarckism, Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Character, Theory of Use and Disuse, Darvinism – Natural selection theory, Example of natural selection – Industrial Melanism, Geological timescale.
KEAM Biology Syllabus 2012, KEAM 2012 Biology Syllabus, KEAM Syllbus For Biology
(emphasis added)

Montalban said:

I went to a Catholic boys school. We were taught evolution in high school - in Biology.

Many of the so-called proofs for it I found out to be false. In fact, they were widely known to be frauds well before I even started school

Such as Haeckel's embryonic drawings.

And the Miller-Urey experiment - which was supposed to demonstrate abiogenesis.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

Long after he was shown to be a fraud we were still given his drawings as a demonstration.

Thank you for your well-thought out response.

Click to expand...

I was looking into this online and you are half-right, half-wrong.

Yes, there were some people who were claiming Haeckel was wrong. For the curious, Haeckel made a comparative drawing of the embryos of various species:



to make a point that there seemed, to him, to be a fundamentally identical embryonic stage. What's the logical thing to do to disprove him? Make your own set of comparative embryonic drawings, right?

Turns out nobody did that until 1997.

That year, an excellent review by Richardson and his colleagues marked the first time that anyone had ever compared microphotographs of of a wide range of embryos. To quote the paper:

Inept? Quite. Fradulent? Evolutionary researchers can't be deceiving you if they're as clueless as you are!

This paper spawned a companion paper in Science by different authors which basically claimed that Haeckel was a fraud. That's when creationists latched on to it. Evidence? Google Haeckel's embryos in textbooks from 1990 to 1996, and there are 674 results, many of which are technical papers instead of creationist articles. Google the same term in the year 1998 and there are also 674 results - a sevenfold increase in rate! Furthermore, many more of the top results are creationist websites.

This just shows a disturbing pattern in creationist argumentation: evolutionists show definitively just how earlier evolutionists were wrong, and creationists pick up on it only after the fact of research done not by themselves!

By the way, the fact that progmonk never heard of Haeckel's embryos while Montalban has may be an important datum. Since progmonk is still in university, it is likely that he learned college biology within the last 10 years, while Montalban probably learned it before 1997. This is entirely compatible with the fact that the first proper academic treatment of Haeckel's fraud was in that year.

Also relevant is this PDF: Haeckel's embryos - fraud not proven. Particularly valuable is the first photograph on page 152 which shows that Haeckel himself continually updated his drawing as more (though still scant) evidence became available, and his own drawing in 1891 looks considerably unlike both his drawing in 1874 and unthinking textbook reproductions of the latter.

Montalban said:

Strictly speaking no it's not. However evolution begs the question of how life began and Darwin too speculated on this. However, most importantly - that's what we were taught in a course on evolution.

Click to expand...

Evolution does not beg the question of how life began any more than chemistry begs the question of how atoms are formed. As for "what we were taught" being the most important point - what if your instructor was simply wrong?

Smidlee said:

You mean we have seen unicellular organism become a colonial organism.(animals will often do the same thing to survive) Multi-cellular are made of different type of cell that can't survive on their own. No matter how many dogs you put together they are not any closer to become an elephant.

Click to expand...

Montalban said:

My reading of the beginning of that article is that it became a multi-cellular organism, but a clump of unicellular organisms coming together in defence.

They still are unicellular organisms.

Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of "multicellular", and I take your criticism. But this next paper: Volvox, Chlamydomonas, Evolution of Multicellularity | Learn Science at Scitable compares a multicellular organism (Volvox; has flagellated somatic cells that do not divide, and gonidia which undertake reproduction) to a closely-related unicellular organism (Chlamydomonas) and analyzes the genetic differences. In particular, many vital genes which help Volvox to differentiate its cells have very similar orthologs in Chlamydomonas (such that copying the gene from Chlamydomonas into a Volvox mutant missing that gene will fix it), showing that it would only have taken a very small change of function for their last common ancestor to evolve into a multicellular organism.

shernren said:

Depends on your definition of "multicellular", and I take your criticism. But this next paper: Volvox, Chlamydomonas, Evolution of Multicellularity | Learn Science at Scitable compares a multicellular organism (Volvox; has flagellated somatic cells that do not divide, and gonidia which undertake reproduction) to a closely-related unicellular organism (Chlamydomonas) and analyzes the genetic differences. In particular, many vital genes which help Volvox to differentiate its cells have very similar orthologs in Chlamydomonas (such that copying the gene from Chlamydomonas into a Volvox mutant missing that gene will fix it), showing that it would only have taken a very small change of function for their last common ancestor to evolve into a multicellular organism.

Click to expand...

That does make it sound so simple but anyone knows who done any kind of rearranging you end up with a big mess before things starts to become organize again. There's more to it than just genes and proteins. Adding spider DNA/genes into a human does not create Spider-man.
As your last paper shown there is a cost in forming colonial organism. This is the problem with origin of sex as well.

P.S Still it's possible Volvox and Chlamydomonas are linked. (For all we know Chlamydomonas could have evolved from Volvox) Multicellularity had to happen multiple times (for ToE to be true) yet somehow these miracles only happened in the 100+ million years in the past.

shernren said:

.

This just shows a disturbing pattern in creationist argumentation: evolutionists show definitively just how earlier evolutionists were wrong, and creationists pick up on it only after the fact of research done not by themselves!

