When did you decide to become a creationist?

[Patashu]

By the way, the early Earth atmosphere was, in fact, similar to the conditions in the Urey-Miller experiment.

http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4348
http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/5513.html

I wonder who told you otherwise?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So I take it nobody is still clinging to Darwinism ToE because of molecular biology?

I believe in the ToE because of the vast plethora of evidences that support it, some of which comes from molecular biology.

Almost like taking half a step toward creation theory. Like how many evolutionists have now chosen to remain agnostic on the actual origin of life, and will try to dodge the issue by claiming that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.

The ToE has never been touted as an explanation for the origin of life. There is a reason Darwin's book was called On the origin of species.

Because life seems to be a miracle.

And clouds seem to be in the shape of faces. But these do not mean that life is a miracle, or that clouds are faces.

I guess most of what I posted stands anyway.

I would appreciate it if you responded to my post, in which I argued to the contrary.

Please! True science is good. Only evil is the pretence that science is always checking itself within itself, when no one likes to be wrong, even scientists. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment,

Because the experiment did show that amino acids can spontaneously form. Indeed, the fact that the 'atmosphere' used likely differed somewhat from early Earth's atmosphere merely bolsters the argument that life can spontaneously form: the conditions are not that precise, and life is more probable than ever.

and the origin of life remains a mystery?

They are not a mystery. Subsequent experiments akin to the Miller-Urey ones that take into accoutn the modern idea of early Earth's atmosphere still produce amino acids.

Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

I won't post the whole thing, so just read this article. Suffice to say it quells the 'explosion' strawman.

 

[JamesDaJust]

What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

Anthony Flew:

The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
http://www.tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Just Kidding. I know.

 

[JamesDaJust]

what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

For Dal M. http://www.podomatic.com/people/index/intelligentdesign

 

[JamesDaJust]

and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

Ex-Athiest / Evolutionist testimony

How DNA led him to Jesus
After spending thousands for college, and being convinced that evolution was correct, someone gave him a 50 cent cassette tape with a christian sermon about creation on it.. hear the humorous and telling story of a former atheist/evolutionist and how he came the Jesus.
Website:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=11306211835&sourceID=musicalgardens

Download mp3:
http://mp3.sa-media.com/media/11306211835/11306211835.mp3

 

[JamesDaJust]

and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

When people logically speak truth it is the right choice.

http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htmhttp://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski.ram

I especially like the The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski.

Hard to get to play that one and you need realplayer.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/media/berlinski.ram

 

[Dal M.]

(snip unsourced quote)

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3191

 

[Army of Juan]

Why don't textbooks discuss the "Cambrian explosion," in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

They don't discuss it because this isn't true. There are no mammals, fish, reptiles, ect found during the 5+ million yr "explosion".

 

[JamesDaJust]

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3191

"ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. "

How else can we get true science back in public school?

The Future Teachers Conditional Scholarship and Loan Repayment program is designed to encourage outstanding students and paraprofessionals to become teachers, and to encourage current teachers to obtain additional endorsements in teacher shortage subjects.
To be eligible for this program, you must meet the following criteria:

Be a resident student of Washington state;
Plan to complete an approved program leading to a residency teacher certificate or an additional shortage subject endorsement;
Plan to be employed as a certificated classroom teacher in Washington K-12 public schools;
Plan to attend an eligible college at least half-time;
You must not be pursuing or planning to pursue a degree in theology;
Submit a complete application to us by the October 12, 2007 deadline.


For Dal M.
http://www.hecb.wa.gov/paying/waaidprgm/future.asp

 

[JamesDaJust]

They don't discuss it because this isn't true. There are no mammals, fish, reptiles, ect found during the 5+ million yr "explosion".

The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
This to me has more eveidence for my belief in the gap theory. IMO

 

[MoonLancer]

...

If fox doesen't support you... noone will.

LOL

 

[MoonLancer]

The real fact that emerges from examination of the fossil record is that living things emerged in the periods most suitable for them. God has designed all creatures superbly, and has made them well-suited to meet their needs at the times when they emerged on the Earth.
This to me has more eveidence for my belief in the gap theory. IMO

isn't it much simpler to say that life on earth arose because conditions supported its uprise.. Those who could not stand the environment died, while those who lived continued to do so and ensured their dynasty would be forever written?

