Is evolution a fact or theory?

The Barbarian · Jun 1, 2018

In science, "Blah,Blah,Blay", "Baloney", etc. are not considered "effort and time to read remarks." I can assure you that they are not the mark of Biblical research.

NobleMouse said:
I think this is just the result of reaping what has been sown...

No one here has treated him that way.

My experience here has been that the comments do not start out this way... but move to this conclusion after repeated interactions back and forth.

No matter how frustrated one gets, that kind of abuse is never a good idea.

I've seen this with just about everyone here, myself included.

You've never used that sort of language, nor have I. Nor has anyone else in these conversations.

And I think this is where you were called out on taking a quote out of context.

It precisely showed what Wise thinks.

Kurt Wise is a biblical creationist, that is his position.

But he was honest enough to admit that numerous series of transitional forms (he listed many of them) are "strong evidence" for macroevolution. He merely expressed hope that someday there would be reasonable creationist explanation for them.

If in 1990's he made a comment indicating a case where evidence fit the evolutionary paradigm, this does not mean that he has conceded his position.

So far, he hasn't found the hoped-for explanation. He points out that no amount of evidence would change his personal interpretation of scripture. I find that kind of integrity in a creationist to be commendable.

Do you agree that Kurt Wise (today/now) is a biblical creationist?

Of course. He's just honest enough to openly admit that the numerous series of transitional forms are a serious problem for YE creationism, one that remains to be explain by them.

Barbarian observes:
facts are what make a scientific argument work.

Just to clarify, what you're calling 'facts' and are significantly influenced by assumptions, a biased/subjective interpretation, and unfalsifiable beliefts;

Nope. For example, the oxygen isotope ratios we discussed are not at all influenced by "assumptions." They are measurable, and we can check on estuary-living organisms today to see if they accurately tell us about the fossil. Turns out that they do.

and from my perspective, are no where alluded to within the authoritative word of God.

God says nothing about protons or hemoglobin, either. But both of those are just a real as macroevolution. There are many things that are true, that are not in scripture.

Are there Gallup surveys being taken that quantify the idea that onlookers are being influenced by these discussions... I seriously doubt (1) this is happening, and (2) that a truly effective and unbiased survey could be developed that would yield reliable results as to whether onlookers are changing their minds.

I believe that many people are rational enough to consider evidence. Gallup seems to support this, since there's a gradual increase in the number of people in America who accept evolution.

This is a perfect example of an unfalsifiable belief. Are there Gallup surveys being taken that quantify the idea that onlookers are being influenced by these discussions... I seriously doubt (1) this is happening, and (2) that a truly effective and unbiased survey could be developed that would yield reliable results as to whether onlookers are changing their minds.

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
38% of Americans support a creationist view of human origins.
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low

Barbarian observes:
Evolution has been observed directly, but it does not depend on any particular age of the Earth.

This is a good start for your position, but now provide the reference where (macro)evolution has been observed directly

This isn't controversial. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is the the evolution of new taxa, such as species, genera, etc. Even most creationists now admit it's a fact.

The first directly noted example was O. gigas from O. lamarkana, by a poloyploidy event.

and clarifying what you mean by not depending on any particular age of the Earth...

I mean that the number could be billions of years off, and evolution wouldn't be affected.

because earlier you indicated that Darwin defended an argument against Kelvin regarding the age of the earth

Kelvin thought that it could be as young as 10 million years. Darwin showed that it couldn't be that young, based on the diversity of living things. Much later, Darwin won the argument when radioactivity was discovered, invalidating Kelvin's calculations.

You assert that Christians from the beginning have seen Genesis "days" as figurative - yet no scriptural support, nor sources cited/referenced.

Anyone familiar with Christian theology would know that. St. Augustine, for example. He is highly regarded by all three major branches of Christianity, and he showed that it was impossible to interpret the "yom" of Genesis as literal days, since it was absurd to claim mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them.

And when he published, not one other theologian argued against him. For good reason; he was the foremost Christian theologian of his time, and remains one of the greatest theologians of our faith.

This is why you get responses like "baloney" and "blah blah blah" back.

No, that's wrong. I don't use that kind of abuse on others.

By the way, when is Yom Kippur this year? You explicitly say "from the beginning" - implying that your viewpoint of yom <> a 24-hr day has never deviated from being a figurative interpretation.

I think there were always people who adjusted it to a literal history. They just weren't very well accepted. Even today, most of the world's Christians accept it as written; a figurative account.

Please find for me the 4th commandment in the context of Exodus 20:11 and explain how one would follow or adhere to this commandment under the figurative interpretation of yom.

I don't see how scripture mentioning a parable, would convert it to a literal history. Since (as Augustine pointed out) God resting was a symbolic passage, observing a day of rest would be in accord with His word.

Also, Genesis makes it clear that fish and birds were created the same day and this was BEFORE the beasts of the field.

If you revise it to make it a literal history. But that's not what it is, as early Christians like St. Augustine showed. He correctly saw it as describing categories of creation, not literal days.

Genesis also makes it clear that man was created in God's image,

Not a physical image. As Jesus says, God is a spirit, and He says a spirit has no body. In Genesis, God says that man is like Him, in knowing good and evil, and in being a living soul.

Lastly, I'm not sure anyone here really knows exactly what is your view is on evolution, since there can be many variations on this topic. Could you please elaborate from a time scale perspective as well as whether you believe in LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor)?

I'm pretty much in accord with the Modern Synthesis, including neutralist ideas and punctuated equilibrium. The earliest organisms are over a billion years old. And the evidence shows that all living things we have found so far, have a common ancestor.

If you'd like some elaboration on any of this, start a new thread and we'll go deeper into it.

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian, regarding the claim that we can't know anything we didn't directly observes:
Nope. For example, a fire investigator, looking at a possible arson case, can determine where the fire started, if an accelerant (such as gasoline) was used, and so on. No faith required. Just evidence.

You are attempting to conflate known entities of the modern world with the pseudoscience of evolutionism. Only a fool would buy into your chicanery.

Nice try. As you now realize, your claim is just wrong. Like the Battle of Gettysburg, the origins of a fire are knowable, even if you never saw it happen.

Duh.

As you just learned, it's directly observed. Even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. Would you like me to show you?

More chicanery. Speciation is not macroevolution.

So your denial of macroevolution goes down in flames.
No, you're wrong there, too. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. As you learned, many creationists now accept the evolution of new species, genera, and families.

Macroevolution is quackery, invented by anti-God bigots with the intent to trick the naive and uneducated out of their faith in the Word of God.

Barbarian observes: Nope. Even many creationists now admit that what were assumed to be "flood deposits" are nothing of the kind. In the Grand Canyon, for example, we have desert sand deposits, complete with plants and animal burrows in the middle of "flood deposits." There's no way to reconcile that with your story.

Which creationists?

Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon's rim.[47] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with an eolian environment.[48][32][49] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions

Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia

Until now I did not realize you were so unsophisticated that you had to resort to Wikipedia.

So explain to us, how in the middle of a worldwide flood, did an entire desert ecosystem have time form on top of "flood deposits", and then be buried in some more "flood deposits?"

There are many articles and papers by creation scientist on the Coconino Sandstone deposition during the great flood. This article exposes some of the evolutionism myths.

Coconino Sandstone—The Most Powerful Argument Against the Flood?

