ICR Acts and Facts

[Jimmy D]

that is not what Dr. Kirchner, dean (or former) dean of Harvard genetics said in a boston Herald Article.

He is an ardent evolutionist and I paraphrase That all the advances in teh biological sciences for nearly a century have occurred without any regard for origins! ?See you don't need to be an aderent of evolutionism to be a top notch biologists! There are many award winning biologists who are YEC!

You keep saying that, but where is the interview? You haven't read it and neither have I. How do you know you haven't fallen for more creationist propaganda.

Kindly show the interview or pipe down with this rubbish.

He co-wrote two books...

Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Toward a Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and Evolutionary Adaptability

which to quote Amazon "is richly illustrated with examples drawn from modern palaeontology, developmental biology, and cell biology. It sets out to establish a coherent basis for evaluating the role of cellular and embryological mechanisms in evolutionary change."

and

The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma

"In this thought-provoking and lucidly written book, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart address one of the most interesting, important, and yet difficult dimensions of evolutionary science-the origins of novelty. Drawing on a vast body of biological knowledge, from ant trails to the neural wiring of mouse whiskers, the authors illustrate how organisms are equipped to adapt to different and changing circumstances. They propose that variation, the raw material of evolution, is facilitated by newly understood properties of the development and physiology of organisms. This new view suggests that there is a bias in organisms capacity to evolve and in the directions that evolution takes." The Plausibility of Life" will help readers understand not just the plausibility of evolution, but its remarkable, inventive powers."

It sounds like you are misrepresenting his position, so have you read the interview?

 

[Yttrium]

then tell the evolutionists! Cuz they are still cranking out theories of how non life became life by chemical evolution- or random processes coming together in the right order to produce life!

Non-sequitur. Biologists have evolution theory, which deals with change in life. They are also delving into abiogenesis, which will be a different theory if they ever pull it all together. Science is made up of many different theories, you know.

 

[Speedwell]

Well theists do not make them involved in a relationship with Almighty god. and I cannot speak for the Salafists. But IF one is indoctrinated in the tenets of evolutionism all their edication life- yep they are going to believe it!

And so what? You said yourself that belief in a literal Genesis is not a requirement for salvation. In fact, no essential Christian doctrine depends on it.
The theory of evolution is only a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is nothing but an attempt to explain a natural phenomenon, based on the evidence available. It is by necessity incomplete and by definition provisional, capable of being overturned at any time by new evidence.
What's your beef?

 

[pitabread]

Still true! A creationist (or more correctly ) a YEC creationist is one who believes
God called all things into existence (and formed man) in 6 24 hour days! A progressive creationist is one who believes God monitored evolution! So He is an evolutionist who believes it was guided and directed- which the super majority ofevolutionists reject.

It's funny that a lot of creationists have made these sorts of accusations about Todd Wood's belief just because he's honest about the science of evolution.

You can read more about it here: I'M A CREATIONIST!

You're engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy because you don't like what he is saying about evolutionary science.

Well then show the research that demonstrates the genetic mutations in the genome that took A. Afarenses to modern man and that settles it. Don't show me the partial skulls and the few teeth, nor the artists conceptions of monkey men, demonstrate the mutations they discovered thast took ape to men!

If you want to understand the molecular evolution of humans, then your best bet is to do research into modern genomics and particularly the comparative genomics work performed on humans and other current primate species.

Have you ever done that?

Now if you're looking for 100% complete information on the subject of evolution of humans, you won't find it in the pages of science. No human knowledge is 100% complete, otherwise we wouldn't need to perform scientific inquiry in the first place. But not having 100% complete information doesn't mean we can't know anything. And like it or not, the last couple hundred years of investigation into biology has yielded the conclusion that all life is related (including humans!) via evolutionary relationships.

 

[pitabread]

You said yourself that belief in a literal Genesis is not a requirement for salvation. In fact, no essential Christian doctrine depends on it.