Think of a building with no builders. Lets also assume these buildings reproduce and change every generation. Lets also assume the Environment has a deciding factor on what traits are favorable.

each generation the building will slowly be built. Random? Ha!

 

[Dal M.]

For Dal M.
http://www.hecb.wa.gov/paying/waaidprgm/future.asp

Why is this for me?

 

[Patashu]

In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.

The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.

Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

For Dal M. http://www.podomatic.com/people/index/intelligentdesign

You forgot that evolution can add parts but also change parts or remove parts. If something is irreducibly complex, perhaps that's because all the unnecessary bits already got weeded out?

 

[Dal M.]

IMO it's both.

So it's the sort of dogma that changes all the time, huh? That's a neat trick.

I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.

And what is tautological about evolution?

Can you prove evolution true?

No; science doesn't prove things. The available evidence certainly points toward evolution, though.

Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.

Please demonstrate this. It seems to me that evolution is perfectly sufficient to explain the current diversity of life.

Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?

Don't think so. If you're aware of any, give me the specifics - I'll write the publishers.

Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?

Yes, apart from the "dogma" bit. Science teachers who use their positions as pulpits for creationism should be fired, as should Holocaust-denying history teachers and math teachers who claim that there's no such thing as subtraction.

Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?

Enforcers? What are you talking about?

Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?

Well, I won't disagree that there's an element of brainwashing here, but that's coming from the group that objects to scientific theories on religious grounds.

Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?

There's such a thing as irreducible complexity, yes, and evolution is capable of generating it.

Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?

Scientists question the theory of evolution continually. If you're wondering why your objections to evolution aren't being considered by the scientific establishment, it's because your arguments are without merit.

Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.

Demonstrate this, please. It seems that mutations produce new information all the time.

What's wrong with truthful science?

I think I know what creationists have against it - the truths science uncovers conflict with the preconceived capital-T "Truths "that they're unwilling to abandon, even when they've been shown to be in opposition to reality.

 

[consol]

"ID may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. "

How else can we get true science back in public school?

The Future Teachers Conditional Scholarship and Loan Repayment program is designed to encourage outstanding students and paraprofessionals to become teachers, and to encourage current teachers to obtain additional endorsements in teacher shortage subjects.
To be eligible for this program, you must meet the following criteria:

Be a resident student of Washington state;
Plan to complete an approved program leading to a residency teacher certificate or an additional shortage subject endorsement;
Plan to be employed as a certificated classroom teacher in Washington K-12 public schools;
Plan to attend an eligible college at least half-time;
You must not be pursuing or planning to pursue a degree in theology;
Submit a complete application to us by the October 12, 2007 deadline.

I completely agree with you, taking a degree in theology should not be a reason to stop someone
applying for a job in teaching.

I think all children should be taught about the religions of the world,
Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, every religion should be taught, I know it won't leave much time for
other subjects, but at least their souls will be well catered for, and no religion should be left out,
in this multi race world it's only fair that we should give our kids every chance to pick a religion they like and want,
and it will also give them an insight into other cultures, it will open their horizons,
well it will open their religious horizons, they we be as dumb as can be, but their God will love them.

Could you please hold off doing it for another 5 or 10 years,
it won't bother me so much then, and my grand children will be grown up.

 

[NailsII]

When I got saved when I was 15 years old, I knew that evolution was not compatible with the bible. I was automatically an Old Earth Creationist.

RichardT, does this mean that you believe in evolution?
Yet you have demonstrated a belief in a geocentric universe because of biblical quotes.
Without wishing to pick on you or single you out, (but I am going to) you have, on many occasions previously, stated that if science contradicts the bible, then science is basically wrong:

The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.
Scripture doesn't tell us that we are the center of the universe, but it does tell us that the earth doesn't move and that the sun goes around the earth. He would do this because the bible says so, and the bible is meant to be truthful. I take it as a priori.

Having to admit defeat and state that earth centered system is simply some useless non-inertial reference frame, where the earth would still orbit the sun would make me feel like a biblical skeptic, that is off limits to me. I believe the bible.

Wasn't that what my thread was about in the first place? I've told you why I believed in Geocentricity before. Bible says sun goes around earth.

So how can evolution be correct? OT has an approx. timeline from creation which has been interpreted to mean that the earth is around 6,000 years old. This is tottaly incompatable with modern science, so how an the bible be correct?
Are you changing your view of the world (I hope so)

 

[flicka]

When I got saved when I was 15 years old, I knew that evolution was not compatible with the bible. I was automatically an Old Earth Creationist

This pretty much sums it up: automatically. I think everyone I've known who has thought themselves to be a creationist (very few and even then only temporarily) has done so automatically. That is, without knowledge on the subject and just assuming it's what they had to say in order to be a real Christan.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I completely agree with you, taking a degree in theology should not be a reason to stop someone
applying for a job in teaching.

I think all children should be taught about the religions of the world,
Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, every religion should be taught, I know it won't leave much time for
other subjects, but at least their souls will be well catered for, and no religion should be left out,
in this multi race world it's only fair that we should give our kids every chance to pick a religion they like and want,
and it will also give them an insight into other cultures, it will open their horizons,
well it will open their religious horizons, they we be as dumb as can be, but their God will love them.

Could you please hold off doing it for another 5 or 10 years,
it won't bother me so much then, and my grand children will be grown up.

The no theology students is because governmental aid is not available for religion studies in general, this is due to the establishment clause interpretations, it has nothing to do with keeping religious people out of teaching.

 

[NailsII]

In recent years, biologists have discovered an exquisite world of nanotechnology within living cells - complex circuits, sliding clamps, energy-generating turbines and miniature machines. For example, bacterial cells are propelled by rotary engines called flagellar motors that rotate at 100,000rpm. These engines look like they were designed by engineers, with many distinct mechanical parts (made of proteins), including rotors, stators, O-rings, bushings, U-joints and drive shafts.
The biochemist Michael Behe points out that the flagellar motor depends on the co-ordinated function of 30 protein parts. Remove one of these proteins and the rotary motor doesn't work. The motor is, in Behe's words, "irreducibly complex".
This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.
Natural selection purportedly builds complex systems from simpler structures by preserving a series of intermediates, each of which must perform some function. With the flagellar motor, most of the critical intermediate structures perform no function for selection to preserve. This leaves the origin of the flagellar motor unexplained by the mechanism - natural selection - that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis.
Is there a better explanation? Based on our uniform experience, we know of only one type of cause that produces irreducibly complex systems: intelligence. Whenever we encounter complex systems - whether integrated circuits or internal combustion engines - and we know how they arose, invariably a designing intelligence played a role.

Intelligent design is an illusion. Things look too complicate to have arisen by chance because if chance alone was responsible, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
Bacterial flagella. Simple really, have a look at a type IV secretory system.
You'll find they are made up of similar components. For a great explaination of why ID is wrong, click on this link to see Dr. Miller talk about the Dover trial. Note the good doctor gave evidence at that trial, and his testimony was sufficient to debunk Behe's misconceptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&mode=related&search=
There are things that are "irreducibly complex" and will cease to function when taken apart, or built with pieces missing. Logic tells us that. But evolution doesn't work in this manner, gradual steps are involved over many generations.
Just imagine how engines have been modified by human designers over the last hundred years, what works has continued and what can be improved has been discarded. The main difference is that we still have evidence of genetic information that no longer works, like redundant genes for haemoglobin or vitamin C sysnthesis. Also intelligent design would enable the re-invention of parts from scratch, evolution cannnot do this.
But at the end of the day, humans have not been intelligently designed. Our spines are insufficient for upright walking, our cartlidge is too weak and our immune systems insufficient to fight off many diseases. Our eyes are very badly designed, incorporating a blind spot as well as having to endure light passing through the blood vessels, a totally unnessessary situation.
It is obvious that you will not understand how it works unless you study the evidence, andI do not have the time to real off a great list for you to read and watch here.
If you don't have the mental capacity to envisage such a system that takes millions of years then that is fine. But there really is a mountain of evidence to support this theory.
And by the way, Darwin's theory was also at odds with Lamark's idea of modification.