The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Archaeopteryx]

Ha ha....I provided a list in response to an entirely different topic. There you go attempting to derail threads again.

Actually, it is relevant to this topic, given that you are now seemingly pretending not to know that there are Christians who have no difficulty accepting evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.

Read back through the thread. You made the claim that microevolution is entirely different than macroevolution. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Micro-evolution does not involve new genetic information, for macro-evolution to be possible, new genetic information must be somehow added.

Those are claims. Where is the evidence?

How do you determine when a change in gene sequence produces new genetic information?

How did you determine that the observed and known mechanisms of mutagenesis can not make those changes?

For example, here is a short homologous section of the human and chimp genome:

Which of those genetic differences are you saying microevolution could not produce?

As I said, no Christian denies that God created man and everything on this earth. So, no, I would not even believe a person who said such things was a Christian.

Then you need to read this essay written by a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

His name is Dr. Francis Collins, and he is saying that humans evolved.

 

[amariselle]

In what way were they "doing science" if they were producing forgeries in an attempt to fool the scientific community?

Some of them at least were quite respected before they did so. Who knows how many others are out there?

As I've told you before, I've worked on the same grant for a few years now. Despite the excellent reviews we've received, we haven't succeeded in obtaining funding for this particular project. Many good projects likewise fail to attract the funding they need to get off the ground. It isn't simply a matter of asking nicely and getting all the money you want. Your impression is nothing like the actual state of affairs, in which applying for funding is a huge ordeal.

My point remains, a creationist or anyone desiring to do research that might question Darwinian evolution in any way would not even get to where you are. They would be rejected and dismissed automatically.

But they do change! Textbooks are updated. The latest textbooks will include the most recent (and most precise) estimate of the universe's age (13.82 billion years) based on the most recent data available. If we discover the ninth planet that certain models hint at, the textbooks will again be updated to reflect this finding. Juno's discoveries at Jupiter will again lead us to update.

Who updates them? Who spends the money? And with what agenda?

When was Genesis last updated?

The word of God is absolute truth, it is not the fallible product of man.

They don't get funding for the same reason astrologers don't get funding.

Exactly, they are considered "fringe" scientists.

How are you going with my challenge, by the way? Have you found a single reputable scientific journal or organisation that has a "statement of faith" similar to that found on AiG's website?

Off topic.

 

[amariselle]

Actually, it is relevant to this topic, given that you are now seemingly pretending not to know that there are Christians who have no difficulty accepting evolution.

If they say God did not create us or this world or anything in it, they are NOT Christians.

 

[amariselle]

Read back through the thread. You made the claim that microevolution is entirely different than macroevolution. Your claim, your burden of proof.

It was a response to your claims. You provide the proof.

Those are claims. Where is the evidence?

How do you determine when a change in gene sequence produces new genetic information?

How did you determine that the observed and known mechanisms of mutagenesis can not make those changes?

For example, here is a short homologous section of the human and chimp genome:

View attachment 177867

Which of those genetic differences are you saying microevolution could not produce?

You can't be a Christian and reject the word of God in favour of science.

Then you need to read this essay written by a Christian and former head of the Human Genome Project:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

His name is Dr. Francis Collins, and he is saying that humans evolved.

If he denies God's word, he is not a Christian.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't doubt that there have been lies told in this regard either. When people are motivated by money and power, they are quite likely to lie.

Just to be clear, do you reject every single scientific theory that is currently being researched and supported by grants for simply being funded by money?

You don't think your position is at all biased?

Not the same thing. They don't want to look at evidence for creation, which is actually visible, ghosts are not.

What evidence are they not looking at?

Why shouldn't they be able to get grants from the same institutions as other scientists?

Because they aren't doing science. Science grants should fund science, not preaching and denial of scientific evidence.

What research do they need funding for? What experiments can they do? What is their research proposal? When have creationists ever submitted a single research grant based on creationism? WHEN??? If you want to claim they are being discriminated against, then show us the grants they have submitted, why they had merit, and why they should have been funded. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.

They make all kinds of things go away all the time. We don't know the half of it.

Like what?

 

[Loudmouth]

If they say God did not create us or this world or anything in it, they are NOT Christians.

They are saying that God created through evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was a response to your claims. You provide the proof.

Your claim, your burden of proof. You claimed that macroevolution and microevolution were completely different. Prove it.

If he denies God's word, he is not a Christian.

He only denies your hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Some of them at least were quite respected before they did so. Who knows how many others are out there?

And they were exposed by other scientists, as I said.

My point remains, a creationist or anyone desiring to do research that might question Darwinian evolution in any way would not even get to where you are. They would be rejected and dismissed automatically.

Because the system is based on merit: you have to show that your proposed research is theoretically and methodologically sound and that your team is capable of competently executing it. What does a creationist research program even look like?

Who updates them? Who spends the money? And with what agenda?

The "agenda" is called education.

The word of God is absolute truth, it is not the fallible product of man.

How convenient. So Genesis doesn't need to be updated to reflect everything that we've learned since it was written?

Exactly, they are considered "fringe" scientists.

Rightly so. Now if they would just stop whinging for a moment and invest more of their efforts into scientific activities as opposed to political activism...

Off topic.

How convenient.

 

[amariselle]

Just to be clear, do you reject every single scientific theory that is currently being researched and supported by grants for simply being funded by money?

No, I do not reject ALL of them, I question all of them. I'm not naive enough to think there is no agenda behind much of the funding.

You don't think your position is at all biased?

We are ALL biased in some way, and mainstream science is very much so. They look at everything through the lens of Darwinian evolution.

What evidence are they not looking at?

Evidence for creation, they won't even touch it.

Because they aren't doing science. Science grants should fund science, not preaching and denial of scientific evidence.

They should fund ALL science, but they won't. They will only fund research into Darwinian evolution and related studies.

What research do they need funding for? What experiments can they do? What is their research proposal? When have creationists ever submitted a single research grant based on creationism? WHEN??? If you want to claim they are being discriminated against, then show us the grants they have submitted, why they had merit, and why they should have been funded. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.

They haven't? Not ever? Not one single time?

Prove it.

Like what?

Like the frauds and fakes that HAVE been discovered, unfortunately for them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

They should fund ALL science, but they won't. They will only fund research into Darwinian evolution and related studies.

But creationism falls under pseudoscience, not science. And what exactly should they be funding anyway? What does a creationist research program look like? What do they need the money for?

 

[amariselle]

And they were exposed by other scientists, as I said.

So, scientists uncovered fraud and lies perpetrated by OTHER scientists. What's your point?

Scientists can be dishonest, that's a clearly demonstrated and inarguable fact. Not all research or the subsequent findings are accurate.

Because the system is based on merit: you have to show that your proposed research is theoretically and methodologically sound and that your team is capable of competently executing it. What does a creationist research program even look like?

Well, clearly not every scientist is deserving of such funding. They haven't all demonstrated "merit."

The "agenda" is called education.

Yep, there is a definite "agenda" in public education, that's for sure. But that is nothing new.

How convenient. So Genesis doesn't need to be updated to reflect everything that we've learned since it was written?

The Bible is not a science textbook. What exactly do you think needs updating? That God created the earth? Science has NEVER demonstrated that He didn't.

Rightly so. Now if they would just stop whinging for a moment and invest more of their efforts into scientific activities as opposed to political activism...

Ha ha, no one is "whining" , they are arguing valid points that are simply being dismissed.

How convenient.

No, how true.

Look, you thoroughly enjoy de-railing threads, don't expect me to join you.

 

[amariselle]

But creationism falls under pseudoscience, not science. And what exactly should they be funding anyway? What does a creationist research program look like? What do they need the money for?

You prove my point. Thank you.

Now I will move on. Everything said here only confirms my initial statement in this thread.

Have a lovely day.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So, scientists uncovered fraud and lies perpetrated by OTHER scientists. What's your point?

That science has mechanisms for dealing with such issues.

Well, clearly not every scientist is deserving of such funding. They haven't all demonstrated "merit."

Creationists especially.

The Bible is not a science textbook. What exactly do you think needs updating? That God created the earth? Science has NEVER demonstrated that He didn't.

You're shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You prove my point. Thank you.

Now I will move on. Everything said here only confirms my initial statement in this thread.

Have a lovely day.

Not going to answer? I thought as much.

 

[pgp_protector]

Nope, it was YOUR claim that Christians accept evolution. YOU support that. Your burden of proof.

I'm a Christian, I accept Evolution.

 

[amariselle]

I'm a Christian, I accept Evolution.

I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.

 

[crjmurray]

I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.

Odd thing to say.

 

[pgp_protector]

I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.
Macro / Micro is just a time span, they're both Evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution" Has long sense been updated to include DNA evidence and other lines of evidence.

 

[sfs]

I accept evolution too, just not macro evolution or Darwinian evolution.

I'm a Christian, and I accept macroevolution, including a healthy dose of Darwinian evolution. You previously said, "No Christian agrees that we are the result of continual evolution from single celled organism to man, and that everything else on this earth likewise came from a single cell." That statement is completely incorrect.