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

[Dannager]

Thank you...could not have phrased it better

So, Gwenyfur, how about that quotation of Darwin's we called you on a week or so back?

 

[Gwenyfur]

So, Gwenyfur, how about that quotation of Darwin's we called you on a week or so back?

What about it?
Y'all made your point...why rehash it...of course...
since I'm not turning to TE, it's time to bring out the course in humiliation again, right???

pft

 

[Dannager]

What about it?
Y'all made your point...why rehash it...of course...
since I'm not turning to TE, it's time to bring out the course in humiliation again, right???

pft

Not at all. Please don't misconstrue my intention. But the fact that you indirectly berated (by quoting the refutation in the affirmative) someone for doing the same thing that you did not a week ago smacks slightly of hypocrisy.

I honestly want to do nothing but help you along here. I'm not here to attack you or belittle you. I want you to make an educated, well-informed choice. I am disappointed with the people who are providing you with your information, as most of what you are hearing from whatever sources you are using is a lie that has been refuted many times before.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Yours would be a very incorrect statement.
If you would like I will post a website of one creation org that lists its faculty and members and you will see they are many highly qualified biologists, zoologists, geologists, hydrologists, doctors, anthropologists astronomers, physicists etc. etc. etc.

Late cretaceous writes:

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.

I do equate evolutionary theory with atheism for the tenets and design of the theory is to explain the universe apart from God!!! Theistic evolution is an attempted marriage to keep God in the picture in light of suppossed "incontrovertible facts" that prove evolution.

Once again evolution is now to scince what the "FORCE" IS TO STAR WARS--THE ALL ENCOMPASSING ALL POWERFUL REASON WHY ALL THINGS EXIST!! Why do we want to tarnish God by saying He created by causing thousands of extinctions and suppossed numerous gross mutations to set the world stage hundreds of millions of years before man came?? Which if one looked at the evidence showing why radio dating is hopelessly flawed as a chronometer to measure age one would likely convert to YEC along with the fact that nearly all (>99.8%) mutations are negative and not positive to the host.

Kerr writes:

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 doubt I could for one simple fact--because they hold a YEC philosophy most secular universities discriminatre against them despite their accredited mastery in their fields. But as for the "hacks" let me get you a list.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_biosci

Here is a list form just one creation org. and the bio dscientists who contribute.

Here is for the physical scientists:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_physci

I can get you several more lists just like this one filled with all sorts of different physical and bio PHDS and masters who are all YEC.

Also if you click on the personal links of each person you will find their accompliwhments, writings and awards. some are not so notable but some work in some of the most sophisitcated labs and even chair departments in secular universities!!!

 

[The Lady Kate]

Yours would be a very incorrect statement.
If you would like I will post a website of one creation org that lists its faculty and members and you will see they are many highly qualified biologists, zoologists, geologists, hydrologists, doctors, anthropologists astronomers, physicists etc. etc. etc.

Go for it. Biology and geology should be a nice start.

let's start simple. Put up 5 and we'll look at their credentials.

 

[shernren]

I doubt I could for one simple fact--because they hold a YEC philosophy most secular universities discriminatre against them despite their accredited mastery in their fields. But as for the "hacks" let me get you a list.

Do you have concrete proof that this happens? Or is this a "gee we're being persecuted, therefore we're martyrs!" complex?

Yours would be a very incorrect statement.
If you would like I will post a website of one creation org that lists its faculty and members and you will see they are many highly qualified biologists, zoologists, geologists, hydrologists, doctors, anthropologists astronomers, physicists etc. etc. etc.

But how many Steves?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html

I do equate evolutionary theory with atheism for the tenets and design of the theory is to explain the universe apart from God!!! Theistic evolution is an attempted marriage to keep God in the picture in light of suppossed "incontrovertible facts" that prove evolution.

Go disabuse yourself of that fallacy. Science =/= atheism.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=21969093&postcount=22

 

[Dannager]

I do equate evolutionary theory with atheism for the tenets and design of the theory is to explain the universe apart from God!!!

You are wrong to do so. Evolutionary theory is as atheistic as the theory of gravity is - which is to say, they are not atheistic at all, but rather agnostic towards God. Just because something doesn't mention God doesn't mean it's out to disprove God's existence (which science cannot do).

 

[notto]

Once again evolution is now to scince what the "FORCE" IS TO STAR WARS--THE ALL ENCOMPASSING ALL POWERFUL REASON WHY ALL THINGS EXIST!! Why do we want to tarnish God by saying He created by causing thousands of extinctions and suppossed numerous gross mutations to set the world stage hundreds of millions of years before man came?? Which if one looked at the evidence showing why radio dating is hopelessly flawed as a chronometer to measure age one would likely convert to YEC along with the fact that nearly all (>99.8%) mutations are negative and not positive to the host.

