Is evolution a fact or theory?

[NobleMouse]

We are. Physically, gentically, neurologically, anatomically, we are apes.

Nope - if we were physically, genetically, neurologically, and anatomically like apes, then we WOULD BE APES, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There's a reason why when we go to zoos that the apes are always inside the exhibits and people are outside the exhibits.

No, that's wrong. Linnaeus, for example, didn't think all life was descended from a common ancestor, and yet he wrote that he should have classified humans as apes.

Genetic data does indeed show common ancestry. We can check this by comparing organisms of known descent, so it's not arguable.

You're repeating your pre-programmed way of interpreting evidence, congratulations.

Perhaps 38 percent of Americans are creationists.

Random.

But the evidence shows they are wrong. And that's all there is to say about it. As you know, the Bible doesn't deny the fact of evolution. The modern revision of YE creationism is not supported by the Bible.

No... your and my interpretation of the evidence leads us to believe they are wrong. You are speaking from a place of bias, not a place of omniscience. The only one who is omniscient is God and He has given us the creation account. You don't accept creation because it doesn't jive with the "wisdom" of this age, which man's wisdom is foolishness to God.

No, the consensus, until the 7th Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century was old Earth.

No, that's wrong, too. Both Luther and Calvin insisted that the Bible said that the Sun went around the Earth. They let what seemed right to them, overrule what the Bible actually says.

You said it was a new idea and I showed you it wasn't, so you changed your argument now to say it wasn't the broad consensus (which you don't know who believed what back then - there was no Gallup survey). You are falling apart in all of your arguments and your reasoning right in front of everyone. I suspect you were once that kid we all knew that regularly made exaggerated claims, but when called to the floor they failed to deliver on those claims.

(Barbarian notes that the Sabbath was based on the parable of God resting on the seventh day)

As you learned, Jesus gave us explicit direction on our behavior, based on parables. So you'll have to take that up with Him, not me.

More twisting an mishandling of scripture on your part. Genesis is not a parable. Here's a list of parables from the Old Testament:

O.T. Parables Recorded

Do you not know that all of creation is corrupt and that this corruption comes from sin? Whose sin? Adam's? Not if he's not real. Jesus made reference to Adam, there's an entire lineage listed from Adam to Jesus... you are reinterpreting and redefining all of this to make it conform to your view that evolution is true. The story of evolution is what is most authoritative to you.

https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c024.html

I gave you a direct and scripture-based answer. You just aren't willing to accept what He says about it.

Had you actually given a direct and scripture-based response, you could have quoted scripture, but that would have then revealed that what you are saying has no supporting scripture, so you didn't quote scripture. Instead, you gave me your nebulous and twisted interpretations of scripture to fit your scientific world view.

The reason for this view you have is that scripture is not as authoritative as your new doctrine of YE creationism.

You are completely unsubstantiated here. Your arguments for your position is based upon text not stated ANYWHERE in scripture, whereas biblical creation is called biblical creation because... it IS stated in scripture. I'd almost have given you some credit if you believed evolution were true and you made this assertion based solely on scientific interpretations as the foundation for this belief (and you left the Bible out of it), but that fact that you insist that it is somehow even alluded to biblically shows that you base your arguments on what is stated nowhere, even though scripture expressly conveys creation with real events and real people.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

No, it's not at all an odd assumption. (I'm the author, by the way.) Any genetic variant we got from a unique first couple had to have had an allele frequency of at least 25%, since there were only four copies of the genome present in the original couple. Only a small fraction of these would have drifted to less than 1% frequency since then; on average, they'll still be at 25%. Since there are far more 1% allele than 25% alleles in today's population, only a tiny fraction of the low frequency alleles could have come original variation. Therefore it is a safe conclusion (not assumption) that low frequency variants have to be the result of mutations.

How does that prove common ancestry? There are enormous variations between the chimp and humans, including the Y chromosome, and even the number of chromosomes? One must jump through all sorts of hoops to even remotely make everything fit, without setting aside (disregarding) a boat load of information.

I take it from your response that you also can't think of a reason why a designer should choose to make differences between species look exactly like mutations.

Nor have you demonstrated that so-called shared mutations prove common ancestry.

