What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[Al Touthentop]

I'm not familiar with that one. I was thinking more in terms of, say, the theory of relativity. To be considered a scientific theory, a proposition has be be relatively well evidenced. I don't think that's true of your DNA idea.

The authors of the (Berkley) study were at least dealing with one of the glaring holes in the theory. Mainly, an advanced cryptological system (DNA/RNA) is required first before life can exist. Now they claim that DNA/RNA - "are simply nucleotide proteins" whistling past the fact that they are in fact coded instructions no matter how "simple" their biological make up is and that in each organism the code is so complex that it contains the instructions for creating every cell and organ in its body. The DNA inside a liver cell, won't cause the liver to produce a skin cell or a kidney cell. Even a single celled organism is incredibly complex. It eats, poops and reproduces and all of the information which allows it to do so is driven by the DNA.

So they came up with the idea that the DNA came first (it has to) and that it rained down from the clouds into the ocean and thus the first organisms were created. It isn't possible for evolution to have produced DNA. It requires a designer.

 

[Hammster]

How the theory of evolution makes historical Adam impossible? It only defines how his body got into existence scientifically instead of mythologically.

Your “science” opposes God's “mythology”.

 

[solid_core]

Your “science” opposes God's “mythology”.

Science is not "mine" and mythology is not "God's".

Both science and mythology are human ways of describing things, mythology was practiced till 300 BC when first philosophy arrived and science is there from 16th century AD.

If Paul lived today, he would use the Big Bang or quantum mechanics to illustrate his theological points. He was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to Greeks.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Yes, speciation has been observed.

No it hasn't. If you're going to bring out the moth canard, those moths already had the DNA coded traits which allowed for the alleged changes. In point of fact though, it's likely that there was no change at all and the moths were simply stained with soot, not changing their colors.

If that's not what you're talking about. Give me a cite.

The development of bisexual reproduction is well understood if you would actually care to learn about it.

The change from asexual to sexual reproduction is just not possible. Your statement there is unresponsive. We understand how it works. What we don't understand is how it would be possible for a trial and error system produce a change in reproduction without causing the extinction of the species. You answered none of my points at all. To change from one form of reproduction to another requires not only a massive change in the DNA (it can't be done in a piecemeal fashion) it requires the education of the species to understand how reproduction now works. An animal that is born with a penis or vagina from an animal that asexually produced it, has no instinct or knowledge about what that organ is for. Their parent didn't have one.

Then you also have to deal with the fact that the parent has to produce TWO sexed offspring which now understand that they are to mate. The evolutionary theory doesn't even TRY to answer that question.

With plants its worse. If any of the species they depend on to pollinate them haven't yet emerged, they go extinct if in fact it was possible for them to be generated in the first place.

 

[pitabread]

It doesn't. You have faith that it does. There has been no observed change in species or transition to another species in history.

Of course there have been observed changes in species. This is why I said one needs to be willing to understand the science.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

Riddle me this. How could it be possible for a species to transition from asexual to sexual beyond a single generation? How does an unsexed species transform to sexed? You have to have perfect separation of x and y chromosomes where once the two were contained in one organism. You have to then also generate a mechanism by which the two now sexed pairs, know that they have to have sex to reproduce and know how to do it. Where does that knowledge come from? The seperation of x and y in the DNA ensures extinction of there isn't cooperation between the now sexed pairs.

Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia

It's also worth noting that reproduction in nature is not strictly sexual or asexual. Some species that can do both. Some species also can change sex.

The world of reproduction is a lot more varied and interesting that way.

 

[Hammster]

Science is not "mine" and mythology is not "God's".

Both science and mythology are human ways of describing things, mythology was practiced till 300 BC when first philosophy arrived and science is there from 16th century AD.

If Paul lived today, he would use the Big Bang or quantum mechanics to illustrate his theological points. He was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to Greeks.

Since the Holy Spirit doesn’t change, you are wrong on that front.

 

[Al Touthentop]

This is why I subscribe to the concept of non-overlapping magisteria - God cannot be examined scientifically.

Quantum theory would tend to support your thinking. Whenever we try to find out too much, we lose what information we once had (Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

 

[solid_core]

Since the Holy Spirit doesn’t change, you are wrong on that front.

But the Holy Spirit is neither mythology nor some specific way of description of things in human history.

The Holy Spirit inspired some men in history to present the path of salvation, but the vocabulary and way of describing things was of those men. Some tribal person living in Babylon could not use our current language.

 

[pitabread]

With plants its worse. If any of the species they depend on to pollinate them haven't yet emerged, they go extinct if in fact it was possible for them to be generated in the first place.

The evolution of symbiotic relationships is another fascinating topic in the theory of evolution. The key to understanding how these relationships evolve is to understand that species continually evolve in response to one another.

If you wanted to understand the science behind it, you can start reading all about it: Coevolution - Wikipedia

 

[Sparagmos]

If they want to put creationism on a scientific footing, that's exactly what they have to do. A book is not scientific evidence of anything. The Bible is not scientific evidence of creationism any more than Darwin's Origin of Species is scientific evidence of evolution. As it stands, creationism is not science. It rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and science wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. If you don't care, and want to believe in creationism just because it says so in the Bible, that's fine. but if you want to call it science then you have to make a scientific case for it.

Could one also say that it’s not science if the people producing the evidence are not willing to change their beliefs based on new evidence? Science is a process and in my view the process cannot be legitimate if the “scientist” only accepts data or evidence that supports their beliefs.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Of course there have been observed changes in species. This is why I said one needs to be willing to understand the science.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

This is only evidence that they discovered a new species, not that it had come from the previously known species. They haven't documented the change because nobody observed the change. They only discovered a new flower that they hadn't seen before. To say that you know how it came into existence by mere discovery of it is circular logic.

It's also worth noting that reproduction in nature is not strictly sexual or asexual. There are some species that can do both. There are examples of species that can change sex.

The world of reproduction is a lot more varied than you may think.

Yes, certain amphibians can switch sexes. This proves nothing since that feature is limited to those species. It can't happen in a mammal unless it is an egg laying mammal. Sex requires complex cooperative organs. The theories on how that can evolve are ridiculous. It's far too complex a problem to evolve without a mistake creating extinction. Not a huge mistake either. Tiny.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Science is not "mine" and mythology is not "God's".

Both science and mythology are human ways of describing things, mythology was practiced till 300 BC when first philosophy arrived and science is there from 16th century AD.

If Paul lived today, he would use the Big Bang or quantum mechanics to illustrate his theological points. He was a Jew to Jews and a Greek to Greeks.

You can't claim that with any certainty. But all truth is God's whether it is discovered in a lab or preached in a pulpit. Paul preached what the Holy Spirit directed him to preach.

 

[Speedwell]

Could one also say that it’s not science if the people producing the evidence are not willing to change their beliefs based on new evidence? Science is a process and in my view the process cannot be legitimate if the “scientist” only accepts data or evidence that supports their beliefs.

That's why creation "scientists" are not really scientists.

 

[solid_core]

You can't claim that with any certainty. But all truth is God's whether it is discovered in a lab or preached in a pulpit. Paul preached what the Holy Spirit directed him to preach.

What cannot I claim with any certainity? That the book of Genesis was written in mythological era and therefore its not a scientific, but mythological description?

 

[Al Touthentop]

The evolution of symbiotic relationships is another fascinating topic in the theory of evolution. The key to understanding how these relationships evolve is to understand that species continually evolve in response to one another.

Something not observed but conjectured.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

 

[Hammster]

But the Holy Spirit is neither mythology nor some specific way of description of things in human history.

The Holy Spirit inspired some men in history to present the path of salvation, but the vocabulary and way of describing things was of those men. Some tribal person living in Babylon could not use our current language.

It’s really a useless argument since He write it when He did.

 

[Al Touthentop]

What cannot I claim with any certainity? That the book of Genesis was written in mythological era and therefore its not a scientific, but mythological description?

That Paul would have preached the big bang theory (which has it's own glaring holes).

 

[Speedwell]

His use affirms a literal historical Adam and Noah.

Perhaps so; but it says nothing about the literal inerrancy of the texts themselves.

 

[solid_core]

It’s really a useless argument since He write it when He did.

God did not write the Bible. Men did.

And as God did not write that we think in our bellies or that sky is a solid dome, so He also did not write that men are from the dust of the earth. Men did.

God inspired the path of salvation, men used their language to describe it.

 

[Al Touthentop]

That's why creation "scientists" are not really scientists.

'The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings us closer to the secret of the Old One,’ wrote Albert Einstein in December 1926. ‘I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice.’- Albert Einstein.

Obviously not a scientist.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Perhaps so; but it says nothing about the literal inerrancy of the texts themselves.

If they are errant, then the whole thing is errant.