I often wonder if creationists are being truly honest in this assessment. So many seem to tie the validity of their beliefs to a literal Genesis, that I think many probably do believe it's a necessity for salvation. Otherwise, why would they care?

Some creationists on this forum have said as much and don't believe non-literal interpretations of the Bible allow one to be a Christian.

 

[Speedwell]

I often wonder if creationists are being truly honest in this assessment. So many seem to tie the validity of their beliefs to a literal Genesis, that I think many probably do believe it's a necessity for salvation. Otherwise, why would they care?

Some creationists on this forum have said as much and don't believe non-literal interpretations of the Bible allow one to be a Christian.

I suspect you are right. What I want to know is why they came to that belief and I have never been able to get a straight answer. Granted, at one time most Christians believed that Genesis was the definitive account of our origins, simply because it was the oldest account available there was no other information to be had on the subject. But the biblical interpretive schema underlying modern YECism--perspicuity, literal inerrancy, plenary verbal inspiration and the like are all post-Reformation inventions. The leading 19th-century Evangelical theologians like Hodge and Warfield were willing to accept an old Earth and evolution, only requiring the special creation of humans. William Jennings Bryan himself on the witness stand in Dayton, Tennessee said he really didn't know or care how old the Earth is.

So where did this militant YECism come from? How did it become so important to so many Evangelical Protestants?

 

[nolidad]

It's funny that a lot of creationists have made these sorts of accusations about Todd Wood's belief just because he's honest about the science of evolution.

You can read more about it here: I'M A CREATIONIST!

You're engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy because you don't like what he is saying about evolutionary science.

Well then it will be interesting to see how he supports 6,000 and descent through modification

If you want to understand the molecular evolution of humans, then your best bet is to do research into modern genomics and particularly the comparative genomics work performed on humans and other current primate species.

Have you ever done that?

Now if you're looking for 100% complete information on the subject of evolution of humans, you won't find it in the pages of science. No human knowledge is 100% complete, otherwise we wouldn't need to perform scientific inquiry in the first place. But not having 100% complete information doesn't mean we can't know anything. And like it or not, the last couple hundred years of investigation into biology has yielded the conclusion that all life is related (including humans!) via evolutionary relationships.

No what I am looking for is the evidence that mutations produced all the diversity we see from a single self replicating whatever!

What you call relationships is not necessarily so- we are not related to fish because we both have backbones!

We are not related to worms because we both have digestive systems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking the amazing work done in science. I read many articles and see many online seminars (especially in genetics- that fascinates me)

But could there be another answer to why all life has similar components? I mean other than unplanned undirected random mutations that have to build upon each other over successive generations to produce the changes evolutionism proposes? Why yes there is! common purposes would have a common design and different purposes would have a different design. And since we all live on this planet we would expect to share some common genetic qualities! Even with the Plant kingdom!

But even with all the massive money spent and countless hours of research and massive computing power dedicated to it- they still cannot broach the barrier of change beyond variation of species! And I am still williong to bet dollars to doughnuts (that is a colloquialism if you don't know) that most of teh variation we see in species is due to Mendellian Inheritance rather than mutations.

 

[Speedwell]

Well then it will be interesting to see how he supports 6,000 and descent through modification

He doesn't support descent through modification--he's a YEC. He believes in the special creation of "kinds."

But could there be another answer to why all life has similar components? I mean other than unplanned undirected random mutations that have to build upon each other over successive generations to produce the changes evolutionism proposes?

Once again you have left out natural selection. I'm beginning to think it is intentional.

But even with all the massive money spent and countless hours of research and massive computing power dedicated to it- they still cannot broach the barrier of change beyond variation of species! And I am still williong to bet dollars to doughnuts (that is a colloquialism if you don't know) that most of teh variation we see in species is due to Mendellian Inheritance rather than mutations.

Actually, observing speciation is sufficient.

 

[pitabread]

Well then it will be interesting to see how he supports 6,000 and descent through modification

Probably the same as other creationists I imagine.