If you wish, you are free to argue that the creator simply chose to create in a way that looks exactly like evolution is true, you have a logically unassailable position.

Everything depends on presuppositions. If you are "programmed" to believe evolution is true, then you will find ways to "prove" it. But if you take a step back and examine the enormous variations between the two, common ancestry is beyond illogical.

To be sure, it's an approach that could equally well be applied to absolutely any evidence about anything. Left bloody fingerprints and DNA at the murder scene? God just made it look like you're guilty. Car making a racket, and you have a hole in your muffler? God's making the sound, and the hole is in the muffler for his inscrutable purposes. It's logical, consistent, and completely useless.

Now you are talking silly. God said he created all living things according to their kinds; and he specifically singled out man so there would be no misunderstanding (like that which you are promoting). Until there is scientific evidence to the contrary, God's Word rules.

More to the point, it also means that your previous claim, that there was no evidence in favor of evolution, was wrong. So which is it: did God create everything in a way that makes it look like evolution is true, or is there no evidence?

There are interpretations of data that some pass off as evidence, but there is NO evidence.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
We are. Physically, gentically, neurologically, anatomically, we are apes.

Nope - if we were physically, genetically, neurologically, and anatomically like apes, then we WOULD BE APES,

Which is why we are classified with chimpanzees as an ingroup separate from other apes.

and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

That's like a gibbon saying, "if we were physically, genetically, neurologically, and anatomically like apes, then we WOULD BE APES, and we wouldn't be brachiating through the trees, making great leaps across the canopy." Intelligence is not what makes us different; apes are nearly as intelligent as we are.

There are humans whose intelligence is less than that of a chimpanzee. Do you think they are not human, thereby? No, one of the things we are, are apes, but the important thing is, we are also a living soul, with a spirit like God.

Barbarian observes:
No, that's wrong. Linnaeus, for example, didn't think all life was descended from a common ancestor, and yet he wrote that he should have classified humans as apes.

Genetic data does indeed show common ancestry. We can check this by comparing organisms of known descent, so it's not arguable.

You're denying the fact, repeating your pre-programmed YE way of interpreting evidence, congratulations.

(Barbarian notes that only about 38% of American are creationists)
Most Christians don't accept the new doctrine of YE creationism.

Random.

Nope. Well-documented. Would you like me to show you?

Barbarian observes;
But the evidence shows they are wrong. And that's all there is to say about it. As you know, the Bible doesn't deny the fact of evolution. The modern revision of YE creationism life ex nihlo is not supported by the Bible.

No...

Yep. God says He used nature to create life. Would you like me to show you, again?

You are speaking from a place of creationist bias, not a place of omniscience. The only one who is omniscient is God and He has shown us in the text itself that the YE account is false. You don't accept creation because it doesn't jive with the modern YE creationist doctren, which man's wisdom is foolishness to God.

Barbarian observes:
No, the consensus, until the 7th Day Adventists invented YE creationism in the 20th century was old Earth.

No, that's wrong, too. Both Luther and Calvin insisted that the Bible said that the Sun went around the Earth. They let what seemed right to them, overrule what the Bible actually says.

You said it was a new idea

You're confusing geocentrism, which was assumed by Protestant leaders a long time ago, with YE creationism, which as you know, was invented in the early 20th century. Would you like me to show you that, again?

You are losing your focus, and your argument is falling apart right in front of everyone.

Barbarian notes that ancient Christians like St. Augustine demonstrated that Genesis could not be literal 6 days.

More twisting an mishandling of scripture on your part.

Nope. As Augustine pointed out, it's absurd to assume literal mornings and evenings without a Sun.

Do you not know that all of creation is corrupt

God's creation is good. Humans are corrupt. Don't blame God for us. Our sins are our own.

Whose sin? Adam's? Not if he's not real.

Now, you're claiming Adam isn't real? That's carrying YE creationism way too far.

Jesus made reference to Adam, there's an entire lineage listed from Adam to Jesus...

There are two, conflicting ones. If you assume they are complete, literal lineages. Would you like me to show you that? You are reinterpreting and redefining all of this to make it conform to your view that YE creationism is true.

