There you have it, folks. A creationist admitting to the occurrence of macroevolution. I guess the debate is over.jetzeppelin said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There you have it, folks. A creationist admitting to the occurrence of macroevolution. I guess the debate is over.jetzeppelin said:That is completely untrue. Not true to any extent. Perhaps MACRO-evolution has been observed, but micro evolution has never, ever, ever been observed.
nolidad said:Well then you should write JPL. OAk Ridge, many major universities, printing houses, awards commissions. For all YEC scientists are degreed scientists. Thjey chari departments in secular colleges, have received awards, patents, hav published textbooks used in secular colleges etc. etc. etc.
Be consistent--when an evolutionary biologist debates a YEC geologist and seeks to refute his geological claims will you call him not a scientist as well??
If you wish < i can post a listing of 100 YEC scientists, their degrees, awards approved publications, and work histories. No they are very bonafide scientistsa who have published numerous approved papers in theri major field of expertise. Now you are expressing peresonal desire without any facts to warrant it.
nolidad said:Well nearly all the scientists I listed are active in research, but the line was drawn that it doesn't count for much because they are not researching in "prestigious" univerisites or are nobel laureates.
nolidad said:You have to understand something-- scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong! Reason-- the review boards are loaded with staunch evolutionists who think young ages is impossible. This is the reason why orgs like CRS, ICR et al are forming their own peer review panels. To make sure that the work being done is accurate and honest and that the research does not have fundamental flaws that would cause the conclusion to be in great error.
You have to remember evolution is considered incopntorvertible fact. So to challenge itwould be like an atheist going in to an evangelical church and dsaying " I have proof God doesn't exist". Just as the atheist will not get a reception for his concept-- so won't a scientist with info saying long ages and evolutrion is wrong not receive an impartial review in secular science.
nolidad said:Well nearly all the scientists I listed are active in research, but the line was drawn that it doesn't count for much because they are not researching in "prestigious" univerisites or are nobel laureates.
You have to understand something-- scientists who are YEC are not going to get many peer reviewed publications from the science population in general if the paper is inshowing why some facet of biological evolution or long ages is wrong! Reason-- the review boards are loaded with staunch evolutionists who think young ages is impossible. This is the reason why orgs like CRS, ICR et al are forming their own peer review panels. To make sure that the work being done is accurate and honest and that the research does not have fundamental flaws that would cause the conclusion to be in great error.
You have to remember evolution is considered incopntorvertible fact. So to challenge itwould be like an atheist going in to an evangelical church and dsaying " I have proof God doesn't exist". Just as the atheist will not get a reception for his concept-- so won't a scientist with info saying long ages and evolutrion is wrong not receive an impartial review in secular science.
random_guy said:This is not true. Everytime a paper is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining the reasons why the the paper was rejected. It would be extremely easy to tell if the editors were biased by reading the letter. Can you show that the Creationist scientists have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals by producing the rejection letters?
Is it possible that the genealogies had some people missing intentionally to fit the purpose/focus of the author?jetzeppelin said:What reasons would Moses have to inflate or make upo the genealogies of Genesis? Tell me that, please give me an answer to this question: why would moses be untrue about the genealogies?
Probably. Usually before submitting a paper, you have to sign a document saying you denounce evolution and take the Bible as literal truth. Certainly, it's that way with CRSQ.Late_Cretaceous said:What would happen if an evolutionist attemtped to publish a paper in Creationist ex Nihilo? Would the editors be biased or ojbective. Would they out and out reject a paper that supported evolutionary theory without even reading it?
Notice the not researching in "prestigious" universities comment. Which is it nolidad?
Of course my thread bursting your bubble probably had something to do with it.
Many of them are professional Creationists working for Creationist groups.
The fact is these guys don't do research or if they do it is totally unrelated. They are not at major reseach universities. Not a single oe is a chair of a department at a major university.
The fact is these guys don't do research or if they do it is totally unrelated. They are not at major reseach universities. Not a single oe is a chair of a department at a major university.
Those that have did work decades ago at best and also seem to be very quiet by publishig no Creationist work either.
Those that have did work decades ago at best and also seem to be very quiet by publishig no Creationist work either.
By any normal academic definition of the word these guys are not scientists in the key disciplines relating to the Creation/Evolution/Old Earth debate.
They do have a journal - Creation ex Nihilo unless they have changed its name.