Do you know what a strawman is?

You need to actually understand the theory of evolution before you can dismiss it. Whatever it is you are talking about, it is not the theory of evolution.

 

[nolidad]

Do you have concrete proof that this happens? Or is this a "gee we're being persecuted, therefore we're martyrs!" complex?



But how many Steves?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/meter.html



Go disabuse yourself of that fallacy. Science =/= atheism.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=21969093&postcount=22

WEll why am I not surprised by these responses. In another forum when I showed a list of accredited and credentialed scientists who were YEC in response to the false claim that there were none qualified I got the exact same response from the exact same website
!!! At least they publbily proclaimed their distaste for God.

 

[nolidad]

Do you know what a strawman is?

You need to actually understand the theory of evolution before you can dismiss it. Whatever it is you are talking about, it is not the theory of evolution.

Yes I know what a strawman is and yes I do know what the theory of evolution hypothesizes on. I have been at this for awhile.

 

[nolidad]

You are wrong to do so. Evolutionary theory is as atheistic as the theory of gravity is - which is to say, they are not atheistic at all, but rather agnostic towards God. Just because something doesn't mention God doesn't mean it's out to disprove God's existence (which science cannot do).

You have fallen for the trap set out by the secularists. Prove the existence of life apart from the meddling of a divine being and God become useless and His Word becomes just a nice story that has little basis in fact.

 

[notto]

Yes I know what a strawman is and yes I do know what the theory of evolution hypothesizes on. I have been at this for awhile.

Then why would you say that most mutations are negative?

Why would you claim that it is an attempt to describe the universe apart from God?

Have you read Darwin?

Can you provide any references by actual biologists that do the things you claim or support your claim about mutations?

 

[notto]

You have fallen for the trap set out by the secularists. Prove the existence of life apart from the meddling of a divine being and God become useless and His Word becomes just a nice story that has little basis in fact.

It's sad to see that you think this would be true.

As a Christian who accepts evolution, I don't believe or accept this. The Creation is a testament to the creativity of God. Understanding and accepting evolution doesn't change that.

If you keep telling Christians that it does, you will only turn people away from God. It is not evolution that is a trap by secularists, you are setting the trap with claims such as these.

By your description, the theory of gravity is a trap. Prove the existence of a force between objects apart from the meddling of a divine being and God becomes useless.

I've always believed that YEC was bad science and bad theology. Your comments here only strengthen that belief.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You have fallen for the trap set out by the secularists. Prove the existence of life apart from the meddling of a divine being and God become useless and His Word becomes just a nice story that has little basis in fact.

So you think God's only use is to create life?

 

[The Lady Kate]

WEll why am I not surprised by these responses. In another forum when I showed a list of accredited and credentialed scientists who were YEC in response to the false claim that there were none qualified I got the exact same response from the exact same website
!!! At least they publbily proclaimed their distaste for God.

Why am I not surprised that not only have you failed to back up your claim when called out on it (that you can produce thousands of YECs with relevent scientific degrees) but that you've instantly launched into another irrelevent claim (that you've done so on another forum, the name of which you've conveniently left out) and segued straight into a persecution complex?

Put up or shut up. Provide some names and credentials.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I have seen before where YEC's post a claim that 500 or more scientists have signed a statement proclaiming a doubt in evolutionary theory. However, lets look at the actual questions asked in this survey and why evolutionists would actually agree with them

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life,"

I would have to agree with this statement 100%. Skepticism in science is a good thing, it encourages further investigation and deeper probing of theory. There could indeed be other mechanisms in place that act as a driving force behind evolution. Certaily natrual selection and random mutaion are the major forces, but there could be something else there. I would consider that a certain degree of mutation is anything but random, that there is a build in mutation mechanism in place that is essencial for long term survival of life - only we have not discovered this mechanism yet.

"Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

I would agree with this statement 100%. Every claim, every thoery, every law in science must be investigated without end. Evidence should be examined and re-examined. Different view points and persepctives should be discussed. Such thorough investigation of the evidence should be an open ended process.




It would seem that these scientists are probably evolutionists who want to see further research into evolutionary theory.

It is actually quite dishonest for someone to claim that scientists who said yes to these questions in the survey "doubt evolution"

 

[Dannager]

You have fallen for the trap set out by the secularists. Prove the existence of life apart from the meddling of a divine being and God become useless and His Word becomes just a nice story that has little basis in fact.

I don't think it matters whether or not God was "required" to do anything. I've always felt that what is important about the Bible is its moral message of how one should live one's life - a message that is completely independent of details like a literal creation event. I accept evolutionary theory and all the other currently-standing theories science has given us, and I find God far from "useless". Why is anyone's faith so brittle that they feel it would shatter were they to accept a single, well-documented scientific theory?