But could there be another answer to why all life has similar components? I mean other than unplanned undirected random mutations that have to build upon each other over successive generations to produce the changes evolutionism proposes? Why yes there is! common purposes would have a common design and different purposes would have a different design. And since we all live on this planet we would expect to share some common genetic qualities! Even with the Plant kingdom!

Unfortunately "common design" is not an explanation since we see similar functions carried out by structurally different systems in nature.

Just compare marine life like whales versus fish. There are fundamental structural differences in those types of organisms that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective (different evolutionary pathways), but don't make any sense from a design perspective.

In fact, in order to make any sorts of claims about commonality or differences with respect to design, you'd need to invoke constraints related to such designs in order to explain them. Last time I checked, creationists don't do this when invoking a designer. Design is claimed for anything and everything, and consequently explains nothing.

What I would expect if a designer really did create life forms would be blatant chimeras. For example, here is an example of a designed organism (a rabbit with jellyfish DNA that glows in the dark). This is what a designer could do, but we don't see things like this in nature:

Scientists breed glow-in-the-dark rabbits

And I am still williong to bet dollars to doughnuts (that is a colloquialism if you don't know) that most of teh variation we see in species is due to Mendellian Inheritance rather than mutations.

We already know this isn't true given the sheer number of alleles (gene variations) identified, along with identification of specific mutation and in some cases the specific origins of said mutations.

 

[nolidad]

And so what? You said yourself that belief in a literal Genesis is not a requirement for salvation. In fact, no essential Christian doctrine depends on it.
The theory of evolution is only a scientific theory. Like all scientific theories, it is nothing but an attempt to explain a natural phenomenon, based on the evidence available. It is by necessity incomplete and by definition provisional, capable of being overturned at any time by new evidence.
What's your beef?

The most critical doctrine of the Faith depends on it! The reason Jesus left heaven, became a man and died on the cross and rose from the dead! It was to pay for the Sin nature that all humans inherit from Adam because he rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden! The bible clearly states no death before sin- evolution teaches death for eons before man sinned. God says He formed man in His image , evolution teaches that man was mutated form apes who were mutated from and so on....

To become a Christian one needs to trust in the death, burial and physical resurrection of Jesus as the only acceptable payment god accepts for their sin debt before HIm!. So yes one can believe in evolution and be a Christian, but their relationship with god will be stunted and warped because they will not be able to reconcile their two opposing beliefs.

Jesus validated Adam and Eve, He validated Noah and a global flood.

 

[nolidad]

Non-sequitur. Biologists have evolution theory, which deals with change in life. They are also delving into abiogenesis, which will be a different theory if they ever pull it all together. Science is made up of many different theories, you know.

And all the big ones are essentially and absolutely linked to each other! You have the Big Bang which caused all matter to form! Then you have cosmic evolution by which the stars and other stuff formed. Then you have chemical evolution by which all the elements formed ( I reversed those two) and then you have organic evolution by which the chemicals formed to make life. Given that teh super majority of evolutionists reject a god being of any significance for everything- all these hypotheses are intricately linked to the scientists. So they may be differing subjects but each is dependent on the others in the councils of evolutionism.

 

[Speedwell]

The most critical doctrine of the Faith depends on it! The reason Jesus left heaven, became a man and died on the cross and rose from the dead! It was to pay for the Sin nature that all humans inherit from Adam because he rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden! The bible clearly states no death before sin- evolution teaches death for eons before man sinned. God says He formed man in His image , evolution teaches that man was mutated form apes who were mutated from and so on....

To become a Christian one needs to trust in the death, burial and physical resurrection of Jesus as the only acceptable payment god accepts for their sin debt before HIm!. So yes one can believe in evolution and be a Christian, but their relationship with god will be stunted and warped because they will not be able to reconcile their two opposing beliefs.

Jesus validated Adam and Eve, He validated Noah and a global flood.

Yes, I know what you believe about it. What I want to know is, why?

