Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[tas8831]

Don't think so... you know the man personally? Don't get caught up with self aggrandizement of internet personalities. Sincerely, the King of Siam

Have you met OldWiseGuy? Or pshun2404?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

So you've not read the refutation of the Po halo tall tales?

Here is a debunking referred to on an Old Earth Creation website:

Creation Science Rebuttals, Polonium Halos Refuted

"Young earth creation science advocates have made a mountain out of a molehill in their use of radioactive halos to support their cause. However, when you look at the truth behind their claims, you see major problems.

Geologist Tom Bailleul takes a look at the main proponent of these claims, Robert Gentry, and his website, halos.com. He shows that for the claimed polonium haloes there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style...."

Interesting that even in the supposed debunking of Gentry's hypothesis, scientists can't agree. Someone else posted a paper showing that there were other explanations for the polonium halos being present and now this guy is stating that he doubts they are even radioactive decay... I bet if I read through the article, there would be lots of ambiguous language that supports the claim... as usual.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Let's focus on the astounding work that has been done in evolutionary science over the last few decades. Here's a few examples...

A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590.

Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

 

[Snappy1]

Here's a pratt for ya...

Well you were right.

 

[KWCrazy]

For example, science actually tells us that mutation + natural selection is sufficient to produce the bio-diversity that we observe on this planet.

No, that's evolution.
Science has yet to demonstrate the mechanism that has to be the driving force of evolution. Benevolent mutations have never been shown to advance a species. Increasing complexity is a myth retold a million times until many are convinced it is a fact. The truth is, adaptation is a conservative process. Information is altered or lost but new information is never magically acquired.

Evolution is not science. It is a scientific theory elevated to a religion for some. It gives a semi-plausible explanation for the origination of life in the absence of a Creator. The problem is that it's implausible. Nothing ever evolves into anything else with characteristics not found in the parent. The notion that a random combination of randomly forming amino acids in an environment devoid of oxygen could somehow form a magic cell containing the blueprint for all living things borders on the idiotic.

That's what your particular religion says. Other religions, will tell you very different stories.

Other religions will not get you into Heaven. There is one God and one truth.
Evolution lacks supporting evidence. We have Jesus Christ. He is the son of the one true God. He also lives today. Millions have found Him and His influence in their lives has been profound. The claim that there is no evidence of Him is nothing short of a lie. Even the blind can see the influence Christ has had in the lives of His followers.

And yes, I get to call it lying, because I'm 110% positivie that you know that science does NOT say about evolution, what you claim it says.

You bring nothing new. All the conformists say those who don't believe it don't understand it. Evolution is not a difficult lie to understand. A special cell comes into being by means we don't discuss, and then it becomes all living things. See, not a hard concept.

 

[pitabread]

Can you point to an example or 2 of that so I can get a better idea of exactly what they are arguing?

Well a (sort-of) example could be seen earlier in this thread to which I previously responded: Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

The main gist though is I find whenever commonality is brought up in creationism (whether it being DNA, body plans, etc), it's simply reduced to a glib catchphrase re: "common design". But from an evolutionary point-of-view when organisms are based on their hereditary ancestry, commonality is a necessity. Organisms can't escape their own ancestry.

But a designer would not be bound by such constraints, so it's interesting that you don't see gross violations of such restrictions in the biotic world.

 

[Ophiolite]

Someones getting triggered....

That expression is completely unfamiliar to me. Coudl you explain?

 

[Ophiolite]

And you all have been told repeatedly that science does deal in proof all the time,

Cite one example. Not from a news article, or a science magazine, or a documentary, or a YouTube video, or a popular science book, but from a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal.

If I claimed biblical creation doesn't deal in proof but you should still believe it's a fact nonetheless, you would be all over me, so...please.

Biblical creation is a matter of fatih. I have no problem with someone choosing to believe in it on the basis of faith. I think they are mistaken, but they are free to make that mistake. You are not free to make false statement repeatedly, regardless of your motive.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Cite one example. Not from a news article, or a science magazine, or a documentary, or a YouTube video, or a popular science book, but from a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal.

Are you kidding? This is another "we make the rules on proof so you cannot win" That just as bad as the rule "science proves nothing" so your going to use one preposterous/outlandish, one sided rule to prove out another? Are you even listening to yourself? Can't you see how you can make anything you wish to a fact with those rules?

And I though this was a somewhat serious conversation.

 

[Ophiolite]

And please don't threaten me, you know where the ignore button is, that is unless you want to hear things that evidently bother you so you can report me.

Not a threat. An attempt to get you to see sense.

Oh, and you think you aren't "trolling" by coming to a Christian website and claiming we got here by way of evolution and not God as the Bible states? But don't worry, I don't report...ever, I'll make my points in debate, I have no problem hearing everything the opposition has to say, and would never even consider trying to make their opinion just go away.

Your highlighted words are offensive to the many Christians who believe that God's act of creation was achieved through evolution. Do not turn this into a Christians versus Atheists debate. This is a small group of fundamentalists challlenging the views of the majority of Christians and 99% of scientists. And it is one specific person making persistent false statements about science.