I gave you a direct and scripture-based answer. You just aren't willing to accept what He says about it.

(Denial in favor of a YE creationist view)

Cafeteria Christians take what they like from scripture and deny the parts they don't like. If you accept all if it, YE is unsupportable. The reason for this view you have is that scripture is not as authoritative as your new doctrine of YE creationism.

You are completely unsubstantiated here. Your arguments for your position is based upon text not stated ANYWHERE in scripture, whereas biblical creation is called biblical creation because... it IS stated in scripture.

As you learned, God doesn't say the world is young, He doesn't tell you how nature produced living things, and He doesn't say that life was created ex nihilo.

There's just no support in Genesis for any of those new doctrines. Which is why most Christians don't accept them. It won't send you to Hell just because you reject His way of creating things, unless you argue that Christians who believe otherwise are not saved.

So don't put yourself there. People who think they are pushing other people away from the Church are merely separating themselves from His Church.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are interpretations of data that some pass off as evidence, but there is NO evidence.

Your fellow YE creationist disagrees with you.

Kurt Wise cites a large number of series of transitional organisms and says they are strong evidence for macroevolution.

Why not learn about it, and take a more realistic and Christian view of it?

 

[NobleMouse]

Barbarian suggests:
If you have an example of someone saying that sort of thing to him, I'm sure we'd all be willing to see it.

Sorry, you're reaching too far. And it merely demonstrates what I told you. No one has been as abusive to him as he has been to others.

I already told you - you are not qualified to make an opinion - KomatiiteBIF was addressing Bible Research Tools so YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW IT WAS RECEIVED BY Bible Research Tools. Best you just remain silent and move along.

Barbarian suggests:
Probably not a good idea to ask, on a message board, things you don't want to have answered.

On a message board, you toss something out, it's up for discussion. That simple.

Only up for discussion if I continue to discuss; otherwise, you can talk to yourself and others. And with that, my discussion on that point with you ends here.

Barbarian observes:
He's a creationist, after all. But an honest one. He openly admits that the huge number of transitional series (he lists over a dozen series, each with a number of transitionals) is "strong evidence" for macroevolution. And while he expresses faith in the idea that creationism might someday find a way to explain all these transitional forms, he admits that he has yet to find that way.

Good, so we've established, by your own words, that he is a creationist, and honest. So we can conclude there are good, honest reasons (just speaking scientifically, not even considering what the Bible says) for believing in creation. End.

He listed 19 series of transitionals, each with several to hundreds of transitional forms within them. That's huge. And there are many, many more. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

Nope that's subjective. Just to clarify for everybody then, Kurt Wise never said "huge" - you added that to again exaggerate... this is still from the 1995 paper correct?

Yep. Hasn't recanted anything. He expressed his belief that someday creationists might be able to explain all these transitionals, but so far, he's failed to find anything.

Again, "transitional" is a biased term that relates only to the evolutionary paradigm. Within the creationist model there is the expectation for the existence of intermediate forms as is found superpositionally throughout the geologic column.

By the way, Wise makes it clear that apes are apes and humans are humans in this 2008 article:
Lucy Was Buried First

Oh, wait wait wait... are you going to say he's honest... except for this article??

And NASA continues to hold onto a 300-year old paper when plotting spacecraft trajectories. Is there a point, here? Besides, I showed him a more recent paper that showed more modern methods indicate that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than formerly thought.

If more relevant information has not come along since 300 years ago, then that is fine; however, more relevant information has come along since 23 years ago as it relates to research in the field of creation science. Move along...

As you know, YE creationism is about 100 years old so they don't have antiquated sources.

Rigorous scientific research under a biblical lens may be more recent, but the belief of a more recent creation dates far beyond 100 years ago - I already provided empirical evidence showing this.

No. It's well-defined in biology. This is why Dr. Wise could so easily list so many of them.

Odd, this article specifically references both 'biologists' and 'arguing' over classification of cambaythere fossils - why is there any arguing at all if it is so cut and dry? More twisting to portray a false picture....
New fossils are no "missing link"

He merely pointed out that the hundreds or thousands of individual transitionals he mentioned were "strong evidence" for macroevolution.

