What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

Well, before the 60's, the experts thought they had an eternity to work with.

I don't think so. In fact I challenge you to support that with a valid source. In other words, citation needed.

 

[Lee Stuvmen]

Bible does not say that the planet is 6000 years old. Bible, actually, have no idea what a planet is. Ancient Jews knew only land and seas around it. They had no idea about continents etc.


Not sure about your zeal to find a fault or how you define a fault, but there are many mythological topics in the Bible we do not consider to be true, for example that God will kill leviathan who lives in seas.

Or that we think in our kidneys.

History is full of examples where the understanding of humanity was found to be faulty.

Humans tend to try to prove what they believe as truth. Few truly test what they believe for truth.
But it is easier for humans to alter the truth to conform to their current beliefs, then it is to alter their current understanding to conform to truth.

The people that believed the world was flat were not ignorant people, their stumbling block was a lack of accurate information. But until that information was available, and for some, even after the information was available, a four wheel drive truck and a log chain could not pull that false understanding based upon a lack of information out of them.

My zeal was based upon growing spiritually tired of speculation and assumptions and theories.

THEORIES are for those that do not have all the facts. The man/woman staring down a rifle barrel that pulled the trigger and watched USA President J.F.K.'s head explode like a watermelon had no need of theory.

I tired of milk, and desired meat. I had hoped to find a similar individual with a similar appetite, but guess I have found myself in the wrong classroom. My apologies.

 

[Shemjaza]

A polar bear and a grizzly bear adapted to the region they live in. I'm sure everyone can agree with this.

The problem is: Did the grizzly bear come from a fish from a pond 2 billion years ago?

The earth is about 4 billion years old. Is this enough time to go from a one cell organism to US?

So we both accept that polar bears and grizzly bears while different are unique variations on what was originally one population.

The same evidence that demonstrates that can be applied to more and more divergent life forms.

Humans and apes are the easiest to demonstrate given how detailed the genetic studies have been and how many varieties of extinct "missing links" (to use an archaic term) we have found.

The pattern of genetic similarity and the pattern of found extinct species line up to demonstrate all live on Earth descending from the same population. "Proving" it if you will.

Maybe when it was thought that the universe always existed there might have been enough time for evolution...is there still enough time now that we know the universe had a beginning?

And, through observation, we now know that the universe DID have a beginning....so science was wrong before .....

How could we know for sure it's not wrong now?

The evidence indicated that we have billions of years of a relatively stable Earth, so plenty of time for evolution.

We know that the universe as we know it had a beginning... exactly how the circumstances and material that made that possible came about is a mystery and may in fact be unknowable.

I just think we should look for everything and then accept the answer. If we ever get one since it seems we cannot get beyond the BB.

You seemed certain a moment ago about the beginning... now you acknowledge that our research can't go beyond the expansion of the Big Bang?

I accept that we should look for everything and then accept the answer, but if you find feathers, webbed foot prints and hear quacking... it's reasonable to accept that it's a duck before the X-Ray comes back to prove it isn't a robot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But you stepped out of science and tried to make a metaphysical claim - "man is not a goal".

There is no evidence that *ANY* creature is a goal of the evolutionary process. Claiming that some creature is a goal of evolution or the development/creation of species is the "metaphysical" claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well the onus is on the evolutionists making the grand claims that something came from nothing, surely?

This is cosmology/physics not evolution/biology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

History is full of examples where the understanding of humanity was found to be faulty.

Humans tend to try to prove what they believe as truth. Few truly test what they believe for truth.
But it is easier for humans to alter the truth to conform to their current beliefs, then it is to alter their current understanding to conform to truth.

The people that believed the world was flat were not ignorant people, their stumbling block was a lack of accurate information. But until that information was available, and for some, even after the information was available, a four wheel drive truck and a log chain could not pull that false understanding based upon a lack of information out of them.

My zeal was based upon growing spiritually tired of speculation and assumptions and theories.

THEORIES are for those that do not have all the facts. The man/woman staring down a rifle barrel that pulled the trigger and watched USA President J.F.K.'s head explode like a watermelon had no need of theory.

I tired of milk, and desired meat. I had hoped to find a similar individual with a similar appetite, but guess I have found myself in the wrong classroom. My apologies.

Okay, so you do not understand what a scientific theory is. You are conflating the layperson's definition of a theory with a scientific theory. In the sciences as theory is as good as it gets. An idea is not a theory unless it can explain all of the evidence and has been tested countless times. A scientific theory is the exact opposite of what you claim that a theory is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A scientist is a scientist....it does not have to be a biochemist to know about Darwin's theory,,,or most theories for that matter.

I like Dr. Beher a lot too, and I also like what Dr. James Tour has to say - one of the top 10 Biochemists in the world. I was advised by someone on this thread that Dr. James Tour lies --- I guess he lies in what he has invented and the papers he has written for peer review also.

Anyway, just to show persons that I agree with.
IOW,,,,science should be open to all ideas, concepts.
It seem like most scientists are dead set against ID.
It seems to make sense to me.

No, scientists are not interchangeable.

But, neither are engineers. You wouldn't expect (or likely trust) a civil engineer to design a microchip, an electrical engineer to design a internal combustion engine, nor a mechanical engineer to design a bridge. All of engineering has similar basic training and methodologies, but the specifics of their knowledge are different. They should recognize basic engineering principles applied by other types of engineers. An engineer that insisted they knew better how to do another field would not be trusted.

It is similar with scientists. We have many commonalities in our training and practice, but again would not trust someone pontificating on one field that they had no training in. I've seen outsiders try and fail in my field, so I have no reason to expect that experts from one field would have any reason to be trusted outside their fields.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is: Did the grizzly bear come from a fish from a pond 2 billion years ago?

Mammals only diverge from other vertebrates (reptiles) about 0.2 billion years ago and tetrapods (all 4 limbed land animals including reptiles, amphibians, and mammals) only 0.36 billion years ago. So no, not nearly that slowly.

 

[Hans Blaster]

THEORIES are for those that do not have all the facts. The man/woman staring down a rifle barrel that pulled the trigger and watched USA President J.F.K.'s head explode like a watermelon had no need of theory.

Nope that's not how scientific theories work; and what does Lee Harvey Oswald have to do with any of this?

 

[Ophiolite]

I tired of milk, and desired meat. I had hoped to find a similar individual with a similar appetite, but guess I have found myself in the wrong classroom. My apologies.

Since you have chosen a mixed metaphor, I shall respond accordingly. You are in the right classroom, you are just looking at the wrong part of the menu.

 

[Resha Caner]

It was a rather strange question

Thank you.

First off species are not "invented".

Exactly. We agree on that, then. All viable sequences for every organism that ever has lived or ever will live have been viable sequences across all time.

So no, I would not say that the DNA for Homo sapiens was there from the start. In fact geneticists can sometimes tell you roughly when a specific mutation entered the genome, such as blue eyes or the mutation for lactose tolerance.

I wasn't asking if my sequence physically existed at the beginning of time, but whether my sequence represents a viable organism across all time. I think it does.

In terms of your specific DNA sequence being a potentially viable organism, obviously it is.

At to whether that specific DNA sequence would exist in an alternative universe of alternative evolutionary events, who knows? Statistically speaking, probably not.

Sure. My sequence may not have been formulated under different circumstances. But if, at any time, it was formulated, it would be a viable organism. Now, of course that organism may not survive for various reasons, but it would be "birthed" so to speak.

Therefore, those sequences that are birthed could be formulated by a DNA random number generator. It just randomly create sequences until it hits a viable one, and an organism is birthed.

 

[pitabread]

Therefore, those sequences that are birthed could be formulated by a DNA random number generator. It just randomly create sequences until it hits a viable one, and an organism is birthed.

Except that isn't how organisms develop. There is more to it than just a strand of DNA.

At any rate, I still don't see how any of this is supposed to challenge modern evolutionary theory. We just seem to be going off on a weird tangent.

 

[Resha Caner]

Except that isn't how organisms develop. There is more to it than just a strand of DNA.

Yes, I know, but ...

At any rate, I still don't see how any of this is supposed to challenge modern evolutionary theory. We just seem to be going off on a weird tangent.

... I was hoping you might engage in a little thought experiment. When Schrodinger put his cat in a box, that was a little weird as well. But people didn't say, "That's not how QM works. You don't need cats, and ..." I guess I don't know for sure. I wasn't there when the example was first given. Maybe there were some accusations of heavy drinking involved with that little thought experiment as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.



Exactly. We agree on that, then. All viable sequences for every organism that ever has lived or ever will live have been viable sequences across all time.

No, that is clearly not supported by the evidence. You will not find a fossil of Fred riding a dinosaur. That is not how biology works.

I wasn't asking if my sequence physically existed at the beginning of time, but whether my sequence represents a viable organism across all time. I think it does.

Okay, this is worded rather strangely. But if you think that all genetic information was always in existence this is not supported by the evidence.

Sure. My sequence may not have been formulated under different circumstances. But if, at any time, it was formulated, it would be a viable organism. Now, of course that organism may not survive for various reasons, but it would be "birthed" so to speak.

Still a very odd statement that only rates a "So what?"

Therefore, those sequences that are birthed could be formulated by a DNA random number generator. It just randomly create sequences until it hits a viable one, and an organism is birthed.

Again, this is not what is observed in nature. It is a very odd statement and it looks as if you are creating an ad hoc argument that is both untestable and not what is observed in nature. It would be in the category of "Not even wrong."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know, but ...



... I was hoping you might engage in a little thought experiment. When Schrodinger put his cat in a box, that was a little weird as well. But people didn't say, "That's not how QM works. You don't need cats, and ..." I guess I don't know for sure. I wasn't there when the example was first given. Maybe there were some accusations of heavy drinking involved with that little thought experiment as well.

You do not understand the experiment. Its purpose was not to test the theory. It was not an experiment in that sense. It was constructed to help people to understand quantum physics.

 

[Resha Caner]

Its purpose was not to test the theory.

Nor was my example.

 

[46AND2]

Yes, I know, but ...



... I was hoping you might engage in a little thought experiment. When Schrodinger put his cat in a box, that was a little weird as well. But people didn't say, "That's not how QM works. You don't need cats, and ..." I guess I don't know for sure. I wasn't there when the example was first given. Maybe there were some accusations of heavy drinking involved with that little thought experiment as well.

Trying to follow along...it appears what you are getting at is that complex organisms can emerge through horizontal gene transfer in no particular order. I.e. dinosaurs before fish, and without genetic inheritance, but more or less spontaneously out of a sufficiently complex existing gene pool. My apologies if this misses the mark, I've only had time to skim the conversation.

 

[Jimmy D]

A polar bear and a grizzly bear adapted to the region they live in. I'm sure everyone can agree with this.

The problem is: Did the grizzly bear come from a fish from a pond 2 billion years ago?

The earth is about 4 billion years old. Is this enough time to go from a one cell organism to US?

First, I apologise for my earlier snarkiness, something you said rubbed me up the wrong way but you have acted in a polite manner throughout the thread and it should be reciprocated.

In answer to your question, I would direct you to the fossil record. It may not be complete, but it certainly offers an overall view of the timescale and chronological order of the diversity of life.

 

[solid_core]

There is no evidence that *ANY* creature is a goal of the evolutionary process. Claiming that some creature is a goal of evolution or the development/creation of species is the "metaphysical" claim.

I agree. And claiming that any creature was not a goal of the process is also metaphysical claim.

Logically, its very obvious that everything that exists exists because some cause lead to it. So nothing is random and everything is certain to happen based on causes. If you will have a specific mutation in specific time in specific conditions, you will get certain specific outcome. The supposed chance or randomnes is only because we cannot see the full complex of the universe at once.

 

[solid_core]

No, that is an unwarranted assumption. If you want to make a claim that something was predetermined the burden of proof is upon you. I have doubts that you could support that belief.

And quantum mechanics implies that true randomness does exist. One cannot definitively claim that the universe is a clockwork one. On a macro level the universe appears clockwork but as we peel the onion we ultimately find that is an unjustified belief.

Christian belief is very well justified. And that nothing is random is a natural and necessary outcome of Christian faith. And even of natural theology (no special revelation needed, just reason).

Quantum mechanics is random to us, humans. Not to God. But quantum mechanics as such is quite a good proof that materialism and all its atheistic implications have been wrong from the beginning.