This is not true. Everytime a paper is rejected, you will receive a letter explaining the reasons why the the paper was rejected. It would be extremely easy to tell if the editors were biased by reading the letter. Can you show that the Creationist scientists have been submitting papers to peer reviewed journals by producing the rejection letters?
What reason do we have to believe that Moses himself wrote those geneologies?
What would happen if an evolutionist attemtped to publish a paper in Creationist ex Nihilo? Would the editors be biased or ojbective. Would they out and out reject a paper that supported evolutionary theory without even reading it?
But the black man is black because his ancestors developed and conserved mutations to produce more than average quantities of melanin and the white woman is white because her ancestors developed and conserved mutations that suppressed the production of melanin.
It is not a lie because God did not inspire the author to give a science lesson; God inspired the author to impress on his hearers why it is important to keep the Sabbath.
That it is the only known way to insert an new allele into a genome. Even AiG will confirm that for you.
Addendum: maybe "12 year old" is too far fetched. But someone like Ken Ham, anyway.
Is it possible that the genealogies had some people missing intentionally to fit the purpose/focus of the author?
You used the word major I used prestigious, I consider these somewhat synonymous. In my eyes take the US News & World report top 100 graduate schools and add in the equivalents around the world. i..e not Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee or some S. Oklahoma Calvary Baptist nonsense.nolidad said:I am surprised you didn't recognize this post as dripping with sarcasm at your earlier post questioning how many of them had degrees from "prestigious" which by the way I know of many universities considered "prestigious" but what is your criteria
No such delineation in science.As oppossed to professional evolutionists working for evolutionary groups.
For the most part that is where real science is performed.So only "major" universities now count?
What research? A literature search and a written polemic don't cout as research. Would you tell me where a Creationist observatory is located? A Creationist microbiology lab with DNA sequencers? A Creationist radiodating facility? Where are they?Well go to ICR and click on the links showing ongoing research
This is why I know I am talking to someone ill prepared for such a debate and just completely not tuned into science.You only say this because you don't bother with creationist research but prefer to get your info from talkorigins.org.
Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context. Very few of them are biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers and even the ones who are/were do not work in a area of those disciplines directly related to this debate.Well then if microbiology, astrophysics, genetics, physiology, zoology, botany, anthropology, physics, geology, hydrology (or hydrodynamics) , chemistry are not major disciplines in the debate---please please tell us what are the major disciplines.
These are not my standards per se but pretty much science community standards. You can either do the work or get off the pot!As you have set these standards to judge creaton scientists
Yes. We met at Harvard. She was at medical school I was a post doctoral researcher.I ask the folloowing questions of you and your wife:
1. Did you get your doctorate from a "prestigious" university well noted for your field of astrophysics and your wifes' microbiology?
Yes. I work in modelling the formation of gas giant planets and their evolution as well as planetary atmospheric physics. She is a virologist (she did a PhD after medical school to get into research.)2. Are you currently engaged in resesarch relating to origins (wife also)?
Yes sort of. I used to work in stellar modelling and I did work on the formation of the first stars in the Universe.3. Have you had any peer reviewed publications credited to you on origins of the universe??
No.4. are you and your wife nobel laureates? Have you ever been nominaterd for a nobel?
Yes.5. Have you received any of the awards granted in yoru field for excellence in research?
Actually I disagree because these are not my standards. Ask others on here with some science experience I did nothing but list what most researching scientists would consider fair criteria.Without giving info as to reveal your identity I think if you are going to be so critical of other scientists in these areasd -- we need to make sure you yourself are "qualified" to even speak of such standards.
nolidad said:And you can prove these variations in color are the results of mutation how????
so you wre there when God spoke to Adam??? Wow I am impressed. So He impressed upon the author about keeping the Sabbath by relating a tale that is completely untrue!
Well we are not talking about how mutations get into the genome-- we are talking about proving it was a mutation and not already pre-exisiting code!
A naturalistic look requires all these mutations cause they reject supernatural intervention but a realistic outlook recognizes supernatural intervention on the lanet
and the fact that after th eflood-- variation flourished on the earth without mutation.
nolidad said:Well not being the librarian for the manuscripts of the vreationists, I don't know how many or ho wtrhey were. My advice to you is to email CRS chapters or ICR and ask the question to the scientists directly.
Along these lines it is interesting to note that several "pretigious" creation orgs, are getting ot gether to have creationists submit their researcvh for peer review. The RATE seminar is ine such reviewed research work.
