Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

[AV1611VET]

This video that you keep citing used only peanut butter as a specific example.

So?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you are claiming that he is correct, but just used a poor example with the jar of peanut butter?

He could have used a jar of marbles, and his point would still be the same; would it not?

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

So?

I gave the "so" part in the second half of my post that you cut out.

 

[CabVet]

He could have used a jar of marbles, and his point would still be the same; would it not?

Likewise, Split Rock's response would be the same.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your assessment reminds me of an excellent comment posted by Dr. David Levin, a microbiology professor at Boston University, on an Amazon.com discussion forum in response to a Young Earth Creationist who proudly posted a poll which claimed that some 47% of all Americans deny the theory of evolution. Dr. Levin wrote something like "In science, the ignorant don't get a veto. Your opinion simply doesn't matter. Science cares about EVIDENCE."

Oh, my ... is this a good time to bring up the Pluto vote or what?

Dr. Levin needs to wake up.

It appears the non-ignorant don't, either.

 

[Split Rock]

He could have used a jar of marbles, and his point would still be the same; would it not?

Actually, yes it would. So much for Missler's argument, eh?

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, my ... is this a good time to bring up the Pluto vote or what?

It appears the non-ignorant don't, either.

No, you should bring up the space shuttle instead. "Go at throttle up!"

 

[CabVet]

Oh, my ... is this a good time to bring up the Pluto vote or what?

Dr. Levin needs to wake up.

It appears the non-ignorant don't, either.

That's only true for those who want to call hundreds of rocks in the solar system "planets".

 

[Loudmouth]

[/COLOR]
Please ignore abiogenesis and the lack of scientific evidence of benevolent mutations generating new genetic information.

Abiogenesis is a separate question. No one is ignoring it. We just realize that theories explain a subset of the data. Evolution covers how life changed over time. Evolution is not a theory that describes how life can come about. The Germ Theory of Disease does not describe how germs came about. The Pauli Exclusion Theory does not explain where matter came from. Relativity does not explain where gravity came from. Need I go on?

There are literally hundreds and hundreds of theories you accept as true that do not explain the origin of the systems that they describe. So why are you making a big stink about Evolution not explaining the origin of life? Care to explain? Why should it?

Also, if you want to see examples of beneficial mutations then compare the human and chimp genome. Amongst those differences are mutations that were beneficial in each lineage.

Nope. Antibiodies destroy germs. It requires a combination of germs and a depleated immune system, which can happen if you have a large quantuity of germs. It's an oversimplification to say the germs cause disease.

How can you use the germ theory of disease to explain infections when the germ theory of disease does not explain abiogenesis?

To my knowledge, nobody has ever come onto a Christian forum and stated that God doesn't exist and the Bible is mythology because he believed that the the Germ Theory disproved it all.

So?

To the extent that any belief system supplants theology, that system BECOMES theology.

That's hogwash. Norse theology had Thor making thunder. Does that make the science of meteorology a theology? Do you even think these things through?

Straw man argument. Nobody has proposed discarding observed biology.

Yes, you have. The Germ Theory of Disease does not explain how life got here, so we have to throw it out, according to you.

Evolution has never been observed,

Yes, it has. We have even observed macroevolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and it relies on a process that doesn't exist in nature; namely the sutogeneration of new genetic material and the encoding of such material into the reproductive system. Evolution relies on benevolent mutations which have been observed and documented with less frequency than Bigfoot.

We observe mutation, natural selection, and speciation. All of the mechanisms have been observed. Evolution is observational science.

It's both an answer AND a belief.

Then describe the process step by step.

None of them, because no mutation has ever been shown to advance a species, only allow for adaptation due to a change of diet ot climate. DNA encodes physical characteristics. Between two beings with 99% of the same characteristics, what percentage of DNA should be the same?
BTW. A common Creator is 100% consistant with everything claimed by a common progenitor.

So the DNA differences between humans and chimps do not benefit humans and chimps?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's only true for those who want to call hundreds of rocks in the solar system "planets".

Wrong focus.

Pluto was still our 9th planet during the lockout vote.

 

[Loudmouth]

However, it's a moot point since it's biologically AND CHEMICALLY impossible for amino acids to form protiens even under the most perfectly controlled circumstances;

Then how can your cells do it if it is impossible?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, my ... is this a good time to bring up the Pluto vote or what?

They didn't vote on Pluto. They voted on a new definition for a planet.

 

[verysincere]

They didn't vote on Pluto. They voted on a new definition for a planet.

Some of the aforementioned posts would make even the most traditional creationist cringe with embarrassment. (Some of the fact-free comments posted on this thread should surely come with some sort of disclaimer for rational readers. Sometimes I feel embarrassed for even the extended families of some of the authors who proudly post in such a manner.)

The term "dis-educational" comes to mind. (The claim that amino acids can't form proteins is a doozie if I ever saw one.)

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because I returned to this forum to gather more data for my study of Young Earth Creationist beliefs.

Then why aren't you posting here?

http://www.christianforums.com/f425/

Creationism The subforum for young-earth and other creationist members.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Then why aren't you posting here?

http://www.christianforums.com/f425/

Perhaps because he is free to post where he pleases, and because debating with creationists is a good way to analyze their religious views?

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps because he is free to post where he pleases, and because debating with creationists is a good way to analyze their religious views?

Then perhaps I'll feel free to take this:

Because I returned to this forum to gather more data for my study of Young Earth Creationist beliefs.

... with a grain of salt.

 

[Person of]

16: Atheists, the tide goes in, and out. YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT!! SO GOD MUST HAVE DONE IT!!!

 

[CabVet]

Then why aren't you posting here?

http://www.christianforums.com/f425/

I am with you, that is probably the best place to discuss and learn about YEC theology if you are a Christian.

 

[RainbowDashIsBestPony]

Then perhaps I'll feel free to take this:

... with a grain of salt.

Please enlighten me as to why. My post in no way contradicts his.

 

[CabVet]

Please enlighten me as to why. My post in no way contradicts his.

No, no, your post doesn't contradict his. AV is simply asking why he posts only here when there is an entire other area of the forum dedicated exclusively to YEC theology. And he did say he was here to better understand and debate YEC reasoning.

EDIT: Come to think of it, maybe I know what the reason is. If you Google "creation versus evolution", you will get many hits to this place, that is how I found it. But I have been here for about 1 year and had no idea about this other "YEC" forum area for Christians only. So, perhaps he started posting here and didn't know there was this other forum area full of YECs.