This one discusses the footprints found in the Coconino vs those in wet and dry sand:

Brand, L. R. --- Footprints in the Grand Canyon

Creationists have a history of taking things out of context, and simply imagining things that do not exist, nor have ever existed.

That is what pseudo-scientists of the evolutionism cult are famous for. Some of your "kind" are still pushing Haeckels embryos in text books. Shame on you.

As you now realize your flood story will have to explain how entire desert ecosystems had time to appear and then be buried in a year-long flood.

The Coconino layer is one of the many deposited by the flood,

Good luck since creationists often make up stories without foundation, please include evidence with your explanation for this.

That is what evolutionism cultists are famous for.

Barbarian re the unsupported claim that there are magical limits to the variation of "kinds":
Sounds like a testable claim. Show us one of those boundaries and explain why you think there can be no further variation in that organism.

Take a look around. Take a look at the fossil record. Stasis is the norm. Is that not enough evidence for you to overcome your ingrained bias?

No one else can find any, either. Creationists make those assertions and then throw up excuses as to why they have no evidence.

I will agree there is not a shred of evidence for macroevolution. No kind has ever been transformed into another. Bacteria are always bacteria, fruit flies are always fruit flies, dogs are always dogs, etc..

As you learned earlier, scientists were finding functions for non-coding DNA (the stuff that creationists call "junk DNA" over half a century ago. Because you have no clue about genetics, this is all a mystery to you.

It was your fellow evolutionism cultists that pushed the pseudoscience of "junk DNA" as some sort of evidence of evolutionism. Remember this from 2006?

"Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as "junk DNA" just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation." [Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.136]

"Young Earth Creationists argue that evolution is a lie. They postulate that the relatedness of organisms as visualized by the study of DNA is simply a consequence of God having used some of the same ideas in His multiple acts of special creation. Confronted with such facts as the similar ordering of genes across chromosomes between different mammalian species, or the existence of repetitive "junk DNA" in shared locations along the DN A of humans and mice, YEC advocates simply dismiss this as part of God's plan." [Collins, Francis, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.173]

This was a mere 9 years later:

"In January, Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health, made a comment that revealed just how far the consensus has moved. At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA. “We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome — as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.” Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, “turns out to be doing stuff.”" [Carl Zimmer, "Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?". New York Times, 2015]

But to be fair, no one can honestly claim that members of the evolutionism cult lack hubris.

And now you're recycling the "information" dodge on mutations. Last time I called you out on that, I suggested you show us your numbers, on how a mutation reduces information in a population genome. You cut and ran from the question. So I'll ask you again. Show us.

What are you talking about?

Barbarian demonstrates how inference is not faith:
Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Statistical inference uses mathematics to draw conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. This generalizes deterministic reasoning, with the absence of uncertainty as a special case. Statistical inference uses quantitative or qualitative (categorical) data which may be subject to random variations.
Inference - Wikipedia

More Wikipedia? LOL!

Nope. As you learned, it's the way we know most things in this world. Scientists use statistical inference to be sure they get things right. Would you like to learn how it works?

I already know how it works. Would you like to know? This could be considered the proper use of the word:

"Huxley understood as far back as 1870 that when dealing with fossils, which are the only evidence we have of past life, one cannot distinguish uncles and nephews from fathers and sons.21 Among the many reasons ancestors cannot be distinguished from sister taxa, as noted by Siddall and others, is that there can be no positive evidence of ancestry, only inferences. Lack of evidence can only allow it as a possibility or an ad hoc postulate" [Jerry Bergman, "Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary Naturalism?". Creation Ministries International, 2001]

I know you want to believe that, but as your fellow YE creationist admits there is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. No point in denying the fact. You will never convince any rational person that Gould did not write what he actually wrote.

I don't know of any alive today that believe there is evidence for macroevolution. In earlier times, before we realized how corrupt and dishonest the evolutionism establishment had become (or always was), we tended to believe what we were told. Now we know better. Too bad you don't.

Since you're in full Gish Gallop mode, we'll continue in another post...

Barbarian the Bamboozler is referring to the late Duane Gish, PhD Biochemistry, University of California at Berkeley, who shed the light on many evolutionism scams. He is probably best known for this statement:

"I have never seen a walking whale, and I have never seen pigs that fly."

LOL! Professor Gish also had this to say about fish evolution:

"Every major kind of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed. There's not a trace of an ancestor for any of these creatures, and there are no transitional forms suggesting that these major kind of fishes evolved from a common ancestor. Now evolutionists know that, they say it is truth, but they believe in evolution anyhow.

But evolution is impossible. The origin of fishes: that's the origin of vertebrates. That would be the most astounding important event in all of evolutionary history. We should have book after book after book written about the origin of vertebrates. We should have picture after picture of all these transitional forms. There's nothing!

The fact that the vertebrates -- the fishes -- appear fully formed; no trace of ancestors; no trace of transitional forms, destroys the theory of evolution. Evolution cannot be true."

[Carl Werner, Interview with Duane Gish, "Evolution - The Grand Experiment - Part I " Origins Cornerstone Network]

Hear him for yourself at the 18:52 mark:

By the way, when are you going to show us where and how I misinterpreted the Word of God? You made the claim, can you back it up? Of course not. You know you are being dishonest.

Dan

GenemZ · Jun 1, 2018

Strategy and tactics.......

Fighting the good fight?

Is it exposing our heart? By seeing truth depart?

Are we still perfecting our pet spiel?
According to how we feel?

Or, denying self?
And, making Christ real?

He is the Word...

The Barbarian · Jun 1, 2018

Barbarian, regarding the claim that we can't know anything we didn't directly observes:
Nope. For example, a fire investigator, looking at a possible arson case, can determine where the fire started, if an accelerant (such as gasoline) was used, and so on. No faith required. Just evidence.

Bible Research Tools said:
You are attempting to conflate known entities of the modern world

You think fire was different a million years ago? Seriously?

with the pseudoscience of evolutionism. Only a fool would buy into your chicanery.

One of your fellow creationists was suggesting that kind of abusive language was unproductive. Maybe you should calm yourself a little and listen to him.

More chicanery. Speciation is not macroevolution.

As your own source said, it's evolution about the level of species. Evolution within a species is microevolution. Speciation and above is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is quackery, invented by anti-God bigots with the intent to trick the naive and uneducated out of their faith in the Word of God.

Again, your abusive behavior is really degrading your credibility. Why show us the worst side of you, when you could be civil?

Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon's rim.[47] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with an eolian environment.[48][32][49] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions

Until now I did not realize you were so unsophisticated that you had to resort to Wikipedia.

Those little numbers in brackets? They are the cited literature. It's all true. As you now realize, entire desert ecosystems formed in the middle of what creationists claim are "flood deposits" from a single year-long flood. How do you explain that?

That is what evolutionism cultists are famous for.

Remember, if you calm yourself and avoid that kind of language, you'll do better here.

Take a look around. Take a look at the fossil record. Stasis is the norm.

That's part of Darwin's theory. As Darwin pointed out, when there's a well-adapted population in a relatively constant environment, natural selection will tend to stop evolution from proceeding until things change. This is why we usually see transitionals in relatively small populations in isolated environments.

Is that not enough evidence for you to overcome your ingrained bias?

