The Universe and all that is in it

[The Lady Kate]

Creationist does not deny the processes of evolution we observed everyday is science, it's the dogma that these processes are the results of origins of all species and complexies is what's being questioned.

That's not dogma, that's inductive reasoning (or is it deductive? I never can get those straight...)

If 1+1=2, then 1+1+1+1+1... will equal 1,000,000.

So according to your statements even creationist is evolutionists in these research since we believe God did give species the ability to adapt to it's surroundings. so I can just as easily claims these research is based on bio-creation.

"bio-creation?" What exactly is the study of "bio-creation," and what is it besides "evolutionary biology" under a different name?

 

[Sojourner<><]

The mechanisms that cause speciation have been observed. Speciation has been observed.

What mechanisms are you suggesting are needed for 'verticle structure' changes in DNA? Please be specific.

What does 'horizontal' and 'vertical' mean in the context you are using it?

There is no demonstratable limit to changes that can happen in DNA that would prevent speciation and drastic changes in populations over multiple generations.

If you want to try to claim that speciation can't happen, then you need to discuss the actual mechanisms involved and not simply label speciation as 'vertical' and everything else as 'horizontal'. You are stating something is impossible by definition, without clarifying the defintion and giving a physical description of the difference in mechanisms needed to distinquish your classificiations.

What is needed for speciation that hasn't been observed?

The word species as used in my argument refers to the distinction between morphological species. What I'm really referring to is the biblical concept of "kind" which does not necessarily correspond with the linnaean classification system. On a case-by-case basis, "kind" could be matched with "species", sometimes with "genus" and possibly even with "family". The Biblical concept of "kind" does indicate a limitation in variation and can be used to account for missing links between kinds.

In allopatric speciation, an isolated population undergoes genetic drift through natural selection, and I've already acknowledged that it has been observed. This accounts for the evolution of the traits of an animal (horizontal variation of DNA), but does not account for the mutation between kinds of animals (vertical variation of DNA). Id est a purple chinchilla may evolve into a polka-dot chinchilla, but a chinchilla doesn't mutate into a whale.

 

[The Lady Kate]

The word species as used in my argument refers to the distinction between morphological species. What I'm really referring to is the biblical concept of "kind" which does not necessarily correspond with the linnaean classification system. On a case-by-case basis, "kind" could be matched with "species", sometimes with "genus" and possibly even with "family". The Biblical concept of "kind" does indicate a limitation in variation and can be used to account for missing links between kinds.

It sounds like first you're looking at the current known limits of speciation, and then declaring that's the limits of a "kind."

So as more and more links are found, the definition of "kind" will also expand, until, someday, there is only one "kind..." the living "kind."

The "case-by-case" basis sounds dangerously close to an Ad Hoc classification. Something to be careful of...

 

[Sojourner<><]

It sounds like first you're looking at the current known limits of speciation, and then declaring that's the limits of a "kind."

So as more and more links are found, the definition of "kind" will also expand, until, someday, there is only one "kind..." the living "kind."

The "case-by-case" basis sounds dangerously close to an Ad Hoc classification. Something to be careful of...

The purpose of my argument was to identify the incompatibility between two concepts of classification. To understand the concept of Biblical "kinds", you have to step out of the box of thinking based on the linnaean classification system.

 

[Sojourner<><]

FYI - TE's are generally more consistant in scripture than YEC's.

Henry Morris in The Genesis Record shows that theistic evolution is clearly incompatible with the Bible.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Exactly. It's not science. So why insist that it is?

I would still believe that the most honest approach to YECism would be to separate it from Christian science. You can go ahead and believe that the world is 6000 years old. But it would be very difficult to find scientific evidence for it that hasn't been falsified. If you can show me a scientifically self-consistent YEC viewpoint I'll be the first to sign up!

If the choice is between:
a YEC viewpoint which is slightly more scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically completely un-self-consistent,
and a TE viewpoint which may be slightly less scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically self-consistent,

guess which I choose?

I would hope that you choose the Rock rather than science, which is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth, especially in the case of the question of our origins which cannot be observed.

Remember that science is going to pass away like everything else on this planet. All that will remain is the Word of God.

 

[TheBear]

Oure knowledge of antiboiotics, medication, and other research has nothing to do with origins. This is another deception evolutionist love to use to claim all research is for them. Creationist does not deny the processes of evolution we observed everyday is science, it's the dogma that these processes are the results of origins of all species and complexies is what's being questioned. So according to your statements even creationist is evolutionists in these research since we believe God did give species the ability to adapt to it's surroundings. so I can just as easily claims these research is based on bio-creation.

Hello!

My remarks are in the context of BIO-EVOLUTION, the stuff we observe and apply in life sciences every day. ORIGINS is another topic altogether. Don't confuse the two topics.

And I don't know where you're getting this, or how you arrived at this conclusion, but there is no dogma in science. Dogma involves dug-in, close-mindedness. Dogma is not questioned or overturned in the light of new evidence. If the scientific community was filled with dogma and close-mindedness, there would be no scientific advances. Period. (We'd still be blood-letting and skull drilling to cure a fever. )

Science has a track record we can judge it by.....results. Things like applied bio-evolution research, brings us human bio-therapeutics, which translates to medical treatments and cures. It's that simple.

One more thing - This moving goal-post tactic, (the blurring and shifting of terms and definitions), has got to stop. This is intellectual dishonesty.

 

[TheBear]

I would hope that you choose the Rock rather than science, which is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth, especially in the case of the question of our origins which cannot be observed.

Remember that science is going to pass away like everything else on this planet. All that will remain is the Word of God.

That is a blatantly false analogy. What kind of witness is that? You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Sojourner<><]

One more thing - This moving goal-post tactic, (the blurring and shifting of terms and definitions), has got to stop. This is intellectual dishonesty.

To me this looks like a simple misunderstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what he's trying to say is that what we know about evolution so far can as easily be applied to the Creationist world view as with the naturalistic world view.

 

[Sojourner<><]

That is a blatantly false analogy. What kind of witness is that? You should be ashamed of yourself.

I should be ashamed of standing up for the Word of God?

Are you actually suggesting that there is anything perfect in this world aside from the moment that the Lord sets foot upon it?

 

[TheBear]

To me this looks like a simple misunderstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what he's trying to say is that what we know about evolution so far can as easily be applied to the Creationist world view as with the naturalistic world view.

No.

I'm not going to let this go unchecked. This is the bluring of definitions, terms and topic.

God created our natural world. Science studies God's creation, (our natural world).

 

[TheBear]

I should be ashamed of standing up for the Word of God?

No.

You should be ashamed of the deceptive tactics, (shifting the focus of the study of our natural world, to things spiritual.)

Are you actually suggesting that there is anything perfect in this world aside from the moment that the Lord sets foot upon it?

Where did you get that?

This question right here, is a shining example of how you are unable/unwilling to even attempt to comprehend what is being said. These pre-conditioned and automatic biases, need to be removed if you really want to gain understanding of what others are saying.

 

[Maccie]

Remember that science is going to pass away like everything else on this planet. All that will remain is the Word of God.

Well, actually, no. What will remain is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

And yes, I think there is perfection on this planet. A new born baby. The smile on the face of a child looking at his mother. Untouched snow, glittering in the sun. Newly hatched ducklings bobbing on the water after the mother duck. The hand of the one you love, warm in your hand.

Shall I go on?

 

[TheBear]

Henry Morris in The Genesis Record shows that theistic evolution is clearly incompatible with the Bible.

Well hurray for Henry Morris!!!

Tell me - Is Henry Morris fallible or infallible? Is your own understanding of scripture fallible or infallible?

 

[The Lady Kate]

Well hurray for Henry Morris!!!

Tell me - Is Henry Morris fallible or infallible? Is your own understanding of scripture fallible or infallible?

Infallible, of course!

Apparantly The Genesis Record is some kind of lost Scripture...Up until now, I was unfamilar with the Book of Morris.

How does the line go in Inherit the Wind? "We'll have a book ofBrady; we'll slide you in neatly between Numbers and Deutoronomy."

 

[Sojourner<><]

No.

You should be ashamed of the deceptive tactics, (shifting the focus of the study of our natural world, to things spiritual.)

It is not deception if it is true and it is not a tactic, it was a statement of the truth. I'm aware that it flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but this, in turn, flies in the face of Truth since the world was indeed created by supernatural means.

Last time I checked, we are in Origins Theology, not science. The Op wanted to know how YEC fits in, and this is what we are debating. If the Truth lies out of the bounds of science then that is where we must go. This may or may not be the answer she wanted, but it is the Word of God. We may never understand some of the most mysterious questions out there, so some things require a leap of faith.

Where did you get that?

If my statement that science is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth is actually a blatantly false analogy, then logically I would have to conclude that you don't believe that science is imperfect.

This question right here, is a shining example of how you are unable/unwilling to even attempt to comprehend what is being said. These pre-conditioned and automatic biases, need to be removed if you really want to gain understanding of what others are saying.

No offense taken.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Well, actually, no. What will remain is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (mat 24:35)

And yes, I think there is perfection on this planet. A new born baby. The smile on the face of a child looking at his mother. Untouched snow, glittering in the sun. Newly hatched ducklings bobbing on the water after the mother duck. The hand of the one you love, warm in your hand.

Shall I go on?

These are very good things, I agree. But they ultimately fall short of perfection since all things in the world are plagued by corruption, decay and death.

It is unfortunate that Theistic Evolutionists can lose touch with the foundation of our faith. You have to understand that we live in a fallen world since this is the reason why we need Jesus as our redeemer. This aspect of our faith begins with the book of Genesis.

My concern is that of a brother, not an adversary.

 

[TheBear]

It is not deception if it is true and it is not a tactic, it was a statement of the truth. I'm aware that it flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but this, in turn, flies in the face of Truth since the world was indeed created by supernatural means.

Last time I checked, we are in Origins Theology, not science. The Op wanted to know how YEC fits in, and this is what we are debating. If the Truth lies out of the bounds of science then that is where we must go. This may or may not be the answer she wanted, but it is the Word of God. We may never understand some of the most mysterious questions out there, so some things require a leap of faith.



If my statement that science is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth is actually a blatantly false analogy, then logically I would have to conclude that you don't believe that science is imperfect.



No offense taken.

Why do people like you continue to confuse the issue, by interjecting terms like 'truth', and mixing spiritual matters with studies of our natural world? Is it intentional, or are you really that blinded by dogma and bias?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Why do people like you continue to confuse the issue, by interjecting terms like 'truth', and mixing spiritural matters with studies of our natural world? Is it intentional, or are you really that blinded by dogma and bias?

Once again, no offense taken.

You should know better than that Christian.

 

[TheBear]

Once again, no offense taken.

You should know better than that Christian.

Here's what I know, Christian.

Honesty and integrity are a great witness for Christ. Moving goal-posts, intellectual dishonesty, intentional blurring of terminology, and general disengenuousness, are a horrible witness for Christ.