 

[nolidad]

You keep saying that, but where is the interview? You haven't read it and neither have I. How do you know you haven't fallen for more creationist propaganda.

Kindly show the interview or pipe down with this rubbish.

He co-wrote two books...

Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Toward a Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and Evolutionary Adaptability

which to quote Amazon "is richly illustrated with examples drawn from modern palaeontology, developmental biology, and cell biology. It sets out to establish a coherent basis for evaluating the role of cellular and embryological mechanisms in evolutionary change."

and

The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma

"In this thought-provoking and lucidly written book, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart address one of the most interesting, important, and yet difficult dimensions of evolutionary science-the origins of novelty. Drawing on a vast body of biological knowledge, from ant trails to the neural wiring of mouse whiskers, the authors illustrate how organisms are equipped to adapt to different and changing circumstances. They propose that variation, the raw material of evolution, is facilitated by newly understood properties of the development and physiology of organisms. This new view suggests that there is a bias in organisms capacity to evolve and in the directions that evolution takes." The Plausibility of Life" will help readers understand not just the plausibility of evolution, but its remarkable, inventive powers."

It sounds like you are misrepresenting his position, so have you read the interview?

I will find the interview. And I said He is and evolutionist! But His statement stands.

From the Boston Globe October 23, 2005, Interview with Dr. Mark Kirschner

... "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all." He did go on to say we should start taking it into account!

But I will give you another evolutionist speaking.

Dr. Paul Davies in New scientist volume 163:2204 1999 pages 27-30.

"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their won software, and where did the very peculiar form of information heeded to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows!"

 

[nolidad]

You keep saying that, but where is the interview? You haven't read it and neither have I. How do you know you haven't fallen for more creationist propaganda.

Kindly show the interview or pipe down with this rubbish.

He co-wrote two books...

Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Toward a Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and Evolutionary Adaptability

which to quote Amazon "is richly illustrated with examples drawn from modern palaeontology, developmental biology, and cell biology. It sets out to establish a coherent basis for evaluating the role of cellular and embryological mechanisms in evolutionary change."

and

The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma

"In this thought-provoking and lucidly written book, Marc Kirschner and John Gerhart address one of the most interesting, important, and yet difficult dimensions of evolutionary science-the origins of novelty. Drawing on a vast body of biological knowledge, from ant trails to the neural wiring of mouse whiskers, the authors illustrate how organisms are equipped to adapt to different and changing circumstances. They propose that variation, the raw material of evolution, is facilitated by newly understood properties of the development and physiology of organisms. This new view suggests that there is a bias in organisms capacity to evolve and in the directions that evolution takes." The Plausibility of Life" will help readers understand not just the plausibility of evolution, but its remarkable, inventive powers."

It sounds like you are misrepresenting his position, so have you read the interview?

Hey! For your viewing pleasure! It is only 3 1/2 minutes long- but shows alot about how some evolutionists will stoop.

 

[pitabread]

I suspect you are right. What I want to know is why they came to that belief and I have never been able to get a straight answer. Granted, at one time most Christians believed that Genesis was the definitive account of our origins, simply because it was the oldest account available there was no other information to be had on the subject. But the biblical interpretive schema underlying modern YECism--perspicuity, literal inerrancy, plenary verbal inspiration and the like are all post-Reformation inventions. The leading 19th-century Evangelical theologians like Hodge and Warfield were willing to accept an old Earth and evolution, only requiring the special creation of humans. William Jennings Bryan himself on the witness stand in Dayton, Tennessee said he really didn't know or care how old the Earth is.

So where did this militant YECism come from? How did it become so important to so many Evangelical Protestants?

I think it would be interesting to explore the history of YECism and fundamentalism in America in general. Given the regional nature of such beliefs, there seems to be a strong cultural component to them.