It was your fellow evolutionism cultists that pushed the pseudoscience of "junk DNA" as some sort of evidence of evolutionism.

You were misled about that. While there are examples of DNA that don't do much of anything, there were articles in the literature addressing the functions of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists what you think of as "junk DNA."

As you can see by this:
"Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as "junk DNA" just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation." [Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.136]

No one really thought all non-coding DNA was functionless. There are some cases, like the GULO gene,which just doesn't do anything, but other non-coding DNA can have non-coding regulatory functions. Would you like to learn about some of that?

Barbarian suggests:
And now you're recycling the "information" dodge on mutations. Last time I called you out on that, I suggested you show us your numbers, on how a mutation reduces information in a population genome. You cut and ran from the question. So I'll ask you again. Show us.

What are you talking about?[.quote]

Your claim that mutations can't produce new information. I'm asking you to show us the numbers. I'll help you a little.

Suppose there's a population with two alleles at one gene locus, each with a frequency of 0.5. Suppose there's a mutation that eventually gets to the point that the frequency of each of the three alleles is 0.333.

Show us the information for that allele when there was just two, and then how it changed when there were three.

I made the numbers as simple as possible, to make the computations easy for you. But if you'd like to change them, by all means do so.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Statistical inference uses mathematics to draw conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. This generalizes deterministic reasoning, with the absence of uncertainty as a special case. Statistical inference uses quantitative or qualitative (categorical) data which may be subject to random variations.

More Wikipedia? LOL!

Click to expand...

Feel free to show us where it's wrong.

Nope. As you learned, it's the way we know most things in this world. Scientists use statistical inference to be sure they get things right. Would you like to learn how it works?

Click to expand...

I already know how it works.

Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like it. You seem to think it means something like "guess." So tell me how, given a sample of ages for people randomly drawn from a population, how you infer the likelihood of the true mean being in a certain range.

Duane Gish:
"Every major kind of fish that we know anything about appears fully formed. There's not a trace of an ancestor for any of these creatures,

Duane missed a lot:
A pre-fish:
Pikaia gracilens, a very early chordate, lacks a true brain, bones, scales, fins, swim bladder, etc. But it has a notochord, a ventral nerve cord, and myotomes similar to true fish. Haikouichthys is also primitive but was a true craniate,with a brain.

Primitive shark:
Cladoselache lacked shark skin, couldn't extend it's jaw as all other sharks can.

Ostracoderms, primitive jawless fish, but otherwise much like modern teleosts.

and there are no transitional forms suggesting that these major kind of fishes evolved from a common ancestor. Now evolutionists know that, they say it is truth, but they believe in evolution anyhow.

Click to expand...

And now you know better.

But evolution is impossible. The origin of fishes: that's the origin of vertebrates. That would be the most astounding important event in all of evolutionary history. We should have book after book after book written about the origin of vertebrates. We should have picture after picture of all these transitional forms. There's nothing!

Click to expand...

See above.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28(between echinoderms
and chordates), Purgatorius between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile

groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32between the horses and their presumed ancestors.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

The fact that the vertebrates -- the fishes -- appear fully formed; no trace of ancestors; no trace of transitional forms, destroys the theory of evolution. Evolution cannot be true."

Click to expand...

Gish also made much of the lack of fossil whales. He said a fossil whale with legs would convert him to an evolutionist. And then they found some. His reply? He said if it had legs, it couldn't be a whale.

And as you learned, the life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by God, Who tells us that the earth brought forth living things.

Isaiah60 · Jun 1, 2018

Evolution is an ancient theory which believed in spontaneous generation, now refuted.

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
For example, we know that the whale Ambulocetus was a freshwater animal, because of the analysis of oxygen ratios in the fossil. The data was obtained by examining the material, after which a confidence level was obtained by statistical inference.

Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.
The evolution of whales

Barrick, R.E., A.G. Fischer, Y. Kolodny, B. Luz, and D. Bohaska. 1992. Cetacean bone oxygen isotopes as proxies for Miocene ocean compostion and glaciation. Palaios 7(5):521-531.

Nope. Analysis of oxygen isotope ratios shows Ambulocetus to be a fresh-water animal, living in estuaries where seawater mixes with fresh. And we can check that conclusion by looking at oxygen ratios in estuary-living organisms today.

That is pretty flimsy evidence.

Given its slim, unprepossessing appearance--no more than 10 feet long and 500 pounds dripping wet-- how do paleontologists know that Ambulocetus was ancestral to whales? For one thing, the tiny bones in this mammal's inner ears were similar to those of modern cetaceans, as was its ability to swallow underwater (an important adaptation given its fish-eating diet) and its whale-like teeth.
Ambulocetus Facts

Several features shared with other basal cetaceans indicate the close affinities of Ambulocetus with these animals; it had an adaptation in the nose that enabled it to swallow underwater, and its periotic bone's structure was like those of whales, enabling it to hear well underwater. In addition, its teeth are similar to those of other early cetaceans.
Ambulocetus - Wikipedia

That was another chapter from "Grasping At Straws 101". Now the truth. The similarities of the Aubulocetus ear bones with those of a real whale are questionable, at best. Hear it for yourself:

Nope. The skull shows the nostrils to be only slightly moved backwards on the head, transitional between the skulls of early cetaceans like Pakicetus, which had nostrils at the front of the muzzle, and later cetaceans, which had the nostrils farther back on the head, like Dorudon. Would you like to learn more about how the transition occurred in whales?

I already know about whale evolution fraud.

Like most mammals adapted to aquatic life. However, unlike Pakicetus and Indohyus, the eyes had moved down to the side of the head, again transitional between early whales and later whales like Dorudon. Are you beginning to get some idea of the way transitions work?

Yes. Transitional fossils are based on the most vivid of imaginations. Try these on for size:

Earlier whales were wolflike in size, perhaps 150 pounds. Ambulocetus was possibly as much as 500 pounds. Later whales like Dorudon, were up to 16 feet long. Again, as you now realize, Ambulocetus was transitional in that respect, too.

You are quite the dreamer. Perhaps Gingerich will give you a job.

That's wrong. Macroevolution is the evolution of new taxa. Microevolution is evolution within a species. As your source admits:

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

Perhaps you didn't realize what "above the species level" means.

Berkeley states there are no first-hand accounts of macroevolution. I agree. It is derived from faith-based speculations

(Barbarian notes that Henry Morris, being a YE creationist, believed that black people are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people)

I am pretty certain Darwin believed that, as did Abraham Lincoln. But Morris believe we are all one race -- the human race.

He might have been an evolutionist in 1800s, when it was still unclear about human variation. But by the 1990s, when Morris wrote his creationist slander against blacks, evolutionary theory had shown that there are no biological human races. Morris' racism was based on his religious ideas, not science.

Morris was not a racist. Darwin was the racist.

Morris was far from the only one. His fellow founder Dr. Sprinkle, was an enthusiastic eugenicist:

Thus, on the eve of the Apollo moon landing, the Secretary of the preeminent Creationist organization in the US was denouncing the teaching of evolution as immoral, but thought sterilization on the “feeble-minded” was A-OK. I hope Dr. West & C will include this interesting case in their future discussions of how “Darwinism” was the origin and key motivation for eugenics, and materialism its philosophical basis.
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

Anyone can claim to be a creationist. But true creationists believe our common ancestors are Adam and Eve, and we are all of one blood.