But an honest one. He admits that YE creatonism has no explanation for all these transitionals.

It's not news to anyone. As Wise wrote, it's a insoluble problem for YE creationism. He anticipated that a way for creationists to explain them would be found. But as you know, that hasn't happened.

...and ultimately He believed then and still believes now... is... the Bible is correct. Kurt doesn't say that NO evidence can fit into the evolutionary paradigm, but apparently the biblical framework is an overall better explanation.

Sorry, no point in arguing that we can't know anything we haven't personally observed. Evidence can be used to tell us about things we haven't seen.

We can look at evidence and draw conclusions, yes that is true. In this case; however, the evidence is not exclusive to ONLY evolution, it also fits within the biblical creation framework.

Let's see... God is musing "Hmm... I thnk I'll make dinosaur collagen look like bird collagen. That should fool them."

No, I don't think so.

And there's no point in denying that the days of Genesis are figurative. Christians realized that over 1500 years ago.

You don't need God to fool you, you've done that for yourself. Also, why would you presume God is out to fool anyone? We fool ourselves only when we reject what God has said in favor of insisting a conclusion we've reached, about evidence we now see, of events we never saw and life forms we never saw, is more correct than God's word.

You say that science does not reject supernatural powers (though I've not seen publications outside of creation science that admits as much... but setting that aside); however, when the creation account found in Genesis tells you that creation was over the course of 6 days you reject it as an impossibility... for failure to meet your naturalistic expectations. You are double-minded.

Turns out they don't. But if there are transitional forms between them, and we see anatomical homlogies between them, they do have closely related DNA and other molecules. Checks on organisms of known descent show that it indicates that they have a common ancestor.

I can understand why you've been getting "blah blah blah". You show no interest/ability in seeing the evidence through the lens of God's word and when your own view is challenged, like a widget you start to whirl and sputter, cranking out the evolutionary dogma. Curious that instead of questioning what the evidence says, you instead take what you were told the evidence says and then you go back and reinterpret what Genesis means. For you, what you believe about a fossil is more real and more true than God's word.

Analogous organs instead of homologous ones. For example, thylacines looked like wolves. Wolflike body, carnassal teeth,etc. But the dental formula is different, and their DNA is more like that of marsupials. They even had a pouch. You've confused homology and analogy.

More logical fallacies - a kind of false dichotomy, except here instead of presenting only two options when others are possible, you continue to only see one possible explanation... as if to say, "God, sorry but you cannot create life with any similarity within your distinctly created kinds... they must all be so unique that one cannot see any resemblance." You know that God would absolutely never ever use what we label as analogous or homologous structures during creation... because??

Notice that Wise's expectation that a creationist explanation for transitional forms would be found. Hasn't happened. And it's been along while, hasn't it?

I've already addressed where Wise stands and cited a more relevant article from Him, from this century.

As you just learned, creationists are unable to explain why homologies fit evolutionary patterns as predicted, while analogies don't, (as also predicted).

See above.

Let's look at just one of the many series Wise cited as "strong evidence" for macroevolution:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus,and Prozeuglodon[or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetuswith the largest hind legs;Rhodocetuswith hindlegs one-third smaller;Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs; and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs:toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whaletransition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.

This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or
even throughout Flood sediments.At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.
Wise, pg. 219

That's just one of many he cites, and there are many, many more that he didn't cite. Would you like me to show you some more?

I've attached a more recent article from him and unequivocally he is a creationist because, 1) God has told us this, and 2) this model is a better overall explanation than the evolutionary framework.

 

[Job 33:6]

There are interpretations of data that some pass off as evidence, but there is NO evidence.

Dan

I have to ask, do you have any relevant background experience in fields such as geology or biology.

I am a geologist, and from what I've seen, you do not demonstrate that you're aware of geology as a science. You don't appear to know what you're talking about.

And now you're telling a pHd with published research, that he is wrong. As if you actually have knowledge of the topic.

Can you demonstrate to me, that you have knowledge of geology?

Everyone has an opinion. And I mean everyone, educated or not. And anyone can post YouTube videos and can state their opinions. But what actual scientific arguments do you bring to the table?