 

[nolidad]

I don't think it matters whether or not God was "required" to do anything. I've always felt that what is important about the Bible is its moral message of how one should live one's life - a message that is completely independent of details like a literal creation event. I accept evolutionary theory and all the other currently-standing theories science has given us, and I find God far from "useless". Why is anyone's faith so brittle that they feel it would shatter were they to accept a single, well-documented scientific theory?

Well if "macro-evolution" (progressively complex life starting from non life and then from single cellular life) were well documented then there really wouldn't be much of an issue! But it isn't and even the evolutionists themselves argue over suppossed transitional links between one genra to another. No evolution is far from well documented. What is also called "micro evolution" is very well documented but once again those are changes within a kind and does not make a fish a lizardetc.etc.

Late cretaceous writes:

I would have to agree with this statement 100%. Skepticism in science is a good thing, it encourages further investigation and deeper probing of theory. There could indeed be other mechanisms in place that act as a driving force behind evolution. Certaily natrual selection and random mutaion are the major forces, but there could be something else there. I would consider that a certain degree of mutation is anything but random, that there is a build in mutation mechanism in place that is essencial for long term survival of life - only we have not discovered this mechanism yet.

Well there is good empirical theory-- ther emust be a built in mechanism for mutation but we don't know where it is. Remember that >99% of all mutations are harmful and degenerative not helpful and innovative. Also true mutations are fairly uncommon. We do not se billions and billions occuring in relatively short periods of time. And there has been no empirical evidence to sight how the mutations survuve multiple generations. Natural selection is a conservative principle. It weeds out those that are genetically non- normal in a group.

It would seem that these scientists are probably evolutionists who want to see further research into evolutionary theory.

It is actually quite dishonest for someone to claim that scientists who said yes to these questions in the survey "doubt evolution"

Well I can't speak to this survey you refer to -- I only fgo by the scientists who by signatory acclamation renounce evolution as factual and accept YEC as the best scientific answer to explain the universe we exist in.


The Lady Kate writes:

Why am I not surprised that not only have you failed to back up your claim when called out on it (that you can produce thousands of YECs with relevent scientific degrees) but that you've instantly launched into another irrelevent claim (that you've done so on another forum, the name of which you've conveniently left out) and segued straight into a persecution complex?

Put up or shut up. Provide some names and credentials.

Well go back to page 9 and my post #84 and you will see 2 links that list about 5 dozen or so scientists who are YEC that hold masters or PHD's. If you click on their personal site you will also seee their accomplishments and publications.

So you think God's only use is to create life?

Not onthe least.


notto writes:

By your description, the theory of gravity is a trap. Prove the existence of a force between objects apart from the meddling of a divine being and God becomes useless.

I've always believed that YEC was bad science and bad theology. Your comments here only strengthen that belief.

I have always found it interesting that Chritians who say they love God will accept a theory proposed by non christians ( for evolution goes back before Darwin), is untestable and unprovable in the macro scale and say this is how God created things. You should look at the textbooks of YEc and study the research papers from the R.A.T.E. seminar and you would be surprised who really is holding bad science.

As for it being bad theology? Well it suited the church well enough until Asa Gray tried to marry genesis and the emrging secular beleif in evolution.

As a Christian who accepts evolution, I don't believe or accept this. The Creation is a testament to the creativity of God. Understanding and accepting evolution doesn't change that.

How can evolution be a testament to the creativity of God??? He set things in motion 12-20 billion years ago--leaves things to act on their own and decides to come back in the picture when homo sapien sapien (or maybe homo sapien neanderthalis) make the scene??

It is science that says life as we know it occurred without divine interference-- it happened all by itself!!

Sorry but evolution requires a beleif in a distant God. One who starts the process and trhen leaves it be until it gets to a place of His liking. Thatr is opposite of what the bible says.

Let me ask you a question. Do you beleive that Jesus Christ when He walked the earth was God the Son manifest in the flesh???

Then why would you say that most mutations are negative?

Because it is a proven fact (by observation, testing and retesting) that nearly all (>99%) of all mutations are harmful and destructive not inoovative, conservative and progressive.



Cites?

Just as a caveat here-- when I say (as does proven science) nearly all mutations are harmful-- we are talking about the non-neutral mutations. There are many mutations that are neutral-- they are neither harmful nor helpful.

Mutations that do produce genetic and somatic change are nearely always harmful.

I have cited both creation and evolutionary and even non stated sites that all say the same thing--mutations that cause change are always almost harmful.