In any case, I'll bet he, Margaret Sanger, and Charlie Darwin would have got along just fine. Did you read this part from the link you provided?

"The modern eugenics movement certainly drew much of its scientific aura and justification from Darwinian ideas, especially as the latter became more and more supported and accepted." [Andrea Bottaro, "Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist." Panda's Thumb, 2007] "

Cool, huh?

Cool, huh? It is no accident that YE creationism is strongest where racial segregation was the law.

Like Nazi Germany? No, wait! That is were Natural Selection ruled!

Barbarian observes:
YE creationists added all sorts of things to scripture, like a young earth, a worldwide flood, life ex nihilo, and so on.

Now I understand why you have been such so unhinged about my faith. You must have a different bible that I do. My bible, which is reverently called the Holy Bible, teaches a young earth that was created in 6 days (Gen 1); that God sent a worldwide flood to destroy all land flesh, as well as the earth (Gen 6-8); and that God created all life forms, each according to their own kind (Gen 1).

If you studied the Bible, you would learn that a literal six-day creation was never Christian orthodoxy.

I have studied the bible religiously for over 40 years, and I have never read anything about Christian orthodoxy. I believe that is a man-made invention that came along after the days of Augustine, because it is a well-know fact (except among so-called "theistic evolutionists") that God created the earth in 6 days. This is Augustine:

"Now, on the subject of this rest Scripture is significant, and refrains not to speak, when it tells us how at the beginning of the world, and at the time when God made heaven and earth and all things which are in them, He worked during six days, and rested on the seventh day. For it was in the power of the Almighty to make all things even in one moment of time. For He had not labored in the view that He might enjoy (a needful) rest, since indeed 'He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were created;' but that He might signify how, after six ages of this world, in a seventh age, as on the seventh day, He will rest in His saints; inasmuch as these same saints shall rest also in Him after all the good works in which they have served Him,—which He Himself, indeed, works in them, who calls them, and instructs them, and puts away the offenses that are past, and justifies the man who previously was ungodly." [Schaff, Philip, Augustine, On the Catechising of the Uninstructed, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Ser 1 Vol 03." Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887, Chap 17.28, pp.301-302]

And the Bible does not say the flood was global. The term it uses, "eretz" means "land", which can be used as "my land", "hereabouts", "this nation", and so on. In the widest connotation, it means "from horizon to horizon", i.e. "under heaven."

That interpretation is also a man-made invention. But, for the sake of argument, let us rewrite several passages in the way you interpret the Bible (rewrites are in square brackets):

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of [this local land area]; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air [the ones that do not fly away to dry ground]; for it repenteth me that I have made them." -- Gen 6:7 KJV

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh [in this local land area] is come before me; for [this local land area] is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with [this local land area]." -- Gen 6:13 KJV

"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon [this local land area], to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under [this part of] heaven; and every thing that is in [this local land area] shall die." -- Gen 6:17 KJV

"But with thee [Noah] will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them." -- Gen 6:18-21 KJV

Noah asked, "But God, cannot we just simply travel to another land until the flood waters subside?"

God replied, "No! I have to make a big spectacle out of this; otherwise, who would buy my book?"

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon [this local land area]; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven [over this local land area], were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains [of this local land area] were covered." -- Gen 7:19-20 KJV

When the local flood was over and the waters subsided, God made this promise to Noah.

"And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a [local] flood; neither shall there any more be a [local] flood to destroy [a local land area of the] earth." -- Gen 9:11 KJV

That sounds a little far-fetched, don't you think? LOL!

The following rewrite of the last verse seems more in context with the flood chapters:

"And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a [global] flood; neither shall there any more be a [global] flood to destroy the earth." -- Gen 9:11 KJV

Now, that makes sense.

And God specifically denies life ex nihilo, telling us that life came from previously created things.

I sorta thought God created life. Perhaps I misread these passages:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 KJV

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." -- Gen 5:1-2 KJV

It certainly appears that God is saying he created all those life forms.

YE creationists MUST explain away the plain words of the scripture in order to deny God's word in Genesis.

You mean words like "created", "formed', "made", and "end of all flesh"? Those plain words?

Dan

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
You, for example, did. However, you seem to have been unaware that Gould, like your fellow creationist Kurt Wise, pointed out numerous examples of transitional forms.

Yes, they had no idea how phony all those claims would prove to be.

Let's see what Wise thought about that:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You forgot to put the date -- 1995. That was 23 years ago, at which time even I -- a natural skeptic -- believed all the lies and exaggerations of the paleontologists.

You will find a different Kurt Wise these days. On this page you will find a link to a playlist by "Is Genesis History" (the second down on the left):

Age of the Earth - Bible Research Tools

Click on "Is Genesis History". Dr. Kurt Wise gives five brilliant lectures in that playlist that everyone should audit, especially those of the evolutionism persuasion.

As you know, he acknowledged that such transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution.

Barbarian, regarding why Wise doesn't accept the evidence, in spite of his being aware of it:
Wise admits that he is depending on what seems right to him.

Why do you persist on taking his words out of time context? Is that all you have?

Sorry, dumb question. Of course that is all you have.

Yes. He believes by faith, and ignores evidence. That's what creationists do. But instead of God, they have faith in unprovable speculations called YE creationism; Kurt Wise has faith in that man-made doctrine."

That is more dishonesty. Kurt Wise believes the Word of God, and, like any man of real faith, seeks out evidence in support of his faith:

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." -- 2Tim 2:15 KJV

"And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." -- Acts 17:10-11 KJV

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." -- 1Th 5:21 KJV

I forgot: you have never read the bible, and are unaware that we are to both study it and prove it.

Wise expressed hope that might become so. but it didn't pan out. Many, many more predicted transitionals have turned up since then, and not one transitional turned up were the theory said it shouldn't. Would you like me to show you some of them?

You are quite the dreamer. Every so-called "transitional form" is based on lies or vivid imaginations (or both).

Meantime, creationism is fading slowly, as even evangelicals are beginning to abandon that Adventist doctrine:

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
Americans disagree with you.

The bandwagon argument is a loser for YE creationism.

I guess the incessant brainwashing of our children -- who are forced by the power of the state to study ONLY the pseudo-science of evolutionism -- must be working.

We all know brainwashing works. It worked on the Hitler Youth. Now it appears to be working on the Communist-Atheist Youth.

Dan

The Barbarian · Jun 1, 2018

Bible Research Tools said:
Yes, they had no idea how phony all those claims would prove to be.

Let's see what Wise thought about that:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

You forgot to put the date -- 1995. That was 23 years ago, at which time even I -- a natural skeptic -- believed all the lies and exaggerations of the paleontologists.

You will find a different Kurt Wise these days.

If you suppose he's changed his mind, I'd be interested in seeing that he recanted. What do you have?

Why do you persist on taking his words out of time context?

I linked to the article. Are you claiming that he didn't mean that the numerous transitional forms he cited are strong evidence for macroevolution? That's what he said, after all. It's sixteen series of transitionals, some with dozens of individual transitional forms:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Is that all you have?

No, he didn't include many, many others, like turtles, amphibians, ants, cockroaches, ammonites, forams, (long, long list)

Sorry, dumb question.

Not dumb. You just didn't realize how many there actually are.