Instead we find them working for ICR, working for industry or teaching at some podunk useless Bible school? And on top of that no research comes out of them. This is a mismatch of the highest order. A few faith driven (i.e. conclusion first) clown "scientists" versus the real scientific community.
No such delineation in science.
For the most part that is where real science is performed.
What research? A literature search and a written polemic don't cout as research. Would you tell me where a Creationist observatory is located? A Creationist microbiology lab with DNA sequencers? A Creationist radiodating facility? Where are they?
Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context. Very few of them are biologists, geologists, physicists and astronomers and even the ones who are/were do not work in a area of those disciplines directly related to this debate.
Where are the cosmologists or stellar physicists.
Where are the biologists working in developmental biology, genomic studies or taxonomy?
Where are the geophysicists/geologists? (not a programmer like Baumgardner)
Look at the research they do. Their college majors is immaterial though hydraulic engineering and animal husbandry are a joke in this context.
I haven't been on TalkOrigins more than a few times in my life.
Yes sort of. I used to work in stellar modelling and I did work on the formation of the first stars in the Universe.
Yes. We met at Harvard. She was at medical school I was a post doctoral researcher.
I'm the real deal. I do science for a living and have my entire life since I enrolled in Kings College in 1978 for undergraduate
Yes. I work in modelling the formation of gas giant planets and their evolution as well as planetary atmospheric physics.
nolidad said:Well of course not because to the ones who control behind the scenes--if you do not beleive in evolution you aren't a competent scientist!! I find it truly amazing that we have gone on here this far bantering back and forth over the scientists who know YEC is the thruth! A commnet was made that someone considered them not real scientists, I posted evidence to prove that wrong.
Then they aren't publishing, and I prove that wrong! Then they don't come from "prestigious" enough universities. Well if I get the time I am sure I can find a few who got their diploma form a school that matcvhes your "impeccable" standard of which colleges produce "real" scientists (wow when Christians talk like that we are hammered as being intolerant!!)
I would suspect that if I could dig up some YEC scientist swho have won nobel prizes or were giants int heir field of science you would find some problem with them and move the goal post again to somehow besmirch their talents and contributions. If they beleive in YEC they will always be "less" than you.
I don't think so. The question is examined with a method similar to scriptura scripturam interpretar. We look at the other parts of the Gospel in question or other writings by the author to determine why he may have left out some names. In St. Luke's case, we know that a focus of his was universality of the Gospel. That's why his genealogy linked back to Adam.nolidad said:Well their are theoriesd that the geneological lists are incomplete and missing names, but teh evidence is very circumstantial.
It's possible that this is the case, and that the authors still left out names from both lineages.As trot eh geneologies listed for Jesus--one is Marys and trhe other list is JOsephs side.
That site is a little difficult to navigate; do you know the exact URL of the page that discusses the genealogies?Excellent work on this by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum at www.ariel.org. as to why the 2 differing geneologies and what they mean.
I tried to rep him for you, but it's a no go. The rep Nazis got to me first.Late_Cretaceous said:You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to KerrMetric again.
God did not relate the tale. He inspired the author to write a story.
Unless you want to go back to the racist 19th century theory that not all humans have the same ancestors, but that there were separate special creations of each racial group.
Because no matter what colour your skin is it is the same genes that produce (or don't produce) the melanin that darkens skin colour. And since both the bible and science agree that all humans have the same ancestry, the only way they could get different skin colours is if those genes were modified over the generations---and modified differently in different groups.
No we have not gone into the origin of mutations. Just the fact that they do occur. The point is that when you have two or more versions of a gene (and in some cases a gene exists in hundreds of different versions), there must have been a mutation from the original version--the pre-existing code--to get to the other version (s).
No, that is quite irrelevant. As noted above, we have only been looking at the fact that mutations occur.
Genetic mutations are changes in the original genetic code. This is true no matter what caused the change. Copying error during replication, impact of radiation, super-natural intervention.
So your contention is that variation occurred with no changes in the genetic code? How then did it occur?
Creationists almost never (I've never seen any evidence, but there may be a letter or two somewhere) send their papers to scientific journals. This is because they already know that what they do would never pass scientific peer review.
Creationists might have their own journals, but the difference between a Creationist peer review journal and a scientific journal is about as wide is a random blog on the internet vs. the BBC. How many Creationists journals are backed by colleges, universities, etc...?
Which journals do you think the scientists that belong to the National Academt of Sciences publish in (one of the most prestigious science groups, currently with 2000 members, 200 of which have Nobel prizes)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?