But you are correct there is an Ignore button. Thank you for reminding me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Are you kidding? This is another "we make the rules on proof so you cannot win" That just as bad as the rule "science proves nothing" so your going to use one preposterous/outlandish, one sided rule to prove out another? Are you even listening to yourself? Can't you see how you can make anything you wish to a fact with those rules?

And I though this was a somewhat serious conversation.

In other words you can't produce an example of scientists saying that science proves things. Good to know. I'm done with you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well a (sort-of) example could be seen earlier in this thread to which I previously responded: Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

The main gist though is I find whenever commonality is brought up in creationism (whether it being DNA, body plans, etc), it's simply reduced to a glib catchphrase re: "common design". But from an evolutionary point-of-view when organisms are based on their hereditary ancestry, commonality is a necessity. Organisms can't escape their own ancestry.

But a designer would not be bound by such constraints, so it's interesting that you don't see gross violations of such restrictions in the biotic world.

Are you saying if God did indeed do it, he would have been more diverse with his method?

 

[Kenny'sID]

In other words you can't produce an example of scientists saying that science proves things. Good to know. I'm done with you.

Why would I try to? You prove nothing whether I can or cannot but at the same time I'd guess I can. So best you are done with me now before I do, this way you can pretend a satisfaction of being right, by leaving before anyone has a chance to make a case that really proves nothing.

It's logic like that, that helps pretend evolution is fact or whatever it is you all think it is since you refuse to prove it..

 

[Snappy1]

Why would I try to? You prove nothing whether I can or cannot but at the same time I'd guess I can. So best you are done with me now before I do, this way you can pretend a satisfaction of being right, by leaving before anyone has a chance to make a case that really proves nothing.

It's logic like that, that helps pretend evolution is fact or whatever it is you all think it is since you refuse to prove it..

Go start a thread asking for proof of evolution. Define what you mean by proof, define what you mean by evolution, and define what evidence you will accept.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I recall not too long ago, when ever we asked an Atheist to disprove God they would say that it was our claim and out place to prove him.

Now they don't put them both together because they would give the themselves away, but now they say God cannot be proven only disproved.

So, in turn, if we go by their rules, we have to prove God but proving him is not possible by their rules...another "ain't that convenient" not to mention ridiculous.

Go start a thread asking for proof of evolution. Define what you mean by proof, define what you mean by evolution, and define what evidence you will accept.

Why waste my time, seriously? Haven't you been keeping up with what happens when I've asked that, what, a hundred/hundreds of times already?

OH ok, it was joke, good one...got me anyway.

Bizarre.

 

[Snappy1]

I recall not too long ago, when ever we asked an Atheist to disprove God they would say that it was our claim and out place to prove him.

Now they don't put them both together because they would give the themselves away, but now they say God cannot be proven only disproved.

So, in turn, if we go by their rules, we have to prove God but proving him is not possible by their rules...another "ain't that convenient" not to mention ridiculous.



Why waste my time, seriously? Haven't you been keeping up with what happens when I've asked that, what, a hundred/hundreds of times already?

OH ok, it was joke, good one...got me anyway.

Bizarre.

Just do it and quit wasting everyone's time by spamming every other CE thread with your nonsense.

 

[pitabread]

Are you saying if God did indeed do it, he would have been more diverse with his method?

What I'm saying is that if a designer were independently creating species, they wouldn't have needed to abide by as many restrictions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Just do it and quit wasting everyone's time by spamming every other CE thread with your nonsense.

Are you telling me I now have to just accept it when people claim evolution is a fact, and I cannot simply ask for proof any more when others ask for proof (spam the boards as you put it) of creationism/God all the time? That sure qoes along with the evolutionists rules of fair play, I'll give your that, but no thank you.

And I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tell me what I can and cannot post here. Just ignore me if you have a problem proving evolution...make me go away.

 

[Speedwell]

Why would I try to? You prove nothing whether I can or cannot but at the same time I'd guess I can. So best you are done with me now before I do, this way you can pretend a satisfaction of being right, by leaving before anyone has a chance to make a case that really proves nothing.

It's logic like that, that helps pretend evolution is fact or whatever it is you all think it is since you refuse to prove it..

OK, so let's start. We'll start with random variation. It has been observed; in fact it was the observation of randomly distributed heritable phenotypic variation in different species which gave Darwin the idea of evolution to begin with. Do you believe it occurs? Or do you need "proof" of it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

What I'm saying is that if a designer were independently creating species, they wouldn't have needed to abide by as many restrictions.

OK, in line with what I was thinking you meant.

The key there is "had to"...as far as I know there were no restrictions as you say but why would he change what he decided was the best way to go about creation? He created the restrictions if you want to call it that, but it was really just like sticking to a blueprint, we always restrict ourselves to doing what our plan calls for, it's orderly to do so. "Don't deviate from the plan" it's a common rule.


Meaning what you are saying there just isn't a thing at all.