 

[Yttrium]

And all the big ones are essentially and absolutely linked to each other! You have the Big Bang which caused all matter to form! Then you have cosmic evolution by which the stars and other stuff formed. Then you have chemical evolution by which all the elements formed ( I reversed those two) and then you have organic evolution by which the chemicals formed to make life. Given that teh super majority of evolutionists reject a god being of any significance for everything- all these hypotheses are intricately linked to the scientists. So they may be differing subjects but each is dependent on the others in the councils of evolutionism.

Hey, I counted at least five things wrong with that statement.

But rest assured that you have managed to convince me that the grand atheistic supertheory of evolutionism that you envision is FALSE, and everyone who believes in it is wrong. Fortunately, it doesn't exist in science, and no real person believes that it's true, so no worries there.

 

[Jimmy D]

I will find the interview. And I said He is and evolutionist! But His statement stands.

No it doesn't, we all know how quote mining works.

Besides, one man's opinion doesn't trump the scientific evidence for evolution. You think I couldn't provide thousands of quotes from professional biologists saying that common descent is a fact? Quotes are useless in a scientific debate.

From the Boston Globe October 23, 2005, Interview with Dr. Mark Kirschner

... "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry and physiology have not taken evolution into account at all." He did go on to say we should start taking it into account!

Yes, I read it thanks, I also searched for the source, all that comes up on google is links to creationist sites such as the one you copied it from. As I said any research on Kirshner's research or writing shows that the quote is contrary his position, so until you provide the interview in full, it's meaningless and I won't be wasting any more time addressing it.

But I will give you another evolutionist speaking.

Dr. Paul Davies in New scientist volume 163:2204 1999 pages 27-30.

"How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their won software, and where did the very peculiar form of information heeded to get the first living cell up and running come from? Nobody knows!"

Great another pointless quote. It was nice of you to add an exclamation mark though, it sounds much more dramatic!

Is it supposed to be some sort of surprise to us that the origin of DNA is unknown? Davies is setting up the question of how it emerged and then goes on to discuss how we might investigate the answer. So what?

 

[Jimmy D]

Hey! For your viewing pleasure! It is only 3 1/2 minutes long- but shows alot about how some evolutionists will stoop.

Yeah, I've had quite detailed discussions about that pelvis reconstruction so, unlike you, I'm aware of the details.

I'm not sure why you would think a bunch of ignorant creationists whooping along to Dr David Menton's dishonest and inane comments has any relevance in any discussion.

If you find Lovejoy's work to be flawed maybe you could explain why specifically. (And I caution you that an article from creation.com by an actual paleoanthropologist agrees that Lovejoy's reconstruction was fully justified and that A Afarensis was bipedal).

 

[nolidad]

Yeah, I've had quite detailed discussions about that pelvis reconstruction so, unlike you, I'm aware of the details.

I'm not sure why you would think a bunch of ignorant creationists whooping along to Dr David Menton's dishonest and inane comments has any relevance in any discussion.

If you find Lovejoy's work to be flawed maybe you could explain why specifically. (And I caution you that an article from creation.com by an actual paleoanthropologist agrees that Lovejoy's reconstruction was fully justified and that A Afarensis was bipedal).

I am sorry, but taking a pelvis that fits together by itself, and then cast it and swa the cast down to your opinion is dishonest.

Lovejoy knew a deer crushed th epelvis to fit perfectly milliopns of years ago? How!

And how is Denton being dishonest. By questioning why a paleo- takes a pelvis that fits together- has to reconstruct5 it to fit his idea?
If YEC did this- it would have been screamed globally from the rooftops

A.Afar was a knuckle walker! New evidence: Lucy was a knuckle-walker - creation.com

These fists were made for walking : Nature News

 

[nolidad]

Besides, one man's opinion doesn't trump the scientific evidence for evolution. You think I couldn't provide thousands of quotes from professional biologists saying that common descent is a fact? Quotes are useless in a scientific debate.

So then we must toss aside all the quotes yoyu placed from scientists and papers then as useless.

Kirscner is an evolutionist- He was just honest enough to realize that expert biologists can be so without having any beliefs in origns. the history of biology has proven that.