Barbarian observes:
Yes. He believes by faith, and ignores evidence. That's what creationists do. But instead of God, they have faith in unprovable speculations called YE creationism; Kurt Wise has faith in that man-made doctrine."

That is more dishonesty.

No. Kurt Wise accepts the man-made doctrine of YE creationism.

Kurt Wise believes the Word of God

He believes his personal interpretation. And he affirms that he would adhere to that personal interpretation, regardless of the evidence. He's quite honest about that.

I forgot: you have never read the bible,

Again, instead of making false accusations, you would do better trying to put together a cogent argument.

Wise expressed hope that might become so. but it didn't pan out. Many, many more predicted transitionals have turned up since then, and not one transitional turned up were the theory said it shouldn't. Would you like me to show you some of them?

You are quite the dreamer. Every so-called "transitional form" is based on lies or vivid imaginations (or both).

Wise disagrees with you. And he actually knows something about the issue.

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
Americans disagree with you.

I guess the incessant brainwashing of our children -- who are forced by the power of the state to study ONLY the pseudo-science of evolutionism -- must be working.

You won't find it taught in elementary school. It's only taught in biology. But as time goes on, more and more evidence accumulates, and younger evangelicals are less likely than older ones to hang on to creationism.

The Barbarian · Jun 1, 2018

Barbarian observes:
For example, we know that the whale Ambulocetus was a freshwater animal, because of the analysis of oxygen ratios in the fossil. The data was obtained by examining the material, after which a confidence level was obtained by statistical inference.

Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.
The evolution of whales

Barrick, R.E., A.G. Fischer, Y. Kolodny, B. Luz, and D. Bohaska. 1992. Cetacean bone oxygen isotopes as proxies for Miocene ocean compostion and glaciation. Palaios 7(5):521-531.

Nope. Analysis of oxygen isotope ratios shows Ambulocetus to be a fresh-water animal, living in estuaries where seawater mixes with fresh. And we can check that conclusion by looking at oxygen ratios in estuary-living organisms today.

Bible Research Tools said:
That is pretty flimsy evidence.

No, that's wrong. As I said, we can check the information by looking at oxygen isotope ratios in organisms that live in fresh, brackish, or salt water. Turns out that it confirms the fact.

And God specifically denies life ex nihilo, telling us that life came from previously created things.

I sorta thought God created life.

He did. It's just that YE creationists don't approve of the way He did it. According to God, life was not created from nothing; he says the earth brought forth living things. YE creationists object.

Perhaps I misread these passages

Or didn't give them much thought, maybe.

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian, regarding the claim that we can't know anything we didn't directly observes:
Nope. For example, a fire investigator, looking at a possible arson case, can determine where the fire started, if an accelerant (such as gasoline) was used, and so on. No faith required. Just evidence.

You think fire was different a million years ago? Seriously?

No. Like all life forms, it never evolved. Stasis rules.

One of your fellow creationists was suggesting that kind of abusive language was unproductive. Maybe you should calm yourself a little and listen to him.

Perhaps you should.

As your own source said, it's evolution about the level of species. Evolution within a species is microevolution. Speciation and above is macroevolution.

False.

Again, your abusive behavior is really degrading your credibility. Why show us the worst side of you, when you could be civil?

The truth is not abusive. Macroevolution is quackery, invented by anti-God bigots with the intent to trick the naive and uneducated out of their faith in the Word of God.

Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon's rim.[47] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with an eolian environment.[48][32][49] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions

That is speculation disguised as science.

Those little numbers in brackets? They are the cited literature.

Would that be considered abusive language, or merely condescension?

It's all true. As you now realize, entire desert ecosystems formed in the middle of what creationists claim are "flood deposits" from a single year-long flood. How do you explain that?

Watch this short video on the Coconino:

Also check out this presentation by professor Dr. John Whitmore (PhD biology with paleontology emphasis):

http://digitalcommons.cedarville.ed...context=science_and_mathematics_presentations

Remember, if you calm yourself and avoid that kind of language, you'll do better here.

There is nothing wrong with my language. But you, on the other hand, really should knock of the "Barbarian this and that" childishness, as well as your incessant condescension. You might also consider refraining from accusing me of twisting the Word of God.

That's part of Darwin's theory. As Darwin pointed out, when there's a well-adapted population in a relatively constant environment, natural selection will tend to stop evolution from proceeding until things change. This is why we usually see transitionals in relatively small populations in isolated environments.

Is that not enough evidence for you to overcome your ingrained bias?

I think I understand. No evidence is evidence.

You were misled about that. While there are examples of DNA that don't do much of anything, there were articles in the literature addressing the functions of non-coding DNA (that's what scientists what you think of as "junk DNA."

As you can see by this:
"Some of these may have been lost in one species or the other, but many of them remain in a position that is most consistent with their having arrived in the genome of a common mammalian ancestor, and having been carried along ever since. Of course, some might argue that these are actually functional elements placed there by the Creator for a good reason, and our discounting of them as "junk DNA" just betrays our current level of ignorance. And indeed, some small fraction of them may play important regulatory roles. But certain examples severely strain the credulity of that explanation." [Francis S. Collins, "The Language of God." 2006, Gen 1:12, p.136]

No one really thought all non-coding DNA was functionless. There are some cases, like the GULO gene,which just doesn't do anything, but other non-coding DNA can have non-coding regulatory functions. Would you like to learn about some of that?

I am well aware of the long-running debate about so-called Junk DNA. But thanks, anyway.

Barbarian suggests:
And now you're recycling the "information" dodge on mutations. Last time I called you out on that, I suggested you show us your numbers, on how a mutation reduces information in a population genome. You cut and ran from the question. So I'll ask you again. Show us.

Cut and ran? Are you kidding?

Okay, I will admit that mutation can create new information, but that depends on how you define "new information". When evolutionists define new information, they are speaking of new traits to pass along to another transition from one kind to another, or macroevolution.

But that never occurs. Mutations never cause a cat to become a dog, or a land animal to become a whale. Rather, mutations cause a corruption of existing information, not all of which is harmful, but none of which is helpful, or even disireable.

Duane missed a lot:
A pre-fish:
Pikaia gracilens, a very early chordate, lacks a true brain, bones, scales, fins, swim bladder, etc. But it has a notochord, a ventral nerve cord, and myotomes similar to true fish. Haikouichthys is also primitive but was a true craniate,with a brain.

Primitive shark:
Cladoselache lacked shark skin, couldn't extend it's jaw as all other sharks can.

Ostracoderms, primitive jawless fish, but otherwise much like modern teleosts.

And now you know better.

I am not sure what you are trying to prove. I understand that several Early Cambrian fish have been found, which sorta shoots holes in evolutionism, unless it has been redefined:

Cambrian Fossil Intensifies Evolutionary Conundrum

Cambrian Explosion or Creation Week—Key to Vertebrate Success?

Duane Gish missed nothing.

Gish also made much of the lack of fossil whales. He said a fossil whale with legs would convert him to an evolutionist. And then they found some. His reply? He said if it had legs, it couldn't be a whale.

Gish was privy to the research of Gingerich and Thewissen, and to the time they were exposed as a couple of highly-imaginative dreamers by Dr. Carl Werner.

And as you learned, the life ex nihilo doctrine of YE creationism is directly contradicted by God, Who tells us that the earth brought forth living things.

