How to choose between creation and evolution.

[Brightmoon]

Actually Darwin’s book is a little old even though he does summarize his evidence of how he came to the conclusion of common descent pretty well . Obviously you’ve never read it. We also have a lot more information about how organisms are related than he had. This is the 21st century not the 19th after all.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually Darwin’s book is a little old even though he does summarize his evidence of how he came to the conclusion of common descent pretty well . Obviously you’ve never read it. We also have a lot more information about how organisms are related than he had. This is the 21st century not the 19th after all.

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually Darwin’s book is a little old even though he does summarize his evidence of how he came to the conclusion of common descent pretty well . Obviously you’ve never read it. We also have a lot more information about how organisms are related than he had. This is the 21st century not the 19th after all.

 

[omega2xx]

The ToE has modern application. There is even an entire journal dedicated to that subject.

But that still doesn't answer the question. Even if the theory of evolution were false, would those in biology industries still not want the best understanding of biology possible?

Of course . The use what Biology has proved to do their work. They do not use anything from evolution.

ICR and AiG are religious institutions with statements of faith that they require their members to adhere to, and explicitly reject anything which contradicts their beliefs:

While they are faith based, they do not require their faculty to reject something based on their religion. You can't give an example where that has happened. They counter evolution with PROVEN science.

All things in the universe were created and made by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus 20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical, and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or development that involve evolution in any form are false.

​

Foundational Principles (Institute for Creation Research)

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.​

Statement of Faith (Answers in Genesis)

No scientific organization would require its members to adhere to such statements. This reinforces that the only people who seem to object are doing so because of religious beliefs.

Nothing in those statements require the person to reject something or falsify something based on their religion. Secular universities have the same standards, they just don't put it in writing.

Do you think a creationist could get a teaching position in Boloogy in a secular university?

 

[Brightmoon]

Actually Darwin’s book is a little old even though he does summarize his evidence of how he came to the conclusion of common descent pretty well . Obviously you’ve never read it. We also have a lot more information about how organisms are related than he had. This is the 21st century not the 19th after all.

 

[omega2xx]

Then you have obviously never heard of the homeobox genes and the absolutely vast literature on body patterning in vertebrates. You have never explored the deep homology in fins and limbs, and the role of the same genes (specifically Hoxa11, Hoxa13 and Hoxd10, Hoxd11, Hoxd12 and Hoxd13) in patterning the fins of lobe finned fish and all tetrapods. Here are a few references and links to get you going:

Yano and Tamura, "The making of the differences between fins and limbs", Journal of Anatomy, here. Excellent review article, with a huge number of references.

Shubin, Tabin and Carroll, "Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty", Nature 457, 818–823 (12 February 2009), another excellent review article from some of the foremost evolutionary biologists in one of the world's premier journals, covering more than fins and limbs

Davis, Dahn and Shubin, "An autopodial-like pattern of Hox expression in the fins of a basal actinopterygian fish", Nature 447, pages 473–476 (24 May 2007). A short quote from the abstract: "Here, we report on the expression and function of genes implicated in the origin of the autopod in a basal actinopterygian, Polyodon spathula. Polyodon exhibits a late-phase, inverted collinear expression of 5′ HoxD genes, a pattern of expression long considered a developmental hallmark of the autopod and shown in tetrapods to be controlled by a ‘digit enhancer’ region. These data show that aspects of the development of the autopod are primitive to tetrapods and that the origin of digits entailed the redeployment of ancient patterns of gene activity." (The autopod is the hand or foot of tetrapods).

There is a year or more worth of reading if you start with the review articles and work forward and backward (like a new PhD student would do in their first year literature review to get them up to speed in their subject).

Rather than there being genes for fins and genes for limbs which are different, as you would have it, the reality is that the same genes pattern both the fins of fish and the limbs of tetrapods in a deep homology. Surely if you were that knowledgeable about genetics you would know this?

And you evidently never heard of the proven genetic fact---the offspring CANNOT receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

 

[Brightmoon]

I certainly wouldn’t hire someone who deliberately lies about verified evidence for a teaching position. I remember stories about creationists being fired or not being hired in the first place because the workplace determined that they couldn’t do the work because of creationist “science” based incompetence

 

[Brightmoon]

I certainly wouldn’t hire someone who deliberately lies about verified evidence for a teaching position. I remember stories about creationists being fired or not being hired in the first place because the workplace determined that they couldn’t do the work because of creationist “science” based incompetence

 

[Brightmoon]

im not gonna try to delete all these extra posts

 

[omega2xx]

I can point out why your argument is wrong from common sense. If many do figure it out, why don't they say anything. I'm sure the media will go crazy over an entire branch of science being fake. The teachers who teach the clubbed courses must have figured it out, why do they still teach clubbed courses, rather why do they still teach AND publish papers in journal about evolution?

Instead of all the rhetoric, why not produce some verifiable scientific evidence.

Start with the evidence for natural selection, then advance to how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea animal. I predict you will do neither.

 

[tas8831]

I can google the answers to any question put to me, and I'll sound like an expert

Not to those that would not have had to google the answer.

(and I will probably understand it as well).

Not likely.