Even the YEC sites qoute evolutionists in this.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut05.htm

http://www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/101lab13.html

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~arichman/403/ch4ans.pdf

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Mutations.html

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter4_1.php

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8380

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch14a.htm

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563786_5/Genetics.html

http://www.pilgrimtours.com/creation/genetics.htm

http://www.pilgrimtours.com/creation/genetics.htm

http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2005/press6oct05.html

http://www.wncc.net/courses/dnash/genetics/popgen.htm

http://www.ipp.mpg.de/de/for/bereiche/stellarator/Comp_sci/CompScience/csep/csep1.phy.ornl.gov/mu/node1.html

 

[KerrMetric]

nolidad a simple question.

Why are you telling lies?

 

[gluadys]

Well if "macro-evolution" (progressively complex life starting from non life and then from single cellular life) were well documented then there really wouldn't be much of an issue!

KerrMetric poses a good question. Why, for example, post this incorrect description of what macro-evolution is?

But it isn't and even the evolutionists themselves argue over suppossed transitional links between one genra to another.

Arguments over the exact historical pathway evolution took in particular lineages does not equate to an argument over whether or not evolution happened. A good example is the argument made by Feduccia that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs. Does this make him a creationist? By no means. Because his argument is not that birds were specially created; it is that birds evolved from a lineage more closely related to crocodiles than to dinosaurs.

At the moment few biologists agree with him. But even if they eventually come around to agreeing with him, it will be based on the quality of the evidence he turns up, and it won't change the theory of evolution one iota. All it will say is that birds fit here on the vertebrate tree rather than there.

No evolution is far from well documented.

Evolution, the process, is very well documented. And in many cases there is also good documentation for the history as well.

What is also called "micro evolution" is very well documented but once again those are changes within a kind and does not make a fish a lizardetc.etc.

Changes within the kind do not preclude the common ancestry of all life. The changes from a fish to a lizard did not involve any changes from one kind to another at any point. All they ever required was the same sort of speciation that most creationists call micro-evolution.

Well there is good empirical theory-- ther emust be a built in mechanism for mutation but we don't know where it is.

Another lie. We do know what the mechanisms of mutation are. Some are external: radiation, exposure to chemicals. Some are inherent in the process of copying DNA for the purpose of reproduction. The copying process is open to error.

Remember that >99% of all mutations are harmful and degenerative not helpful and innovative.

No, most mutations are neutral. Most mutations which are not neutral are harmful. What do you think this implies for evolution?

Also true mutations are fairly uncommon.

"True" mutations? What on earth would a false mutation be? Mutations are events. Changes in DNA sequences. They simply exist.

We do not se billions and billions occuring in relatively short periods of time.

Mutations occur almost every time a cell reproduces, as well as in response to external agents. They occur at regular rates which may vary by type of cell and species genome. The rate at which mutations occur in mammalian cells has been calculated at approximately 120 per cell replication.

And there has been no empirical evidence to sight how the mutations survuve multiple generations.

What would prevent it?

Natural selection is a conservative principle. It weeds out those that are genetically non- normal in a group.

Only if the non-normal are handicapped reproductively by their difference. It does not weed out non-normal variants which are not harmful, and it promotes the spread of non-normal variants which are beneficial, until they become the norm.

I have always found it interesting that Chritians who say they love God will accept a theory proposed by non christians ( for evolution goes back before Darwin), is untestable and unprovable in the macro scale and say this is how God created things.

The idea of evolution goes back at least to the ancient Greeks, but no theory of evolution was proposed before Lamarck. Lamarck's hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. Darwin developed the first scientific hypthesis of evolution which has not been falsified. It is testable, and has been tested. And observed directly as well.

How can evolution be a testament to the creativity of God??? He set things in motion 12-20 billion years ago--leaves things to act on their own and decides to come back in the picture when homo sapien sapien (or maybe homo sapien neanderthalis) make the scene??

That's a deistic view. It is not the theology of Christian evolutionists. You might check what Christian evolutionists really believe about the relationship of Creator and created before you swing at straw men.

It is science that says life as we know it occurred without divine interference-- it happened all by itself!!

Two lies rolled into one. Science does not say that life occurred without divine interference. It does say that we may discover a natural process by which life originated. But to say this means it happened "all by itself" is equivalent to saying that God is excluded from natural processes--the second lie.

Sorry but evolution requires a beleif in a distant God. One who starts the process and trhen leaves it be until it gets to a place of His liking. Thatr is opposite of what the bible says.

Again, that is deism, and evolution does not require deism.

Let me ask you a question. Do you beleive that Jesus Christ when He walked the earth was God the Son manifest in the flesh???

What is the relevance of this question to a conversation on evolution? Unless you assume (incorrectly) that an evolutionist cannot subscribe to Christian beliefs about Jesus of Nazareth.

Just as a caveat here-- when I say (as does proven science) nearly all mutations are harmful-- we are talking about the non-neutral mutations. There are many mutations that are neutral-- they are neither harmful nor helpful.

Mutations that do produce genetic and somatic change are nearely always harmful.

Ok, we agree here. Now what are the implications of that for evolution?