You are ignorant of the scripture. God created them first, and then they were "brought forth", or multiplied:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:25 KJV

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV

"And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." -- Gen 1:31 KJV

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 KJV

"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created." -- Gen 5:1-2 KJV

The Greek Old Testament, translated from the Hebrew in the 3rd century BC, says the same thing:

"And God made great whales, and every living reptile, which the waters brought forth according to their kinds, and every creature that flies with wings according to its kind, and God saw that they were good." -- Gen 1:21 LXX

"And God made the wild beasts of the earth according to their kind, and cattle according to their kind, and all the reptiles of the earth according to their kind, and God saw that they were good." -- Gen 1:25 LXX

"And God made man, according to the image of God he made him, male and female he made them." -- Gen 1:27 LXX

"And God saw all the things that he had made, and, behold, they were very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day." -- Gen 1:31 LXX

"And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul." -- Gen 2:7 LXX

"This is the genealogy of men in the day in which God made Adam; in the image of God he made him: male and female he made them, and blessed them; and he called his name Adam, in the day in which he made them." -- Gen 5:1-2 LXX

It is your choice whether you want to believe the Word of God, or not. God also gave us free will.

Dan

Dorothy Mae · Jun 1, 2018

mathinspiration said:
Is there are proof of either?

Anyone who say evolution (meaning macro) is a fact does not really understand science very well. The statment is an emotional one indicting a closed mind and a blind faith in a philosophy that promises to give them an intellecutally satisfying reason for life sans God.

This history of the atheists fighting to get evolution taught in schools in the US is a good example. The cry was freedom to think and learn until evolution got in the door and then it was locked so no presentation of contrary evidence was allowed. "It's a fact" is now the cry and nothing else shall be admitted into the minds of men. All science to the contrary will be labled demeaningly and silenced. Some theories are more equal than others.

The Barbarian · Jun 1, 2018

Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon's rim.[47] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with an eolian environment.[48][32][49] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions

That is speculation disguised as science.

Wrong, all nicely documented, as you see.

Barbarian, pointing out why the Wiki article is nicely documented with sources:
Those little numbers in brackets? They are the cited literature.

Would that be considered abusive language,

Normally, cites to the primary literature are considered useful. You seemed to be looking down on Wikipeda.

or merely condescension?

Possibly, but I think you were mostly just unaware that the article was very well-documented.

If you video has something you think is worth discussing, tell us about it.

Also check out this presentation by professor Dr. John Whitmore (PhD biology with paleontology emphasis):

Again, tell us what you think is the best argument, and we'll tak about it.

There is nothing wrong with my language.

The "blah,blah,blah", "baloney", and the like really hurt your credibility. I think you can do better.

But you, on the other hand, really should knock of the "Barbarian this and that"

Habit from usenet. Ignore as you like.

childishness, as well as your incessant condescension. You might also consider refraining from accusing me of twisting the Word of God.

It's YE creationism that does that. I don't hold you responsible.

Barbarian observes:
That's part of Darwin's theory. As Darwin pointed out, when there's a well-adapted population in a relatively constant environment, natural selection will tend to stop evolution from proceeding until things change. This is why we usually see transitionals in relatively small populations in isolated environments.

I think I understand. No evidence is evidence.

Wrong again. For example, the effect Darwin predicted is the basis of the Hardy-Weinberg principal. It predicts, given the allele frequencies of an existing population, the allele frequencies in the next generation, if there is no selective pressure. If the other conditions hold, and the allele frequency is different than the predicted frequency, it indicates selection working on the genome.

Would you like to learn about that?

Okay, I will admit that mutation can create new information, but that depends on how you define "new information". When evolutionists define new information, they are speaking of new traits to pass along to another transition from one kind to another, or macroevolution.

Yep. For example, the evolution of a new enzyme system in Hall's bacteria. The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards. The evolution of a gene that provides immunity to bubonic plague. Lots of others.

But that never occurs.

See above. Would you like me to show you the details on one of those?

Mutations never cause a cat to become a dog,

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. I'm wondering if understand Darwin's basic points.

or a land animal to become a whale.

As you saw, the evidence is overwhelming. Which is why your fellow YE creationist included it in the list of transitionals he consider to be "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Rather, mutations cause a corruption of existing information, not all of which is harmful,

Most mutations don't do much of anything. You have perhaps a dozen or so that were present in neither of your parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. As Hall observed with his bacteria, natural selection preserves the good ones and as the new information accumulates, this can produce things like new digestive organs or new enzyme systems.

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence)

I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

I'm just showing you that Gish didn't know what he was talking about.

I understand that several Early Cambrian fish have been found

I mentioned several, none of them remotely like fish today, which was predicted by evolutionary theory.

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Let's see what Wise thought about that:
Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

If you suppose he's changed his mind, I'd be interested in seeing that he recanted. What do you have?

I linked to the article. Are you claiming that he didn't mean that the numerous transitional forms he cited are strong evidence for macroevolution? That's what he said, after all. It's sixteen series of transitionals, some with dozens of individual transitional forms:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

No, he didn't include many, many others, like turtles, amphibians, ants, cockroaches, ammonites, forams, (long, long list)

Barbarian observes:
Yes. He believes by faith, and ignores evidence. That's what creationists do. But instead of God, they have faith in unprovable speculations called YE creationism; Kurt Wise has faith in that man-made doctrine."

He believes his personal interpretation. And he affirms that he would adhere to that personal interpretation, regardless of the evidence. He's quite honest about that.

Again, instead of making false accusations, you would do better trying to put together a cogent argument.

Wise expressed hope that might become so. but it didn't pan out. Many, many more predicted transitionals have turned up since then, and not one transitional turned up were the theory said it shouldn't. Would you like me to show you some of them?

Wise disagrees with you. And he actually knows something about the issue.

I know you don't have a lot to go on in support of your "creationists who support evolution" theory, but Dr. Wise wrote that paper in 1995, 23 years ago. Today he completely embraces the creationist global flood model, for example:

"Based on their faulty assumption that present-day slow processes have always been at work, early biologists interpreted the fossils in Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous rocks as a series of communities that lived during different eras, separated by long periods of time. They believed each community replaced a previous community that had gone extinct. Each new community spread over much of the world before it also went extinct, to be replaced by another community.

Modern creationists, on the other hand, accept the Bible’s straightforward record of history. God created every kind of living thing in six days—only a few thousand years ago—and later He destroyed the earth in a worldwide Flood. Based on these facts, the same fossils can be interpreted as three different dinosaur communities living at the same time just before the Flood but at different locations. These communities were buried in succession, as each was overrun by rising Flood waters." [Kurt P. Wise, "Noah’s World—Same Time, Different Place." Answers in Genesis, 2011]

That doesn't leave a lot of time for macroevolution.

In hopes of putting that old 1995 paper back in the archive filing cabinet where it belongs, this is a complete retraction by Dr. Wise of any previous macroevolution statements:

"All examples of evolutionary links that have ever been claimed, such as australopithecines (between tree-dwelling apes and earth-dwelling humans), archaeocetes (between quadrupeds and modern whales), mammal-like reptiles (between reptiles and mammals), Archaeopteryx (between reptiles and birds), and Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (between fish and amphibians) are, in fact, mosaics, not links." [Kurt P. Wise, "Mystifying Mosaics." Answers in Genesis, 2008]

Mystifying Mosaics

Watch the 2017 "Is Genesis History" lecture series, and you will see he is a true creation scientist (2nd down on the left):

Age of the Earth - Bible Research Tools

In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
38% say God created man in present form, lowest in 35 years
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
Americans disagree with you.