Young earthers quote AIG. Like @NobleMouse , he posted an AIG article that in a very simple and clear way, presented false information. You don't have actual scientific research. So what do you bring to the table beyond YouTube videos?

Dare I ask, have you been across research on the proverbial Cambrian bunny? No?

Can you explain the existence of compressional faults and cataclastic deformation along with regional metamorphosis in the western US, mixed with cyclothems and propogating of faults and the erosion of thousands of feet or rock, all having formed on 3000 or so years?

From a technical perspective, of course not. Not even close. I'm not sure that you would even understand the geology, let alone could you explain how it could have formed in 3000 years.

Arguing against scientists, trying to use their own science to beat them, is like trying to prove that you're a better boxer than Mike Tyson, just because you borrowed his gloves. Anyone who actually knows how to box can clearly see that you're like a fish out of water.

Can you show me that actually know how to box? Can you show me that you actually know geology?

 

[NobleMouse]

I have to ask, do you have any relevant background experience in fields such as geology or biology.

I am a geologist, and from what I've seen, you do not demonstrate that you're aware of geology as a science. You don't appear to know what you're talking about.

And now you're telling a pHd with published research, that he is wrong. As if you actually have knowledge of the topic.

Is this in reference to the discussion with SFS? If so, there are geneticists with a PhD, and published books/research, such as Georgia Purdom, who would also disagree with SFS's conclusions as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

"This was addressed to Bible Research Tools and is as if to say the response he previously gave was nonsensical or gibberish and, by extension, the originator is also nonsensical, and thus the time spent composing that prior post was time wasted and will be ignored. "

@NobleMouse

This is correct ^. The reason I said that it wasnt a real response, is because there is no technical information of value in his posts. Him saying that something is baloney is irrelevant. And him posting a youtube video is also irrelevant.

For example, post 809

"There are no transitional forms; just vivid imaginations."

This^ isnt a real response. Its just a...thought. It is empty and void of information. It is, essentially meaningless.

 

[Job 33:6]

Is this in reference to the discussion with SFS? If so, there are geneticists with a PhD, and published books/research, such as Georgia Purdom, who would also disagree with SFS's conclusions as well.

You continue to refer to random people like...Kurt Wise for example. But these people are...well, they dont have any real scientific publications to challenge what we, the 99% of other scientists, are saying here and now.

You cant just say...well, here is 1 scientist of 100000 that...believes the planet is 6000 years old. And then proceed to accept a youtube video of him speaking, even if you have no idea what hes actually talking about.

And so, what i was trying to point out here, is that...the research tools person, hes trying to box when he is clearly not a boxer, and comes off as a fish out of water.

Can he show me that he can box?

He is quick to disregard geology, but does he have knowledge of geology to begin with?

Well, of course the answer is no...he does not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
If you have an example of someone saying that sort of thing to him, I'm sure we'd all be willing to see it.

Sorry, you're reaching too far. And it merely demonstrates what I told you. No one has been as abusive to him as he has been to others.

I already told you - you are not qualified to make an opinion - KomatiiteBIF was addressing Bible Research Tools so YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW IT WAS RECEIVED BY Bible Research Tools. Best you just remain silent and move along.

Just pointing out what he said. Personally, I don't care. That kind of snark doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it. If someone else hadn't brought up the problem, I wouldn't have even pointed it out.

(Barbarian observes that anything put up on a messge board is up for discussion)

Only up for discussion if I continue to discuss

Or if anyone else wants to talk about it. That's how discussion boards work.

(Barbarian notes that Kurt Wise, an honest creationist, admits that the many transitional series he mentioned are "strong evidence" for macroevolution, and that creationists have no way to explain such things)

Good, so we've established, by your own words, that he is a creationist, and honest. So we can conclude there are good, honest reasons (just speaking scientifically, not even considering what the Bible says) for believing in creation.

We can conclude that he has faith that there is. The evidence certainly is consistent with creation. Not YE creationism, of course, but there is evidence for creation.

Wise listed 19 series of transitionals, each with several to hundreds of transitional forms within them. That's huge. And there are many, many more. Would you like me to show you some more of them?

Nope

Most creationists don't.

Just to clarify for everybody then, Kurt Wise never said "huge"

No one said he did. But there is a huge number of transitional forms. He lists sixteen complete series of forms each with numerous transitionals. And that's just a sampling. If you like, we can test the idea that there are many transitions. Would you like me to show you?

you added that to again exaggerate

Nope. Here's a way to test that. Show me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find a transitional form.

Again, "transitional" is a biased term that relates only to the evolutionary paradigm.

No,that's wrong. It merely refers to an organism that has apomorphic characters of two different groups. So easily testable without evolution.

And yes, I know that Wise has faith that humans aren't apes. He is a creationist, after all.

Oh, wait wait wait... are you going to say he's honest... except for this article??

I think he honestly believes what he says. But remember, he says evidence comes second to his personal interpretation of the Bible.

If more relevant information has not come along since 300 years ago, then that is fine; however, more relevant information has come along since 23 years ago as it relates to research in the field of creation science.

Apparently not. Wise still hasn't refuted his finding that transitionals are "strong evidence"for macroevolution, and he still hasn't found a way to explain them in creationist terms.

So nothing changed so far.

Rigorous scientific research under a biblical lens may be more recent, but the belief of a more recent creation dates far beyond 100 years ago - I already provided empirical evidence showing this.

There were always those who thought the earth was young. Many pagans thought so, and this affected some Christian theologians. However, since the Bible doesn't say how old Earth is, most theologians didn't care much about it.

You don't need God to fool you, you've done that for yourself. Also, why would you presume God is out to fool anyone?

It's your doctrine; you can explain it. Yes, there have been creationists who argued that God put fossils in the ground to fool us. Most OE creationists, and even many YE creationists have moved away from that kind of thinking.

We fool ourselves only when we reject what God has said in favor of insisting a conclusion we've reached, such as YE creationism.

You say that science does not reject supernatural powers

Can't. The methodology of science is entirely limited to the physical universe. That's how it is. Even Richard Dawkins admits that science can't refute God.

however, when the creation account found in Genesis tells you that creation was over the course of 6 days you reject it as an impossibility

As Christians knew over 1500 years ago, if you let the text interpret itself, you see that it is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings before a sun existed. So we know it's figurative.

For you, what you believe about a fossil is more real and more true than God's word.

You're upset and venting so I'll forgive that libel. You should know better; it might feel good now, but you'll have to live with it afterwards.

You know that God would absolutely never ever use what we label as analogous or homologous structures during creation... because??

Of course he created organisms with analogous and homologous structures. You just don't approve of the way He did it. And yes, I'm aware that Wise prefers his personal interpretation of the Bible to the evidence. He very bluntly and openly admits it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution relies on either:

1) Abiogenesis

This is what a scientist would say if he accepted the Bible as God's word. As you might know, God says that nature brought forth living things, as He created it to do.

2) A "deist" creator -- one who set everything in motion, and then left it to its own destiny and devices.

Many "intelligent design" advocates, like Michael Denton, think so.

3) Magic

Some (not all) YE creationists.

4) And any other possible way for life to begin.

Any of those would be OK for the origin of life, as far as evolutionary theory is concerned. Darwin, as you learned earlier, just suggested that God made the first living things, without speculating how.

 

[sfs]

How does that prove common ancestry?

Common ancestry makes a specific set of predictions about what we should see when we look at genetic data. We can test those predictions by looking at data. I did. The predictions were correct. Special creation makes no predictions about what we should see. Therefore, the genetic data is evidence for common ancestry.

That's how evidence works.

Nor have you demonstrated that so-called shared mutations prove common ancestry.

I said nothing at all about shared mutations.

Everything depends on presuppositions.

This is the fall-back argument for the guy who can't defend his position. State what presupposition I made that invalidates my argument.

If you are "programmed" to believe evolution is true, then you will find ways to "prove" it.

I was programmed to believe in special creation.

But if you take a step back and examine the enormous variations between the two, common ancestry is beyond illogical.

You say that common ancestry is beyond illogical, yet you are unable to offer a logical argument against it, or to rebut logical arguments for it.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I have to ask, do you have any relevant background experience in fields such as geology or biology.

I am a geologist, and from what I've seen, you do not demonstrate that you're aware of geology as a science. You don't appear to know what you're talking about.

I know exactly what I am talking about. But I not certain that you do. You have been locked into a framework that prevents you from seeing anything outside your little Charlie Darwin box. I was an evolutionist for decades -- never questioned it until several years back; so I know where you are coming from.

And now you're telling a pHd with published research, that he is wrong. As if you actually have knowledge of the topic.

Can you demonstrate to me, that you have knowledge of geology?

PhD's are frequently wrong. And I know first hand that a lot of university research is, well, "fudged". I also know that a lot of good research is rejected by the PAL-review process.

I will discuss the science with you; but I am not playing your arrogant "I am smarter than you" game, or your "I am more educated that you" game. I am an old, retired engineer with many years of college; and I can assure everyone that there is a boat load of bad science and engineering out there -- much of it from the position of innocence, but still bad.

Everyone has an opinion. And I mean everyone, educated or not. And anyone can post YouTube videos and can state their opinions. But what actual scientific arguments do you bring to the table?

You have not been paying attention.

Young earthers quote AIG. Like @NobleMouse , he posted an AIG article that in a very simple and clear way, presented false information. You don't have actual scientific research. So what do you bring to the table beyond YouTube videos?

There are some fine scientists who work with Answers in Genesis. You reject them because they are not evolutionism hacks.

Dare I ask, have you been across research on the proverbial Cambrian bunny? No?

Don't be silly.

Can you explain the existence of compressional faults and cataclastic deformation along with regional metamorphosis in the western US, mixed with cyclothems and propogating of faults and the erosion of thousands of feet or rock, all having formed on 3000 or so years?

From a technical perspective, of course not. Not even close. I'm not sure that you would even understand the geology, let alone could you explain how it could have formed in 3000 years.

Can you explain consistent and widespread lamination extending from the Cambrian upward through virtually the entire "geological column"? Very, very doubtful.

I posted a link to a lecture on "Sedimentology of the Flood" by a world-class geologist/paleontologist, but you ignored it. For the rest of you -- those willing and able to learn the truth, this is the link:

Pay careful attention to Dr. Wise's lecture and you will hear geological truths that evolutionists never, ever reveal, or are even aware of. He is also very animated, so have fun.

Arguing against scientists, trying to use their own science to beat them, is like trying to prove that you're a better boxer than Mike Tyson, just because you borrowed his gloves. Anyone who actually knows how to box can clearly see that you're like a fish out of water.

More silliness.

Can you show me that actually know how to box? Can you show me that you actually know geology?

I did. But since you never seem to read what I write, you probably missed it.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

@NobleMouse

The reason I said that it wasnt a real response, is because there is no technical information of value in his posts. Him saying that something is baloney is irrelevant. And him posting a youtube video is also irrelevant.

For example, post 809

"There are no transitional forms; just vivid imaginations."

This^ isnt a real response. Its just a...thought. It is empty and void of information. It is, essentially meaningless.

Do you really expect rational people to accept as gospel truth the claims by goofy "scientists", such as Gingrich and Thewissen, that creative recreations from fragmented skeletons constitute transitional lineages?

Nuts!

Dan

 

[Job 33:6]

I



Can you explain consistent and widespread lamination extending from the Cambrian upward through virtually the entire "geological column"? Very, very doubtful.


Dan

Because you allegedly know what you are talking about, I will just talk directly to you and will ignore your random youtube videos.

Now, do explain what the issue is with lamination in sedimentary rocks found throughout the worlds rock layers.

 

[Job 33:6]

@NobleMouse

I just want to point out, that in the beginning of the above kurt wise video, he acknowledges a geologic column, present around the world. Something that you have seemed to cast doubt on in the past.

 

[Steve Petersen]

What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Well then..If that is accurate.. all those prehistoric periods that have been determined by science by means of fossils, had quite a long time going along until we got to the current created world we now find ourselves living in.

I guess angels are slow learners then. Took so long for them to learn their lessons God was teaching them via the classrooms of each period. Jurassic was an interesting one. No?

Notice how each period that replaced the last was a bit more complex than the one that preceded that. Science says its because of "evolution." I am sure you might find an exception to disagree with me on that one. But, like even we find with our school system, as graduation from one class led to another, the lessons of the next became more involved.

Then it ended.

Then post graduate work was assigned to angels.

For, man had been created in God's image. Real advanced materials for angels to learn from. And, there have been some very interesting courses being offered ever since.

What an inane post.

 

[NobleMouse]

You continue to refer to random people like...Kurt Wise for example. But these people are...well, they dont have any real scientific publications to challenge what we, the 99% of other scientists, are saying here and now.

You cant just say...well, here is 1 scientist of 100000 that...believes the planet is 6000 years old. And then proceed to accept a youtube video of him speaking, even if you have no idea what hes actually talking about.

And so, what i was trying to point out here, is that...the research tools person, hes trying to box when he is clearly not a boxer, and comes off as a fish out of water.

Can he show me that he can box?

He is quick to disregard geology, but does he have knowledge of geology to begin with?

Well, of course the answer is no...he does not.

You were critiquing Bible Research Tools for arguing with a published PhD in genetics that evolution is not true (and I could be wrong here, but it came across to me that the basis for your critique was his not having the educational background to make these claims in opposition to SFS), so I pointed out there are published PhD geneticists with a biblical creation belief that also disagree with the evolutionary paradigm, citing the name of one (so you know I'm not just making things up - you can Google her, see she is real, has a real degree from a real university, works for AiG, etc...).

To be fair, if I turn the table around here; you are aware of Dr. Steven W Boyd - has a B.S. and a M.S. in Physics from Drexel University, a Th.M. in Old Testament and Semitics from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a M.Phil. and a Ph.D. in Hebraic and Cognate Studies from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.
Steven Boyd - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

From Boyd's research, he concludes that Genesis is historical narrative and the days of Genesis are ordinary-length days. In the documentary, Is Genesis History, he also asserts that the world's leading Hebraists affirm that Genesis is historical narrative (ie. not a run-on figure of speech, a poem, a parable, etc...). One article in reference to some of his research:
Genesis is history - creation.com

From that, I presume that because you and others here do not have such educational nor professional experience in theology, hebraic or cognate studies, then you are going to rescind your opinions to the contrary of this view that Genesis is a historical account of creation? Nope? Okay, then we'll continue to proceed as we have been...

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Common ancestry makes a specific set of predictions about what we should see when we look at genetic data. We can test those predictions by looking at data. I did. The predictions were correct. Special creation makes no predictions about what we should see. Therefore, the genetic data is evidence for common ancestry. That's how evidence works.

It all depends on your underlying assumptions, Stephen. There are some pretty sharp geneticists out there who, looking at the same genetic information that you do, claim that common ancestry between the chimp and man is statistically impossible.

I said nothing at all about shared mutations.

Perhaps I didn't word it correctly. Let me clarify. You did make this assumption, didn't you?

"One way we can test for shared ancestry with chimpanzees is to look at the genetic differences between the two species. If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years. That means they should look like mutations. On the other hand, if humans and chimpanzees appeared by special creation, we would not expect their genetic differences to bear the distinctive signature of descent from a common ancestor."​

How do you know the highlighted part is a valid assumption?

This is the fall-back argument for the guy who can't defend his position. State what presupposition I made that invalidates my argument.

Common ancestry. Creation scientists and ID'ers can look at the same data and give entirely different and sensible conclusions. A common theme regarding the notion of common ancestry among non-evolutionists seems to be "statistically impossible". That is also one of my themes.

I was programmed to believe in special creation.

How do you define "special" creation?

You say that common ancestry is beyond illogical, yet you are unable to offer a logical argument against it, or to rebut logical arguments for it.

There are many scientific arguments against common ancestry. I am certain you are aware of a few from the scientists at the Discovery Institute; and there are more than a few from geneticists at the creation sites.

But as a Christian, the best argument against common ancestry is this one:

"from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 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

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve." -- 1Tim 2:13 KJV

"Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." -- Luk 3:38 KJV​

I don't see any wiggle room, not that I am really looking for any, now that I know that the laws of physics are putty in the Lord's hands.

Dan