Nothing changes in this forum.

[tas8831]

But isn't it the doctor's duty to persuade them?

Why would it be?

It's no different than teachers failing to educate our kids isn't it, after all the teachers presented the 'knowledge'?

Funny thing about learning - it is a 2 way street. The student actually needs to put in some effort.

Weird that creationists don't get that.

Then again, it would explain some things.

We are allowing ourselves to fail in our health and our education. As a result we are failing in many other ways, ways that depend on sound health and a good education. Strange.

Social media is a major problem in that regard. Those who used to be "held in check" now can find any number of like-minded nincompoops to socialize and share 'wisdom' with - like the moon landings were fake, eating avocados cures everything that could ever go wrong, drinking your own urine also cures everything, vaccines are government plots, the earth is flat and only 6000 years old, etc.

 

[rjs330]

Dp

 

[rjs330]

You keep talking in circles, but you never say anything. You also dishonestly keep ignoring evidence presented and questions asked of you only to come back a week later and talk in circles again yet never saying anything. I hope the lurkers watch this:

Here is a thread with a whole bunch of evidence for you to actually address instead of hand waving away with vacuous rhetoric.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

Spoiler: Prediction

My prediction is he will not address a single one of them, but will instead just hand wave and spout more empty rhetoric

On March 23rd I posed this challenge to you:


It has been 10 days and you never responded showing how "common design" explained these things.

Spoiler: Prediction

He's not going to address this in the next 10 days (or ever for that matter).

What great arguments and evidence of common design! Evidence that God created just as described in Genesis. It does state in Genesis that God created all kinds if if different sea creatures. And what exactly do we see? All kinds of different sea creatures!
God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.”God created the great sea creatures and every living thing that creeps, so that the water swarmed with all kinds of them, and there was every kind of winged bird; and God saw that it was good.Then God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” - Genesis 1:20-22 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20-22 - Complete Jewish Bible

Yet so many of these creatures have commonalities among them. Mammals have commonalities because they are mammals, common designs. Why do those absorbtions take place? Because during formation if the animal the DNA does exactly what it's supposed to do.

How about that broken C Gene? You do know that it's also inbats, birds and guinnea pigs. Yet they are not considered to be our ancestors. I would expect there to be problems such as the broken C Gene. It fits perfectly with the need for things to deteriorate due to Adams fall. God didn't tells us exactly everything that was going to go bad in creation as a result of the fall. I guess we are discovering that on our own.

The stuff you mentioned or evidences as you say are facts. You interpret them to mean they support evolution from a common ancestor because that is what you believe. We take those same facts and interpret them to mean common design. It's the only thing that makes logical sense. It doesn't take any wild speculations. All it takes is observation if reality.

 

[rjs330]

The distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is not just quantitative, but qualitative. Microevolution notes that a man, with a good run up, can jump over a steam. Macroevolution takes this observation and believes he can, given time, jump the Mississippi! If that is not evident to you, you have never properly understood irreducible complexity.

When I saw that, despite having completed my Biology degree, I retrained in IT as I was weary of the intellectual dishonesty of the reductionist scientists. Fortunately, when asked about these issues now, I can comment from the position of someone who applies knowledge and design and using my little bit of wisdom, am able to create something out of next to nothing. What I see on this small human scale is a brief echo of my all wise creator.

I gave up trying to persuade committed evolutionists a long time ago. As evolution provides a well respected, socially approved cloak for the rejection of God, those who wish to hold on to it have reasons I cannot get to over text communication, but just for fun, here is a great clip I recently watched on Mitochondrial Eve.

Well I'm about at the place of giving up myself. They are so entrenched in their interpretation of facts and wild speculations that do not actually fit observational reality that it's imposs

False analogy - evolution involves an accumulation of small changes, not sudden giant leaps. Micro and macro evolution are artificial distinctions. An appropriate analogy would be walking - microevolution is walking to the end of your drive. Macroevolution is walking to the next town. Just a matter of accumulated steps.

Irreducible complexity has never held up under examination in a biological context (and even Behe's 'canonical' example of a mousetrap has been falsified). But if you have an example that hasn't already been shown to be false, by all means present it.

Ah, but those small changes eventually lead to jumping the Mississippi according to evolution. After all, that's what really us occurring when evolutionists claim we went from sliming around in the primordial ooze to flying around the skies on eagles wings. Evolutionists will scoff at us jumping the river but gave no problem with swimming in the soup to flying in the air.

 

[xianghua]

I hear you, but consider--many people believe that God created all that exists, but he did not do it in six twenty-four hour days.

Are they creationists or not? The OP implied that they are not. Indeed, the OP called them evolutionists.

Do you think, upon reflection, that there might be something wrong with the idea that we're all either creationists or evolutionists, period?

i think that any special creation can be consider as creation and any kind of evolution can be consider as evolution. so even if we are talking about an old earth creation its still creation.

 

[xianghua]

--

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Your analogy has the drawback that it's, well, wrong. Scientists don't accept macroevolution because they observe microevolution and foolishly extrapolate. We accept macroevolution because of the overwhelming evidence -- from biogeography, from comparative morphology, from fossils, and (above all) from genetics -- that different species are related.

It is not remotely evident to me, and I'm pretty sure I understand irreducible complexity.

Based on your opening argument, you're also commenting from the position of someone who doesn't know anything about why scientists accept evolution. (By the way, I've been a software engineer and I'm now a computational biologist who sometimes studies evolution. I've yet to see an argument for intelligent design that had any real substance.)

Well, that's your hypothesis. We can test your hypothesis by looking at what biologists who are Christians think. If you ask around, you will quickly find that the vast majority of them accept common descent, so I'm afraid your hypothesis fails. In reality, scientists accept common descent because it is highly successful and explaining and predicting a wide range of data. Creationism and intelligent design, in contrast, consistently fail that test, either by making no predictions or making predictions that are false.

Yikes. Well, if you're getting your information about evolution from sources like that, it's no wonder that you don't understand what scientists actually think. What she does in that video -- count current mutations and just assume that's the long-term rate at which mutations will accumulate -- is just wrong and guaranteed to give you the wrong answer.

Lol ;-)

"What she does in that video -- count current mutations and just assume that's the long-term rate at which mutations will accumulate -- is just wrong"

I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the exquisite irony of an evolutionist (perhaps even a uniformatarian?) telling me this ;-)

Anyway, I won't go through the usual process of firing examples and qualifications back and forward. You are free to believe as you wish, I just wanted to say why I reject the Theory.

 

[xianghua]

Scientists don't accept macroevolution because they observe microevolution and foolishly extrapolate. We accept macroevolution because of the overwhelming evidence

can you give an example of such evidence?

Creationism and intelligent design, in contrast, consistently fail that tes

i already showed this isnt true. evolution actually predict nothing. so any kind of evidence cant falsify evolution.

 

[Albion]

i think that any special creation can be consider as creation and any kind of evolution can be consider as evolution. so even if we are talking about an old earth creation its still creation.

If we have two terms to use and we must choose between them, then of course you at correct. But if we intend to describe the belief system of different people, it is certain that doing so is inadequate.

That was my point--we cannot with accuracy force all sorts of variants and differences of opinion into one of the other of these two terms which, to most people, signify either a six day creation or, OTOH, a non-theistic development from some simple piece of matter into everything we see today.

 

[Albion]

duplicate

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well I'm about at the place of giving up myself. They are so entrenched in their interpretation of facts and wild speculations that do not actually fit observational reality that it's imposs

Ah, but those small changes eventually lead to jumping the Mississippi according to evolution. After all, that's what really us occurring when evolutionists claim we went from sliming around in the primordial ooze to flying around the skies on eagles wings. Evolutionists will scoff at us jumping the river but gave no problem with swimming in the soup to flying in the air.

I was fortunate enough to study a lot of anatomy and physiology before I did my final year Evolution module.

The complexity I observed in the earlier module was not supported by the hopeful guesswork I observed in the next.

 

[xianghua]

Scientists don't accept macroevolution because they observe microevolution and foolishly extrapolate. We accept macroevolution because of the overwhelming evidence

can you give an example of such evidence?

Creationism and intelligent design, in contrast, consistently fail that tes

i already showed this isnt true. evolution actually predict nothing. so any kind of evidence cant falsify evolution.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Well I'm about at the place of giving up myself. They are so entrenched in their interpretation of facts and wild speculations that do not actually fit observational reality that it's imposs

Ah, but those small changes eventually lead to jumping the Mississippi according to evolution. After all, that's what really us occurring when evolutionists claim we went from sliming around in the primordial ooze to flying around the skies on eagles wings. Evolutionists will scoff at us jumping the river but gave no problem with swimming in the soup to flying in the air.

I was fortunate enough to study a lot of anatomy and physiology before I did my final year Evolution module.

The complexity I observed in the earlier module was not supported by the hopeful guesswork I observed in the next.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

 

[Speedwell]

If we have two terms to use and we must choose between them, then of course you at correct. But if we intend to describe the belief system of different people, it is certain that doing so is inadequate.

That was my point--we cannot with accuracy force all sorts of variants and differences of opinion into one of the other of these two terms which, to most people, signify either a six day creation or, OTOH, a non-theistic development from some simple piece of matter into everything we see today.

But it's really only the six-day creationists, YECs as they are sometimes called, who occupy a distinct position with regard to science. For the rest of those who believe that God created the universe, theistic evolutionists of one kind or another, science is taken pretty much as it is, rather than a lie from the pit of hell, or a George Soros conspiracy, or whatever the YEC you are taliking to happens to believe about why it is wrong. So strictly with respect to science, non-YEC theists take pretty much the same position as atheists. Which is why they are sometimes called evolutionists, even though they believe in God's authorship of the universe. Personally, as a non-YEC Christian I have no objection to this.

 

[Albion]

But it's really only the six-day creationists, YECs as they are sometimes called, who occupy a distinct position with regard to science. For the rest of those who believe that God created the universe, theistic evolutionists of one kind or another, science is taken pretty much as it is, rather than a lie from the pit of hell, or a George Soros conspiracy, or whatever the YEC you are taliking to happens to believe about why it is wrong. So strictly with respect to science, non-YEC theists take pretty much the same position as atheists. Which is why they are sometimes called evolutionists, even though they believe in God's authorship of the universe. Personally, as a non-YEC Christian I have no objection to this.

Very well, but this supports the point I was making, that forcing all views on the subject into one or the other of two extreme positions as the OP was doing is incorrect.

 

[tas8831]

When I saw that, despite having completed my Biology degree, I retrained in IT as I was weary of the intellectual dishonesty of the reductionist scientists.

What do you make of the intellectual dishonesty of creationist scientists?

Fortunately, when asked about these issues now, I can comment from the position of someone who applies knowledge and design and using my little bit of wisdom, am able to create something out of next to nothing. What I see on this small human scale is a brief echo of my all wise creator.

Of course - who cannot see that making some app or whatever you claim to do is EXACTLY like the creation of living things from dust of the ground! It is so obvious!

I gave up trying to persuade committed evolutionists a long time ago.

Probably because your arguments were bunk.

As evolution provides a well respected, socially approved cloak for the rejection of God,

And there we go...

Such a sloppy, shallow canard - its longevity must have something to do with the prideful condescension that we see in so many creationists.

here is a great clip I recently watched on Mitochondrial Eve.

You claim a biology degree, yet think Georgia Purdom is a source of unbiased, truthful, accurate information.


Interesting.

 

[Albion]

duplicate

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ah, but those small changes eventually lead to jumping the Mississippi according to evolution.

What makes you think so? Nothing in evolution requires a large jump.

After all, that's what really us occurring when evolutionists claim we went from sliming around in the primordial ooze to flying around the skies on eagles wings. Evolutionists will scoff at us jumping the river but gave no problem with swimming in the soup to flying in the air.

The change from 'sliming around in the primordial ooze' to 'flying around the skies on eagles wings' (I'll accept the poetic license) was a slow progression of billions of tiny changes in populations, that took at least 3.7 billion years (that's deep time).

Just because the differences between ancestors and their remote descendants are significant, and differences between distantly related species are significant, it doesn't imply any large leaps, any more than a picture of you as a baby and a picture of you as an adult imply you leapt straight from infancy to adulthood.

 

[Speedwell]

As evolution provides a well respected, socially approved cloak for the rejection of God...

How do you expect your arguments will carry any weight with us when you are willing to throw away your intellectual integrity with a line like that?

 

[bhsmte]

View attachment 224929

Big time, major league; projection.

 

[tas8831]

View attachment 224929

I was wondering when the projection would rear its desperate, ugly head.

 

[tas8831]

I was fortunate enough to study a lot of anatomy and physiology before I did my final year Evolution module.

The complexity I observed in the earlier module was not supported by the hopeful guesswork I observed in the next.

Interesting.

Another creationist on here claims that he studied anatomy and that there are aspects of anatomy that 'prove' creation.

But he has been unable to produce a single example, despite his claimed study.

Can you help him out?

I suspect, giving your derisive commentary, that you were a creationist going into university.

 

[sfs]

Lol ;-)

That's, um, quite an effective approach you've got there. One is tempted to conclude that you're feigning superiority to mask your inability to muster an argument.

I am sorry, but I couldn't resist the exquisite irony of an evolutionist (perhaps even a uniformatarian?) telling me this ;-)

Next time, try resisting. Do you know why what she did is wrong? Do you care?

Anyway, I won't go through the usual process of firing examples and qualifications back and forward. You are free to believe as you wish, I just wanted to say why I reject the Theory.

You haven't even succeeded at that, I'm afraid. So far, the reasons you've give for rejecting evolution are an inaccurate analogy, the fact that you design software, and a video in which someone describes a calculation that any geneticist will tell you is certain to be wrong.