Since when does consensus have anything to do with science? (Since when does evolutionism have anything do with science?)

You won't find it taught in elementary school. It's only taught in biology. But as time goes on, more and more evidence accumulates, and younger evangelicals are less likely than older ones to hang on to creationism.

The control freaks have been seeking ways to brainwash our children, at younger and younger ages, for quite some time:

Teaching Evolution Concepts to Early Elementary School Students

Evolution for Elementary School Teachers - BIOL58010

The evolution of teaching evolution - The Hechinger Report

Dan

Bible Research Tools · Jun 1, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
For example, we know that the whale Ambulocetus was a freshwater animal, because of the analysis of oxygen ratios in the fossil. The data was obtained by examining the material, after which a confidence level was obtained by statistical inference.

Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.
The evolution of whales

Barrick, R.E., A.G. Fischer, Y. Kolodny, B. Luz, and D. Bohaska. 1992. Cetacean bone oxygen isotopes as proxies for Miocene ocean compostion and glaciation. Palaios 7(5):521-531.

Nope. Analysis of oxygen isotope ratios shows Ambulocetus to be a fresh-water animal, living in estuaries where seawater mixes with fresh. And we can check that conclusion by looking at oxygen ratios in estuary-living organisms today.

No, that's wrong. As I said, we can check the information by looking at oxygen isotope ratios in organisms that live in fresh, brackish, or salt water. Turns out that it confirms the fact.

Dead horse. There are no transitional fossils.

And God specifically denies life ex nihilo, telling us that life came from previously created things. He did. It's just that YE creationists don't approve of the way He did it. According to God, life was not created from nothing; he says the earth brought forth living things. YE creationists object.

I know you want to believe that to be true, much like you want to believe macroevolution actually happened, and that you evolved from a chimpanzee; but the text of the Bible proves you cannot read well, or you have been tricked into believing a passage out of context. Let us examine the first one again:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV

I believe that reads, God created every living thing that moveth. Now, to man and woman:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -- Gen 1:27 KJV

I believe that reads, God created man and woman.

Or didn't give them much thought, maybe.

God help you understand.

Dan

Bible Research Tools · Jun 2, 2018

The Barbarian said:
Coconino Sandstone formed about 275 million years ago as the area dried out and sand dunes made of quartz sand invaded a growing desert (see 6b in figure 1).[10] Some Coconino fills deep mudcracks in the underlying Hermit Shale[38] and the desert that created the Coconino lasted for 5 to 10 million years.[46] Today, the Coconino is a 57 to 600 feet (17 to 183 m) thick golden white to cream-colored cliff-former near the canyon's rim.[47] Cross bedding patterns of the frosted, fine-grained, well-sorted and rounded quartz grains seen in its cliffs is compatible with an eolian environment.[48][32][49] Also fossilized are tracks from lizard-like creatures and what look like tracks from millipedes and scorpions

Wrong, all nicely documented, as you see.

Barbarian, pointing out why the Wiki article is nicely documented with sources:
Those little numbers in brackets? They are the cited literature.

Normally, cites to the primary literature are considered useful. You seemed to be looking down on Wikipeda.

Possibly, but I think you were mostly just unaware that the article was very well-documented.

If you video has something you think is worth discussing, tell us about it.

Again, tell us what you think is the best argument, and we'll tak about it.

Let's start with this:

"[The old-earth theory is] Based on the assumption that the Coconino has accumulated in a desert environment; many have stated what the Coconino “looks like” without actually carefully looking at it. Hence, we were surprised when we actually did the science and found out what it really looked like.

"We have discovered 10 Myths related to the Coconino:

1. Steep cross-bed dips (~34°)
2. Well rounded and well-sorted
3. Mud cracks at the base
4. Vertebrate tracks were made on dry desert dunes
5. Raindrop prints are common
6. The grains were frosted in a desert
7. Large contorted beds are slumped sand dunes
8. There should be no dolomite
9. There should be no mica
10. Big sand dunes don’t occur underwater

The professor is saying none of those are true. The link:

http://digitalcommons.cedarville.ed...context=science_and_mathematics_presentations

The "blah,blah,blah", "baloney", and the like really hurt your credibility. I think you can do better.

Being an evolutionist, and misquoting the Bible, hurts your credibility.

Habit from usenet. Ignore as you like.

It hurts your credibility. It make you look like a grade school know-it-all. Just saying . . .

It's YE creationism that does that. I don't hold you responsible.

You say the earth brought forth all living things. God said he created every living creature:

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:21 KJV

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good." -- Gen 1:25 KJV

It appears you worship the creation more than the creator.

Barbarian observes:
That's part of Darwin's theory. As Darwin pointed out, when there's a well-adapted population in a relatively constant environment, natural selection will tend to stop evolution from proceeding until things change. This is why we usually see transitionals in relatively small populations in isolated environments.

That is convenient. No evidence is proof there is evidence. And the fact that there are no transitional fossils, proves there are transitional fossils.

Wrong again. For example, the effect Darwin predicted is the basis of the Hardy-Weinberg principal. It predicts, given the allele frequencies of an existing population, the allele frequencies in the next generation, if there is no selective pressure. If the other conditions hold, and the allele frequency is different than the predicted frequency, it indicates selection working on the genome. Would you like to learn about that?

Why? i already understand the concept of "no evidence is evidence". What else is there to learn about evolutionism?

Yep. For example, the evolution of a new enzyme system in Hall's bacteria. The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards. The evolution of a gene that provides immunity to bubonic plague. Lots of others.

Bacteria are still bacteria, lizards are still lizards, and humans are still humans? I get it.

See above. Would you like me to show you the details on one of those?

No. You are an evolutionist, and I already know how to speculate from my decades of being an evolutionist.

Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. I'm wondering if understand Darwin's basic points.

Are you referring to the Bush of Life?

As you saw, the evidence is overwhelming. Which is why your fellow YE creationist included it in the list of transitionals he consider to be "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

Are you referring to this fellow?

"All examples of evolutionary links that have ever been claimed, such as australopithecines (between tree-dwelling apes and earth-dwelling humans), archaeocetes (between quadrupeds and modern whales), mammal-like reptiles (between reptiles and mammals), Archaeopteryx (between reptiles and birds), and Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (between fish and amphibians) are, in fact, mosaics, not links." [Kurt P. Wise, "Mystifying Mosaics." Answers in Genesis, 2008]

Ooh! That must have hurt! You may want to seek out an old quote from another creationist, and place Dr. Wise's very old 1995 paper back in the filing cabinet.

Most mutations don't do much of anything. You have perhaps a dozen or so that were present in neither of your parents. A few are harmful. A very few are useful. As Hall observed with his bacteria, natural selection preserves the good ones and as the new information accumulates, this can produce things like new digestive organs or new enzyme systems.

And macroevolution has never occurred.

