If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[The Lady Kate]

Verse 9 is not talking about ALL the trees of the world. It is ONLY talking about the trees in Eden. Verse 9 just adds a bit of detail to what and how God created the Garden.

What a huge assumption.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I might be taking this out of context, but it appears that your saying I'm in need of your teaching.

Would you prefer he typed it in large bolded font?

The evidence? You mean the evidence whose meaning could convert and change when 'new' discoveries are found. In some cases, what the majority of scientists believed prior to 'newer' evidence makes what they last claimed true to be false.

We call that "learning." It's actually quite a useful process...

With origin science, one can expect it to continually change with the times.

And so it has... even Creationists have reluctantly accepted evolution... once they renamed it "micro-evolution" or "variation within a 'kind.'"

Again, learning is a wonderful process... it leads to all sorts of discoveries, and in the process, shatters preconceived notions.

Anyhow, am I hearing you right? You want me to put my Bible down and go to a lab?

Not at all... feel free to keep the Bible in your backpack... you'll probably need both hands free in the lab.

How can you guarantee that what you believe now will not change with a future 'discovery'? You have to remember what you believe in is a theory, not a fact. How can you say I'm 100 percent wrong, when you can't even say your 100 percent right?

Because science is a process of elimination... and YEC has already been eliminated. While we're still grasping for the correct answer, a myriad of incorrect ones have been ruled out already.

The Bible has not changed, it seems the only thing evolving is science.

Science... and every living thing we've ever observed.

Again, isn't learning fun?

 

[Jig]

What a huge assumption.

Gee...trying to be sarcastic are we....

It's not a huge assumtion...read verse 8 and it ties together nicely. Unless you'd like to refute that statement of mine with a 'better' translational understanding of verse 9, well?

 

[Jig]

Would you prefer he typed it in large bolded font?

So the truth is out...you guys really do think YECist are stupid.

We call that "learning." It's actually quite a useful process...

What happens if a 'new' discovery proves a young Earth? You can not leave that out as a possiblity. True?

And so it has... even Creationists have reluctantly accepted evolution... once they renamed it "micro-evolution" or "variation within a 'kind.'"

Um...what are you getting at? I like to use the word adaptation. The word evolution gets people mixed up.

Again, learning is a wonderful process... it leads to all sorts of discoveries, and in the process, shatters preconceived notions.

You do realize this applies to mostly your side of study and theory...20 years ago the guess of the Earths age was quite less then what science says it is today.

Not at all... feel free to keep the Bible in your backpack... you'll probably need both hands free in the lab.

It really does sadden me to see Christians relay on the world and its ways to find comfort in their faith.

Because science is a process of elimination... and YEC has already been eliminated. While we're still grasping for the correct answer, a myriad of incorrect ones have been ruled out already.

That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?

Science... and every living thing we've ever observed.

Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing. Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.

 

[chaoschristian]

What a huge assumption.

To what does this refer? This thread has a lot going on within it.

For all I know you typed this at the Starbucks when the barrista asked, "Sprinkles on your latte?"

 

[chaoschristian]

The Bible has not changed, it seems the only thing evolving is science.

Actually, if you look carefully at its history, scripture has changed alot.

Its gone through transformation from a oral tradition to a written tradition.

It's oldest manuscripts were copied from one ancient language to the next.

Traditions regarding canonicity have changed as the political landscape (an unfortunate thing to have to say, but nevertheless true) of the church has changed over the course of time.

It got punctuated.

It got chaptered and versed.

It got all bound together into a codex format.

The great news is, despite all this change, the scripture still reveals God's truth, will and character to us poor souls, thanks to the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

So, if you want to say that scripture has gone unchanged - I'm going to cast some doubt.

But, if you want to say that God's truth has remained unchanged, then I'm willing to go along with you on that.

 

[shernren]

Verse 9 is not talking about ALL the trees of the world. It is ONLY talking about the trees in Eden. Verse 9 just adds a bit of detail to what and how God created the Garden.

There you go. Perfect argument against the Global Flood. Erets of Gen 2:9 is local; why not the erets of Genesis 7 and 8? The particularly poignant part of this contradiction is that there is a perfectly good word on hand if the description was limited to the garden alone: gan (H1588), which is used everywhere else in the passage to refer to the Garden of Eden. Doesn't it seem to contradict good Biblical interpretation to render erets local when a better word was on hand to describe the Garden of Eden and when erets has been used in a global sense in just the verse before, in the same sentence?

This goes into the Creationist-Claim Collider.

That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?

Then quantum physics is wrong, every single semiconductor device on the planet is one mighty magical gadget with no scientific working principles whatsoever ... and the earth is still old because you wouldn't have said anything about uranium. And if you did, I'd start wondering how all the hundreds of nuclear reactors on the planet have been working without total meltdown for the last 40 years, wouldn't you?

Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing. Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.

Nylon bug. And any mutation can be reversed by another mutation: if a mutation can cause loss of information, another mutation can cause gain of information via reversal. Basic PRATTs.

 

[KerrMetric]

So the truth is out...you guys really do think YECist are stupid.

That is going to happen I'm afraid.

What happens if a 'new' discovery proves a young Earth? You can not leave that out as a possiblity. True?

But it would be on the level of finding out gravity doesn't cause objects to fall.

You do realize this applies to mostly your side of study and theory...20 years ago the guess of the Earths age was quite less then what science says it is today.

Wrong. The age has been given around 4.5-4.6 billion years for around 50 years now. The only thing that has changed is the error range on the result as it has been refined.

That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?

Which would manifest itself in a myriad of other ways that are not seen. There are consequences of this that would invalidate standard quantum mechanics and nuclear physics.

Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing. Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.

Yes it has and your comment is a delusion the YEC followers maintain as a meme and nothing else.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It never fails to amaze me how people can have each and every point they make refuted and demonstrated to be incorrect and yet still keep on the same track. I once had a girlfriend who said she would argue with people even when she knew she was in the wrong. And it was true, and she loved to argue just for the sake of argument. I don't know, maybe it's a ego thing.

 

[KerrMetric]

It never fails to amaze me how people can have each and every point they make refuted and demonstrated to be incorrect and yet still keep on the same track. I once had a girlfriend who said she would argue with people even when she knew she was in the wrong. And it was true, and she loved to argue just for the sake of argument. I don't know, maybe it's a ego thing.

Since 99.9% of the YEC's are not in any way scientifically trained what they are doing is usually propagating memes.

This explains why most of the YEC world use the same arguments for decades and with the decades old (or more) data that is their "evidence".

For want of a better word it is folklore.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So the truth is out...you guys really do think YECist are stupid.

Of course not. There's a difference between being unable to learn and being unwilling to learn...

What happens if a 'new' discovery proves a young Earth? You can not leave that out as a possiblity. True?

Well, if that should happen... for starters, your argument about science always changing would itself suddenly change its tune... now that it's changed in a way you approve of, you would no longer see it as a liability.

Second, we'd have to go back to the mountain of evidence which supported an old Earth, and figure out where we went wrong. For this 'new' discovery to be accurate, it would have to explain the facts as well or better than the original discovery...

If it can do that (and we are talking about the mother or all tall orders), then of course it's a possibility.

But unless and until that happens, the original evidence stands... never unchallenged, but currently undefeated.

Um...what are you getting at? I like to use the word adaptation. The word evolution gets people mixed up.

Which people are those? Many people who accept evolution know what the word means.

You do realize this applies to mostly your side of study and theory...20 years ago the guess of the Earths age was quite less then what science says it is today.

Precisely. We follow the evidence wherever it leads... and in the process, learn humility by not falling in love with our old ideas... knowing full well that we can be proven wrong at any time.

It really does sadden me to see Christians relay on the world and its ways to find comfort in their faith.

And I am qually saddened when people base their faith on their own ideas, in spite of everything God shows us through His work.

That is a fallacy. A young Earth can't be ruled out. What happens if evidence is found that carbon really doesn't have a constant rate of decay?

Well then... one piece of supporting evidence turns out to be unreliable. Give me a call when the other million get overturned.

Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species or viewed a gain of new information in any thing.

False.

Viewing a species adapt or observing a loss of information is completely different and actaully go along with what the Bible teaches.

It would, if "information" was a meaningful term. Until it's defined, it's rubbish.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Science has never observed a species evolve into a new species

Please, please, please double check your information before you spout off. You only wind up losing credibility. Even your YEC brethern have admitted that speciation - generation of new species - occurs which is why they are now re-defining the word evolution to exclude speciation (which is knod of like re-defining car to exclude any vehicle with 4 wheels). Go to the creationist webside answersingenesis.com, and see for yourself that creationists accept speciation - its under the arguments creationists should not use page - as in don't say speciation never happens.


Just a few of the many examples of new species observed to have evolved.

5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation

The following are several examples of observations of speciation.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."
​

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75% P1 × P1 - 95% P2 × P2 - 80% P1 × P2 - 77% WH × P1 - 0% WH × P2 - 0% They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[nolidad]

And so it has... even Creationists have reluctantly accepted evolution... once they renamed it "micro-evolution" or "variation within a 'kind.'"

Well the truth is that most YEC folks going all the way back to Mendel have accepted variation within a "kind".

We just beleive it to be divine programming-- you beleive it to be random natural selection and designless mutation.

Lady Kate writes:

Well, if that should happen... for starters, your argument about science always changing would itself suddenly change its tune... now that it's changed in a way you approve of, you would no longer see it as a liability.

Unless of course those discoveries have been given credible and compelling evidence and the info has been suppressed because it came from scientists who are YEC abd thus excluded as "true scientists" from the majority evolutionist crowd.

I only point to the RATE seminar and the research done by the teams over 5-7 years showing that radiometric dating in all its varied methodologies is a totally unreliable way of measuring ages. It was rejected out of hand because the secular scientific community wilkl not brook large scale questioning of radio dating and it was presented by YEC scientists.

 

[nolidad]

Since 99.9% of the YEC's are not in any way scientifically trained what they are doing is usually propagating memes.

This explains why most of the YEC world use the same arguments for decades and with the decades old (or more) data that is their "evidence".

For want of a better word it is folklore.

Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.

 

[Dannager]

You have to remember what you believe in is a theory, not a fact.

Well, you see, that's the nice thing about evolution. It is both theory and fact. The fact that evolution occurs now and has occured in the past isn't going to ever change.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.

and of those 10,000+ perhaps a dozen or so (if that) have degrees in biology or geology.

The rest are out of their element.

 

[KerrMetric]

Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.

No you can't. What you can do is list a few dozen paid hacks for AIG and ICR who usually are commenting about disciplines outside their training. And you can certainly do no such thing with respect to premier labs and chairs of departments. In fact most of the so called creation scientists are engineers and physicians talking about somethig they know zero about.

In fact here is a challenge. Find me 5 bona fide YEC's in any physics, biology, astronomy or geology departments in the top 100 research universities in the US. You can also add in the major research universities in Europe, Japan, China or Australia. Good luck, you'll need it.

I have been a professor at a well known science/technical university for almost 20 years and I have yet to meet a creationist (YEC type) in any department or conference in all that time. Some teacher at a small bible college or a paid shill of ICR does not count as a researching scientist. My wife is a virologist at UCLA and she similarly has never met one either. They basically do not exist.

See what I mean about memes - you just used one.

 

[Dannager]

Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.

And you are committing an argument-from-authority fallacy for every one of those signatories who do not possess a degree in a relevant field (biology or geology). How about giving us a meaningful figure this time?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Except of course the 10,000+ scientists with masters and doctorates who are signatories of the varied creation research societies. I could post list after list of creationsits who are PHDS workoing in the most premier labs of their fields who also chair departments of secualr colleges and have hundreds of patents to their names.

DON'T JUST SAY IT
DO IT

p.s. You seem to equate accepting evolutionary theory with athiesm. Being and evolutionist is not the same as being an athiest. Remember, there are not athiests in this particular forum.

 

[Gwenyfur]

I think you should quote that passage in context:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creations of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because althought they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futitile in their thoughts, and their fooolish hearts were darkened. Profesing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things."

(Romans 1:18-23)

Any interest in how this passage continues?

Thank you...could not have phrased it better