Click to expand...

Since creationists are often seen as heretic of science then they have to use and quote evolutionist's work to make a case against evolution. While scientist has to give lip service to ToE & Darwin I'm sure there are some who have serious doubts yet keeps quiet.

Even so since scientist only study an small area of a certain field so they heavily rely on other scientist to form the bigger picture. When someone trying to "see the bigger picture" they have no choice but rely on other people work to make a case.

progmonk said:

Citation please.

Click to expand...

No problemo: http://www.macroevolution.net/mendel.html

See here: Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

Click to expand...

So? I trust talk origins about as much as I trust the devil. They don't like anyone (evolutionists included) that doesn't talk the party line.

and another one: Review: The Bone Peddlers

Click to expand...

Same thing. It doesn't negate his quote.

I can't seem to find anything on the last quote, but from my understanding, without outside impetus artificial selection of characteristics (breeding) is restricted to what is there already.

Click to expand...

What you mean is you can't find anything to upend his statement. You see, the reason the Darwinians here lost this debate is because not one of them could provide us with ANY observed (or even unobserved fossil chain of) evidence that living organism have or even could change from one type to another classifiably different organism. The Law of God concerning 'kind' stands and there is nothing they can do about it.

I really think we're done here, at least on this point.

Montalban:

It's still being taught:

UNIT 8 : ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF LIFE
8.1 Origin of life, Big bang theory, various theories, panspermia, abiogenesis, chemical evolution – Oparin- Haldane Hypothesis, Harold Urey & Stanley Miller experiment, Theories of Evolution – Lamarckism, Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Character, Theory of Use and Disuse, Darvinism – Natural selection theory, Example of natural selection – Industrial Melanism, Geological timescale.
KEAM Biology Syllabus 2012, KEAM 2012 Biology Syllabus, KEAM Syllbus For Biology
(emphasis added)

Click to expand...

They don't care. They live on lies.

Kirkwhisper said:

progmonk said:

Citation please.

Click to expand...

No problemo: Mendel in Darwin's Shadow

Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't find your Mendel quotation anywhere in the link, where abouts on the page is it?

Earlier I wrote:

Typical creationist responses to transitional fossils shown after they claimed there weren't any include:

1. Deny it is transitional by claiming it is "just like" one of the ends. This is done by ignoring the many transitional features, often using the term "mosaic creature", which actually has nothing to do with parting the red sea, but rather with having features from both end creatures, thus helping show that it is transitional after all.
2. Claim the fossil is a hoax, even though they have no evidence to base that on.
3. Admit it's transitional, but then insist that they now want transitionals between that transitional and each of the end creatures. In other words, "moving the goalposts".
4. Insist that it must be proven to be in the exact ancestral line (not a child or descendant of one that was), which is of course impossible to do without a birth certificate. Birth certificates weren't, of course, invented yet.
5. (That's all I can think of, but you may know of other common creationist responses.)

I'm personally betting that Kirkwhisper will try #3. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Kirkwhishper wrote:

Ha, ha, ha,ha, ha. Onychonycteris is a bat fully formed features

Click to expand...

Hey, my prediction that he would try #3 was wrong, instead he went with #1, complete with "This is done by ignoring the many transitional features". For instance, the intermediate claws, "rat" like hindlimbs, and transitional, shorter wings all make it clear that it is not a "fully formed" modern bat.

Prove it. Show the stage by stage development as it is supposedly revealed in the fossil record and then prove how it changed genetically.

Click to expand...

Well, first of all, I did already show that the fossil record confirms the prediction by giving a transitional fossil.

Secondly, you seem to be unaware of the fact that even if there were no fossils, the evidence from many scientific fields, like genetics, physiology, biochemistry, anatomy, biogeography, and more prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, according to practically all scientists. You can see some of that evidence here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Let me show you something in this regard: Moses classifies bats as a bird. Why is Moses wrong and the modern evolutionist classification right?

From Deuteronomy 14,

Click to expand...

So you rely on your interpretation over what the biologists (many of whom are Christian), who have examined lifetimes worth of evidence, practically all say? I can see you at the doctor's office: "Yes, by my interpretation of Genesis 1:28 tells me that cancer can't exist, so I don't have cancer and neither does anyone else!" I guess "scientific consensus" and "evidence" mean little to you if they don't agree with your own favored interpretation.

Papias

P.S. I hope I never put up a fabricated quote, or even worse, defend it by posting a link that doesn't even contain the quote in question.

Assyrian said:

Sorry, I can't find your Mendel quotation anywhere in the link, where abouts on the page is it?

Click to expand...

World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K

Plus this: "The general acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and his ideas regarding variation and the inheritance of acquired characters are, in fact, the main reasons for the neglect of Mendel's work, which (in clear opposition to Darwin) pointed to an entirely different understanding of the questions involved."1

Quote: "In his short treatise, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs 67 times in his original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change".


Gregor Mendel - Father of Genetics

Read it and weep. This debate is over.

P.S. I apologize for the messy quote. It is better read like this:

Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments led Gartner to disagree with those scientists who contest the stability of plant species and assume continuous evolution of plant forms. In the complete transformation of one species into another he finds unequivocal proof that a species has fixed limits beyond which it cannot change."

Taken directly from Mendel's work as quoted at: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf