Proof of Creation?

[lasthero]

(As well as a
desire to keep the funds coming in to keep their jobs.)

Yes, because you can't make any money as a creation scientist. Ken Ham, AIG, Discovery Institute, they're all just living in the poor house.

So mere similarities to you mean there was a stepwise evolutionary
pathway connecting two species?

You accept that, too. You've already stated that you accept pigeons and dodos are related. This conclusion was reached by compariing similarities.

How else do you tell if two species are related if not by compariing similarities? How else would you come to that conclusion?

 

[EternalDragon]

Yes, because you can't make any money as a creation scientist. Ken Ham, AIG, Discovery Institute, they're all just living in the poor house.

They are not funded by the same agencies.

You accept that, too. You've already stated that you accept pigeons and dodos are related. This conclusion was reached by compariing similarities.

How else do you tell if two species are related if not by compariing similarities? How else would you come to that conclusion?

All life is related and similar. What you are missing is that the evidence
points towards design by an ID more than through natural, unguided,
unintelligent natural processes.

 

[lasthero]

They are not funded by the same agencies.

Not the point.

Creationist 'scientists' make money to do a lot less than actual ones. Scientist have to produce actual results. What original research have you seen from creationists?

If they're afraid of losing their jobs or not having money, why not jump ship. There are plenty of creationist organizations that would welcome them.

l life is related and similar. What you are missing is that the evidence
points towards design by an ID more than through natural, unguided,
unintelligent natural processes.

But you seemed content to say that those natural processes could produce dodos and pigeons from the same ancestor. You even seemed ready to accept ducks and pelicans sharing an ancestor. So where do you draw the line? And how do you determine what evolved naturally and what had to be specially created?

 

[EternalDragon]

Not the point.

Creationist 'scientists' make money to do a lot less than actual ones. Scientist have to produce actual results. What original research have you seen from creationists?

If they're afraid of losing their jobs or not having money, why not jump ship. There are plenty of creationist organizations that would welcome them.

I do believe I am speaking about a small group, not science in general.
Not everything hinges around common descent or evolution theory.

But you seemed content to say that those natural processes could produce dodos and pigeons from the same ancestor. You even seemed ready to accept ducks and pelicans sharing an ancestor. So where do you draw the line? And how do you determine what evolved naturally and what had to be specially created?

Good questions. Where does one draw the line?

 

[lasthero]

I do believe I am speaking about a small group, not science in general.
Not everything hinges around common descent or evolution theory.

And why does this small group not just jump ship and join the intelligent design camp? They'd make just as much money, if not more, to do a whole lot less.

Good questions. Where does one draw the line?

You're the one drawing it, you tell me.

 

[Smidlee]

Really? So you think those who accept evolution meet in dark rooms rubbing their hands with glee cackling 'Ha ha! We fooled them again!'

If you can disprove evolution, please go and collect your Nobel Prize.

This is like finding someone driving west on I-40 at an average speed of 50 mph 1,000 miles from the east coast and telling someone prove they haven't been driving for 20 hours solid. It's possible they could have go on I-40 5 miles down the road. ToE is based on the assumption all life came from Frankencell. Now if and only if this assumption is true then of course there would be a common ancestor shared by all living things.

Here where abiogenesis is tied into Darwinian evolution ; The starting point of creation. Since abiogenesis is still science fiction then no one knows exactly where creation ends and evolution begins. It comes down to where does someone puts their faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is like finding someone driving west on I-40 at an average speed of 50 mph 1,000 miles from the east coast and telling someone prove they haven't been driving for 20 hours solid. It's possible they could have go on I-40 5 miles down the road. ToE is based on the assumption all life came from Frankencell. Now if and only if this assumption is true then of course there would be a common ancestor shared by all living things.

What assumptions are you talking about?

Here where abiogenesis is tied into Darwinian evolution

Abiogenesis is not tied into Darwinian evolution.

Since abiogenesis is still science fiction then no one knows exactly where creation ends and evolution begins. It comes down to where does someone puts their faith.

Why would we need faith when we have evidence that very different groups of complex species share a common ancestor?

 

[Smidlee]

What assumptions are you talking about?



Abiogenesis is not tied into Darwinian evolution.



Why would we need faith when we have evidence that very different groups of complex species share a common ancestor?

But you don't. You have been fooled into thinking man can prove what happen "IN THE BEGINNING..." All you have is what all living things have in common and what they don't.

Abiogenesis deals with the beginnings so yes it is tied in Darwinian evolution just like a rocket launch is tied into going to the moon.

 

[Loudmouth]

But you don't. You have been fooled into thinking man can prove what happen "IN THE BEGINNING..." All you have is what all living things have in common and what they don't.

Why can't we use evidence in the present to determine ancestry in the past? How have I been fooled?

Abiogenesis deals with the beginnings so yes it is tied in Darwinian evolution just like a rocket launch is tied into going to the moon.

If the first cell were created by a deity and all life we see today evolved from that first life, the theory of evolution would be unchanged. They are not tied to one another.

 

[Smidlee]

Why can't we use evidence in the present to determine ancestry in the past? How have I been fooled?

and what happens when "the present is the key of the past" doesn't fit? Even developmental biologist admits they can't used modern day life to determine up happen millions of years ago. Life had to be more flexible in the past than it is today.

If the first cell were created by a deity and all life we see today evolved from that first life, the theory of evolution would be unchanged. They are not tied to one another.

That's a big "IF". Abiogenesis is all about if that "IF" is possible.

 

[Split Rock]

In reality it is already extremely limited. According to the evidence.

By the way, religious dogma does not enter into the equation.

That is not true and you know it. It is religious dogma which dictates to you that evolution should be rejected. The evidence did not convince you or the vast majority of your fellow creationists that evolution is wrong or that common ancestry is limited as you suggest.

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

Let's play a little game here. We all like to think we are physicists and mathematicians. Let us give away the farm to begin with and allow the evolutionists the total impossibility that earth just happened to be positioned and held in the exact place and distance from the sun to allow for the ideal conditions present for life. Let's go ahead and say that a Lowe's or Home Depot was present where we could acquire even the amino acids necessary for life which even in 2015 science has been unable to reproduce even with the most advanced of state-of-the-art laboratories. Let's close our eyes and bite our tongues and give them all these things up front.

Now that we have given you all these things, let us give you a real big present to help you move your cause further along. Eureka!! Let's say that breaking all the rules of mathematical probabilities, we have a single asexual cell crawl out of our slime pool of raw materials we got from our Lowes warehouse. You now have a living, breathing, real life single asexual cell that is totally healthy and ready to go.

Now given all of this has been handed to you on a silver platter, can you tell us the mathematical probability of this single asexual cell dividing and mutating through natural selection until it evolves even into a simple little four cell organism? Do the math and come back and tell us.

 

[Euler]

Let's play a little game here. We all like to think we are physicists and mathematicians. Let us give away the farm to begin with and allow the evolutionists the total impossibility that earth just happened to be positioned and held in the exact place and distance from the sun to allow for the ideal conditions present for life. Let's go ahead and say that a Lowe's or Home Depot was present where we could acquire even the amino acids necessary for life which even in 2015 science has been unable to reproduce even with the most advanced of state-of-the-art laboratories. Let's close our eyes and bite our tongues and give them all these things up front.

Now that we have given you all these things, let us give you a real big present to help you move your cause further along. Eureka!! Let's say that breaking all the rules of mathematical probabilities, we have a single asexual cell crawl out of our slime pool of raw materials we got from our Lowes warehouse. You now have a living, breathing, real life single asexual cell that is totally healthy and ready to go.

Now given all of this has been handed to you on a silver platter, can you tell us the mathematical probability of this single asexual cell dividing and mutating through natural selection until it evolves even into a simple little four cell organism? Do the math and come back and tell us.

P=1

 

[lasthero]

Let's say that breaking all the rules of mathematical probabilities, we have a single asexual cell crawl out of our slime pool of raw materials we got from our Lowes warehouse.

What are all the 'rules of mathmatical probability'?

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

What are all the 'rules of mathmatical probability'?

Not really an issue if you're unable to do the math.

 

[lasthero]

Not really an issue if you're unable to do the math.

It might help.

What are the rules?

 

[Davian]

 

[ViaCrucis]

It is from the evidence and using my arbitrary decision making skills
just as scientists have arbitrary decision making skills. (As well as a
desire to keep the funds coming in to keep their jobs.)

Ah, the ol' fallback. The reason why creation "scientists" don't have peer-reviewed research to back up their claims and the reason why "mainstream scientists" do and the reason for widespread support is, ultimately, a very large conspiracy.

That is what this whole "scientists keeping their jobs" argument really is--a conspiracy theory.

So mere similarities to you mean there was a stepwise evolutionary
pathway connecting two species? How so? Could it also indicate common
design? (Yes, it could.) Where is your evidence of the step wise evolution?
The fossil evidence doesn't show this. The genetic evidence doesn't
show this.

Yes, as soon as we propose unfalsifiable possibilities to explain anything then really all discussion becomes somewhat moot.

All fossil transitional forms, all evidences of speciation, all genetic and morphological similarities could simply all be the result of God's divine fiat. Evidences of age through radiometric dating, ice core samples, paleomagnetism, and dendrochronology could all simply be by divine design to give the appearance of age instead of actual age. God could have, by design, placed photons in mid-transit such that the light from a distant star or celestial body reaches us without having to actually transversed the entire distance. God could have created dead stars that no longer exist but appear to have existed. All fossils show up in sedimentary layers resulting from a global flood arranged, intentionally, by God to give the appearance of evolution and age when there is non. And, fundamentally, it's entirely possible that God created the universe ten seconds ago, me in mid-typing, with memories of things which never happened.

And all of that could very "neatly" explain away every piece of evidence we have for all these things.

At that point, science aside, are you really comfortable with believing in this sort of god? Are you really comfortable believing in a trickster god who deceives, lies, and bends things so as to disguise them from us so that we will believe wrongly and think wrongly about the world around us? How do you reconcile such a god and such a creation with the Psalmist who says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies the works of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night reveals knowledge. Without uttering a sound or a word, their voice is never heard. Yet their voice goes out to all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." Or how about, "God is not human that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should change His mind."

Yet you'd insist on a lying trickster god who has arranged the heavens and the earth in such a way as to beguile and deceive us, neither revealing knowledge nor proclaiming God's handiwork but keeping us ignorant of the truth.

Perhaps you are able to be at peace with such a theology. I'm not.

The God that I come to worship, and encounter in the Christ who meets me in His Gospel and in His Sacraments is a truthful God, a loving God. A God that graciously has set me in a beautiful world of awe-inspiring beauty, in a great big cosmos that is utterly complex and continually remarkable. The God I meet in Holy Scripture is the good Creator God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The God of redemption, who condescends to meet us in the fragile form of Jesus, the Offspring of Mary.

As such I am incapable of reconciling That which I receive from the Gospel, the Creeds, the Scriptures, and the historic witness of the Church with a theology that would insist on a trickster god so utterly petty as to masquerade the creation behind layers of deceit and falsehood.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Hezekiah Holbrooke]

It might help.

What are the rules?

Come on. You're trying to change the point. If you can't do the math, don't worry about it. The issue is the math, not rules that I already said we dismissed.

My question is simple. The mathematics is simple.

 

[lasthero]

Come on. You're trying to change the point. If you can't do the math, don't worry about it. The issue is the math, not rules that I already said we dismissed.

My question is simple. The mathematics is simple.

If I'm going to calculate a probability, it might help to know the rules.

Unless you just made that up. Bit you wouldn't do that.

So, what are the rules?