I was sent to an "infectious disease specialist" (a phony title) by my doctor because I complained of ongoing symptoms of Lyme disease long after I had been 'successfully' treated. He attempted to tell me my post-infection symptoms were all in my head. He also made a gratuitous statement that "an IQ of 120 was all that was required to become doctor". I have no idea why he offered that. Anyway both he and my doctor were full of it. Lesson learned.

What neither understood was that while a live horse can pollute a stream, a dead one can be just as bad.

And you got that "wisdom" from google, did you? So, you are 'smarter' than your doctors and all biologists, yet all you have is a background in economics and an ego. Incredible.

I have to wonder - how is it that without a relevant background, education, or knowledge, that you are able to discern whether or not what the google shows you is accurate?

Such hubris coupled with a large does of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Both are very common, oddly enough, in Christian creationists with no relevant education (regarding the issues being discussed), seeing as how they are supposedly humble and all that.

So - no actual examples of anatomy proving creation?

Was that claim just the usual creationist bluffing/hot air?

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re joking right !? Hecd just gave you that information

 

[omega2xx]

So presumably websites like this one, and creationist books, videos and DVDs, are all a figment of my imagination; students in the real world never encounter them or hear about them because they don't exist.

It is not about hearing something, it is about the only thing they hear in public schools. It is indoctrination, not honest teaching.

 

[hecd2]

And you evidently never heard of the proven genetic fact---the offspring CANNOT receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

Classic handwave. Devoid of evidence (never mind proof). Not a single citation to any reputable study supporting this so-called "proven genetic fact". In fact, made up entirely from prejudice and invincible ignorance.

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, the master gene is for making limbs not legs . When fish first evolved that gene, they had one long ridgelike fin on the ventral side. Either the area duplicated or the gene turned on in a second parallel ridge in sections ( which makes it easier to steer) we know this because we find the fossils . Same gene turns on and off .in other words, the ridges fragment and parts disappear so you eventually have paired fins The fish lineage that leads to modern fish have bones inside fleshy fins . These split into lobefins ,ray fins, land vertebrates . Both ray fins and land tetrapods evolved from lobefins but they are from two separate lineages. (Some people think that the cartilageous fish evolved from bony fish as well but this isn’t my area of expertise )

Rhetoric is not evidence. Post HOW it is possible.

 

[tas8831]

Instead of all the rhetoric, why not produce some verifiable scientific evidence.

Start with the evidence for natural selection, then advance to how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea animal. I predict you will do neither.

Seeing as how it has been presented to you many times, I predict you will ignore or dismiss anything presented, then come back later and claim no evidence was ever presented.

Seeing as how the celebration of the rebirth of the sun just happened, can you present evidence that the dead rose from their graves upon the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:52)?

I predict that you will not even try.

 

[hecd2]

Do you think a creationist could get a teaching position in Boloogy in a secular university?

Most secular universities don't teach Boloogy, but Boloogy is exactly what pseudoscience organisations like AIG and ICR teach.

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re joking right !? Hecd just gave you that information . You know that post with the Hox gene stuff. It’s not that scientists don’t have the information it’s that creationists refuse to understand or even read it. Galileo had the same problem, one of his accusers refused to look through the telescope when he tried to show him the evidence he had . And no the Ham and AiG or ICR don’t do science. They just undermine their own credibility by lying about science facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually it science based on science not the guessing game played by the evangelist of Darwin.

Evolution is a game of no evidence which you are playing.

Yes you do. One is called "The Origin of the Species." An amusing and telling title since it doesnot address the origin of the species.

Comments like this, make me believe that you are not sincere.
That you are just a Poe, trolling.
​

​

 

[omega2xx]

Classic handwave. Devoid of evidence (never mind proof). Not a single citation to any reputable study supporting this so-called "proven genetic fact". In fact, made up entirely from prejudice and invincible ignorance.

Classical avoiding the question. You are tho one waving your hands and devoid of evidence. Those who understand basic genetic don't need a citation from a reputable study.

You have not provided a citation from a reputable study showing HOW a leg can become a fin.

I have just answered about a dozen post and not one of them included any scientific evidence. In the future don't expect an answer from me, if your post does not include some real scientific evidence.

 

[Brightmoon]

And you evidently never heard of the proven genetic fact---the offspring CANNOT receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.

You’re joking right !? Hecd just gave you that information . You know that post with the Hox gene stuff. It’s not that scientists don’t have the information it’s that creationists refuse to understand or even read it. Galileo had the same problem, one of his accusers refused to look through the telescope when he tried to show him the evidence he had . And no the Ham and AiG or ICR don’t do science. They just undermine their own credibility by lying about science facts.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you think a creationist could get a teaching position in Boloogy in a secular university?

Sure. To make coffee.

To actually join the biological research department?
Not very likely.

That's kind of like employing a flat-earther at NASA or a Stork Theorist in a maternity hospital.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually it science based on science not the guessing game played by the evangelist of Darwin.

Now that's just funny that you actually believe that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes you do. One is called "The Origin of the Species." An amusing and telling title since it doesnot address the origin of the species.

Man, you really are just STUNNINGLY WRONG.

 

[tas8831]

It's just pointing out an illogical premise. I reject the premise.

For no good reason, no doubt.