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence)

No, Dr. Wise claims all transitionals are mosaics, not links:

"All examples of evolutionary links that have ever been claimed, such as australopithecines (between tree-dwelling apes and earth-dwelling humans), archaeocetes (between quadrupeds and modern whales), mammal-like reptiles (between reptiles and mammals), Archaeopteryx (between reptiles and birds), and Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (between fish and amphibians) are, in fact, mosaics, not links." [Kurt P. Wise, "Mystifying Mosaics." Answers in Genesis, 2008]

I'm just showing you that Gish didn't know what he was talking about.

You have shown us nothing, except that you believe everything the orthodoxy allows to be published.

I mentioned several, none of them remotely like fish today, which was predicted by evolutionary theory.

All fish species suddenly appeared in the fossil record fully-formed and with no ancestors, just like Darwin predicted (or, maybe not).

Dan

The Barbarian · Jun 2, 2018

Bible Research Tools said:
Let's start with this:

"[The old-earth theory is] Based on the assumption that the Coconino has accumulated in a desert environment; many have stated what the Coconino “looks like” without actually carefully looking at it. Hence, we were surprised when we actually did the science and found out what it really looked like.

The professor is saying none of those are true. The link:[/quote]

The tables and photos don't match his claims. For example, the chart showing repose of dunes indicates much steeper slopes than he claims.

Contary to his claims, dolomite does not form in floods, but from alteration of rocks by magnesium-rich groundwater.

And so on. Why Whitmore missed these things is difficult to understand. Even a first-year geology student would know that dolomite would not be the result of a flood.

Barbarian suggests:
The "blah,blah,blah", "baloney", and the like really hurt your credibility. I think you can do better.

Being an evolutionist, and misquoting the Bible, hurts your credibility.

Your choice. You just make it easier for me.

You say the earth brought forth all living things.

So does God. It appears you worship the creation more than the creator. Hence "creationist."

Barbarian notes the abundant evidence that Darwin was correct about stasis:
Wrong again. For example, the effect Darwin predicted is the basis of the Hardy-Weinberg principal. It predicts, given the allele frequencies of an existing population, the allele frequencies in the next generation, if there is no selective pressure. If the other conditions hold, and the allele frequency is different than the predicted frequency, it indicates selection working on the genome. Would you like to learn about that?

That is convenient.

Yes, it turns out Darwin's theory was the way to demonstrate selective pressure. A deviation from the Hardy-Weinbert predictions is evidence of selective pressure.

On the other hand, creationists merely claim,without evidence that such selection can't exist.

No evidence is proof there is evidence.

Sorry, not in science.

And the fact that there are no transitional fossils

Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise listed over a dozen series of them. Not a dozen transitionals, a dozen series showing many transitionals. No point in denying the fact.

(Barbarian suggests that facts would be better than faith for science)

Why? i already understand the concept of "no evidence is evidence".

That's good enough for creationism,but not good enough for science. As they say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." When Gish was talking about the lack of transitional whales, he thought he was secure, but a few years later, all sorts of them were found.

Okay, I will admit that mutation can create new information, but that depends on how you define "new information". When evolutionists define new information, they are speaking of new traits to pass along to another transition from one kind to another, or macroevolution.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. For example, the evolution of a new enzyme system in Hall's bacteria. The evolution of a new digestive organ in a population of lizards. The evolution of a gene that provides immunity to bubonic plague. Lots of others.

Bacteria are still ...

Sorry, no bunny trails today. Your assertion is demonstrably false.

(Suggests that evolution is a dog becoming a cat)

Barbarian chuckles:
Evolutionary theory would be in big trouble if that happened. I'm wondering if understand Darwin's basic points.

Are you referring to the Bush of Life?

No, that was discovered long before Darwin. Linnaeus was the first to discover it, but didn't have an explanation why it looks like a family tree. Later on, all sorts of evidence such as genetics, transitionals,etc. showed that it looks like a family tree because it is a family tree.

If you don't even understand the basic points of Darwin's theory, isn't that an important thing for you to consider?

(Kurt Wise notes that transitional forms are not "links")

"All examples of evolutionary links that have ever been claimed, such as australopithecines (between tree-dwelling apes and earth-dwelling humans), archaeocetes (between quadrupeds and modern whales), mammal-like reptiles (between reptiles and mammals), Archaeopteryx (between reptiles and birds), and Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (between fish and amphibians) are, in fact, mosaics, not links." [Kurt P. Wise, "Mystifying Mosaics." Answers in Genesis, 2008]

As Stephen Gould points out (and Kurt Wise confirms) transitional forms are all mosaics. A designer might produce a smooth transition of all characters at once, but evolution works in stepwise fashion, with some things changing before others. This is why Wise correctly notes that transitional forms are strong evidence for macroevolution. I imagine the AiG folks didn't realize what he was saying.

Ooh! That must have hurt!

I suppose it did. I mentioned this years ago to Jon Sarfati (who was posting on another board edit: under an different name), and he wasn't too happy when he realized what it was.

Dr. Wise claims all transitionals are mosaics, not links

So do all biologists I know about. Smooth alteration of baupläne is a belief of IDers, but I can't think of a single instance in real evolutionary change.

(Barbarian shows that there are many transitionals leading to modern fish, one of which Kurt Wise mentioned as strong evidence)

I am not sure what you are trying to prove.

I'm just showing you that Gish didn't know what he was talking about.

You have shown us nothing,

All those transitional forms to fish. Exactly what Gish claimed did not exist. He had no idea. We see all sorts of transitional forms leading to fish. Would you like me to show you again?

The Barbarian · Jun 2, 2018

Isaiah60 said:
Evolution is an ancient theory which believed in spontaneous generation, now refuted.

"People are down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

Neither Darwin's theory, nor the modern version of it, says how life began. It makes no claims about spontaneous generation. If you knew more about the theory, you might not be so opposed to it. Might be worth finding out?

Isaiah60 · Jun 2, 2018

The Barbarian said:
"People are down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

Neither Darwin's theory, nor the modern version of it, says how life began. It makes no claims about spontaneous generation. If you knew more about the theory, you might not be so opposed to it. Might be worth finding out?

Spontaneous generation has always been the backbone of biological evolution. I noticed how evolutionists online like to deny this out of embarrassment but its true. Evolution theory has always been about the origin of life. Case and point: "The Origin of Species" from Darwin says it all in the title.
And if I was wrong about what I said here, then why is there debate over this? Why do atheist reject God? So as you see you are embarrassed to admit that spontaneous generation is the only explanation evos have to explain how the first forms of life arose. But Dr.Pasteur proved it could not happen and yet its still being taught under the technical name "abiogenesis" which is the same thing as the generic term "spontaneous generation." And without spontaneous generation there is not biological evolution. So our debate is no long scientific but political, as evolution theory has become a theory of politics ever since Karl Marx.

sfs · Jun 2, 2018

Dorothy Mae said:
Anyone who say evolution (meaning macro) is a fact does not really understand science very well.

Evolution (meaning macroevolution, meaning common descent) is a fact. Shall we we test which of us understands science better? There are objective measures available.

sfs · Jun 2, 2018

Isaiah60 said:
Spontaneous generation has always been the backbone of biological evolution.

Spontaneous generation has never been the backbone of biological evolution. How much of the professional literature have you read in evolutionary biology? It better be a lot more than "zero" if you're lecturing biologists about what's central to their own field.

Is evolution a fact or theory?

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Anglican

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Anglican

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency