Why Young Earthers should be more honest

[Arikay]

So everyone who gets a royal straight flush (I believe thats what its called) is cheating?

Today at 02:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674599#post674599)

If I played a game of cards and someone came up with a hand with those sort of odds, my conclusion would be that someone had tampered with the cards. These examples demonstrate that evolution is not simply highly improbable, it is impossible.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 01:35 PM Arikay said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674410#post674410)

The difference is that many creationist claims have been shown to be false, or missinterpretations. When its pointed out to them, they ignore it, and go on spreading the lie (for the good of creation, I guess.).

Or from our perspective we're not as gullible as those who have allowed themselves to accept evolution as 'fact'. To suggest the notion that man evolved from a single cell is scientific fact is nonsense, and demonstrates the dishonesty of those who promote this absurd idea.

Those who promote this notion should recognise there are no cases where random changes in DNA (mutations) have resulted in the increased complexity required to achieve the scale of evolution proposed. It hasn't been observed to occur on either a large sale or small scale.

I have observed some attempts to demonstrate this is the case on this forum, but they all get lost in scientific jargon. If evolution was a reality, you'd expect to see an abundance of examples where this can be seen to occur. That is not the case! Not even in one instance.

 

[chickenman]

it has though micaiah, thats the hole in your argument

every process required for increased information has been observed

I like that you refer to the thousands of qualified and practising biologists who accept evolution as "gullible".

 

[Micaiah]

So where is the evidence. Give us the clear evidence that we can all look at and say, gee, there's no doubt about it. We must have evolved from a singe cell. The fact is the evidence just isn't there. What we get is make believe stories, or extreme examples that those who know the jargon promote as being the real thing. That is wh you get these annoying YEC who refuse to accept the dubious stories. They refuse to accept the lie just because it is popular.

Have there been other cases in the history of man where the popular scientific notion has been proven wrong?

 

[chickenman]

yes, flat earth was disproved, as was geocentrism

there are probably others that didn't face religious opposition - those are the ones that stick in my mind

The evidence that evolution has happened is in the genomes - the evidence that information increases are possible is in the form of observed instances of duplication

 

[kaotic]

Today at 06:19 AM Micaiah said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674621#post674621)

So where is the evidence. Give us the clear evidence that we can all look at and say, gee, there's no doubt about it. We must have evolved from a singe cell. The fact is the evidence just isn't there. What we get is make believe stories, or extreme examples that those who know the jargon promote as being the real thing. That is wh you get these annoying YEC who refuse to accept the dubious stories. They refuse to accept the lie just because it is popular.

Have there been other cases in the history of man where the popular scientific notion has been proven wrong?

The evidence has been shown on this forum so many times that it's crazy. But I guess evidence that we show isn't good enough. I mean what's the deal we show you evidence but it's not good enough for you. It's not made up stories; science isn't about making up stories just to make "creationist" ask where's the evidence. If you don't understand the evidence that is a different story, but don't say it's made up. I'm not saying you personally don't understand because you probably do but you think its wrong based on your religious beliefs; and I guess that is ok.

Now if you expect us to show you evidence to a human giving birth to a new species then we can't give you that. But I’m guess that is the only kind of evidence you would accept. I guess that's all I’m going to say because I’m sick.

 

[Arikay]

LoL.

Micaiah, this is exactly what people have been asking you to do. To show us your evidence that you keep talking about. Yet you dodge the question every time (at least that I have asked). Why is that?

As far as evidence for evolution, look down bellow, I posted a thread asking for it. There are some rather large but interesting things written in it. Much more so than when I asked for evidence for creationism.

Today at 03:19 AM Micaiah said this in Post #24 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674621#post674621)

So where is the evidence. Give us the clear evidence that we can all look at and say, gee, there's no doubt about it. We must have evolved from a singe cell. The fact is the evidence just isn't there. What we get is make believe stories, or extreme examples that those who know the jargon promote as being the real thing. That is wh you get these annoying YEC who refuse to accept the dubious stories. They refuse to accept the lie just because it is popular.

Have there been other cases in the history of man where the popular scientific notion has been proven wrong?

 

[gentu]

There is no conspiracy. The age of the earth has been known rather accurately for over two hundred years, and is now known to be around 4,500,000,000 years. Ninety-nine percent of the world's population, people of all backgrounds, Christians and non-Christians alike, accept the beautiful notion that our world has incredible depth and is very old. This fact really has no bearing on spirituality. It is simply the nature of how things are.

I am not biased. I am also a creationist. However, the age of the earth is known to me and is not an issue. As a computer programmer and engineer, I am very familiar with manmade things. It is easy to fabricate something that has a purpose. What is difficult in computer programming is to lay down the rules of a simulation that will create itself. I think that it is amazing how God chose to bring forth intelligence and complexity simply by laying down the rules of physics. This is the true beauty of Creation.

 

[notto]

Today at 10:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674599#post674599)

If I played a game of cards and someone came up with a hand with those sort of odds, my conclusion would be that someone had tampered with the cards. These examples demonstrate that evolution is not simply highly improbable, it is impossible.

So, why does someone always win the lottery? It has higher odds than that. Is someone cheating?

 

[Gracchus]

Today at 02:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20

If I played a game of cards and someone came up with a hand with those sort of odds, my conclusion would be that someone had tampered with the cards. These examples demonstrate that evolution is not simply highly improbable, it is impossible.

But every hand dealt has the same probability as any other.  Your failure to understand this, even when it  has been repeatedly pointed out, would seem to indicate that you are laboring under the influence of some mental defect.  Because of this obvious (to others) defect you falsely accuse others of deception. 




 

 

[Gooch's dad]

Micaiah, you said that when the scientific evidence for evolution is presented, 'they get lost in scientific jargon'. Who gets lost? We aren't lost. Are you lost?

In other words, just because you don't understand the scientific explanations, you claim that all scientists are wrong about evolution and you are right? Are you serious with that argument?

The probability argument that gives an exponent of 40,000 is Hoyle's, and isn't based on biochemistry. Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biochemist, and the probability calculation he did was for a bunch of proteins randomly coming together to form a cell.

No biochemist thinks that is how the first life formed. Cells were preceded by proto-cells, by protobionts, and by self-replicating protein structures with as few as 40 amino acids. If you do the probability calculation for such a self-replicator, you get quite reasonable odds for abiogenesis.

Good thread topic.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 06:04 AM Micaiah said this in Post #22

Or from our perspective we're not as gullible as those who have allowed themselves to accept evolution as 'fact'.

In the sense that we do observe changes in allele frequencies in populations over time from generation to generation, which is biological evolution, it is a fact.

In the case of the proposed mechanisms for this process, that falls under the heading of the theory of evolution.

To suggest the notion that man evolved from a single cell is scientific fact is nonsense, and demonstrates the dishonesty of those who promote this absurd idea.

Is it absurd because you have evidence that falsifies evolution, or is it absurd because your interpretation of your religion comprising your religious beliefs (taken entirely on blind faith) does not permit you to accept the theory of evolution regardless of how well substantiated it is?

 

[Cantuar]

To suggest the notion that man evolved from a single cell is scientific fact is nonsense, and demonstrates the dishonesty of those who promote this absurd idea.

What's so nonsensical about it? At which stage in the process of the development of multicellular lifeforms does the scientific explanation break down so badly that you're throwing around accusations of dishonesty?

Those who promote this notion should recognise there are no cases where random changes in DNA (mutations) have resulted in the increased complexity required to achieve the scale of evolution proposed. It hasn't been observed to occur on either a large sale or small scale.

Yes it has. Examples have been shown of single genes or gene clusters having large effects on development. Examples have been shown of increased complexity of various systems as a result of gene duplication. No examples have been shown of this mysterious barrier that creationists claim stops these processes occurring sufficiently often to result in large changes over deep time. Your objection to the natural processes, and your insistence on this barrier, are based on scripture, not science. To pass them off as scientific objections is the sort of dishonesty that prompted this thread in the forst place.

I have observed some attempts to demonstrate this is the case on this forum, but they all get lost in scientific jargon.

Well, there's nothing stopping you learning enough science and scientific terminology to follow along or to ask people to please simplify what they're saying. Saying that something doesn't happen because you can't follow the argument is a bit of a thin excuse.

 

[Micaiah]

Okay, give me your five best examples that fit my description above.

 

[LadyShea]

Micaiah, we would appreciate your criticism of the evidence presented in the thread titled "Evidence for human evolution". All of us strived to use common language and make it understandable for the layman. I also get lost with some of the scientific terms, but I continue to read and look up concepts I am unfamiliar with.

Not understanding something does not make it wrong.

 

[HazyRigby]

24th February 2003 at 09:54 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #10We know some things to be rock solid facts. We know that what Moses wrote is reliable and dependable. We know that Adam and Eve were formed by God 6000 years ago. That is a fact.

It's funny how you claim these things to be "facts," yet you can't prove either one of them. You can't even prove that Moses wrote the parts of the Bible attributed to him, and you say that what he wrote is "reliable and dependable."

Amazing.

 

[Arikay]

Its amazing how some people will lie (even if they dont realize it) or provide false evidence (when they rpoduce "evidence" at all) just to support creationism.

 

[Smilin]

Yesterday at 12:54 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674436#post674436)

The issue is actually is scientists taking their particular doctrine and twisting factual evidence to fit that doctrine.;

Did John just say that?.... after quoting Hovind, YEC beliefs, and AIG claims to me... KNOCK ME DOWN WITH A FEATHER...

Yesterday at 12:54 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674436#post674436)
We know some things to be rock solid facts. We know that what Moses wrote is reliable and dependable. We know that Adam and Eve were formed by God 6000 years ago. That is a fact.

Last time I checked, it is only 'believed' that Moses was the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible. We have found no concrete proof yet.

Now, how do you arrive at a 6,000 year time frame for the creation of Adam and Eve. I've asked you for this before.. will you answer this time?
Or do you simply believe this because someone else told you? Prove to me it is a fact. I stand ready to accept it... if you can provide evidence.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yesterday at 12:54 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #10 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=674436#post674436)

The issue is actually is scientists taking their particular doctrine and twisting factual evidence to fit that doctrine.

We know some things to be rock solid facts. We know that what Moses wrote is reliable and dependable. We know that Adam and Eve were formed by God 6000 years ago. That is a fact.

We know some other things to be rock solid facts.
We know that the Earth is the center of the universe.
We know that the Earth is flat and that you'll sail off the edge if you're not careful.
We know that the moon is made of green cheese.
We know that if you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
We know that the South shall rise again.
We know that if you eat Pop Rocks and drink soda, you will explode.
We know that there are alligators in the sewers.
We know that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Elvis are alive and well.
These are facts.
Then we wised up.

Anything else "we know," John? You do seem to be the expert on facts and truth around here....

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 05:51 AM Micaiah said this in Post #20

If I played a game of cards and someone came up with a hand with those sort of odds, my conclusion would be that someone had tampered with the cards. These examples demonstrate that evolution is not simply highly improbable, it is impossible.

Every time you play a hand of bridge you have those odds. Each had has about that probability of being dealt.